Go away.

See.......Now it's over 40 posts

It's #2

and this one:

MoonlitMatt, I have a Denon 2400 receiver and rock music sounded really bad with this receiver but it sounds fine now that I have Two Clever Little Clocks in my room. I have a RR2150 on the way, I can't wait!

HiFiSoundGuy, I just want to say, "Thanks!" Your post (and the subsequent dialog) led me to check out the manufacturer's web site. I haven't had that good of a laugh in a long while. I think my favorite was the isolation "kit" for three hundred dollars. You know, the one consisting of three slabs of granite, nine springs, and what looks to be three pieces of rubber or plastic. The best part? You supply your own granite (or flagstone as a cheaper alternative).

I was laughing so hard my wife came in to see what was going on. I showed her the clocks, rocks, and springs and she said, "They're selling this stuff on eBay? They should be reported." When I told her it isn't eBay, just a manufacturer selling online, she couldn't even speak. Merely shook her head and walked away.

So, again, I say, "Thank you!" A great way to end a Monday.

HiFiSoundGuy, I think I'm in the strong majority here in being basically insurmountably dubious of the clock simply because it flies in the face of all the science we've ever been taught. The manufacturer's web site doesn't do anything to dissuade me simply because it actively works to avoid providing any basis for the clock to influence the listening (or viewing) environment. At this point, my engineering degree screams at me from my cubicle wall, insisting on some sort of explanation of how a $5 battery-powered clock could have special batteries installed and some other vague modifications made that would not only justify the $125+ price tag but would also affect two separate human senses by being somewhere in the same house (or in a car parked next to that house).

Clearly, you have experienced a benefit from these clocks (your willingness to open this thread knowing the probable reaction of a group of gunslingers proves that). Hey, if it works for you, more power to you. But considering the principal consumer group that Outlaw has pursued, I doubt you'll find many others around here willing to even try the CLC.

Owl's_Warder, my wife had a similar reaction when I told her about the clocks over the weekend. She spent the next couple miles asking me if I was serious, clearly unable to accept it and actually a bit worried that a company had seriously set out to sell these clocks. (Don't ask about her reaction to the jars of rocks.) And this is the daughter of a long-time audiophile with $1,000+ speaker cables in his system.

Owl's_Warder, I had a good laugh myself the first time I saw that web site, it was funny for sure. You really have try a product out to see if it does anything or not and these clocks really did improve the sound of my system for the better.

gonk, until someone here trys these clocks out for themselves they will never believe it. Never! If I had the money I would pass two of these clocks around to the members here.

i;d pass on the clocks, and take 28 markers!annybody have a favorite color?

A couple ‘good’ questions with commentary:

1) How far and in what directions does the ‘improvement field’ extend from a CLC?

Commentary on 1: Sometimes your sound system seems to change in characteristics without explanation. If you live in an apartment or condominium, it could be that your neighbors moved their clocks around or bought a new one. It could be that a car with a digital clock just pulled up outside.

2) As the number of clocks on the planet increases, does the perception of audio and video worldwide improve correspondingly?

Commentary on 2: A couple of years back I helped a friend install a home-theater-in-a-box system. Certainly this gear was not on par with what I had in my home, but I always wondered why the gear that cost 1/5 of another system could sound so decent in what could be considered a poor audio environment. Now I know: more clocks in their house. Instead of upgrading with HD audio or HDTV, I could just buy about a dozen $10 clocks.

Who knows what I've been missing?

I appreciate your willingness to try to convince us of some merit in this "tweak," HiFiSoundGuy, but I'm afraid this group really isn't the target market for the Crazy Little Clocks. Here's the problem that I have (and it's basically the same problem we all have in various forms): there remains no scrap of explanation as to how a simple clock could yield the results they claim. As a bit of contrast, let's look at another tweak that does not connect to the signal chain at all: sound treatments. How does a four foot tall bass trap help the sound if it doesn't plug into the wall or carry the signal at any point? Basic science can back up the assertion that the device can, when in the correct location, alter the acoustic behavior of the room and prevent unfortunate sound wave interactions within the room. That rational and reasonable explanation can help someone justify trying one out. A company that instead offers a device that they clearly state (in what some might call a brief lapse of snake oil dispensing) does not directly interact with the audio and video hardware in any way, form, or manner and is also not affecting the transmission of sound waves or light within the room (unlike a bass trap or a good front projection screen) is giving us a very different pill to swallow. This online community is one that is not likely to ever accept a product like this, and experiments like this one at Audiogon aren't going to help your case (the quote "Feel free to draw any conclusions you wish (other than, perhaps, that by a two to one ratio people found that two boxes of pens had more of an effect on the sound of the system than the clock!)" from that post really doesn't help Machina Dynamica's already-absent credibility). I'll commend you for your determination, but I'll also suggest that your audience is not one that will ever care to listen.

painttoad, pass me a purple, please.