watchnerd
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Posts
- 2,093
- Likes
- 775
Who remembers this bad boy?
And some of the commentary of the time on how it might work.
"The comment that follows is not a review of the Tice Clock as such--I did not even have the device. It is rather a comment on how "parallel filters" could work and ought to work and some observations on what information manufacturers ought to be prepared to offer to their customers. The audio review by listening was done by other people (it including, rather unusually for TAS, a blind test in which Frank Doris was able to detect the Clock with statistical signifiance , TAS Issue 68 1990)"
And then it was revealed to just be a rebadged Radio Shock clock:
"But the claim was incredible, because the product appeared to be nothing more than a rebadged RadioShack digital alarm clock to which an invisible "proprietary treatment" had been applied. Stereophile borrowed and tested various samples of the Tice Clock, and although one writer said he might have heard a very slight effect, editor John Atkinson summed up our coverage by stating that not only did the Clock fail to perform as advertised, but George Tice's technical explanations for it had no basis in scientific fact. Thomas J. Norton, Stereophile's technical editor at the time, added that the Tice Clock was identical, inside and out, to a $20 RadioShack alarm clock—to the naked eye."
Have we learned anything since then?
And some of the commentary of the time on how it might work.
"The comment that follows is not a review of the Tice Clock as such--I did not even have the device. It is rather a comment on how "parallel filters" could work and ought to work and some observations on what information manufacturers ought to be prepared to offer to their customers. The audio review by listening was done by other people (it including, rather unusually for TAS, a blind test in which Frank Doris was able to detect the Clock with statistical signifiance , TAS Issue 68 1990)"
And then it was revealed to just be a rebadged Radio Shock clock:
"But the claim was incredible, because the product appeared to be nothing more than a rebadged RadioShack digital alarm clock to which an invisible "proprietary treatment" had been applied. Stereophile borrowed and tested various samples of the Tice Clock, and although one writer said he might have heard a very slight effect, editor John Atkinson summed up our coverage by stating that not only did the Clock fail to perform as advertised, but George Tice's technical explanations for it had no basis in scientific fact. Thomas J. Norton, Stereophile's technical editor at the time, added that the Tice Clock was identical, inside and out, to a $20 RadioShack alarm clock—to the naked eye."
Have we learned anything since then?
