Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] comb material

["Rick Dempster" <rick.dempster@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Somebody once said that the person that wrote Shakespeare's plays and
sonnets was not William Shakespeare, but another person with the same
name.
RD
>>> "Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx> 18/04/2007 16:58:24 >>>
AOL Email
----- Original Message ----- 
From: EGS1217@xxxxxxx 
To: jevern@xxxxxxx 
Cc: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] comb material

Vern writes:

"It has been done twice.  Once at SPAH 97  and again at Buckeye 98."

> yes...but flawed and certainly neither double blind or scientific.

You are right that it was blind but not double-blind. It was scientific
to 
the extent that it placed some stringent controls on the experiment to
make 
certain that the only differences were the comb materials.  All of the
other 
conditions were the substantially the same for every harp.  The most 
important control was that the listeners had no way but the sound of
knowing 
what the comb materials were.   Probably no set of  test conditions
would 
have satisfied the believers who brought up all the "flaws" AFTER they
were 
disappointed by the results.  The conditions were orders of magnitude
better 
for making valid comparisons than those under which harmonicas are
normally 
heard.  The listeners could not even tell when the same or different
comb 
materials were played in sequence.

>  Way before my time, but up pops my disagreement with you once more.

> People who, like me have extremely acute hearing (even within my own

> family) have come up in our discussions.  You will not allow for any

> possibility that there might be some folks (not specifically me) who
can 
> perhaps hear more differences in sounds and tones...than either one
of 
> us...so too perhaps, in combs than other people?

This is the old "Hans Christian Anderson" argument that the true
princess 
can detect the pea under a stack of mattresses but us commoners can't. 
My 
$1000 challenge alllows for anyone with exceptional sound
discrimination to 
demonstrate their abilities under double-blind conditions.

> How do YOU know with absolute certainty that what I or the person
sitting 
> next to you on the subway/at a concert hears isn't completely
different 
> from what you hear?  How can any person judge what one person hears 
> vis-a-vis another?  That's where an audiologist would come in...but
even 
> then, their testing is done with gauges and machines.  No one knows 
> exactly what another person hears. Just one of those facts of life.

I don't have know what you hear. I only have to know what you SAY you
hear. 
My hearing isn't involved.   Someone or a machine (not me) plays a set
of 
harmonicas having different comb materials.  You say "same as" or
"different 
from"  the one played previously.  If your accuracy is better than
random 
guessing, then you have demonstrated the ability to  discriminate among
comb 
materials by sound and you prove me wrong.  If you fail, you are NOT
proved 
absolutely wrong, only that you could not demonstrate the ability under

these circumstances. You can always claim, as did the listeners at the

previous comparisons, that you might be able to do it under different 
circumstances.  However, this is a very slender thread on which to hang
your 
belief in a materials effect.

>So I've said to you before (on another list) that it can't be a proper

>"scientific experiment" (ergo Single or Double Blind as in Garry's
mention 
>of it never having been done)...if You keep insisting on controlling
it. 
>Since you do insist on it being completely under your control (based I

>assume, on your $1000), then it cannot be scientific or unbiased. Then
the 
>age (based on hearing acuity) of the participants comes into play as
well, 
>since the rationale was that young people - I believe someone
mentioned 
>12 - 14 as probably the optimum age for hearing health (do correct me
if 
>I'm misremembering this since I don't have time to look it up)  for
the 
>test subjects.

All that I insist upon is that the comparison be conducted in such a
manner 
that you cannot know the materials by any other means but their sound.
Other 
than that, anyone can conduct the test, preferably NOT me and the
person 
tested can be anyone you choose of any age.

> I've also made clear I don't care about your money.  It'd be the last

> incentive for me to participate.  I find it vaguely embarrassing (and
not 
> a bit insulting, actually), since the whole premise is more about
what one 
> player hears from his/her own instrument and nothing at all to do
with 
> monetary gain.

Making or losing money isn't the object of the wager.  The $1000 is to

establish the level of confidence of the challenger. I facilitated the
two 
previous comparisons by purchasing a dozen Hohner Big River harmonicas
and 
making combs of many materials using my own time and money.  Certainly
there 
was no profit there for me.   I did not play the harps and I did not
record 
the data.  I wasn't even present at the Buckeye comparisons in 98 and
the 
results were the same.

So round and round we go.....

There is an objective truth here and there is a way to find it.  This
is not 
a matter of opinion.

> could it be Vern... that most people simply go about their business 
> knowing what they know about what they can hear from their own
instruments 
> and simply pay no more heed to your wager, and that might possibly be
why 
> the issue keeps resurfacing just when YOU believe you've "beaten it
to 
> death"?

That is certainly the case.

 > A real, objective scientific study would surely resolve the issue
for 
once and for all, wouldn't it?  Until then, it's quite likely that
folks are 
simply tired of being harangued if they express a contrary opinion,
since at 
this point it still is only your opinion, isn't it, without real
scientific 
back up?

What additional controls would you impose on a comparison to be
satisfied 
with its scientific validity?

I argue that the 97 and 98 comparisons had evidentiary value and the
results 
are consistent with the principles of musical acoustics.  Nothing in
science 
is so everlastingly true that it cannot be revised or even overturned
by new 
evidence.  However, at this point in time, the preponderance of the
theory 
and available evidence denies a materials effect in either harmonicas
or 
wind instruments in general.  Stringed instruments are different.

Vern
. 

_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org 
Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx 
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l