Re: Subject: [Harp-L] Combs!




----- Original Message ----- From: <EGS1217@xxxxxxx>
To: <rharp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>; <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Subject: Subject: [Harp-L] Combs!



This is the very same argument I raised in my long-standing disagreement
with Vern both here and on Slidemeister. I believe that he's a qualified
engineer...but I vehemently disagree that any test involving someone else's hearing
(rather than the player) - should in any way be proof that comb material
doesn't affect sound. My contention is that only the player whose head, ears,
sinuses, mouth, throat and chest are involved is the one to determine what
he/she can hear...and not anyone standing (sitting) any distance away.

Almost all of the believers in the effect of comb material on harmonica sound seem willing to concede that the effect is imperceptible to listeners. I accept that concession as validating 99% of my argument. I'll agree that the perceptibility to players is a separate question that is not yet settled. The comparisons at SPAH and Buckeye did not test the ability of players to perceive differences.


Further (to Tom): as far as I've been told, this experiment was not
sponsored by Spah, but purely under Vern's control (and his money), and to fit his
own personal criteria.

It was sponsored by SPAH only to the extent that they agreed to the subject of the seminar and scheduled it. However, it was a joint effort where Douglas Tate and I spent an hour on a debate and an hour on the harp comparisons. I did spend some of my own money on buying the harps, making combs of various materials, and building a harp-playing machine. Everything was available for public inspection before and after the seminar. I plead guilty only to trying to find some objective evidence that bears on the question.


 To make it a true experiment would necessarily mean taking  it into a lab
and out of Vern's hands (and wagering) altogether.

There was no offer of a bet at that time. I had little to do with, and was not present at the Buckeye meeting a year later.


When I told him this (at
least a year or two ago) and that I personally thought the $1,000 wager was
insulting, he responded with a vile putdown related to my being a woman:

I regret having made a clumsy allusion to a classical joke. In the absence of tone-of-voice and facial expression clues, it was easy to misinterpret. I have apologised before and do so again.


He's ignored every mention of mine that it shouldn't matter one whit what an
audience hears, rather it is what the player can hear coming from his
harmonica which is so personal and subjective. Every one of us hears sound
(music?) differently. There is still no exact science (everyone who thinks this
untrue should ask their ENT) as to just what constitutes 'hearing'. So why do
so many seem to think it's outside the realm of possibility that some people
CAN hear differences in comb materials as they play their instruments?

I think that Elizabeth and many others of you share a personal philosophy that is fundamentally different from mine.
About harmonicas, I seek an objective truth that is independent of the opinions and emotions of people. Thus I try to eliminate all human variables.


From your different philosophical point of view, truth does not exist
independently of human feelings and beliefs. Thus my efforts to ignore and avoid those subjective influences seems like an effort to avoid an important part of the truth. From your point of view, I can understand the resentment.

And it really doesn't (shouldn't) take a player as skilled as Steve Baker is
to hear it, either. I can't play a fraction as well as he can, yet can
easily distinguish the nuances and differences between my own harmonicas, all
else being equal. I daresay I could probably do it in public, but I don't have
to 'prove it' to anyone...and the idea of the money wager leaves a bad taste
for me. It's decidedly unscientific and something I wouldn't care to be
remotely involved with.

I offer the wager only as evidence of my confidence in my arguments. It is in the same spirit that the skeptical magician, James Randi, offers a million dollars to anyone able to demonstrate a supernatural/paranormal phenomenon. However, his is a prize and mine is a wager.


I even suggested to Vern that a test conducted by an audiologist/ENT
specialist using several youngsters ...perhaps around the age of 12 (where their
hearing is optimal and yet old enough to be able to articulate what they're
hearing)...might be a far more logical and scientific test.

I would endorse any such test provided that the participants have no knowledge of the comb material other than what comes to their ears...and that the harps be otherwise identical. It is easy to propose a test but difficult to actually conduct one.


He ignores any
suggestion made that might possibly refute those 'spah' conducted tests. BTW,
just because they were conducted in a room at Spah.. shouldn't automatically
confer on them 'Spah' approval.

I have never claimed SPAH endorsement of the results. The word SPAH was used only to identify the event.


 Anyone with a scientific background should be
equally appalled  by these results being held up to be the 'final' say so
about comb materials,

Anyone with a "scientific background" knows that there can be no "final" conclusion. I claim only that, under the conditions that existed, the listeners could not identify differences of material. I also claim that the conditions were far more carefully controlled than those under which harmonicas are normally heard. It is always possible that different people under different circimstances can do so. Until that happens in a public comparison under controlled conditions, the "comb materials" theory remains unsupported. Anecdotal, subjective claims by people who know what the comb materials are cannot be accepted. That is why there are double-blind tests of drugs and wine.


  while anyone disagreeing is shouted down, scoffed at or
ridiculed.

I reject the accusation. I defy anyone to give an example of an ad-hominem argument from me.

I wonder if I can get a straight answer to at least the following questions,
now that I know players of your, Steve's and SmoJoe's caliber hear very
similarly to how I do and seem to think alike as well?


From those in attendance: Just how many 'participants' were there?

Twenty four people turned in the scoring forms. There were more than that present.


How
far away from John Walden (the player) were  they?

From ten to thirty feet. With a few exceptions, they were pretty much
clustered close to the stage.

Were they standing or sitting?

Sitting.


What were their ages?

There were no children or teenagers. My guess is that the normal SPAH crowd ranges from the late twenties up.


 How good were/are their hearing abilities? (e.g. -
were any of them  wearing hearing aids which perhaps might cut out small
nuances of sound?)

I didn't notice. It is possible there were a few hearing aids there.


...was anyone drinking alcohol beforehand (affects the senses

The Seminar was before lunch. I didn't notice any drunken or erratic behavior on the part of the listeners.


was  anyone taking meds beforehand (affects the senses
including hearing)....

There is no way to know.


...regardless of all of the above, however...I've maintained all along that
I can hear distinct differences in comb material (all other aspects of my
harmonicas being identical), and no one has the right to be disdainful of or to
scoff at my ability to hear it purely because they themselves cannot. I'm
also very aware there are people whose hearing is far superior to mine and I
wouldn't dream of refuting any claims they made just because I couldn't hear
what they can, so why do some people insist on doing exactly that?

If anyone could publicly demonstrate that ability under controlled conditions, the whole dispute and discussion would end abruptly.


I'm an ear player and perhaps those who play primarily by ear do so because
they do hear a bit differently than other people? possible? ....just a
thought....
Elizabeth

Anything is possible. I have already agreed that the ability of the player to discern differences is not yet settled. I'm trying to figure out how to deny the player knowledge of the material in a comparison.


- Use chromatics so the front of the comb is obscured by the mouthpiece?
- Put the harp in a holder so that differences in weight are not apparent to the player?
- Blindfold the player so she cannot see the comb?


Peace and forgiveness, if not agreement?

Vern





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.