Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] SPAH 2010 Comb Test: Retraction & Apology




On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Pat Powers wrote:


Agreed, the results appear to be inconclusive, but are they really???? Inconclusive test results could very well indicate the test variable had no effect on the test subject. ..the key word is "COULD" here.

Ok, I'm with ya here. I'm working with ya.


I can't say 100% for sure, but I think it's conclusive enough to form an opinion... for now anyway, until somebody shows me something to the contrary.

Yes, and you have been very diplomatic and this can go both ways.

I'm not condemning anyone who prefers a wooden comb.

I knew that :)


There are many harmonicas out there with wooden combs, and plenty of people out there who fthink it does make a difference. It may be the feel of it, or the nostalgia/mojo, it could even be the familiarity of the taste, or it could be subtle tone differences that I just can't hear. I don't know -

Maybe the closeness to the ears? OR, and this is a stretch, since the ears are on the side of the head and the sound is going out from the harmonica, maybe the sound waves returning to the ears in their concentric circles, have a sort of echo effect? Especially since we hear in stereo. AND some people have one ear that is more sensitive than the other. AND, some people use hearing enhancers, AND some have a defective ear (or TWO tee hee).


- All I'm saying is I just don't get it. The way I play, I can not discern any noticable difference.

I understand you perfectly and have no doubt that what you are feeling is exactly pertinent to YOU. That's where the debate all started. I think it was about 10 years ago on Slidemeister. It went on and on and on, (ad nauseum). Big guns blasting back and forth. I, as a small cap pistol, sat back in amusement ...for a while.

IT's OK to differ in opinion and taste, and it's perfectly fine to feel passionately one way or the another. I certainly wouldn't want to blog with people that agree with eveything I say -- I'd never learn anything that way -- and I like people who live life with a passion.

Then you're my kind of guy. I'm more interested in the friendly transfer of information between rational human beings than to be the proverbial Boliver Shagnasty and sitting here in a constant search for people to barff negativities on.

I agree, some brands/models are only availalbe with wood, so it's hard to perform a direct comparison.

True. the only time I had chromatics that were close was when I had 2 280 Hohners. One was wood comb, one was plastic. The wooden one was MUCH mellower. But then I realized that this wasn't a fair comparison as one was much older than the other, so, in reality, they WEREN't identical. I currently have 2 280s that are. One is rebuilt straight tuned on a black plastic comb, the other is the same as stock. Both are from around 1975.


BUT, wait. there's more. STILL not identical. One was re-built. That could have had an effect.

I beleive that was the intent of the SPAH comb test -- to perform a direct comparison.

And I thought it was quite magnanamous, and what with all the expense and aggravation, several wreaths of laurels to all whom participated.


I have some harps with wooden combs as well, and I'm not about to toss them out just because they're wood, they're really nice harmonicas. The question was, and apparently still is, does the comb material have anything to do with the sound and play-ability, and if so, what materials work best. We may never truly know the answer, but it sure does make for some good science and conversation.

You betcha.

Thanks for replying!!!

No thanks needed, it's a joy conversing with someone who has a positive attitude and only concerned with promoting good vibes. My warmest praise to you good sir.


smo-joe

To each his own -- there are plenty of harmonicas out there for all of us!



0+ \_/



I beleive that is why the comb test was
patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sep 1, 2010 05:30:39 PM, 3N037@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Pat Powers wrote:


I think your test was fine, and the data was conclusive.

But WAS it? Not being argumentative, but was it?


The comb material does not have much -- if any -- effect on tone
or play-ability.

Hmm, the way I'm reading it is that while the comb material wasn't proven to affect tone, it also wasn't DIS-proven. It doesn't seem like anything was proven (or dis-proven). Maybe I'm a little dense here, but if I were to take this to court, it would be a fiasco.

I 've been fighting this debate with the wood-comb
traditionalists for years -

I wouldn't think that it was necessary to fight. You feel one way, someone else feels another. They shouldn't shove their feeling down your throat and you should have the same restraint.

- My stand is that there is absolutey no benefit to having a wooden
comb.

Which is an excellent stand. And I agree. I happen to have mostly wooden combed chromatics. Something of a rarity these days.

They swell, they warp, they crack, the finish comes off - in
other words, it's a terrible base material.

I agree, but I haven't had them warp or crack. The cracking is usually prevalent in chromatics that have been stored for a relatively long period. (Like 4.5 to 5 years...or more). Once a wooden chromatic has been played, it should be continued to be played. Just like it is a bad idea to take a wooden boat in and out of the water a lot.

In todays world with so many hybrid composite materials available,
I can't understand why anyone would intentionally want a wooden comb.

I see your point, but on the other hand, a person may like the Hohner 270 model and those come only with a wooden comb. If it were a matter of giving up the sound I like (most important) in favor of a plastic comb (which you say makes no difference in sound), I will opt for the sound.

Some traditionalists claim the wood comb sounds warmer. To that
I say, HOGWASH!!!

You're entitled to your opinion but if you put a 270 on a plastic comb, the sound may not change but the feel does. The vibrations change. While this may not be noticable to the listeners, sometimes the player is sensitive to it.

And, now I think your test proves it -- the comb material doesn't
matter!

Ahem, again I say that nothing was proven...either way. That's why I asked if we were back to square 1, and, to take it farther, were we now allowed to go back to using descriptive words to voice our feelings about how we felt about a harmonica, OR were the wording/ semantics police still going to browbeat anyone who used the words: warm, soft, velvet, smooth, soft edged, biting, sharp, dark, etc.

The only requirements of the base material is that it is dense, non- porous, easy to machine, is planarized well (nice and flat), and won't warp or crack.

I'm not sure that porous isn't a benefit. My wood combed chromatics don't seem to have the wind saver problems that my plastic combed ones do. I surmised that this could be because the wood is open celled and porous and will absorb a small amount of vapor? But I can't prove it, so I would never make a definite claim and expect it to be taken as the gospel of St. Joseph. That's the difference with me. I don't foist my opinions on others. They are free to have a life.

Perfect case in point, the Hohner Special-20, it sounds sweet and warm, and it has a plastic comb.

I like em. I play spl-20s exclusively when I play diatonic.


Add that SPAH test results, and I'd say that's pretty
conclusive. I'm convinced the comb material really doesn't
matter. The sound comes from the reeds, the cover cavity, and the
players technique.

Ok, I can acquiesce to that.


smo-joe



-- My 2 cents


patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx





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