Re: Soaking test results

[rocket@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

At 12:42 AM 3/23/95, Mike Curtis wrote:
>I did a scientific test

Seems to me that this test loses some credibility and the results are
somewhat dubious since a machine wasn't used to blow air into the harmonica
at a constant velocity. When a human is used to generate air flow, the test
becomes approximate at best. Maybe +/- 10dB. It's not much different that a
friend of mine listening and saying "sounds like a 10dB increase to me
Bubba." A lot of objectivity gets lost.

I'm sure that many of the rocket and other scientist types that frequent
this list would be quick to point out that this ~scientific~ test didn't
quite follow all of the guidelines of the Scientific Method.

I'm not questioning the results or the premise. It's just that the setup
used for this test lends itself to subjectivity and error, thereby
essentially making the results meaningless and the question still
unanswered.

Besides, the test isn't repeatable. I can't blow as hard as Mike. If I
could, I'd have a couple of 8K posts/day too.       :-)

And, as has been pointed out by several prominent Harp-ler's, soaking harps
is not a good idea. It certainly is NOT a solution to feedback problems as
was implied. But, if you have deep pockets and like hanging out at the harp
counters of music stores or by the mail box waiting for the next shipment
from Kevin, soaking harps can be very productive.    :-)

Rkt