RE: Comb Material [revisited]

["jross38" <jross38@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Why not take out the PLAYER?
><snip>
>This would eliminate the opportunity for any human to skew the results
- -
>conciously or not.

Very good idea, and on the right track.  The only problem is that
air-pressure apparati are often loud.  This can be fixed, but then
people will argue that you are adding to the equation in terms of other
materials that might be involved in altering the sound: ie, the
materials of the wind generator itself (though this is generally
disregarded by those who believe in material difference in things such
as organs, but I digress).

The key thing to remember is that as many variables must be eliminated
as possible.  For an ideal test you would use the same covers,
reed-plates and mouthpiece, with the only variable being the comb
material.  But even this isn't good enough, IMO.  You still need to
eliminate the ability of a player to subjectively alter the sound of
what is played.  Even if it is not done consciously, a player who can
tell that comb A is different from comb B might (and I would argue will)
adjust their playing to match.  "Resonant" playing isn't really the
issue here as much as minor and subtle alterations that players make
every time they pick up a harp.  If I intend to play a G I will alter my
embouchure (though not necessarily consciously) in preparation of
playing a G rather than a C harmonica.  I see no reason to believe that
the same would not happen if I am aware of different combs, cover-plates
or whatever: any ability to detect difference will effect the way I
shape my embouchure, whether I am aware of my doing so or not.

What the tests undertaken so far have shown is that the majority of
people taking the tests can _not_ (sorry Ironman, you're memory is
incorrect here) correctly identify whether there is a difference in comb
material between a sound sample and the next sound sample.  Now, these
tests were not conducted under ideal circumstances and certainly have
flaws, despite the great work put in by Vern Smith and John Thaden who
deserve the highest praise for attempting to research this subject in a
controlled manner.  But, perhaps due to these tests and the debates in
the archives even the strongest proponents of material difference seem
to have agreed that any difference in material is very small.

Not to be harsh, but none of the testimonials sent to the list in the
last few days come even close to beginning to reach the criteria needed
for accurate testing (unlike the two SPAH tests, which while not at that
level, at least understood what was needed and attempted to achieve
such), and should be considered as such.  Whether comb material makes a
difference is still in debate, but I would argue that anyone who
believes it does has the burden of proof rather than the opposite.  The
best way to do that would probably be to hire an independent acoustic
physicist or engineer to design and conduct an exhaustive series of
experiments to try and determine if there is a difference in sound due
to comb material and if so whether humans are capable of perceiving such
a difference.  Sorry, but unless and until someone arguing for a
difference is willing to put their money where there mouth is in this
manner, there remains no reason to believe that comb material makes a
difference to sound, as both acoustic arguments of construction and the
only tests attempted would indicate otherwise.

The burden of proof is always on those with something to prove, not
those skeptical to the idea.  Thus, those who believe in the Loch Ness
monster have the burden to prove such a thing exists, while those who
are skeptical of such a beast merely have to sit back and wait for the
evidence to be shown, criticized and judged.



 ()()   JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()  & Snuffy, too:)
`---'