Re: Fw: Comb Material [revisited]

From: "the Leones" <leone@xxxxxxxx>

> >Since the materials controversy seems to have reared it's ugly head
again, I
> >wonder about what I've read regarding the research that's been done.
> >there always been a PERSON blowing through the harmonicas in question?
> >
> >Why not take out the PLAYER?
> >
> >Get a tank of compressed air, use a regulator with a plastic hose,
> >a "chamber" just before the output (into the harmonica), measure each
> >comb/reedplate/cover set-up at vaious pressures.

The chamber may well prove to be problematic, as it could choke the reed.

My proposition, that of directing a flow of air toward the desired hole with
an air gap between the air source and harmonica, would eliminate this, and I
believe provide a test that would enhance differences in sound (we want to
determine simply if there is ANY difference).  It would be the same for all
comb materials, and all other factors would be the same - reed plates, cover
plates, the works.

> >This would eliminate the opportunity for any human to skew the results -
> >conciously or not.

My test proved that a resonant player minimizes sonic differences between
harmonicas.  Therefore, if we want to research differences, we need a
nonresonant "player".

>   I agree. All you really need is a "fish-filter" pump. Then use a
> "voice-print-analyzer". Get the human out of the equation. Although the
> original tests were run with all the best intentions, they aren't absolute
> (sort of like the "tone" thingie).

A fish air pump won't do the trick.  Even a piston pump would produce
insufficient air volume to activate a reed, especially if there's an air
gap.  It will also be FAR too noisy.
- -IronMan Mike Curtis Band *Southland Blues
Magazine TU 8pm Starboard Attitude/Redondo

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