Re: Comb Material [revisited]

["IronMan Mike Curtis" <ironman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "jross38" <jross38@xxxxxxxxx>

> >I'm just a player. I was just telling everyone
> >on harp-l that there is a difference in sound
>
> Gee, how rude of me to ask for some actual, factual proof.

Well, what would you call it when you tell someone that what they heard for
themselves is somehow not valid, and then demanded that they prove it to
you?  Sorry, but that's rude in my book.

Vince AND his buddies ALL heard it.

Of course, I know Vince is paranoid schizophrenic, delusional, and once
<gasp!> wore brown shoes with a tux - and I have it on good authority that
his buddies were imaginary.  Yes, SHAME on you, Vince, for trying to mislead
us.  As punishment for this egregious crime against humanity, you are hereby
ordered to remand all your custom harps - to me!

This reminds me of the wife who tells the Dr that her husband is sick.  "Oh,
he only THINKS he's sick".  A couple months later, the Dr inquires about her
husband.  "Oh, now he thinks he's dead".  (But I suppose it wasn't rude of
him to refuse treatment to this man who only thought he was ill ;-)

We don't know everything.  Not even those of us who think that we do ;-)

Isn't *hearing* a difference factual enough?  Since when have our senses
become invalid?  An aeronautical engineer "proved" that the bumblebee
couldn't fly.  The wings are far too stubby, the body mass and dimensions
are not aerodynamically sound, etc.  Of course, the guy who "proved" this
did it with tongue firmly in cheek, because he *sees* that the "ignorant"
bumblebee does indeed fly "despite scientific fact".

God gave us some incredibly sernsitive - and ACCURATE - "test instruments".
Our ears can easily detect differences in sound that are nearly impossible
for electrical instruments to detect.  Also, even the ear/brain of a five
year old can "decode" grossly inaccurate speech that even the finest speech
recognition programs running on the best megacomputers today cannot
comprehend.

There are a LOT of things we don't understand.  For example, can we explain
where the Universe came from (well, without invoking religion - we're asking
for "scientific facts" here, couched in terms our scientists can understand
;-)?  Where did the mass of the universe come from - and how?  And "Big
Bang" is not the answer, because there had to be something here BEFORE that.
But just because we can't "scientifically" prove this does not in any way
alter the fact that the Universe is indeed here.

I have *terrible* hearing, largely from far too many years in front of far
too many large amps with far too many watts, and yet I can hear a difference
between a Blues Harp and Lee Oskar.  Of course, I can make them sound
remarkably alike if that's my purpose, and when running through a bullet and
distorted amp and playing resonantly, the differences are doggone hard to
tell - IF you can hear them.  Is this psychological?  Not at all.  I may be
many things, but I'm *not* insane or delusional.  When I play a Blues Harp,
the sound is quite different from a Lee Oskar.

And *I* do indeed have proof that different harmonicas sound different - at
least a blues harp and Lee Oskar, the only two I bothered to test.  I posted
it at the start of this thread.  But I guess the measurements on an accepted
piece of electrical test gear by a degreed electrical engineer with 50 years
experience in harmonicas and 46 years in electronics doesn't count ;-)

My test proves beyond question that the two harmonicas tested have different
acoustic characteristics.  The waveforms were measureably different.  What
it DOESN'T prove is whether it's caused by the wood/plastic comb material
differences or otherwise.  However, my own ears tell me that wooden bodied
harmonicas, especially when played nonresonantly, have a commonality of
sound, as do plastic bodies and aluminum bodies.  Are they all designed with
similar respective dimensions, cover plates, and reed plates?  Or is it
*really* the comb material?

My proposed test would exacerbate these differences rather than minimize
them.  Also, we wouldn't be concerned about telling which is which, but
simply if there is a difference in the respective waveforms and/or the
perceived sound.

For me, this isn't a "sacred cow".  I'd love to find that comb materials
make no difference in the sound (because I personally detest wood, and am
concerned that aluminum just *might* be somehow involved in alzheimers or
other illnesses - and please don't try to talk me out of this - it's simply
too easy to minimize exposure, and it's my right to be silly about at least
two things), and that it's simply reed plates, cover plates, construction,
and comb dimensions.  This knowledge would enable me (us) to achieve more
predictable sounds.  But my own personal experience is that wood sounds like
wood, plastic sounds like plastic, and aluminum sounds like aluminum, each
with some variation between brands and models, and yet certain IMHO
indisputable qualities.


- -IronMan Mike Curtis Band  http://www.ironmancurtis.com *Southland Blues
Magazine http://www.SouthlandBlues.com TU 8pm Starboard Attitude/Redondo
Santa Monica 3rd St Promenade, various times - email my cellphone (2 lines
max)
mailto:ironmanc@xxxxxxxxx