[Harp-L] Re: was experiment, now just combs

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Payne writes:

"It is false because your test at SPAH, or wherever it was, refuted  
this for all time? "

It is false because all tests so far tried (which are the two at  
SPAH) have refuted the idea that comb material effects the tone of  
the harmonica in an audible way and because there are no sound  
acoustical theories as to why comb material would effect the tone.   
If someone wants to claim that comb material has an effect, I suggest  
undertaking a series of controlled tests which could try and measure  
this.  Be as open as Vern was in showing methodology and such before  
and after the test and if the results come out that they can measure  
a difference that is not explained by random chance, then the current  
default theory can begin to change from comb materials do not make a  
difference to comb materials may make a difference (then repeat the  
tests and conduct more to show that it wasn't an aberration-- 
repeatability being a key element of scientific testing).

In short, yes, that's why it is false.

"The side vent discussion went the same way as wood, the accepted  
theory among the scientific is that they can not make any difference. "

It was?  I never saw that.  I saw some people thinking that cover  
material doesn't make a difference, some arguing cover shape makes a  
difference and others disagreeing.

"On my test, the consenus was that I would have had to have it  
machine blown or something to make a valid test. OK, maybe, whatever. "

The very fact that you are so dismissive to valid criticisms  
("whatever") shows that you don't understand what is needed to  
actually conduct a test.  I don't think the clips you showed came  
close to anything that might be defined as a test and really cannot  
be compared to the massive amount of effort Vern and John Thaden put  
into conducting their tests, as imperfect as they still were.  The  
key to both SPAH tests was the attempt to isolate effects being  
tested and to create a blind format for the testing.  This was  
completely absent from your side-vent demonstration.

In this thread, the claim was that the comb sounds more "natural".   
Well, it begs several questions, amongst them more natural than  
what?  Brass?  Aluminum?  Bone?  Ivory?  Plastic?  Walnut shells?   
Glass?  And what is a "natural" sound?  Do certain woods have a more  
"natural" sound than others?  Is it a specific set of harmonics?  Is  
it even as vague as "warm"?  This was a selling point of the product,  
and it seems logical to at least point out that it may not be a valid  
one.  Indeed, that basic question was at the heart of fjm's post:

"So the Corian tm combs, would they be a natural or an unnatural tone?"


Smokey Joe writes:
"There is nothing wrong with using the term "natural tone". Natural  
has a relationship to nature and wood comes from nature.



Everything comes from nature.  Plastics are made from petroleum,  
which is created by the decay of organic material under heavy  
pressure in the crust of the Earth.  Last I checked wood didn't grow  
into harmonica combs on trees, it had to be manufactured and  
manipulated to become a comb.  The same for metal, stone and  
plastic.  The only question is the degree of manipulation needed.

So, yes, there may be nothing wrong with using the term "natural  
tone", but it's meaningless.  It's even less meaningful than saying,  
"it gives the harp a better tone"--better than what?  And in this  
case in particular, it begs the question of what is being sold and  
why--is this using false premises to sell a product?  And if so,  
shouldn't that be pointed out to potential customers and possibly  
even the seller themselves?  These may be excellent combs, but that  
is a separate question from how they are marketed.  I fail to see how  
both are not valid areas of interest.




 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()
`----'