Re: Subject: [Harp-L] Combs!

"Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx> · Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:20:32 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <EGS1217@xxxxxxx>

To: <rharp@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>; <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:42 PM

Subject: Subject: [Harp-L] Combs!
This is the very same argument I raised in my long-standing disagreement

with Vern both here and on Slidemeister.  I believe that he's a  qualified

engineer...but I vehemently disagree that any test involving  someone 
else's hearing

(rather than the player) - should in any way be proof  that comb material

doesn't affect sound.  My contention is that only  the player whose head, 
ears,

sinuses, mouth, throat and chest are involved is  the one to determine 
what

he/she can hear...and not anyone standing  (sitting) any distance away.

Almost all of the believers in the effect of comb material on harmonica 
sound seem willing to concede that the effect is imperceptible to listeners. 
I accept that concession as validating 99% of my argument.  I'll agree that 
the perceptibility to players is a separate question that is not yet 
settled.  The comparisons at SPAH and Buckeye did not test the ability of 
players to perceive differences.
Further (to Tom): as far as I've been told, this  experiment was not

sponsored by Spah, but purely under Vern's control (and  his money), and 
to fit his

own personal criteria.

It was sponsored by SPAH only to the extent that they agreed to the subject 
of the seminar and scheduled it.  However, it was a joint effort where 
Douglas Tate and I spent an hour on a debate and an hour on the harp 
comparisons.  I did spend some of my own money on buying the harps, making 
combs of various materials, and building a harp-playing machine.  Everything 
was available for public inspection before and after the seminar. I plead 
guilty only to trying to find some objective evidence that bears on the 
question.
 To make it a true experiment would necessarily mean taking  it into a lab
and out of Vern's hands (and wagering) altogether.

There was no offer of a bet at that time.  I had little to do with, and was 
not present at the Buckeye meeting a year later.
 When I  told him this (at

least a year or two ago) and that I personally thought the  $1,000 wager 
was

insulting, he responded with a vile putdown related to my being  a woman:

I regret having made a clumsy allusion to a classical joke. In the absence 
of tone-of-voice and facial expression clues, it was easy to misinterpret. 
I have apologised before and do so again.
He's ignored every mention of mine that it shouldn't matter one whit what 
an

audience hears, rather it is what the player can hear coming from his

harmonica which is so personal and subjective.  Every one of us hears 
sound

(music?) differently.  There is still no exact science (everyone who 
thinks this

untrue should ask their ENT) as to just what constitutes  'hearing'.    So 
why do

so many seem to think it's outside the realm  of possibility that some 
people

CAN hear differences in comb  materials as they play their instruments?

I think that Elizabeth and many others of you share a personal philosophy 
that is fundamentally different from mine.

About harmonicas, I seek an objective truth that is independent of the 
opinions and emotions of people.  Thus I try to eliminate all human 
variables.
From your different philosophical point of view, truth does not exist 

independently of human feelings and beliefs. Thus my efforts to ignore and 
avoid those subjective influences seems like an effort to avoid an important 
part of the truth.  From your point of view, I can understand the 
resentment.
And it really doesn't (shouldn't) take a player as skilled as  Steve Baker 
is

to hear it, either.  I can't play a fraction as well as he  can, yet can

easily distinguish the nuances and differences between my own  harmonicas, 
all

else being equal.  I daresay I could probably do it in  public, but I 
don't have

to 'prove it' to anyone...and the idea of the money  wager leaves a bad 
taste

for me.  It's decidedly unscientific and something  I wouldn't care to be

remotely involved with.

I offer the wager only as evidence of my confidence in my arguments.  It is 
in the same spirit that the skeptical magician, James Randi, offers a 
million dollars to anyone able to demonstrate a supernatural/paranormal 
phenomenon. However, his is a prize and mine is a wager.
I even suggested to Vern that a test conducted by an audiologist/ENT

specialist using several youngsters ...perhaps around the age of 12 
(where their

hearing is optimal and yet  old enough to be able to  articulate what 
they're

hearing)...might be a far more logical and scientific  test.

I would endorse any such test provided that the participants have no 
knowledge of the comb material other than what comes to their ears...and 
that the harps be otherwise identical.  It is easy to propose a test but 
difficult to actually conduct one.
 He ignores any

suggestion made that might possibly refute  those  'spah' conducted tests. 
BTW,

just because they were conducted  in a room at Spah.. shouldn't 
automatically

confer on them 'Spah'  approval.

I have never claimed SPAH endorsement of the results.  The word SPAH was 
used only to identify the event.
 Anyone with a scientific background should be
equally appalled  by these results being held up to be the 'final' say so
about comb materials,

Anyone with a "scientific background" knows that there can be no "final" 
conclusion. I claim only that, under the conditions that existed, the 
listeners could not identify differences of material.  I also claim that the 
conditions were far more carefully controlled than those under which 
harmonicas are normally heard.   It is always possible that different people 
under different circimstances can do so.  Until that happens in a public 
comparison under controlled conditions, the "comb materials" theory remains 
unsupported.  Anecdotal, subjective claims by people who know what the comb 
materials are cannot be accepted.  That is why there are double-blind tests 
of drugs and wine.
  while anyone disagreeing is shouted down, scoffed at or
ridiculed.

I reject the accusation.  I defy anyone to give an example of an ad-hominem 
argument from me.

I wonder if I can get a straight answer to at least the  following 
questions,

now that I know players of your, Steve's and SmoJoe's  caliber hear very

similarly to how I do and seem to think alike as  well?
From those in attendance:   Just how many  'participants' were there?

Twenty four people turned in the scoring forms.  There were more than that 
present.
How
far away from John Walden (the player) were  they?

From ten to thirty feet.  With a few exceptions, they were pretty much 

clustered close to the stage.
 Were they standing or sitting?

Sitting.
 What were their  ages?

There were no children or teenagers.  My guess is that the normal SPAH crowd 
ranges from the late twenties up.
 How good were/are their hearing abilities? (e.g. -
were any of them  wearing hearing aids which perhaps might cut out small
nuances of sound?)

I didn't notice.  It is possible there were a few hearing aids there.
...was  anyone drinking alcohol beforehand (affects the senses

The Seminar was before lunch.  I didn't notice any drunken or erratic 
behavior on the part of the listeners.
was  anyone taking meds beforehand (affects the senses
including hearing)....

There is no way to know.
...regardless of all of the above, however...I've maintained all  along 
that

I can hear distinct differences in comb material (all other aspects  of my

harmonicas being identical), and no one has the right to be disdainful of 
or to

scoff at my ability to hear it purely because they themselves cannot.  I'm

also very aware there are people whose hearing is far superior to mine and 
I

wouldn't dream of refuting any claims they made just because I couldn't 
hear

what they can, so why do some people insist on doing exactly that?

If anyone could publicly demonstrate that ability under controlled 
conditions, the whole dispute and discussion would end abruptly.
I'm an ear player and perhaps those who play primarily by ear do so 
because

they do hear a bit differently than other people?   possible? ....just  a

thought....

Elizabeth

Anything is possible.  I have already agreed that the ability of the player 
to discern differences is not yet settled.  I'm trying to figure out how to 
deny the player knowledge of the material in a comparison.
- Use chromatics so the front of the comb is obscured by the mouthpiece?

- Put the harp in a holder so that differences in weight are not apparent to 
the player?

- Blindfold the player so she cannot see the comb?
Peace and forgiveness,  if not agreement?
Vern