Re: [Harp-L] Re: Combs!

"Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx> · Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:34:57 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brendan Power" <bren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "Harp-L" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:14 AM

Subject: [Harp-L] Re: Combs!

But what the PLAYER hears and feels is a different thing, and Vern has
not claimed to test that.

It is true that no one has yet tested the claimed ability of players to 
discriminate among comb materials by means of harmonica sounds alone. 
However, it does not necessarily follow that players can do so.  No players 
have yet demonstrated that ability under controlled conditions. That leaves 
the question unsettled. The burden of proof lies with those who assert that 
there is an effect perceivable to the player.
Being in such close contact with the
harmonica, with it in ones hands and mouth, other senses as well as
hearing come into play. Any good player of any instrument is incredibly
attuned to the finest nuances of their axe, and the harmonica has one of
the most intimate physical connections with the player.
With the instrument so close, the sense of hearing is accentuated. It
mixes with the sense of touch, so vibrations are not just heard but
felt, and thus reinforced.

This may make it seem more likely that the player could possibly recognize 
differences arising from different comb materials. So far, no players have 
demonstrated that ability under controlled conditions.   I predict that they 
will not be able to do so.  This is because the comb does not acoustically 
participate in the generation or propagation of sound.
I conducted some very simple tests on my own:
1. Blowing a bare reedplate and blowing harmonicas with wooden and plastic 
combs
2. In an attempt to hear mainly the sound conducted through my body, I 
played a harp with my shop ear- protectectors on.
3. With my mouth very near (but not touching) a harp played by another 
person, I opened and closed my mouth. I also took turns playing the harp.
4. I stood near a speaker playing loud recorded harmonica music and opened 
and closed my mouth.
From the above, I concluded that any internal path to the ears was very weak 

and lacking detail.  Although these tests were crude and subjective, I 
hearnd nothing that overcame my skeptical bias or forced me to abandon my 
arguments.   Because no elaborate setup is required, anyone can repeat these 
simple experiments.
Because of the great difference in loudness, I posit that the much louder 
sound from the external path masks the faint sound from the internal path. 
"Masking" is a phenomenon whereby humans are unable to hear one sound in the 
presence of a louder sound.  See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking

The 'heft' of the comb, it's weight and mass,

are sensed consciously and subconsciously. Even taste and smell can come
into it; different materials react differently to the tongue and saliva.

I do not deny that the player can discriminate materials on the basis of 
these properties. In a fair test, the player would have to be denied these 
clues.
These incredibly complex interactions all add up to definitely
perceptible differences to the player, and this seems to be what's
creating all the fuss. People do get really attached to certain
comb/coverplate interfaces on their harmonicas, for reasons of tone and
playability, and feel passionately about it. That's nothing to do with
Vern's SPAH test, so stop giving him such a hard time!

I welcome honest arguments of believers in materials effects, even if I do 
not agree with them. I do not interpret the challenges to my arguments as 
"giving me a hard time"  I assume that we all want the objective truth, 
whatever it turns out to be.  Years ago, I undertook to make harmonicas 
produce exotic sounds through the use of exotic materials.  I was surprised 
and disappointed to find that the materials had no perceptible effect.  Then 
I discovered by research in books on musical acoustics that materials don't 
even affect the tone of conventrional wind instruments.  The Harp-l 
discussions and the SPAH materials seminar followed that.
From the plethora of posts, it it seems there is general agreement that

the player can distinguish between different comb materials. However,
whether they can definitely say under strictly controlled conditions (a
blindfold test, same reedplates and coverplates, no prior knowledge etc)
what the materials actually ARE is another question!

There is an easier question.  "Can they hear any difference at all even if 
they cannot  name the material?"
Of course, anyone can tell the difference between a solid metal comb and
a light wood one just by the weight. But could a player really tell the
difference between a pear wood comb and a solid plastic comb of
comparable weight, mass and sponginess (eg. material such as used in the
Seydel Silver comb)? That would be interesting to find out, and could
well debunk a few myths ;)

Indeed it would!
Vern 