Re: [Harp-L] was american chestnut, now steel

[Gary Warren <gdubya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's like arguing with the dyslexic about the existence of doG.  It's 
all in the perspective.

Once you factor out all the things you'd need to factor out for a 
"fair" test, your left with something that is hard to put your finger 
on, or your ear.
Add to that the fact that one cannot EVER prove the null, or that 
which doesn't exist in ANY scientific test, and it is yet harder.

These are facts:
People play harmonicas.
They play harmonicas with different combs.
The combs go in their mouths.  They taste them.  They touch them with 
their lips and tongues.  So of course this is something you must 
correct for in a scientific test to exclude the bias.
They hear both with their ears and through their jaws, so their 
feedback loop is different from the external version of hearing.  But 
to do a test, you exclude this as well.
With the exclusion of the basis of how people play a harp, you've 
lost what people can hear themselves through both their ears and their JAWS.

There are people that are veritable savants in terms of taste (ie. 
tea, coffee, somaliers (wine), etc.), smell (perfumers, dk what 
they're called), color experts (we used to have one of these people 
on the list) who all have heightened senses.
I've proposed that you get a sample of audiophiles, concert 
conductors, primo violinists, audiologists and speech testers, 
etc.  Not a bunch of characters that play harmonica and then test see 
if they can hear the difference.   All of which was proposed before 
the quoted test and after.

It continues to go on.  And because there are those who have the 
power of the pen, er keyboard, who were convinced by the test, they 
feel they have their proof.

I CANNOT tell the difference, even in my mouth.  I don't care one way 
or the other.  I do believe, mostly because of what I know about what 
I would term as savants that can tell the difference between color, 
taste, smell, that there are those who could tell the difference in 
harps, even using just their ears.  My feeling is this test was 
laudable and Vern should be congratulated for conducting it.   My 
feeling is also that if you choose right audience and put them in the 
test zone, have them tell you if the harps sound different, without 
having to also identify what material it was coming from, you'd have 
some with heightened auditory skill that could virtually nail the 
study.  And, I'll repeat this again as well, should a single person 
be able to show this discernment in a repeatable fashion, then the 
search is over and the proof would be found -- and forevermore the 
"answer" would be put to bed, along with these discussions.  (the 
corollary is that you would now have have atomic fission (or is it 
fusion) where you didn't have it before (Big Boom noise here. cue 
tapes of mushroom clouds).

And in the nature of scientific testing, it has not been proved that 
comb material doesn't make a difference in sound.  The test only 
failed to prove that it did.  The fact that you we're convinced, 
might mean you were no different than a scoffing scientist in the 
1940's that would have though a brain trust in the desert would have 
been a joke (had it not been such a secret).

Keep testing.  Never know what you might find... perpetual motion, a 
way to take hydrogen out of water, microwaves (oh, did that), radio, 
(oh, did that), a frequency that bugs the cr@p out of kids (oh, did 
that), that strange sound weapon for crowd control, etc.  Funny how 
science fiction sometimes winds up as truth (as differentiated from "fact").

Enjoy every sandwich!


At 01:03 PM 6/12/2009, James D Hoskins wrote:
>  Last time this topic was being hashed over on harpL, a young lady 
> friend of mine, a non-musician was at my house. I asked her to go 
> sit in the other room. I played four different model  280's, three 
> with plastic combs, one with a wood comb. Each time I played the 
> one with the wood comb she said "that one sounds the best, it 
> sounds little sweeter and has more character". I switched back and 
> forth, tried to trick her but she was able to pick out the wood 
> combed chromatic each time. The wood combed one is older, been 
> played very little, and in great condition, but the other three are 
> in tune and play great also. She also did think the other three all 
> sounded the same.
>
> So I don't know, was I inspired to play better knowing I was 
> holding  a wood combed harmonica? I doubt it, I'm cosistently 
> mediocre. Maybe someone more knowledgable will tell me these older 
> ones were better built or had better reeds, that could be.  Before 
> reading these discussions on harpL I had always believed I could 
> hear a difference, now I'm uncertain.  I find it difficult to 
> believe that there wouldn't be an audible difference, when every 
> little piece of a guitar makes a difference in how it sounds, even 
> if it is a small one.  I do believe that when I'm playing wood comb 
> marine bands I hear a difference between them and a special 20, most 
> likely coverplates and comb material, I would think. I like them 
> all, but I guess I prefer wood because that's mostly what I've 
> played for 43 years.   James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l

--
Gary "Indiana" Warren

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
                                Albert Einstein