Part of what I'm saying is that it is NOT "reasonable" to "assume the opposite as a practical matter" as that is just believing what you want to regardless of the science of it. The science doesn't say that. It will not say that. You may believe whatever you like and I'm not trying to change that at all, but don't point at a test like this and act as if it tells you something it simply cannot. Your key operable word is "assume" which is really another way of saying this is what I think. At NO point does any scientific testing failing to prove a hypothesis prove the null or what "isn't". Using words like reasonable and assume are not consistent with the scientific method. That more in the artistic realm of belief, not science.
Believe what you will, but if you do this test 100 times at NO point will the null be proven -- ever.
I don't care if there is a difference or not. But I do care about proper utilization of the scientific method and results reporting. It's part of what I've spent decades doing.
Thanks for the correction Gary. My main thought is that at some point if all data collected fails to show that the proposed actions take place (comb material effects timbre to a noticeable degree) then it becomes reasonable to assume the opposite as a practical matter. Not proven (and I don't believe I claimed it to be proven) but rather that no effect has been shown.
Personally, I'm most interested in the brass comb results. If the exact same set-up was used unaltered in all four of the examples, what explains the sometimes vast differences in the individuals responses? It's an interesting question, and my thoughts about a psychological explanation were purely speculation--though poorly phrased (I try to be careful about definitive statements, but slip up as often as anyone).
Certainly you're expertise is valuable in these matters. What I'd truly love is to see this studied at a much more thorough level, but there's no money in it so I doubt it will happen.
JR Ross
-- Gary "Indiana" Warren