Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] SPAH 2010 Comb Test: Retraction & Apology

[joe leone <3N037@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Pat Powers wrote:

> I think your test was fine, and the data was conclusive.

But WAS it? Not being argumentative, but was it?

>   The comb material does not have much -- if any -- effect on tone  
> or play-ability.

Hmm, the way I'm reading it is that while the comb material wasn't  
proven to affect tone, it also wasn't DIS-proven. It doesn't seem  
like anything was proven (or dis-proven). Maybe I'm a little dense  
here, but if I were to take this to court, it would be a fiasco.

>   I 've been fighting this debate with the wood-comb  
> traditionalists for years -

I wouldn't think that it was necessary to fight. You feel one way,  
someone else feels another. They shouldn't shove their feeling down  
your throat and you should have the same restraint.

> - My stand is that there is absolutey no benefit to having a wooden  
> comb.

Which is an excellent stand. And I agree. I happen to have mostly  
wooden combed chromatics. Something of a rarity these days.

>   They swell, they warp, they crack, the finish comes off - in  
> other words, it's a terrible base material.

I agree, but I haven't had them warp or crack. The cracking is  
usually prevalent in chromatics that have been stored for a  
relatively long period. (Like 4.5 to 5 years...or more). Once a  
wooden chromatic has been played, it should be continued to be  
played. Just like it is a bad idea to take a wooden boat in and out  
of the water a lot.

> In todays world with so many hybrid composite materials available,  
> I can't understand why anyone would intentionally want a wooden comb.

I see your point, but on the other hand, a person may like the Hohner  
270 model and those come only with a wooden comb. If it were a matter  
of giving up the sound I like (most important) in favor of a plastic  
comb (which you say makes no difference in sound), I will opt for the  
sound.

>   Some traditionalists claim the wood comb sounds warmer.  To that  
> I say, HOGWASH!!!

You're entitled to your opinion but if you put a 270 on a plastic  
comb, the sound may not change but the feel does. The vibrations  
change. While this may not be noticable to the listeners, sometimes  
the player is sensitive to it.

> And, now I think your test proves it -- the comb material doesn't  
> matter!

Ahem, again I say that nothing was proven...either way. That's why I  
asked if we were back to square 1, and, to take it farther, were we  
now allowed to go back to using descriptive words to voice our  
feelings about how we felt about a harmonica, OR were the wording/ 
semantics police still going to browbeat anyone who used the words:  
warm, soft, velvet, smooth, soft edged, biting, sharp, dark, etc.
> The only requirements of the base material is that it is dense, non- 
> porous, easy to machine, is planarized well (nice and flat), and  
> won't warp or crack.

I'm not sure that porous isn't a benefit. My wood combed chromatics  
don't seem to have the wind saver problems that my plastic combed  
ones do. I surmised that this could be because the wood is open  
celled and porous and will absorb a small amount of vapor? But I  
can't prove it, so I would never make a definite claim and expect it  
to be taken as the gospel of St. Joseph. That's the difference with  
me. I don't foist my opinions on others. They are free to have a life.
> Perfect case in point, the Hohner Special-20, it sounds sweet and  
> warm, and it has a plastic comb.

I like em. I play spl-20s exclusively when I play diatonic.

>   Add that SPAH test results, and I'd say that's pretty  
> conclusive.  I'm convinced the comb material really doesn't  
> matter.  The sound comes from the reeds, the cover cavity, and the  
> players technique.

Ok, I can acquiesce to that.

smo-joe
> -- My 2 cents
>
> patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx