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

[Pat Powers <patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed, the results appear to be inconclusive, but are they really????  Inconclusive test results could very well indicate the test variable had no effect on the test subject.  ..the key word is  "COULD" here.   I can't say 100% for sure, but I think it's conclusive enough to form an opinion... for now anyway, until somebody shows me something to the contrary.

I'm not condemning anyone who prefers a wooden comb.  There are many harmonicas out there with wooden combs, and plenty of people out there who fthink it does make a difference.  It may be the feel of it, or the nostalgia/mojo, it could even be the familiarity of the taste, or it could be subtle tone differences that I just can't hear.  I don't know -- All I'm saying is I just don't get it.   The way I play, I can not discern any noticable difference.

IT's OK to differ in opinion and taste, and it's perfectly fine to feel passionately one way or the another.  I certainly wouldn't want to blog with people that agree with eveything I say -- I'd never learn anything that way -- and I like people who live life with a passion. 

I agree, some brands/models are only availalbe with wood, so it's hard  to perform a direct comparison.  I beleive that was the intent of the SPAH comb test -- to perform a direct comparison.  I have some harps with wooden combs as well, and I'm not about to toss them out just because they're wood, they're really nice harmonicas.  The question was, and apparently still is, does the comb material have anything to do with the sound and play-ability, and if so, what materials work best.  We may never truly know the answer, but it sure does make for some good science and conversation.

Thanks for replying!!!

To each his own -- there are plenty of harmonicas out there for all of us!


  0+
  \_/

   

I beleive that is why the comb test was
patpowers@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sep 1, 2010 05:30:39 PM, 3N037@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


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
>