Re: [Harp-L] was Embossing, now controversy

[David Payne <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On the B-radical  airflow, the patent was done before I started at HH. i don't know how he reached the conclusions he did.  Brad was very reluctant to reveal proprietary details and sometimes what he said was very vague and could probably be understood as BS from the vague details that were released. I am at somewhat of an advantage here because I am one of a very, very few people who know exactly what all of those proprietary details were, but at the same time at a disadvantage because I can't disclose those things and can say no more than there were actual things behind what he was saying, thus I have no way of convincing anyone otherwise. 

On the pictures, the high magnification picture was a prewar reed, which was really cool, but it would have been more useful had there been a modern Hohner reed under the same magnification. The reason that was incomplete as it was was because it was never really finished. It was about the time he did that that he started a harmonica company. 
You said:"I posit that masking prevents you from hearing the weak barking of the dog while the very much more powerful cat is howling."

Just to be clear, the "cat" is the base tone. The "dog" is added treble overtones. The reason I used a cat and dog in my analogy was because when see things, it's simple. When you say "I see a dog," nobody says "you cannot see a dog there" or "you are imagining that a dog is there." To me, sounds are as definite to me as visions, maybe even more so, because I trust my ears more than my eyes. I know how these things are represented to my ear. If the cat were howling, I could still hear a quiet dog, it would sound like a quiet dog and a loud cat. they are two different sounds. As you know, when you play a C4 on a harmonica, a C4 is not all you get. There are all these overtones that are different pitches. The combination of these overtones is what makes a fiddle sound like a fiddle and a harmonica like a harmonica. What I am talking about are differences in these combinations. 


On your test of plucking the reed for the SPAH audience, I've got a couple of thoughts.
1) After watching one SPAH test, and hearing the about results of your SPAH tests, I have no confidence whatsoever in the collective ears in the SPAH audience. 
2) I'm not sure I could tell you how many times you plucked the reed, either. I would be interested to try this.
  But this wouldn't be having a dog walk up to a cat, plinking a reed of the same pitch would be the same harmonics, I think, like having two cats meow at the same time. There is a pocket of sound that I believe that reed plink would fit into. That's just conjecture on my part, but I don't think I could do it. This is a very interesting thing to think about. When you plink that reed, you are sounding it of course. It is possible that the only difference would be the interuption of the second (non-played) reed's vibration when you put the tool on it to plink it, because that second reed - if tuned the same - is already vibrating (another sign of vibration carried internally that I didn't mention in the previous post). You can hear it on a chromatic. If you put a finger on that second reed (the 5 blow on a chromatic while you play the 4), there is a change in the sound, provided they are in tune with one another. It's very slight, but there is a
 diminishing of richness in that sound. Of course, you could just put your finger on the non-played reed and feel it vibrating. 

Thanks for taking the time to try the touching the coverplate test. I appreciate that. You said that you noticed a change intially, but then nothing, which tells me a great deal about where you're coming from in your posits. You noticed a slight change in tone, then nothing. That's not what I hear and it's not what I notice. When I do this, I'm not sitting here thinking "do I notice a tone change there?... well maybe... yes, now I'm sure. There is a difference" It's not like that at all. It's very clear and a very specific thing that I hear. It's an addition of a very specific tone on top of the one that is already there and it's as clear as seeing a cat or a dog.
One thing that you have proven without a doubt to me is that large numbers of subjects in a blind test can't hear a damn thing. It's pretty easy to predict how that would turn out. If I were doing such a test, I would pick two ears, mine and Wally Peterman's. Most people don't know this, but the Lee Majors' show "Six Million Dollar Man" was roughly based on Wally's life.. only in real life, they ran out of money after giving Wally bionic cyborg ears. Seriously, his ears are far better than mine.

Vern, you have long  since contended that various things have no affect on tone and nobody can hear it, while I've been saying the difference is very slight and some people can hear it and most cannot. One thing I would be very interested in you to posit... you've contended that coverplates have no affect on tone. Combs have no affect on tone. Air flow has no affect on tone (what am I missing?).  
Then what actually does have an effect on tone? 
If it is only the player, then do all harmonicas have the precise same tone when played by the same person? 
If it is only the player and the reed if I put a Seydel Steel reed into a Marine Band, will it have the exact same tone as an Seydel 1847?  Are there even any differences in tone between the two models?
Do you believe that all ears hear the same or are there similar differences as with vision? 
Do you believe that sound amplified through hearing aids is a true representation of sound, or could parts be missing? 
I'm asking these because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on these things. 


David Payne
www.elkriverharmonicas.com
www.hetrickharmonica.com