[Harp-L] New Tool and Method for Improving Harmonica Reed Response

[Vern]

More pontification from the ivory tower:

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:59 AM, <bren at xxxxx> <bren at xxxxx> wrote:
>  
> ……….As a general point, having known you for a long while and worked together with you on a project, my assessment of your ability to cast credible judgement in harmonica matters varies. On the one hand you are extremely knowledgeable about the theory side, specifically scientific and engineering aspects of the instrument. When it comes to knowledge of materials and their properties etc I’d generally defer to you at all times. 
>  
> However, when you try to pontificate from your ivory tower to tell us all how a harmonica will actually PLAY, purely based on your theoretical analysis, then my respect evaporates and I’m afraid turns to scorn. As a chromatic player, when it comes to knowledge of what makes a diatonic harmonica work well, the truth is that you are woefully ignorant.

I claim no knowledge derived from expert playing, bending, or overblowing of diatonic harmonicas.  My concentration has been on understanding the physics of the instrument separated as much as possible from subjective human factors. 
>  
> That was brought home to me when we cooperated together in our ill-fated Comb Test at SPAH 2010. After months of email discussion about procedures and how best to make the test Marine Band harp so it disguised the various materials’ varying weights, you took it upon yourself to make the thing. In theory your design seemed good, since it combined quick-change abilities with material-masking weights. 
>  
> But in practice a fatal flaw was discovered: you could see daylight between the reedplates and comb! Any good diatonic player knows that a perfect comb-to-reedplate seal is a basic requirement of good harmonica performance. Especially for a test that was supposed to measure the effect (or otherwise) of different materials on the tone, the fact the comb was not in good contact with the reedplates (so the harp sounded very airy) completely invalidated any results.

I don’t recall seeing any daylight under the plates.  There were seven combs of different materials so it is unlikely that all were equally leaky. I assure you that I tightened the plate and cover screws snugly to minimize leakage.  Although you did, none of the participants complained to me about leakiness.

The result of that comparison of comb materials was consistent with the result of two previous tests.  These three experiments followed a common pattern:
- Beforehand, the participants were confident they could discern among comb materials,
- Under controlled conditions, they were unable to do so.
- After the test they raised objections ("fatal flaws") to the conditions of the test to explain their failure.
      Because perfect conditions are unattainable, that defense will always be available.

> As it was, Chris Michalek and the other test players, rightly disgusted with the test harp, proceeded to put down nonsense scores. The whole exercise turned out to be a complete waste of time, and I felt very embarrassed.

Michalek indicated that they all played the same.  Although he may have been frustrated enough to try to sabotage the experiment, he could have been giving honest answers that he could discern no differences.  He did make plain his disdain for the proceedings.

My point here is that it was your ignorance of what makes a diatonic harmonica play well that let to this fiasco. So now, when you make the various ‘logical’ points in your reply below, I’m afraid they just make me smile. In answer, I have a simple question for you:
>  
> “Have you every tried playing a well-customised diatonic harp and compared it with a stock model of the same type?”
No.  I have a question for you:  Have you conducted a comparison under controlled conditions before you claim improvement resulting from a modification?  (By controlled conditions I mean a large number of random plays; you don’t know whether a modified or unmodified harp is used; and you write down your determinations as they are made.)
>  
>  
> I’m talking about harps customised by the likes of Rick Epping (the pioneer of reed-slot embossing and many of the customisation techniques used today), and well-known professionals who learned directly or indirectly from Rick (like Joe Filisko, Richard Sleigh, Joe Spiers, Joel Andersson).
I never condemned expert reed-voicing.  I commented on the contradictions between anecdotal evidence and my understanding of the theory.
>  
> Judging by your remarks below, I’m sure the answer has to be a resounding “No”. If you actually put one of these guys’ harps in your mouth directly after playing a stock one, you would feel in the first microsecond that the difference is like between night and day. There is simply no comparison! That’s where direct experience trumps any amount of ivory tower theorising, of which you are rather prone. 

I plead guilty as charged.  However, reliable “direct experience” isn’t all that easy to acquire. It requires more than a few anecdotes.  It requires a careful effort to avoid subjective bias.
>  
> You can call it a ‘subjective impression’ – but I think if you actually tried this before talking about it your words would quickly dry up. You would feel what all the happy customers who pay big bucks for these custom harps feel: they play amazingly well. And much of that vastly improved performance happens at the source of the sound: the reeds/slot interaction.
When my understanding of the theory failed to explain the results that you reported, I raised the question.  I agree that my statements could have been softened by more humility and qualifications.  Although I don’t think that the contradiction that troubled me has been answered, I’ll certainly be more cautious about ivory tower pontification in the future.

>  ……...Respectfully Vern, I suggest that before exposing your ignorance of diatonic harmonica performance further, you actually do the side-by-side playing test of a stock Marine Band compared to one customised by the likes of Epping/Filisko/Sleight/Spiers/Andersson yourself. Then come back and tell us what you think... 
>  
> After having this ‘subjective experience’ I believe you will be rather less quick to preach to us all on these matters.
> In short, ‘play before you say’.

I doubt that one more anecdote from me would shed much light on the matter.  Not expecting a positive result would bias myy perceptions in the negative direction.  My lack of skill at bending and overblowing would disqualify my conclusions regardless of what they were.

All the best,

Vern