[Harp-L] Nail polish and bubbles

[bren@xxxxx]

Thanks Bob for your fine post. That's interesting (and surprising!)  
about the wine 'experts' being so fallible. By implication I guess it  
means that the testimony of long term professional harp players is  
equally suspect. And yet...

You make some well argued points. However, on the part helpfully  
explaining in big letters what RELATIVE means, are we on the same  
page? I'm saying that, once both reeds in the chamber have had the  
lower 2/3 of the reed/slot tolerances minimised and reed offset  
optimised, that the unaltered air gap at the base of the reed becomes  
RELATIVELY bigger compared to its status when no work has been done on  
either reed.

So, for example, if the air passing by the base third of one of the  
reeds was 5% of total air throughput in the whole chamber when both  
reeds are in stock form (as the reeds were in Vern's bubble test),  
that percentage of air loss at the reed base will rise, relatively  
speaking, when overall air throughput is reduced by good customising  
work on the other parts of the reed/slot.

Surely this is something upon which we can all agree, or am I not  
being clear enough?

Whatever the academic arguments, the main thing for me - and I think  
Steve and the other experienced diatonic harp players here - is what  
we actually experience when playing. Bubble tests using submerged  
harmonicas with non-vibrating reeds might give us some interesting  
data, but this is a highly artificial situation. What we really care  
about is how a harp feels, sounds and responds when we make those  
little reeds vibrate with our breath in our mouths.

No amount of blowing bubbles through straws under water is going to  
change what I perceive when I put a harp to my lips. From experience,  
I know that I get a big boost in reed response and performance when I  
emboss just the lower 2/3 of both reeds in a chamber. However I also  
know from experience that if I reduce the base gaps of those two reeds  
as well (either by pushing the reed down in the slot an re-curving, or  
by my quicker, easier nail polish method), then I get an extra  
perfirmance boost.

Not as big as the first, but still significant. Certainly significant  
enough to go to the extra trouble, because I like the heightened  
sensitivity and response I get from the reeds when they've had that  
extra work at the base.

Vern can blow as many bubbles under controlled laboratory conditions  
as he wants, but it won't change what I actually feel and sense when a  
harp is in my mouth, and I'm aiming to make some sweet sounds. I just  
know from experience those sweet sounds will come easier and sweeter  
if I have lovingly attended to the whole length of the reeds.

It's not All About the Base - but some of it is.

Instead of Forever Blowing Bubbles, for the sake of his own sonic  
pleasure (and widening his self-admittedly limited experience of  
diatonic harps), I strongly urge Vern to get his lips around a harp  
customised by the likes of a Sleigh, an Andersson or a Spiers. Then he  
would actually FEEL what we're all talking about: the amazing leap in  
response that comes from expertly customised reeds - including their  
base areas.

That's experiential knowledge, and if I have to weigh it against some  
data from an only marginally relevant lab experiment, I'll go with  
what experience has taught me.

Brendan








Quoting Robert Coble <robertpcoble at xxxxx>:

> Brendan,
>
> I have no particular side in this discussion. As previously stated,  
> I have nothing but the highest admiration for you and the many  
> harmonica marvels you have produced. Truly inspiring!
>
> Unfortunately, I think you and Vern are not talking about the same  
> thing exactly.
>
> Vern's point concerned the amount of leakage at the reed base  
> RELATIVE to the amount of leakage elsewhere. He illustrated that  
> relative difference with a photo of a simple experiment.
>
> The more the foundation of a particular "science" is based on  
> subjective factors, the more likely that it is not scientific. If  
> you truly are an advocate of the scientific method as the best way  
> to test hypotheses, then you should have no problem accepting the  
> result of an experiment which can be easily verified and falsified.  
> If you doubt Vern's results, simply repeat his experiment for  
> yourself and prove him wrong.
> Perhaps if you performed Vern's experiment using a superbly  
> customized harmonica, you might come to the same conclusion (or not)  
> as Vern. It takes minimal equipment and time to set up such an  
> experiment and take a photo. Surely it would take less time and  
> money to perform that experiment, rather than Vern sampling the many  
> superb customized harmonicas in search of enlightenment regarding  
> the nail polish treatment, or more correctly, the total  
> customization package.
>
> I think you conceded the argument when you switched targets:
>
>     You seem to have missed my earlier point that nail polish would only
>     be used in conjunction with standard embossing, on both the blow AND
>     the draw reed, plus optimal gapping. Thus your bubble demonstration
>     using stock reeds and slots is not especially relevant to the
>     discussion.
>
>     . . . There will still be more air loss from the draw reed
>     than the base of the blow reed of course, but relatively less.
>
> Without measurement of the various sources of leakage and the  
> RELATIVE proportion of those sources, it is certainly "unscientific"  
> to ascribe any proportional benefit to just one of those factors,  
> especially when that factor has already been demonstrated to have a  
> RELATIVELY small impact overall.
>
> Vern conceded that all of the customizer's work in toto may be  
> beneficial to a better playing harp via less leakage. His caveat  
> concerned the RELATIVE benefit from the nail polish treatment at the  
> base in isolation from the other work, like embossing and gapping.  
> The proportion of contribution from embossing and gapping may  
> provide a large reduction in leakage RELATIVE to the effect of the  
> nail polish treatment at the base. Ergo, the customized harp may be  
> considerably air tighter, but there is no way to determine the  
> RELATIVE contribution to that improved performance from the nail  
> polish treatment in and of itself. It seems logical to accept that  
> if the RELATIVE percentage of leakage at the base is sufficiently  
> smaller than leakage elsewhere, it does not matter whether the harp  
> is a stock harp or a highly customized one; the RELATIVE percentages  
> will remain essentially in the same proportion regarding that one  
> aspect of the overall leakage amount. Vern's photo shows clearly  
> that there is a huge difference in leakage between the leakage at  
> the base and at the tip of the reed. Since there is very little  
> leakage at the base to start with, there is very little RELATIVE  
> improvement that can be made there. The leakage at the base cannot  
> be entirely eliminated, simply because the nail polish cannot be  
> used to completely seal that source of leakage; a small gap around  
> the reed base must remain.
>
> Vern did not comment on the traditional bending of the reed near the  
> base as a means to reduce the leakage, but I suspect he might also  
> be sceptical of the efficacy of that process as well regarding the  
> RELATIVE amount of leakage that is reduced in the customized harp.
>
> Regarding your "appeal to authority" regarding the small number of  
> "experts" (compared to the total number of harmonica players) who  
> agree with you:
>
> There are many so-called "experts" in particular fields who are ...  
> NOT. Consider the notion of fine wine experts as an example. There  
> have been any number of empirical studies which show that the much  
> vaunted "nose" of these "experts" is at best - a delusion. I'll  
> provide a link to the results of one such scientific study; there  
> are many others reaching the same conclusion:
>
> https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html
> [http://images.realclear.com/209338_5_.jpg]<https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html>
>
> The Legendary Study That Embarrassed Wine Experts Across the Globe |  
> RealClearScience - RealClearBooks - Book News, Book Reviews,  
> Publishing Industry  
> Aggregator<https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html>
> A LITTLE OVER a dozen years ago, "la merde... hit le ventilateur" in  
> the world of wine. Nobody remembers the 2001 winner of Amorim  
> Academy's annual competition to crown the greatest contribution to  
> the science of wine ("a study of genetic polymorphism in the  
> cultivated vine Vitis vinifera L. by ...
> www.realclearscience.com
>
> Within that article is a link to the actual PhD study:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070928231853/http://www.academie-amorim.com/us/laureat_2001/brochet.pdf
>
> I haven't bothered to check tea, coffee and perfume "experts" but I  
> would expect those fields to also be highly subjective. Taste is a  
> marvelous sense organ, but it is entirely subjective.
>
> FWIW, Dr. Daniel Kahneman has a wonderful book Thinking, Fast and  
> Slow which gives marvelous examples in many different fields  
> regarding the subjective errors that human experts make. Sometimes I  
> marvel at our ability to get through any given day without drowning  
> ourselves in the shallow end of the gene pool.
>
> Keep up the great work!
> Crazy Bob
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: bren at xxxxx <bren at xxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:29 AM
> To: Vern
> Cc: Harp-l at xxxxx; Steve Baker; Joseph Leone; F F; Rick  
> Dempster; Steve; Robert Coble; Tom Halchak; Wilbur Euler; David Pearce
> Subject: Re: Nail polish and bubbles
>
> Thanks Vern. I assume you mean G3/A3 in terms of their pitches under
> the international note naming system? If you mean hole 3 on a C harp,
> the draw would be a B, not an A.
>
> You seem to have missed my earlier point that nail polish would only
> be used in conjunction with standard embossing, on both the blow AND
> the draw reed, plus optimal gapping. Thus your bubble demonstration
> using stock reeds and slots is not especially relevant to the
> discussion.
>
> I'd be interested to see what happens if you test a harp that's had
> the lower 2/3 of both the blow and draw reeds nicely embossed, and the
> gaps optimised. I'm sure that the relative bubble factor will be
> rather different. There will still be more air loss from the draw reed
> than the base of the blow reed of course, but relatively less.
>
> We all know you like to stand on the basis of scientific empiricism
> rather than subjectivity, and dismiss all experiential player reports
> such as those from Tom, Steve, Laurent, me etc as being essentially
> invalid because they are unsubstantiated by your beloved blindfold
> tests.
>
> The scientific method is widely agreed to be the best way humans have
> yet devised of ascertaining the truth, and I believe in it too!
>
> But I still think the first-hand reports of experts (in this case
> long-term and professional players of the diatonic harmonica, an
> instrument you have agreed you know little about) are worth taking
> seriously. I've always held that what a player hears and feels is
> quite different to what a listener may hear, and that's how buyers
> make their choices of comb and customising level: from what their
> combined senses tell them as they play.
>
> It's a very subtle thing and, like other animals, humans can develop
> highly refined levels of discernment after doing something repeatedly
> (like playing a single type of harmonica) over many years. Look at
> tea, coffee and wine tasters, or perfume experts: their skills take
> many years to develop.
>
> If you were a true empiricist, rather than just an academic iconoclast
> (and that's not an ad hominem argument :), instead of dismissing the
> reports of experienced diatonic players you might decide it was
> actually worth spending a bit of time with a bunch of really well
> customised diatonics to experience for yourself and see what the fuss
> is about.
>
> After that your pronouncements might gain a bit more traction.
>
> Brendan
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Vern <jevern at xxxxx>:
>
>> Harp-L doesn’t allow pictures so I have copied everyone who has
>> posted on the subject.
>>
>> I glued shut the G3 blow reed of a diatonic for 2/3 of its length
>> near the tip.  This left open only the gap to which  the nail polish
>> is applied. The A3 draw reed was undisturbed.  Then I glued a straw
>> to the front of the chamber.  The draw reed would sound when I drew
>> on the straw.
>>
>> I submerged the harp in a glass bread-pan full of water and took
>> flash photographs while blowing into the straw.  Notice the tiny
>> bubble emerging from the unfilled gap of the closing  blow reed and
>> the huge flow of air from the opening draw reed.   Other snapshots
>> revealed that the blow-reed bubble gets about twice the size seen
>> here before it lets go and rises.
>>
>> I cropped the picture and adjusted its brightness and contrast.
>>
>> This discrepancy caused me to question the effectiveness of the nail polish.