[Harp-L] Nail polish and bubbles

[Robert Coble]

Brendan,

Thank you for your cordial reply. I'll try to address your points as best as I can. I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, but I don't think you and Vern are. Ships in the night, and all that.

I've addressed this post only to Harp-L. Thank you to the list owner for the reminder of the rules.

One of the things I found really fascinating about the study of wine experts inability to distinguish taste was the relatively slow response of the taste organs compared to the response of the visual organs. The study found that it was the color, and not the taste, that "flavored" the reported tastes, i.e. preconceived rather than perceived. Again, a simple experiment was conducted. The first taste was of a white and a red wine. As expected, the experts described the taste as expected for each type of wine. On the second test, the experimenter replaced the red wine with the same white wine but colored red with food coloring to match the color of the red wine. The experts reported the same taste differences as before in approximately the same percentages. The reality was that it was exactly the same wine, but ther expected preconceptions "colored" their perceptions.

First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear. If I could afford them, I would play nothing but customized harmonicas. I have had the opportunity to try one or two, and THEY ARE MARVELOUS (even if my perception is "colored" by my expectations)! If anyone has the financial resources to buy them, then I highly recommend them. So, I am NOT trying to say (and neither did Vern) that there is insufficient value in a customized harp. That is not in debate. I can personally attest to how difficult and time consuming it is to tune (which one of the various tunings to use, whether overblows will be used, etc.) and optimally set up a harmonica for a specific person who has a certain style of playing along with particular genres of music to play. Even when a harp is customized without a specific person in mnd, there are still various tradeoffs that must be considered to make the harp more playable. This is why I have the utmost admiration and respect for those who do this work and try to make a living at it. Although the price of a customized harmonica is far higher than the corresponding stock harmonica, I also can attest that the hourly ROI is rarely sufficient to make a living doing only that. For a lot of customizers, it is a "labor of love." Consider how difficult it is to make a living wage from being a musician, and how few can actually pay their bills from it. It is even harder for customizers than for musicians, because the customer base is considerably smaller.

I hesitate to question "experts" in their field of expertise. However, anecdotal "evidence" based on subjective perception is always suspect; I'm "skeptical" of unsubstantiated personal endorsements. Heck, I'm skeptical of most published peer-reviewed articles because of the large percentage of non-replication of test results, especially in the so-called "soft sciences". I do not think anyone making these claims is either dishonest or attempting to mislead others. It's very easy to convince oneself of that which cannot be proven or disproven; we all share this problem.

Vern's bubble experiment attempted to eliminate leakage from the sides of one reed (the closing reed) by gluing shut the open end and the sides (for 2/3 of the length), leaving the final 1/3 near the base without any  treatment. This is similar in effect to embossing the slot but more completely eliminates ALL air flow except for the area at the base which is purported to be impacted by the nail polish treatment. Vern provided a photo of the difference in bubbles at the end of the opening reed and the base of the closing reed (which was the one under test). If a picture is worth a thousand words, I'm done typing. The difference in photographed bubbles at the end of the opening reed was many times the single bubble that began to form at the base of the taped over closing reed. Here's what is NOT asserted: the RELATIVE percentage of air volume at the base and at the opening end of the opposite reed - but it is obviously significant. I have no idea if there is a corresponding significant leakage along the sides of the opening reed; the bubbles in the photo formed at the end of the opening reed and were MASSIVE compared to the bubble at the base end of the closing reed.

You gave an "guesstimated" figure of 5% for the air leakage at the base end compared to the opening end of the opposite reed. I assume that 5% figure was simply asserted without any measurements of relative volume of leakage. That "SWAG" could be 100 times smaller or considerably higher than 5%; we have no measured data in either case. If the air leakage around the base of the reed (the 1/3 of the reed length "fixed" by the nail polish treatment is in fact considerably smaller than 5% of the overall leakage (which I suspect is the case based on the photographic evidence provided so far), then the implications are as Vern indicated: the nail polish treatment does not substantially reduce the leakage and is thus of marginal utility in a cost-benefit analysis. For illustration purposes only, consider if the reed base leakage is only 1/1000th of the total air leakage at the opening end of the other reed (and also assuming that both reed slots have been embossed by an expert). A reduction of 50% of the reed base leakage BY ITSELF does not do much for the overall leakage, and is probably not measurable. The total leakage decrease is a miniscule amount, and most likely neither measurable nor perceptible by the player. 0.001 cut in half is 0.0005 which added back to the 0.999 results in a reduction to 0.9995 overall. I am skeptical of anyone's ability to detect a difference of 5/10,000 without instrumentation. 5% is much more likely to be detectable, which is why I think you picked that particular figure out of thin air, if in fact it was not a measured percentage. As for the impact of the nail polish treatment on the reed base leakage quantity, I doubt that it rises to the level of 50% of the leakage at the reed base.

I don't consider this a mere academic debate along the lines of "how many angels can dance in the hurricane at the end of an opening reed." The question is practical: if there is negligible effect from the treatment on overall leakage, then why do it? On the other hand, if it significantly reduces leakage overall, then why not do it?

The comparative data given in the bubble experiment is derived from attempting to get as close as possible to controlling those aspects which are not in question (embossing and adjusting the gap), so that the results demonstrate (or refute) the hypothesis regarding the leakage from the 1/3 of the reed slot near the reed base, all other things being equal.

Without being pejorative, you asserted "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." That is the very essence of subjectivity, not objectivity. In effect, you would have rejected Vern's hypothesis whether he provided (or not) any actual measurement data on comparative leakage from various areas of the harp both before and after the "magic" of the customizer's art. That sounds more like, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

So, we come to a stopping point (at least for me), agreeing amicably to "agree to disagree." Vern won't be using the nail polish treatment (nor will I) on diatonics he does not play, and you and other experts will continue to provide and tout the benefits of this treatment in conjunction with all the other wonderful tricks of the customizer's trade.

I thank you for providing an inexpensive and quick treatment for that missing 1/3 of the reed base (if I ever need to do this for a customer).

I wish you continued outstanding success!
Crazy Bob