Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: Pat Missin
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 18:57:19 +0100
Subject: Re: Proving the Existence of Fish

Says Winslow Yerxa:

>Here I will take the opportunity to stand on a soap box and,
>while addressing no-one in particular, complain that there seems
>to be a tendency among those seeking scientific explanations to
>discount reported experience.

Certainly not - at least in my own case. Didn't I recently state that when
someone of your knowledge and experience says something, I take notice?

I was always curious as to what the difference actually was that people were
reporting. The blind tests (very limited ones, I am the first to admit) I
did with different harps seemed to show that many people claimed to be able
to hear differences that they could not, in fact, hear.

>I mean that if reported experience
>is not borne out by the theoretical models advanced, then the
>experience tends to be dismissed as invalid, and attributed to
>the gullibility, suggestibilty or prejudice of the person who has
>the experience.
>

If I have implied that people are gullible, suggestible or prejudiced, let
it be made clear that I think these failings apply equally to myself (and
most humans that I know). A friend of mine (Dr. Jonathan Driver, lecturer in
psychology at Cambridge University) is fond of telling me that 90% of people
never have an original thought in their lives. Whilst I am sure this is an
exaggeration (albeit one to make a point), there is the fact that people
often feel obliged to believe what they are told by an authority figure. For
example: if that great harp player "Joe Bloggs" tells me that wooden harps
have a warmer sound than plastic, then I will naturally feel inferior if I
cannot hear that difference for myself. The human creature doen't like to
feel inferior, so his/her ears will start to tell him/her that there *is* a
difference. (The Emperor's New Clothes ring a bell?? Hell, it's such an
obvious one that they can't believe they couldn't hear it before...

A recent examlpe was a disagreement with someone (an excellent musician,
obviously of superior capabilites) over a technical aspect of some piece of
music. I was fairly sure I was right, but I asked him how he arrived at his
conclusion. His reply? "Joe Bloggs told me!" Just to be on the safe side (I
always like the chance to learn something new) I checked with Joe Bloggs
(well-known musician) and he told me: "I never said that - he must have
misheard or misunderstood me!"

I always assumed I could hear a difference between wooden and plastic harps,
like I believed that I could recognise my own harps by their feel (ie. how I
broke them in). A few bets proved that I couldn't! I guess now that I have
looked at spectrograms of different harps and seen that the differences are
minimal, I equally accept that my brain is "tricking" me into hearing no
difference at all!


Says BBB:

>While I am by nature an empiricist (my formal training was in
>research psychology and research design), I think it is crucial to
>insure that what is being discussed and what is being measured are
>the same thing.
>

Agree entirely - there have been many arguments on harp-l which have been
based on a misunderstanding...

>In arguments presented on harp-l, the would-be harp empiricists

..."would-be harps empiricists" does not seem like a very diplomatic term!
It also does not seem like a very accurate description - Vern has years of
experience in machining and allied skills. Robert Johnston (PhD, I think?)
is a trained physicist and lecturer at a large Australian university. As for
myself, well, I have a higher IQ than Mike Curtis (it's true!!) and have
nothing better to do with my life than take harps to bits and see what makes
them tick. And all of us play the harmonica to some level of ability, but
are way too modest to brag about how well we do it ;-)

>often
cite (for instance) oscilliscope (sp?)

I relied on spectral analysis because I felt that an oscilliscope would not
show the differences I was hoping to find. Has anyone else on harp-l done
any work with 'scopes?

>readings to argue relative
>differences or the lack thereof between harmonica materials.
>
>Ignoring for a moment the definitional inability to prove the null
>hypothesis,

Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have never tried to prove the null
hypothesis. In fact, I have never tried to prove anything. I assumed there
were differences in sound caused by differences in constuction, so I went
looking for what those differences were. I didn't find any significant ones
in the wood/plastic debate. I also tried to give reasons for why these
readings may or may not be accurate.

>these examples fail to take into account the differences
>between oscilliscopes and the human ear.

No - I have always tried to stress the diffeerences between SA and human
hearing. The human ear is in almost all ways a superior piece of apparatus -
its only failing is its subjectivity. I wish I *could* connect my ears to my
computer. On second thoughs, they might make it look a bit silly...(hohoho!)
Also, decent SA has a greater range than human hearing, allowing us to be
aware of things that we cannot actually hear, but may have an effect on what
we do hear, by causing combinational tones, etc..

>At such time as a device is
>developed which can be shown to reliably quantify the full range of
>stimuli received and processed by the human ear such studies may, in
>fact prove crucial. However, I would argue that aural perception of
>timbre is an overdetermined phenomenon not currently replicable in
>the laboratory.
>

Very true, but again in the interests of objectivity, we have to make a
start somewhere.

>This is not, however, to suggest that current studies be dismissed.
>These studies show us a great deal about how various factors in
>instrumental design affect acoustic performance and ultimately aural
>perception.

Thank you. Whatever the attitude on harp-l towards my studies, they have
been very helpful in my quest to build a better harp. The human test
apparatus that I regularly use has ben equally helpful.

>But when human subjects replicably report differences not
>measured by our devices, that should be an indication that the
>phenomenon is more complex than previously though, and deserves
>further study.
>

What about when human subjects (not just me and Vern!) report little or no
noticeable difference? Before you suggest it, I should point out that I
recently had my hearing tested and it is good up to about 16-17k - pretty
darned good for my age!

Says Vern Smith:

>The only problem with accepting reported experiences is that your reported
>experience may not agree with mine and that gives no guide for future
>decisions. If we don't take an interest in why harmonicas behave as they do,
> can we ever expect to understand or improve them??
>

Coudln't have put it beter myself.


Pat Missin - pa~lobalnet.co.uk

"...my music's a lot better than it sounds!" (with apologies to Mark Twain)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------