Blinded by Science

I'm over it. If it actually provides a real result for players, or helps other techs, then great, but so much of it is grandstanding. What really gets me though, is that what is purported to be scientific fact, is often just opinion claked in pseudoscientificengineering jargon. Steve Howard at least tests in an openminded manner and seems genuinely concerned with revealing the truth rather than substantiating his own suppositions. He then presents the results in a clear manner. Kudos to him. Too many of the other techs seem to be all about intellectual snobbery and ego. Even when they have very limited or no experience with a particular topic, they seem to just wade in and divert the thread into a defence of their own rigidly held assumptions rather than cooperating to find better solutions for all. Better no solution than giving up the crown of chief know it all.

I think I know where you are coming from here. In music graduate school I asked a professor what useful purpose there was in having to take a course in ancient music since I could see no practical application to a modern day band director. He got very angry and said that we learn these things because they are part of the "body of knowledge" of our chosen subject area! Now 40 years later I better understand what he was talking about.

Admittedly I am one of those who enjoys the minutia of technical discussions on materials, acoustics, makes and models of saxes and mouthpieces etc. And I agree there is no direct relationship between that information and my playing skill or technique, but that does not make that information invalid to me as a musician, teacher, and performer. In fact it enhances my understanding of the the beauty and complexity of the subject(s) I have chosen to study and the instrument I have chosen to play.

You could also argue that studying the history of the development of the saxophone is a waste of time because it doesn't make you play with greater skill, but does it make you a more "well rounded" saxophonist" with a greater depth of understanding of your instrument? I believe it does.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here Grumps, but pointing out that there are other ways to look at this issue.
Maybe you could add this to your posts in the future: "SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES ONLY---OBJECTIVE COMMENTS ARE NOT WELCOME

Grumps said:

. . . when that perspective invades the threads calling for more subjective experiences, what is really trying to be proven? Now the science involved here is fascinating, no doubt, but as far as practical applications go, how are we using this information? Is it simply a mental exercise for those wishing to expand and/or flaunt their knowledge base, or are we learning something of use... and if so, what is it?

Click to expand...

The interesting thing that I get from the technical theory stuff is an awareness of how subjective -- and flawed -- our individual perceptions can be. It's a fact of human nature.

If someone feels like their lacquered horn sounds better than their silver-plate horn, or like their silver-plate horn sounds better than their lacquered horn, that's great. But if they think that their subjective experience somehow equates to "knowledge" that the silver-plate and lacquer coatings cause audible differences between saxes, I'm pretty sure that's contradicted by the few actual scientific experiments that have been done.

What do we get from the scientific theories? That the human mind is intensely impressionable and fallible. That we should be profoundly aware that our psychological makeup tends to make us believe certain things that have no objective basis. That we should be careful before saying we know for certain something is true. That we should be skeptical. That we should avoid asserting subjective experiences as objectively true. I think there's a lot of value in these realizations. It's a question of whether you believe in the value of a dedicated search for truth or whether you're comfortable living in your own little subjective reality.

It's also interesting to ask: What do the scientific theories take away from us? I'm not sure they take away anything, because while it's easy to acknowledge that our subjective experience may not fit with objective truth, I'm pretty sure we're not going to stop having those subjective experiences and preferences just because intellectually our reason tells us there's no objective basis to believe them as true. I suppose for some people it could take away their motivation to play if they are forced to rationally acknowledge that their silver-plate horn is not actually any better than someone else's lacquer horn, despite their subjective experience of it as better. That would be a bad thing. Also a silly thing, because even if the differences did actually exist, they're pretty minor in the big scheme of things. Even mediocre saxes sound great.

Grumps said:

No one is complaining when the hyperbole and puffing from an advertiser is shot down with sound argument. Nor is this just about a horn feeling different to a player because it's lacquered or not. It's about the value of this scientific information in more practical terms and whether it's of use or not..

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, Grumps. The long dissertations on sound waves, etc, are probably only interesting to those who are, well, interested in such phenomena. However, the value of this data is that it helps support certain assertions. In the case of lacquer vs silver plate vs gold plate and whether any of these platings have any significant effect on the sound, I think it is valuable to have some hard science behind the assertion that there is little or no effect on the sound. I used to think silver plated horns were brighter. It just seemed that way to me. I had no real data to support my belief. I now am pretty certain the plating has no effect, due to the hard science that has been presented on the topic. I'm still not totally certain either way, but the science and "objective" evidence points to no real effect on sound by plating or lacquer.

This all might make a difference to someone who is weighing the idea of spending more money on a horn for silver or gold plating. Their decision can be based on whether they think it is worth if for the looks of the horn, rather than any difference in sound.

hakukani said:

I am the kind of a person that likes the why of everything, and I think it is fun to not only speculate, but to test and discuss that speculation---wait,wait--that's what science is!

Click to expand...

Ditto. However, when it comes to saxes, the is virtually only speculation and no testing, or referrals to "experiments" that test something else. Most of the time it is comparing apples and oranges. Except for bits and pieces in Kyomarto's post, which I did learn something from, there is no science and I am left with my notions and beliefs.

It becomes downright absurd when some claim that nothing really matters (pun intended), concrete of copper, dents smaller than 1/16th of the bore diameter, old fashioned keywork (which you just need to get used to), and yet in other posts argue that this or that horn is the best ever made.

I am happy with CDs and don't long for vinyl except for the covers. However, I do think I can tell the difference between an MP3 file played on my computer and live music. In analogy (pun intended), when the discussion comes to saxes, a vinyl-CD or equivalent argument is often used to defy that any differences in material etc. matter. Yet, where are the experiments? The reason why this keeps coming up is because there are zippo and the manufacturers are probably happy to keep it that way, and the acoustic physicists probably more easily funded and occupied by sounds of interst to the military, law enforcement, oceanographers...birdwatchers