[Grumps]

It's not rare that we'll get over ten pages here discussing a topic concerning sound waves, metal vibrations, chemical analysis of raw materials, and what have you, as it relates to the more scientific aspects of sound. But my question to the group is... has any of this ever helped your playing? Have you used any of the knowledge gained from these discussions in a practical application that has improved and/or broadened your skills? I'm sure the techs love it, and I don't mean to diss their intellectual endeavors, but 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?

 

[Grumps]

Steve Howard at least tests in an openminded manner and seems genuinely concerned with revealing the truth rather than substantiating his own suppositions.

Though I enjoy his site and appreciate his reviews, try disagreeing with him sometime...

 

[Grumps]

Analysis and accoustical theory don't get introduced to explain how to play better. Rather, they are brought up to put into perspective the marketing nonsense players have been conned into repeating.

I disagree. Such analysis is often brought into a discussion to bolster the opinions of the maker who invariably is going to add their input and/or advice to the given situation. Quite frankly, you're also making assumptions as to my point here. I would love to find some practicality in all this, and I come from a science background myself (originally a chemistry major). It's just that we're all here to share experiences, and I've learned much more from those recounted than from the endless dissertations on sound waves and such. I'd like to think though, that our friends enamored with the more scientific pursuits aren't completely wasting their time; and so I was hoping that someone could come up with something of use that they've culled from some of these most informative posts.

 

[Grumps]

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.

Countering the claims of unscrupulous marketers.
Good, we already got that one.

 

[Grumps]

But don't those sound arguments always fall back on yes, there has to be some difference in the sound of horns with different finishes, but we shouldn't be able to perceive them... then all the guys who believe there's a difference, smile to themselves knowing they can feel it.

There, that sums up about 300 pages on the matter.

 

[Grumps]

Trouble is, the scientists often tend to disagree with each other (adding more pages); so although the model of science may be a noble aspiration, it's not often applied in such fashion. Here, and elsewhere.

 

[Grumps]

You know... I did think of something. Something where science came in to help me out in testing a friend's horn; and I'm sure I got it from here. Simple thing really... but it had to do with comparing my curved TT soprano with a straight one my friend bought. The first one he got had some intonation issues, so he sent it back. Still, I remember it just didn't have the sound of mine. Before he got his next one, I read something about the angle of the bell and how the sound is directed back at you. Sure enough, when he got another straight TT (and this one played in tune), it didn't seem to measure up to my curvie... until I played it pointed at a wall.

Then they were exactly the same.

 

[Grumps]

Science doesn't care about practical applications.

That's funny, because it seems to be at its best in preparation for war.

 

[Grumps]

Not true at all. Science does best in times of peace and prosperity of a society.

You mean it gets a day off and gets to rest?
Otherwise, most major scientific advancements have come as a side effect of our figuring out better ways to kill each other. But hey, maybe I'm on to something here... perhaps this is why the science threads cause the most mayhem.

Science Kills. Now there's a signature line for ya...

 

[Grumps]

Makes me even sadder when irony and dark humor are misinterpreted.
Perhaps we need a smiley for that?

 

[Grumps]

It's certainly ironic, in darkly humorous way Carl.

JL, no one is knocking the scientific method. It's the scientific mundane, and perversion of same we're getting at. Also, watch the hasty generalizations (converse accident) in regard to describing your perceived opponents. Otherwise it would seem your scientific approach isn't above the use of a fallacy in making your point.

By the way... why does Al keep deleting his posts before I can read them? Or has science come up with internet invisible ink?

 

[Grumps]

I think the scientific method should be taught from the 3rd grade on, along with reading, writing, and math. Seems like we are going in the opposite direction. Keeping the masses ignorant or superstitious is perhaps more useful to those in power.

I'm with you here, most definitely. What really gets me is the way television is being used in this regard. It is a disgrace to see certain channels, that hold themselves out to be educational no less, featuring ghost hunters and psychics as if what they're doing is anything but chicanery. We could all use a good dose of Randi.org in this regard.

 

[Grumps]

Hooray for the Horses!

Hooray for the Horses?
Hooray for the Scientists, you mean.
Come on... a talking horse for cryin' out loud.
Now that was a peacetime breakthrough.