[Arundo Donax]

Are there videos or online documents that can be referenced whenever one of these vibrationalist threads appear? I haven’t found any.

I can understand how someone who is unfamiliar with how woodwind instruments produce sound could legitimately wonder whether wooden or plastic clarinets sound different, whether silver saxophones sound different, or whether lacquer makes a difference. Those are legitimate questions by people unfamiliar with acoustics. For those who believe a heavy screw, fancy stones, or a brass bar in the lyre holder makes a difference, I think the only response is a reference - a link - to these controlled experiments.

 

[Zhenya]

A double blind study means that neither the player nor the listener knows what's up. And, to be sure, there needs to be examples with nothing. The tester is the only one who knows, and the tester cannot be either a player or a listener.

I know...Thats what I am saying. I've done them. I was given the artist the neck with mouthpiece 5 times. Twice without resonators and 3 times with resonators. He didnt know that. Then I asked which ones from all the 5, he liked. Then he picked the only times when there were resonators.

 

[Zhenya]

^This. In many of these threads the methodology is laid out plainly and yet someone will always say the "nothing will ever convince the science folks" bit. It isn't brain surgery, the most obvious requirement is that the player have no way of knowing whether they're playing a horn with the thing on it or without. That way they can't do the unconscious (or not) embouchure tweaks to play better on the "Miracle Water". Second most important is to not tell the audience which they're listening to, but that's easily done.

Exactly! Thats what I've done. Gave 5 times to the artist. 2 without resonator and 3 with. He picked up the ones he liked. They were with resonator. I am not worried about an audience too much. The most important if its works for artist. If artist has his own voice, it will sound similar on all gear. (if no voice, nothing will help) These small gadgets (and instruments and mouthpieces) just help to artist to get where he wants with less resistance and less pain in hands.

 

[milandro]

so, 100% of the times people said that they preferred the neck with the gizmo. This only means that conductivity through the jaw may be increased but so what?

You claims go way past “ you can hear better what you play” but they say that one can do something that without the implement isn’t happening.


As for randomizing your test (and the fact that 100% of the times your subjects got the answer right) you may know that there are horses who can count (and pick signals from the person who is doing the test, horses don’t count anything...)

 

[Zhenya]

Are there videos or online documents that can be referenced whenever one of these vibrationalist threads appear? I haven’t found any.

I can understand how someone who is unfamiliar with how woodwind instruments produce sound could legitimately wonder whether wooden or plastic clarinets sound different, whether silver saxophones sound different, or whether lacquer makes a difference. Those are legitimate questions by people unfamiliar with acoustics. For those who believe a heavy screw, fancy stones, or a brass bar in the lyre holder makes a difference, I think the only response is a reference - a link - to these controlled experiments.

Make totally sense from some point of view. Meanwhile, do you think Michael Brecker and John Coltrane were just a bit stupid?

 

[milandro]

if they only had known that all they needed was your implement... just imagine what they could have achieved!

 

[milandro]

Are there videos or online documents that can be referenced whenever one of these vibrationalist threads appear? I haven’t found any.

I can understand how someone who is unfamiliar with how woodwind instruments produce sound could legitimately wonder whether wooden or plastic clarinets sound different, whether silver saxophones sound different, or whether lacquer makes a difference. Those are legitimate questions by people unfamiliar with acoustics. For those who believe a heavy screw, fancy stones, or a brass bar in the lyre holder makes a difference, I think the only response is a reference - a link - to these controlled experiments.

A lot of work has been published by the University of New South Wales in Australia

Introduction to saxophone acoustics

How does a saxophone work? Saxophone acoustics: an introduction

www.phys.unsw.edu.au

naturally one has to accept science to be leading the discussion and not some empiricist way of doing things.
Before you do anything you formulate an hypothesis and then verify it, then you formulate a theory and then try to demonstrate it.

The findings are published and put to a peer review this is the way science works.


On the contrary, “ Inventors” jumble the process by bouncing from one to another thing . I have NEVER seen any research for ANY of these implements. Why should they? The law allows people to claim things without demonstration with the sole exception of food and drugs ( Try to say that by eating this and that you can cure or even simply do this and that and is not true and THEN you see what happens to unsubstantiated claims).

I just wish that the same regulations would apply to ANYTHING coming to the market and any claim should be ALWAYS be backed by proof



“....
To conclude, the test of an acceptable health claim is whether it can be substantiated by science. Claims that cannot, should not be made. The interests of the industry as a whole would not be served by the relaxation of this fundamental principle, as no one wishes to see commercial practices based on misleading the consumer and making any choice a false one...."

https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2016-10/labelling_nutrition-claims-health_claims-collective_answer_20052011_en.pdf

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/health-claims

5 misleading label claims struck down by the FTC

With intense competition and millions of dollars in sales on the line, food manufacturers toe the line between truth and a questionable claim — and the regulatory agency is there watching them.

www.fooddive.com

FSSAI to curb unsubstantiated claims on food products

FSSAI to curb unsubstantiated claims on food products

www.domain-b.com

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10644794_EU_to_ban_use_of_unsubstantiated_health_claims_for_food_products

 

[GREY SAX]

so, 100% of the times people said that they preferred the neck with the gizmo. This only means that conductivity through the jaw may be increased but so what?

You claims go way past “ you can hear better what you play” but they say that one can do something that without the implement isn’t happening.


As for randomizing your test (and the fact that 100% of the times your subjects got the answer right) you may know that there are horses who can count (and pick signals from the person who is doing the test, horses don’t count anything...)

For you, if a tree falls in the forest an no one is there it makes no sound

 

[milandro]

not only for me, it doesn’t.

Sound is something that “ exists “ because there is an ear , no ear = no sound “

of course you may argue that the UNIVERSE would be aware if the vibration but not the sound if nobody is there to HEAR it

but what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about?

 

[chilehed]

I know...Thats what I am saying. I've done them. I was given the artist the neck with mouthpiece 5 times. Twice without resonators and 3 times with resonators. He didnt know that.

Exactly. That is a totally inadequate test which doesn't prove what you think it proves.

 

[GREY SAX]

not only for me, it doesn’t.

Sound is something that “ exists “ because there is an ear , no ear = no sound “

of course you may argue that the UNIVERSE would be aware if the vibration but not the sound if nobody is there to HEAR it

but what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about?

It proves that you are unreasonable. You refuse to try it out for free but yet you’re yapping about something you never tried. Now if you have tried it then I would have agreed with you but 👎

 

[DDGsax]

It proves that you are unreasonable. You refuse to try it out for free but yet you’re yapping about something you never tried. Now if you have tried it then I would have agreed with you but 👎

You are making an ad hominem criticism of Milandro without either refuting his claims or defending your claims with reasoned argument.
One must wonder here who is truly the one being reasonable and who is baselessly attacking someone’s character for demanding a higher standard of evidence for claiming such and such a dongle hanging off your saxophone will make altissimo notes notes pop out with no effort, or make your shxt smell like roses.

 

[DDGsax]

If the saxophone was originally invented somehow to work without a a neck cork, people might be selling neck corks as an accessory that makes you sound better.

"It decouples and isolates the vibrations between the mouthpiece and the neck to eliminate resonant clashes and dissonant sympathetic vibrations"

All brasswinds do not have cork. Maybe those instruments would be better served with some vibration isolating cork. A new product idea for the anti-vibrationalists!

 

[GREY SAX]

You are making an ad hominem criticism of Milandro without either refuting his claims or defending your claims with reasoned argument.
One must wonder here who is truly the one being reasonable and who is baselessly attacking someone’s character for demanding a higher standard of evidence for claiming such and such a dongle hanging off your saxophone will make altissimo notes notes pop out with no effort, or make your shxt smell like roses.

Life can be much easier if you try it or 🤐

 

[DDGsax]

Make totally sense from some point of view. Meanwhile, do you think Michael Brecker and John Coltrane were just a bit stupid?

While I was not alive at the time, I cannot recall any of the late great saxophonists making any kind of explicit product endorsement for any sax, mouthpiece, or reed, let alone a vibrationalist dongle

Ya, now if only he would demonstrate how much easier circular breathing is with the PS.

If there is anything that holds me back more that wicked altissimo, it's circular breathing.

please refer to it as a PoS, which is infinitely more apropriate.

 

[Ixthusdan]

I know...Thats what I am saying. I've done them. I was given the artist the neck with mouthpiece 5 times. Twice without resonators and 3 times with resonators. He didnt know that. Then I asked which ones from all the 5, he liked. Then he picked the only times when there were resonators.

In your described method, the flaw is you. What ques did you (inadvertently) give the player? And if there is no listener, then only the players perception is needed, making it pointless. People listening to the sax sound is essential. The neck and horn must be the same, and not 5 necks and 5 mouth pieces. And there must be listeners, not just players. Your method is wrong. Correct your method and try again.

 

[turf3]

...Meanwhile, do you think Michael Brecker and John Coltrane were just a bit stupid?

How much time do you think either of these great saxophonists spent learning the theory and practice of experimental science? Do you think they had learned the concepts of systemic vs. random variation? How to determine whether two sets of results are different, or the same, within statistical limits? The null hypothesis? Confirmation bias?

I will tell you, as an amateur musician but also as a professional engineer who has worked almost 40 years on noise and vibration mitigation of equipment, that quantifying human reactions to sound is one of the most difficult experimental fields there is.

The nature of becoming a virtuoso musician and composer, and keeping a successful professional music career going, is such that the number of people who are both virtuoso musicans AND qualified to perform experimental investigations of psychoacoustic phenomena is essentially zero. A person doesn't have to be stupid to be ignorant of a field of study they've never even touched on.

 

[DDGsax]

if they only had known that all they needed was your implement... just imagine what they could have achieved!

Exactly! Thats what I've done. Gave 5 times to the artist. 2 without resonator and 3 with. He picked up the ones he liked. They were with resonator. I am not worried about an audience too much. The most important if its works for artist. If artist has his own voice, it will sound similar on all gear. (if no voice, nothing will help) These small gadgets (and instruments and mouthpieces) just help to artist to get where he wants with less resistance and less pain in hands.

Zhenya,

I personally dig your playing and you probably have some legitimate improvements and inventions for sax playing, but this is not one of them.

Your music should (and does, IMO) speak for itself and you know that you did not need to rely on such devices to get to where you are now. This kind of snake oil sales will only degrade your credibility among this community.

As a dedicated artist, I imagine you have a lot of interesting insights to contribute to this forum. I encourage you to take a step back and reflect on what you can contribute, rather than extract from this community.

 

[milandro]

you can lead a horse (and any other equine, you choose, zebra, onager or even , among all the equines, the ass ) to the water but you cannot make him drink

But let’s be honest and see it all from his perspective... Oh well, it depends on the human really some are more equine than equines!

About thinking, one of the most abused quotes is “ cogito ergo sum” (need I translate? ) since most people seek to invert it en thus what they really mean is “ I exist, therefore I think” , it doesn’t work this way. You need to earn it, it doesn’t come as a sinecure.

 

[DDGsax]

you can lead a horse (and any other equine, you choose, zebra, onager or even , among all the equines, the ass ) to the water but you cannot make him drink

But let’s be honest and see it all from his perspective... Oh well, it depends on the human really some are more equine than equines!

View attachment 127669


About thinking, one of the most abused quotes is “ cogito ergo sum” (need I translate?) since most people seek to invert it en thus what they really mean is “ I exist, therefore I think” , it doesn’t work this way. You need to earn it, it doesn’t come as a sinecure.

I have certainly been burned in my belief that people can be reasoned with, but I have not given up hope… yet…, but I am close.
There is certainly evidence where reason does not function, such as the current war in the Ukraine. Such a world is too awful to fathom, I cannot accept it, but it exists.