Sax on the Web Forum banner
141 - 160 of 186 Posts

·
Forum Contributor 2016-17
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
Has anybody ever consider the science side that says "more research is needed"?
There is no such side. More research is not needed. The fact that people can be convinced that things are happening when they aren't happening at all doesn't mean that they're idiots; those are your words, not ours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
I love when people act like I am ignorant of scientific research and method.
(Ignoring I have a *published* 200+ page paper). Some of y’all (not most!!) are acting like you are talking to a cashier at the piggly-wiggly. :-D.
So let me try (again) to clearly explain what is being proposed here.
As I understand it...
If we have come to a scientific theory, and this theory begins to have *numerous* opposing results, there is a need for further study.
Tell me how I am wrong.

This cannot be placebo effect because the same reports are being offered from all over the world from reputable sources. If you were to actually spend the time and listen to what people using these are saying, you would notice they are saying the same thing. When we get to this stage in the conversation, SOTW member start citing various places in a comical fashion. When it comes down to it, however, the reports are the same.

I am truly sorry about sharing this information as it seems to really upset members (who mostly have never played one of the things being discussed)

The problem here is that SOTW members refuse to accept the reports from our fellow musicians. In many cases, some musicians really can’t conceive what 20 thousand hours of practice actually means. The amount of nuanced control, hearing, and specialty these players have is truly incredible! These players I describe with a lifetime of intense study are not falling for gizmos every week as members seem to believe. They can tell snake oil immediately, I promise. This only accounts for a very small amount of people of course, but I will use Tim McCallister as an example. You can see him with high mass screws in most pictures and videos.

Sit down and think about it logically.

I Just can’t believe that hundreds or maybe even thousands of people all over the world are gullible or having the same placebo effect. (Particularly the greatest of us, like Tim)

To me, it seems the only real conclusion is there has to be something that we are missing for so many people to go against what we all know as a fact. (See, I even acknowledge the scientific fact!!). Therefore, further research is needed.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,688 Posts
This has to be one of the most common populists mantras of this era.

If so many people do ( believe , use, vote, choose....) then it must be true

"...In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors based on majority opinion. This is often not the case. (See conformity.)

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 100% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also very likely prefer that brand (but not always 100% since there could be exceptions), and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other...."
 

·
Moderator
Grafton + TH & C alto || Naked Lady 10M || TT soprano || Martin Comm III
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
Pete, I am talking about products that claim that adding mass to the outside of the tube in a particular area effects something. There are a few of these types of products and a lot of people who use them.
This is waht I'm trying to establish.

If anything that adds mass to the outside of the tubing, why don't we just wrap the bell or the neck in a piece of lead?

Are we also talking about these:

Gold Jewellery Font Circle Metal

Water Product Blue Gesture Line

SWING CHIP

"Swing Chip" controls the vibration of the instrument itself be pasted into the instrument, is a revolutionary item that can remove the cause of not adversely affect the players played on the unwanted vibration to it.
Sound variation and of by each sound, such as a good enough sound is not missing problem might be unnecessary vibration of the instrument itself is going on in the cause. "Swing Chip" is to eliminate the stress you feel often when such a player is to play, to achieve better performance than reflecting its own image to direct.
Also improved vibration efficiency of the instrument body by suppressing unwanted vibration, clarity and direction of the sound quality will be greatly improved. Please by all means take advantage as well as a means to bring out the potential of your existing instruments without having to get a new one to the new instrument.
By Instruments use example

Brass: mouthpiece outlet portion, such as the welding portion of the connection strut of Bell and mouse pipe
Sachs: near the neck cork part and octave keys, such as
Clarinet: barrel central portion, the upper portion of the top tube, etc.
Guitar, bass: body the center of the top surface portion, near the bridge, head back, etc.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,688 Posts
Many people ... Massive crowds..... Many professionals recommend ....., 95% of the dentists use...."polls show,"

Who needs proof of anything if so many do it.

Right?

As they all say... Trust me (and all the others whose numbers, obviously, make up for the lack of diligent scientific information), I am a doctor! (in something totally unrelated) :whistle:

Another link that won't be followed

https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-authority-logical-fallacy-1689120
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
"Sound variation and of by each sound, such as a good enough sound is not missing problem might be unnecessary vibration of the instrument itself is going on in the cause."

Amen.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member/Forum Contributor 2010
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
If we have come to a scientific theory, and this theory begins to have *numerous* opposing results, there is a need for further study.
Tell me how I am wrong.
The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

You are wrong because once you come up with a hypothesis (This device makes me sound better because the mass is messing with the vibration of the horn, or whatever else you like) and numerous experimental observations produce results that do not tie in with the theory("I dont hear a difference"), science says "This hypothesis has been rejected", and everyone moves on to the next thing.
 

·
Forum Contributor 2016-17
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
You are wrong because once you come up with a hypothesis (This device makes me sound better because the mass is messing with the vibration of the horn, or whatever else you like) and numerous experimental observations produce results that do not tie in with the theory("I dont hear a difference"), science says "This hypothesis has been rejected", and everyone moves on to the next thing.
He's hung up on the fact that so many people claim to hear a difference, and clearly doesn't understand how confirmation bias (a.k.a. "placebo effect") works. So it doesn't matter that all validly done tests confirm what physics predicts (that these things don't and can't work as advertised), he won't be convinced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Pete, if those weights are used by people for the same effect, than they should be studied as well. I have seen them, but not to the same level I have seen high mass screws. I should add that those center brass weights are hidden in videos and photos, so they could be there and I am just unaware.
I think both weights at the top and weights at the middle should be tested. Further research is needed.
 

·
Forum Contributor 2015-17
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Or why not just build the instrument from heavier gauge brass? Oh, no, that won’t work because the extra weight must be at either the lyre holder, or the neck screw! These are the magical places, but only a genius with 20K hours of practice will detect an improvement!

Many people, very VERY astute and talented people, have made countless errors and incorrect statements, believed utter falsehoods to be true, etc. History is full of them. So is the present.
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
Hipparion, there are already many examples online of people demonstrating "on and off". SOTW members claim to hear no difference (when there is indeed an audible difference)...
Andre, you keep saying it, but repeating it does not make it a truth.
What you or anybody else says is meaningless - psychology 101, placebo effects etc - unless you check it out with double-blind-testing. Do you actually understand these issues?
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
Hipparion, there are already many examples online of people demonstrating "on and off". SOTW members claim to hear no difference (when there is indeed an audible difference)...
Andre, you keep saying it, but repeating it does not make it a truth.
What you or anybody else says about how great these products are is meaningless - psychology 101, placebo effects etc - unless you check it out with double-blind-testing. Do you actually understand these issues?
Learn about them, do the controlled testing - which would probably involve having the sax secukrely mounted somewhewre so the player did not feel any weight difference - and report the results.
Then, and only then, will we will be all ears about you proving well-established, current scientific knowledge wrong. until then, your statements are little more than beliefs. Beliefs are free, but they prove nothing.
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
He's hung up on the fact that so many people claim to hear a difference, and clearly doesn't understand how confirmation bias (a.k.a. "placebo effect") works. So it doesn't matter that all validly done tests confirm what physics predicts (that these things don't and can't work as advertised), he won't be convinced.
Yes, and he does not understand that in spite of being, as he says, not "ignorant of scientific research and method", and having " *published* 200+ page paper). "
(I wonder if it was paper reviewed! If not, then that claim means very little.)

Andre251, you are writing a "..a cashier at the piggly-wiggly"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
What andre251 probably refers to is the dissertation he wrote to become Doctor of Musical Arts. It is easy to find on the Internet, I checked it out a long time ago.

I am not going to make any comments on the dissertation other than that in my eyes it has been written with the same mindset as I see in Andre's comments posted here, in particular the idea that "the more expert musicians say the same thing, the truer it must be". The dissertation remains an interesting read (and it was a clearly a lot of work, like all or most dissertations), but the methodology would not have been accepted in an engineering or science department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
This forum is a home for anonymous participants with disposable time to type to express their opinions. Free speech, yahoo. Worth the price to read it--often nothing.

In the real world, some expert musicians are establishing the practice of using high-mass devices because they benefit in ways that are personal to their music. They do not call attention to themselves nor the devices for the most part. Sometimes they are quoted in product endorsements, but most who I see incidentally in videos are quiet.

These are professors of music at universities, performing and recording artists, composers and arrangers. They make their living and public reputations from full-time music-making. They have engaged and collaborated with supporting manufacturers such as the Yamaha LA Atelier, Yanagisawa, Meridian Winds, West Coast Sax, KGUBrass, and ReedGeek.

Observing both the product announcements and reviews as well as the authority of some expert musicians, curious non-professional musicians have trialed these devices as well.

Despite approaching-100 pages of posts in at least three threads in this forum, reality has not changed one bit: both expert musicians and hobbyists will use these devices if they perceive a benefit, and won't if they don't. If manufacturers in a free economy profit from innovating and marketing such devices, they will. The endless, tedious preaching by some forum posters has zero influence on the joy that players experience from making their music.

No con, no suckers, no harm to consumers. Rather a clear benefit to the experts and hobbyists who enjoy them.

So much gnashing of tooth and knuckle: "What we need to do [but won't]"... or, "Why hasn't anybody studied [this, that, whatever...]." Throw you a bone: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/courses/projects/618_2018/Alan_Ridout_618_Project.pdf

The second step in good science after an initial observation or idea is a literature search. My apologies if the above (report of a class project in one of Gary Scavone's Computational Acoustic Modeling Lab courses) has been previously cited in any of the current forum threads which I have mostly followed. It took seconds on Google. You will find it confirms your pre-existing bias--that these devices have no physical effect (in the single measured parameter--input impedance), or there is no consistent perceived effect. Or my take-away: Two of four experimental subjects found a profound effect. The effect seemed positive for one subject, and he or she may well continue to use the experimental device or one similar to it.

So there you go: evidence from one very small but carefully-conducted study under the supervision of a genuine and acclaimed expert in the field suggests one out of four experienced players will perceive positive effects from the tested high-mass device.

Is that evidence going to overcome the negative expectation bias of the adamantly-opposed clique posting here, none of whom have deigned to try a high-mass device? Probably not, and only one-in-four would have a good experience anyway based on limited data.

But this small corner of the words-are-cheap virtual chat space, again, has no influence on the real world of musical practice, nor accessory manufacturing businesses, nor the joy of curious saxophone enthusiasts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Would you look at that. Someone did further study. Maybe a SOTW member should have told them they are wasting their time?
The SOTW Nobel committee has spoken. *shrug*
Good post wanderso.
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
...So there you go: evidence from one very small but carefully-conducted study under the supervision of a genuine and acclaimed expert in the field suggests one out of four experienced players will perceive positive effects from the tested high-mass device....
As it is reported, it seems it was not carefully conducted.
Why were players given dark glasses and the lights dimmed? Why not blind-folded and the lights turned off. Eyes adjust remarkably to darkness after a while.

To me the most telling parts of the report were:

1. Only two trials for each player on each screw configuration. That is nowhere near enough to have statistical significance.
2. Only 4 players. This contributes to the statistical irrelevance.
3. Re the impedance measuring: "... There are slight differences in input impedance at the peaks and valleys of the measurements, but all of these differences fall within 1dB, and as such could be explained by
measurement error, because the method used has a range of error of at least 1dB. ..." So the results say nothing.

This project may appear on the surface to be carefully conducted but there are quite a few (more than I mentioned above) that say the opposite.
Valid science needs to be robust, or it is not really science at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
As it is reported, it seems it was not carefully conducted.
Why were players given dark glasses and the lights dimmed? Why not blind-folded and the lights turned off. Eyes adjust remarkably to darkness after a while.

To me the most telling parts of the report were:

1. Only two trials for each player on each screw configuration. That is nowhere near enough to have statistical significance.
2. Only 4 players. This contributes to the statistical irrelevance.
3. Re the impedance measuring: "... There are slight differences in input impedance at the peaks and valleys of the measurements, but all of these differences fall within 1dB, and as such could be explained by
measurement error, because the method used has a range of error of at least 1dB. ..." So the results say nothing.

This project may appear on the surface to be carefully conducted but there are quite a few (more than I mentioned above) that say the opposite.
Valid science needs to be robust, or it is not really science at all.
Gordon, I take issue not with the study itself (though the perceptual study is not statistically significant) but with the intellectually dishonest account of the study by Wanderso. The author of the study correctly concludes that the perceptual study is completely... unconclusive!

The impedance measurements have not found effects beyond the margin of error. So, the effect (if any) is extremely small.
 

·
Forum Contributor 2016-17
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
So much gnashing of tooth and knuckle: "What we need to do [but won't]"... or, "Why hasn't anybody studied [this, that, whatever...]." Throw you a bone: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/courses/projects/618_2018/Alan_Ridout_618_Project.pdf
Would you look at that. Someone did further study...
And once again, an engineering study finds that they provide no statistically significant changes. Which means no change was found. So far these things are batting 0.00

So there you go: evidence from one very small but carefully-conducted study under the supervision of a genuine and acclaimed expert in the field suggests one out of four experienced players will perceive positive effects from the tested high-mass device.
Rather, it suggests that one in four may perceive a positive affect if he tries it once, when he knows it's in play and is looking for differences. That's one of the things that invalidates the subjective portion of the paper - it's not well controlled and the sample size isn't anywhere near large enough. These results are well within normal day-to-day variation, even for a single player with his own unchanged setup.
 
141 - 160 of 186 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top