Sax on the Web Forum banner
161 - 180 of 186 Posts

·
Forum Contributor 2015-17
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
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.
Right. "No consistent effect"was the author's conclusion. In others words, it does nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
I take issue not with the study itself (though the perceptual study is not statistically significant)
A breakthrough!

The author wrote, "Two participants noticed drastic differences between the tests with regular screws and the tests with the heavy mass screws, while the other two noticed little to no difference. Additionally, the two participants who noticed larger differences noticed the differences as being almost entirely opposite to one another; one participant noticed an increase in brightness and ease of play, while the other noticed a decrease in brightness and an increase in evenness of tone."

The "high-mass" devices used in this study were actually on the low-mass end of the spectrum. My pair of globes as used in the study weighs 24g, while my large diameter ergonomic high-mass screw is 40g. My Yamaha YTS-82ZASP stock ergonomic high-mass screw is 18g. I have no idea of the Klangbogen range of mass.

We know, among those who have risked shattering their world view by trying one, that the effect is not universal. I was actually astonished that in this small but single-masked crossover design study, HALF the subjects (two) noted "drastic" differences. The pros who enjoy them certainly feel something.

I'm gratified that in the progressive saxophone media space such as Jay Metcalf's channel with 105,000 subscribers, he gives devices exactly the discussion they deserve: Necessary? No. Replace practice and hard work? No. Add anything to the player's pleasure? Well, yes, for some... including Jay who still uses a Klangbogen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
A breakthrough!

The author wrote, "Two participants noticed drastic differences between the tests with regular screws and the tests with the heavy mass screws, while the other two noticed little to no difference. Additionally, the two participants who noticed larger differences noticed the differences as being almost entirely opposite to one another; one participant noticed an increase in brightness and ease of play, while the other noticed a decrease in brightness and an increase in evenness of tone."

The "high-mass" devices used in this study were actually on the low-mass end of the spectrum. My pair of globes as used in the study weighs 24g, while my large diameter ergonomic high-mass screw is 40g. My Yamaha YTS-82ZASP stock ergonomic high-mass screw is 18g. I have no idea of the Klangbogen range of mass.

We know, among those who have risked shattering their world view by trying one, that the effect is not universal. I was actually astonished that in this small but single-masked crossover design study, HALF the subjects (two) noted "drastic" differences. The pros who enjoy them certainly feel something.

I'm gratified that in the progressive saxophone media space such as Jay Metcalf's channel with 105,000 subscribers, he gives devices exactly the discussion they deserve: Necessary? No. Replace practice and hard work? No. Add anything to the player's pleasure? Well, yes, for some... including Jay who still uses a Klangbogen.
Sorry, but you are cherry picking the study. Here is the study's conclusion:

Due to measurement error, it cannot be conclusively determined whether the heavy mass neck
screws have a measurable effect on the acoustical qualities of the saxophone. Because of this, even if there is a difference in the input impedance, it is likely that such a difference is insignificant.
A perceptual study performed with 4 musicians generates widely varied results, with two musicians finding very little perceived difference between the test cases, while the other two found partially opposing perceived differences between the test cases. These differences could have been due to some form of skewed perception, as the two musicians who reported significant differences also reported the most difference between the test setup and their personal setup. More testing would be required in order to reach a conclusion on whether the screws have any effect.

Moreover, if you read the results of the perceptual study, I'd say that only one player (participant 2, in red) experiences a consistent effect. The other player who notices a marked effect (participant 3, in yellow) is only consistent in his/her rating of the brightness (in his/her second trial with the regular screw, his/her rating for the ease of play is even higher than with the two trials with the high mass screw). In fact, the study would be more interesting (for us... it would have been a little bit boring for the participants!) with a higher number of trials for each player. I'm not even sure that with 10 trials instead of 4, participant 2 would have maintained his/her consistency -only a more robust study could tell.

Finally, DON'T conclude on the basis of a sample of 4 players that half the players (in the whole world...) experience an effect!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
My favorite part about the study is that the SOTW “scientists” are saying both that the study is not done well enough *and* repeat that the results were inconclusive as evidence the product doesn’t work.
You can’t both act like the study wasn’t done well enough and claim the study as a victory for your (mis)understanding.

My opinion? The study was very much *not* done well. The issue with most of these studies is that they take volunteers. Volunteers that are almost always a professor, one or two really strong players, and then one or two much lower level players. This entire time people have been saying that a refined player will be able to tell a difference and use the difference. An undergrad, though they can sometimes be phenomenal, doesn’t usually reflect the ability to detect artistic nuance which is being claimed by the screws. Also, the sample was too small of course.

So I say the results are inconclusive based on the experiment itself. As an anecdotal note, I noticed two of the participants noticed a clear difference. I will take a shot in the dark and say it was the stronger players.

Lastly, why test low Bb, middle D, and high F? Sure, lowest, middle, and highest range make logical sense. What would have made more sense would be to test the toneholes closest to the added weight.

Lastly part two. Didn’t it say they used a different mouthpiece then participants were used to? How long do we talk about differences between mouthpieces on this forum? We probably have a gigabyte or cloud storage just for that! No experiment to test nuance can be done and expect an accurate result without using a familiar mouthpiece, ligature and reed. (I know I know, human error. Did somebody say Giant Steps robot??)

At least somebody felt there was a need for further research. If only McGill University had been informed by SOTW that no more experiments needed to be done.

Fun experiment. Doesn’t really tells us anything concrete. Worth repeating to fix issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Putting most of your characteristic assumptions, premises and leaps of reasoning to the side for now, why do you consider testing the tone holes closer to the position of the device to be more important or relevant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
My favorite part about the study is that the SOTW "scientists" are saying both that the study is not done well enough *and* repeat that the results were inconclusive as evidence the product doesn't work.
You can't both act like the study wasn't done well enough and claim the study as a victory for your (mis)understanding.

My opinion? The study was very much *not* done well. The issue with most of these studies is that they take volunteers. Volunteers that are almost always a professor, one or two really strong players, and then one or two much lower level players. This entire time people have been saying that a refined player will be able to tell a difference and use the difference. An undergrad, though they can sometimes be phenomenal, doesn't usually reflect the ability to detect artistic nuance which is being claimed by the screws. Also, the sample was too small of course.

So I say the results are inconclusive based on the experiment itself. As an anecdotal note, I noticed two of the participants noticed a clear difference. I will take a shot in the dark and say it was the stronger players.

Lastly, why test low Bb, middle D, and high F? Sure, lowest, middle, and highest range make logical sense. What would have made more sense would be to test the toneholes closest to the added weight.

Lastly part two. Didn't it say they used a different mouthpiece then participants were used to? How long do we talk about differences between mouthpieces on this forum? We probably have a gigabyte or cloud storage just for that! No experiment to test nuance can be done and expect an accurate result without using a familiar mouthpiece, ligature and reed. (I know I know, human error. Did somebody say Giant Steps robot??)

At least somebody felt there was a need for further research. If only McGill University had been informed by SOTW that no more experiments needed to be done.

Fun experiment. Doesn't really tells us anything concrete. Worth repeating to fix issues.
André,

1. I would not call you a "player", even if we disagree. I aknowledge that you are a very good saxophonist. Why do you call "scientists" the people with whom you disagree? For your information, I'm a university professor (in mathematics, not acoustics).

2. The perceptual part of the experiment is inconclusive -I agree that it can't be used to claim that either part of the dispute is right. The physical part of the study, however, shows that the effect, if any, is very small (less that 1dB, which is the margin of error of the experiment, and 1dB is below the perception threshold).

3. You haven't even read the study correctly! The study mentions 9 notes (the results for 3 of them are displayed, but 9 notes were tested). The participants were "asked to play the instrument using their own mouthpiece and reeds" (!).
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,688 Posts
Any test can only work, or not, if its set up and protocol is correct. Set it up and carry out wrongly you get meaningless " results".

Test protocol writing is a science in itself.
https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-tem.../importance-test-planstest-protocol-template/
http://www.ofnisystems.com/services/validation/test-protocols/

Mrs. Hakukani, we have been told, is an expert at doing precisely this. I would involve her if she agrees to do some pro-bono work.

this is Johnnie's profile
https://forum.saxontheweb.net/member.php?25913-hakukani
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
I have seldom seen writing that is more toll-like in this forum.
Hence a waste of time responding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
In terms of experimental setup: in my eyes, having 4 players doing short series didn't strengthen the experiment. I'd actually agree with andre251 on that.

The experiment described was a bit like putting 2 black and 2 white marbles in a bowl, letting 4 people draw those marbles blindfolded and guess the color of the series... in fact even counting it as a success if they inverse black and white... well... hmmm... not conclusive, eh?

If the total number of takes (16) or a similarly large number would have been done by a single player (seasoned professional, world-class pro, etc.) in a double-blind experiment AND that player would have been able to reliably differentiate whether the gadget under test (mass screw, Klangbogen, leFreque, resonance stone, etc.) was on/off, then I would eat my hat! If a player could reliably differentiate 16 times the finish of the gadget in a blind-folded test, then I would eat another hat!
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member/Forum Contributor 2010
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
The reality of life is such that I could play something a couple of times on an unchanged set up, and most people listening attentively would be able to find something different about each take. I suspect doubly so if I told them something was different. Regardless of the fact nothing changed on the horn thus excluding anything to do with the setup or materials, a fairly large chunk of the population would convince themselves.

Unless a sonic trial is double blind and done with a statistically valid sample size its only going to add to the noise around the subject:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

Rummy 2002
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
A well known saying:

“He who knows not,
and knows not that he knows not,
is a fool; shun him.

He who knows not,
and knows that he knows not,
is a student; Teach him.

He who knows,
and knows not that he knows,
is asleep; Wake him.

He who knows,
and knows that he knows,
is Wise; Follow him.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
Equally true:

She who knows not,
and knows not that she knows not,
is a fool; shun her.

She who knows not,
and knows that she knows not,
is a student; teach her.

She who knows,
and knows not that she knows,
is asleep; wake her.

She who knows,
and knows that she knows,
is wise; follow her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
924 Posts
Discussion Starter · #178 ·
the only research lacking is the one that would be needed to support the claims. APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is ( in principle) required by law :soapbox:

Truth In Advertising
When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence
I haven't read to the end yet, but as of Halloween 2019, this does not seem to apply to political ads on Facebook.
 
161 - 180 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