Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2020-09-18 04:57
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I would agree, somewhat hesitantly, that it is not a
> scientifically measurable instance. But then not much if any
> of what we do is.
My issue wasn't that any difference couldn't be measured. It certainly could be. You could test as identical as possible instruments a few with synthetic cork and a few with natural cork. You could use an oscilloscope as George suggests. Or, to test whether or not there is a humanly perceptible difference (which is really what matters), you could have several musically competent listeners evaluate those same instruments for any differences in sound.
My point was that (a) you include "feel" and "science" in the same sentence at the risk of writing nonsense and (b) you state as scientific fact something that is widely debated among scientists at the risk of sounding uninformed.
> You probably at least have a favorite clarinet because it
> sounds better to you, or is easier for you to do what you want.
> None of that is science per se but I think we all have things
> that work better for us than others.
So, in my opinion, that favorite clarinet performs better. Scientific? Of course not. That's the point. You shouldn't call something science that's simply opinion or intuition or "belief" or "feeling." There's nothing wrong with making judgements based on those, but you can't elevate those judgements to the level of scientific fact.
>........even ligatures that
> look remarkably like dog harnesses.
>
And camo, at that!
>
> If we eliminate all of the discussion of equipment here on the
> Board because it is not "measurable," all we'd have left is
> Tony Pay..........sad.
I didn't suggest eliminating the discussion, just maybe being more precise in the language that's used. And that's really all, I think, that someone like Tony asks (since you invoked him), that ideas be thought through and opinion and fact be kept scrupulously separated.
Karl
|
|