Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by Dr.Mark, Jul 3, 2013.
I just read through this whole thing for the first time. I'm glad I play cornet most of the time...
You do not know what (new) pleasure you deprive yourself!
Results are now on page
I see very little that is objective about this experiment. I tested two of the horns listed (Olds Studio and Super) with no indication that there is any substance to the theory yet you've listed them above. You're counting only the results that support the idea.
And now it must be true, because "it's on the internet". A pseudo experiment published as pseudo science. Really quite sad.
That guy(?) needs to have that funny-shaped growth removed from his neck. It appears that he's sawing on it with something, but he should probably see a doctor about it.
uhm -- YEAH, of course we would only count results that support the idea ---- that is the whole premise of the thread ---- "a POSSIBLE NEW WAY TO TUNE THE TRUMPET" --
right now -- Dr. Mark is developing a theory (by the way for those not familiar with theories or a hypothesis (they are educated guesses as to what you suppose might be true) --- then comes some experimentation under controlled labratory conditions, if the theory (by statistical analysis has some validity) then we can take that information, and try some random experimentation under normal conditions. SINCE we skipped the scientific experimentation in the lab, I think PRIMARILY -- Dr. Mark is trying to develop a baseline to see if there is in fact any validity to support his hypothesis.
((I mean Dr. Mark can speak for himself --- but I just love all the hypercritical remarks as to why this wont work, or it has no validity -- when the original IDEA was, perhaps this is a possible new way to tune)) ----- but then ole KT here realizes that half of the critics flunked out of science class, and tried to become musicians , and the other half of the critics just weren't science majors in the first place. ((of course that is only a hypothesis of mine, and so far, I do not have any practical experimentation that could prove that theory ------------ well of course if you critics want to send me your Science and Math scores from your formative years in high school ----- then perhaps we could go on that ---------------- ))
So I tried this on three trumpets, all with negative results, using a tuner instead of "earring it"
2012 Yamaha 8310Z - not even close, off by a factor of 10x Hz using my tuner.
1959 Committee Deluxe - in ballpark but not possible to match.
50's-60's Getzen 90 Deluxe - not even close either.
I did note that the test as described (no tuner, ear it) is a bit more subjective than using a tuner with freq. output. I retried without tuner just earring it and got same results.
And being a scientist, I do agree with the above poster that you can't just report successes.
wow -- good thing this is not a forum where we debate SCIENCE -- and where a great deal of "science" has reported positive results or validity of a "theory" when they have no scientific basis, or no experimental evidence to support that!!!!! ---- but yes I agree with you MotteatOJ, that science sometimes validates theories that are not true -- but then again, grant money flows to successful reports!!!!
Yes, sadly money does flow to crappy data, that's why it's a pet peeve of mine.
It ain't worth doing if it ain't worth doing right.
ok -- cool, at least we agree ---- but Yes, if you found the "new way to tune the instrument"- didn't work - and you reported that ---- that's all anyone asks!! --have a great day, play and be happy!!!!