How are jaw harps a thing? How do they work and make sound with no electricity despite sounding very electronic and techno? All good questions as it is always a good day to jaw harp. Harp on, harp out, harp often.
I meant to comment earlier to ask you about the effect of “deck length” on the sound. For instance, if you had 2 harps with the same length reed, how does the length of the gapped area affect the sound? I don’t wanna hear from that other guy. He sounds like a jerk and didn’t offer any other explanation of his own. I guess he wrote papers.
This was an absolutely solid explanation, friend; knock off the negativity. The mouth cavity makes the vibration of the tongue louder, AKA amplifies it. Instead of simply crapping on someone who has done so much for the harp community, how about being constructive and politely adding to the discussion?
@@JustSomeGuy153 pull the tongue out of frame, fix in vice in front of tin can "amplifier" and record on video. I've been polite since around 2011 on topic but people tend to distribute bullshit instead of looking for knowledge.
@@vibeforge I'm not going to destroy one of my harps (seriously, get outta here with that), though if you have a link to a vid of someone (perhaps yourself with one of your own harps?) doing this, I'll be happy to watch. But yeah, I suspect that you're correct in the sense that if you break an instrument and try playing one of the pieces, it mysteriously won't work. Have you tried ripping the pickups out of an electric guitar? If you then plug it into your amp and try playing, it conclusively proves that guitar amps don't actually amplify anything 😂
@@JustSomeGuy153 try "Investigation of the sound-producing mechanism of the jew's harp" by C.J.Adkins of 1972 if you want to start studying how does a Jaw Harp work. Not with this bullshit explanation and especially with guitars.
@@vibeforge Sure, I'll give it a read! On the other hand, my point on the guitar stands: your nonsensical "test" involves literally destroying the instrument to somehow prove your point. Resonance chambers = amplification, plain and simple; maybe something is lost in translation, I'd be willing to grant you that. As it stands, you're just dropping in here and being needlessly rude; learn some manners, lighten up, and I'd be happy to have an actual discussion on the subject. For now, your abject negativity, nonsensical "test," and channel filled mostly with reposts of other people's content give you zero credibility. We're done here; have a great weekend! Edit: Still searching for Adkins' full text (seems thoroughly paywalled), but I did just read "Jaw Harp: An Acoustic Study," by Simon Li, published in 2015 from the University of Illinois: courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/sp2017/Student_Projects/Spring15/Simon_Li_Physics_406_Final_Report_Sp15.pdf Adkins' conclusions are summarized and built upon, the study further states that, "... it is proven that the airflow produced by [the] tongue causes the resonance within the mouth cavity..." while accepting that the full mechanism is more complex and warrants further study. Your assertion seems to be a gross and incorrect oversimplification of the physics, bordering on pedantry.
