Thanks for taking the time to have a gander - I am by no means staying this is the gold standard, cast iron best research out there, but it was more to illustrate the point made before that there will be research out there, I take on board the sample size debate.
The quality of the journals, impact rating etc. If I did a massive deep dive I could potentially weed things out, but from a scientific background and the potential integrity of researchers, addressing short comings as opposed to glossing over Them is a good thing.
There is some work out of the University of Lancaster Looking at backs of acoustic guitars, in particular Brazilian Rosewood as that is endangered and I suppose whether we need to use it and what difference there is.
The thermal treatment paper is looking at work out of Finland and also there is work in Germany, but that may not have English translation, but it doesn’t mean it’s not good.
If all studies no matter what the quality and sample size point to some difference in the woods, then as a trend that is surely the case? As a general point of course.
I suppose the point is, there will be scientific work out there, it depends entirely on how fervently you disagree and want to solidify your point there is no difference. This will lead to a search for evidence to evaluate.
But there are questions here which should not be mixed up.
Is there a difference?
Is it perceivable?
How can the differences be used to our advantage?
Does it make a difference and in what setting?
If any of those bring a yes - then there is a difference, being pedantic or not, there just is, and it can be applied in or across species