Sound Difference-Raw-Lacquer or Silver

[timothy42b]

I can't hear a difference.

If there is one, it is small and would disappear in most acoustic environments.

There is considerable horn to horn variation even in identical model numbers. I believe that horn to horn variation is much larger than any variation caused by finish or even alloy choice.

For all but top pro's (and maybe even them) the player's day to day variation is probably an order of magnitude larger than that.

I don't know any way to predict how a horn plays by how it looks - you have to play each one to find out.

[timothy42b]

I'm wondering if - given the rare luxury of a choice of similar instruments - I've tended to pick lacquered brass because [1] there are always the most of those, and [2] that makes it more likely the the best of a batch of a combination of lacquer/silver/gold-brass versions will be lacquered brass.

I suspect this is objectively true, the best will be lacquered just because of the law of averages.

I suspect that subjectively a lot of players might let their expectations get in the way of objectivity.

[EMC]

Very thick Lacquer will have a deadening effect on the resonance of an instrument, however that thickness of lacquer is usually only found on very old instruments, otherwise I think the thickness of the brass itself is a much bigger contributing factor on resonance and response of a horn. I think different finishes can possibly affect the way a horn gives the player feedback, but as for sheer sound difference, if there is any, it's negligible.

[skyguy]

A few quick thoughts:
Any perceived difference in tone from the finish of an instrument would be due to a change in the spectrum of overtones above the fundamental note emitted.

Two properties of the finish are most likely to change audible resonant properties the most:
Mass of the finish element or lacquer
Thickness (consequently changing overall mass of finish)

It would be interesting to create an acoustically 'dead' (damped) room to record the sound spectrum of a horn with original finish, stripped finish, and a new/different finish to analyze the data. A more controlled study could be conducted by vibrating a specific size/shape/thickness sheets of a choice alloy and recording the spectrum of sound emitted. Next, lacquer them, plate them with gold/nickel/silver, etc. The problem with that experiment is that the primary overtones can be easily predicted on a two-dimensional plate of metal. Here is a visual representation of such... https://youtu.be/wvJAgrUBF4w" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank Tubas are complex 3D objects for this type of analysis and, in fact, is the reason for the strong overtones we hear. Each body segment between attachment points could be thought of as a partially constrained mass with it's own resonant properties.

More fun experiments in my head:
Constrain the masses further by soldering additional mounts
Release the masses by removing all soldered mounts
Does a tuba sound different of you are not holding it and it is not sitting on anything? i.e. floating in space...

I know many tuba players swear by mouthpieces with adjustable mass. Changing the mass at the mouthpiece or leadpipe decreases the vibrational energy lost in the leadpipe area. The energy is not lost but transmitted into the rest of the body. Has anyone tried fitting an iron or lead ring to the outside of their bell?

My thoughts are straying from the topic now. To summarize, it will be difficult to quantify how a finish will influence the sound of a tuba and each tuba is an individual case to consider with differing alloys and construction. The scientist in me wants to experiment while my practical side says to pick your favorite finish by appearance. My favorite finish is satin silver.

-Kevin

[MaryAnn]

I did actually put quite a bit of lead tape (golfers use it) on a horn bell that sounded....tinny. First a garland, then strips that made it look like a watermelon. Very expensive horn, too. (the original owner sold the horn because she "couldn't get used to it.") The lead tape didn't do squat; the bell was very light, and was the same unlacquered good brass as the horn. Then I put a Lawson ambronze bell on the horn; it was considerably heavier than the other bell, and the horn went from tinny to a weapon of mass destruction. The notes slotted better, the sound was marvelous, and I had to be careful to not drown out the section. So....take from that what you want. I still have the tinny little bell with the lead tape on it, and wonder if anyone can get a wonderful sound out of that horn with that bell on it. If they could, I'd give them that bell really really cheap.
That experience, BTW, is how I came up with my "ideal weight for a horn" theory. I bought that Lawson bell from a guy who had it made for his new triple because one of that same kind of bell had had such an astronomical improvement on his double. It didn't work, I got the bell, and I'm happy about that. So...the triple is heavier, the heavy bell didn't make it better; the double is very light, the lighter tinny bell was not heavy enough, and the heavy bell did what it did.