TubeNet

Im looking into buying a Thor, and was wondering if anyone has played both the lacquer and silver horns side by side, and could give some insight as to how the play differently if they do at all. I have played a lacquer one, and was just wondering if anyone has found any differences. But to open this up just a little more, when dealing with horns in general, do you find a great deal of difference between the lacquer and silve?

Thanks

Its all a matter of which one you think looks better! i know some people will argue. I'd go with silver. I never can tell a difference in the sound between lacquer and silver plate tubas.

This is a subject that used to be regularly debated with never a consensus being reached. The difference in tone is likely to be minimal and is effected more by many other factors, so is largely a matter of personal preference. Only way is to play before you buy and decide.

Silver looks great if you are prepared to regularly polish, but personally I would prefer to be practicing to polishing, so go for lacquer which requires no more than an occasional wipe over with a lacquer cloth.

I recall asking a similiar question to a prominent east coast player when I was looking into the Miraphone 1291 a few years back. I was told it doesn't matter, but this particular person preferred silver due to how quickly his sweat had eaten through lacquer on other tubas.

I just played mine(lac) back to back with a silver one last week.No sonic difference.Lac. is lower maintenance.Silver is more permanent.I believe silver would be better for long term resale value.My current polishing consists of a wet washcloth followed by a dry washcloth.About 5 minutes...

I played both when I purchased mine (silver). Both sounded pretty much the same but, the sliver horn seemed to respond just the slightest bit quicker. Truth is I would have referred the lacquer horn, I hate to clean sliver.

This is the frist time that I have had the opportunity to play both in the same model at the same time. Up until then I would not have believed there to be a difference. When I commented to Rodger that the lacquer horn felt slower, like it was trying to expland (breathe) as air was introduced his explanation was the lacquer coating itself. I don't know, all I can say is for me there was a small but perceptible difference.

As far as the lacquer responding slower than the silver, there are other factors at play. I'm no expert on horn building, but I know I recently had my bell resoldered to the upper bow of my 2165. It turned out that a previous repair had not been completely soldered at the brace as it should. I had Lee do it right, and all the sudden the horn went from handling like a Mac Truck to a sport sedan

I have played both. I preferred the silver hands down. It seemed to have more core to me. It also appeared to play more evenly top to bottom than its lacquer counterpart. I couldn't care less honestly about what its covered in, as long as it sounds great. I personally prefer the look of raw brass.

If shopping INTONATION, I would look for the Thor with the HIGHEST 5th partial and the LOWEST 2nd partial.

Are low 5th partials and high 2nd partials intonation tendancies of the Thor?

CC tubas?

Tubas?

I've played both finishes back to back, in fact, I played 3 silver and 1 lacquer back to back. One of the silver models was the most impressive, followed by the lacquer. The other two silver models were a distant 3rd and 4th IMHO.

I spent significant time on a different lacquer that is STILL the best Thor I have ever played. One of my main criteria for evaluation is how well the horn plays at piano or pianissimo, and how light I it feels in terms of character of sound, not weight of instrument. ALL of the Thor's have the top end in terms of volume and presence of sound, but I tend to like the ones that still sing (to me) when playing delicately.

Copied from:

Schilke Brass Clinic
The Physics of Inner Brass and the Acoustical Effects of
Various Materials and Their Treatment
By Renold O. Schilke


One large point of controversy has always existed between those who prefer a lacquered horn and those who prefer plated horns, either silver or gold, or a third group who prefer their instruments in plain brass without any protective coating whatsoever. Let me give you my findings on the three different finishes of instruments. First, I tried to find myself three instruments that played absolutely identically. One, I silverplated, one I had a very good lacquer job put on and a third I left in brass. Now recall that all three instruments played identically the same in brass, or as close as it is possible to get. I had various players from the Symphony working with me as well as other professional trumpet players in Chicago and they agreed unanimously on the results. The findings were that plating does not affect the playing qualities of brass instruments. That is, the plated instrument and the plain brass instrument played identically. The lacquered instrument, however, seemed to be changed considerably. This instrument, which originally had played the same as the other two, now had a very much impaired tonal quality and the over-all pitch was changed.

To explain these findings as to why the silver and brass instruments played alike and the lacquered instrument did not, let me give you some figures. The silver plating on a brass instrument is only one-half of a thousandth inch thick. In other words .0005 inch. The lacquer that goes on, if it is a good lacquer job, is approximately seven thousandths of an inch thick, or .007 inch. Now to get an idea in your minds as to what these thickness figures represent, an ordinary piece of writing paper is approximately four thousandths of an inch thick so the silver that goes on an instrument is only 1/8 as thick as a piece of writing paper, while the lacquer is almost double the thickness of a piece of writing paper. The silver in itself is very compatible to the brass. The lacquer, if it is a good lacquer and baked on, will be almost as hard as glass and not at all compatible to brass. The lacquer on the bell of an instrument is seven thousandths of an inch thick on the outside and another seven thousandths on the inside which gives you a total thickness of fourteen thousandths or .014 inch. This is already the thickness of the metal of my instruments so the lacquer process would double the bell thickness. As you can see, it is bound to affect the playing quality of the instrument.

You can read the complete Schilke Brass Clinic undated paper here:
http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Brass%20Clinic.html

I believe lacquer is thinner today with electrostatic application.I also believe this effect would be proportionally much less on a tuba than a trpt.YMMV...

MikeMason wrote:

I believe lacquer is thinner today with electrostatic application.

How many years has the electrostatic lacquering process been an industry standard? Any differences between manufacturers, or did they all switch over at nearly the same time?

Walter Lawson did a study measuring the resonance of the different metals that F. Horns are made of and the effect that lacquer had on them. He used scientific measuring devices to measure frequency response on the same bell before and after lacquer. The result was there wasn't any appreciable difference measured.

Is n=1 the accepted standard in brass instrument science?

4snaver wrote:Copied from:

Schilke Brass Clinic
The Physics of Inner Brass and the Acoustical Effects of
Various Materials and Their Treatment
By Renold O. Schilke


One large point of controversy has always existed between those who prefer a lacquered horn and those who prefer plated horns, either silver or gold, or a third group who prefer their instruments in plain brass without any protective coating whatsoever. Let me give you my findings on the three different finishes of instruments. First, I tried to find myself three instruments that played absolutely identically. One, I silverplated, one I had a very good lacquer job put on and a third I left in brass. Now recall that all three instruments played identically the same in brass, or as close as it is possible to get. I had various players from the Symphony working with me as well as other professional trumpet players in Chicago and they agreed unanimously on the results. The findings were that plating does not affect the playing qualities of brass instruments. That is, the plated instrument and the plain brass instrument played identically. The lacquered instrument, however, seemed to be changed considerably. This instrument, which originally had played the same as the other two, now had a very much impaired tonal quality and the over-all pitch was changed.

To explain these findings as to why the silver and brass instruments played alike and the lacquered instrument did not, let me give you some figures. The silver plating on a brass instrument is only one-half of a thousandth inch thick. In other words .0005 inch. The lacquer that goes on, if it is a good lacquer job, is approximately seven thousandths of an inch thick, or .007 inch. Now to get an idea in your minds as to what these thickness figures represent, an ordinary piece of writing paper is approximately four thousandths of an inch thick so the silver that goes on an instrument is only 1/8 as thick as a piece of writing paper, while the lacquer is almost double the thickness of a piece of writing paper. The silver in itself is very compatible to the brass. The lacquer, if it is a good lacquer and baked on, will be almost as hard as glass and not at all compatible to brass. The lacquer on the bell of an instrument is seven thousandths of an inch thick on the outside and another seven thousandths on the inside which gives you a total thickness of fourteen thousandths or .014 inch. This is already the thickness of the metal of my instruments so the lacquer process would double the bell thickness. As you can see, it is bound to affect the playing quality of the instrument.

You can read the complete Schilke Brass Clinic undated paper here:
http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Brass%20Clinic.html

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

bloke wrote:

4snaver wrote:Schilke's thing

Thanks for bringing that out again. There are a few problems with it.

- It simply isn't scientific. My morning mind doesn't have grasp of my full vocabulary, but there is a word that describes the polling of a random or small group of evaluations rather than those that are scientific.
- He's discussing instruments that are two geometric sizes smaller than tubas that are known in the industry to be manufactured of extraordinarily thin-walled material.

sloan wrote:Is n=1 the accepted standard in brass instrument science?

Sure, as long as it's my horn and I'm the 1

and as we all know, n=1 + Internet = categorical

bloke wrote:there is a word that describes the polling of a random or small group of evaluations rather than those that are scientific.

I believe the word is, "unscientific." Many others would agree with your word(above): "random."

NDSPTuba wrote:Walter Lawson did a study measuring the resonance of the different metals that F. Horns are made of and the effect that lacquer had on them. He used scientific measuring devices to measure frequency response on the same bell before and after lacquer. The result was there wasn't any appreciable difference measured.

Um...disagree on some minor details. What I remember from Walter Lawson's study (which I have posted about before when this topic came up) was that the horn, after it was lacquered, lost ~5% of the high frequencies in the tone. On a horn, this is a slight difference in right hand position, but on a tuba, unless you have an unusual anatomy, you won't have your hand in the bell. I believe what Walter did was to test the same horn both pre-and post-lacquering, but he still had to test it with a real player, which could also affect the results.

That said, individual differences between theoretically identical instruments out of the factory, are generally much larger than the difference due to being silver plated, left alone, or lacquered.

MA, who uses a Lawson lacquered ambronze bell on her E. Schmid unlacquered horn, an it made one whale of a difference.