Raw brass etc.

[LoyalTubist]

It doesn't do anything because most tubas already have no lacquer where it really matters, inside the bell.

[iiipopes]

Through normal wear, abnormal wear, scuffs, dents and repairs, periodic servicing, the lacquer will go soon enough.

[windshieldbug]

I stripped the lacquer off of my main symphony tuba, intuitively presuming what Mr. Schilke concluded. Far wiser people on this board have maintained that the material, thickness, etc. makes no difference, only the design. I am untrained in acoustics, but I believed that I could tell the difference. As to if the audiences could ever tell, I have no idea, but I'll settle for a psychological edge, if that's all it was!

[iiipopes]

Mine is somewhat unlacquered by accumulation of age situations mentioned above. As a matter of fact, it looks like hell. It even has spots worn through the rim where it was improperly stored on its bell, and so many hastily worked out dents that the bows look like they were hammer peened finished instead. Do these "character marks" make it play better? Probably not. Does it play well? Yes, almost perfectly in tune regardless, and only stuffy on one or two notes. Am I going to touch it besides playing and routine and necessary maintence? For $401, not on your life!

[Rick Denney]

I stripped the lacquer off of my main symphony tuba, intuitively presuming what Mr. Schilke concluded. Far wiser people on this board have maintained that the material, thickness, etc. makes no difference, only the design. I am untrained in acoustics, but I believed that I could tell the difference. As to if the audiences could ever tell, I have no idea, but I'll settle for a psychological edge, if that's all it was!

Good answer.

As Crash said in Bull Durham, "Don't f* with a streak." Playing tuba is a mental activity, and if you think it makes a difference, it does.

I have always claimed that the resonance of the brass is a very tiny part of tuba sound, because those resonances are mighty high in relation to the loudest frequencies in the sound. That may not be true for trumpets, or even trombones, so extrapolation is dangerous.

And the presence of lacquer would have only a very tiny effect on the resonance of the brass. The bigger the instrument, the smaller the effect because of the ratio of the surface area to the thickness.

Thus, we are dealing with a tiny influence on a tiny influence. I daresay most will only hear that difference if they are persuaded the difference is there, which can easily be a self-fulfillling expectation. The experiment would be might difficult to conduct, given the general differences between even "identical" instruments.

I would never remove good lacquer from a tuba. Nor would I go to much effort to put new lacquer on a raw brass tuba. I like the looks of silver, even though I don't own a silver tuba. I don't like the looks of ratty lacquer, even though I have several examples of it in my collection.

Rick "not a fan of green fingers, either" Denney

[Art Hovey]

The nice thing about raw brass is that you don't hesitate to get out the torch and change whatever needs changing. With a little buffing the repair or modifications always look better than before. You can end up with a tuba that fits you like an old shoe, and that beats a pretty but uncomfortable instrument (or shoe) in my book.

[Chuck(G)]

This brings up an interesting point, not having to do with tone changes, namely appearance. And specifically, high- and middle-school instruments used in concert band.

Why do band directors insist that each instrument be buffed to a jewel finish and then lacquered, when they know darned well that the same horn will be back in for major dent work in two or three years?

I've seen old Miraphone BBb tubas and Elkhart Conn 8D horns that have had to be trashed because they've been buffed too many times and the metal is now paper-thin.

Why not just lightly buff and optionally lacquer? Or better yet, paint on some of that stuf that Dan Schultz is testing?

I guess I can see that marching band instruments should gleam, to go with the white gloves and uniforms. But not concert band. I can also see why the music stores whose repair shop is doing the work might not mind--it just means a sale sooner than later down the line.

[pulseczar]

maybe because students are psycologically affected by the shiny instruments, like a shiny instrument plays better than a dull instrument.

[TubaRay]

maybe because students are psycologically affected by the shiny instruments, like a shiny instrument plays better than a dull instrument.

And they are. Like it or not.

[Chuck(G)]

maybe because students are psycologically affected by the shiny instruments, like a shiny instrument plays better than a dull instrument.

And they are. Like it or not.

So paint the darned thing with some brightly colored, but opaque lacquer. At least you won't need to buff the dickens out of the underlying metal. The price of an overhaul may also decrease.

[windshieldbug]

maybe because students are psycologically affected by the shiny instruments, like a shiny instrument plays better than a dull instrument.

Maybe because instruments are psycologically affected by the shiny students, like a shiny student plays better than a dull student.

[Dan Schultz]

they also think that a student will take care of an instrument better if it's in good condition when he or she gets it. If it already looks junky, they will treat it like junk.

One of the local middle schools that I do repair work for tries to keep their horns in good condition... mainly so when they issue a horn to a student and it is returned in bad shape, the school can hold the student responsible. It's not necessary to buff a horn to smithereens to make it look good. Buffing removes very little metal. It's the shortcut sanding that takes it's toll.

[XtremeEuph]

they also think that a student will take care of an instrument better if it's in good condition when he or she gets it. If it already looks junky, they will treat it like junk.

One of the local middle schools that I do repair work for tries to keep their horns in good condition... mainly so when they issue a horn to a student and it is returned in bad shape, the school can hold the student responsible. It's not necessary to buff a horn to smithereens to make it look good. Buffing removes very little metal. It's the shortcut sanding that takes it's toll.

Thats what happened with my old school horn, except it was previously treated like junk and kinda looked it so I didnt take very good care of it either, as long as it was working


And to your comment, do you know how MUCH buffing removes? ......how long would it take to start wearing away the horn lol.

[Chuck(G)]

Buffing removes very little metal. It's the shortcut sanding that takes it's toll.

Depends on who's doing the work, Dan. I've seen a nickel-plated (not a St. Pete, but a well-plated older horn) go in for repair and seen the nickel buffed right off of it . Who knows, maybe the shop starts with a sisal wheel charged with emery...

[DaTubaKid]

The real question is does a cheese-plated tuba sound better than a silver-plated tuba?

[windshieldbug]

The real question is does a cheese-plated tuba sound better than a silver-plated tuba?

Depends on who's doing the grating!

[prototypedenNIS]

I've noticed birghter with an unlacquered bell...

for how noticeable, that would rely partially on how thick the lacquer was in the first place. On my (at the time) Yamaha 354 tbone, it was lacquered thick and I noticed a much livelier and brighter horn.

[MaryAnn]

Coupla things from the horn world.

Walter Lawson, who makes custom horns, did an experiment with lacquer vs no lacquer. He measured the frequency output of an unlacquered horn and then lacquered it and measured the frequency output. It was missing 5% of the high frequencies post-lacquer.

Brain Holmes, professor of cryogenic physics at San Jose State (or someother U around there) is a fine horn player who gives physics of brass instrument lectures at horn workshops. He says that the shape of the air column determines the characteristic sound of the instrument. That is, a concrete flute, if the inside is shaped the same as the inside of a gold flute, will sound the same given the same input.

Now, the truth has to be in there somewhere. Many of us have noticed that a less dense instrument responds more easily than a more dense instrument; whether it sounds the same....we wouldn't be able to tell, because you'd have to put a hellava thick coat of whatever on the outside of it to make it noticibly more dense (heavier metal simulation) enough to affect the response.

I think the more difficult variable is what would be done to buzz into the instrument, that would be a constant; even the same person blowing the same notes on two different days (gotta give the lacquer time to dry) would be a variable; the buzzer would go for his characteristic tone without conscious intention.

I'm thinking it doesn't make much difference, no matter how much we like to talk about it. I bought my horn based on ....you guessed it, ergonomics, and ease of playing it. I figured I could fix the tone if I didn't like it. Which I didn't, and I fixed it with a new, heavier bell.

MA

[iiipopes]

And then there's the pipe organ made out of marble:
http://www.blackiris.com/organs/iof/iof9.htm

[tofu]

The real question is does a cheese-plated tuba sound better than a silver-plated tuba?

Depends on who's doing the grating!

But do you go raw with your cheesey tuba (let the mold grow till it turns green) or do you lacquer it to preserve the cheese!