Lacquer or Silver?

[4snaver]

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

[MikeMason]

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...

[willbrett]

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?

[NDSPTuba]

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.

[sloan]

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

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

[sloan]

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

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.

[tokuno]

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

[TubaRay]

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."

[MaryAnn]

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.

[Rick Denney]

- It simply isn't 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.

Yes (and now I understand that other thing) and yes. Also: Trumpets are build to have a characteristic edge to the sound on purpose, while too much of that edge is not at all a tuba maker's objective. That edge is high-frequency sibilance, many octaves above any sound a tuba can make when well played.

Rob's experience is TRVTH: Of any given make and model, some are better than others. Independently, some are lacquer and some are silver. Those who only play one of each are subject to drawing the wrong conclusions, even if they play them in a blind test judged by blind listeners.

Rick "thinking silver tubas are brighter, especially after a recent polishing" Denney

[SplatterTone]

Speaking of lack of science: So far, nobody has mentioned the effect of heavy valve buttons which have far more effect than all other considerations. Aren't we forgetting those? I've seen more science in Red Green's duct tape inventions.

Now here's a thought: A speaker system (woofer, tweeter, optional midrange) constructed of six-inch thick concrete will sound more bassy than one made of quarter-inch plywood with the same internal dimenstions. Or one might say the plywood system is brighter .... (but really it's less bassy).

So, is one horn brighter than the other? Or, is one more bassy than the other? Are you getting something, or are you losing something? Who will Paris Hilton's new BFF be? (It won't be me. I had to tell her: Sorry babe, but with Heather Mills available now, I don't have time for you.)

Whatever the case, there is nothing wrong with big, fat, and bassy if that is what you like. Fat, round trumpet tone was in style in the 1940s, and I like it. Bring on that glass-lined, concrete tuba.

[Donn]

Bring on that glass-lined, concrete tuba.

We won't be able to reliably tell the difference, if I'm right. The speaker cone analogy isn't very apt, because the tuba doesn't generate tone, it's just an acoustic chamber for tones generated by the lips.

[sloan]

Yes (and now I understand that other thing) and yes.

Rick (through private communication) helped me recall the word, because his vocabular recall is far superior to mine...

anecdotal

Now you are ready for www.freerice.com

[SplatterTone]

The speaker cone analogy isn't very apt, because the tuba doesn't generate tone, it's just an acoustic chamber for tones generated by the lips.

The speaker cabinet doesn't generate tone either. But the more the wall vibrates, the more bass frequency is converted to heat, and the more bass frequency comes off the vibrating cabinet out of phase with what comes from the speaker cone. Same thing with a tuba. No difference.

The real point I wanted to make was that the only claims I've heard concerning laquer or no laquer were directed entirely at high frequency with no mention of the effects on low frequency. So are the claimers making a scientifically measured claim that there is in fact no effect on low frequency at all? Or are they basing their claims on something they subjectively heard? If the latter, then how does anyone know that what was heard was less bass rather than more treble?

For the record, I am extemely doubtful that there would be a statistically significant difference if there were some way to conduct a double blind test using an absolutely constant sound generating source and a large enough random sample of a model of horn, half or which are lacquered, half or which are not. It would take this kind of test to prove that there is an audible difference.

[kingrob76]

Rick "thinking silver tubas are brighter, especially after a recent polishing" Denney

I keep waiting for someone to put lacquer over silver and then try to figure out what the heck the horn sounds like. And while I'm sure there's a very good technical reason why this is never done, I'm thinking that lacquered silver = pretty with a lot less maintenance. Of course, there's always chrome...

[ASTuba]

Rick "thinking silver tubas are brighter, especially after a recent polishing" Denney

I keep waiting for someone to put lacquer over silver and then try to figure out what the heck the horn sounds like. And while I'm sure there's a very good technical reason why this is never done, I'm thinking that lacquered silver = pretty with a lot less maintenance. Of course, there's always chrome...

Lacquer doesn't like to stick to silver. That's why this is almost never done. The lacquer will wear off very quickly.

[lgb&dtuba]

Lacquer is prone to chipping, cracking and wear just like any other finish. If it's over silver then you'll get tarnish where the lacquer is damaged. Then you'll have to strip the lacquer completely to restore the shine anyway. And that stripping would be more costly and prone to damaging the silver than just keeping it polished properly to begin with.

Just my opinion. All the usual disclaimers apply.

[kctubadude]

I'm also looking to pick up a Thor, so back to the question of a silver Thor vs. a lacquer Thor.
I think there is a bigger variation in these horns than just the finish. (true of every instrument?) Every thor I've played is a little different, regardless of finish, and these differences didn't seem to anything to do with whether they are Silver or Lacquer.

I believe I played these 4 Thor's as well, (Army conference?) as well as others, and I agree with with kingrob76:
[quote="kingrob76"]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.