Sound Difference-Raw-Lacquer or Silver

[MackBrass]

I speak to customers and band directors every day and a frequent question comes up regarding the difference in sound between lacquer and silver finishes. Many claim they hear a difference between silver and lacquer or they have heard others make this claim. Personally I have never heard a difference between raw-lacquered or a silver finish on a tuba. The only time I have heard a distinct difference is when you actually play a horn with a gold brass bell. This makes me believe that there is just not enough of silver or lacquer on a horn to actually make a change in the sound. The gold brass bell on the other hand does change the sound and that is due to an actual change in the metal itself.

When I was younger I would strip horns thinking this would make a change and being that I liked the look i subconsciously made myself think it sounded better, it really didn't though.

Can anyone offer opinions to what they think if there is a difference and if so why? Personally I have compared hundreds of tubas over the years and will say there is no change in the sound at all unless you change the metal itself.

[Three Valves]

I thought "gold brass" was just a finish as well.

What makes it "different??"

[bort]

The problem is that there is NO way to do a direct A-B comparison of the same horn with different finishes. There can be a lot of variation in the instruments, and very small differences can make noticeable changes. Changing the finish changes other things as well.

One story (myth?) with older Miraphones was that the silver ones were available by special order only. Because of the extra work and expense to have it silver plated, they would pick the best of the production batch to be silver plated. Is that true? Did it happen consistently, only once, not at all? Who knows.

For a new tuba, I think you should just buy what you like. For a used tuba, you just get what you get.

And yes, gold brass is a completely different story. (And you can even have silver-plated gold brass!)

[bort]

I thought "gold brass" was just a finish as well.

What makes it "different??"

The alloy of "gold brass" has more copper than "yellow brass."

[PaulMaybery]

Psycho-acoustics: I do recall one individual in the actual tuba manufacturing industry referring to all of this as "psycho- acoustics." (that is certain variations in the construction of the horn) It is interesting, in that to a certain respect, how we play is indeed based on a mental image of our sound. Therefore, with regard to this theory, if a tuba has a certain look that encourages a player to construct his sound a certain way, then yes it makes a difference. But that difference is all about the approach the player has and puts through the horn not the actual physical qualities of the instrument.

I think much of this has to do with the romance of the CSO York copies, in that players who want to sound like AJ, figure that a horn that appears, looks and feels, like his will some how catapult them into that sphere of sounding like that certain CSO tuba player.

Speaking for myself, I do have very specific mental images of what I want to sound like, and yes much of that (for me) comes from emulating a player that I have admired. But I am also a person that usually learns by watching and then imitating. Actually at this point in my career, I can pretty much synthesize those elements and pull it off on my own, but that is due to a large repository of images that I have already stored away. (me thinks that is referred to as experience) Others, learn and execute differently. Some continually perform from their own instincts rather than from gathered information.

So if the finish of a tuba has an effect on how you play, and it is what you want, Great!!! Listen to your inner self. Eventually that is where your sound will be generated. You may want a tuba that looks very distinctive, and you make some mods, again Great. That is part of who we are, trying to construct a personal identity.

Many years ago, I believed that trombones and tubas responded better without lacquer. This was particularly the case with the old Conn "Luster" finish, which was very thick and durable. You could actually do some light soldering on it without it blistering. But did it affect the sound, or just the feel from behind the bell? Good question.

[Matt Walters]

Today's silver plating is so thin it responds and sounds like a raw brass horn. The ONLY way silver plating the exact same horn would improve it, is if the silver plating on the inside of the horn (as the horns are dipped) created tighter tolerances inside the valves, tubing, and temporarily better sealed solder joints that weren't soldered well enough. Of course you would be making the brass thinner by polishing it before sending it out to silver plate so could you ever make an exact comparison?
When comparing a silver horn, against a lacquer horn, against a raw brass horn......you are comparing different horns, NOT just the finish. As Gerhard Meinl once said, "If you knew what the inside of a horn looked like, you'd realize the silver versus lacquer is a stupid question."

[tclements]

I have always wondered about this. Over my career, I have always purchased the instrument that most closely creates the sound & presence for which I was looking. GENERALLY, the sound I was after came from raw brass instruments, starting from my old 184-5U CC Mirafone. When I played Mirafones exclusively, it was very difficult to acquire one raw brass, but had to have the lacquer stripped off. In some cases this changed the playing characteristics of the instrument to such an extent, that the change of sound was not worth the effort of stripping the brass. Then, as most of the Hirsbrunners imported were silver, I played silver instruments. Again, purchasing the instruments for their SOUND, rather than their appearance. When I started importing Gronitz', I found myself in the interesting position of being able to compare the exact same model in 3 finishes: silver, lacquer and raw brass. Based on my extremely limited sample size (although I tried this on all Gronitz F and CC models), my conclusion was this: The main difference between finishes was the difference in SAMPLES, rather than in finish. So I ask this: ESPECIALLY with the new crop of hand made tubas, IS it the finish, or the discrepancy in samples?

[Donn]

Even if you hear a difference, you have to consider that you're right next to the bell and on the wrong side of it.

semi-tangent topic: There is one manufacturer that boasts "special ____ brass", which I believe to - in reality - be bronze (copper-and-tin - not copper-and-zinc).

Conversely, some people who should be pretty well informed have claimed that a certain instrument manufacturer's "bronze" is really 90/10 brass.

[marccromme]

The proof is in the pudding. I never stripped the silver plating from an instrument, but I did strip laquer from some trombone bells.

The difference is in the thickness of the laquer. Stripping very thin Bach cellolouse lacquer makes no difference.

Stripping thick Yamaha epoxy lacquer from trombone bells makes quite some difference: the bell becomes more responsiveness, at bit brighter in tonal color, and somehow more metallic/brassy in ffff.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your preferences and intended use of the instrument.

[Donn]

How many holey HB leadpipes have you seen...? I bet a bunch...

But ... haven't practically all tuba leadpipes for the last century been yellow brass? Conn, Holton, etc? Is my 75 year old Holton just lucky, or is it really the common case, and there's more to the HB problem? (if HB does have that problem.)

Some of us remember an American manufacturer of trombones and trumpets that represented some of their bells as "red bells".

They were pure copper, as are (obvious, from their color) some of the Asian mouthpipe tubes.

Mostly copper, no doubt, but pure? Reynolds bass trombone copper was mostly sold as Bronz-o-lyte, though obviously different from the Bronz-o-lyte bells on their other instruments. It's as coppery as could be, but ... I don't know if I'd be able to see 3% tin, for example. I suppose it comes down to what would be available at reasonable cost. Conn's Coprion likewise, and that Chinese cupro-nickel.

[largobone]

The only differences I've noticed between raw brass vs. lacquer vs. silver plate vs. (what the hell) plastic is in response. For me,
Raw Brass-blows easier, partials lock in easier, and I don't feel as stifled when contrasting dynamics, however can get blatty
Silver-sounds and blows very pure (ie. less fuzz to me, very easy and direct), and the tone is much clearer, almost punchier on certain horns
Lacquer-feels/sounds warmer in my ear, doesn't respond as well, but hardest to overblow, also blends easiest in a section

Overall, I seem to be a silver guy, everything just seems to "lock in" on those horns, but maybe it's the instrument itself rather than the finish.

FWIW I play:
Trombone-lacquer Yamaha 882O, silver King 2B, lacquer King Duo Gravis, lacquer Wessex alto
Euph-silver Boosey Class A, silver Yamaha 301MS
Tuba-lacquer King 2341, mostly raw brass Olds O95, lacquer Conn 2259
Trumpet-silver King Liberty

[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.