Schilke's raw brass/silver/lacquer study

[blanchard]

http://scottmusicservices.punxypa.com/unlacquered.html

Found in the link above (although many of you are probably already aware of it), Shilke apparently did an experiment that claim that raw brass or silver plated horns play the same and lacquer horns sound worse. I can't seem to find any specifics on how he went about doing this. My willingness to consider it a conclusive argument depends on many factors:

1. Did the symphony players do a blind playing test or did he just hand them the horns and ask which is best? The latter is prone to bias, while the former would be most accurate.

2. What was the criteria for the tone, and what did the lacquer trumpet do specifically to have "impaired tonal qualities"? Did he use a spectrometer to show variations on overtone strengths and determine which tones were bright or dark, full or thin, etc.?

3. What was used to verify that the "overall pitch" was changed on the lacquered horn? Did he test play them all with a tuner before plating and note where the slides were, then retest the finished horns with the same mouthpiece and slide position? Does that mean the individual notes were off, or was the trumpet just a little sharper or flatter on all notes?

I'm not saying he's wrong. I'd just like to know how scientific his experiment really was.[/url]
_________________
"Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want... Sooner or later, these kids aren't going to have anything to read or write about. "

[delano]

Maybe this seems to be a little childish but it is "Schilke", not "Shilke".
I see that mistake quite often and that's a little bit an insult for such a holy instrument.

[VetPsychWars]

While I can't attest to the accuracy of the test or the results, I would like to point out that it was likely done before modern baked epoxy lacquer was available. Thicker nitrocellulose lacquers likely have different properties than the modern stuff, which goes on a LOT thinner.

Tom
_________________


Buescher Lightweight 400
Other Buescher horns 1939--1955
Buescher Duo-Cup 88-E mouthpiece
Humes and Berg mutes
http://mmccband.org

[Dale Proctor]

I'd play a horn with whatever finish pleases your aesthetic tastes. The effect of any modern finish (or lack of) on the playing attributes of a horn are insignificant.
_________________
Olde Towne Brass
www.otbrass.com

Brass Band of Huntsville
www.brassbandofhuntsville.com

"Brass bands are all very well in their place - outdoors and several miles away ." - Sir Thomas Beecham

[jvand678]

From what I've read, I can't figure out how controlled the process is either. It would of course be near impossible to find three raw brass instruments that played identically, then send one off and have it lacquered and have the other plated and try again. In addition to the trouble of finding the three horns, you have to also have the exact same prep process and there is of course human error that could occur in the buffing/prep process.

I found Thomas Lubitz's explanation to be a little more consistent with my own experiences. He talks more in terms of highs and tonal spectrum and what each plating tends to do.

http://pt.yamaha.com/pt/products/musical-instruments/winds/trumpets/bb-trumpets/custom/ytr-8335la/?mode=model

They start talking sound and vocabulary at around 620 and get to finish within a couple of minutes.

JV
_________________
Joe Vandiver

[Christian K. Peters]

Hello Blanchard,
The answer you want is found on page 9 of The Schilke Brass Clinic treatise that Renold wrote. The complete title is "The Physics of Inner Brass and the Acoustical Effects of Various Materials and their Treatment." I picked up a reproduction copy years ago and I can't find any date on the booklet what-so-ever..
He states that after finding three identically playing instruments, he silver plates one, lacquers one and leaves the other in raw brass. He had various players in Chicago at the time play the horns, and he states that all were in agreement that the raw brass and that the silver plated horns retained the same qualities. The silver plate goes on at .0005". The good, baked on lacquer goes on at .007", one side, with a claim of .014" added to the bell on top of the bell thickness. He also states that the silver is compatible with the brass and that the lacquer is not compatible with the brass, thus effecting the quality of the sound.
Certainly the different manufactures will have different bell thicknesses to begin with, so these findings are based on his own instruments of the time. As I think about what I read on a preceding page, he cites a bell he made for Faddis that was .003" thick. That may be a good indication of date of publication.
_________________
Christian K. Peters
Schilke Player
Oregon Brass Society
Central Lutheran Brass Quintet

[Bill Blackwell]

[Dale Proctor]

Hey, I had the bell on my Conn 5A double copper plated inside and out, and then had it lacquered on top of that. I mean, it must be gettin' close to an inch thick , and I can't tell any difference in how it plays, from before and after. I know I'm somewhat of a hack, but really...
_________________
Olde Towne Brass
www.otbrass.com

Brass Band of Huntsville
www.brassbandofhuntsville.com

"Brass bands are all very well in their place - outdoors and several miles away ." - Sir Thomas Beecham

[DavesTrumpet]

[Craig Swartz]

Christian saved me the work of digging out some old materials I have in a file somewhere. I got this same story from Ren himself when I visited the old shop and bought my first trumpet in 1969, so the treatise certainly predated that by perhaps a decade.

Ren was an acoustician and while I cannot vouch for his testing or comparison, I'm certain they involved electronic evaluation on machinery that was available at the time. This is to say that the human ear may or may not have played a part in the results, but it seemed clear to him that silver plate was far superior in every manner than any type of lacquer finish for overall tone production. The "raw brass" craze came much, much later than this hypothesis. As for the "raw" brass part, I've also been led to believe that unbuffed brass (truly in the raw) is superior to brass that has been buffed out and finished, then stripped. Thoughts?

[Dan O'Donnell]

I can POSSIBLY believe .007 thick lacquer being applied therefore, on a diameter (Bell) it would add a total .014 to the diameter, however, coating a Trumpet with .014 lacquer (with good cosmetic features) is VERY questionable at best.

IF the process consisted of...

Apply thin coating...allow to dry (if air dried lacquer was used as in many cases)...re-apply another thin coating...repeat etc.

then maybe, just maybe...it is doable however spraying a .014 coating at one time would create a significant amount of "runs" and "drips" let alone a cloudy appearance.

As for the .003 thick bell...it would litterally be the thickness of a piece of paper or in other words 1 1/2 times the thicknesss of a human hair...this too is very questionable.

Even if properly executed; I can only assume a significant amount of scrap bells created during the manufactruing and handling process.

In general, some of the "claims" in this thread reminds me of other claims that have been on TH such as...

"They use (1) ounce of Gold when the electro-plate a Trumpet."

or even better...

"After I remove the tarnish from my raw Brass Trumpet I can hear a difference in the sound."

I do agree that there are so many variables that effect the overall thickness of a Trumpet that it is difficult to consistently maintain a minimal amount of variation.

Buffing removes material at different amounts on different areas of the Trumpet depending on the different shapes of the areas being buffed, the amount of pressure used on the buff wheel or hand "swabbing" etc., the amount of cutting or buffing compound / rouge, the type (harness) and wear of the cutting and/or color buffing wheels etc. etc. etc.

Laquering variables include distance of the spray gun to the specific features of the Trumpet, spray gun settings, type of lacquer etc. etc. etc.

At the end of the day, I myself can't tell the difference in either sound nor playability of a Raw Brass, Silver, Gold or Lacquered Trumpet.

Maybe I am not a good enough player???

Just my $0.02
_________________
God Bless,
Dan O'Donnell

"Praise Him with the sound of the Trumpet:..."
Psalms 150:3

[jadickson]

[crzytptman]

I think you'd want to test the 3 horns raw among some discerning players, and record their comments and listener observations over several days. Of course, the horns would have PVA, and the players have the opportunity to adjust the gap for each horn each time. Then you apply the finishes, and repeat the process.
_________________
Crazy Nate aka Jive-a-licious
www.themodernancients.com
www.flipoakes.com
Strive to have a great day, full of learning and enlightenment, using the mind that God gave you.
"Am I really crazy, or just so sane I blow your mind?" - Cosmo Kramer

[musicalmason1]

Alright, I forwarded this thread to the Mythbusters. It would be funny to watch a bunch of non-musicians try to hash this one out. And as for my personal opinion: I think the minute differences in multiple horns, even of the same make and model will always have a bigger affect on a horn than the finish applied, making it nearly impossible to decide. Even for a horn to start raw, and then be plated or lacquered...in order to get any kind of quality result there would have to be some level of buffing and prep work involved. Again, in my opinion, that would affect the horn more than the finish to come. I guess I'll have to let Adam and Jamie figure this out for sure.

[cjl]

[yourbrass]

In my experience in rebuilding horns, I've found, through listening and playing, that raw brass has a more diffused tonal sound and silver more focussed, or brighter. And it is the same horn, before plating, and after.

Lacquer weighs almost nothing, and is holding the polish of the metal beneath it. I've played really bright lacquered horns. Silver adds a small but significant weight to an instrument, sorry I don't have the figure I've measured to give to the discussion.

Scientific? No way, just my ears and experience.

[blanchard]

[etc-etc]

[blanchard]