Saxophones A Test - How Lacquer Affects Sound

I’ve never quite understood why we should rely so heavily on a single factor like lacquer material or color, when the sound production of a saxophone is far more complex, and the variation between two instruments of the same model is undeniably noticeable.

For me, if:
-a saxophone is fully serviced
-small details and personal adjustments are made according to the player’s preferences
-a compatible mouthpiece and reed combination is found that truly helps the player achieve the sound they have in mind
-and the player has the experience to properly evaluate all of this

then the lacquer factor becomes so insignificant that it relates more to aesthetics than to sound.
You forget that people need something to brag about.

And I challenge you right now to prove me wrong if I tell you that a reed dipped in blue ink is the perfect recipe for playing the blues! Nothing else really gets you there!
 
Exactly. That's my point really. There's nothing to say that it's the finish of the horn that's the differentiator. Could be the mouthpiece position, the reed, the gain settings for recording (which were definitely different), the microphone position, the temperature in the room, how much coffee everyone had drunk, any fatigue in the player.

The only way to really do this test is with multiple horns in each finish. Law of averages would then suggest if the results across an entire cohort of saxes was similar, then the finish is what's making the difference.
Not really. For instance, there may be a difference in processing path between horns of different finishes, e.g. Were all horns polished and prepped the same way (UL vs plated vs lacquered)?
 
You forget that people need something to brag about.

And I challenge you right now to prove me wrong if I tell you that a reed dipped in blue ink is the perfect recipe for playing the blues! Nothing else really gets you there!
This is what y mean by aesthetics!!! If you like a silver horn then get it! If your band's aestetic demands this black tenor get it!
Some people like the unlacquered look some hate it!
Some people love Asian horns, some USA ones other French other German...

but at the end of the day you pick up your specific horn, you blow it... see how you adapt to it ... and take the final decision. The looks is a great factor but not relative to the way it sounds or feels.
For example I hate unlacquered ones, but my main horn is an unlacquered 10M. No rolled toneholes ... 1958 ... yes the one that gurus tell you to avoid...... guess what.. for a very low price I got a monster vintage horn that I have compared to numerous closet queen shiny 10Ms and it's always a winner. Why? I took it to my great friend & tech ... He did a complete overhaul ... I spend lots and lots of time playing it and now it's part of me. An extension of my lungs. Nothing compares to a horn that feels it's the "chosen" one.
You can go brighter or darker on this horn ( whatever this means ) .... and feel the fun of playing without obstacles. take the full joy.

And that's what matters.
 
Actually, the disassy and reassy process introduces another variable. In real life experimentation you very often can't control all the variables but one. That's where statistics comes to your assistance. So, if you have (CAUTION MADE-UP NUMBERS HERE!!!) twelve horns of identical build specs and there's a 20% variation amongst these, for whatever the characteristic; and then you take twelve horns in three finishes, four each, and you get 20%, well, it's obvious that the finish isn't doing anything. Even if you get 22% for the different finishes, stat.anal. will certainly tell you that's not significantly different than 20% for those tiny sample sizes and the baseline 20% variation in the population.

The point is, the methods for doing this kind of experimentation and analysis are a hundred years old and well understood. For example, if you want to find out if a new medicine works, you cannot hold constant the variable of the person dosed with it. You can't give the person the med, wait till they die or heal, then turn back time and see what happens without it. Instead you compare two populations one with the med and one without, and you use stat.anal. to tell you if, despite the variability of each population, there's a significant difference.

If there were something there, it would be easy for any number of qualified people to show it. Pseudoscientific experimenty videos make people THINK there's something there, leading to sales revenue, but there isn't.
This is true. For example, what if after reassembly you notice you gotta tweak a few keys because you spotted small leaks ? Now the question becomes....wait...were those leaks there before ? Or did they pop up due to the disassembly ?

Now another variable may have been added...
 
Actually, the disassy and reassy process introduces another variable. In real life experimentation you very often can't control all the variables but one. That's where statistics comes to your assistance. So, if you have (CAUTION MADE-UP NUMBERS HERE!!!) twelve horns of identical build specs and there's a 20% variation amongst these, for whatever the characteristic; and then you take twelve horns in three finishes, four each, and you get 20%, well, it's obvious that the finish isn't doing anything. Even if you get 22% for the different finishes, stat.anal. will certainly tell you that's not significantly different than 20% for those tiny sample sizes and the baseline 20% variation in the population.

The point is, the methods for doing this kind of experimentation and analysis are a hundred years old and well understood. For example, if you want to find out if a new medicine works, you cannot hold constant the variable of the person dosed with it. You can't give the person the med, wait till they die or heal, then turn back time and see what happens without it. Instead you compare two populations one with the med and one without, and you use stat.anal. to tell you if, despite the variability of each population, there's a significant difference.

If there were something there, it would be easy for any number of qualified people to show it. Pseudoscientific experimenty videos make people THINK there's something there, leading to sales revenue, but there isn't.
But the results will surprise you!
 
In medical school, one proverb is " if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

I'm a big fan of the simplest explanation for things.

If pretty much every experiment on finish and sound gives extremely subtle results that can be explained by multiple other factors - factors that DO align up with everything we know about sound production in single reed woodwinds - and the more carefully the experiment is done, the more likely to yield NO cause and effect relationship, what's the simplest explanation? That the finish on the outside has NO EFFECT on tone.
 
In medical school, one proverb is " if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

I'm a big fan of the simplest explanation for things.

If pretty much every experiment on finish and sound gives extremely subtle results that can be explained by multiple other factors - factors that DO align up with everything we know about sound production in single reed woodwinds - and the more carefully the experiment is done, the more likely to yield NO cause and effect relationship, what's the simplest explanation? That the finish on the outside has NO EFFECT on tone.
Boring....
How can you sell something that has no effect? >:)
 
Any difference in sound between those 3 horns was very subtle and easily explained by the simple fact that no one can play a musical phrase exactly 100% the same, with zero difference in sound. Those 2 players did a remarkable job, getting about as consistent as possible. IMO turf summed it up very well in the 2 quotes below:

Of course now he needs to repeat this with three horns that have the identical finish. That will assess how much natural variation there is, horn to horn, with the variable "finish" held constant. Because what's being evaluated here is three SAXOPHONES, each with a different finish. Not the finishes by themselves, because there's no practical way to do that.

If pretty much every experiment on finish and sound gives extremely subtle results that can be explained by multiple other factors - factors that DO align up with everything we know about sound production in single reed woodwinds - and the more carefully the experiment is done, the more likely to yield NO cause and effect relationship, what's the simplest explanation? That the finish on the outside has NO EFFECT on tone.
 

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Trending

Forum statistics

Topics
32,045
Messages
577,833
Members
8,111
Latest member
Simonob
Back
Top Bottom