Sax on the Web Forum banner

Does plating affect the sound; no longer an issue...

40K views 189 replies 46 participants last post by  kymarto 
#1 ·
Per the Woodwind and Brasswind (presumably lifted from Yamaha literature). While the saxophone isn't addressed, the effect of plating on clarinet keys and posts didn't just nibble at the edges of a discernable difference, didn't merely add warmth to the tone, but actually made "a dramatic difference".

Boy have I (many of us) been wrong on this one.

Case closed, no further room for discussion. On to precious stone key touches...

Yamaha YCL-CSG Series Professional Bb Clarinet
What is HAMILTON PLATING?
Hamilton plating is an alloy of gold and nickel. It's extremely resistant to wear and discoloration, and delivers a powerful tone with excellent projection. On the CSGH instruments, the Hamilton Plating is actually not only on the keys, but on the posts as well. In artist testing, it was shown to be a dramatic difference between instruments that had just Hamilton plated keys and Hamilton plated keys and posts.
lest you think I'm making it up:
http://www.wwbw.com/Yamaha-YCL-CSG-Series-Professional-Bb-Clarinet-471270-i1414054.wwbw
 
#83 ·
It was the same reed and mouthpiece that was tightly secured. All the same model SIII direct from Selmer Paris, whilst they aren't going to be all the same - and that's a good thing, there were still general points in the sound.

All I can say is that there were noticeable differences between the different types of finish. Believe what you will, but this is MY assessment as well as the judgement of 2 friends neither of which are musicians. Both were staggered by the difference the finishes made.
 
#90 ·
I've played a lot of Serie III tenors. The first matte III I played was dull and lifeless - turns out it had a bad neck. Whatever horn had that neck sounded much the same. Then I started paying more attention to the neck than the finish. That had a much stronger correlation to sound.
 
#84 ·
I've also got to say that I was surprised that some of the finishes that I thought I'd like were actually my least liked instruments.

Also I've gone with different combinations of materials in neck and body and different combinations depending which size sax.
 
#86 ·
nobody is saying that there were no differences, there probably were. What we are saying is that you heard differences which you have attributed to the finish but that could have been more probably fruit of your expectation driving you to unconsciously play differently and/or the normal variation between instruments due to differences in construction.

This variation is at the basis of the fact that if you go to buy a horn you play several of the same type (if you have this chance) in order to chose AMONG horns playing DIFFERENTLY even though they are of the same design, because there are variations within the accepted tolerance of any production which alter the response of any sax.

In other words even two saxophones of the same design and material play differently![rolleyes]

Even if the reed was " securely" tightened any very small variation that I get (and that every player I know gets or could get while playing, that's why you see players fiddling around the reed during intermissions) makes a serious impact on playing.
 
#87 ·
I'm pretty sure I could amaze my friends with dramatic differences, all while playing the same horn. The point is that it is well known that even microscopic differences can have a dramatic effect on sound and response. Likewise, it is well established that players can alter the sound dramatically by subtle alterations in embouchure, breath and expression, even when they themselves believe they are keeping things constant. Only under blind conditions and with careful measurements can we begin to eliminate the two most likely causes of differences.
 
#91 ·
I am surprised no one has mentioned the McGurk effect. We do hear with our eyes ! Try it:

This is a very real effect. I cant watch without hearing the pronuciation change. When I close my eyes it never changes.

I believe saxsaxsax69 believes what he says. I just believe he may be mistaken due to the McGurk effect and his belief.
 
#94 ·
actually, you are advocating the superiority of a number of organs ( the brain and the ear) that are by definition imperfect and susceptible to be prone to create illusions and make erroneous judgement due to their proclivity to be tricked (in other words you might think you hear something that your brain is in fact creating, as in the McGurk effect ).

You are probably not aware of the Tartini effect

from Wikipedia "..............Consider the two waves starting in unison, f1 − f2 = 0. As the difference between f1 and f2 increases, the speed increases. Beyond a certain proximity (usu. about 15 Hz), beating becomes undetectable and a roughness is heard instead, after which the two pitches are perceived as separate. If the beating frequency rises to the point that the envelope becomes audible (usually, much more than 20 Hz), it is called a difference tone.[citation needed] The violinist Giuseppe Tartini was the first to describe it, dubbing it il Terzo Suono (Italian for "the third sound"). Playing pure harmonies (i.e., a frequency pair of a simple proportional relation, like 4/5 or 5/6, as in just intonation major and minor third respectively) on the two upper strings, such as the C above middle C against an open E-string, will produce a clearly audible C two octaves lower.

An interesting listening experiment http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Terzosuono.ogg is to start from a perfect unison and then very slowly and regularly increase the pitch of one tone. When one tone starts to split out from the former twin-note, a slow rumbling can be heard, gradually increasing into an audible tone.

.......... "
 
#95 ·
We don't have completely independent senses and visual/sound and visual/taste and etc can depend on each other.

Peoples accounts of experiences, sound or something else, are variable.

Accounts of eyewitnesses of a car accident can vary wildly even though they all saw the same thing from similar or different angles.

I have 3 Yamaha YAS-21 Altos and each one sounds a bit different to the others IMO with one of them having a different low end to the others and one having a different high end from the others.
The design of the 3 YAS-21's might vary a bit but still would be pretty close to each other with I suppose the same material and lacquer being used. They also have different style pads to one another.
The neck seems to be a significant sound shaper, as when I swap my YAS-21 necks I get different results again and the mouthpiece and reed seem to be even more significant sound shapers.
The body bore is important too of course and the bore and neck and mouthpiece design together are a big part of the whole enchilada.

The only way for material possibly affecting the tone is through it's vibrational characteristics and anyone can change the vibrational characteristics of any material by simply grabbing different parts of the saxophone.
Wrap something like a towel around the bell and/or neck making sure the octave key still functions and keeping clear of toneholes.
Guess what happens?
 
#98 ·
The only way for material possibly affecting the tone is through it's vibrational characteristics and anyone can change the vibrational characteristics of any material by simply grabbing different parts of the saxophone.
Guess what happens?
Nothing.

OTOH, it's possible that material on the inside of the saxophone could affect the sound without it being due to vibration (which I think most of us believe it isn't).

Thicker material there would decrease the bore size, and a less reflective or bumpy material could also affect the sound.
 
#103 ·
The main known determinants of sound are the bore geometry and the bore smoothness. If the finish affects those it can affect the sound. Eventually the vibrations of the wall materials can affect the sound, but probably not the way people generally think. One of the latest experiments involved really making sure that the tube was vibrating in a major way, done by making the walls of flute tubes about ten times thinner than normal flute walls, and then squishing the flute into an oval shape so that the resonance frequencies were dropped low enough that the tube coupled at playing frequencies and went into breathing mode. This proved to make very little difference, except to slightly change the tone color of several notes. There was no global change in sound or response, and the authors concluded that even those modest effects would almost certainly never been seen in any normal musical instrument.

In terms of bore smoothness, the micropores in wood and the wood grain can reduce acoustic efficiency by about 2 dB. This is right on the edge of perception. Metals of similar smoothness will have no appreciable differences on that account.

One interesting comment comes from Benade, who says that the major determinant of differences in otherwise identical instruments is very small differences in edges (of chimneys and toneholes), which are always a bit different due to manufacturing tolerances.
 
#104 ·
In terms of bore smoothness, the micropores in wood and the wood grain can reduce acoustic efficiency by about 2 dB. This is right on the edge of perception. Metals of similar smoothness will have no appreciable differences on that account.
I'd assumed something like that, however I've noticed that some plating,e.g. silver or nickel, can actually bubble up a bit when corroded (beyond normal tarnishing). I would think in that case (which probably shouldn't happen if you look after the instrument), there may be some effect on the sound which could be on the edge of being noticeable.
 
#106 ·
anyone have any experience with how durable the finishes are? How thick gold or silver plate is?
what about which surface requires the least maintenance?

I think ive seen some with nickel. Im a little surprised its allowed these days. its a restricted material for epa in some cases.
i wonder if they have had to chnge the laquer formulation in recent years for epa?
i wonder if those rules are why they seem to mostly be made outside the united States now. (in additon to labor rates obviously)
 
#111 ·
AFAIK lacquers are the worst, and a lot depends with them on the quality of the application. Pinholes in the lacquer can allow moisture to enter, that spreads under the lacquer and creates spots and eventual lacquer peeling. Metal platings are better, but there is the issue of galvanic corrosion:

http://www.engineersedge.com/galvanic_capatability.htm

This causes the plating to pit, or the base metal to do so, depending on which is anodic and which is cathodic.

Nickel plating is the hardest of the common platings, but it has a tendency to flake. Silver is quite durable, but it is fairly soft and wears relatively quickly. Some people with acidic sweat can eat through silver or gold plating quite quickly. Much also depends on storage conditions. Keeping your horn in damp conditions, and/or in the presence of certain pollutants will highly shorten finish life.

I am not an expert on these things--perhaps Docta G will chime in.
 
#112 ·
the nickel is a common FOD problem for aircraft. they use it to plate composite connectors. these connectors often fail corrosion tests.so why do it right? weight reduction. i know of only one supplier who passes but it is a really long salt fog test in a sulfuric acid atmosphere environment.

i think it would be cool to titanium plate. maybe that passivated Titanium would look really cool. then plate gold images or pictures on the horn. anyone you know into experimenting? an interested artist? etc? i can probably get an interested metallurgist, but not sure.

are you confident enough in the theory answers above to do it to an old selmer MK VI? i might have to thinl a little longer about that.
 
#114 ·
For me, the dead giveaway as to which side of the argument is correct is the much higher ratio of clearly biased and uninformed people on the wrong side of the argument. People who both lack insight and want to be perceived as knowledgeable stand out. One side's arguments make way more sense to me than the other, and it is confirmed by the number of loud yet clearly uninformed people I see on the wrong side.
 
#115 ·
well im still interested in the experiment. maybe some other horn first. i was just checking. i shouldnt have diverted the plating discussion.

what do you think of passivated ti? would it look cool or not? who could we get to do it? anyone interested in a joint investment in a horn and find someone to do it? maybe we could find an artist interested in the advertising?

first, we need a good tech to dissasemble and reassemble. next an artist for the design, then a plater i guess. then the tech to reassemble. we might need the tech to talk to the artist to figure out the order.
 
#118 ·
In this thread and many, many, MANY others comparisons are forever being made from a sax finish to drum heads, flute bodies, trumpets, trombones, etc...folks you have to remember that a) saxes do not vibrate like a drum head 2) saxes are a lot thicker butt naked than flutes, brass, etc...We have lost count years ago of how many we have personally refinished in lacquer, silver, gold, nickel and copper and if the finish is prepped and applied properly it DOES NOT have an effect on the audience side of the sound. I have seen and played instruments from just about every modern and vintage manufacturer and the only thing that I have found to make a difference are the internal dimensions of the neck and body. Most of the modern horns have no character to the sound (too cookie cutter). I had a customer in recently bragging about his "big bell" _______ (you fill in the blank) had the biggest bell on the mrket, until I pulled out my 1927 Conn and showed him that the Conn bell was bigger! There is a lot of sales hype about finishes, stones, magic pads, resonators, etc...that people fall for but when the honeymoon is over buyer's remorse sets in.

I may get burned for this but if Selmers are so danged good why are there so many for sale? We are finishing up 50 Selmer altos and tenors that a LARGE customer had us go through and even though the finish is exactly the same on each they play totally different. Many of them are sequentially numbered.

Lacquer is the thickest of the finishes. BandMommy hit it on the nose when she said the plating is "microns" thick. Plating does not add enough mass to make a difference in the sound on a sax. If you try to make a sax as thin as a flute or brass it wouldn't live long due to the design.

Too much time gets spent fighting over things like plating, lacquer or even the color of lacquer affects sound. Guess what? I still sound like me on a horn that has been lacquered more than once and on a horn that has the sexiest silver or gold on earth.
 
#120 ·
Let's face it, a lot of musicians are out with the pixies and are full of tone superstitions and who knows what and it really boils down to just their opinion.

Anything that can alter the standing waves behaviour can alter the sound and not necessarily for the good.

1. Material vibrations have been researched a fair bit and the vibrations are too small to have a noticeable effect and only alter the standing waves behaviour in a very minor way.

2. Material edge and inside wall effects have not been researched enough as far as I know, especially for the saxophone, and these could have a noticeable effect or may not depending on the material and edge surface variables.

3. Things like keys in relation to the toneholes and the inside standing wave can have some effect as well.

4. The standing waves behaviour inside the sax is determined by the inside dimensions of the sax (and mouthpiece) to a large degree.

There is nothing much else to consider except what the inside standing wave comes into contact with.

Outside effects that don't have any contact with the standing wave inside the sax, like lacquer and the outside surface of materials, would have such a minor effect that they can really be dismissed and it's mostly these that are the selling points and can get hyped for marketing because they are the things that meet the eye of the buyer and not the inside bore dimensions.
 
#124 ·
all the people in more or less modern countries are expert at using technology. Electricity in general is the most common one , we switch on and off things and we might be thinking that we know electricity because we use it all the time.

If you ask around the majority of people have vague ideas of how it all works and many, if not most, have wrong ideas about the workings of it all and yet we all use electricity and are expert at it. The same happens with driving a car. You might be also a very accomplished driver and yet you are not familiar with how everything works. You might even have serious misconceptions about it and still be able to be a great driver.

There are differences between saxophones , this is a fact that nobody disputes.


The fact that someone is an accomplished player has not much to do with understanding the workings of the instrument that one is playing. So as an accomplished player one is knowledgeable about the playing but might be equally ignorant about the processes involved in the playing and draw wrong conclusions from observations made using the wrong logic and knowledge.

Remember the example of the sun setting?


We all see the sun apparently going under the horizon of an apparently flat Earth, as most men before us we can indeed conclude that the sun goes under the horizon because it appears to do that and that the Earth is flat. This is what we observe. But is it what it is happening or what the reality is? No it isn't.

Some people even in the ancient world had worked out, with the use of science, the fact that the earth is round and turns and that the sun is standing still (more or less still, it moves as well......but that's not the point I am trying to make.....) and yet, if you ask most people to provide a proof that the earth is round the most the majority of the people, even in this day and age, could come up with is that if you travel the earth in one direction you would come back to the same point and that's something they know and repeat because they have seen it being done but they haven't done personally.

But how did some of the ancient scholars knew that this was the case without having travelled the earth or seen or heard that that was what was going to happen?

They had an understanding , they used science.

Science explains things that we might not fully understand because we think we observe something while something quite different is happening.

Saxophones play different among themselves that is a fact but why this happens requires knowing things that are not intuitive. If we try to use intuition we might be concluding the wrong thing, as for when we say that the sun sets while the horizon is rising. that's what happens........we just don't see it!
 
#131 ·
I used to use one (a standard Rovner). When I first tried it I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Played it for a couple of years until it broke on a gig. Luckily I had the original metal lig in the case, so I swapped it toot-sweet.
And whaddya know...it played better than the Rovner.

So - what's a warm-sounding finish then?

Regards,
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top