Sax on the Web Forum banner

Lacquered vs. Unlacquered Tenor

53K views 121 replies 47 participants last post by  Pete Thomas 
#1 ·
I'm thinking about getting an unlacquered tenor. I know a few of the manuracturers are making them these days, like Yamaha, for example. I'm thinking about getting a P Mauriat 66R from Tim at SaxAlley. I've played a 66R in the lacquered version (I think they call it antique) and I like it. Has anyone compared the two? What are the differences in sound and maintenance between lacquered and unlacquered in general? I doubt I'll be able to try both versions before I buy so I'd like to get your opinions.

Thanks!
 
#2 ·
:banghead: not this again, if you look around you'll see MASSIVE arguments over finish. They don't effect the sound. I would think the unlaquered sax would require more maintenance
 
#5 ·
Ok. I get that unlacquered horns don't have lacquer and that lacquer can protect from scratches but assuming I'm not banging it up, what's the maintenance difference over time?

If there's no sound difference between the two, why do manufacturers make unlacquered versions or black lacquer? Just marketing?
 
#7 ·
Ok. I get that unlacquered horns don't have lacquer and that lacquer can protect from scratches but assuming I'm not banging it up, what's the maintenance difference over time?

If there's no sound difference between the two, why do manufacturers make unlacquered versions or black lacquer? Just marketing?
You can sell them for more, and some people just like how they look.
 
#6 ·
The bare brass of the unlacquered saxophone will react to the atmosphere and will tarnish over time. The original look can be restored by taking the sax completely apart and polishing the body and keys with a polishing cloth or with a polish such as Brasso. This is very labor intensive and quite expensive if you have a shop do it for you. For this reason most players who choose unlacquered saxes accept the "patina" that occurs naturally over time and don't try to reverse the process.

John
 
#9 ·
Ok, I know, most of the guys don't believe, I don't want to start a fight here, I just wanna give an answer from the other party.

I'm sure, that the finish has an effect. And I could compare lots of intruments of the same model but different finish.
Also I could play the 66R UL and the laquered version in Frankfurt on the Musikmesse. The UL blew me away, one of the best horns on frankfurt (only the Inderbinen and Brancher were better)
Unlaquered horns gerenrally are sounding compared to their laquered brothers more fat and wider it spreads more, it has more charakter but it has definitvly a loss of center.
Classical Music won't sound on this horns, but for rock'n'roll it will be orthsome.
In my oppinion this difference is quite noticeable, and you should think what you wanna gonna play with it.
besides I like the optik.

If you wanna fight about laqueres revive one of the old threads, if you want to argue generally about those small gimmicks and effect
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=93337

there I lost also some words, how the finish can affect the sound
 
#23 ·
This is exactly what I have experienced with horns that are unlacquered. They sound more fat and less centered. Some crispness is missing in the sound. But what about vintage/brushed lacquer? Are they sounding as lacquered or unlacquered horns?
 
#10 ·
As someone who owns a tenor and alto 82ZUL, I understand how you think that the UL horns are more freeblowing. I think that this is probably more noticeable to the player than the audience, however. I think all types of finishes sound the same when listened to on a recording. BUT, if you think that a horn sounds a certain way, then that's more than half the battle.
 
#11 ·
Different strokes , different folks;) I don't find much difference between a clear or gold lacquered sax VS an unlacquered....there is some nuance slight difference in the tone colors. The lacquer on the antiqued/vintage finished P. Mauriats is IMO much thicker...and probably made used different substances than your pedestrian lacquer...and it does affect the tone to a greater degree. I think that is part of the reason for P. M's success in marketing a brand new horn that imparts a vintage horn vibe. It's also why I was frustrated with them...I think they are a very well made horn but there is something about the tone that has a bit of a huskiness, smokey...raspy color that I sometimes want to get away from...looking for more clarity..ala Getz on palm key notes on a ballad.

I also feel black lacquer is thicker too that is used on the Keilwerth, Selmer, Yamaha, Yanagisawa making for less vibration yet maybe a bit richer...I wouldn't say darker but warmer tone..a more velvety quality. Whereas to get that little bit of sizzle, buzz, complex harmonics/tone texture many seek...to get that "thang" that Sanborn, Berg is more easily accomplished with an unlacquered MKVI...or of course these days tons of players have gone to the Unlacquered Yamaha82Z...Jeff Coffin, Phil Woods, Bob Franchino (sorry for mis-spell...cat with Mike Stern), Dino Givoni, etc.

Plating is an entirely different animal since it is done on both the inside and outside of the horn...it is bonding another layer of metal on top of metal and yes I hear a difference in the horns....silver plating makes for a bit more brightness, brilliance in tone....gold plating makes it richer,darker and nickel plating makes it darker...just a taste less vibration...more focused "harder" toned to my ears.

Much of what I'm stating is how I feel playing behind the horn...what's coming out of the bell may not make as much of a difference...But it matters to me since I'm the one trying to produce the sound.

I'm partial to gold lacquered horns most happy with my Yamaha 82Z lacquered...and I've owned nearly every finish at some point...except gold plating...maybe that's next! Again this is my take on the cake and a personal preference....I know there is a lot more to the equation (like mouthpiece, reed, player) but I noticed a huge difference when flipping through Youtube last night hearing Pete Christlieb on a silverplate SBA, Gerald Albright on Black Nickel plated Cannonball, Bergonzi on an old gold lacquer Conn, Pete Christlieb on a Cannonball..maybe goldplate/lacquer...much preferred him on the SBA, Don Menza on a nickelsilver Keilwerth, Stan Getz on a MKVI.

Yes I know very different players with very different concepts but I do think the instrument/finish made a significant impact on their sound as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serpoualas
#12 ·
I also feel black lacquer is thicker too that is used on the Keilwerth, Selmer, Yamaha, Yanagisawa making for less vibration yet maybe a bit richer...I wouldn't say darker but warmer tone..a more velvety quality. Whereas to get that little bit of sizzle, buzz, complex harmonics/tone texture many seek...to get that "thang" that Sanborn, Berg is more easily accomplished with an unlacquered MKVI...or of course these days tons of players have gone to the Unlacquered Yamaha82Z...Jeff Coffin, Phil Woods, Bob Franchino (sorry for mis-spell...cat with Mike Stern), Dino Givoni, etc.

Plating is an entirely different animal since it is done on both the inside and outside of the horn...it is bonding another layer of metal on top of metal and yes I hear a difference in the horns....silver plating makes for a bit more brightness, brilliance in tone....gold plating makes it richer,darker and nickel plating makes it darker...just a taste less vibration...more focused "harder" toned to my ears.
I heard the nearly the same differences and would also describe them like that (Just coincidence? Who knows? The truth is somewhere out there... ;-) )

Just a short notice, the Keilwerths are Blacknickel plated and I can confrim that the black laquer is thicker than the normal. I asked it on a yamaha pro workshop. It's also more rubber like. I didn't like the horn, because this "thick rubber laquer" just took all the higer frequenzes. Like a cut in the sound.

As someone who owns a tenor and alto 82ZUL, I understand how you think that the UL horns are more freeblowing. I think that this is probably more noticeable to the player than the audience, however. I think all types of finishes sound the same when listened to on a recording. BUT, if you think that a horn sounds a certain way, then that's more than half the battle.
Of course you will never hear what finish is played. but I can't also say which reed is used or which MPC is played on with which ligature.
When it is a preofessional I can say it's a Mk6 with a chance of 50%.
You got the point. All this small differences are just hearable when compared dircetly and then not by every one (trained ear). But this can be a big difference two me, how well the horn suits me. When I like a bright clear sound and like keilwerths than propably the silver plated keilwerth will be my sax.
And in the end what the audience hear is the sum of me and all my equipment. The audince can't honour every little detail, they won't know why they like my sound, they just hear me and view my finish.
 
#13 ·
I think that your best decision point is appearance and maintenance. The mood your reed is in will change daily. Compared to that, finish will be nothing.

Simple questions:
* Do you want an attractive finish which is even in appearance on all parts of the instrument?
* Do you want a saxophone which is shiny?
* How much time to you intend to spend cleaning the body?
* When the brown and green spots begin appearing on an unprotected brass saxophone, will you rejoice or will they drive you buggy?

These questions also apply to high contrast finishes like black. When you get a scratch on a brass instrument with a black finish, it really stands out.

Here is a current thread from a new member on a similar subject:
http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93636
 
#14 ·
I think that your best decision point is appearance and maintenance. The mood your reed is in will change daily. Compared to that, finish will be nothing.
Oh yes, mood and reed conditions change daily but both make a very big difference. Sometimes people say, today your not sounding so good. (so not only for me hearable)

The finish do also a differece (perhaps not as big as mood and reed) but this is constant.
Rethink that.
 
#16 ·
Come on, nearly every thread here goes offtopic in the 6th post.
matsuo: You missunderstood me. DavyRay said, because Mood and Reed change every day, so the finish is not important because the effect is not bigger.
I meant, the effect my not be bigger, but it doesn't change every day, so it is important.

You are right: No sax model ot totally constant, not even the japanese. So you can't say of just testing two instruments that the difference lies in the finish.
I have played silverplated Mk6 which sounded totally stiffy.
But after testing over 100ts of alto saxophones (and always also had the finish question in mind I constated a trend). In other post in other topics I wrote a lot of this. Just look in the "Epur si mouvo" Thread if you are interessted in this kind of topic
 
#19 ·
Come on, nearly every thread here goes offtopic in the 6th post.
matsuo: You missunderstood me. DavyRay said, because Mood and Reed change every day, so the finish is not important because the effect is not bigger.
I meant, the effect my not be bigger, but it doesn't change every day, so it is important.

You are right: No sax model ot totally constant, not even the japanese. So you can't say of just testing two instruments that the difference lies in the finish.
I have played silverplated Mk6 which sounded totally stiffy.
But after testing over 100ts of alto saxophones (and always also had the finish question in mind I constated a trend). In other post in other topics I wrote a lot of this. Just look in the "Epur si mouvo" Thread if you are interessted in this kind of topic
I guess I did misunderstand you, and I apologize
 
#18 ·
As you all know, I am sure, that the finish has a sound difference.

But RandyJ is not so wrong. The companies don't think, "we offer a lot of finishes, so that the palyer has a choice in sound"
If the player would only choice of sound and like this brand the effect is nothing compared to an other brand.
I was at Keilwerth, and when I was there I asked the same question, and he was honest enough to say, that they started with the different finishes (blacknickel) just because of the optic. Afterwards they were asthonished that this has also this "huge" effect for the sound.
 
#21 ·
... this is a tough subject. IMO nobody here is "Wrong" or "uneducated". We all have some experience with different types of "finishes and plantings".

Here is my experience...

I have a Selmer SBA #55,000 with 95% original Lacquer.

I have only played TWO horns that I like BETTER than my horn.

1. Was an original GOLD PLATED Conn 10m :yikes!:(un-F*****G REAL!!!!!!!!!!):headbang:

2. Was a Mark 6 #61,000 it was also GOLD PLATED (it was a students horn and I almost SHOT him for it):a-run:!!!!

I don't really know what that means but, thought that you might like to know...?
 
#22 ·
... this is a tough subject. IMO nobody here is "Wrong" or "uneducated". We all have some experience with different types of "finishes and plantings".

Here is my experience...

I have a Selmer SBA #55,000 with 95% original Lacquer.

I have only played TWO horns that I like BETTER than my horn.

1. Was an original GOLD PLATED Conn 10m :yikes!:(un-F*****G REAL!!!!!!!!!!):headbang:

2. Was a Mark 6 #61,000 it was also GOLD PLATED (it was a students horn and I almost SHOT him for it):a-run:!!!!

I don't really know what that means but, thought that you might like to know...?
Why is that so funny...:lol:
 
#24 ·
Branford didn't sound 'rubbery' when he played a black horn...

The best way to tell if a horn sounds different whether lacquered or unlacquered is to play that horn until the lacquer wears away. It should only take 20-30 years.
 
#28 ·
It's good to have you back, Tobias.

I missed you.

I played a Black Yamaha tenor last month at the symposium in Fairfax. It wouldn't stop talking! I hardly had to do anything and it spoke right away.

I also played a matte Reference 54 vs a lacquered one. The lacquered one had a much clearer tone.

The silver serie II Tenor just didn't seem to sing.

I also couldn't help but notice the resonance stones on the cannonball necks.

Welcome back.
 
#29 ·
I know, I just wanted to stir the pot. ;)

I got a Conn Wonder from MartinMod on its way, and I believe it'll be the horn that I'll stick with. And I found a great mouthpiece today.

I'm really impartial to both lacquer and plating. Oddly enough, the Conn is both unlacquered and silver plated.

I did, however, try my instructor's Wilson ligature next to my BG leather lig and blew me away. It was unbelievably more open.
 
#30 ·
Almost all old C-Melody saxophones are silver plated with a gold-plated bell. They have a reputation for being aggressively bright in tone. They commonly blast away soprano saxophones because of their silver plating. Don't mess with a silver-plated c-mel! Finish does matter! Just buy a few of these old c-melodies. You will see what I'm talking about!
 
#33 ·
I can't really believe I am reading this...

Ever wondered about whether it might be to do with the zillion other differences between the two sax groups you describe?

BTW, what does "blast away" mean?
Do all silver plated sops blast away all lacquered baris, and all silver plated baris blast aways all lacquered sops?

If I get a really crappy design silver plated alto, does it blast away every pro design lacquered alto?

Here's a money spinner for you... Market silver plated clarinets, or plastic recorders, or bagpipes.
 
#37 ·
I'm thinking about getting an unlacquered tenor... What are the differences in sound and maintenance between lacquered and unlacquered in general? I doubt I'll be able to try both versions before I buy so I'd like to get your opinions.

Thanks!
:banghead: not this again, if you look around you'll see MASSIVE arguments over finish. They don't effect the sound. I would think the unlaquered sax would require more maintenance
True!
Adamtva, to save you a simple search in this forum, start by reading at least all of this, including all th links they reference. You will then understand why those who have something knowledgeable to say, are unlikely to be bothered saying it again. Set aside a couple of days, and maybe a few months for some serious acoustic study!

http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62244
http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=61212
http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=42432
http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40249
http://www.saxontheweb.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96155
 
#43 ·
It fine to ask a question. I was providing him/her with the already written discussion that he seeks.

A pm from a very biased person will not provide the balance that reading those links will. You've had your say in those links, with the responses that they deserve. Do you want to provide the guy balance or not? I guess not.
 
#40 ·
Well, John Packer seem to think that black lacquer makes a difference:

http://www.johnpacker.co.uk/john-packer-range-22/115.htm

And they have a very scientific and convincing way to prove it it:

'What 'The Raven' gives you is the black lacquer and the 'black lacquer' sound. To the uninitiated, this may sound strange, but black lacquer affects the way the instrument resonates - imagine how differently you'd resonate if you were covered in black lacquer!
 
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