Schilke is talking about baked, epoxy lacquer. That's what is on commercial instruments and some smaller makers do this. Bruce Lawson says this stuff has about a 15% dampening effect on the horn sound. We use acrylic lacquer and it is not baked. This is much thinner and has very little dampening effect, under 2%, The disadvantage is that it does not hold up as long as the baked epoxy. I've had two instruments gold plated with no change to them. I have never been able to discern any difference in the playing qualities of an acrylic lacquered horn, before and after. I have always felt a difference in an epoxy lacquered horn. That's why so many Conn 8D players had their horns stripped as it improved the sound and response. If you are thinking about lacquering your horn, I think you will be happy with the look of either material but expect a different response and sound with the epoxy but less longevity with the acrylic. KB In a message dated 4/22/2007 1:40:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is the only research that I know of concerning the effects of different finishes: http://www.dallasmusic.org/schilke/Brass%20Clinic.html#Finishes Joyce Schilke's essay seems to give a quite definitive "NO" vote on lacquer. And you certainly see many more unlacquered horns now. In the future, will we regard lacquered horns as a fad? Dan _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/kendallbetts%40aol.com ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
