the differences are as u have aptly described - subtle. But it is most prominent in the way the high notes sound. The lacquered one sounded very focused, very controlled, like there weren't many harmonic partials being released. The unlacquered one had that very tiny bit of sizzle in the highs which was audible enough. But in a real saxophone performing situation, anyone would be hard pressed to pick out the differences.
Love the Ornette vibes! Such a subtle difference, but seemed slightly more open and brighter with the unlacquered one. Presumably they’re both unlacquered internally. Also the finish of the unlacquered sax will change over time. It’s be interesting to hear a comparison when the horns have aged a little. Great video thanks
The difference is in having additional higher overtones with the unlacquered. So the big question would be what mouthpiece/reed set up you pair it with. They may sound close, but lead you in different directions. Most of the unlacquered horns I see being played are tenors with Link style mouthpieces.
Saxophones are lacquered mostly to keep the underlying material from tarnishing or oxidizing. Lacquer is a thin layer of coating applied to a metallic surface to grant it protection, visual enhancement, and (arguably) tonal response
I honestly couldn’t tell the difference sound wise because of how well made Yanagisawa saxophones are. The finish issue is something to ponder. A vintage sax looks and plays reliably if unlaquered. A plated saxophone has the look of something new and flashy by looks and sound. This is a personal choice for musicians of any brass or woodwind player and what that player wants and how that instrument responds to the player. Very interesting observation and comparison.
It IS a different feeling for the player blowing an unlacquered Sax. And It can motivate to play more and with more soul I've just gotten a vintage Yanagisawa Tenor and will have It stripped of the old lacquer...by the Overhauling. Old lacquer doesn't look so Bad, but IT IS mit opportunity to get a great sax in UL finish.
I got an AWO1U the other day (unbelievable instrument, already blown away by it) and I'm surprised it still looks pretty much like gold lacquer aside from the left thumbrest. I wonder how long till it really begins to dull and patina?
Thanks for the video Jim. I'm actually thinking of buying an AWO2. I would love it if you can play the unlacquered & lacquered in those bronze versions so we can hear the differences. You sound great.
I'm concluding minimal, if any, difference in sound. My interest are twofold. 1. How does it feel (only I can decide this when I try them out) 2. Does the UL risk needing more maintenance as the years go by. Personally I prefer look of UL, so it is only q 2. I really need an expert view on.
Depending on you body chemistry the UL might need a whole lot more care than a lacquered one. Things to consider are that some people produce more acidic sweat which, if not cleaned off regularly, can have a very corrosive effect on the brass. Depending on the brass alloy people have also encountered a strong smell on their hands from the chemical interaction with the brass and certain brass alloys can also leave stains on the fingers. In short, raw brass can be finicky, a lacquered instrument for sure is easier to maintain.
Jim sold me my Yanagisawa Soprano 17 years ago. It's been stored away for a couple for years ago. Now it's covered in dark brown spots. But they seem to be under the laquer where I guess minor damages to the laquer has allowed the environment in. some of the spots are 8mm in diameter. I can't clean them because they are under the laqauer. I's carefully buffing off the laquer.in the spotted (and engraved) araa, so I can clean up the metal undeneath and reduse the contrast a bad idea. I'm no longer in Brighton, but Vietnam so I can't bring it The thumb rest had wron through some of the laquer so I just did a test on that part and it came out well.
Yeah, older Yanis don’t age well for some reason. I have a really ratty looking(but heavenly sounding) tenor and two very differently aged sopranos-one is spotty, the other is completely different look, but also aged. Same age Yamaha looks much better, but I prefer Yani’s sound.
I could hear a difference in the two but its a bit hard for me to explain, it was like the unlacquered was a bit smoother sounding with a slight boost in the mids and highs throughout the range and perhaps slightly louder? It really is a subtle difference. Great timing, I am looking to upgrade from my student alto in the next few months and one of these is on my list, but I am thinking of getting a AWO2 for the more rich sound of the bronze and provably lacquered as I prefer the clean shiny look over the tarnished raw look.
Great information ! I have only played 3 used saxophones--- the lacquer on all partially gone. Is there any sound difference between black laquer and silver plating?
Bet you if you had two identical sax and went back and forth you would find just as much "difference" than lacquered and unlacquered. In the end it comes to people that prefer the looks of the unlacquered will agree it sounds better and visa versa.
A/B tests with musical instruments. So difficult I feel to do a fair comparison. Because the player is organic. A living being and not a mechanical machine. Thus each time a person plays a tune it will be different. Could be distracted for a fraction of a second (e.g. gorgeous woman walks past store window). some one nearby hiccups. Gust of wind hits our nose. And as admitted...you might play the UL horn differently unconsciously. expecting a certain quality of sound.
I have to say that I am going to go against the grain here a bit, but I did not like the sound of either. The upper pitches seemed shrill to me and the mid and low ranges seemed forced. The High E was problematic for me. It did not sound like the other pitches around that E. I did not care for the model lacquered or unlacquered. I would be looking for a different alto in general.
MyRackley How much of that improvement comes from you vs changes in the horn? It’s almost impossible to know. It might be interesting to take tuning forks and measure their vibrations at different levels of lacquer and corrosion, to see how much of a change there is. We already know a sax’s sound changes as the lacquer wears off. How much change in the lacquer before it can be noticed by the average human ear? Does a professional musician even have an average ear?
That’s a difficult question to answer primarily because we ourselves change over time. To isolate the variables to determine if the horn changes it all but impossible. Even lacquered horns change over time. The more any Horn is played and subjected to vibrations, the more it is altered. Just existing will change a horn. Change is good and happens to every single horn
Good points made in this thread. One thing that definitely happens over time is that stresses in materials resulting from bending, hammering, soldering together etc. are slowly being relieved over time as the horn vibrates from playing, that alone will make most instruments feel more "played in" after months or years of use, how much this also influences the sound is nigh impossible to quantify. Moral of the story, get a sax that you like and play it as much as you can. ;-)
@@overthetarget9401 True points. Geddy Lee has an interesting video in which he discusses buying basses. He has noticed that basses rarely played, even if old, have a different and more resistant to playing feel and sound. He has purchased well worn basses which tend to play like a dream. A great video worth exploring. I would even say that two identical saxes played by two different people will, over time, feel and sound completely different from one another. There is an exchange made between the player and the instrument and that would be a fun topic to explore scientifically, whatever that means.
No. Several studies that have tried to see if the material the saxophone is made of, will influence the sound. The studies show no difference. So how could a coat of paint do anything?
The Yanagisawa BWO20U baritone is unlacquered. I don't know of any others that are as I haven't seen any other Yanagisawa baritones that come in unlacquered versions.
Great demo! Would you say an unlacquered sax in a pristine, out of the box condition is a totally different horn from a dulled and discoloured one even a few months old? I feel many people mistakenly think a lacquered horn is coated while an unlacquered one is not. That's only true for the first few weeks as brass takes on a layer of "patina" that is far thicker than any decent lacquer job. I would have thought that the microns-thick lacquer has far less a detrimental effect than a horn with unequal layers of oxidation that vary according to the exposure to corrosive elements, from moisture, the atmosphere and touch. In effect, a lacquered horn has less gunge on it than a horn caked in verdigris and oxidised metal? Don't forget, unfinished and patina-ed brass is actually toxic and should carry a health warning. It like licking the pipework in a Victorian public convenience. You're actually touching and breathing in close-contact pathogens so gamble with your long term health on your own!
Interesting train of thoughts. A couple yes-buts. (Let me state upfront, I did not hear the difference between the horns with my desktop speakers from my computer.) The lacquer adds mass and one way or another will change the resonant frequency of the horn's material. That resonance can be very different between areas in the horn. As oxidization would bind oxygen and add weight, it at the same time creates a brittle layer and this again may reduce resonance frequency, for instance because the metal now lost a one atom layer of thickness giving strength. The very smooth layer of lacquer will (assumption) cause a different alpha value (from aerodynamics, associated with surface-bound laminar flow). If the patina has microscopic roughness more than the lacquer then it will have less resistance due to a thin layer of air cushion between the brass and the main air stream. Poisonous? Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. Both are essential for humans and a diet depleted from both will make you ill and vulnerable. Zinc is essential in protein synthesis (hair, nails, skeleton, immune proteins, fertility, etc., etc.). You need a serious daily dose, especially as man (you use more than women) and especially when contagious infections circulate in your world. Copper as a heavy metal is a double edged sword. You need trace amounts in sync with zinc. You'll see zinc supplements with copper (1 copper to 1000 zinc IIRC). If you structurally have a copper deficiency relative to zinc, then you might develop diabetes 1 and this is irreversible. In some respects the mediterranean diet gives healthier (longevity) statistics than diets from other regions in the world. My hypothesis is that the daily espresso from the bar around the corner may be the source with its copper tubes. Yes, copper is poisonous in higher than trace amounts. This will differ between people, however as the human genome has a gene to detoxify heavy metals (in the cytochrome p450 range), so if you lack that on one or both chromosomes you need to be extra careful. As to pathogens, bare copper without biofilm is very deadly to pathogens, like silver. In old homes, doorknobs would be brass (or silver) and when polished to a shine, this was the best protection against transferring infections via hand contact. Alumin(i)um and stainless steel in this sense are very dangerous. The problem with lacking hygiene (not polishing doorknobs, handles bell handles, door knockers, etc.) is that the matte patina becomes a dull biofilm first of dead pathogens killed by the shiny metal and after some time this film becomes a substrate for pathogens to thrive on. The nature of these metals being essential is in them being a building block in enzymes. Enzymes are the workhorse variants of proteins and proteins only have amino-acids as building blocks. Proteins become enzymes generally by taking up one metal ion or one vitamin into their structure and then become catalytic converters - biochemical processors. For example, an enzyme like Super Oxide Dismutase takes a very dangerous O2^2- that is formed in your cell processes and that can ruin about everything (2 oxygen atoms with two additional electrons - called super oxide) and connects it with two hydrogen ions to form a less aggressive H2O2 (hydrogen-peroxide). Another enzyme converts this into H2O (water). So these enzymes are vital to our life and health and they are formed one moment and broken down another, in order to be built again some time later when needed. Magnesium is building block in some 350 different enzymes. Zinc is needed in several enzymes and copper has a role too. Generally, when temporarily there is no need for a metal, we may excrete it. Hence the requirement for a daily dose, no matter how small it may be.
@@jpdj2715 Thanks for the numbing cut and paste job! Sure, copper as a regulated supplement is good for you. But I was talking about Copper Subacetate - verdigris. That's toxic - just Google it. So if you had work done to your patinated horn (solder won't adhere to verdigris), the resulting debris isn't good for you. Just as with Asbestos and smoking, the true effects won't be recognised until years later. In the meantime, play safe (no pun) don't believe the hype, stay lacquered!
@@zenscapeUKmedia - sad to get insulted with a numbing cut and paste remark. You might have been talking about copper sub-acetate, but did not write it down. So you could have put these essential details in your comment in the first place. Other than that, thank you politely for deepening my knowledge by suggesting me to Google it. Wiki: "The vivid green color of copper(II) acetate made this form of verdigris a much used pigment. Until the 19th century, verdigris was the most vibrant green pigment available and was frequently used in painting. Verdigris is lightfast in oil paint, as numerous examples of 15th-century paintings show." Here I have to call you out on the verdigris - I don't see a stable vivid green on non-lacquered saxes. You? Maybe, because there is zinc too and salty water (sweat from musicians) is something else happening like carbonation of the bronze? Still, if verdigris were to form I would expect a vivid green color.
@@jpdj2715 Take a chill pill, my man! It takes a lot more than that for me to get insulted - I was talking about patena, in other words Copper Subacetate or Verdigris. I thought that was implicit in my comment. I could have cited loads of stuff, but who wants to read that, if they do, then they can can feel to Google "toxicity of verdigris" and boom, there it is. Sure, you're right, it was used as a pigment for oil paintings and yep, it killed people. I won't ask you to Google it, but if you did, you'd find it. But consider this. Unless you have megabucks, you won't be buying a horn that you can be sure has been immaculately and safely produced like a Selmer Paris product. It will have come through a Chinese factory. Nothing wrong with that - unless it comes with a simulated or accelerated patena. We have absolutely no control over what was used to create that look any more than we can stop the Chinese eating bat curry and killing half the world. Don't get we wrong, I've no issue with a nicely reliced Custom Shop Fender Strat or Gibson Les Paul. But you know what, I sure wouldn't be putting it in my mouth. But if you want to lick Victorian public lavatory plumbing in the name of jazz, feel free!
@@zenscapeUKmedia I don't know about you, but I never make direct contact with my horn with my mouth. Also, unless a horn is lacquered on the inside of the bore, at best they're only about 50% lacquered anyway. So I'm not sure why you're worried about this.
Whew! Your tone is way too bright for my liking. But, jeez! I expected the unlacquered sax would've sounded darker. Nope! There was so much more ping coming from that horn. Wow.
It's long been my opinion that lacquer makes no difference at all, and if anyone thinks that lacking lacquer is going to make them suddenly sound better, then they're kidding themselves.
I had a YANAGISAWA T901 UL. Unlacquered is terrible! Never use tools without a handle!!! Only with Lacquered, there is a good sound!!! Unlacquered in a month it will look bad, it will turn green and you will have traces on your hands from metal oxidation. I very much regretted that I bought unlacquered. After a month, the sound will become worse due to metal oxidation.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I’d love to see a video on how different materials and finishes affect the sound, especially with the cannonball saxes!
That video would probably be 20+ hours
the differences are as u have aptly described - subtle. But it is most prominent in the way the high notes sound. The lacquered one sounded very focused, very controlled, like there weren't many harmonic partials being released. The unlacquered one had that very tiny bit of sizzle in the highs which was audible enough. But in a real saxophone performing situation, anyone would be hard pressed to pick out the differences.
I had a Selmer alto delaquered 25 years ago. Wish I had taken a pic of it then to compare with today.
Love the Ornette vibes! Such a subtle difference, but seemed slightly more open and brighter with the unlacquered one. Presumably they’re both unlacquered internally. Also the finish of the unlacquered sax will change over time. It’s be interesting to hear a comparison when the horns have aged a little. Great video thanks
The difference is in having additional higher overtones with the unlacquered. So the big question would be what mouthpiece/reed set up you pair it with. They may sound close, but lead you in different directions. Most of the unlacquered horns I see being played are tenors with Link style mouthpieces.
Saxophones are lacquered mostly to keep the underlying material from tarnishing or oxidizing. Lacquer is a thin layer of coating applied to a metallic surface to grant it protection, visual enhancement, and (arguably) tonal response
Good stuff. Usual intelligent discussion. Thanks.
I honestly couldn’t tell the difference sound wise because of how well made Yanagisawa saxophones are. The finish issue is something to ponder. A vintage sax looks and plays reliably if unlaquered. A plated saxophone has the look of something new and flashy by looks and sound. This is a personal choice for musicians of any brass or woodwind player and what that player wants and how that instrument responds to the player.
Very interesting observation and comparison.
It IS a different feeling for the player blowing an unlacquered Sax. And It can motivate to play more and with more soul
I've just gotten a vintage Yanagisawa Tenor and will have It stripped of the old lacquer...by the Overhauling. Old lacquer doesn't look so Bad, but IT IS mit opportunity to get a great sax in UL finish.
I got an AWO1U the other day (unbelievable instrument, already blown away by it) and I'm surprised it still looks pretty much like gold lacquer aside from the left thumbrest. I wonder how long till it really begins to dull and patina?
Very Good
Thanks for the video Jim. I'm actually thinking of buying an AWO2. I would love it if you can play the unlacquered & lacquered in those bronze versions so we can hear the differences.
You sound great.
Yup. I would love this and even the aw020 unlacquered
I'm concluding minimal, if any, difference in sound. My interest are twofold. 1. How does it feel (only I can decide this when I try them out) 2. Does the UL risk needing more maintenance as the years go by. Personally I prefer look of UL, so it is only q 2. I really need an expert view on.
Depending on you body chemistry the UL might need a whole lot more care than a lacquered one. Things to consider are that some people produce more acidic sweat which, if not cleaned off regularly, can have a very corrosive effect on the brass.
Depending on the brass alloy people have also encountered a strong smell on their hands from the chemical interaction with the brass and certain brass alloys can also leave stains on the fingers. In short, raw brass can be finicky, a lacquered instrument for sure is easier to maintain.
Unlacquered !!! ♥️♥️
thank you, thought provoking!
Beautiful❤
Yanagisawa makes excellent horns. May I ask which mouthpiece you’re using?
Jim sold me my Yanagisawa Soprano 17 years ago. It's been stored away for a couple for years ago. Now it's covered in dark brown spots. But they seem to be under the laquer where I guess minor damages to the laquer has allowed the environment in. some of the spots are 8mm in diameter. I can't clean them because they are under the laqauer. I's carefully buffing off the laquer.in the spotted (and engraved) araa, so I can clean up the metal undeneath and reduse the contrast a bad idea. I'm no longer in Brighton, but Vietnam so I can't bring it The thumb rest had wron through some of the laquer so I just did a test on that part and it came out well.
Yeah, older Yanis don’t age well for some reason. I have a really ratty looking(but heavenly sounding) tenor and two very differently aged sopranos-one is spotty, the other is completely different look, but also aged. Same age Yamaha looks much better, but I prefer Yani’s sound.
Nice video Jim.
I could hear a difference in the two but its a bit hard for me to explain, it was like the unlacquered was a bit smoother sounding with a slight boost in the mids and highs throughout the range and perhaps slightly louder? It really is a subtle difference. Great timing, I am looking to upgrade from my student alto in the next few months and one of these is on my list, but I am thinking of getting a AWO2 for the more rich sound of the bronze and provably lacquered as I prefer the clean shiny look over the tarnished raw look.
What about the bronze model? 😳
Great information ! I have only played 3 used saxophones--- the lacquer on all partially gone. Is there any sound difference between black laquer and silver plating?
Bet you if you had two identical sax and went back and forth you would find just as much "difference" than lacquered and unlacquered. In the end it comes to people that prefer the looks of the unlacquered will agree it sounds better and visa versa.
Thanks for the video. Could u do a comparison between the yamaha custom z gold and unlacquered one ?
are you feeling a difference in resistance in blowing, air flow?
Why would it be any different?????
yeah - the unlacquered is a bit warmer sounding
What's the tenor model on the right bottom (just behind the unlacquered one)? How's the sound?
Nice
A/B tests with musical instruments. So difficult I feel to do a fair comparison. Because the player is organic. A living being and not a mechanical machine. Thus each time a person plays a tune it will be different. Could be distracted for a fraction of a second (e.g. gorgeous woman walks past store window). some one nearby hiccups. Gust of wind hits our nose. And as admitted...you might play the UL horn differently unconsciously. expecting a certain quality of sound.
I have to say that I am going to go against the grain here a bit, but I did not like the sound of either. The upper pitches seemed shrill to me and the mid and low ranges seemed forced. The High E was problematic for me. It did not sound like the other pitches around that E. I did not care for the model lacquered or unlacquered. I would be looking for a different alto in general.
Can you compare yamaha 82z vs yanagisawa AWO10 alto? Would love to see a japanese sax showdown.
Does the unlacquered sax’s sound change over time as it corrodes?
MyRackley How much of that improvement comes from you vs changes in the horn? It’s almost impossible to know. It might be interesting to take tuning forks and measure their vibrations at different levels of lacquer and corrosion, to see how much of a change there is. We already know a sax’s sound changes as the lacquer wears off. How much change in the lacquer before it can be noticed by the average human ear? Does a professional musician even have an average ear?
That’s a difficult question to answer primarily because we ourselves change over time. To isolate the variables to determine if the horn changes it all but impossible. Even lacquered horns change over time. The more any Horn is played and subjected to vibrations, the more it is altered. Just existing will change a horn.
Change is good and happens to every single horn
Good points made in this thread. One thing that definitely happens over time is that stresses in materials resulting from bending, hammering, soldering together etc. are slowly being relieved over time as the horn vibrates from playing, that alone will make most instruments feel more "played in" after months or years of use, how much this also influences the sound is nigh impossible to quantify.
Moral of the story, get a sax that you like and play it as much as you can. ;-)
@@overthetarget9401 True points. Geddy Lee has an interesting video in which he discusses buying basses. He has noticed that basses rarely played, even if old, have a different and more resistant to playing feel and sound. He has purchased well worn basses which tend to play like a dream. A great video worth exploring. I would even say that two identical saxes played by two different people will, over time, feel and sound completely different from one another. There is an exchange made between the player and the instrument and that would be a fun topic to explore scientifically, whatever that means.
No. Several studies that have tried to see if the material the saxophone is made of, will influence the sound. The studies show no difference. So how could a coat of paint do anything?
I mean, you study the video, by listening, though...
I got a unlacquered wo10 for 4 year but it's still not totally worn off, any idea why?
The atmosphere creates the patina. Maybe you're lucky to live in a non-polluted area...?
More overtones in the sound with the absence of lacquer!
question, does the wo2, bronze one have a darker sound
It has a fuller sound. I don’t think darker is a good description. It is only a slight difference.
Are the baritone's available in unlacquered?
The Yanagisawa BWO20U baritone is unlacquered. I don't know of any others that are as I haven't seen any other Yanagisawa baritones that come in unlacquered versions.
Yes, the bronze looks nice
I don’t know how to describe it but the difference was kinda big to me lol mainly in the mid register. The UL didn’t feel as abrasive to me I think
For me always un-laquered cant stand shiny horns.
Great demo! Would you say an unlacquered sax in a pristine, out of the box condition is a totally different horn from a dulled and discoloured one even a few months old?
I feel many people mistakenly think a lacquered horn is coated while an unlacquered one is not. That's only true for the first few weeks as brass takes on a layer of "patina" that is far thicker than any decent lacquer job.
I would have thought that the microns-thick lacquer has far less a detrimental effect than a horn with unequal layers of oxidation that vary according to the exposure to corrosive elements, from moisture, the atmosphere and touch. In effect, a lacquered horn has less gunge on it than a horn caked in verdigris and oxidised metal?
Don't forget, unfinished and patina-ed brass is actually toxic and should carry a health warning. It like licking the pipework in a Victorian public convenience. You're actually touching and breathing in close-contact pathogens so gamble with your long term health on your own!
Interesting train of thoughts. A couple yes-buts. (Let me state upfront, I did not hear the difference between the horns with my desktop speakers from my computer.) The lacquer adds mass and one way or another will change the resonant frequency of the horn's material. That resonance can be very different between areas in the horn. As oxidization would bind oxygen and add weight, it at the same time creates a brittle layer and this again may reduce resonance frequency, for instance because the metal now lost a one atom layer of thickness giving strength.
The very smooth layer of lacquer will (assumption) cause a different alpha value (from aerodynamics, associated with surface-bound laminar flow). If the patina has microscopic roughness more than the lacquer then it will have less resistance due to a thin layer of air cushion between the brass and the main air stream.
Poisonous? Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. Both are essential for humans and a diet depleted from both will make you ill and vulnerable. Zinc is essential in protein synthesis (hair, nails, skeleton, immune proteins, fertility, etc., etc.). You need a serious daily dose, especially as man (you use more than women) and especially when contagious infections circulate in your world.
Copper as a heavy metal is a double edged sword. You need trace amounts in sync with zinc. You'll see zinc supplements with copper (1 copper to 1000 zinc IIRC). If you structurally have a copper deficiency relative to zinc, then you might develop diabetes 1 and this is irreversible.
In some respects the mediterranean diet gives healthier (longevity) statistics than diets from other regions in the world. My hypothesis is that the daily espresso from the bar around the corner may be the source with its copper tubes. Yes, copper is poisonous in higher than trace amounts. This will differ between people, however as the human genome has a gene to detoxify heavy metals (in the cytochrome p450 range), so if you lack that on one or both chromosomes you need to be extra careful.
As to pathogens, bare copper without biofilm is very deadly to pathogens, like silver. In old homes, doorknobs would be brass (or silver) and when polished to a shine, this was the best protection against transferring infections via hand contact. Alumin(i)um and stainless steel in this sense are very dangerous. The problem with lacking hygiene (not polishing doorknobs, handles bell handles, door knockers, etc.) is that the matte patina becomes a dull biofilm first of dead pathogens killed by the shiny metal and after some time this film becomes a substrate for pathogens to thrive on.
The nature of these metals being essential is in them being a building block in enzymes. Enzymes are the workhorse variants of proteins and proteins only have amino-acids as building blocks. Proteins become enzymes generally by taking up one metal ion or one vitamin into their structure and then become catalytic converters - biochemical processors. For example, an enzyme like Super Oxide Dismutase takes a very dangerous O2^2- that is formed in your cell processes and that can ruin about everything (2 oxygen atoms with two additional electrons - called super oxide) and connects it with two hydrogen ions to form a less aggressive H2O2 (hydrogen-peroxide). Another enzyme converts this into H2O (water). So these enzymes are vital to our life and health and they are formed one moment and broken down another, in order to be built again some time later when needed.
Magnesium is building block in some 350 different enzymes. Zinc is needed in several enzymes and copper has a role too. Generally, when temporarily there is no need for a metal, we may excrete it.
Hence the requirement for a daily dose, no matter how small it may be.
@@jpdj2715 Thanks for the numbing cut and paste job! Sure, copper as a regulated supplement is good for you. But I was talking about Copper Subacetate - verdigris. That's toxic - just Google it. So if you had work done to your patinated horn (solder won't adhere to verdigris), the resulting debris isn't good for you. Just as with Asbestos and smoking, the true effects won't be recognised until years later. In the meantime, play safe (no pun) don't believe the hype, stay lacquered!
@@zenscapeUKmedia - sad to get insulted with a numbing cut and paste remark. You might have been talking about copper sub-acetate, but did not write it down.
So you could have put these essential details in your comment in the first place.
Other than that, thank you politely for deepening my knowledge by suggesting me to Google it.
Wiki: "The vivid green color of copper(II) acetate made this form of verdigris a much used pigment. Until the 19th century, verdigris was the most vibrant green pigment available and was frequently used in painting. Verdigris is lightfast in oil paint, as numerous examples of 15th-century paintings show."
Here I have to call you out on the verdigris - I don't see a stable vivid green on non-lacquered saxes. You? Maybe, because there is zinc too and salty water (sweat from musicians) is something else happening like carbonation of the bronze? Still, if verdigris were to form I would expect a vivid green color.
@@jpdj2715 Take a chill pill, my man! It takes a lot more than that for me to get insulted - I was talking about patena, in other words Copper Subacetate or Verdigris. I thought that was implicit in my comment. I could have cited loads of stuff, but who wants to read that, if they do, then they can can feel to Google "toxicity of verdigris" and boom, there it is. Sure, you're right, it was used as a pigment for oil paintings and yep, it killed people. I won't ask you to Google it, but if you did, you'd find it. But consider this. Unless you have megabucks, you won't be buying a horn that you can be sure has been immaculately and safely produced like a Selmer Paris product. It will have come through a Chinese factory. Nothing wrong with that - unless it comes with a simulated or accelerated patena. We have absolutely no control over what was used to create that look any more than we can stop the Chinese eating bat curry and killing half the world. Don't get we wrong, I've no issue with a nicely reliced Custom Shop Fender Strat or Gibson Les Paul. But you know what, I sure wouldn't be putting it in my mouth. But if you want to lick Victorian public lavatory plumbing in the name of jazz, feel free!
@@zenscapeUKmedia I don't know about you, but I never make direct contact with my horn with my mouth. Also, unless a horn is lacquered on the inside of the bore, at best they're only about 50% lacquered anyway. So I'm not sure why you're worried about this.
Whew! Your tone is way too bright for my liking. But, jeez! I expected the unlacquered sax would've sounded darker. Nope! There was so much more ping coming from that horn. Wow.
It's long been my opinion that lacquer makes no difference at all, and if anyone thinks that lacking lacquer is going to make them suddenly sound better, then they're kidding themselves.
I agree it won't make you sound better, but they do sound different. I have tried lacquered vs unlaquered horns and they are different.
LOL Acid fingers!
Right? Good band name
Just buy the lacquered AW01 ,in a few months the lacquer will fall off by itself anyway😂
I find this is funny 😂
First
Stop
I had a YANAGISAWA T901 UL. Unlacquered is terrible! Never use tools without a handle!!! Only with Lacquered, there is a good sound!!! Unlacquered in a month it will look bad, it will turn green and you will have traces on your hands from metal oxidation. I very much regretted that I bought unlacquered. After a month, the sound will become worse due to metal oxidation.
Short answer - No.