TubeNet

I was just wondering if this has been done. I realize a tuba out of nickle silver would be HEAVY, but I'm not sure if an Ambronze tuba would be much heavier than a brass one. Anyway if someone has, was there any consenus on it's sound and/or playing characteristics?

Thanks,

James

I was a proudowner of avery rare bird (I know of 2 others). An Alexander 163 5V CC in solid nickel. I love Alex horns and still own a raw brass 163, and I really wanted to keep the Nickel horn. The horn was much heavier than my raw brass one. The good thing is that the horn was 50 years old when I got it and the bell looked like it had just been made. NO dents or dings at all. I did feel that the horn was a bit stuffier than the other alex's I have played. For me, I had to work to hard. It sounded GREAT, typical dark Alex sound. But, the rawbrass version required much less forcing of the airstream. Overall the novelty of the nickel gave way to practicality for me. Now, I know another player with a nickel Alex and he feels the horn blows exactly the same as the raw brassones. Again, to each his own.

Looking up Ambronze - It's shown as 84%copper, 14% zinc, and 2% tin. Red brass (gold brass) is typically about 85% copper and 15% zinc - the only difference would be the 2% tin, which would have some effect, but I don't know how much. The Lawson Horns website (http://www.lawsonhorns.com/Bellflares.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank) has good info on the ambronze bell flares they make. I do know that gold brass tubas (the few I've had) tend to have a more mellow, darker sound, and a different color at higher dynamics than the yellow brass. I think the tin would cause the bronze to work harden quicker than the gold brass, but I'm not certain. YMMV -

I own a 1964 Alexander 5 valve 163 CC nickel-silver tuba. According to Anton Alexander, only 5 or 6 of these tubas were ever made. He said he had to "bribe" the craftsmen into making these tubas as working with nickel-silver is not easy. I've played one other C in nickel and Michael Lind used to own an F, which I've also played. I find the response to be slower than the brass Alex's, but you can play quite loud without the sound ever distorting. I also find that the projection is better. And the sound is very special. Perhaps one could draw an annology with dark chocolate vs. milk chocolate between a nickel Alex and a brass Alex. My tuba cost $495 in 1964, including a hard case,(which I still have) and a mouthpiece,(which I also have). A four valve Alex was $450, but if you added a valve, it would cost you 45 additional dollars per valve. How times have changed.

TubaSailor wrote:Looking up Ambronze - It's shown as 84%copper, 14% zinc, and 2% tin. Red brass (gold brass) is typically about 85% copper and 15% zinc - the only difference would be the 2% tin, which would have some effect, but I don't know how much. The Lawson Horns website (http://www.lawsonhorns.com/Bellflares.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank) has good info on the ambronze bell flares they make. I do know that gold brass tubas (the few I've had) tend to have a more mellow, darker sound, and a different color at higher dynamics than the yellow brass. I think the tin would cause the bronze to work harden quicker than the gold brass, but I'm not certain. YMMV -

I use a Lawson ambronze screw-bell. It changed my horn from a tinny-sounding, expensive but ergonomically comfortable instrument, into a world class instrument. I cannot say enough nice things about Walter Lawon's knowledge and products. Too bad the business was sold after Walter died. I don't know how much of the difference in sound is due to the metal itself, or the thickness of the metal, or the tapers, or what. I just know it is a fabulous fit on my horn.

MA

NDSPTuba wrote:I was just wondering if this has been done. I realize a tuba out of nickle silver would be HEAVY, but I'm not sure if an Ambronze tuba would be much heavier than a brass one. Anyway if someone has, was there any consenus on it's sound and/or playing characteristics?

The density of these alloys is so similar to regular brass that you would not notice a difference in weight, unless a different thickness was used to make it easier to form, in which case it might even be lighter.

I am not a believer in the notion that small changes in alloy could have much effect on the sound, other than a placebo effect. The resonance of the brass will be affected by material and structural stiffness. These relatively minor changes in alloy don't change the material stiffness appreciably. Nickel-silver is maybe 6 or 8% stiffer as a material than yellow brass. Since we have successful tubas made out of plastic composites with radically different materials stiffness, I just don't buy that such a small change would have a measurable effect. But small changes in alloy can affect the malleability and formability properties significantly, and that could, in turn, mean that the builders make different choices to overcome those differences. Nickel-silver is not as malleable or ductile as yellow brass, and that means that extreme shaping will require more annealing steps. That may encourage a builder to choose to make the material thicker, or use a different method for shaping it that affects its work hardening. And those differences could affect the structural stiffness. A material that has half the material stiffness of another material can still be used to make a structure that is the same stiffness--it just has to be twice as thick. Given that nickel-silver is a bit stiffer, and that it is less malleable, I would expect the material to be thicker in the thin bits (like out on a bell rim), and both those things would add to the structural stiffness compared to yellow brass. I have not measured one to know. Maybe Ted could loan me his Alex for measurements. I'm sure I could get it back to him in three or four years.

Rick "sacrificing for science" Denney

Lets see, $1500 return on $495 over 24 years = 4.7% ROI. (Compounded, etc.) Current cost of (approximately) $13,000 vs. $495 over 24 years = 14.6% if I remember my eco 101. Don't you wish we could have bought a dozen then and sold them now? Prices on tubas seem to be rising even faster than the average inflation.

I'm afraid science will have to wait. My season starts next Friday and I'm going to need my horn. I will also have to pass on the very generous offer of $1,500 for my Alex, hard case and mouthpiece. I didn't buy my horn in 1964 as I was only 5 years old that year, so although I appreciate the offer, I really must decline. I can however put you on the very long list of people who wish to buy my Alex when I finally decide to quit playing. I actually paid a tiny bit more for my Alex than $1,500.

As for all the "science", all I know is my horn is heavy, much heavier than a regular brass Alex. I believe the gauge of the metal to be thicker, which means it doesn't dent very easy. I doubt we'll ever see any more tubas made from nickel-silver.

There were many, many tubas, saxhorns, OTS saxhorns, et al. made from Nickel Silver (also called German Silver) during the mid to mid-late 19th century. Very durable instruments, and the several I've played do feel kinda cool; some of the ones made by the high-end makers (Graves, Fiske, etc.) play downright beautifully.

Love to see and play a Nickel Silver Alex. Anyone got a picture?

J.c.

Ted Cox wrote:I'm afraid science will have to wait.

Yeah, that's what I heard when I offered to measure the volume of various large tubas in support of a new classification system. Despite that I thought I could get that big job finished in only four or five years, nobody wanted to contribute. Sigh.

Rick "who keeps trying" Denney

Don't many modern tuba manufacturers make a substantial part of their tubas out of nickel silver already? Especially such items as my Miraphone and My Besson outer valve tubes?

I agree with Rick Denny that all things being equal, there could be a sonic difference among alloys, but with the range of the tuba, including overtones, being below where the resonances of the different alloys will make any substantial difference, that there are many more variables that will affect tone, so you might as well use an alloy for durability and resiliance for the bugle, an alloy for strength and machine accuracy for the valve block, and an alloy for corrosion resistance for the leadpipe.

I am one that is usually skeptical about the sound quality of different metals. I will say (and I think Ted would agree) the Nickel horn has a very distinct sound quality difference. As far as rose brass versus silverplating,I don't know. Once at Arizona we had someone play some passages on different horns and we had to identify the different horns. It was much harder than I thought. That said, I have heard Scott Watson say that if you put Gene Pokorny on a drain pipe, You would expect to see a hirsbrunner seal on the side of the drain pipe.

bigboymusic wrote:I am one that is usually skeptical about the sound quality of different metals. I will say (and I think Ted would agree) the Nickel horn has a very distinct sound quality difference.

One of the things that we have to be careful about, though, is assigning cause and effect. Noting the effect is hard enough, as you mentioned. Understanding the cause is a whole other exercise. I think it's far more likely that the formability property differences results in structural differences, and any sound differences can be attributed to those structural difference. So, though the material may indirectly lead to a different instrument, the material itself isn't the reason for the difference. Given that Nickel-Silver breaks with less elongation, it is harder to stretch into things like bottom-bow and bell shapes. So, the makers probably use different patterns so that it doesn't have to be stretched as much. That would suggest the parts that are often quite thin, such as bell flares, would be thicker. I would think this would be even more pronounced on F horn bells.

Of course, it's all speculation, and there's no real assurance that what we think we perceive in terms of the effect is real. Because of the necessary stochastic differences between instruments, a blind test would be nearly impossible. So, we muddle along with relatively rare data points of undetermined reliability, and try to construct models that explain them. But I still can't escape the basic observation that a plastic tuba still plays and sounds like a tuba, and is different from a similar brass tuba in ways that most non-tuba-playing observers would even be able to observe. Given how radically different plastic is from brass, the differences in brass alloys seem pretty subtle by comparison.

Rick "who can well understand why Alexander would refuse to make more of these" Denney