TubeNet

1] As I have suggested elsewhere - in loud passages the wider, organ-like CC/BBb sound gets lost more quickly because of the way sound waves (their harmonics) mingle. Thus a narrow bore tuba can be heard more distinctly. It also matches the cylindrical instruments better at fffff. Except for composers aware of the difference - a tuba is a tuba - and for many just a big sort of trombone thing. So, an EEb will indeed cover most situations - as you say. This was the logic behind the bigger bells and mouthpieces in the 70s - 90s.

2] But, still nothing in EEb can imitate that huge, broad, sumptuous CC/BBb sound in exposed passages - if that is what the composer/conductor/you like.

3] I know some wise players who 'cheat' by (paradoxically) using the smallest possible mouthpiece on a CC/BBb when they want to project better.

4] Another more radical approach is to put on a custom made narrow, strongly-tapered mouthpipe. (Just paint on some spots of polyurethane clear varnish to prevent any tarnish. No one can see from more than a foot or two. Yes, I know - heresy again.) A good tech will prevent any intonation problems. If you are doing this - make it replaceable like Courtois's ill-fated instruments of years back. (bassoons, saxes etc come in bits - why shouldn't we?) Yes, I know - it's not done. Ah - a new thread!!

Don't forget the superglue gel. It is great for repairing most things on a tuba.

Transparent nail varnish tends to crack but does hide blowtorch effects on lacquer. But the polyurethane stuff is better - just cover it afterwards to avoid dust particles on that bit as it dries. WD40 - penetrating oil - is great for crabby valves. They get worse as the oil works on the rubbish inside. You have then to clean them with grease removers and soap afterwards.

But the best trick is a toilet brush - preferably unused - after someone has filled your horn with beer. Yes, it happens.

From what I've read here, the repairmen who may someday direct a torch at a "super glue" cyanoacrylate joint will wish you'd forgotten to be born. I gather the fumes are more than average unhealthful.

Donn wrote:From what I've read here, the repairmen who may someday direct a torch at a "super glue" cyanoacrylate joint will wish you'd forgotten to be born. I gather the fumes are more than average unhealthful.

Truth.

I would use nail polish before super glue. Cyanoacrylate is, as people have said, not entirely fun when it burns up. Polyurethane is also not really that bad.

Anyway, to add probably nothing, the answer is always "it depends". Depends on the player. Depends on the repertoire. Depends on the orchestra.

I played in a group with a phenomenal French Horn player, who is at the Shanghai Orchestra Academy now, and unlike many players I have played with, he was not playing a Conn 8D or some similar horn made entirely of Nickel Silver. He did have an 8D, with a rose brass bell, and he hated it. Too ponderous, broad, etc. instead he used a smaller bore all yellow brass double horn. He sounded great on it, and huge, and got his Masters with it and still is using it over in Shanghai, even though most other players use something "more bigger".

If you've got an Eb that you really sound good on, with enough valves, triggers and/or compensating ability, the low range should not really be an issue. So unless you're playing something that really requires a 6/4 BAT in CC or BBb for that kind of wide sound, I'd say the Eb could work.

tbonesullivan wrote:with a rose brass bell, and he hated it. Too ponderous, broad, etc.

Which is why, IMHO, I don't like it on anything other than bass trombones.... esp. tubas and horns.

Seems to work OK on Kanstul's Eb tubas. But that's a "special alloy", so maybe "rose brass" is different.

J.c. Sherman wrote:Which is why, IMHO, I don't like it on anything other than bass trombones.... esp. tubas and horns.

I have been told that the bell of the Sterling 1065HGS is rose or red brass. It's silver plated so, not really any way to tell. The rest of the horn though seems to be nickel silver, which I can see when I pull the tuning slides and pistons.

My bass trombone has a red brass bell, and it also has a nickel silver outer slide. So, from what I usually have seen, it's almost like the higher copper content needs to be balanced with the harder nickel alloy. I remember back in High School, pretty much every person I knew with a Bach 36 with a gold/rose brass bell also had the nickel silver outer slide.

Yes, they are pretty: NO, THEY ARE NOT ANY DIFFERENT IN SOUND WHATSOEVER. This is insanity. Scientifically, there is no discernible difference. !n 1977 a full blindfold test [SmithWatson site] was carried out at Boosey & Hawkes. The trombonists swore the different bells sounded completely different - when they could see and COULD NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE OR KNOW WHICH THEY WERE BLOWING WHEN BLINDFOLDED!!!!!!!!!

Please read:
Re: so besides welding rods soldered on your $20K-$40K tubas

Postby 2ba4t » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:20 am
I am honestly astonished that anyone in the wonderful world of tubenet can still imagine that type of metal and 'rods welded on', venturi and in my opinion especially 'sound plates' - are worth even discussing except in terms of the Law of Fraud. Please please actually read "The effect of material in brass instruments a review, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 8, 91-96 (1986) (R. Smith)" https://www.smithwatkins.com/administra" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank ... A-1986.pdf"

They are all snake oil. You guys are crazy and insecure if you believe any of the blatant misrepresentations. Yes, if you FEEL better then your playing will improve. If you FEEL you have a new gadget that helps, you will play better. If you have an expensive widget then you MUST subconsciously justify spending hard-earned money on it - so again you are convinced it must help - and, sure, it does, Really - psychologically. My father-in-law was a wonderful physician who never did a minute's work outside the UK National Health system. Yes, he left very little ££ but a wonderful heritage. He always said that 60% of patients would recover with no intervention. But a pill made them feel better so they recovered better!!

Red brass, yellow brass, copper, rose copper brass, brass copper rose red - all mythology. Vibrations of the metal do happen but, as mentioned by timothy42b who is obviously, I guess, a science-based dude - are completely irrelevant to the sound. Close your eyes, use your brains and admit it - you have been had bigly by manufacturers' sales talk. Millions of $$ for nothing. Brazen, palpable fake news.

Start the revolution!!!!!!!! We should cryogenically freeze the people spreading these false hopes, weld heavy metal rods on their foreheads, stick venturi receivers into their .... ears. put copper red brass bells around their necks and make then swallow sound plate do-das to improve their voices.

Check out https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/scie ... -flat.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank Note this kinder approach: 'One of the great things about studying musical instruments, though, is if the player believes it will make a difference, he or she will play better, so it acts as a sort of placebo,'' Dr. Rogers said.

But still, no one can change blind, pure faith. The 'Hindu Milk Miracle' 1995 caused riots, hysteria and a milk shortage. Gods were apparently miraculously sipping milk off a spoon. It was shown that this was actually caused by capilliary action. When dyed bright colours, the milk could be clearly seen dribbling down the whitish stone chins. Yet, this re-occurred in 2006!! The faithful simply said that the scientists were devils and allowed to 'prove' their results as a test for the really faithful.

IMPORTANT NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT REFLECT IN ANY WAY ON ANY RELIGIOUS FAITHS. MOST CANNOT BE PROVEN NOR DISPROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY OR JUDICIALLY. One either believes the initiator, the narrative and texts or not. So, no misinterpretations, please. This does NOT question the wonderful Hindu faith in the slightest. It shows how convinced people respond to a scientific challenge.

target="_blank" is alive and well.

Hup

Good thing we're discussing art, not science.

J.c.S.

2ba4t wrote:Red brass, yellow brass, copper, rose copper brass, brass copper rose red - all mythology

Yes, but how does that explain good 'ol Pop Johnson, tapping on sheet brass in the factory with his magic hammer?

I'm sure those tubas etc. sounded absolutely tops, when struck with a similar hammer, though of course much depends on the skill and taste of the artist.

There's a video of some turkey at Fender, doing the same thing with blocks of various species of wood, to convey the tonal characteristics that one could expect from a solid body electric bass with body formed of the respective wood. Many bass players take this absolutely seriously.

Since we have invoked trombones, anyone who has played a sterling silver version of a trombone (like a 3b or an 88h) available in any other material, or even a plastic instrument of any make knows that material matters. It may be due to the thickness, density, heat treat, crystaline structure, or something else, or a combination of all of those (most likely). It may only matter to the player, but you can certainly feel the difference. There is a difference in feedback if nothing else. The differences between brass alloys is comparatively small to the difference of plastic or carbon fiber or sterling silver, all valid trombone bell materials. I think anyone who dismisses the differences materials and other factors make is possibly being careless about where they place their decimal points. All of the components of a vibrating system matter, and some contribute to the final wave form more than others, some orders of magnitude more than others. The metal vibrates, and the vibration causes some sonic feedback, albeit small compared to the main pressure wave through the horn. Is it worth any money? No body can answer that except the person who's spending the money.

I think your post, with respect. proves the point.

You write:
"anyone who has played a sterling silver version of a trombone ... KNOWS [my capitalisation] that material matters...".

You are certainly correct, IMHO, that different materials vibrate slightly differently; that a much thicker wall will vibrate less than a very thin one; that without a blindfold you are certain - you "know" - that you can feel a difference. Vitally, a player's feelings and confidence in his instrument are a huge factor in the quality and sound of his playing. But I suggest, respectfully, that you do a double bluff blindfold test ( - if you can be bothered.)

It seems that, much as we all dislike being scrutinised by science, there really is no scientifically measurable discernible difference in sound - except that created by one quintessential element - the player's input according to her/his psychological attitude to the circumstances.

You end by saying.
"The metal vibrates, and the vibration causes some sonic feedback, albeit small compared to the main pressure wave through the horn. Is it worth any money? No body can answer that except the person who's spending the money."

This is the point, once you have spent that money, can you be objective?? I pursue this not as a criticism but only because I abhor the waste of $$$$$$ and false pressure on players and false snobbery. Denni Brain played a tatty French horn, with matches propped in it to improve the tuning. Even Aubrey Brain, his dad, had a better looking horn. Most great player's favourite instrument is not the most expensive or newest design. And honest players who represent a specific brand for commercial gain, agree in private that their brand is practically the same as many other well made instruments. I had a very funny chat with someone who had represented over the years 3 different makers. Each in turn made the best ever, ever!!!

Forgive my invoking trombones . the true lords of the orchestra. (But just remember, that the tubas are the true gods. )

2ba4t wrote:You are certainly correct, IMHO, that different materials vibrate slightly differently; that a much thicker wall will vibrate less than a very thin one; that without a blindfold you are certain - you "know" - that you can feel a difference. Vitally, a player's feelings and confidence in his instrument are a huge factor in the quality and sound of his playing. But I suggest, respectfully, that you do a double bluff blindfold test ( - if you can be bothered.)

The pBone should have settled this argument once and for all.

Of course it did not.

There are two things I will never convince people of:

1. It is possible to hear, actually hear, a difference that does not exist.

2. Materials do not make a difference detectable in normal listening environments.

Musicians are superstitious largely because our craft is fragile and largely unobservable, and we fear things going wrong we won't be able to fix.

Trombone players will argue about 1% more zinc in a yellow brass bell making a difference, or one more angstrom of lacquer coating - a prominent Texas symphony player claims to hear the difference if the little rubber nib falls off the end of the slide bumper. (note to self, check tonight if mine is still there.) But in blind tests we've not reliably distinguished between a pBone and a 3B. If a cheap plastic pBone can sound enough like a brass trombone to fool musicians, the case should be closed.

Except for cryogenics. I'm pretty sure you can tell the sound of a cryogenic treated pBone. You would need those magic lafreque sound bridges between the pieces.

Blind tests from the audience's end, right? Or is your position that even for the player, behind the bell, no real difference?

Donn wrote:Blind tests from the audience's end, right? Or is your position that even for the player, behind the bell, no real difference?

Correct. A pBone does not give me the feedback a brass trombone does; it sounds considerably less bright and "brassy." But the recordings and the audience hear something different. I also sometimes hear a brass trombone as more edgy from behind the bell than a recording hears.

The blind tests done over at the now defunct trombone forum involved a player recording several takes with each horn, then using Audacity to intermingle A and B sections. Listeners did not guess the sections at above chance.

Obviously individual instruments do sound different, even within the same model, but the dramatic difference between materials does not seem to be supported.

Never start with bone players. I did. My fault.

Two points:
1. pbones are not a fair test in that many are really badly made and sound 'different' because they sound bad.
2. Audiences are too busy on their phones actually to listen any more. The blind test relates to the trombone player. Let him arrange to have one thousand bones of every conceivable material all prepared and then blow each with the same mouthpiece whilst blindfolded. I guarantee that he will not be able to tell which is full of Pepsi and which full of Coke.
They will feel different to play because of other factors such as bad workmanship, leadpipes, bore, bell size, no/one/two triggers etc. but type of brass/copper/metal mix - if blind-folded - will not, IMHO, be discernible.

I see what you did there... Well played my friend:)