Rose brass for tubas?

[Donn]

That's why I added the second sentence.

No, that second sentence is immaterial to the point Rick is making. If I understand correctly, he doesn't see a reason for any tone difference due to copper content. If there is no difference, then there is no question about whether this difference could be masked by other factors.

On a related matter, I am sorry to report that Mahillon may have never really made a tuba of cheese. I looked into this a few days ago, after seeing this story in a book (Bevan), and saw several variations of the story (a trumpet, a whole brass band), but never any detail, plus one debunking from someone who seemed to be saying that Mahillon had told him it was complete nonsense.

So, all the hallmarks of a myth, including that it's preposterous. I believe I read a woodwind version of it years ago, where the instrument was a clarinet or something, and that seems almost doable, but a tuba I can't imagine. Maybe some of you who live in dairy country can consider that as a challenge.

It's a fun idea but wasn't that practically interesting anyway. We already have fiberglass tubas, a material that's quite radically different from any brass alloy, and unlike the mythical cheese tuba we can play them to see what they sound like.

[iiipopes]

Go look again at your basic physics. If the alloy is different, the density is different, measurable as the specific gravity is different, demonstrating the mass is different. Constant force applied to delta mass must have delta results. Therefore the overall resonance must be different, as two different things cannot react the same way to the same force, in this case embouchure buzz. Whether or not it is a noticable difference on an instrument as large as a tuba is debatable, and is the true question. Probably not at all, and definitely not as, for example, on a cornet.

[iiipopes]

The vibrating air mass is ONE variable and a major variable, not the variable that completely describes the behavior of a tuba. OK, now you've made me do it, cite the concrete math, physics and philosophy in the matter. Go read the treatise, "On the Sensation of Tone," by Hemholtz. All three plus inches thick of it. I have.

Who is Hemholtz?
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/bl ... holtz.html

The treatise addresses all aspects of musical tone, and explores not only the physical aspects of sound waves, but the psychoacoustic phenoma associated with music, such as how we perceive pitch, overtones, non-harmonic transients (of which the alloy in a tuba contributes to), difference and summation tones, masking, and a plethora of other issues.

And in regard to this issue and other physical issues, everyone on the TubeNet needs to read this:
http://www.rosslg.com/works/WebNotes/Sy ... stems.html
Because the bottom line (pun intended) is that 99% of the people "dereference," as this thesis puts it. To put that in everyday English, it's like the witch-duck scene in Holy Grail, where the loudest guy yells "witch" or "duck" and everyone else goes along, instead of analyzing what is really there to determine the real question.

Granted, it is easy to say, "I see no difference, I hear no difference, I feel no difference, therefore, there must not be a difference." But this does not take into account limitations in human senses. It is not that far removed from the next statement in that vein that a deaf person might say watching a person who is speaking at a far enough distance away that they cannot see their lips move: "I see no difference, I hear no difference, I feel no difference, therefore there is no such thing as sound." The precepts are the same, the conclusion, though different, is of a similar dereferenced conclusion, instead of the true scientific method, which can be expressed thus: "I see no difference, I hear no difference, I feel no difference. There are multiple inferences here: 1) There actually is no difference, but that is inconsistent with data (in this case, the alloy), which has at least one variable of measurable difference, 2) There is a difference or differences, but not measurable with the current reference, or 3) some other factor(s) is(are) either overriding the differences or truncating their effect, or 4) some combination of 2 & 3."

Inference #1 is not viable as it does not take into account all the data, and #s 2 & 3 must be explored further in order to discover what has not been quantified or qualified as yet, and further to see if the question is actually more complex, as is usually the case, or #4. Ironically, even the best scientists and logicians do not always keep #4 open. This is either because of insufficient data, or not enough dots to draw the correct line, so that several lines and shapes will all go through the same dots, which only causes argument based on 1st tier observation, and is counterproductive to further research, and which is accounted for by an alternative inference, or by the natural urge to focus on a particular inference, which can transform the objective into the subjective, nullifying the quality of further research as the encroachment of subjectivity self-actuates conclusions. Just look at any pharmaceutical company "study" on one of their products for proof of that.

In other words, everything makes a difference. The real question is objectively how much difference, so a determination may be made as to whether or not that difference is noticable, and then if it is noticable, then whether or not it is significant or not as evaluated by even another layer of subjective criteria, a second step removed from the actual process.

I have at this point blown enough through my brass.

[Donn]

In my college physics class, I annoyed my lab partners with the assertion that if I were to jump up, the earth would jump down in the proverbial equal and opposite reaction. Of course this is quite clearly true, and it has always bothered me a little that they would have a problem with it - we're talking honors physics, albeit first year.

But then of course it isn't true, in any useful way. Even if we could assume the earth is effectively a rigid object that behaves in a perfectly newtonian way, you'd be an idiot to look for any movement, because you won't find it.

[windshieldbug]

But then of course it isn't true, in any useful way. Even if we could assume the earth is effectively a rigid object that behaves in a perfectly newtonian way, you'd be an idiot to look for any movement, because you won't find it.

Your ears just aren't sensitive enough!

[Chuck(G)]

Go read the treatise, "On the Sensation of Tone," by Hemholtz. All three plus inches thick of it. I have.

You must have the large print edition. Mine is 6.25x9.25x1.0 (Dover, 1954).

I've never seen a rose brass York bell either. Doesn't mean that they don't exist, but they must be very uncommon.

While everything may make a difference, apparently alloy didn't matter too much to the old builders. A very interesting little book is Robert Barclay's "The Art of the Trumpet-Maker" (Oxford University Press). Barclay does a survey of intstruments coming out of several shops during the 16th and 17th centuries. The composition of the brass is all over the place--even on instruments built by the same builder.

[Rick Denney]

Go look again at your basic physics.

I asked first.

If the alloy is different, the density is different, measurable as the specific gravity is different, demonstrating the mass is different.

Okay, you tell me: What's the difference in density between 70/30 yellow brass and 80/20 gold brass?

What the heck; I'll answer. Common 65/35 yellow brass has a density of 0.306 pounds/cubic inch. 85/15 red brass is 0.316 pounds/cubic inch. That's 3% difference in density, thus 3% difference in mass assuming the same dimensions (which I did not and do not assume). We should be able to see that on a set of scales. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the difference will be lost in the noise of variation due to sanding. Miraphone is known to sand the crap out of their instruments, resulting in wavy internal surfaces and smooth external surfaces.

I stand by my statement that the density is essentially equal across brass alloys.

Now, I want you to go back and read my response to Cameron. Did you see me doubt his certain, garoooonteed experience? No. What I did was explore what could cause that difference. I rejected those things that have no physical significance, and considered those things that might result from the physical differences that do indeed exist. Stronger material will work differently, and necessarily result in different dimensions and residual stresses. I suggested that we look for the difference there. Of course, those differences may or may not apply to another manufacturer, or even to Miraphone. Thus, we may be attributing something we observe to the wrong cause. That's how science gets distorted into support fads.

Your citing of Hemholtz sounds more like Obiwan Kenobe talking about The Force than real science. I do not believe that a 3% difference in density of a portion of an instrument is the reason Cameron felt such a significant effect. Thus, there must be something else. We are not talking about subtleties. If we were, Cameron wouldn't have put so many o's in garoooontee.

I did not base my belief that the copper content (within reason) makes no difference on the fact that I can't hear it. I based it on observable and measurable properties of those materials. That is not dereferencing (at least I don't think it is--I don't follow The Force). It's looking up material properties in a database. I didn't need a 3" book to do that.

Remember, I'm the one who soldered Monsterweights onto my Miraphone, and pronounced the difference (with careful albeit subjective testing) real.

Rick "who thinks obvious effects will have obvious causes, even if we spend 100 years misattributing them to subtle causes" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

I think that there are so many variables that have a larger influence on the way a bell responds than differences in alloy.

For example, garland or plain rim? Brass or iron rim wire? Soldered bell wire or no solder? Size of the bell wire? Are the ends of the rim wire brazed together or are they free? Is the bell attached to the body by being butted and soldered, or was there a brace used? What size and shape ferrule was used to attach the bell to the bottom bow? How about position of the ferrule (i.e. "German" style with long bottom bow legs or "American" with short bottom bow legs)? Does the bell have a thumbring attached, or is the thumbring attached to the valve cluster? Is there a lyre holder soldered to the bell or is attached to the leadpipe? Is the leadpipe soldered directly to the bell? If so, how much of it, and how much solder was used to attach it?

...and on and on...

I just finished crimping in a bell wire that's about half the diameter of the normal ones in a little Miraphone 184 bell. I'm not sure if the bell sounds different or not. But I think it looks nicer (yes, it's soldered and it's iron).

[MartyNeilan]

...I cleaned all of the **** out of the mouthpipe of mine, and the two instruments were far more similar.

Sounds like you're putting the mouthpiece in the wrong place!!

[iiipopes]

1) I said it was rumour about York using red brass. A perfect setup. By everyone repeating it, I have demonstrated the duck syndrome. Now I must retract it, or someone will really think that York did use red brass without any spectrograph data to either verify or refute.

2) Rick, you still confuse the concept of no difference, with the concept of no significant difference, by using both the phrase "physical difference" with the phrase "essentially equal" two sentences later. There is a difference in the two concepts. Granted, the end result from a practical point of view is the same, but it is still a gross misstatement to obfuscate the two concepts. If you cannot detect a difference, then it is because the difference is not measurable within the given framework, and the measuring criteria must be refined. Otherwise, the fallacy continues that, "I can't see it...therefore it doesn't exist."

Moreover, your post demonstrates that you did not read my post as to the effect of multiple inferences, especially that in this case the alloy difference is most likely minimal at best, being overridden by the larger factors you describe. I am not attributing value or weight to the respective differences. I am merely pointing out that very seldom is true reasoning used to discover true causes and appropriately value the given data.

As far as sounding "out there," any significantly advanced technology, and I will add analytical processes, to the common person is indistinguishable from magic. This is no different than those who called Columbus insane because he envisioned a new approach to the trade routes.

Finally, the statement that obvious causes have obvious effects is flat wrong. To quote the article referenced, "There is no necessary connection between a particular science-system and the data-field it dereferences to." Any person well versed in statistical analysis, of which I am not, can show you why, although it may take calculus to do so.

3) Yes, ChuckG, all these details make a difference, and we can list them all day ad infinitum ad nauseaum. But until all are added together, it is doubtful that any particular one by itself, or even a combination of a lot of them, makes a noticeable difference. The difference first has to be determined to be noticeable before a subjective judgment can be made as to whether or not it is significant.

4) Don, I like your post. It demonstrates the difference between the concepts of "no difference" and "no noticable difference," and recognizes the limitations of any measurement system.

5) As far as historical alloys, I must read the Barclay myself. It sounds very interesting. Then again, the way brass was made then is completely different from the way it is made now. At that time, zinc as a mineral was rare, if not unknown. So you heated up a cauldron, melted your copper, threw in as much zinc oxide ore that you had, cover it quickly and swirl it around so the zinc did not evaporate out of the cauldron, and hope the copper absorbed it all. Of course, with that method of making brass one instrument's worth at a time, it was impossible to regulate the alloy, so they worked with what they had, and a fine job they did.

6) Everyone of the subsequent posts have argued different subpoints of my post without integrating the entire post, and have all fallen into the "apples v oranges" 1st tier observation fallacy. By this supplement, even I have risked doing the same thing.[/i]

[iiipopes]

Hey, Henry -- no, I don't, but it would be great! Think about it -- the evil Hemholtzian with his sinister laugh, "Mwhahaha! Dare I say it? With a Hemholtz low frequency resonator that large...I could...RULE THE WORLD!!! Mwhahahahahah...."

[windshieldbug]

You must have the large print edition. Mine is 6.25x9.25x1.0

1) I said it was rumour about York using red brass. A perfect setup. By everyone repeating it, I have demonstrated the duck syndrome. Now I must retract it, or someone will really think that York did use red brass without any spectrograph data to either verify or refute

LOOK! A Witchy Duck!

[iiipopes]

In the past, I owned one "red brass" tuba with a nickel-silver valveset.

It was made by Miraphone especially for Roger Bobo, and he had rejected it - played it and never took receipt of it. It was a very "stiff"-playing instrument, and did not respond as nicely as the standard yellow brass versions of the same tuba that I subsequently played.

I do NOT believe that the chosen materials were - at all - factors in that instrument's weak playing characteristics.

Yes, bloke, the horn probably played badly, but your conclusion is one of substituting a subjective conclusion based on the "I see nothing...therefore there is nothing" fallacy rather than on a conclusion that some other factors, probably including not being well put together, masked or overshadowed any minor effects the materials themselves had.

[Donn]

I do NOT believe that the chosen materials were - at all - factors in that instrument's weak playing characteristics.

Yes, bloke, the horn probably played badly, but your conclusion is one of substituting a subjective conclusion based on the "I see nothing...therefore there is nothing" fallacy rather than on a conclusion that some other factors, probably including not being well put together, masked or overshadowed any minor effects the materials themselves had.

I don't see where you get this stuff.

We're regularly invited to believe that rose brass bells have some musically significant property, one that should be detectable in a practical way. No one cares whether you personally wish to take responsibility for that claim, but since it appears in your posts we don't have to question whether this claim has been made, by someone.

Others argue that since the relevant physical properties of rose brass and yellow brass are exceedingly similar, this claim has to be taken more or less on faith, because it isn't obvious at all that it would be true.

"I do not believe" clearly just means the faith isn't there. It's a common reaction among people who have been subjected to an endless parade of things that are supposed to be taken on faith. Your analysis is amazingly backwards - he actually does seem to be implying that other factors overshadowed any effect of the material, but if I may put words in your mouth the way you impute others' conclusions to your simplistic fallacies, you seem to be bothered by the "at all" part. You want to stash this idea in some kind of semantic refuge, where things that can't be practically detected because of limits of our senses, somehow survive and are worth talking about. No one plays a theoretical tuba, in practice. A difference that isn't detectable, is no difference at all, to the tuba player. Some people believe there is a difference, some believe there is none, and who really knows who's right, but it's a queer notion indeed to cling to a difference that makes no difference.

[iiipopes]

Donn - thanks for your post. Finally, a post that is actually considering what I posted. I'm glad you disagreed with me. It could have been red brass, angle of wrap, style of connecting ferrules, composition of valves, or any one of a number of (my conclusion) insignificant single issues, as Chuck G posted. It does all point up to all the hype that is made about the inconsequential items about musical instruments in general, and the general neglect of what are the two really important issues: overall good workmanship combined with a player who is striving to be as musical as possible. The rest is, for the most part, inconsequential details which are all overridden by how well it is put together and played.

To demonstrate the very minor roles these issues play, Torres, the great Spanish luthier, once made a guitar that had a standard neck and top, so it could actually be played, but the back was papier-mache. Of course, in the hands of the master, reports are that it still sounded great.

I have succeeded in making some people really think about how they approach some of these issues, and how much dross and hype passes for what really makes an instrument play well or not. That was my goal. You were the only one to pick up on it and actually consider my thought process to make the point that little things are just that, little things, and it is so easy to either discount them completely or give way too much importance to them, instead of being just one more detail in the mix to be sorted out properly. You, my friend, get the next round of beer, or other beverage of choice, paid for by me.

[Chuck(G)]

LOOK! A Witchy Duck!

Yeah, Mike, but this one looks more like a Blessing with a York marque on it. What do you have for pre-WW II York-York rose brass?

[windshieldbug]

LOOK! A Witchy Duck!

Yeah, Mike, but this one looks more like a Blessing with a York marque on it. What do you have for pre-WW II York-York rose brass?

Oh! You mean before Fischer had the York stuff farmed out in-country and to B&M... well, if you're going to be picky about it...

Besides, it was just too tempting; low, slow, over the plate and *without* steroids... !

[Chuck(G)]

3) Yes, ChuckG, all these details make a difference, and we can list them all day ad infinitum ad nauseaum. But until all are added together, it is doubtful that any particular one by itself, or even a combination of a lot of them, makes a noticeable difference. The difference first has to be determined to be noticeable before a subjective judgment can be made as to whether or not it is significant.

My point was that we don't make an issue of these things--we treat them as if they didn't exist. I've yet to see a discussion on TubeNet on the subject of bell wires (other than how to track down a rattle). So, given this (and the current state of tuba manufacturing techniques), it's pointless to try to talk about "objective" differences between two instruments. And I don't feel nauseated one bit listing the differences that I can think of, since apparently no one's done it before.

5) As far as historical alloys, I must read the Barclay myself. It sounds very interesting. Then again, the way brass was made then is completely different from the way it is made now.

If you decide to pursue the Barclay book, be sure to also get a copy of Agricola (De Re Metallica). Barclay constantly refers to it and it's handy to have the complete work at hand to round out the references. Diderot wouldn't be a bad idea either, though he's a bit later than the period that Barclay deals with.

[Rick Denney]

"There is no necessary connection between a particular science-system and the data-field it dereferences to." Any person well versed in statistical analysis, of which I am not, can show you why, although it may take calculus to do so.

As Richard Feynmann said, "If you can't explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it yourself." The statement you quote above sounds like someone trying to be profound and mysterious, not someone trying to communicate. I'm a mere engineer and will have to leave it to Ph.D.'s to interpret the meaning of the above. Suffice to say that I have genuine credentials in reading and understanding scientific discussion, and get annoyed when an author expects me to puzzle through esoterica (such as the esoterica that I write and expect others to puzzle through).

But I could not understand the importance of the distinction you are making between effects that exist but are not significant and those that are significant. Believe me, I understand the distinction, and acknowledge that to apply "significance" requires a standard of measurement, even if the standard is beyond current measurement methods. And I recognize that the inability to measure an effect doesn't mean it isn't there.

Either these perceptions are delusional (and I mean that in a pleasant way) or they have a physical cause. That they are not delusional doesn't mean we can measure the effect or explain the cause. It also does not follow that because we can't describe the cause, the perceiver is delusional. So, when someone whose powers of perception I value report their observation, I look for causes. But when I do, I look for explanations, not mere correlation. Too much research has led people astray because correlation was used to defend an underlying cause. This is almost always the problem when reporters and politicians delve into science.

It is also good science to start with the assumption that there is no effect and then prove that an effect exists and is real ("real" being defined as significant enough to matter in, say, a design or procurement decisions--remember that I'm an engineer).

My goal in all of these sorts of discussions is to persuade people to perceive objectively. That is clearly impossible, of course. But if they work at it, they will be less likely to fool themselves into jumping on every silly bandwagon that comes along.

The top artist is free to decide for himself what is significant with no judgment from me. But most of the folks who read this list are not equipped to exploit or even notice any resulting effects, even if those effects are real. But when I get esoteric and mystical descriptions of subtle effects even from top artists, I tend to be skeptical. In any artistic expression, even the perception that a difference exists makes it so, but that should provide no directive to those who would benefit more from mastering what they have.

I stand by my statement that obvious effects have obvious causes, even if those obvious causes are the sum of many subtle effects. In fact, they almost always are the sum of many small effects, with the result being that it is nearly impossible to isolate one tiny aspect, like, say, the copper content of the brass in the bell. But we should try to understand them in total and then try to figure out what could contribute to that total. That means trying to distinguish between effects that are too subtle to bother with and those that are more significant. We may have to revisit some of our rejects later on, but it's a waste of exploration, which is limited as it is, to chase the pennies without considering the dollars.

Sorry if my response is not to your point. It does, however, make my point. I suspect we mostly agree.

Rick "who thinks significance is precisely the issue" Denney

[iiipopes]

Rick, your last post was precisely on point.

OK, the plain english on the statistical analysis. Ed Demming had a demonstration with small white and red balls he filled a clear aquarium with and mixed them up to demonstrate the point. Half were red, half were white. The red ones were white ones that had been painted red. He then had some paddles with indentations made so that when he plunged the paddles into the aquarium, he would pull out a paddle full of the small balls. The question was how many of each color would come out on a paddle. The uninformed guessed half and half. The results were not half and half. Everybody tried to explain a reason. No one's reason was correct, and Demming had to explain that the difference was the slight difference in the size of the balls from the layer of paint compared to the size of the dimples in the paddles. The paddles latched on to the closest sized balls, and defeated pure random chance of 50/50. Over time, analyzing on average how many of each color came out with each paddle, he was able to extrapolate what size dimple was more likely to pull which color ball.

The point is that all of the "obvious" answers, conclusions and explanations did not fully explain the behavior of the paddles, but careful analysis of the true variables, the differences in the size of the dimples and the size of the balls, however small, did.

So, to repeat earlier in the thread: everything makes a difference, even if with current technology it is beyond our current ability to measure what that difference is. The real question is 1) is this something that makes a noticable difference compared to something else, and if it does, 2) do we consider this difference significant, a subjective value judgment.

Red brass on a large tuba probably does not make a significant difference.