Rose brass for tubas?

[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.

[windshieldbug]

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

Rick has expressed, very eloquently, this position, especially to those of us who have performed on smaller brass instruments. The point being: what does, in fact, make an audible difference on a trumpet may not make such an effect on a tuba. The air column being so much larger, and resonance effects being a much smaller percentage.

And empirical data may not account for all performance factors. If one thinks something makes a difference, that fact alone may cause one to perform differently!

[iiipopes]

Indeed.

[iiipopes]

OK, now for my actual opinion the subject of red brass, keeping in mind that the difference it theoretically could make is probably miniscule at best, and almost definitely masked or overridden by other factors:

1) Red brass is softer and less stiff than gold or yellow brass - Rick, please get out your Rockwell manual and tell us how much softer, for the same annealing.

2) Tubas need a higher degree of mechanical "stress-worthiness" as a result of their larger size and greater mass.

3) Any sonic advantage appears to be more than offset by the need of regular yellow or gold brass to meet the criteria in #s 1 & 2.

4) If there is a difference in tone, it could be argued that the red brass attenuates too much of the overtone structure, preventing a tuba from blending properly with other instruments, who rely on the complex overtone structure of a tuba, rather than its absolute fundamental pitch, to match tone and timbre in ensemble.

Therefore, red brass may actually be a detriment to tuba tone, structure, longetivity and blend, rather than a help.

[Shockwave]

I've noticed with other brass instruments made of various metals that the differences aren't apparent until there are a lot of upper harmonics in the sound i.e. "brassy" sound. With the exception of silver bells that seem to change the strength of middle to low harmonics also, the other materials seem to change only the character of the very high harmonics. These harmonics are rarely generated when playing tuba in a classical setting, so material probably matters less with tuba than it does with other brass instruments such as trumpet and horn.

Silver has to be the most "different" sounding of all the common alternatives to brass, and it lends a certain power to the lower-middle harmonics of trumpets and trombones. Whether this difference is due to the material adding to or subtracting from the sound (efficiency), I have no idea, but the sound is nice. Tubas might benefit even more from this material, but as far as I know no silver tuba has ever been constructed. Silver has quite a slow speed of sound for bending waves compared to brass, and this might have something to do with the difference in tone. Tin has a similarly slow speed of sound but much more internal damping. At some point, if I ever succeed in making a mandrel for electroforming tuba bodies, I'll have to make silver and tin horns just to experiment.

Regardless of material, I've heard many anecdotal stories and have many myself that thinner metal produces a better sounding tuba. A tuba made of thick metal sounds remarkably the same at all volume levels up to a very rapid transition to "blat". A tuba made of thin metal sounds quite mellow at low volume and has a more gradual transition to "blat", slow enough that a player can contol it in an expressive manner. The CSO York and the best of the raincatchers used in the Sousa band are purported to have been made of thin metal.

-Eric

[Ace]

Eric,

You may be onto something when you suggest that thinner metal makes tubas sound better. The best sounding tuba (to my ears) that I have ever owned was a big Cerveny Kaiser 5/4 CC, model 601-5MR-----a tuba with fairly thin metal. What a glorious tone that instrument had.

BTW, I read somewhere that Ev Gilmore of the Dallas Symphony used a big BBb Cerveny Kaiser in the DSO's recording of Shostakovich's Ninth Symphony.

[JTJ]

Shockwave, interesting note on silver bells. Sterling, appropriately, offers a sterling silver bell option on their euphonium.

http://www.sterlingbrass.co.uk/euphoniums.htm

Click options.

After this discussion, I want to play one.

John

[Rick Denney]

1) Red brass is softer and less stiff than gold or yellow brass - Rick, please get out your Rockwell manual and tell us how much softer, for the same annealing.

2) Tubas need a higher degree of mechanical "stress-worthiness" as a result of their larger size and greater mass.

3) Any sonic advantage appears to be more than offset by the need of regular yellow or gold brass to meet the criteria in #s 1 & 2.

4) If there is a difference in tone, it could be argued that the red brass attenuates too much of the overtone structure, preventing a tuba from blending properly with other instruments, who rely on the complex overtone structure of a tuba, rather than its absolute fundamental pitch, to match tone and timbre in ensemble.

I'm trying to figure how red brass attenuates overtones.

The difference in stiffness is slight at best (and stiffness is not measured by Rockwell--only hardness which is related to strength). Stiffness (as quantified by the modulus of elasticity) for all the brasses ranges between 15,800,000 psi and 16,700,000 psi, which is quite a narrow range. Aluminum is less, titanium is about the same, and steel is much more, to provide some context.

Stiffness is unrelated to strength. The range of yield strength for red brass starts at about 10,000 psi for annealed material, which is about two-thirds the yield strength of yellow brass. But strength varies hugely depending on temper and working, and red brass that is harder and stronger than yellow brass is quite possible. There is much more in the range of strength between the alloys that overlaps than doesn't.

But strength is not an issue in acoustics, because the vibrational modes do not bring the material anywhere near its yield strength. I've heard it said that annealed brass resonates differently than hardened brass, and if that is true it is not because it is harder.

Instruments are formed by pressing and hammering, and these processes force the material to yield to assume the final shape. Inevitably, some material does not yield as fully as other material, and the result is that the material fights itself. The instrument can also be assembled under stress. Both cause residual stress that requires greater excitation force to create a given vibration. I believe this has a much greater effect than the usual factors. And it is quite possible that the working methods required by the different alloys result in different residual stresses.

Stiffness is much more controlled by design than by material, so any stiffness-related effects are more likely to be issues of dimension and bracing than material.

So, once again, I think residual stresses, as affected by work hardening, cold working, and annealing, show greater potential to explain any differences than copper content or finish. Design has the greater effect still, because it affects stiffness and mass to a far greater extent than material or finish.

Of course, all this affects only the vibration of the brass. And on a tuba, that has a subtle effect on the vibration of the air within it (compared to trumpets, trombones, and horns, anyway).

Whether any given difference is positive or negative is entirely subjective. Some people prefer a "stiffer" instrument, while others prefer the opposite.

Rick "who thinks brass has a preferred sound only because the sound was defined by instruments made from it" Denney

[windshieldbug]

... While I hold that experimenting on rats causes cancer!