Gold Brass myths

[cthuba]

Hey all!

I was skimming somewhere in the old website where some users were saying that fully gold brass tubas "break up" more easily than yellow brass in louder dynamics.

Is there any merit to this or is this the same as lackyure vurs silvhur myths?

Thanks

[matt g]

Highly doubtful. The physical characteristics are nearly the same regarding acoustics.

Resistance to red rot is real. There’s also a possibility that, in some factories, better tuba builders were putting red/gold brass variants together, so maybe better build quality makes them better players?

Most of it is probably just visual placebo.

[bloke]

There’s a difference between the JP 2 series yellow brass compensating euphonium and the 3 series gold brass compensating euphonium, but the big difference the valveset bore size.

I tend to dismiss a detectable difference between two exactly the same instruments otherwise. The funny thing - though - is this: Whenever I’ve been offered a choice of several of the same model of instruments, I’ve never chosen a gold brass one - when one or more of them were the mix. When I did own a gold brass tuba (that I bought new, because it was offered to me for about $1000 less than normal dealer cost), it was absolutely the worst one of that model that I’ve ever played - as I played more of them in the years after I sold my own, due to dissatisfaction with it.

I have beliefs, but my own behavior and experiences seem to contradict those beliefs.

[bort2.0]

Hey all!

I was skimming somewhere in the old website where some users were saying that fully gold brass tubas "break up" more easily than yellow brass in louder dynamics.

Is there any merit to this or is this the same as lackyure vurs silvhur myths?

Thanks

I think that's backwards... Gold brass takes more before it breaks up, as compared to yellow brass. The tradeoff is that the projection is better on a yellow brass tuba. Or so people say.

Some people try to split the difference and have a yellow brass tuba with a gold brass bell.

My experience with the Miraphone 188 is that the gold brass is consistently more awesome than the yellow brass 188. But, that's just me, having owned a gold brass 188 and having play tested both brass types side by side. The gold brass 188 handled more and sounded sweeter to me.

The idea is that the redder the brass, the more copper it has in it. And the more copper, the softer and mellower the sound is. Gold brass is what, 80% copper? So that's enough to make it sound smoother and sweeter, but without ditching the good properties of yellow brass.

Go too far, and a brass that is nearly (actually?) all copper (like the Fred Marzan one) would be so "soft" that it may be of less practical use. I think the least copper you can have is like 60%... And I'd imagine that even most silver plated instruments are plated over the regular yellow brass.

In the end, some people are far more likely to notice the differences between gold and yellow brass than others. Nobody in their right mind in the audience knows or cares. Play the right notes, at the right times, and make it sound the way you know it's supposed to sound.

But... We are tuba players who thrive on minute and imperceptible differences in our personal experiences. And for that, I would choose gold brass 9 times out of 10.

[bloke]

Once again, I’ve been out-knowledged, out-experienced, and out-sensitived.

[York-aholic]

Once again, I’ve been out-knowledged, out-experienced, and out-sensitived.

It’s a cruel world…

[bloke]

…Mostly, I was remembering that bowser 188 “anniversary model” that I bought new - a couple of years after the 188 model was introduced, and how every single yellow brass 188 that I played after that one has played twice as good…

… but I tend to believe that something was not right with that particular instrument, and to not blame 10% more copper in its alloy - nor blame its nickel-brass valveset.

Even when I bought it, it never occurred to me that those alloys would make it sound different, and only that they were jazzing up the looks of the thing.

bloke “I strongly believe that my skepticism has helped me out a great deal - over the decades, and the legions of others’ lack of it – certainly on Election Day year-in and year-out - has hurt me - over the decades.”

[Doc]

There’s a difference between the JP 2 series yellow brass compensating euphonium and the 3 series gold brass compensating euphonium, but the big difference the valveset bore size.

I tend to dismiss a detectable difference between two exactly the same instruments otherwise. The funny thing - though - is this: Whenever I’ve been offered a choice of several of the same model of instruments, I’ve never chosen a gold brass one - when one or more of them were the mix. When I did own a gold brass tuba (that I bought new, because it was offered to me for about $1000 less than normal dealer cost), it was absolutely the worst one of that model that I’ve ever played - as I played more of them in the years after I sold my own, due to dissatisfaction with it.

I have beliefs, but my own behavior and experiences seem to contradict those beliefs.

Some say YB responds quicker than GB, and GB has a darker, richer tone. I tend to like the tone of GB more than GB in certain instruments**, and I tend to believe there is an actual difference. I'm not sure that the difference in response is as pronounced, but some folks perceive a distinct difference. Sometimes these things can vary between identical examples of the same model to a greater or lesser degree, so trying is most certainly believing.

bloke has tried my GB Symphonie next to his, and he gave it high praise. He still liked his better - maybe because of familiarity, maybe because of bias, maybe because his IS a superior instrument, maybe it's a combination of all those things or none of those things. I have played his Symphonie, and it is definitely a superb example of that model. If I owned it, I wouldn't see the need to switch to a GB version. What does all that mean? Not much. He likes his, I like mine, both are mighty fine tubas, and all is good.

Maybe certain tubas really are better in YB, and some really are better in GB. Maybe it's hit and miss between individual tubas. Maybe it's all about the player having the right instrument that best achieves the sound they want.

**I tend to gravitate toward gold brass with F tubas, but I've owned yellow brass models also. I had a YB Firebird that was an absolute freakin champ that I should never have sold. (And I have a perpetual apology in place for Roger Lewis who worked hard helping me get the very best one.) And after testing GB Firebirds, I wouldn't take any of them over the YB I owned.

[donn]

What is it? I can't easily find a formula for "gold brass". Does every manufacturer use the same alloy? Or is it a term for whatever could be found that looks a little redder?

[bort2.0]

Brass is simply an alloy of copper and zinc.

There's a bunch of different ways it can be mixed, when I googled it it said 66% copper 34% zinc.

I want to say most musical instruments you 70% copper for yellow brass and 80% copper for gold brass.

There's also red brass, which you see in trumpet and trombone bells occasionally. I don't know how much copper is in those, but I'm guessing 85% maybe?

On the other side, if you add too much zinc to the alloy, the brass becomes very hard. Sometimes that's desirable, but other times it becomes too hard to work with which is obviously not good for a musical instrument. If you have too little zinc AKA a whole lot of copper, you lose the corrosion resistance that zinc adds. So with both of those things in mind I think that's why there's kind of The Sweet spot of percentages that just kind of gets dialed in a little bit more or a little bit less.

So yes, there is something to the metallurgy that's more than just for looks. If that translates the sound or not that's the part that's up for debate. Frankly, even if the SOUND doesn't change, if the experience changes for the tuba player -- you -- why NOT pick something that enhances your own experience? :)

[bloke]

Those who never clean their instruments are probably better off with the more expensive higher copper - or nickel-containing - alloys (which are more resistant to alkaline corrosion), but I don’t think those who never clean their instruments tend to be those who seek to pay more money to acquire instruments.
Since I’ve never read rotted any parts on any of my instruments, rot resistant alloys serve no purpose for me, individually…
Again, I bought that dog-playing high-copper brass and nickel-silver 188 because Miraphone USA priced it to me lower than my regular yellow brass price, and not because I was seeking it out.
They had admitted to me that it was special ordered for a professional who had rejected it. It was set up precisely like Roger Bobo preferred his instruments set up - with a left-hand fifth valve and left-hand fifth valve thumb trigger… I tend to suspect that it was rejected by him. I probably should have paid attention to the admission of someone’s rejection of it.

By the way, I also tend to perceive that I prefer the playing characteristics of lacquered versus silver, when there’s a choice of these in the same model… Are these self-fulfilling prophecies ?

[kingrob76]

This is well documented, but, I've owned two 188's - one yellow brass and one gold brass. There was a substantial amount of time between the two horns (25 years). I cannot attest to how the GB 188 sounded in the hall or how it sounded to others. The few times I heard recordings of it I liked what I heard. What I CAN attest to is the how the horn sounded and felt to me under bell was not the same as I recalled my yellow brass horn sounding and feeling. There was a certain "zing" in the YB horn that I could never find in the GB 188. Now, up until I replaced that YB 188 I had never owned a piston valve horn. Since I sold that horn, I had not owned a rotary valve horn until the GB 188.

Have I just become accustomed to different equipment and developed a preference for piston horns? I dunno. My GB 188 was a *great* horn, I just didn't shake hands with it the way I remembered shaking hands with the YB 188 and the only variable is the alloy (and the player).

[jtm]

I have a GB 188. I'm pleased that it isn't the same dog of a 188 that bloke had (since the 5th valve key is for the right thumb). I'm very unlikely to ever get to compare it with a YB 188 of similar age to see if I can hear/feel/imagine any difference between the metals.

Bloke has said elsewhere that this dog of a 188 was still, overall, and excellent tuba; it just wasn't as good as the 188s he's played after it. So, although I don't have the same 188, it's also possible that my GB 188 is not very good compared to other 188s. A haunting thought, to be sure, and one that I'll probably never resolve.

I can say that this GB 188 is the best sounding and easiest playing C tuba I've ever had. But I've only had two others, and neither was particularly well known or sought after, so that's not saying much. I'd be really surprised if it's the gold brass making the difference, though.

[bort2.0]

When I picked up my GB 188 from Dillon music (same exact configuration as Rob's), I got to play it A/B/C/D alongside a new gold brass 188, a new yellow brass 188, and the Dillon Chinese tuba that's nearly the same size.

My GB 188 was the clear winner
New GB 188 was also excellent
New YB 188 was also excellent
I didn't hate the Dillon tuba, but didn't like it either.

My GB 188 had been used for many years in an USAF band (not sure which one). Had been used plenty, and had (has!) an awful lot of life left in it. It now lives in the DFW area, I believe.

I had my GB 188 for a few years. It worked incredibly well in orchestra, and worked "okay" in band. I'm not sure that a YB 188 would have been so significantly different in band. My problem was that I wanted a larger size tuba, to make more sound with less effort. In a large band, it just was too much effort, too often, to make the sound have the bigness that I wanted/needed.

I think there's a difference. I think it's another answerless opinion question around here.

I'll go on a limb and say that I want my CC tubas to be in GB, and my BBb tubas to be in YB.

[bone-a-phone]

Gold brass in the trombone world is half way between red or rose brass and yellow brass. The redder the material the darker the sound because copper is softer than the other elements that make the color lighter. The differences are there, but they are so small you could call them theoretical. The Conn 88h was one of the most popular trombones ever, and it had a rose bell, with the common wisdom being that it gave a more mellow sound. The Coprion material is pure electro-deposited copper, on such horns as the 10h, 18h and 12h. Those are said to be kind of dull at low volume, and a bit shrill at high volume, and absolutely won't break up at volume. But the volume to make a horn do that is not really musical volume, so that's not real consideration in my book.

To me, the biggest noticeable difference is aesthetic.

[iiipopes]

My only observation is that gold brass may be softer, due to the higher copper content, than yellow brass, so gold brass may not stand up to the rigors of less than optimal care. In other words, don't buy a gold brass horn for a school, college, or university.

[bloke]

One time, I was trying to figure out why the compensating range on a German-made Besson Prestige euphonium stunk. Finally, a very (very) large bulge of solder was found in the sort of dogleg that connects the separated fourth valve casing to the other three casings. When searching for the problem - and to add to the confusion - I’ve never found that Besson euphoniums offer the strongest low range - compared to some other makes - anyway.

By the same token, model 188 tubas are notorious for offering a “meh” low range response, so - when one of them is a little bit more “meh” - it’s probably difficult to decide whether or not that’s actually an inferior version of the model.

The parts on most quality makes of instruments are pretty consistent, and I don’t think that tiny amounts of solder pooting out into the bore - at solder joints - hurts things much, but huge chunks (such as found in that euphonium) surely do, and no one really knows whether they’re there.

The keyword in a recent post in this thread is “felt”. Thin instruments and - perhaps - alternate-alloy instruments are possibly going to feel different, but I suspect that they’re not going to sound much different - if the inside is shaped the same, same player playing the same way, same mouthpiece, same room, etc.

The player is always going to be the totally anti-scientific wildcard. A player is going to play two different instruments in different ways, depending on how that player reacts to those individual instruments.

[Oedipoes]

I love my goldbrass Norwegian Star and Hirsbrunner, because they're not going to rot away anytime soon!
Same reason there is now a goldbrass mouthpipe on the B&F kaiser...

No idea if it affects the sound but I'm happy the way it is

[bloke]

I think 80:20 or nickel-brass mouthpipes (or complete valvesets) are good ideas. That having been said, my personal instruments don’t have those.

Walmart sells cleaning vinegar for a not-high price. Home Depot sells rubber stoppers in a wide range of sizes. If someone isn’t anywhere close to someone who does tuba cleaning - or the people near them charge really fancy prices for that, a couple of choices include
- routinely flooding the valve section with lamp oil to prevent lime buildup
- once every year or so, removing the main slide, plugging the small side with a stopper, and figuring out a way to flood the valve section with cleaning vinegar for an hour or two.

[donn]

There used to be a luthier in the Seattle area whose previous career was at Boeing, who would analyze the soundboard of a cello etc. for its resonances while he was carving it out. Not everyone thought the outcomes validated the concept, but whatever, I reckon if we could do something like that with our tuba bells, we'd find an irregular spatial distribution of resonant properties around the bell, where various imperfections in the brass combine with forming stresses.

As a general principle, we might expect more or less uniformity depending on hardness and homogeneity of the brass stock, and the actual forming method. Hypothetically speaking.