Goldbrass vs yellow

[MikeMason]

Yeah, I know, but would love to have most recent opinions on the subject. If the price was the same, which and why? I know there are camps of “absolutely no difference except the color” to “magical,life changing improvements “ and everything in between. Yes, I also know that there are so many variables in the way horns sound and play, it’s hard to discern correlation vs causation, but what the hell, let’s give it a go! May soon have this decision to make.

[DonO.]

I may be speaking with little to no knowledge of the topic, but a few observations. First, there have reportedly been scientific studies that conclude the material a “brass” instrument is made from contributes far less to the tone than the size and shape of the air column itself. I say reportedly because I have not seen those studies myself, only read them being referred to. But one thing that is indisputable fact is that gold brass has a higher copper content and less zinc than yellow brass. More copper and less zinc means the metal is more resistant to the de/zincification process that results in “red rot”. Red brass is even higher in copper. I swear that once I saw a 100 percent copper tuba for sale on Fleabay. That would lose no zinc at all, since it has none to start with. The down side of having an instrument with a higher percentage of copper is that it would dent much more easily. There are those who would say there is a difference in tone, but put me in the dubious camp on that.

[bloke]

When I order replacement bows (particularly if they are u-shaped and holding water when the instrument is set on its bell) my personal instruments from Miraphone, I always order 80/20 brass. They don't cost a whole lot more, and they won't rot. I think Wade likes to order nickel-brass bows for the same reason, but I would prefer that they not be quite as noticeable regarding their difference in appearance. It doesn't matter, other than taste.

I sort of think that the speaker of a brass instrument is the bell, with other parts sort of being the volume and tone knobs.

I'm not naive or insensitive enough to claim that all bells of the same model and material sound the same. I've heard some pretty remarkable differences in bells that were supposed to be just the same, but I've heard just as many differences in those made of the same material as I've heard from those made of different materials. I'm not sure that anyone really knows anything about this. The more individual pontification that I witness on this topic, the more skeptical I tend to become of it, particularly when someone uses non-sonic terms such as "dark", "bright", or "color" in their speechifying.

Perception is reality, and if you can get an 80/20 alloy instrument for the same price as one that is more like 80/30 alloy, I would probably pick the 80/20 alloy, because more people seem to believe they're special, and you might be able to resell it for more later.

my model of f tuba:
Whenever I've played other ones that are in good mechanical condition, the ones that I've liked more have always been so-called yellow brass, but I suspect it's a coincidence... or perhaps their rotors were slightly tighter...??

[matt g]

I’ve typically assigned red brass and yellow brass differences to the quality of worker doing the job. In other words, if the instrument maker is charging more for a gold brass instrument (wherein the cost of materials is pretty close regardless), then there’s probably a good chance that the better/more experienced worker(s) is (are) involved in the process simply because the accounting works better.

Forming and shaping along with alignment and air-tight assembly for a smooth and consistent acoustic device would seem to trump most of the impacts of the material walls.

The material properties in regards to corrosion resistance are notable, considering the cost and lifespan of an adult owned tuba. That’s a viable investment.

I wish my 2165 had a more corrosion resistant leadpipe…

[bort2.0]

Based on my first-hand, long-term, and back-to-back experiences with yellow brass and gold brass Miraphone 188's...

Gold brass
* Sweeter sound. A bit darker. Big mouthpieces make it sound even bigger, less deep mouthpieces mitigate the darkness pretty well.
* I liked the response better
* Like 10% less projection
* But it accepts about 10% more "pushing"
* Not sure the best word, but maybe felt slightly "dampened" (?)
* All of those combined, to me, made the gold brass 188 feel/sound like a slightly bigger tuba than the yellow 188. Maybe realizing it's "4/4+" potential
* LOVED using it in orchestra

Yellow brass
* Brighter sound. Deep mouthpieces darken it somewhat, less deep mouthpieces made it even brighter still.
* Still excellent response
* Projects better (really well!)
* Have to be a little careful when pushing at/near top end volume
* But sometimes you actually want that kind of sharpness/coarseness to the sound
* Feels like a very 4/4 tuba to me
* Slight preference to use this in band

If it were me, today, I'm not sure... if both were available to me, I'd pick gold brass. But if only yellow brass was available, I don't think I'd drive myself crazy again over it. But maybe that's just me missing having a CC tuba, and not knowing when that might ever happen again.

[matt g]

I’d like to know the comparison between those 188s in regards to the wall thickness of the gold vs yellow brass. Sounds like the gold brass was a thicker sheet of metal based on your observations.

[bort2.0]

Oh, and there's also gold brass bell on yellow brass body. I've seen some Alex 163's like that, but haven't played any.

Closest I've played to that was the Kanstul 90 CC tuba. Exceptionally easy to play, gorgeous sound, but left me wanting more of that gorgeous sound.

[bloke]

I'm not sure that there are enough workers in tuba factories to have two different sets of people working on the same models simply because they are made of different types of sheet/tubular brass.

It seems more likely to me that the thing would be "Let's get these tuba parts done, because we need to get back to making horn, trombone, and trumpet parts".

I realize that brass players and woodwind players like to think of their instruments being more like string the instruments and percussion instruments, but they are just not. I will remind again that for decades a principal oboist in the Philadelphia Orchestra used an oboe with a plastic top joint, because they grew weary of changes and cracks. At least one joint of virtually all bassoons is a way-drilled-out maple section with a thick hard rubber insert, and then the hard rubber insert is bored out, yet people turn their noses up at non-wood bassoons.

Two of my tubas are made of hand hammered sheet metal. I think the only reason that I'm grateful for that is because they weigh a little bit less than they would otherwise.

I suspect that the main reason that vintage European tubas were mostly made of sheet brass that was thin and hand hammered is because that was the technology available, and thin because those instruments were marched with.
80:20 brass is certainly highly rot resistant, and - in the past - such instruments only cost slightly more. These days, they seem to cost a good bit more. When communist east German B&S tubas were first being imported into the United States, I believe they cost a few hundred bucks, and to order them in 80:20 brass cost another hundred bucks.

[bort2.0]

I’d like to know the comparison between those 188s in regards to the wall thickness of the gold vs yellow brass. Sounds like the gold brass was a thicker sheet of metal based on your observations.

Those are all long gone from me, so unfortunately I can't answer that. Good question though!

I should add, my gold brass 188 had the nickel silver valve section, which maybe had an effect as well... The new 188 alongside it was crazy good, and maybe a little darker and bigger yet. Forgot about that until just now!

[Mary Ann]

I would love to hear a tuba with an ambronze bell. (I don't know what ambronze is, just that it's what my horn bell is made of.)
I went from a spun gold brass bell to this (Hammered?) ambronze bell, and my horn went from a tinny, slippery thing to a WEAPON.

Dunno about the two in the original post, but my friend's NStar is lacquer and mine was silver. Neither of us could tell any difference between them, but we are middle of the road amateurs.

[kingrob76]

I've owned a gold brass 188 and a yellow brass 188 from the same era. Very different instruments in my mind, but I think the differences were in my experience under the bell more than they were out in the hall.

Everything @bort2.0 said is correct. My GB 188 simply didn't have the top end (in terms of projection) my yellow brass 188 did. Both horns were special, IMO, I probably should have found a way to keep the GB 188 (you're welcome @jtm) given the rarity of that horn but what it helped me buy was worth the switch and that new one is the best fit for me, yet.

What *I* learned is that a smaller all GB instrument - for me - would be just fine. Something for quintets, for example. The resistance to red rot is a real thing, too.

[iMav]

From Austin Custom Brass's website (specifically referencing bell composition):

• Yellow Brass: this bell is an excellent mix of materials for all-around work as this material is very versatile. The sound is clear and brilliant at all dynamic levels, with a good core and great projection.

• Gold Brass: like the yellow brass bell this is a very versatile material - a near perfect blend of warmth and projection. The gold brass brings a depth to the sound which is very smooth, rich and dark, however it is still a lively and agile instrument. It responds quick and easy.

• Red Brass: the Red Brass bell material is an ideal choice for the soloist who is looking for the richest, warmest, thickest sound available. Higher in copper content than our other two bell choices this provides the player with the smoothest transitions from note to note. Articulations are veiled (although with a lighter Red Brass bell option it is greatly improved) and sound shape is overall a bit wider in shape.

• Sterling Silver: Sterling silver is a very versatile material but also much more dependent on the individual’s particular ability level. Therefore we recommend this bell option for the serious amateur or professional. The general characteristics are the bell is much darker.

[jtm]

Does Sterling Silver mean silver plated yellow brass? Or do people make whole trumpet bells from solid silver?

[bloke]

Bach and King have made trombone and trumpet
bells out of silver. King - in the past - marked their bells as sterling, but they were coin silver 90%. King also made cornet bells of silver as well as trumpet and cornet mouthpipes and saxophone bells and necks.

I don't know if Bach bells are pure silver or coin silver, and I don't know about anyone else. Pure silver is mighty soft.

I can make one remark regarding sonic characteristics as pertains to the King silver trombone bells:

Over and over and over, when I've removed their main tuning slides and put my lips on the small end of the bells and played a pitch with my lips that was in tune with the harmonic series of the bell alone, the silver bells would offer a long after-ring. The brass bells do not do this. I'm not sure if it's a good thing, just as much as I'm not sure that some of the brass sousaphone bells that offer an after-ring is a desirable trait.

[donn]

Does Sterling Silver mean silver plated yellow brass? Or do people make whole trumpet bells from solid silver?

Sterling silver is an alloy - 7.5% copper or similar - and I don't think an alloy plating would be practically feasible, even if there were some reason to try. I guess that doesn't mean advertised as sterling silver is guaranteed to be solid sterling silver, it just means that if not, they're lying twice - the plating isn't sterling silver either.

What's missing from the list is bronze. I guess ordinary bronze might be almost as impractical as steel, but Reynolds used what they called Bronz-O-Lite in some trumpets and trombones for a while. I don't know what that is - it's common enough to call a brass alloy with a brownish tint "bronze", that I guess the name practically means nothing. But it could be an alloy with some tin.

[jtm]

Over and over and over, when I've removed their main tuning slides and put my lips on the small end of the bells and played a pitch with my lips that was in tune with the harmonic series of the bell alone, the silver bells would offer a long after-ring. The brass bells do not do this. I'm not sure if it's a good thing, just as much as I'm not sure that some of the brass sousaphone bells that offer an after-ring is a desirable trait.

My brass (with silver plate) sousaphone has an after-ring that's surprising -- I must have just not noticed that kind of thing when I was in a marching band. That's one of the reasons I'll probably sell it.

[bloke]

Fiberglass bells easily solve the problem on sousaphones, and - if you don't like the white color - they've got some amazing paints, today.

A common additive to silver - which is used for plating - is antimony.

Quite a few people suspect that a now defunct USA brass instrument manufacturer used some sort of bronze alloy in quite a few of their instruments while representing it as some sort of special vintage brass. I'm only repeating what others have said, and am not making a statement on my own.

Bronze alloys cover a wide swath of formulas, and vary greatly in there properties, depending on what's in them. I have a prototype of that economy cup-shank threaded underpart ("Symphony") that I sell which is (rather than silver plated brass) made of bronze, and it approaches the hardness of some steel alloys (which also vary greatly in their properties).

[Stryk]

I have an Alex 163 that is total yellow brass and one that is yellow brass with a gold brass bell. The only real difference I can tell is the yellow brass is brighter and you can overplay it easier. The gold brass bell gives what you may call a darker, denser sound. Your mileage may vary! This is not a true apples vs apples comparison because there is 50 some years difference between when they were manufactured.

[bloke]

I currently own a euphonium with an 80:20 "gold"brass bell.

It makes more racket than the 100% "yellow"brass euphonium that I previously owned - both having made in Europe, just fwiw.

The one with the 80:20 bell features a huge bell (no...not just diameter...a Wick mute - with untrimmed corks - nearly bottoms out), so I suspect (and - clearly - this is not part of what some people claim to be "The Science" ) that (if metallurgy affects things a bit) interior shape trumps metallurgy.

I'm sure others have observed this:
With one's ear extremely close to a plastic-bell-flair and fiberglass-body sousaphone bell, there's an odd "plastic" type of sound-bouncing-around acoustic which can be aurally observed.

Like you, I seem (??) to have observed that quite a few same-model/same-shape-inside instruments with 80:20 bells and large bows don't project as much...but (again) there's currently no reliable way to test this and - even were some absolutely-consistent air/embouchure to make sounds, and some machinery were to analyze it - why should we trust the machine or it's microphone, and what it 1000:0 human observations disagreed with the machine?

As should be obvious, I'm a skeptic, but the majority of instruments I've chosen for myself have been yellow brass with a coat of clear sprayed over them. The caveat being that those instruments have been vastly different from each other in so many other ways.

[peterbas]

.