Re: Vintage vs. modern / thin vs. thick


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lew on June 14, 2002 at 11:13:38:

In Reply to: Vintage vs. modern / thin vs. thick posted by Volker on June 14, 2002 at 09:17:19:

There are so many variables that affect how a particular tuba plays that it is hard to isolate the effect of the metal thickness vs other factors. I have/had 4 BBb tubas that I play(ed) regularly that illustrate the differences in metal thickness. I have a tuba made in 1893 that appears to have thin metal, and this is not from refinishing or buffing becasue it has the original silver plate. I have a Conn tuba made in 1934 that is built like a tank. I had a Cerveny built in 1999 on which the metal was relatively thin, and I have a new (2002) King 2341 on which the metal seems pretty thick.

In order of the ease of playing and the sound that I get from them I would rank them:
1. 1893 Henry Distin (3/4 to 4/4 sized, 3 valve top action)
2. 2002 King 2341 (4/4 sized 4 valve front action)
3. 1934 Conn 22J (6/4 sized, 3 valve front action)
4. Cerveny 786 stencil (4/4 sized, 4 rotary valve)

Is the oldest horn the best playing because it is the oldest, or did Henry Distin have something unique in his designs that made instruments play well? Was the formulation of the brass different or does aging it over 100 years have an impact on its resonance? I really don't know the answers to these questions. The crystal structure of brass, like any metal, is affected by being worked. Stresses are introduced at the crystal boundries that may impact the resonance of the metal. These stresses can be relieved by annealing, but which is better? The temperature cycling that takes place over time will tend to cause the crystals to resume their original form. Maybe older horns play better because they are older, and today's tubas will play better 50 years from now. I don't know.

As to computer design and production, I would say that Yamaha is probably one of the most automated manufacturers today. Their instruments are noted for consistency across different samples, but some also find their sound to be somewhat sterile. Besson on the other hand is known for wide variation between individual instruments, but the best are considered to have wonderful sound qualities. Why can't they, or someone, analyze the "good" horns and make sure that all of them are made the exact same way? Is it the variations introduced by human factors that produce the accident of a great horn? Again, I don't know, but it's fun to speculate.

For me, I found the horns that have the characteristics that I want for each playing situation, such as sound, response, projection, and don't worry about the age. So, I use the Distin for small ensembles, the Conn for parades (on a truck) or outdoor concerts without a band shell, and the King for everything else. One just happens to be over 100 years old, the other is nearly 70 years old, and my main horn is less than 1 yr old.


Follow Ups: