TromboneChat

I get different results from visiting different sites. Is it just another name for gold brass or for red brass, or is it something entirely different?

Man, do I miss the old TTF when it comes to a question like this!

I would have answered it there and I'll answer it here:

There is a sort of interchangeability between gold brass and rose brass.

Yellow brass is 70% copper 30% zinc.
Red brass is 90% copper and 10% zinc.
Coprion is electroformed (electroplated thick) pure copper.

In between Yellow Brass and Red Brass is considered gold or rose brass. Sometimes there is a physical difference between them with 85/15 being rose and 80/20 being gold. Other times either metal is called by either name.

There is no "official" definition of rose brass, so you'll find it applied to 90/10 and 85/15 alloys somewhat indiscriminately.

This might be a sticky-worthy topic...

I concur about a sticky for the subject. The TTF had a lot of information but it was heavily fragmented. Let me make another topic that I can use as a sticky and update with newer information.

So, there may be a difference between the gold brass off my xeno and rose brass of my Holton. They just didn't look quite the same; I wondered if it was the lacquer changing color on the nearly 50 year old Holton.

The way to tell is to scan with X-Ray Fluorescence. You could have 85/15 or 80/20. The scan could tell. I used to be able to do that when I worked in the lab.

80/20 looks yellow in it's raw state.

Chris

The 'general" numbers: (many makers have their own recipe)

yellow brass 70/30
gold brass 80/20
Rose brass 85/15
Red brass 90/10

Inspector71 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:04 am The 'general" numbers: (many makers have their own recipe)

yellow brass 70/30
gold brass 75/25
Rose brass 80/20
Red brass 90/10

Have you used 80/20 Mike ? It's quite a rare alloy over here.

Chris

Have you used 80/20 Mike ? It's quite a rare alloy over here.

Chris

We have used rose with some of the M/K leadpipes but with not with bells or tubing...yet

<Edit by BG: Fixed Quote>

Thanks Michael! I'll be updating our matrix in the other thread with the information.

Kinda like the difference in ground chuck and ground round. It all tastes good when you put it on a grill.

I tweeked the above numbers a bit after I got some more coffee onboard. Should have been 80/20 for gold and 85/15 for rose.

Mikebmiller wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:25 am Kinda like the difference in ground chuck and ground round. It all tastes good when you put it on a grill.

An excellent simile, given that how the meat is prepared is at least as important as what part of the cow it came from.

Inspector71 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:41 am I tweeked the above numbers a bit after I got some more coffee onboard. Should have been 80/20 for gold and 85/15 for rose.

Yes, I agree with that....except that gold is not what Bach call gold. Mick Rath got hold of a sheet of 80/20 around 2003 and made some bells from it. They came out a sort of darker yellow. I think some of the older Kings have that sort of metal. My 1934 Conn 70H has a bell and J bend that is darker than the valve tube.... almost yellowy pink....one of the Thein brothers looked at it and said something about it being a commonly used alloy before WW2 and talked around a 82/18 as a mix. I cannot remember exactly what he said but it was only slightly higher copper content than 80/20.
I expect different foundries will produce slightly different products under the same headline formula.... that's just the way of things.

Chris

JohnL wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:48 am

Mikebmiller wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:25 am Kinda like the difference in ground chuck and ground round. It all tastes good when you put it on a grill.

An excellent simile, given that how the meat is prepared is at least as important as what part of the cow it came from.

But I keep wondering how much the material really matters...

Neo Bri wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:42 amBut I keep wondering how much the material really matters...

Depends on how close to identical the manufacturing process is.

Using the "ground chuck vs. ground round" comparison...

If you prepared both using the same method, any difference in taste between the two would be attributable to them being different cuts.

If, OTOH, you prepared one using worcestershire sauce the other using teriyaki sauce, it's a lot less likely that you'd notice any difference that resulted from them being different cuts.

JohnL wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:04 pm

Neo Bri wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:42 amBut I keep wondering how much the material really matters...

Depends on how close to identical the manufacturing process is.

Using the "ground chuck vs. ground round" comparison...

If you prepared both using the same method, any difference in taste between the two would be attributable to them being different cuts.

If, OTOH, you prepared one using worcestershire sauce the other using teriyaki sauce, it's a lot less likely that you'd notice any difference that resulted from them being different cuts.

Of course. And I don't think anyone's really done a comprehensive identical comparison. Too many variables changing. I recall Schilke did a big test with different bell materials...

You can go to any of the custom makers a do your own comparison. Same bell maker and mandrel... just get the same thickness spec. and try theem out.

Chris

Yes, but I don't trust myself - I may judge with my eyes rather than my ears, or the feel.

But the feel is essential. The feel of the instrument affects how we play. You can't separate it from the sound entirely.

GabeLangfur wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:59 am But the feel is essential. The feel of the instrument affects how we play. You can't separate it from the sound entirely.

No, of course not. I think feel is the MOST important factor, because like you said it'll affect how I sound. But it's important to try to isolate all of the different variables as much as is practical. And that's a tall order.

I think red brass is pretty, though. And that's something.

Neo Bri wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:27 am
I think red brass is pretty, though. And that's something.

and it's something that affects how you think about the instrument. If I were to do a blind test, my brain would be on overdrive trying to figure out what I am testing. Maybe some of you could test more dispassionately.

Inspector71 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:41 am I tweeked the above numbers a bit after I got some more coffee onboard. Should have been 80/20 for gold and 85/15 for rose.

Mike, where does bronze fall into these percentages? Thanks!

Corvus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:15 am

Inspector71 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:41 am I tweeked the above numbers a bit after I got some more coffee onboard. Should have been 80/20 for gold and 85/15 for rose.

Mike, where does bronze fall into these percentages? Thanks!

Depends what you mean by "bronze".

Real bronze is a mixture of copper and tin with no zinc. There are a variety of these.

At one time Red Brass was called "Bronze" or "Bronz-O-Lyte" by some makers. It's really red brass.

There is no one answer to your question, except that it usually doesn't.

I used to have one of these (for about 20 years). Lovely instrument. Amazing sound.

It was a dent magnet. I you looked at it sideways it would dent. I was paranoid about it.

http://www.cerveny.biz/tuben/bbb_tuben/cbb781_4mr.php

----

This tends to be a bit of a can o' worms. I know that Roy Lawler calls his 70/30 yellow brass, 85/15 red brass, and 90/10 bronze. I don't much care what he calls them, because I only care about sound and feel or feel and sound.

My model 3 bell section is entirely 85/15, including the neckpipe, tuning slide inners/outers, tuning slide bow, and the stem. The threaded ring for the detachable flare is 90/10 (bronze?). I love the sound and feel of this set up especially with the 90/10 heavy bronze flare. All yellow brass hand slide.

===

There is very little uniformity in the alloy world regarding "red" vs "rose" brass, and rose brass often doesn't appear in alloy charts. Add to that the fact that several different alloys are often recognized for each of red brass and yellow brass. Use of terms in the brass instrument industry doesn't seem to be highly consistent with the use of those terms in the broader metallurgy industry, which in turn seems to avoid other terms (like "gold brass"). There is an alloy numbering system, but I've never seen it used in the case of describing brass musical instruments.

So the answer to the original question is that rose brass is one of several different alloys, not very clearly specified. In some cases, "rose brass" is simply a synonym for "red brass". In some it's not. Marketing people like to use different names to distinguish different features in different models. Sometimes it may be no more than that.

I once tried a lot of Edwards bells and other brands. For me yellow brass akways gives the most natural sound.
Things like gold brass and red red brass can give you the idea you have a better sound.
You can better improve your technic. Many people are looking for the easy way and specially when you can buy it.

WillydeWoofer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:44 am I once tried a lot of Edwards bells and other brands. For me yellow brass always gives the most natural sound.
Things like gold brass and red red brass can give you the idea you have a better sound.
You can better improve your technic. Many people are looking for the easy way and specially when you can buy it.

-------

Bull! There are way too many variables involved for you to make such a blanket statement.

=====

WillydeWoofer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:44 am I once tried a lot of Edwards bells and other brands. For me yellow brass akways gives the most natural sound.
Things like gold brass and red red brass can give you the idea you have a better sound.
You can better improve your technic. Many people are looking for the easy way and specially when you can buy it.

I'm more curious about - assuming that the statement is correct - why it would be a bad thing to have an easier time at having what is admittedly a 'better sound.' Music isn't a competition. Well, unless it's an audition and in that case you better believe I'll take the easy route.

Matt K wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:16 am why it would be a bad thing to have an easier time at having what is admittedly a 'better sound.'

Because you must suffer to create your art. Have you no sense of history -- and art?

ghmerrill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:33 pm

Matt K wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:16 am why it would be a bad thing to have an easier time at having what is admittedly a 'better sound.'

Because you must suffer to create your art. Have you no sense of history -- and art?

I'm assuming that you are misstating your position because I can't come up with a way that this statement may even resemble being true; it even seems obvious to me that, taken at face value, is not true even in this context. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that yellow brass confers some degree of 'suffering'. If that is true, then at what point does the amount of suffering generate the optimal level of art? Perhaps we should all use the 'comfo-rim' mouthpiece: Well, what about chrome plated inners? Or rub poison oak on our cork barrels prior to playing?

If the idea is that great players have used sub-optimal instruments, that's true. It's also true that there are tremendous artists who use instruments of the highest quality, even instruments that have been designed by an R&D team specifically for their playing.. In other words, there might be no correlation between the quality of the instrument and your art, but to suggest that your instrument has to make you miserable while you play, which is how I'm interpreting the position, does not seem to be the case. Otherwise, someone better tell Joe to stop using his T396!

Your instrument is just a tool, like a hammer, a football, a camera and so on.
One makes the tone on a mouthpiece. Not only the pitch but special the quality of the tone.
Your breath is a much more important factor than your embouchure.
So, practice practice practice. You trombone never makes you a better musician.
Kind regards,
Wil
Pro musician, trombonist, conducter for 40 years.

WillydeWoofer wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:07 pm Your instrument is just a tool....

You trombone never makes you a better musician.

And if you have crappy tools it is much more difficult to make a fine finished product.

I cannot believe you are so absolute in your opinion. NEVER? A high quality trombone can make you a better musician-just spend hours trying to hone your craft on sub-part vs superior instruments and see how much better you turn out on the superior instrument. A superior, high quality instrument can teach the player and help him/her achieve things they never even thought possible. At least, for a majority of people.

Someone better tell all the endorsing artists for Yamaha, Shires, Edwards, etc. that they need to drop their custom instruments and use pbones for everything.

Matt K wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:04 pm Someone better tell all the endorsing artists for Yamaha, Shires, Edwards, etc. that they need to drop their custom instruments and use pbones for everything.

This.

Skills are important, maximizing those skills with the right gear helps.

Matt K wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:19 pm

ghmerrill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:33 pm Because you must suffer to create your art. Have you no sense of history -- and art?

I'm assuming that you are misstating your position because I can't come up with a way that this statement may even resemble being true; it even seems obvious to me that, taken at face value, is not true even in this context. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that yellow brass confers some degree of 'suffering'. ...

I really must take greater pains to use emojis. I'm slowly learning that it's a generational thing -- that without explicit visual clues, people have become unable to detect irony or sarcasm. It was in fact what I thought was a rather obvious dig at the suggestion that there was benefit in using less than the best equipment one can -- if one wants superior results. Sorry.

However, for ways in which the statement may be thought to be true, just Google "the need of suffering to create art" and look at the lengthy history of this view, and of course the debate surrounding it. I'll elide the principles on which people purport to base the view, but in fact there ARE arguments for it, and there appear to be fairly clear cases in which various sorts of works of art have arisen from the artist's suffering of one sort or another. So there are in fact a number of ways in which the statement can at least resemble being true, and there are a lot of people running around in the arts community who endorse it. I don't happen to. It's also a long-running joke about artists.

My statement was ironic -- or intended as irony -- because I assumed familiarity with this history. But the point I was trying (obviously in too brief a fashion) to make was that only by embracing such a theory as "art requires suffering" can you justify intentionally using equipment that makes the creation of the art more difficult. I'll do my best to be more explicit in the future.

Haha that makes way more sense. I tend to avoid doing that just because your'e right, it's very easy to misinterpret. Even with an '/s' modifier (/sarcasm off) lol

I read a lot off typical forum behavior.
It's better to spend your time praticing(in the wright way) on a pbone