Metal Thickness

[spkissane]

[From davewerden: The topic of metal thickness came up in another thread. That thread was about Adams, and Adams is very public about metal thickness. They offer .50, .55, .60, .70, and .80. But what about other brands? I created this thread to hold spkissane's post]

Quasi-digression, but this is the most recent Adams-centric thread: We hear a lot about metal thickness options in Adams euphoniums, but I've always wondered how they compare to the other big brands. Is there info on what thickness metal other makers use? Seems like maybe Willson uses a heaver gauge than most others, but I also might be completely wrong on that.

[spkissane]

Yeah, good idea to make it it's own thread, Dave.

[davewerden]

I have asked at a couple ITEC booths about thickness, but the sales folks did not know the answer. I have to guess Willson is around the .80 realm, though.

[Snorlax]

One issue related to thickness is that Adams horns claim to have a constant thickness of metal despite the bending, whereas all other euphoniums have thinner metal where tubing bends. I assume Adams is telling the truth, but am ignorant about the musical significance/advantage of the constant thickness in the Adams instruments.
Perhaps constantly-thick Adams euphoniums won't ever need a LeFreque, whereas all other euphoniums will always need a LeFreque.

[spkissane]

Don't freque out, Jim!

[davewerden]

One issue related to thickness is that Adams horns claim to have a constant thickness of metal despite the bending, whereas all other euphoniums have thinner metal where tubing bends. I assume Adams is telling the truth, but am ignorant about the musical significance/advantage of the constant thickness in the Adams instruments.
Perhaps constantly-thick Adams euphoniums won't ever need a LeFreque, whereas all other euphoniums will always need a LeFreque.

Part of Adams concept is that they are made from sheet metal, which enables the constant thickness. While it is true that most production horns today use hydraulic blowing to expand tubes into the taper, that was probably not the case for some of the legendary brass instruments of the past. (Just a guess.)

The fact it, there is a lot of expense in tooling the hydraulic forms. Consequently, making a change to the tubing's taper at any point will also be very expensive. With a hand-made horn, it is easier to implement small improvements along the way.

There are always limits that bump into cost. If Adams wanted to change the bore from .592 to .596, for example, that affects a lot of pieces, particularly within the pistons. If they thought a 14" bell would be better, it would not cost that much to make it, but it mean getting a new case supplied and would leave all of us in a tighter spot for gig bags and mutes.

I do believe the unusually even response of Adams is helped by the consistency of thickness. And the hand-made technique allows easier incremental improvements, as I mentioned. But one surprise in talking to a few vendors is that consistent thickness can also help intonation. Who knew???

[TheJH]

With 'consistent thickness' I assume the same metal thickness gauge throughout the entire instrument as opposed to, for example, a 0.80 bell on a 0.55 rest of the instrument (to give a very disproportionate example)?

As for other brands, it also depends on the time period. The old Globe Stamp Sovereigns had MUCH thicker metal than current (or less old) Sovereigns and Prestiges, for example (a player I once met said he dented his Prestige's bell because a bottle of water fell cap-first on it... I could not even get ANY result like that on my Globe Stamp). I sometimes wonder what current instruments would sound like if they had that thick gauge of brass combined with their modern designs.

[tbonesullivan]

Metal thickness is something talked about in the trombone world as well, though you rarely see published specs for it. Also, it's almost always the thickness used BEFORE they have bent, stretched, spun the bell, etc. Trombone maker Rath prefers 2 piece bell construction, because it gives them better control to achieve a uniform thickness. Vincent Bach on the other hand felt the "magic" came from stretching out a single piece bell and the inherent thickness variations, from what I have heard.

I would also usually think that the part of the instrument with the thinnest metal is usually the bell. I know with a trombone, the bell is far more prone to denting than say valve or slide tubing.

Pressure formed vs ice formed vs seamed is something you will hear a lot of comparisons made over. However, I think that the tubing itself is still bent after it is made, and not before. You're not going to get a really nice round tube unless it's either drawn or put on a mandrel. That's what I think anyway. I'd love to see the Adams factory to see the process used for turning sheet brass into the tubing, as I don't quite understand the steps required.

[bbocaner]

Rath's standard thickness for bells is .70mm for the flare and .50mm for the stem. They call it a "750" bell for that reason. They do also make a lightweight bell and a heavy bell but I'm not sure what the exact measurements are.

My Ewald Meinl sackbuts are made with .28mm sheet brass which is actually even thinned significantly from that in the bell!

It's funny, some of the manufacturers that use hydroforming tout that as being more consistent than hand forming and that it leads to better response! I guess it's all in the marketing...

Thickness isn't the only factor in how easy something is to dent. It's possible to have very thick but very soft metal, and very thin but very hard. It's all in how it is worked.

[ghmerrill]

Thickness isn't the only factor in how easy something is to dent. It's possible to have very thick but very soft metal, and very thin but very hard. It's all in how it is worked.

Yes. But in addition to how it's worked, it's also the specific alloy and the type and thickness of the plating. My 1924 Buescher (at least double thickness sliver plated) tuba and 1965 Amati oval euph (lacquered brass) are made of noticeably more rigid metal than either my Mack Brass euph or Wessex tuba. And my red brass Cerveny tuba was at least as soft as the Chinese yellow brass instruments.

Thickness-based comparison of the performance of instruments likely makes objective sense if done for a given material of a given brand (so that thickness is the only -- or only major -- variable). But comparing performance across brands (where both metallurgy and how the metal is "worked" may differ, and in fact may not be fully known) has to be much less meaningful as a guide to anything.

[franz]

If it can be useful, just to give an idea, a few years ago, out of curiosity, I measured the thickness of the bells on my brass instruments with a centesimal caliber that I had available in the factory where I work.
These are the results:
Besson Prestige 2052 2007 made in Germany, bell one piece: 0,6 mm ( at the junction point 0,5 mm ).
Baritone JP Sterling 373, bell two pieces: 0,6 mm.
Trombone Bach 42 GO, bell one piece: 0,5 mm.

[davewerden]

Besson Prestige 2052 2007 made in Germany, bell one piece: 0,6 mm ( at the junction point 0,5 mm ).

Franz, I love it! Whether or not we can compare from brand to brand (to Gary's point) it is simply interesting.

Can you help me understand what you mean by "the junction"? That seems to mean the metal is thicker near the edge than earlier in the bell, which seems counter-intuitive. Thanks!

[franz]

Franz, I love it! Whether or not we can compare from brand to brand (to Gary's point) it is simply interesting.

Can you help me understand what you mean by "the junction"? That seems to mean the metal is thicker near the edge than earlier in the bell, which seems counter-intuitive. Thanks!

By junction I mean the vertical line along the entire length of the bell where the brass sheet is joined, which is then hammered to make it uniform. I assume this makes the thickness thinner at that point.
The thickness of the slides tubes is 0,5 mm for the baritone and euphonium and 0,35 mm for the trombone.

https://youtu.be/88FRggewNuU

[ghmerrill]

If it can be useful, just to give an idea, ...

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but what is that comparison useful FOR? What does it give you an idea OF? What does it provide to you other than just knowing the raw data on thickness? From the discussion I'd be expecting something like "Here are the differences and similarities I measured for a few instruments, and so we can conclude that ...." ???

[franz]

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but what is that comparison useful FOR? What does it give you an idea OF? What does it provide to you other than just knowing the raw data on thickness? From the discussion I'd be expecting something like "Here are the differences and similarities I measured for a few instruments, and so we can conclude that ...." ???

Nothing, someone asked for the thickness of the various brands and I simply provided data: I can say that the thicker the more you can push without sound distortions. My prestige can be pushed to the maximum without having any distortion, with the trombone I have to be more careful. Another consideration for MY Besson Prestige is that it is significantly heavier than all the euphoniums I could try.