TubaForum.net

They aren't mutually exclusive, but they also are not synonyms.
I just don't recall hearing a single bowed string player (owning a $25,000 to $100,000 instrument) stating, "One of the things I like about this instrument is that it feels nice and sturdy."

It requires quite a bit more craftsmanship to build a very well put together thin-walled brass instrument vs. a thick-walled one. I would think that F. E. Olds "Ambassador" models would be the classic example of this. (The trumpet version of this particular model line was so cleverly designed that the bell and mouth pipe braces were built so that - even when they were broken loose from the instrument - they still were very resistant to actually breaking apart themselves.)

In the past - in my lifetime - the heaviest brass instruments were usually the entry level instruments. It was assumed that young inexperienced players would have accidents, and making instruments heavier and thicker would diminish the seriousness of the damage that they would do to those instruments.

Materials cost, but a tiny bit more material doesn't cost much more at all. Thinner walled brass sheet metal doesn't really cost much less than slightly thicker for some of the same reasons: the craftsmanship involved in making it that thin, yet without flaws.

Tactile experiences with brass instruments (such as feeling an instrument vibrate in one's hands) don't necessarily transfer to aural ones.

One of my instruments is handmade, the bows are thin walled, it's quite large (larger than any 6/4 c instrument) and features a very large bore with five rotors and all of the paddles and linkage that go with all of that. I appreciate the fact - what I'm playing it and when I'm picking it up to play it- that it weighs less than 24:lbs. - though I transport it in a protective case that weighs more than the instrument. (That having been said, I see most everyone carrying instruments almost as large as mine in cloth bags, with those instruments typically sporting quite a bit of denting and evidence of repairs... Though often - with exceptions - thicker walled than mine, knowing this from my experience in repairing all of those models.)

A much more commonly encountered thin walled tuba is the Yamaha 641 rotary tuba that is typically sold to schools. Those instruments are reasonably well made though I don't particularly enjoy playing them (which is related to their design, rather than their quality of construction). Being thin and located in schools, by the time I receive them for repairs, the damage is typically epic. The same is true for the old Czech instruments that are still in use in schools, but there's something about Czech design that defines that I'm usually able to straighten those out with fewer struggles and even without taking them apart.

For several decades now, American brass sousaphones have been built with very thin sheet metal, and arrive at my shop with epic dents, routinely. American fiberglass production has ceased, but ironically - before it was ceased - the fiberglass American instruments were made so thick and heavy (compared to those produced when I was in school) that (okay, I never have A/B'ed them on a scale to weigh them, but) I strongly suspect that the last of the production fiberglass American sousaphones weighed at least as much as the equivalent brass ones. (The Taiwan fiberglass sousaphones are also quite heavy.) One thing that I have found to be (odd/ironic/humorous?) about the very large model American sousaphone is that they have added a whole bunch of extra bracing to it - adding considerable weight, yet it is still made of very thin sheet metal these days (compared to Elkhart, Texas, and very early Ohio production.)

It's after 10:00 a.m., and this is all the time I have for trolling this morning.

The Phone Company used to put metal plates on the bottoms of phones so Americans would think they were high quality.

/Tangent

Craig F wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:14 am The Phone Company used to put metal plates on the bottoms of phones so Americans would think they were high quality.

/Tangent

The early type of plastic from which they were formed -"Bakelite" - was quite thick. I never saw a base or receiver that was cracked.

Typically, they were hardwired into homes and typically there was only one in each home. It wasn't uncommon for there to be a built-in shelf in a hallway on which the phone sat, or pieces of furniture slightly resembling school desks yet smaller designed for sitting down and talking on the home's hardwired telephone. By the mid or late 1960s, it was considered a luxury to have an extension phone or phones that were able to be plugged in and unplugged and moved in a house.

Getting back to the super thick bakelite, all sorts of people used those telephones and engaged in conversations with all sorts of emotions including probably some of the very most elevated emotions. Those phones had to have been slammed down on their receivers countless millions of times by countless millions of people.

Not sure if my reply is a tangent or augmentation of your statement. I have several mouthpieces of various weights, materials, rims, cups, etc. On some mouthpieces, when I buzz into them I get a very pleasing resonant quality. That pleasing resonant quality is usually from the thinner mouthpieces (ie non-heavy weight) or my Lexan mouthpieces. Not sure if this is a akin to the acoustic properties of a solid-body bass. I will refrain from going down that rabbit hole. (TONE WOOD!!?!?!)

Since the horn is for amplification, pitch changes and tone, is a thinner more resonant mouthpiece translate to a "better" result? I don't have an answer. But it does seem that many mouthpiece manufacturers have heavy-weight models for "darker tone" (limiting upper frequencies?).

Similarly, I know Muramatsu (and I'm sure other brands) make heavy-walled Flutes for similar reasons as the heavy weight tuba mouthpieces.

Does heavy = quality? No. But it seems like heavy has become associated with certain tonal characteristics and perhaps that has gotten associated with quality.

Or....I am just writing this to avoid doing actual work right now.

Rest assured that the variables in mouthpiece sonic qualities and response - other than the player - are limited to the rim shape, the space allowed for the players lips, the cup shape, the contour into the throat, the throat size, the contour out of the throat, the back bore, and the exit bore diameter (in other words: the interior shape and rim shape). Additionally, mouthpiece setbacks and exit bore wall thickness (whether there is or is not a ledge, and how wide the ledge is) are the limits to a mouthpiece's differences from another.

As long as the material is solid and sturdy, the type of material and the thickness of material has no effect other than IF a type of material (such as the Lexan you mention) tends to be LESS smooth and slick, and tends to grab onto the skin around the embouchure more than a smooth and slick surface would. This is why - if someone uses a silver or gold-plated mouthpiece with this easy to scratch plating over a soft non-ferrous metal - it's really important to treat that rim with great care, if one hopes for it to remain as smooth and slick as it was when new (as those materials are extremely easy to scratch, as even beard stubble will scratch them significantly).

Candidly, the reason that I offer some of my models in brass or two-thirds brass is due to
- lower production cost
- consumer beliefs (me: weary of attempting to be an educator and/or debater) that silver plated brass mouthpieces sound different from solid stainless steel or different from highly polished titanium coated stainless steel.

My personal OG Ultimate mouthpiece is the one piece prototype. I brought it home from the machine shop (unplated brass), had it plated locally by a plating hobbyist, and that plating is now failing... so I'm going to have to get it plated professionally. For a very short time, I was using the subsequent alternate version threaded for rims, and was using a steel mouthpiece on it... but when I sold out of those, I ended up inspecting the one I was using (for evidence of use), saw none, sterilized it, and sold it. (I need to run off a bunch more.)

bloke wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:21 am

Craig F wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 9:14 am The Phone Company used to put metal plates on the bottoms of phones so Americans would think they were high quality.

/Tangent

The early type of plastic from which they were formed -"Bakelite" - was quite thick. I never saw a base or receiver that was cracked.

Typically, they were hardwired into homes and typically there was only one in each home. It wasn't uncommon for there to be a built-in shelf in a hallway on which the phone sat, or pieces of furniture slightly resembling school desks yet smaller designed for sitting down and talking on the home's hardwired telephone. By the mid or late 1960s, it was considered a luxury to have an extension phone or phones that were able to be plugged in and unplugged and moved in a house.

Getting back to the super thick bakelite, all sorts of people used those telephones and engaged in conversations with all sorts of emotions including probably some of the very most elevated emotions. Those phones had to have been slammed down on their receivers countless millions of times by countless millions of people.

Those old bakelite phones made wonderful side plates for now very valuable fly reels.

You sound just like my cardiologist.