TubaForum.net

York bells = Tupperware
King bells = Rubbermaid
Asian copies = Sterilite

Yes, they differ, but do they really differ as much as some would have you believe? I believe a lot of that is hype or placebo effect.

Ready? Discuss.

(I am hurriedly donning my asbestos underpants…)

Isn't Sterilite made in the USA?

Also, fun fact... Sterilite was co-founder by Mr. Tupper... Of Tupperware fame.

You're probably correct. My son has a BBb Miraphone 186 with a Mack Brass replacement bell that plays great.

On the flip-side Craig Fuller has a 186 CC with an Alexander 163 bell. That thing is amazing.

So... I'm pretty non-commital on materials. I do (however) think bell geometry is a big thing. And tend to lean toward the exponential geometry (as outlined in Rick Denney's super-informative post from years ago). But personal preference is just that... personal.

For what it's worth, there was a night and day difference when I swapped out the factory bell on my Getzen CB-50 for a York monster Eb bell. No placebo effect. My technician and I were both amazed at how much better the horn sounded.

The main difference I can see (not hear) is that the Chinese bells I've encountered seem to sport a softer brass alloy than the old American ones.

Does it matter pertaining to sound? That's a different argument.

I won't presume to wade into metallurgical mumbo-ism here, because...given those three choices...the biggest variable is the one you will find in the first choice: is residual stress/work hardening/effects of physical damage accumulated over as much as a century. Who amongst us can trust (or tell) by looking if a bell has been appropriately annealed...or if its been overdone (eg...truly...cooked)?

Second choice, a far greater degree of material variability over their decades....period of mfg, location affects from weight/effects sound ...plus add the effect described above.

Copies...I won't comment ( no need for me to anyways really, is there?)

shape

What Bloke said!

I am not denying other factors that may come into play.

Mark

Assuming the shapes are the same, I'd think wall thickness would be the only factor making any significant difference in sound. I know some Chinese horns are 0.8mm thick, while many Euro and American horns are 0.5mm.

For the rest, 63/37 brass is 63/37 brass, and bell-spinning technique is the same everywhere.

So which bell is pyrex?

I heard a rumor that modern pyrex is less resilient than the original, so you probably shouldn't heat it to the absurd temps the original stuff would go to.

But honestly, my playing is nowhere near that hot, so it doesn't really matter for me.

Hey, a player can dream...

Shape is certainly the largest factor on acoustics. It will determine where the drop in impedance occurs.

What I’d offer when replacement bells are fitted to horns, especially tubas, is that the new bell might simply be better fit and soldered on. The last solder joint is also the largest, and probably the one most susceptible to being leaky. What’s left to test is simply refitting the original bell with care.

Just an additional hypothesis...

If anyone thinks material is the gating factor, just sit in a hall and listen to Chuck Daellenbach light up his plastic bell and tell me how important it is...

Speaking of bells...

https://youtu.be/24K2NhwWDsk

I usually despise Family Guy, but that was hilarious.

The Big Ben wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:23 pm Speaking of bells...

https://youtu.be/24K2NhwWDsk

I do like Family Guy and fries...

I also like Poe. And Phil Ochs.



Ah, the tintinnabulation!

Material does matter (try making a tuba bell out of pudding or jello) but meet a certain basic set of characteristics and you probably have a workable tuba, even if it isn't your super secret samurai sword metallurgy. Though, now i think of it, i wonder what sort of tuba they'd have made...

windshieldbug wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:21 pm If anyone thinks material is the gating factor, just sit in a hall and listen to Chuck Daellenbach light up his plastic bell and tell me how important it is...

I was planning to do just that a few months ago (Dallas Winds concert), but it fell through. :(

windshieldbug wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:21 pm If anyone thinks material is the gating factor, just sit in a hall and listen to Chuck Daellenbach light up his plastic bell and tell me how important it is...

Could just be Chuck...

Changing a bell does alter the tone of the bass. When I changed out the bell on my Bessophone for the Besson 17-inch New Standard bell, the tone, compared to an old 16 1/2 inch bell, a new 17 3/4 inch bell, the recording bell stack that was original to the tuba, and the added upright bell, somehow had more breadth and core to the tone, compared to the "point-and-shoot" of the old bell, the vanilla tone of the newer Miraphone 17 1/2 inch bells, the "wants to be American tone" recording bell (which with the heavier than necessary tenon cause other intonation issues), and with the different taper and adding cylindrical tubing to the main tuning slide, almost completely fixed the "flat fifth partial" syndrome.

Without any quantitative data, but with a lot of qualitative experience (and anecdotal data is, after all, still data), I would estimate that if the sound or a particular bell comprises 100 parts, 96-98 of them come from the shape, 2-4 come from any material properties, and 4582 of them come from the confirmation bias of the performer.

And that's with the bell offering what has to be at least half of the sound of the instrument (not counting what the player provides).

I suspect the carbon composite bell on Daellenbach's tuba is probably 2-4% different than the same tuba in brass, but 2-4% just isn't detectable in any productive way. He might notice.

As to jello versus brass, I would limit the comparison to materials actually able to hold the shape all by their own selves. Fiberglass, plastic, glass, and brass have all be used, and all of them sound like tubas. If the difference between plastic and brass isn't enough to make it not sound like a tuba (or break out of that 2-4% effect), then I doubt the work-hardening of the brass makes much of a difference, with all respect to my old friend dp.

I've heard all the arguments about this brass versus that brass when comparing York bells, and I've tried several of those made more recently (such as by Zig Kanstul) that purportedly capture the brass properties used by York. I remain unpersuaded. For one thing, Yorks are old, and their bells have been rolled out, annealed, and rolled out again, sanded, and buffed to I bet no more than half their original thickness. People still rave about them when they play them, and recognize them as something special.

Rick "thinking the rest of the tuba can screw it up for the bell, but can't make the bell sound any different than it does" Denney

just fwiw...(not seeking any arguments, and only reporting), I've never encountered any 80- to 100-year-old Grand Rapids-made tuba bells that are either obviously reddish (coppery, if not bronze) nor as soft/malleable as those California bells (and bodies) whose makers claimed were made of "York brass".

I also remember that - probably a half century ago - an importer of a popular line of German-made tubas claimed (in their blue and black large brochure) a secret formula brass and - verbally - with representatives of the USA company claiming that one component of the alloy was gold . ...Having worked on an incalculable number of those - since that time, they sure look like a pretty common allow of (what most refer to as) yellow brass, to me.

bloke "ceasing reading any more of the details contained within my 'peer-reviewed scientific report' at this stopping point."