Posted by Chuck(G) on June 14, 2002 at 15:00:17:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vintage vs. modern / thin vs. thick posted by Rick Denney on June 14, 2002 at 14:26:26:
I think the selection of thin-vs-thick construction is an extremely pragmatic matter, not related to sonic quality.
One thing that no one's mentioned is that the thin-vs.-thick brass is also a matter of tradition. The typical Eastern European, and in particular, Bohemian, tradition has always been for thin brass. I have an old Bohemian-made tenorhorn whose tubing is so thin that it can almost be torn with the fingers. The reason that the St. Pete tubas use thin metal is because they also come out of this tradition. And of course, the same can be said of Cerveny, the grandaddy of all Bohemian low brass makers.
In the 20th century, Americans got into the business of making instruments for military bands, schools and amateur bands where durability is an important consideration (probably the same can be said of British brass). I've got a 1920's cornet that's so beefy that you could probably pound tent pegs with it. As has been mentioned, a lot of 19th century American brass is very lightweight.
I've often wondered early American brass wasn't made thin simply because back around the Civil War, most brass was being carried by marching bands and low weight could be an important marketing point. In the 20th century, bands didn't usually go on day-long marches, so perhaps weight became a secondary issue.
Personally, I think that overall geometry has a far greater effect on response and projection than the mere thickness of the metal used to fabricate the instrument.