TubeNet

LV wrote:What do you think?

That the material of the mouthpiece has dramatically less effect on the result than the shape.

Rick "not going so far as to say there is no effect, but only out of timidity" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

LV wrote:What do you think?

That the material of the mouthpiece has dramatically less effect on the result than the shape.

Rick "not going so far as to say there is no effect, but only out of timidity" Denney

That strikes me as being a good thing, given that some materials are more "face-friendly" than others.

Rick Denney wrote:That the material of the mouthpiece has dramatically less effect on the result than the shape.

Rick "not going so far as to say there is no effect, but only out of timidity" Denney

Would it not follow then that the mass of the mouthpiece also has dramatically less effect on the result than the shape?

Mark wrote:Would it not follow then that the mass of the mouthpiece also has dramatically less effect on the result than the shape?

Let's see--stainless steel has a density of about 490 pounds/cubic foot. Lexan has a density of about 75 pounds per cubic foot. Stainless steel has a modulus of elasticity of about 29,000,000 psi, and Lexan is 375,000 psi. That means that a given amount of stress will result in 77 times more deflection (strain) in the plastic material.

If both materials work effectively, then I conclude that density, mass, and stiffness are not critically important in the design of mouthpieces.

Rick "noting that the materials don't have to function identically to be equally effective" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:If both materials work effectively, then I conclude that density, mass, and stiffness are not critically important in the design of mouthpieces.

So, assumming that the rims and internals of the mouthpieces are the same shape, "heavy-weight" mouthpieces should be no different than regular mouthpieces?

Mark wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:If both materials work effectively, then I conclude that density, mass, and stiffness are not critically important in the design of mouthpieces.

So, assumming that the rims and internals of the mouthpieces are the same shape, "heavy-weight" mouthpieces should be no different than regular mouthpieces?

Uh-oh.... now there's a REAL can of worms

Mark wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:If both materials work effectively, then I conclude that density, mass, and stiffness are not critically important in the design of mouthpieces.

So, assumming that the rims and internals of the mouthpieces are the same shape, "heavy-weight" mouthpieces should be no different than regular mouthpieces?

Couple of points, though:

1. Everything in that statement is hypothetical, and everything could be true and still leave a lot of room for small differences. Maybe a room for more difference than things that musicians pay more for.

2 . If the original hypothesis is that Lexan is every bit as good as brass and other metals, I don't think I've seen a lot of support for that here.

But like anyone, a tuba player is entirely capable of hearing differences that aren't really there to any appreciable extent. If it's like saxophone mouthpieces, one confounding factor is acoustic transmission through the face bones. I am personally skeptical.

With all this talk about whether the weight of a mouthpiece makes a difference, I recall what a very experienced tubist told me once:

"The real advantage of a heavy-weight mouthpiece is that when you throw it at the conductor it makes a much bigger impression!"

Now, understand that I turned away from pursuing engineering in order to get a music degree...

Rick Denney wrote:Let's see--stainless steel has a density of about 490 pounds/cubic foot. Lexan has a density of about 75 pounds per cubic foot. Stainless steel has a modulus of elasticity of about 29,000,000 psi, and Lexan is 375,000 psi. That means that a given amount of stress will result in 77 times more deflection (strain) in the plastic material.

These numbers sound REALLY big -- big enough that I wonder if a glorified primate buzzing its lips will really impart very much force at all.

I've got a Kelly KT-50 (PT-50 copy), and it plays virtually the same as the original. It's so nice that I'm half-tempted to get a copy made of my Bayamo.

Leland wrote:These numbers sound REALLY big -- big enough that I wonder if a glorified primate buzzing its lips will really impart very much force at all.

This is one of the single greatest lines I have ever read on TubeNet, old and new. Freakin' beautiful.

is the KT50 available now?

Glad you appreciated that one, Tom -- such quotes of mine are few & far between.

MikeMason wrote:is the KT50 available now?

It should be; mine is one of the first batch. Contact Jim Kelly and tell 'im that Leland from the Marines sent you.

I can listen to a saxaphonist and tell if he's using a plastic or metal mouthpiece and I find my Kelly gives me a softer sound with less edge than my metal mouthpieces.

Mouthpiece weight and material can certainly make a difference in feel and sound. Perhaps "feel" is most important, as playing for any length of time on an uncomfortable mouthpiece, well, sucks.
I've often wondered, though, about the actual sound versus what we perceive under/behind the bell, versus the sound that others will find most appealing. Many years back I was preparing for an audition. I was playing on a HB-2P (1985), vacillating between a PT50 and a Warren Deck (don't remember the model other than it was gold-plated). As much as I liked some things about the Deck, I felt like it was either not a good match to the horn, or I just hadn't figured out the right approach to it. So I played 4 excerpts for a variety of musician friends, including brass, woodwind, and string players (about 15 people), first all 4 on the PT50, then all 4 on the Deck, to interesting results; without exception, every tubist without hesitation said they liked the sound of the PT50, and everyone else, also without a moment's hesitation, said they preferred the sound of the Deck. And thinking that, at most, there'd be one tubist on the audition panel...
I believe the concept of the heavy mouthpiece lies in the belief that a greater mass will result in less "loss," i.e., a lighter/thinner mouthpiece will vibrate from buzzing to some degree, and any vibration in the moutpiece means "lost energy" that could've been otherwise sent through the horn. My doubt lies in whether the size differential between the mouthpiece and the horn is actually enough to make the difference intended. It's two different feels. With the Deck, the resistance to vibration resulted in less feel, ultimately feeling less "connected" with the horn. Although I preferred some things about the Deck, I ultimately sold it because I found it an overall unsatisfying experience. Perhaps the ultimate component of mouthpiece selection is simply "feeling right?"

I have used a Kellyberg extensively for two years now, and I really like the following factors; 1) it plays and sounds a lot like an original Helleberg I have here 2) due to the very low mass, it takes less energy to excite a vibration, hence relieving quite a bit of face stress 3) being non-metallic, I find that it does not start producing a metallic "ring" at higher volumes, which would translate into a darker overall sound and less distortion at higher volumes 4) they are the least-expensive mouthpiece available, and 5) they're just fun!

BTW, wanted to report that on vacation last week, got to stop by in Memphis and finally meet the Grumpy Old Man (eek, we're the same age!) We enjoyed talking tubas, business and general shop-talk.

I'm not a professional skeptic, so I have to believe the swimmers - it's plausible enough, especially for the more hirsute glorified primates. What's more, they also have suits of a special material with less drag; may not be allowed in all competitions, but if they're wearing body suits, that's what's going on.

But saxophone mouthpieces, I'm sure about: it isn't plausible that material makes a real difference, between the rare identically configured brass and rubber mouthpieces, and I believe that has been confirmed by research. But it doesn't stop the majority of players from believing there is a difference, and from where they're sitting there is. So they play better with a mouthpiece they like better, and in the end it works out.

First, the issue of mass: increased mass damps vibration and changes characteristic. How much and at what frequency vibration is damped (not "dampened," we're not trying to play wet unless we're doing a Miles Davis imitation!) depends on what the stuff is, and whether or not it helps or hurts your playing, or has no effect, depends on the horn and player, and there is a point where damping is optimal, neither too much nor too little. For example, my Kelly 18, out of the box, felt like it frayed a little at volume and extremes of range. A 1/2 inch wide strip of golfer's lead tape around the shank where it meets the bowl centered everything up really well for me. Adding another small (1/8") ring of tape below the rim took away the responsiveness of the mouthpiece; I felt like I was playing through goo. So I took that one back off, and got everything back.

Second: I applaude anyone working outside the box to try new materials, configurations, etc. to the goal of making instruments better and helping more people to play and play better. My son has an allergic reaction to metal, and until now the only mouthpiece available of any quality was the DEG nylon cup: a good mouthpiece, but the mouthpiece imparts a "whang" to the tone I can't describe any better than that. So, of course, I wave the flag for Lexan. In addition, I use a Kelly 18 with a piece of golfer's lead tape wrapped around the shank where it meets the bowl to help centering of pitch and stability, and after playing low brass and sousaphone in particular since the football season of 1976, life could not be better.

Third: Just like cars and golf clubs, there is a certain amount of psychology that goes with the actual measurable physical attributes of any product; it should not be discounted nor emphasized, but recognized as another element in the mix, and if you feel good about a product, and it feels good to you, you will play better, if for no other reason you will practice more and not be distracted by something that doesn't feel or sound right to you.

harold wrote:What differences will be noted based on whether the plating is in silver or gold?

Seriously - the biggest issue here is the psychological response to the mouthpiece by the player. All the other stuff about the sound changing is once again stuff that can't be proven by a physics analysis of the sound production.

...

I believe that all of these mouthpieces have a different "feel" and the actual material is of no importance. Find one you like that gives you the sound you are looking for and use it.

I have a silver plated Denis Wick 3 and a gold plated one. You can claim that it is psychological, and it may well be, I find the gold plated one to feel slipperier than the silver. If you could find or determine a coefficient of friction between skin and gold and between skin and silver (the coefficient is determined by a pair of materials) the difference could be scientifically established.

I"ve often seen it written that gold is slipperier than silver, and agree that it does feel more slippery. I use a gold-plated horn rim because if I don't, I get zit-like sores on my lip that I play a lot better without. I also like the feel of the Kelly horn mpc I have, but they don't make a copy of the mpc I use on my horn. For some reason the lexan has a softer feel than metal.
MA

I concur with the softer feel of the Kelly. That's one reason I like it. The other physical reason is that it is perfect for outdoor playing. It doesn't freeze your lips off, and it doesn't sear them waiting on your turn in an Independance Day parade.

Of course, none of that would matter if the tone was deficient, but I find it superior to a LOT of traditional mouthpieces I have played.