TubeNet

I'd like to try opening the throat on my Schilke 51D to let some more air through, but I don't want to do it to my main piece and I can't find any used ones for cheap enough. I know the Symphony Series has a 51D with a bigger throat, but it's also 100 dollars. Does anyone think there would be a problem with buying a Kelly 51D and using possibly sandpaper on a pencil-tip to open up the throat to see if I like it?

The only problem is, the only way you know you've gone too far is by going too far. It's tough to put material back. And the only way to be sure it's too far is to go even further. Then you have no way to measure it what you liked.

Another way to go is by using very fine increment drill bits. Keep trying the Kelly until you have gone too far. Record the throat numbers. Then when you've gone too far, take the REAL mouthpiece (or another Kelly) and go back to a number you liked. This method worked for me, only I used it to define the throat I liked, and then bought a mouthpiece that size. Of course, we didn't have Kellys back then, and I was just destroying Bachs...

The profile/taper and the finish inside the throat can play a part in how a mouthpiece works. I think if I wanted to do a little experimentation, I would use an expansion reamer. That way, I could gradually increase the diameter and leave a good finish.

Why don´t you just try it on ANY junk MP ?
I did the same thing to an ancient mouthpiece I had.
My Dad was a woodturner, so I had means to mess with it quite a bit. Used a 9.5 mm drill to open the throat and some handheld woodturning scrapers to deepen and widen the cup as far as I dared. (Remaining wall thickness: less than 1 mm).
Polished the accessible surfaces.
I ended up with a 9.5 mm throat that is cylindrical over a length of about 15 mm, and a cup diameter of about 35 mm.

I was (and still am) disappointed with its effect on my F horn, but recently I tried it on the CC and BLAM!! this has become my secret weapon for monstrous playing in the range between F0 and C3.
For delicate playing, I stick to the PT50+.
I only use this when I´m invited not to be nice to the audience at all and you may find out your altered MP to fit the same task.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but has anyone tried taking material off the face the rim of their Kellys to change cup volume or the bite of the rim? I've thinking of trying things with some of mine, but no point in reinventing the wheel if other's results have been good, bad or not worth the trouble.

twoconnguy wrote:Has anyone tried taking material off the face the rim of their Kellys to change cup volume or the bite of the rim? I've thinking of trying things with some of mine, but no point in reinventing the wheel if other's results have been good, bad or not worth the trouble.

Most all great discoveries have been by accident. If you don't experiment... you'll never know.

twoconnguy wrote:I don't mean to hijack this thread, but has anyone tried taking material off the face the rim of their Kellys to change cup volume or the bite of the rim?

That was the first thing I tried with the Bachs. Helped immensely (for me). Both bite and less volume.

Since Kellys are rather inexpensive, consider getting two:

Take the first one, open it up a little & compare the two. If you like the bigger one better, then take the 2nd one, open it up a size larger than you opened the 1st one, and again compare. Do this until you get to a point you don't like the larger one. You can work in finer increments, over a longer period of time to make sure you really do like the next size larger, and be able to switch back and forth and not have to rely on "muscle memory," as it takes anywhere from a few hours to a couple of weeks to really get to "know" a new mouthpiece. So, for about the same as a brand name conventional mouthpiece, you can get the two Kellys and over time get it exactly to where you want it.

This comment is bound to provoke some deep thought in some and some sarcastic remarks from others.. Nontheless, both responses require some thought....

Even though mouthpieces are relatively simple... just a cup and a stem... they represent just another place for manufacturing differences to come into play. No one has yet developed a PRECISION tolerance for the taper and length of engagement. Even thought the Kellys are mass-produced on hard injection tooling, they are also subject to mild manufacturing differences.... probably moreso that those mouthpieces produced by conventional methods due to the shrink rates of plastic. That being said... you can drill, file, sand, freeze, heat, or whatever and never be too sure of what you come up with because you are not sure of what you started with. The only proof is whether it works for YOU... or not.

As far as the Kellys being identical copies of original metal mouthpieces goes... maybe the tooling is an exact copy... including changes to compensate for the shrink rate of plastic... but it's not likely there has been any compensation for the shrink rates of the different wall thicknesses in the Kellys. Think maybe this might make a difference in how they play as compared to their original metal counterparts? Like I said before.... experiment with what you have, but don't expect to be able to duplicate your efforts exactly, or be able to apply the results to something else.

TubaTinker wrote:This comment is bound to provoke some deep thought in some and some sarcastic remarks from others.. Nontheless, both responses require some thought....

Hows come we can't BOTH be provoked and sarcastic?

If you read the Kelly website closely, you will find that Kelly does NOT try to make exact dimensional copies of the mouthpieces used as source material. What they do is attempt to recreate the SOUND that these mouthpieces produce, consistent with the fact that they know better than anyone else what the physical properties and characteristics of Lexan is, and how the manufacture of a mouthpiece may be limited thereby. For example, my Kelly 18 is dimensionally deeper than a Bach 18, and the cup diameter is what some of the older mouthpieces measure, not what the "new" specs say. That said, so what about the manufacturing tolerances or differences? By drilling the first one out, you create a point of departure reference relative to what you had before, which is more important than any "absolute" measurement.

I'm not very learn-ed with plastics, but I thought that Lexan was not like regular plastic, so I would think that it would hold its shape more like metal (not have a shrink-rate)?

"shrinkage" is always a problem...

Ryan_Beucke wrote:I'm not very learn-ed with plastics, but I thought that Lexan was not like regular plastic, so I would think that it would hold its shape more like metal (not have a shrink-rate)?

LEXAN is a General Electric trademark name. The generic name is polycarbonate. It's some pretty tough stuff, but is still a very common 'regular' plastic. One of it's major uses is in storm doors. I would think it's a descent choice for throw-away mouthpieces. Now... if you want to get into some stuff that has characteristics similar to metal, you could try some Fortran or Valox. Both are expensive and quite difficult to mold. I guess LEXAN is a pretty good 'middle of the road' choice.

I'm not saying anything bad about Kelly. The mouthpieces are wonderful and I own several of them. Every once in a while someone asks why things are manufactured as they are and I just like to point out that modern manufacturing usually uses the best materials available for the prices the public is willing to pay.

sbring - thanks, but the idea is not mine.