TubeNet

Uranium-235.
Now there's the stuff for a great mouthpiece.
(keeps your lips warm in the winter too)

davemcrobs wrote:Well I found a place that lists various densities of metals. http://www.mcelwee.net/html/densities_o ... rials.html Brass turns out to be 8.553 grams/cubic centemeter. None of stainless alloys are more than 8. So go out and buy a silver or gold plated mouthpiece made of brass because, the density of the brass is key!

I've reported this before.

But it really doesn't matter. Two material properties affect the mouthpiece's effect on acoustic vibration of the air within it: stiffness and mass. Both are easy to manipulate.

Shape is about 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 times more important.

After all, Lexan is dramatically lower in density than any metal, and it is MUCH less stiff as a material and MUCH lighter as a mouthpiece than any metal mouthpiece on the market. Some argue that it plays identically to a metal mouthpiece, and others argue that there is a very subtle difference. Even going with the latter, if that big a difference in material can have only a very subtle effect, then what can we possibly expect from the slight differences in materials between brass, bronze, and steel?

A different example: A Monette mouthpiece must weigh at least ten times what a Kellyberg weighs. Probably even more. So, we know that even an order of magnitude change in mass has only a slight effect on function.

If you guys want to waste your money chasing moonbeams, be my guest.

Now, things stainless has that brass doesn't: Hardness, inert chemical behavior, strength, and durability. The taper at the tip can be fine, the mouthpiece resists dents and damage far better, it won't cause a skin reaction, and it feels smooth like gold plating. Those things are real, and therefore wholly defensible reasons for buying a stainless mouthpiece.

Rick "who thinks his glow-in-the-dark Kellyberg looks just right in his fiberglass Martin" Denney

By far the biggest difference in my opinion is the increased flexibility and endurance on these mouthpieces. I've not completely converted over, but if it is difficult, i'm usually playing my SS on it. I feel like I have to fight the horn a lot less, don't deal with the acne, can play on it longer, and the mouthpiece seems to stay warmer longer (don't know if Rick can explain that one to me?)


That being said, are you suprised in the slightest to see a blatantly false claim by a seller anywhere??


I also find it ironic the seller would claim this considering the gentlemen at GW explained adding more mouthpiece to raise the weight because the SS was less dense. (which would be even more odd if come to find out, GW was the one that made this claim)

Since I suggested stainless as a mouthpiece material a few years back (before people actually started making them), allow me to make another proposal.

Mild steel. Pick an alloy--whatever machines easily.

Now, put a nice PVD coating of titanium nitride on it. Looks like gold, is completely inert and very tough. Those gold-colored "lifetime" locksets on front doors and those gold colored lav fixtures are made that way.

The result should be cheap to make and have all the nice characteristics of stainless, plus a nice gold color.

Might be an opportunity for some Far East operation.

JCRaymo wrote:I won't get into a debate about material properties with Rick or anybody else here. Also being just a mere amatuer my opinions are just that mine. Here is my take on it. I have tried a great number of mouthpieces on my two horns only so that is one factor that I can only report as well.

It's not at all easy to attribute cause and effect when it comes to mouthpieces. Here is a summary of what I think I know:

1. Material has only the subtlest of effects, if it has any effect at all, on sound and response. If the difference between, say, a Conn Helleberg and a Sidey SSH is solely based on material and mass, then a Kellyberg should be unplayable. We know, however, that the Sidey does have a slighly different shape (and that the shape of the Conn is not at all constant between samples).

2. Shape has a significant effect. I have noticed a significant difference in sound and playability between two mouthpieces that look the same. For example, a Laskey 30H and a Conn Helleberg have a very similar inner shape, but play differently and get different results over time.

3. Mass and stiffness affect the resonance of the mouthpiece material, and that could theoretically influence the resonance of the air within it. But the resonant frequency of the metal is octaves higher than the resonant frequency of the air within it, so the effect is on the highest overtones only. You can hear that difference by ringing the mouthpiece like a bell (resulting in a high-pitch ring), and popping the cup opening against the palm of your hand to excite the air within it (which rings at about an Ab on the bottom of the staff or thereabouts). The popping frequency is affected by the volume and the throat diameter. A plastic mouthpiece is nearly unresonant (it thuds instead of ringing when you tap it), but its popping frequency is just like any other mouthpiece.

4. A difference in feel may or may not be heard out front. But feel is important even though Mr. Jacobs recommends that we don't depend on it.

5. A mouthpiece change may reinforce strengths in our embouchure and hide weaknesses when we first try it out. After a while, our usual sound will again emerge. Therefore, I have to try a mouthpiece for months before I'm really sure whether I like it. I played a Laskey 30H in the Holton for 8 months before going back to the PT48. When I went back, the PT48 gave me the same warm feelings I'd had on first trying the Laskey. The good feeling from the Laskey wore off and I found that it didn't have the playability and the zip in the sound that the PT48 had had. We trick ourselves very easily when trying out mouthpieces.

6. When we compare mouthpieces of different materials, we are never comparing identically shaped mouthpieces. Therefore, we cannot know whether the change we sense, even if it proves durable, can be attributed to shape or material. From a physics point of view, and considering that we have mouthpieces of wildly divergent material properties that behave quite similarly, I automatically give credit for any perceived change to either the shape or to my brain.

7. Abrasion, skin reactions, and slipperiness may not affect the sound, but they definitely affect our quality of life while playing, especially for extended periods. Therefore, materials that are more favorable in these categories are worth pursuing for those who have troubles in these categories. I greatly prefer gold plating over silver because of its slipperiness, and stainless steel has that same quality. Lexan doesn't, but when it's really cold, Lexan's relatively low thermal conductivity and mass means that is doesn't pull heat out of my face like a metal mouthpiece will. Not freezing my lips at TubaChristmas trumps any abrasion after hours of playing. Brass is a better thermal conductor than stainless, but both are on a different planet than plastic.

8. A mouthpiece with a dent in the rim or backbore will cause problems. Therefore, a material that resists dents and damage from accidental dropping, etc., is worth something to the clumsy among us (that would be me). Stainless would be best in that category because of its strength, and Lexan is good because it's so light that it doesn't hit anything really hard when you drop it.

Rick "wary of anecdotal evidence, which is all we have" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who thinks his glow-in-the-dark Kellyberg looks just right in his fiberglass Martin" Denney

Hey Rick, when are we going to see pics of that horn??

MartyNeilan wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "who thinks his glow-in-the-dark Kellyberg looks just right in his fiberglass Martin" Denney

Hey Rick, when are we going to see pics of that horn??

My camera is too expensive.

Rick "imagine a Conn 56J with gold spray paint" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Now, things stainless has that brass doesn't: Hardness, inert chemical behavior, strength, and durability. The taper at the tip can be fine, the mouthpiece resists dents and damage far better, it won't cause a skin reaction, and it feels smooth like gold plating.

I vaguely recall something to the effect that stainless steel doesn't rust or dull because of a very thin coat of oxidation (chromium oxide?) Is it really inert, for practical purposes?

Seems to me that participation of some other person (as jcraymo described for example) might be especially important when comparing mouthpieces of different weight or other resonant properties, because your ear is connected to the mouthpiece by solid stuff that can propagate vibrations that won't be heard.

I’m glad folks are talking about the previous mentioned ideas with mouthpiece designs, materials, and shapes.

I believe everything you do to a mouthpiece changes the way it plays. In the past year we have seriously been investigating weight of mouthpieces, and how that works in conjunction with the cup, and backbore volume. Our newest Alan Baer MMVI and Jon Sass tuba mouthpieces reflect what we found to be the appropriate weight for the cups, and backbore of each mouthpiece. Having said this I do not yet have a conclusive spread sheet of mouthpiece weights and internal contours that seem to be ideal of all manufactures mouthpieces. Currently we design a mouthpiece put weight where we know it works, and then start tweeking the weight once we feel we have a good rim diameter, cup volume and back bore. As a mater of fact after several months of working on the MMVI mouthpieces with Alan Baer we came to mouthpiece weights that we thought were ideal. Interestingly enough when I weighed our original tuba mouthpieces in titanium, and the new MMVI stainless steel mouthpieces they were about 2% different in weight. This conversation is exciting to me because mouthpieces not only play well based on their internal sizes. The weight is important as well. How does this explain the extreme differences in weight from plastic to super heavy weight mouthpieces, simple People hear things differently and when it comes to tuba I think the way we as humans hear the fundamental pitch that we hear is largely created by the upper over tones, and how our brain puts the individual overtones together to create the “tuba soundâ€

Scooby Tuba wrote:

Funny...Dennis and I have been corresponding about it. He and I were laughing at it in the Elephant Room when Marty Erickson walked by and told us a part of Lenny Jung's story with the tuba. He was also suggesting that, laughter aside, I should underestimate its musical potential.

The valves on the Martin are from a sousaphone, with more angle and a bit of slant so the branches can come straight out the top. The third valve upper loop is doubled, sousie-style. Of course, it has no fourth valve. And the instrument is a bit shorter than the one Dennis is playing, though it is just as fat.

The satin gold look is similar. You'll have to add some waviness where past repairs have been made on the fiberglass. Just back up another 15 feet or so.

But it has exactly zero dents.

Rick "thinking satin black sounds about right" Denney