TubeNet

If this was done to 'any' mpc and then played on 'any' tuba, what would the general results be? Sure it would move more air, but how would it effect the:

-response
-overall sound
-high range/low range
-intonation


I'm curious...

I'd be VERY cautious when attempting such an operation.
I've done it on one of my mouthpieces and it opened up the low reggister alot and response was a little quicker but the intonation went CRAZY and as a result ended up with a $160 paperweight but I still think it was worth it to find out.

If your considering drilling out a MP I'd take it to the maufacturer and ask them about it and go from there.

Hope that helped

***

I've done this with a trumpet mouthpiece for my upper register excercises. The back pressure of such a small mpc made my head feel like it was going to explode. It's very touchy to mess with the design of mouthpieces (ask has been said). If you're really set on it, you might try drilling out something smaller: ie. Trumpet or Bone mpc, and then you'll have those for your buzzing excercises if all goes to heck.

jon112780 wrote:If this was done to 'any' mpc and then played on 'any' tuba, what would the general results be? Sure it would move more air, but how would it effect the:

-response
-overall sound
-high range/low range
-intonation

I'm curious...

Mouthpiece "drill size" is a misnomer, because custom mouthpiece work is done on a lathe and the operation is called boring, with a single point tool.


On the other hand, mass production uses a reaming operation. A reamer is a six (or more) fluted cutting tool, precision gound to a specific outside dimension and shape, for removing very small amounts of material in a finishing operation.


As you know, the mouthpiece has a venturi bore (the smallest opening at the bottom of the cup), and then a backbore which functions to merge geometrically the smaller venturi bore with the larger mating mouthpipe.

From my limited amateur playing experience, large backbores let me play low register notes very well, with great tone and projection, using horns with large bells.

I have a York monster 3-valve Eb (19.5 inch bell) (made 1914-17), and the York 18 original mouthpiece has a very large backbore coming nearly to a sharp edge. The horn is free blowing, with a great low register, great false tones, and will support at least a 50-piece orchestra or band.

I use a Bayamo on my Willson 3050RZ CC (19.7 inch bell) for slower, low register work, and the combination well supports 50-piece and larger ensembles. The Bayamo's backbore comes to a nearly sharp edge.

I did some googling and found this discussion of trumpet backbores called "The Big Backbore Myth":
http://www.storkcustom.com/html/big_backbore.html

Also, the Marcinkiewicz site has a basic overview.
http://www.marcinkiewicz.com/mouthpiece ... m#backbore

If you're even thinking of trying it, remember; the only way to find out how much is too much is to go too far. Because I've found that up until that point, it just gets better, then it falls off.

What I did, when I was still in school, was to accurately measure EVERYTHING at the start, and then with each attempt.

When things started to go south, I tossed the one I was playing with and went out and bought the one I could find by ANY MANUFACTURER that was the closest to the set of measurements I liked.

Turned out to be a Mirafone model, and 30 years later it's still great *For ME on MY CC horn*.

jon112780 wrote:If this was done to 'any' mpc and then played on 'any' tuba, what would the general results be? Sure it would move more air, but how would it effect the:

-response
-overall sound
-high range/low range
-intonation


I'm curious...

Generally, my reading of the literature suggests that increasing the throat diameter increases the popping frequency, nudging the impedance curve upward. That tends to sharpen the upper range if I'm remembering correctly. But, more importantly, it also broadens the impedance curve, giving a wider bandwidth. That means that it's easier to bend pitches. But that broader bandwidth can also cut the core out of the sound, so it's not without risk.

Dr. Young's design (not the Reynolds interpretation of that design) uses a straight backbore with no taper. The throat is as large as the opening at the tip of the shank. It looks like you could store a roll of pennies in it. But it is not difficult to play at all. It does, however, cut out much of the upper harmonic content. That was his intent--he wanted more fundamental and less of the overtones. But that's not what I want at all--I prefer a colorful sound with lots of overtones.

My own weaknesses as a player suggest that most people who want a bigger mouthpiece to get a "darker" sound really need more air power to properly fill up their embouchure, and a stronger embouchure to hold together under increased air power. I am NOT saying increase air speed or pressure, and more mouthpiece pressure fights the goal of developing a stronger embouchure. Since power is the product of flow and pressure, and since I don't want to increase pressure, that means I must increase flow. I'm still working on it.

Players who have good air power get lovely rich, deep sounds with surprisingly small mouthpieces.

Rick "still working on it" Denney

cktuba wrote:

Pure Sound wrote:I'd be VERY cautious when attempting such an operation.
I've done it on one of my mouthpieces and it opened up the low reggister alot and response was a little quicker but the intonation went CRAZY and as a result ended up with a $160 paperweight but I still think it was worth it to find out.

If your considering drilling out a MP I'd take it to the maufacturer and ask them about it and go from there.

Hope that helped

What he said... I've had it work really well on a Denis Wick 1L, but I turned a Schilke Helleberg II into a paperweight.

Heavens! A Wick 1 or 1L is already so open, who would want to open it further? Regarding the Schilke, it's not the throat so much as the backbore.

Moreover, the relationship between the throat and its transition into the backbore can not only affect the amount of air, but the intonation as well, and especially dynamics. It's a lot harder to play a large throat softly.

iiipopes wrote:It's a lot harder to play a large throat softly

You just need to play with bigger groups!

jon112780 wrote:If this was done to 'any' mpc and then played on 'any' tuba, what would the general results be?

wasted mouthpiece

tubop wrote:Arnold Jacobs goes on a bit about this in the 1973 recording on this site in the tips section... in the first half. And i believe he plays on a mouthpiece without a backbore. check it out.

Actually, that mouthpiece was one of Dr. Young's designs, to which I referred. I remember that part of Jacobs's presentation (which I have on CD) and I have also seen a played one of Dr. Young's personal creations.

Playing it, Jacobs sounded like...Jacobs. I fear the recording equipment used then did not demonstrate the subtler points he was making about mouthpiece differences.

He was certainly a mouthpiece experimenter, and believed in changing mouthpieces to change sound character to fit a particular work.

Rick "whose mouthpieces have big enough throats" Denney

Everyone please remember it's not just the diameter of the throat, but the length of the throat as it transitions into the backbore that also accounts for intonation and the feeling of "stuffy" vs "open."

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.dallasmusic.org/gearhead/Mou ... 0size.html