TubeNet

We had a new tuba player join our community band. He is quite good technically, but he is playing a 3/4 Yamaha BBb 3 valves forward with a PT88 mpc.

I remarked that I found the size of the mpc to rather large for the horn. He shook his head and said, "Small horn, big mouthpiece".

Now, he really blows the stuffin' out of that little horn and the blats and fracks are plentiful. He also sits to my right so that I get the fracks directly in my ear.

So, for the TN FreakJury, can a really large mouthpiece compensate for the size of a small horn?

I've been going through the same question exactly, with a Weril 680.

I've had several suggest the same thing, small horn big mpc. It depends on the player, the player, the player, and the situation. If the player is capable of playing a bigger horn with that mouthpiece, it can work. Having to match a brass section as a single or one of two or so tubas can make it needed, to get the kind of sound and volume needed. But, the player has to be capable of it first.

A smaller mpc will give a lot more control, but the sound is likely to change. It will likely be brighter and not as voluminous. Or something.

But it's much more a function of the player. MUCH more. Tell him I said so.

The large mouthpiece will not make his 3/4 BBb sound like a 5/4 Rudy.

My guess is that he thinks he can, and is really overplaying the instrument.

Like putting a loud glass muffler on your 1997 purple Geo...

Big mouthpiece require a strong embouchure and an abundance of air power. Small tubas require an abundance of air power. Small Yamaha tubas have a definite limit, after which you have to go to a small mouthpiece and go trombone-like to play any louder.

In my experience, overblowing a small tuba (or a big one) is not an overabundance of air, but a lack. The chips and fracks support that notion in this case. At the non-pro level, a big mouthpiece is often a compensation one makes for the inability to play really loud. It does filter out a bit of blat, but at the expense of focus and core. There's still an impedance mismatch.

Been there, done that.

I use an Mike Finn 4 on my Yamaha 621 F tuba. It might be a bit of a challenge on a Bb Yamaha. It's not a big mouthpiece. It has a brighter sound than a big mouthpiece, but it has more clarity and core to the sound, and it carries better. I played a larger mouthpiece on that instrument for a long time before learning better.

Playing a big mouthpiece well is truly demanding, and that's on any size tuba.

Rick "not a fan of the small horn, big mouthpiece myth" Denney

The mouthpiece size need not dictate the quality of the sound or the volume. Tuben was over at the house the other night and played my Bielefelder, a really small horn, .690 bore, maybe 3/4 but probably 1/2. It's noticably smaller than my 184. It had a PT-88 in it at the time and after he played it for a minute I went and got a PT-65. His remark was, "That completely changed the color". He didn't say good or bad. I have been experimenting with several mp's and found that the 88 works really well for me in that horn. However the 88 is too much for the 184 which is a bigger horn. I have, after many trials, settled on a Yamaha Jim Self for the 184. I can overblow either horn with either mouthpiece. Daellenbach played a biggie on his 621. Sounds pretty good to me. IMHO the quality of the sound is dictated almost soley on the quality of the player's practice routine as regards fundamentals.

I play on a MW 2145, and I used to use to a PT 36, which I loved, but it just didn't give me the space I needed for my lips, since I have big lips. So I switched to a LM-5 last week with a Finn 4 rim, and it works so well, the low notes pop right out and my upper range sounds very full and darker than ever. My middle range is so much better because of the mp.

"World Class Sinuses"

Sounds to me a matter of musicality alltogether and probably has little to do with equipment. Sure, you can't produce the same volume of sound on a 3/4 yamaha as you would a 6/4 york, but solid musicianship/maturity should eliminate the blatts and cracked notes.

A guy in community band a couple of years ago had a Conn 11J or 12J, and it sounded thin. He got a 120 Helleberg and his tone improved immensely.

All things in moderation. I'm not sure I'd want the largest mouthpiece made, because you still have to fit the rim and cup diameter to your embouchure, but once you do that a comparatively deeper and more funnel cup will get a mellower tone out of a smaller tuba.

No different than using a V mouthpiece to get more of a British brass band tone out of an American straight cornet.

I use a LM3 on my Yamaha 621 BBb in band and have pretty good results.

I had to try this - I put a PT-88+ into a MW 182 (1/2 size F, .689 bore) -got a beautiful, dark sound quality, harder to put a "bite" into the tone. Didn't sound like the miniscule horn it is, but when it got pushed too far - it broke up with no warning, change of timbre at all. Just a nice tone one second, BLATT the next. It sounded great for a horn that's barely bigger than an Euph. (It also made it very difficult to play in tune - every odd partial became work instead of fun) Bottom line - I think it's possible, but not without some care and sensitivity. - (Problem in chair, not horn)

I'm real happy using a G&W Caver on a Miraphone 182.. (3/4 BBb) . It's also the most comfortable mouthpiece I've ever used. Lots of folks comment about the huge mouthpiece though.
I'm getting nice pp passages and plenty of solid ff when needed. Good "pop" attack, nice quiet starts when called for.

ed wrote: Also, to Rick Denney - you're way off base on your assertion that overblowing is due to a lack of air. It may be a lack of air control, but certainly not a lack of air. I notice you didn't even provide any elaboration on your idea - I guess because trying to make that case is a long shot at best.

I'm not Rick, and don't claim to have HALF of the knowledge he does.


My personal experience is that "blattyness" is more associated with lack of embouchure control NOT air flow.

I can take a tiny little breath and play with the embouchure I show seventh graders (as the wrong one) and get a horrible loud, obnoxious, blatty tone. Some of the HBCU's are good examples of what kind of sound you can produce, sometimes with little or no air in the horn.

It seems blatty, but the problem is, because it lacks focus, a core, and isn't in tune it doesn't carry well on an upright bass (but it definitely does on a sousaphone).

Let us not forget that air produces sound at the lips... the air flow rate can alter loudness and embouchure, but efficiency varies greatly.. You can be efficient and sound good or bad and wasteful and sound good and bad.

The blat comes from the lips slapping instead of just vibrating. They slap because the muscles aren't there to prevent it, or one is blowing too hard. My experience has been that mouthpieces with thick rims and smaller internal diameters help compensate for lack of muscles. Examples are Yamaha 66D4, Wick 3XL. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

If somebody were obnoxiously blatting in my ear, I would move. I would explain to the music director why and leave the ball in his/her court.

I've not noticed any special preference of tuba size versus mouthpiece size. What my face and embouchure could handle has always been of far more importance.

I have noticed that one can use the smaller mouthpieces on small horns to get greater control without sacrificing much low end fundamental because the small horn doesn't have much low end fundamental no matter what one uses. That is, one can use a monster mouthpiece on a small horn and get a little more low end fundamental at the cost of a lot of control. Or one can use a smaller mouthpiece and get a lot more control at the cost of a small amount of low end fundamental.

I use a Dillon G3B on my little Weril CC. Works for me. I tried my Bayamo and a PT88 on it, too woofy, but the Dillon works except when it's really cold then it's too flat. I would like to try a Laskey 30H on it one day.

djwesp wrote:My personal experience is that "blattyness" is more associated with lack of embouchure control NOT air flow.

I mean lack of air power. Here's what I think I know:

A compressor can use a little power to produce a high pressure and a low volume. To do that, it has to push that little bit of air through a small orifice, which is the same as a strong embouchure.

A compressor can use a little power to produce a high flow with no orifice at all. The average window fan moves a lot more air than one of these 200 psi inflation compressors, even though both consume about the same power. At low power, you can have volume or pressure, but not both.

If you point that window fan into a duct and try to force it through that small orifice, the motor will just stall, because it doesn't have the power to move that much volume at the pressure imposed by the small orifice. There's a reason why compressors are properly measured in horsepower, and why measuring them in terms of either pressure or flow is only half the story.

To make a loud sound, the pulse expelled must create the a waveform with a large amplitude and a good shape. The shape and amplitude of the waveform is controlled by the intensity of the pulse, and that is controlled by shape of the opening and the air flowing through it. A strong embouchure allows the lips to open cleanly with good shape. That's why we keep the corners firm even when playing low. It's the volume of air that will create and fill that shape. (It is also required that the reflection of the pulse coming back from the bell is timed to reinforce the next pulse, which emphasizes how important it is for the player to be playing in the center of the instrument's resonance to get all it has to offer.)

What makes air power? A large volume of air AND a strong embouchure. It's the embouchure that produces the shape of the waveform, and the volume that fills it up.

A weakness in the embouchure will undermine the resonance of the sound by robbing the pulse opening of it's good shape. That will produce spurious frequencies and noise. A lack of air will prevent that shape by keeping it from being properly filled up. A lack of power will cause the waveform to be truncated (for one reason or another) at the limit of that power, creating a corner on the waveform. That corner includes transients and high-frequency harmonics (aka, spurious frequencies and noise), and we hear that as blattiness.

It takes both to make a big, loud sound that isn't blatty. It's an impedance issue. The volume and the embouchure have to be coordinated to make the most resonant sound.

In my experience, the lack of air is the earlier problem. As I improve my air movement, the weaknesses in my embouchure become more apparent and I can work on them, too. Without the air supply, I never noticed weakness in the embouchure.

So, when I say air power, I mean both the embouchure to create a clean pulse opening (i.e., strong embouchure), and the air to fill that opening. The opening will suffer without both.

When it comes to the old air versus embouchure debate, I agree.

Most teachers seem to emphasize one issue or the other, but my understanding of the physics insists that both are required, but the air has to be there first.

Rick "who could well be wrong" Denney