TubeNet

I just received the Dr. Young mouthpiece today that was recently on E-bay and was sold at least twice last month.
This was discussed on the following thread:
viewtopic.php?t=19138

It seems to work very well in my 1291 BBb. I disagree with the assertion that it produces a garbage tone. Both my wife and oldest daughter opined that its tone was a little brighter than the large titanium MP that Ivan made for me, and comparable to the tone I produce on my large H.M. White custom mouthpiece. (It's possible that all 3 of my tones are garbage, but I digress.)

Both of the MP's used in the comparison have a very deep "German" cup, as opposed to the Young funnel shape. I find the Young MP very similar in feel and response to the old Conn Helleberg, albeit a bit larger in diameter. I've been using 35-36 mm mouthpieces for over 25 years now so this one is actually a bit smaller in diameter than my usual MP's.

So far I am very pleased with it, although one needs a couple of weeks, and gigs to truly test a MP.

pwhitaker wrote: Both my wife and oldest daughter opined that its tone was a little brighter than the large titanium MP that Ivan made for me, .....

Bright? As I understand Dr. Young's approach at the time, he was trying to create a mouthpiece which made the tuba sound more like a string bass, i.e, help it get a bass horn sound.

Anyone who is aware of Dr. Young's accomplishments must certainly be impressed and admire him. Additionlly, I would encourage anyone who wants to explore the possibilities in instrument design but... the success of this mouthpiece, in particular, can be substantially judged by the number of professionals who have adopted it.

But for the record, when pwhitaker reports that this is the best mouthpiece he's ever played, I will place my very early "Reynolds / Dr. Young / Experimental" (note the rare moniker "Experimental") in the For Sale section. (thinking it will be the last best chance to sell it for an outrageous price)

Having been married nigh unto 43 years to the same woman, and having raised 2 daughters I am certainly used to my sage observations being treated with an amused tolerance (Rodney Dangerfield?).

Despite the subliminal snickers this really is a good mouthpiece, at least for me - and isn't that the final criterion in these enlightened days of self-fullfillment?

I for one would be interested in Alex C's "very early Reynolds / Dr. Young / Experimental" MP, at a reasonable price of course.
(There's no fool like an old fool - according to my child bride.)

Which Dr. Young mouthpiece?

The Reynolds version, which looks like a french horn mouthpiece witha glandular condition, is not actually the design Dr. Young has promoted. I don't recall the details of the relationship between Fred Young and Reynolds, but I do recall that the mouthpiece didn't really turn out as Dr. Young intended.

Jim McIntyre, over on TubaEuph, actually owns a custom mouthpiece made by Fred Young himself. It is made from plastic (what kind, I could not tell, but it seemed like an acrylic) with a brass shank.

The key characteristic of a true Fred Young design is the lack of a venturi shape in the throat of the mouthpiece. The backbore is straight with no taper, and the throat is the same diameter as the opening at the tip of the shank. The cup itself is funnel-shaped, but not to the extreme of the Reynolds. There is some bowl to it. It's not as unconventional as the Reynolds, which seems to me almost a parody of the Dr. Young concept.

In terms of length, the custom mouthpiece was about normal length, also unlike the Reynolds version.

I have tried both. When I played it, the Reynolds version stripped all the color right out of the sound, leaving woofiness in its wake. The authentic custom Dr. Young was much, much better, and would be usable as a daily mouthpiece by most players.

Arnold Jacobs talked a little about a custom Dr. Young mouthpiece that Fred had provided to him, and used it to illustrate the variety of possibilities with mouthpiece design.

It's a wide world, and presumably even the Reynolds mouthpiece would not have been produced if it didn't do something that someone thought was worthwhile. But I can't do anything with it.

Rick "thinking 'Dr. Young' is no more specific of a unified design than 'Helleberg'" Denney

I am surprised that the "real" Dr. Young mouthpiece, as described, has such a throat and backbore. Conventional design is, of course, a throat of a specifically designed diameter, then either a short, long, or contoured roughly cylindrical transition into the backbore, again, of either taper, cylindrical or hybrid cross section depending on the design criteria.

So to hear of a mouthpiece that basically goes straight out at the bottom of the cup that actually has a good tone is very interesting indeed.

Yes, the transition of well thought out ideas into marketing usually do meet with some loss in the translation.

Hey, Rick -- How does the "real" Dr. Young do for intonation, both for pitch and clarity, in the various registers as well as overall tone?

The MP I'm talking about is the Reynolds "glandular French Horn" MP. AFAICT it seems to have almost no backbore taper and is a straight shot through the shank. I think that because I can play, with some success. these large MP's I'm able to move enough air through this MP in order to get a "decent" sound. It is certainly easier to use than a monster I had built about 20 years ago (for a 3+1 Sovereign Besson BBb, - a BIG & STUFFY horn), which Ivan used as a template for the titanium version he made for me. In fact, the high end on this Reynolds is about the same for me as a PT-88+ I fool around with. The Young MP allows me to reach the top of the treble clef, and play the Bydlo g# with some authority and reliability. I'm thinking of using this MP as my "high-end" MP which I need for several of the novelty intros I should be famous for (with credit due to Sam Pilaffian and Eli) with our Trad Jazz Band.

iiipopes wrote:I am surprised that the "real" Dr. Young mouthpiece, as described, has such a throat and backbore.
...
Hey, Rick -- How does the "real" Dr. Young do for intonation, both for pitch and clarity, in the various registers as well as overall tone?

That was the whole point of the exercise. As Jacobs described it in his recorded 1973 master class, Fred Young came to him and asked him why a mouthpiece needed a tapered backbore. Jacobs confessed he didn't know, and the story goes on from there.

I didn't have enough time with Jim's mouthpiece to determine anything in particular, other than it was a real mouthpiece and not a paperweight (dare I say, like the Reynolds). Jim is a regular on the TubaEuph list, however, so if you are on that list you can ask him. He's commented on it before.

Rick "who thinks Jim does actually use the mouthpiece, at least occasionally" Denney

Rick Denney wrote: ... not a paperweight (dare I say, like the Reynolds).

Humph!!

pwhitaker wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: ... not a paperweight (dare I say, like the Reynolds).

Humph!!

Heh, heh. I expected (and deserved) that.

Rick "who wouldn't want to drop one on his toe" Denney

The PT88+ and the LM's I have are more massive than the Reynolds Dr. Young, and any of my brass monster mouthpieces could certainly break a toe. I have as yet not dropped one of those on any of my horns and hope that never happens. There is a risk because I always use a tuning bit, except on my recording bell Mira.