TubeNet

Because of all the discussion I am seeing on this forum and others comparing mouthpieces, I decided to put out a tuba mouthpiece comparison page. THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS! I have more data to add, but it's off to a pretty good start I think.

One extra feature is a comparison filter. If you click on a mouthpiece about the same size as the one you are comparing, the page is re-loaded with mouthpieces of the same cup width, slightly larger, and slightly smaller, so you can see what else might be close. Just click on the cup width to activate it. (Once you do, there will be a link at the top of the page to "un-filter" the page again.)

If you don't see your favorite brand, give me time. I do have a day job also!

http://www.dwerden.com/Mouthpieces/tuba.cfm

Very cool, Dave! So where does my Dr. Young fit in?

Reminds me of a neat app that Kanstul has to compare mouthpiece profiles:

http://kanstul.net/pages/mpcredirect.html

You need to run this under IE or an early (4.7-) version of Netscape.

I really appreciate this chart; it will save money and time in comparing mouthpieces for me and for students. If you have time, it would be interesting to revisit the Conn 2 and its later replacements and include them in the chart but there must be dozens of mouthpieces of which this can be said.

Just as a tiny point, I have always thought that the "G" of "G & W" is "Giddings," as in Ivan, not "Giggings."

What patience you must have to do this sort of work!

Thanks

Dave, great chart, just a few other thoughts:

1) the visual chart comparison, kind of like a "perodic table of elements" approach to mouthpiece comparisons, also works well for a lot of people for a quick glance:

http://www.ibowtie.com/tubampccharts.html

2) Ultimately, in order to cut down on some of the subjectivity of cup depth and rim contour, a digital comparator like Kanstul has for trumpet mouthpieces would be fantastic:

http://kanstul.net/mpcJN/Compare/CompareIE.HTM

3) Finally, who knows a good solution for a) mouthpiece makers who either are not consistent, or b) just don't do what their specs say they do, or c) just won't publish specs? The first is any number of the older makes of mouthpieces done mechanically, which many, like Kosi-Kup are obsolete, the second, well, Bach, and the third, Conn.

4) With the use of a digital comparator, then specimens of the legendary mouthpieces, such as an authentic personal Helleberg, a real 1st generation Conn Chief, a Mt. Vernon Bach, and such, could then be posted so that some of their actual characterisics could be seen and not just waxed poetic about, as well as scanning period mouthpieces for accurate reproduction for specialty applications, such as those who do Civil War reinactments, etc., but can't the real thing. For example, last week I had the pleasure of playing a Distin echo cornet. The guy who owned it used a moden Bach mouthpiece. It sounded harsh. I used the cookie cutter, and in spite of my limitations, it was quite apparent the tone was amazing and better suited to its period lyrical style with its original mouthpiece. I'm sure there is an analog for low brass, although I've never had the pleasure of playing period low brass instruments.

A great resource! Thanks for your hard work...

Tim

bill wrote:Just as a tiny point, I have always thought that the "G" of "G & W" is "Giddings," as in Ivan, not "Giggings."

Oops. Thanks for catching that. I am a touch typist - I'm just not all that accurate!

I appreciate the comments. A visual comparison tool is great, but it would be beyond the scope of my project.

I've often pondered the best way to evaluate cup depth and shape with numbers or words (or even pictures). How would one measure the depth of a v-shaped cup? And what depth measurement of a v-shape cup would be a meaningful comparison to a bowl-shaped cup? And how about a cup that is in between v and bowl? Kanstul's tool is helpful there, but it doesn't seem to be working on Internet Explorer 7, at least not on my system.

But even with the best visual or charted chart tool, there are too many factors for the eye to judge. (It's hard enough to compare when playing 2 mouthpieces back to back for 10 minutes.) Suppose you could see the profile of 2 mp's and one seemed a "little" more v-shaped than the other, but the v-shaped one had a slightly smaller throat and a more barrel-shaped backbore. What would be the difference in sound? How about endurance and ease of playing high?

There are basic characteristics that each design piece has, and those are discussed in fine detail in Bach's mouthpiece booklet: http://accessories.conn-selmer.com/pdf/bachmouth.pdf

iiipopes wrote:...Finally, who knows a good solution for a) mouthpiece makers who either are not consistent, or b) just don't do what their specs say they do, or c) just won't publish specs? The first is any number of the older makes of mouthpieces done mechanically, which many, like Kosi-Kup are obsolete, the second, well, Bach, and the third, Conn.

That IS a frustration with projects like this. I did something similar many years back when I wrote mouthpiece articles for Euphonia Magazine and for The Instrumentalist. It was quite difficult to track down specs then. One would think that in the days of websites and digital publishing, manufacturers would have better measurements online, but such is not the case. Even with good standard measurements, such as cup diameter and throat diameter, complex factors such a cup shape and volume, inner-rim shape (which has a more dramatic effect than you might think), throat shape, and backbore shape could not be represented in a meaningful way by numbers.

So playing is the only way to judge. The same would be true of choosing a horn. You can measure a lot of things and describe characteristics in words, but playing is the only valid test.

The mouthpiece table I offer is just a starting point for comparisons. Beyond that, you have a great motivation for going to a large ITEA (or similar) event so you can try mouthpieces in a non-virtual mode!

awesome!

The best way I've been able to describe the best use of a mouthpiece chart is to take the mouthpiece you have, really get to know it so you know what you like and dislike about it, then use a mouthpiece chart more like a naturalist's field guide rather than an engineer's technical manual: a place to start to help guide the safari in a good direction, rather than as a problem solving tool in the abstract.

iiipopes wrote:The best way I've been able to describe the best use of a mouthpiece chart is to take the mouthpiece you have, really get to know it so you know what you like and dislike about it, then use a mouthpiece chart more like a naturalist's field guide rather than an engineer's technical manual: a place to start to help guide the safari in a good direction, rather than as a problem solving tool in the abstract.

That sums it up very well. Choosing a mouthpiece is more of an art than a science, for sure. They can make a big difference in your playing so it's important to choose a good fit for you. But there are sooooooooo many to choose from!

Just to put things in perspective, I remember my favorite Claude Gordon story. When you find yourself in a state of confusion about what mouthpiece to use in general, or about which one to use for which purpose, his advice went something like this:

Take all the mouthpieces you own and put them in a brown paper bag. Row out to the middle of a lake. Close your eyes and reach into the bag, take out one mouthpiece. Throw the bag overboard, go home, and practice on that one mouthpiece you grabbed.

Terry,

And I remember the same question/answer to/from trombonist Urbie Green. I think a few other famous players have said something similar.

Thanks for the great chart! I know the kind of hard work and effort it takes to do something like this, and I think it makes a great resource for us!