Mouthpiece shank size shenanigans

[poomshanka]

Team TubeNet...

I've been going back-n-forth with one of my manufacturers regarding the eternal shank size debate. In the course of doing a little research, I came across an excellent post from the Oracle in Woodbridge™®©:

A year or two ago, I made this simplified explaination of the different mouthpiece shank sizes and have sent it to my Dillon Music Customers when I needed to clear up confusion on the shank size issue. I hope this will be a valuable tool to everyone on the TubeNet BBS.

TUBA SHANK SIZES

In the world of tuba mouthpieces, it seems there are five (5) general shank sizes, and that can lead to confusion. The Standard American and European Shank sizes, followed by the Large Shank, are the most common sizes that fit modern production tubas. From smallest to largest, we offer the following information to shed a little light on the subject.

SMALL EUROPEAN: Having a diameter of .490" at small end of shank, this size is offered by Dennis Wick in the sizes 1 through 5. Just make sure you order the one without the "L" in the model number. This size is most commonly used on old Besson tubas and old American Eb tubas. I hear this referred to as the Eb tuba size. Some old German, etc. 3/4 size BBb tubas have also shown up with that receiver size. If you are having trouble figuring out what small size shank your old tuba needs, it is about the same size as a large shank trombone mouthpiece. Borrow one from a trombonist and see for yourself. You can order a Denis Wick mouthpiece, or to have a wider variety of mouthpieces to choose from, consider replacing the receiver for about the price of a mouthpiece.

STANDARD AMERICAN: The reference point for this size of about .520" at the small end of the shank. A good example would be the Bach, and Conn Helleberg tuba mouthpieces. This is the most common size here in the United States. In the Dennis Wick line, you need to make sure it has the "L" in the model number to get this standard size. Our regular size shank Dillon Mouthpieces are also of this size. Besides American built horns, many European horns like Miraphone can use this size.

EUROPEAN SHANK: This is an increasingly popular shank size of about .530" diameter at the small end of the shank. It is found in mouthpieces like the JK Exclusive, Perantucci, Laskey "E" shank, and of course our wonderful Sheridan Series of mouthpieces. Most every European and American tuba built these days, will accept this shank size.

LARGE SHANK: This is a larger size that measures about .550" diameter at the small end of the shank. It works well on the larger European tubas. Especially horns with large diameter leadpipes like the "York" copies and most Alexander model 163 CC tubas. This is the size of our Dillon Music "L" shank mouthpiece and the new Wick 2XL.

KAISER SHANK: With a measurement of about .585" in diameter at the small end of the shank, this truly is a "Kaiser" size. It fits the largest Alexander model 164, a few ‘one off’ model 163's, and some original York receivers we've come across. Anyone needing this size shank will need to get a custom built mouthpiece, or have an adapter made.

Following Matt's lead, I put the calipers on the O.D. of different mouthpieces I have in my lineup. What I came up with is:

LOUD: .54"
Schilke: .535"
Griego: .53"
Marcinkiewicz: .52"

I feel pretty safe in opining that a good "small" measurement is .52". Some questions regarding "large":

What measurement would you call large?

Is it typical for a manufacturer to adjust the end of the backbore to accomodate the larger O.D., or is the shank wall just thicker on the end?

If you were to hazard a guess about the wide assortment of mouthpiece receivers out there, what would the small:large quantity ratio be? Two smalls for every large? Four smalls for every large?

Based on my own experience, the Miraphones of old used small shank receivers. This was the case with the 188 I bought in 1985, and Tommy Johnson's 190 (which was produced around 1980, +/- a year or so). By contrast, the new Miraphone receivers seem larger, and more geared towards the larger shank mouthpieces. A stock Marcinkiewicz H2 goes in too far on the two new Miraphones I have access to every week. The small shank equipment I tried on my 2145 went in too far. A Schilke Helleberg II was just right. The small shank equipment was also too small on my PT-6, and the Willson, Thor and Gronitz PCM I play all the time seem to like the larger shank mouthpieces as well. Finally, when I've taken my LOUD LM-10 around to try horns, say at the NAMM show, I've never felt like it stuck out too far on anything I tried.

My own informal survey of four different manufacturers turned up four different sizes. Might any of y'all with other brands of mouthpieces and a set of calipers be able to chime in with some numbers? Seeing these disparities, I'm also wondering if the same variances might be observed measuring the I.D. on various manufacturer's mouthpiece receivers.

This survey is for more than just curiosity, by the way. This will be hard data that I pass onto my manufacturer. Thanx in advance for your thoughts on this subject...

...Dave

[Dan Schultz]

Makes it kinds difficult to 'mind the gap' doesn't it? No... I'm not talking about the London subway!

[iiipopes]

You can even get "Mind the Gap" on souvenier mugs & t-shirts as well as other London Underground stuff, at the London Transport Museum, online:
http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/




When I was going to the UK in college and grad school on school trips and holidays, there was a point I almost had the central London section of the tube map, basically everything covered by and within the yellow circle line, memorized from use.

[poomshanka]

Any more thoughts from anyone on this? Even if you don't feel comfortable commenting on horn manufacturer's sizing tendencies, perhaps some of you with a set of calipers and a few different brands of mouthpieces in your collection might be able to grab some shank end O.D. measurements.

Thanx...

...Dave

[Alan Baer]

Hello All,
I'm sitting in the Madrid airport on my way home from a wonderful festival held in the Galicia area.  I taught 16 tubist and euphoniums from Tues to Sat.  night.  This subject of "shank size" was a very hot topic here.  
I'm in the process of trying.. "trying" to get the manufactures of our tubas to standardize the receivers as well as to get the mouthpiece makers to follow suit with the shanks.  
I feel with the research that I've done over the years that the two sizes that we should be dealing with are the "standard" .520 and the "Euro" .538.   The sizes that you mentioned are close, but even if it's off a tad... it's a huge difference..
.001 difference = .018 engagement into the horn..  
So....  if the horn needs a Euro shank and you pop in a Standard (or sometimes called and American shank)  you have .018 difference...
18x.018=.324     MORE THAN 1/4 IN TOO FAR IN....
For the Miraphone C and Bb.. I use a Euro shank
For the Miraphone F  I use a Standard shank
For the Meinl 6450 I use Euro
For the the F  Standard...
Anyone playing a horn designed by Warren Deck..   He designed these instruments using a standard shank piece...  this is what you should use....
Warren and I have talked and his horns too will be getting on the band waggon of this "standardization"
This is what I use.... Please lets not fight about numbers...
as I said this is whhat works for me, if you have another idea, great! Please share it so that others can enjoy it too!
Good luck!
I'm now on VACATION!!!!!
CAIO

[iiipopes]

It seems on some horns it matters much. On my Besson, when I play it outdoors, as for an hour for a Salvation Army kettle near Christmas, I use my Kelly 18 with its regular shank instead of my Wick 1 with the smaller shank. Of course, it only fits in @ 1/2 inch, so any "gap" is, of course, relatively speaking, a chasm. The first time I did this, I noticed no difference in response, tuning or intonation. Thinking I was just numb with cold, later I tried it again in the comfort of my own living room. Same results.

So, as with all instruments, the mouthpiece shank diameter, taper, and resulting gap seems to me to be no different than any other issue with a tuba: your mileage may vary, the destination is the same. Try several until you find what works for you.

[Dan Schultz]

Team TubeNet... I've been going back-n-forth with one of my manufacturers regarding the eternal shank size debate. ...Dave

Where are you measuring? The MAXIMUM diameter of the shank (which usually does not get within 1/2" of the receiver.... OR... the point where the shank actually engages the receiver?... in which case you would have to define the dimension of what you consider to be a standard receiver.

In order to really make this comparison work, someone needs to make an inspection gage that has a perfect .050" per inch taper and has a 'go' and a 'no go' scribe on the large to indicate when the insertion into the receiver is proper. Until someone actually does this and sets an industry standard, I'm afraid comparing shanks is going to next to impossible.

I've said this before... and at the risk of sounding like a broken record... "How is it possible to compare mouthpiece performance when the gap is probably the most important factor".

[poomshanka]

Thanx, Al, for your great response. I'll forward this info onto my manufacturer.

To Dan's point, I'd imagine what we're dealing with here is a center-of-mass issue. Even if we accept that the gap is the single-most important issue at hand, short of having some kind of manufacturer's summit and handing out everyone identical tooling for making mouthpiece receivers, what else can be done?

Too many variables at work here to be paralyzed by any one factor. I suppose some type of shank standardization is as good a place to start as any.

As always, just my $.02, your mileage may vary...

...Dave

[Donn]

To Dan's point, I'd imagine what we're dealing with here is a center-of-mass issue.

Not sure what that means, but Matt Walters' post says "at the small end of the shank" about a dozen times. There isn't any practical alternative. Of course if taper varies independently of diameter, then that ought to be the first thing to be standardized.

Is it typical for a manufacturer to adjust the end of the backbore to accomodate the larger O.D., or is the shank wall just thicker on the end?

Good question!

[poomshanka]

To Dan's point, I'd imagine what we're dealing with here is a center-of-mass issue.

Not sure what that means, but Matt Walters' post says "at the small end of the shank" about a dozen times. There isn't any practical alternative. Of course if taper varies independently of diameter, then that ought to be the first thing to be standardized.

Just my way of saying that manufacturers can't go off chasing down and accounting for every possible variable out there. When they target their product lineups, it's to "center of mass", i.e. a majority of players out there. Sorry if it my metaphor was taken literally!



...Dave

[Donn]

To Dan's point, I'd imagine what we're dealing with here is a center-of-mass issue.

Not sure what that means, but Matt Walters' post says "at the small end of the shank" about a dozen times. There isn't any practical alternative. Of course if taper varies independently of diameter, then that ought to be the first thing to be standardized.

Just my way of saying that manufacturers can't go off chasing down and accounting for every possible variable out there. When they target their product lineups, it's to "center of mass", i.e. a majority of players out there. Sorry if it my metaphor was taken literally!

Oh, sorry! I thought "To Dan's point" was about

Where are you measuring?

[csutherland]

I have done a bit of mostly frustrating experimenting with this over the past several years with my PT6, including trying several different receivers, and shank sizes. I finally settled on a stock leadpipe and receiver from B&S which is really designed for a shank that ends in .530". If I put a smaller shank mouthpiece in my horn, it backs up on me and doesn't slot nearly as well, etc....for me anyway. The only mouthpieces that I have found that are specifically made with a .530" shank are the PT line (not coincidentally) and Schilke. Laskey's Euro is closer to .535", which is, as Alan pointed out, way off. A cheap, on the fly, solution can be to use a smaller shank mouthpiece and carefully wrap it with brass shim stock. I am currently using an American shank mouthpiece and wrapping it with a .005" piece, once around, increasing the shank size by .010". It's not a perfect solution, but allows me to try a mouthpiece with a smaller shank, before having it made with a larger shank, etc.

Just my experience...good topic.

-Craig

[iiipopes]

Hey, csutherland -- thanks for the post. My point exactly: on some combinations gap is very important, on others, no discernable difference, and probably with most, somewhere in between. Maybe if I played better I could discern a difference, but for my particular situation I discern more difference from model to model of mouthpiece with the same shank size than the same model or type of mouthpiece with different shank sizes.