TubeNet

I recently was in a master class with Alan Baer. He said that thin-walled mouthpieces produce a more vibrant and clear sound, and that thick-walled mouthpieces just made the sound more dull. Essentially: that the mouthpiece should vibrate with the horn.

However, on the LOUD mouthpieces website they say that vibrations escape through the sides of thin-walled mouthpieces, and that thick-walled mouthpieces produce a more vibrant sound. Essentially: that the mouthpiece should send all the vibrations to the horn, and not vibrate.

My experience is that thick-walled mouthpieces (I use a LOUD LM-10) produce a more vibrant, colorful sound that thin-walled. My horn also vibrates a lot when I use this mouthpiece. I have tried the GW Baer; a Laskey 30H; a Helleberg; and a Miraphone TU-31, and none of these gave me anything other than a dull, colorless sound. But when I hear Alan Baer play on a thin-walled mouthpiece, his sound is incredibly vibrant and colorful.

It seems to me that body composition and mouth shape must have a lot to do with this.

Anyone else like to share their experiences?

Be careful comparing yourself to someone of the magnitude of Mr. Baer.He could reach into the average middle school band director's junk drawer,pull out the loaner mouthpiece that's been there since the 70's,and go make a grammy winning recording of Prok. 5 with it.It's the quality of his buzz,not the shape of his mouth.

However, on the LOUD mouthpieces website they say that vibrations escape through the sides of thin-walled mouthpieces, and that thick-walled mouthpieces produce a more vibrant sound. Essentially: that the mouthpiece should send all the vibrations to the horn, and not vibrate.

Let's see, who has more credence- the tubist of one of the top five orchestras of the world, or a mouthpiece company's promotional campaign?

Maybe I should clear a few things up...

1. I did not in my article compare myself to Mr. Baer; that would be pretty foolish. He is a great player, and I did not discredit any of his advice; I simply stated that I do not to succeed with the same type of mouthpiece design he uses.

2. I think it should be stated that Alan Baer and Joe Murphy (the owner of LOUD) both have the same goal: to improve the sound of the tuba through better equipment. The statements made by LOUD (i.e. Joe Murphy) are coming from someone who I'm sure has done their research. Just because Alan Baer is in one of the top five orchestras in the world does not give him the credence to go around making claims about which mouthpiece is best. Scott Laskey doesn't play in any major orchestra, yet I'm pretty sure we would all listen to him if he gave us some mouthpiece advice. In Mr. Baer, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Laskey's cases, they can make these claims about mouthpiece design because they have all done countless hours of research and experimentation with design.

3. I didn't ever say that I agree with the description given on the LOUD website or that I thought it to be true. I just said that for me, thus far in my musical journey, thick-walled mouthpieces yield the best quality sound. So don't go thinking I've just bought into all the promotional jargon on the websites without questioning it (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this post).

4. Please don't think that I am criticizing Alan Baer. He is a wonderful player, and I would encourage anyone to go to one of his master classes. I got to sit right in front of his bell at the master class, and his sound is truly gorgeous. He is a great player, and an equally great teacher. So I'm sorry if I offended anyone by using Mr. Baer's name.

5. When I say mouth shape it doesn't have anything to do with the lips - but rather with the tongue, tonsils, size of oral cavity, etc. For example: I'm pretty sure Alan Baer's head is a lot bigger than mine (because he is a really big guy). Hence, his oral cavity is larger, and shaped differently, than mine. Some people think this affects the sound, other don't seem to think it does.

Maybe it's just my nature, but I never take anything as being correct until I have experienced it as being correct. And when it came to this mouthpiece thing, I just haven't found it to be correct (for me, and only me). This doesn't by any means discount the statement from being viable. I was just wondering what everyone else's thoughts and experiences were so maybe we could all do some learning.[/i]

Experiences?...

What I find is both the most responsive and sounds the best varies hugely from from horn to horn... such that I cannot rationally make ANY such generalization!!

Like some others here, I wondered about what the possible advantage might be of a heavy-walled mouthpiece. I did the logical thing: I asked my teacher, a man of great wisdom and experience. He told me that the main advantage of the heavy-walled 'piece is that when you throw it at the conductor, it makes a much bigger impression!

Seriously, I have a few mouthpieces, heavy and light, big and small. I can definitely state that they are different. My unscientific impression is that the shape and size are the most important variables. Of my two favorites, one is heavy, one is not. I do, however prefer gold plate or stainless steel to silver plate.

Cheers,
Allen

Wow. To me, you've got to find a mouthpiece that does two things:

1) suits your abilities/preference/sound concept
2) suits the horn you're playing it on.

There is NO magic formula. One size definitely doesn't fit all. Of course . . . YMMV.

Your sound is going to be your sound. Due to our unique physical structure, we're all going to sound different- mouthpieces and instruments just amplify what nature and practice have given.

Indeed. OK -- all together now: change in mass = change in resonant frequency = change in characteristic.

The trick is matching the mouthpiece characteristics to both you and the horn as the proper interface. Literally.

For example, for me, on a souzy, to get it really going, I have to use the Lexan Kelly 18. Everything else sounds dull or has intonation issues. On the Besson, with its substantial build, the Wick 1 "funnel" style (looks more like an old Conn 2) with less metal around the throat helps this mouthpiece get the inertia of the comp block going. On the Miraphone, I have the Curry, which has less metal at the rim and more at the throat to help keep everything centered better. By contrast, the Curry on the Besson sounds stuffy, and the Kelly on the 186 is too "edgy."

The usual phrase is YMMV. I will go farther: YM WILL V.

Yes, it's true that Baer and others can take a hobby modelist's funnel and make great tones out of it. But what is overlooked is that their technique, faculty and breath support are such that the mouthpieces they normally use may not fit the rest of us mere mortals who don't have as refined and developed embouchure and breath support. If we did, we'd be playing in the orchestras and giving the master classes instead of typing on the forum.

So, instead of using a Warren Deck designed bathtub or such, I use mouthpieces of moderate diameter, construction and weight to fit my moderate embouchure, moderate playing ability, and moderate instruments.

iiipopes wrote:... ...
Yes, it's true that Baer and others can take a hobby modelist's funnel and make great tones out of it. But what is overlooked is that their technique, faculty and breath support are such that the mouthpieces they normally use may not fit the rest of us mere mortals who don't have as refined and developed embouchure and breath support. If we did, we'd be playing in the orchestras and giving the master classes instead of typing on the forum.
... ...

That's so true. The best choice for a top professional probably isn't the best choice for others.

Among clarinet players, top professionals tend to use a very hard reed -- something amateur players could only make squeaks on. Amateurs don't even think of using the same reeds as famous players. Perhaps tubists should take note?

Cheers,
Allen

I wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft poll...

iiipopes wrote:Indeed. OK -- all together now: change in mass = change in resonant frequency = change in characteristic.

Plastic mouthpieces make me suspect this is not well founded.

It seems plausible to me that different materials can have an effect on performance if there's a difference in how they stick to your face. Stainless, gold plate, etc.

Heavy mouthpieces could seem different to the performer, because they might transmit sound differently through teeth and bone. That could be important - I'm not going to say heavy mouthpieces are a waste of raw materials, if they work for people, that's excellent. But there's no compelling rationale that predicts results from weight.

Maybe, but my "real" Bach 18, larger and deeper from the factory "spec" is identical in cup depth and geometry, to my Kelly 18 I use outdoors, but sounds completely differently. Even if the backbore is different, it can't be that different.

Mike has it right. I cannot find any reason to generalize on the basis of material or mass.

Being heavier does change the resonance of the brass. But (and this is a bit but), what is the effect of the resonance of the brass mouthpiece on the vibration of the air within it? Especially considering that the resonance of the brass is significantly damped by being pressed against that gooey mass of flesh known as a face.

I have a Mike Finn MF-4 that I think is THE F tuba mouthpiece. It has much more clarity than a PT-64, and I love the sound. It happens to be heavy. The PT-48, which is much lighter, has exactly the same appeal on large instruments.

Yes, a Kellyberg plays differently than a Conn Helleberg. But the Kellyberg is still Hellebergish and entirely useful as a mouthpiece. Now, let's look at the scale of differences. Lexan's density is about 14% of the density of brass. Given the same shape, therefore, a Kellyberg will weigh 14% of what a Conn Helleberg weighs. And the Conn is a lightweight mouthpiece by virtue of its thin walls.

In contrast, bronze is only 1% more dense than brass, and stainless steel is only 10% less dense than brass. So, the plastic mouthpiece is on a different planet than the metal mouthpieces. Yet, it still works as a mouthpiece.

The Alan Baers of this world are out on the extreme end of subtlety, looking for effects that may or may not be real, and only need to be real to them. They already have the fundamental tone production perfected to such a state that they've earned the right to search for subtleties like that, even if they are only playing mind games with themselves.

And when comparing two identical mouthpieces, one that is heavy and one that is light (though still much closer to each other than either would be to a plastic mouthpiece), someone like Mr. Baer may notice something that is beyond most of the rest of us.

But listen to this important point: When he says that the heavy mouthpieces have one characteristic compared to lighter mouthpieces, he is comparing them with all other factors (particularly the inner shape) held constant. That's a comparison few of us even get to attempt.

Do differences in mass have the same effect as differences in shape? Not even close.

To illustrate this point, let me go back to my Mike Finn 4. It is a shallow mouthpiece of smaller volume intended for an F tuba, but still playable on a contrabass. Despite its heavy weight, it's still MUCH brighter sounding than the ultralight (but large and deep) Kellyberg, which probably weighs less than a 20th of the MF-4.

Be careful how you use what you hear from masters. Context is important.

Wade is right on that advice about mouthpieces should be based on the sound you make, not on external characteristics.

I didn't see the poll response I would have selected (No difference).

By the way, I entirely agree with you that the shape behind the lips is a significant contributor to the quality of the sound. I have observed that myself, and I think it's one reason each player sounds like himself no matter what instrument he plays.

Rick "who chooses mouthpieces based on sound and feel and not weight" Denney

And two further comments:

1) About the comment that you choose your own mouthpieces: Yes, if Scott Laskey gave me mouthpiece advice, I'd consider it carefully. No, I didn't know exactly what I needed as far as the hardware to help me get there, because there is so much hardware on the market it is impossible to try it all. So I did rely on Matt @ Dillons to give me a great recommendation to get the tone I wanted out of my 186 without needing a 3rd lung.

2) And I agree with Rick that mouthpieces should be chosen for how they sound rather than how much they weigh. But in my case, I will relate that I have observed a positive correlation, if not complete lineup, that mouthpieces with a traditional range of mass, instead of the newer high-mass mouthpieces, do tend to work better for me, and seem to have better response, range, intonation and tone for what I do on the horns I play and the literature and ensembles I play in. Others mileage will vary. The destination is the same.

MikeMason wrote:Be careful comparing yourself to someone of the magnitude of Mr. Baer.He could reach into the average middle school band director's junk drawer,pull out the loaner mouthpiece that's been there since the 70's,and go make a grammy winning recording of Prok. 5 with it.It's the quality of his buzz,not the shape of his mouth.

I'm going to have to agree with this. But to further elaborate, look at the design of the Monette mouthpieces that Chester Schmitz played on. Thick-wall deep bowl shaped cup, and yet his tone was absolutely gorgeous, velvety, and vibrant. Two totally different schools and yet both have amazing results regardless of the equipment.