TubeNet

How can one tell if a mouthpiece is cup or funnel.

Looking at a variety, they all seem to have a certain amount of internal cupping and funnelling.

For example which is the PT-48? I am having trouble deciding

The feel of how they play should definitely be different. Play two similar pieces in every dimension except cup shape, and you should definitely feel a difference.

I think companies that make mouthpieces usually have a good idea of what they are selling, so see what they say about it. If I recall correctly, PT models up to 50 are American (funnel) style, while the rest, 60 to 90, are German (bowl) style. I'd definitely call the 48 a funnel.


Of course, though, there are cup styles that cross into bowl and funnel (Marcinkiewicz, Curry's D line, etc.). Manufacturers usually take liberties with what they think is a good shape, but there are some standards (Conn Helleberg = funnel, Bach 18 = bowl, etc.).

Neptune wrote: For example which is the PT-48? I am having trouble deciding

Custom Music wrote: PT-48

CUP CHARACTERISTICS: 33.5 mm. diameter - Deep - Funnel-shaped cup - Rounded at bottom
RIM CHARACTERISTICS: Width 8 mm. - Rounded inner and outer edges
THROAT BORE: 8.5 mm.
Model PT-48 is a funnel-shaped mouthpiece which produces a full orchestral sound. It is recommended for players with strong embouchures and is designed especially for use with larger bore CC and BBb tubas.

So that's what they say. As you noticed, though, it's relative. Especially with deeper mouthpieces, it seems to me, a deep mouthpiece with a distinctly funnel shape starting from the rim might be uncommon. The word "funnel" and the name "Helleberg" are widely used, but of a dozen or so ostensibly funnel shaped mouthpieces I have, three really are, and they're all made by Conn.

There is no doubt that this is a funnel.
http://tinyurl.com/ynvb9x

Gaze here at cutaways of some Mike Finn mouthpieces.

You can clearly see the difference between the bowl cups of the MF 2 and 4 and the funnel of the MF 3.


(Thanks to Mr. Finn for these cutaways and making awesome mouthpieces )

SplatterTone wrote:There is no doubt that this is a funnel.
http://tinyurl.com/ynvb9x

Can you say more about it? I've never seen one, in person, and of course a picture of the outside of a mouthpiece doesn't give us much to go on.

Can you say more about it?

I have a green one. It's not as bad as it looks. I don't think it will inspire anyone to new heights of greatness, but it plays OK. I measure internal diameter at about 32.5mm give or take a bit. I does demonstrate how basic a mouthpiece can be and still work. It's just a plain, straight funnel with a rim.

The Jackson wrote:Gaze here at cutaways of some Mike Finn mouthpieces.

You can clearly see the difference between the bowl cups of the MF 2 and 4 and the funnel of the MF 3.


(Thanks to Mr. Finn for these cutaways and making awesome mouthpieces )

What I see is that the MF3 and the MF4 are very similar at the shank end. The difference (it seems to me) is that the MF4 has a nearly-cylindrical section added.

This leads to the conclusion that "cup" = "shallow" and "funnel" = "deep".

In my opinion, the only thing that affects the *sound* is the volume of the cup.

sloan wrote:In my opinion, the only thing that affects the *sound* is the volume of the cup.

Presumably cup would provide a higher volume to diameter ratio?

Neptune wrote: Presumably cup would provide a higher volume to diameter ratio?

Exactly, and if I had a cut-away of my MF3B you would clearly see this compared to the original MF3.

This leads to the conclusion that "cup" = "shallow" and "funnel" = "deep".

Only if my photo is used to show something other than what it was originally intended for.

Of the MF2, MF3, and MF4 none is a true bowl or funnel, however. I use the term loosely, to describe the shape of the bottom of the cup rather than the slope of the walls. If strictly adhering to the definition, a bowl-shaped cup would have the silhouette of a U and the funnel a V. For my purposes, a bowl-shaped cup has a sharper, more defined entry to the throat, providing a little bit of resistance to the airflow, and possibly making it easier to control or "steer" the tuba. A funnel, like my original MF3 (or the Helleberg after which it is patterned) will have a smoother entry to the throat providing a little less resistance.

Here is a photo that I hope will help until I'm able to get some new cut-aways made.




MF

Mike Finn wrote: For my purposes, a bowl-shaped cup has a sharper, more defined entry to the throat, providing a little bit of resistance to the airflow, and possibly making it easier to control or "steer" the tuba. A funnel, like my original MF3 (or the Helleberg after which it is patterned) will have a smoother entry to the throat providing a little less resistance.

I love these cut-out photos! But I'm not going to saw my Conn 3 in half, just to show a shallow funnel.

I think I can see what Sloan is talking about, a short more cylindrical stretch near the rim of the MF4, but since the entry at the throat is more gradual like the MF3, I guess you would call the MF4 a funnel shape? I wonder if the last 1/2 inch behind the rim even matters, considering how far your face goes into the cup.

sloan wrote:In my opinion, the only thing that affects the *sound* is the volume of the cup.

Why would that be? It seems to me that you'll get all sorts of reflections and cancellations within the cup, and that the interior shape will affect which frequencies are reflected and cancelled and to what degree. The cancellations might affect only the highest frequencies, but that is where the mouthpieces differ most in sound, it seems to me.

Consider the extreme of a cylindrical mouthpiece with a flat bottom with a sharp inside corner, and a simple hole with no radius for a throat. It may have the same volume as a conventional mouthpiece, but I rather doubt it would play the same.

The volume of the cup will surely affect the intonation tendency, from my reading (and yours), as will the throat diameter. But you were specific to state sound.

To the OP: There is a continuum of shapes, ranging from straight-sided funnels (such as the Reynolds Dr. Young mouthpiece) to pronounced bowls with a sharp corner between the bowl and the throat. Helleberg's concept was closer to the former than the latter. Bach's concept is closer to the latter.

The real answer, it seems to me, is what you started from. If you start from a Conn Helleberg, and improve it to do what you want, it's a funnel-shaped mouthpiece with a [insert list of changes here]. If you start with, say, a Bach 18 or a Miraphone C4 and make changes, it's a cup-shaped mouthpiece with

• . I would not be surprised to learn that some funnel-shaped mouthpieces have a bit more bowl to them than some cup-shaped mouthpieces.
  
  The PT-48 seems to have started from the Helleberg archetype, but it is more rounded than most Helleberg mouthpieces, with more interior width deeper in the cup and less depth in the center. The difference in sound is marked, with more high-frequency color and. on some tubas, with more clarity, compared to a Conn Helleberg. It can be laser-like on some tubas, such as a Miraphone 186.
  
  I don't really think it's much different than the Geib mouthpiece that Lee Stofer is now selling. That mouthpiece is not considered a funnel, though the Geib designs seem to fall into their own category.
  
  I don't really pay much attention to the funnel vs. bowl descriptions any more. My favorites seem to sit in the middle of that continuum in any case.
  
  Rick "grading diamonds by cut, clarity and color more than carats" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

sloan wrote:In my opinion, the only thing that affects the *sound* is the volume of the cup.

Why would that be? It seems to me that you'll get all sorts of reflections and cancellations within the cup, and that the interior shape will affect which frequencies are reflected and cancelled and to what degree. The cancellations might affect only the highest frequencies, but that is where the mouthpieces differ most in sound, it seems to me.

Remind me: what is the range of WAVELENGTHS that you consider relevant, and what are the interior dimensions of a tuba mouthpiece?

In my opinion, the range of existing mouthpieces is far too limited and the number of significant differences between any two mouthpieces is far too large to be able to confidently put forth any valid model of bowl vs funnel.

Is anyone aware of published data reporting anything like a controlled study?

sloan wrote:Remind me: what is the range of WAVELENGTHS that you consider relevant, and what are the interior dimensions of a tuba mouthpiece?

In my opinion, the range of existing mouthpieces is far too limited and the number of significant differences between any two mouthpieces is far too large to be able to confidently put forth any valid model of bowl vs funnel.

Is anyone aware of published data reporting anything like a controlled study?

Don't know of a controlled study, but the differences between some mouthpieces and others are unsubtle enough and consistent enough among different performers to support some conclusions based only on anecdotal and empirical data. They won't explain why, but they will demonstrate what.

I agree, to a point, with your second statement above, but it contradicts your earlier statement that I disagreed with, namely that only the volume affects the sound. Is there a small funnel that sounds like a stereotypical funnel compared to a larger bowl that sounds like a stereotypical bowl? That would test your statement, it seems to me.

Do you think a mouthpiece shaped like a film can would not sound different than a mouthpiece of identical volume shaped like a true funnel? If so, how would it accomplish that if the affected wavelengths must be shorter? It's quite possible, of course, to have harmonic interactions between frequencies inside the mouthpiece that are much higher than any that would resonate in the tuba, and still have mixing products in the tuba register. When I buzz a mouthpiece, I hear lots of very high frequency noise that is normally filtered out by the instrument.

Volume may be one influence and shape may be another, and they may offset and overlap. And that overlap might be just where most mouthpieces live, which I think is the point you are making. But I think it's as unfounded to state that sound is based only on volume as it is to state that it is based only on shape.

Rick "still wondering at the source of the assertion" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

Do you think a mouthpiece shaped like a film can would not sound different than a mouthpiece of identical volume shaped like a true funnel?

I would be more interested in the transition from the cups to the throats than I would be in the gross shapes of the cups.

Rick Denney wrote: I agree, to a point, with your second statement above, but it contradicts your earlier statement that I disagreed with, namely that only the volume affects the sound. Is there a small funnel that sounds like a stereotypical funnel compared to a larger bowl that sounds like a stereotypical bowl? That would test your statement, it seems to me.

Or it wouldn't, since we don't know how to match the throat and back bore. Should they be the same size, or do those parameters vary with volume?

No one loves reductio ad absurdum more, but in the world of real tuba mouthpieces, we're looking at an extremely small range of variation, where you see the word "funnel" or "Helleberg" but you get yet another nearly identical compromise. Of course we don't see your film can shape, but do we even see significant variation, considering the somewhat disorderly physical environment that I imagine develops in the cup of a tuba mouthpiece?

Personally, I am attached to the notion that cup shape makes a predictable difference, but I can't defend it, knowing that there are other variables in play that I can't separate out.

It would be fun if someone out there with the proper equipment, mindset, and free time, would do a "continuum study" of various mouthpiece parameters. That is, define a set of parameters and vary them one by one over a reasonable range of differences, and log the results. It would be cool.

MA, thinking Rick is the perfect person to design this.

But I seem to remember that Klaus has some pretty specialized knowledge about how changing various mpc paramenters affects the results.

Neptune wrote:How can one tell if a mouthpiece is cup or funnel.

Looking at a variety, they all seem to have a certain amount of internal cupping and funnelling.

For example which is the PT-48? I am having trouble deciding

Why is it important to differentiate!?

I would propose that these are adjectives that are only useful when used in comparison... more cupped than a ...

Just as there are no absolutes when using the terms "dark" or "bright"... darker than what!?

Rick Denney wrote:... Is there a small funnel that sounds like a stereotypical funnel compared to a larger bowl that sounds like a stereotypical bowl?

In extremis, you could pair a Conn Helleberg 5E (euphonium) with a PT-88 ... might be interesting.

MaryAnn wrote:It would be fun if someone out there with the proper equipment, mindset, and free time, would do a "continuum study" of various mouthpiece parameters. That is, define a set of parameters and vary them one by one over a reasonable range of differences, and log the results. It would be cool.

Indeed it would!

Mike, if you wanted to show the shape of the cup more accurately without sawing more of your pieces in half, you could just fill them with melted wax or another substance, and take them out when it sets. Take a picture parallel against a contrasting background, and there you have it.