TubeNet

I was looking at the WWBW website tonight and saw that Jet Tone had heavy versions of the Conn Helleberg and the Schilke Helleberg II. What does the extra weight do to the sound of the mouthpiece or does it have any effect at all, besides making it heavy of course? . Thanks to all.

The excess metal around the mouthpiece's cup is intended to contain more of the buzzing you produce from escaping through the metal, as may happen in a thinner mouthpiece. After all, your buzzing sound is the fundamental of a good note. Some people have found this concept to work, and others haven't. It's really just a matter of preference. A thicker mouthpiece won't automatically give you better sound then a thinner one.

Coopa got it. The extra mass is intended to deaden the buzzing of the actual mouthpiece. Many (including myself) experience a "darker" or "more rounded" sound. My Marcinkiewicz CH H2 is an in-between piece as far as weight goes. It's heavier than a normal piece, but not as huge as Bach Megatones or Jet-Tone Heavyburgs. I think that has a very good balance and it works very well for me.

Only a few years ago Giardinelli advertised "skeletonizing" mouthpieces, i.e. removing most of the metal to make it thin and lightweight. Now the most popular mouthpieces seem to be the super-heavy ones and the lightweight Kelly plastic ones. I'd like to see a double-blind test to find out if anyone can actually hear the difference. I suspect that a good tubist could easily make either kind of mouthpiece sound darker and heavier than the other.

I noticed recently that a very popular manufacturer of heavy mouthpieces is scaling down its tuba mouthpiece mass and calling it an "improvement", even though this particular company became popular because its mouthpieces are heavy (and endorsed by some big name players). I was scratching my head over that one. I think the pendulum is swinging back to more traditional sized equipment.

WakinAZ wrote:I noticed recently that a very popular manufacturer of heavy mouthpieces is scaling down its tuba mouthpiece mass and calling it an "improvement", even though this particular company became popular because its mouthpieces are heavy (and endorsed by some big name players). I was scratching my head over that one. I think the pendulum is swinging back to more traditional sized equipment.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Do you think that this (heavy-sized mp's) is just a fad?

without any actual knowledge, I will say that the mouthpiece heavy weight thing is a fad.

Well, there is a difference. A heavy wall mouthpiece can remove what I call "junk" from a players sound. I played next to a well known player and had him try one of the Jet Tone heavy models and his sound was immediately more focused and there had been some extraneous "pops" and "buzzes" in his sound that were gone.

Coopa's right on the physics. On a thin wall mouthpiece you can feel the energy of the buzz being lost by feeling the bowl of the mouthpiece while playing. My early Helleberg II is that way. So, effectively you are "bleeding" energy through the sides of the mouthpiece.

The change of that one manufacturer to a thinner wall is because of how the material tends to steal the color out of the sound. The thinner wall tends to give it the same stability but with more of the overtones still present.

Just my observations.
Roger

If I may add: added mass also adds inertia, and if a mouthpiece is too heavy, it goes beyond damping undesireable artifacts and can impede response. Like everything else, this has a lot to do with the individual player and your mileage will vary.

iiipopes wrote:If I may add: added mass also adds inertia, and if a mouthpiece is too heavy, it goes beyond damping undesireable artifacts and can impede response. Like everything else, this has a lot to do with the individual player and your mileage will vary.

Yes. Additional mass lowers the resonant frequency, which damps higher frequencies. Plastic may also damp those frequencies because they are plastic, not because they are heavy. As far as whether energy leaks out of them, well, I don't know that's how I'd say it. I have heavy mouthpiece, and I have light mouthpieces. The ones I prefer don't seem to be related to weight. But I'm not listening with Roger Lewis's ears.

Rick "who doesn't want the junk but who does want the harmonic color" Denney

The Jackson wrote:

WakinAZ wrote:I noticed recently that a very popular manufacturer of heavy mouthpieces is scaling down its tuba mouthpiece mass and calling it an "improvement", even though this particular company became popular because its mouthpieces are heavy (and endorsed by some big name players). I was scratching my head over that one. I think the pendulum is swinging back to more traditional sized equipment.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Do you think that this (heavy-sized mp's) is just a fad?

It's hard to call most mouthpieces today fads. I think it's great that one has many to choose from. I would say that you could find more "fad" tubas than mouthpieces. I say that because you can always find those old "it" horns in bunches at times in the for sale section. Just a random, useless thought....

I had the same question a couple of years ago and asked a well-known tubist. He replied, "The advantage of a heavy-weight mouthpiece is that it makes a bigger impression when you throw it at the conductor!"

It's interesting reading all of these learned and scientific replies. I had no idea that there were other reasons.

Cheers,
Allen

Yes. Additional mass lowers the resonant frequency

Just testing a hypothesis.
Subjects: MF2, PT84, PT36, PT44, PT50, JK 3AA, Laskey 30G, TU29, TU33, Jet TUHH.
Results: Highest resonant frequency, Jet TUHH. Second highest, MF2.
Heaviest mouthpiece, Jet TUHH. Second heaviest, MF2.

The resonant frequency will have little effect on anything other than that frequency and its harmonics. Give your favorite mouthpiece a flip and judge for yourself what frequencies we're talking about.

Having put in a fair amount of time with the TUHH, I'll claim that the rather thin rim and inner contour tend to make one play more on the inside of the lip and produce a darker tone. It is more difficult to support the embouchure in such a way as to get a brilliant tone. The lips tend to get blown into the mouthpiece. The heavy weight does nothing more than make the mouthpiece heavy.

Question of the day: Since it takes more machine time to remove brass from the outside of the blank, why don't mouthpiece makers leave it on, lower the production costs, and get a better sounding mouthpiece?

If that extra weight makes you feel better or gives a helpful placebo effect, then you should certainly use it. The weight isn't going to hurt anything as long as you don't drop it on your toe.

Interesting topic here

I can tell you why we switched from heavy to lighter mouthpieces

Increased endurance
Clearer sound
Easier to play in all dynamics


Early on we developed our mouthpieces (the Heavy weight) in Titanium. These mouthpieces were roughly 7.2 ounces, and titanium was available for about $7 a pound. So we thought we hit the big time and went for it. Giddings and Webster was created Yippie! Shortly after this time Titanium went up to over $72 dollars a pound ( YICKS!) so we could no longer afford to follow the idea of making a name for ourselves in titanium mouthpieces. We quickly started looking for alternatives, stainless steel was the next best thing, although admittedly heavy. The mouthpieces played great, and they do things a lot of other pieces on the market did not.

Then a Four year session of experimentation began, we added Euphonium, trombone, trumpet, and started developing French horn mouthpieces. I experimented with several different types of steel, 303,304, 304L, 15-5, 17-4, 440, tool steel, aluminum, etc. after our original Alan Baer signature model mouthpiece Alan Baer was experimenting with some mouthpieces we sent him as prototypes. These prototypes were designed with many different outside contours to allow us to see how weight changed projection, endurance, and ease of playability. Alan Machined a mouthpiece down from a heavier piece, and interestingly enough it slowly became MMVI mouthpiece that is now available. This mouthpiece is also close to 7 ounces.

Our original heavy weight stainless steel pieces were closer to 13 ounces, and the new ones are closer to 6 ounces. Why, Because we found the lighter pieces to be more user friendly, and better in the long run.

Fad… not so much, just us improving our product And hopefully giving you something better.

We still experiment and we are still learning.

Enjoy

Ivan

Hi Ivan... check your pm and email!

A big "thank you" to Ivan for weighing in on this topic(no pun intended). It is good to hear from someone who has researched the answer(s), here.

Art Hovey wrote:I'd like to see a double-blind test to find out if anyone can actually hear the difference.

That would be interesting. Are there some good A/B pairs where the only difference is external mass - no difference in rim or throat?

If a heavy mouthpiece transmits sound into your head better, that could be useful even if it has no immediate effect on tone as perceived by a listener. For playing in loud situations, for example, when you would like to hear what you're playing.

I have a PT-88 and a PT-88+ maybe I'll give the blind test theory a try in the next couple of days.

I'd very much like to see the results of that.


I'd also like to see a blind test with Marcinkiewicz normal and Concert Hall models.

When testing a mouthpiece test with music excerpts that are articulate and something different that is lyrical.

Play your own mouthpiece Loud then quiet on both excerpts, then play the Heavy, light, or what ever mouthpiece you are interested in testing ( loud then quiet). It is best to play loud then soft, and try to determine what mouthpiece is driving you, and what one you are in control of.

While doing this it is best to use a recorder in a large hall, a tuner, and more than just solo on your own instrument. Bring another instrument and do the recordings again (loud then quiet) see what you come up with.

The main issue we discovered with weighted mouthpieces is fatigue, and clarity of sound on the softer dynamics. Heavy pieces work very well, but less weight seems to be more versatile allowing more control over all dynamic ranges, with better response, and increased endurance.

I will say that everybody is different, and because of this we will be making the heavy weight mouthpieces available on special order.