TubeNet

I said the mass changes the response. This is because I have tried four different Helleberg-style mpcs mde from different materials. One was a Conn Helleberg that was silver plated, a red lexan Kellyberg, a gold plated Schilke or knock-off Schilke Helleberg, and then a homemade Helleberg-style mpc made out of Polycaprolactone, which is a polyester and can be softened at 140 degrees F and then molded. It is a lightweight material that isn't completely rigid but it worked decently well to make a mouthpiece with. Tone on each was pretty good but dynamics were a different story. The brass mpcs had a much better range overall especially in the louder dynamics, where the plastic mpcs vibrated a ton, the sound would easily break up, and sounded a bit muffled. However, the plastic mpcs were exceptionally good with soft playing because it takes less air to get the material to vibrate (overall the homemade one won it here).

Dutchtown Sousa wrote:However, the plastic mpcs were exceptionally good with soft playing because it takes less air to get the material to vibrate (overall the homemade one won it here).

It would be interesting to find out what's going on there, but as far as I know, the process of tone generation in a brass instrument does not require that the mouthpiece vibrate at all. To the extent that it could vibrate at frequencies that matter for the tuba, I'd think this would have as much to do with the receiver+leadpipe (i.e., very different on sousaphone vs. lap tuba.)

Also, it's pretty hard to find two really identical mouthpieces. If your Kellyberg is an exact copy of your Helleberg, it's a miracle (if only because the Hellebergs themselves reportedly vary over the years.) My Kellyberg has a slight oddity to the cup profile that I'd be real surprised to find in a Conn, and who knows if the backbore for example is identical.

I am short by tuba player standards. I don't rest anything on my legs except for 3/4 bass tubas. Every large horn I have ever played either goes on the chair or a DEG stand. In many cases, I have to sit on a cushion to raise ME up. So, for me, the added weight of a mouthpiece causes no physical discomfort.
My current big horn it VERY light as Joe knows, (and also hates big mouthpieces) but I have played some heavier horns in the past.
Silver plate doesn't get along well with my skin, so I stick with gold plated (and pay meticulous attention to the rim) or stainless steel - HKote is even better. I do have one older silver mouthpiece I regularly use now, and the nail polish trick seems to be working.

They probably are not exactly the same but all very similar. Anyway I though the vibrations thing made sense but Iguess that might not be why they are better for soft playing. If anyone could explain that to me it would be appreciated
Anyway the Conn Helleberg and my homemade mouthpiece were nearly identical, probably except the bore was a bit off because that was hard to mold

So many options...
A mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece

bloke wrote:

KiltieTuba wrote:Have you made heavyweight and lightweight mouthpieces of the same internal dimensions Joe?

I have not. If anything, I would trend lighter, rather than heavier.

That begs the question, I think - if one is lighter, then the other is heavy. But anyone determined to make this experiment could do so, starting with two reasonably identical brass mouthpieces and a file or other tool that could remove significant amounts of extraneous material from one of them. Could be the next big thing - super light, paper thin mouthpieces, for the professional who demands the most delicate nuance from the tuba.

k001k47 wrote:So many options...
A mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece

And a mouthpiece you can't get along with is one you should not play. I've picked up an F tuba and stuck a reasonably popular mouthpiece in it and sounded absolutely terrible. I've then changed mouthpieces with the same horn and sounded acceptable. Sorry, but mouthpieces ARE a big deal. Some folks have the magic lip and can sound good on anything. Us lesser mortals need to find a good match.

Donn wrote: Could be the next big thing - super light, paper thin mouthpieces, for the professional who demands the most delicate nuance from the tuba.

Wasn't that what the "skeletonised mouthpiece" thing was about, back in the seventies and eighties ?

MikeW wrote:

Donn wrote: Could be the next big thing - super light, paper thin mouthpieces, for the professional who demands the most delicate nuance from the tuba.

Wasn't that what the "skeletonised mouthpiece" thing was about, back in the seventies and eighties ?

I evidently missed out on this one. How thin were the cup walls?

I was thinking this mouthpiece might be formed out of tubing stock, rather than milled from a solid blank. That thin.

GC wrote:

k001k47 wrote:So many options...
A mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece

And a mouthpiece you can't get along with is one you should not play. I've picked up an F tuba and stuck a reasonably popular mouthpiece in it and sounded absolutely terrible. I've then changed mouthpieces with the same horn and sounded acceptable. Sorry, but mouthpieces ARE a big deal. Some folks have the magic lip and can sound good on anything. Us lesser mortals need to find a good match.

I was thinking more along the lines of exterior design (materials/weighting/etc). But definitely, go with what's comfortable to the face and ear. I think it'd be cool if bloke and Houser offered rims in silver and gold plate for those who prefer the feel of them. . . also a cup exterior that mimics the "classic helleburg" designs, since the exterior is really just decoration to me...and I like that design.

To me:

1) I have had the pleasure of playing identical models in the "standard" and (depending on the maker) "heritage" or "light-weight" versions of some different mouthpieces. To me, getting the mass away from the rim and moved to around the throat increased response and solidified dynamic range.

2) I took a Kelly and added tape to the throat: stabilized it. I added a small ring of lead tape just below the rim: slower response.

3) I've tried various mouthpieces with various tubas. There is some matching that needs to be done between the player/mouthpiece/tuba/repertoire in order to get optimum results. But these need to be studied carefully in order to not fall into the "mouthpiece du jour" safari syndrome, and nothing is perfect. When you've gotten close with the help of professionals, then it's time to pick one and start practicing.

These are my observations from the tubas and mouthpieces I have played. Your mileage will vary.

iiipopes wrote:Your mileage will vary.

No offense, but if this is actually true, then your observations are at best anecdotal and perhaps demonstrating a placebo effect. If it's a real effect, others ought to be able to observe it, too.

The interaction between mouthpiece mass and all the myriad other physical influences exerted by the face, the mouthpiece shape and material, and the instrument is so complex that I doubt any trend related to mouthpiece mass could be noted. I suspect that's what you meant to acknowledge with your disclaimer.

For me, every mouthpiece has to be evaluated on its own terms. I don't consider mass at all--I just use the mouthpieces that seem to work for me. For the big horn, those have been mouthpieces with a Geibish shape that put a little more zip in the sound. I find it much easier to be musical with those mouthpieces, versus those that provide a rounder but less manageable tone.

Rick "who, like Bloke, prefers the gold-like feel of stainless steel" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

iiipopes wrote:Your mileage will vary.

No offense, but if this is actually true, then your observations are at best anecdotal..."

I never said they were anything else. What I have works for me. It is not placebo effect. I encourage others to post their anecdotes.

cktuba wrote:Question for Rick... Is it possible that the feedback from the different materials, aside from the rim, affect how we approach playing? In other words does one material provide more or less resistance or vibrational feedback than a different material? Thus the difference being adjustments we make, subconsciously, to make the buzz feel the same?

Sure.

We should understand that some of these materials are rather markedly different, and mass is only one of many dimensions that may effect acoustical dynamics.

There is, for example, damping. And stiffness (but NOT strength). And the smoothness of the interior surfaces. The sharpness of the end of the shank. And then the really important dimensions: volume and shape. Some of these dimensions are profoundly different between plastic and metal, others are similar.

There is also the way these dimensions interact with the impedance characteristics of the instrument, and the player's embouchure and resonating chamber.

I have concluded from my own experience that the most important feature of a mouthpiece is the interior shape. Second most important is the fit to the player's embouchure. I'm sure there are frequencies that either bounce off of or are absorbed by the mouthpiece as a result of stiffness, damping, and smoothness of the material, but they can have only the most subtle effect compared to those other two. Mass affects both stiffness and damping.

And I would not discount the placebo effect. Double-blind testing is required to be sure that effect is not causing the observed results, and yet double-blind testing of mouthpieces hasn't been attempted that I've ever heard of. Double-blind testing means that both the person directing the test and the person taking the test are blind to the characteristic being tested. But it's not possible for a performer to be blind to the material of the mouthpiece, unless all the rims are the same material.

Where strength comes into play is not in its acoustical dynamic effects, but rather in maintaining adequate strength just to survive. A stainless mouthpiece can have a very sharp shank rim, and be very thin at the throat, and still be durable. My plastic mouthpieces have no chamfering at all at the shank rim, and I wonder if the throat is really identical to a nominally similar metal mouthpiece. Having the same words on the side of the mouthpiece is no assurance of that.

Rick "noting the strong effect of assumption bias on tight feedback testing" Denney

iiipopes wrote:What I have works for me. It is not placebo effect.

My point is that you cannot be sure of this assertion. Your data lacks what it takes to have that assurance.

That does not invalidate what works for you. When playing music, assumption bias such as the placebo effect counts.

Rick "interested more in 'why' than 'what'" Denney