TubeNet

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:24 am**

There seems to be a general rule of thumb that says use funnel cup (aka helleberg, V cup) mouthpieces on piston horns and bowl (aka cupped, C cup) mouthpieces on rotary horns. Why is this??? I have often played quite the opposite and know others who do, so how did this generalization start, is it just a "German sound" vs. "American sound" thing? (with apologies to Joe S.) or are there actual acoustical differences (relating to longer leadpipes typically on rotaries, more open nature of pistons, etc)??

Marty "who currently owns two rotary horns and plays them with helleberg style mouthpieces most of the time" Neilan

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:19 am**

news to me

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:27 am**

Personaly I dont think about that matter that way.

the player has it's type of sound, due to it's personal embouchure and other factors.

And the tuba, also has it's "personal" type of sound, due to some factors like bore sizes (not just the number we use to see in advertizings but how the bore evolves thru the length of the instrument (how conical, etc)), the wrapping configuration, the size of the tuba, etc etc.

we can compensate these variables with the mouthpiece.

this compensation is based in what we need, and/or in what we like.

If we use to say that funnel cups leeds us to a softer, organ-like sound and boul-cups to a brighter sound, are we saying that, usualy, piston tubas are brighter and rotary are softer and that way we can compensate this?

just my points of veiw.

interesting matter.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:01 am**

I seem to remember reading something about helping the blow of the different type of horns. The bowl cups were used on rotor horns to help add a little resistance to some very freeblowing horns. The reverse is that of the funnel cups with pistons. The piston horns already had a lil more resistance because of the way that the pistons work so funnel cup mouthpieces help with less resistance and make for smoother work.

Whether this information is accurate is speculative at best, although seeing a lab project done on it would be quite excellent.

Posted: **Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:23 pm**

There was an excellent write up from (imperialbari) about this subject back in April that everyone might want to take a look at:
viewtopic.php?t=798

It discusses distortions in the airpath, turbulences and resistance.

Here are the Highlights..

imperialbari wrote: edited...
Some popular explanations of brasses have the lips as the sound, generator, and the instrument as the amplifier.

The mouthpiece also is the equaliser! The most efficient ones are the funnel shaped ones, because they don't put hindrances to the airstream. The depth of the funnel determines the favouring of the upper and lower frequencies. Basically the upper frequencies always come well through a funnel shaped mouthpiece. An allegedly shallow trombone mouthpiece like the Bach 12C for trombone also is a funnel shaped mouthpiece. A deeper funnel offers a better passage for the lower frequencies, but for me the sound still is too bright with a PT-50 on my Eb and BBb basses, none of them having sissy bores. So I have made my own backbore modifications with very simple tools.

Many players however detest the funnel shape mothpieces, because they are exhausting to play.

And now I get truly polemic: The most efficient set up is the ultimate large bore and wide bell US tuba, often wrapped in circles, played with a large funnel mouthpiece. Very rich sound, no need to play loud.

Is there a flip side of the coin? Certainly: such set ups provide a full fundation, but they are not equaly efficient in painting distinct melodic lines because they lack edge. Edge being a narrower band of formants supposed to be distinct for a given instrument type.

The solution has been the application of rotary valve tubas. I have many rotary valved instruments myself. I like many of them, also soundwise. My Syhre corno da caccia and my Conn 28D have been very good tools for me. But I still hate the concept of rotary valves.

They distort the airpath and create turbulences. Their only reason for survival is that turbulences are experienced as creating resistance. Hence the rotary valved instruments have been experienced as less exhausting playingwise. And that despite they by any applicance of physical thinking are not very efficient.

Combine a rotary valved tuba with a cup shaped mouthpiece, which also creates turbulences and hence resistance, and you have created the dream tool for the weekend warrior: resistance and an unpleasant sound, which however owns the ultimate quality: your old and deaf mum can hear you across the plaza.

Why? Because this inefficient set-up narrows the sound down to an extremely narrow band of the above mentioned formants. Delivering the ultimate goal of the egoist tubist: a cutting edge.

I never maintained to deliver the full and edge-free truth! If your eyes and your behind could provide stamina enough, you just experienced a political posting!

Klaus

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:32 pm**

All these words.... So confusing.

The question I have in relation to this would be this: Does the embeture of a particular player add another varying factor to this complicated equation, or does simply having lips buzzing on the mouthpiece be all she wrote?

Do particular sized tubas require certain shaped mouthpieces, or does this again relate back to the conical versus cylindrical nature of the beast at hand?

Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.

Bye all.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:41 pm**

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we always be looking for the most efficient way to do something. I agree that in music sound is the most important factor, but what is the point of working harder than you have to. If you can generate a better sound more efficiently why not? If a certain mpc makes you sound the way you want to why not use it, be it funnel or cup shaped. If something can be done more efficiently why would you want to work harder to accomplish the same result.

Todd

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:13 pm**

Just to complicate matters further, out here on the west coast, I don't really know of anyone I play with who uses a Helleberg. Is this a west vs. east thing?
A lot of people I know here play Marcinkiewiczs which I find too wide, and are, as I understand, a sort of hybrid of c cup and funnel.
Come to think of it, I have always liked C cups!

For that matter what tuba player wouldn't?

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:33 pm**

manatee wrote:Just to complicate matters further, out here on the west coast, I don't really know of anyone I play with who uses a Helleberg. Is this a west vs. east thing?
A lot of people I know here play Marcinkiewiczs which I find too wide, and are, as I understand, a sort of hybrid of c cup and funnel.
Come to think of it, I have always liked C cups! For that matter what tuba player wouldn't?

As for it being an west vs. east thing, I really don't know. Many in Texas use a Helleberg.

As for the C cup issue, I find I cannot disagree with your assessment.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:19 pm**

Well I remember way back when a teacher telling me that this "rule" about funnel vs bowl shaped cups meant nothing to him. and that i should focus on getting the best sound possible. I will agree that there is a difference in sound with a helleberg style vs. the c cup ctyle, but also add that every persons facial features are probably almost as important. In addition, it all comes dow to your ear and what you hear as being good...and hear as not being good. I personally love using german style mouthpieces on my piston valve horn.... but have had equal success with helleberg style. I wonder where this "Rule" of using mouthpieces started and if it was not maybe taken out of context by someone.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:56 pm**

mandrake wrote:I see his point, but since when has music been about efficiency? For me, music is all about the sound...

One of the things I have learned, though, is that the sound and the efficiency are strongly related. I've never known a player with a really good sound who didn't also have a high level of efficiency--getting a lot of sound for a relatively small amount of air.

And the notion that the American sound is without color also doesn't wash with my experience. I daresay that the big sound of a big tuba--in the hands of a big-tuba master like Gene Pokorny or Mike Sanders--has the same upper harmonics that they would have from a rotary instrument. But the mix of those harmonics will be a little different, giving the sound a breadth and resonance not found with smaller instruments. Rotary tubas have a lot of character in the sound, but the big tubas have a sweetness that doesn't at all line up with an adjective like "dark". It's the really big rotary tubas that can get tubby-sounding if the player is not...efficient.

Rick "who uses much more air to produce much less sound" Denney

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:13 pm**

smurphius wrote:All these words.... So confusing.

Yup. Words are not terribly effective in describing sound.

The question I have in relation to this would be this: Does the embeture of a particular player add another varying factor to this complicated equation, or does simply having lips buzzing on the mouthpiece be all she wrote?

Yes, the embouchure of the player has an effect. Sound results from resoance, which is a filtering and amplification process, and what resonates is the combination of the impedance of the embouchure, the mouthpiece, and the tuba. All three affect the result. But if you hold the embouchure constant, you can look at the differences in impedance (resonance) in the other two.

Do particular sized tubas require certain shaped mouthpieces, or does this again relate back to the conical versus cylindrical nature of the beast at hand?

More important than anything else is the tone concept of the player. The player searches for a mouthpiece that, when combined with his instrument and lips, produces the tone he wants. Some want a sound with little upper harmonics, others want a bright sound with lots of upper harmonics, and still others want a sound with both, where those harmonics are well-tuned. I fall in the latter camp, but my embouchure and poor air supply puts me in the bright-sound camp. So, I compensate with funnel mouthpieces and big tubas. As I improve, however, I'm finding more use for shallower mouthpieces.

There has been a rule of thumb that big tubas want small mouthpieces, and vice versa. Generally, I have found that rule to apply most of the time for me, though my sample is too small to draw any conclusions. I'm using a Laskey 30H (mid-size funnel) on my Holton, while the best mouthpiece for my smaller York Master is an Elliott T-6 cup and shank, which is very large. I like the PT-48 on the Miraphone, because it emphasizes the power-sound characteristics of that instrument. Occasionally, I'll use the PT-48 on the Holton, too, because it absolutely prevents woofiness, which I don't like even when playing a big instrument.

Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.

Try Horns, Strings and Harmony by Benade, or, if you don't mind a more mathematical approach, The Physics of Musical Instruments by Fletcher and Rossing. The second one has an excellent discussion of impedance. Neither address tubas specifically, but they both discuss conical instruments. Both are available at Amazon.

Rick "with the warning that tubas, like all non-linear systems, are complicated even if you understand the physics" Denney

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:49 pm**

Doc wrote:Dixie cups, paper cups, foam cups, coffee cups... They're all great.

Doc

We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:54 pm**

There are no rules, as many have said. Even if there were, rules are made to be broken

The only "rule" is to find what works best for you, and unfortunately you can't really do that without actually trying a mouthpiece for yourself.

Here is what Scott Laskey had to say when I asked him about the differences between the 30H (funnel) and 30G (bowl) and which he thought might be best on my Rudi 5/4CC. As background information I was using a Schilke Helleberg 11 at the time.

My opinion as to which cup is best for you-----
I have always held the belief that the rotary tubas run the risk of sounding like sub contra-bass euphoniums if the player is not careful in their mouthpiece selection. Due to the rotor design, the attacks come out sounding like a "duh" as opposed to the "Tee" quality present in the piston design.
The Geib cup is a bit more brilliant in its sound and will aid the quality of the attack.
Therefore in most cases, I prefer the Geib on rotary valved tubas. Especially if the instrument had a red or gold brass bell.

I think that if you want to make the transition into my new mouthpieces, the only question you need ask yourself is if you want more "point" on the attack and if more brilliance in the sound would help you in the orchestra. If so, then go for the 30G..
If you wand a more colorful version of your current sound, then the 30H.

BTW, I ended up buying both to try them for myself, and use the 30H most of the time.

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:09 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:17 pm**

TubaRay wrote:We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

What is this, the football locker room?

Marty "who probably wishes he wore a cup once or twice when playing his horn" Neilan

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:42 pm**

TubaRay wrote:
Doc wrote:Dixie cups, paper cups, foam cups, coffee cups... They're all great.

Doc
We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

We do seem to be "in(to) our cups", don't we?

Posted: **Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:47 pm**

winston wrote:
Gad, I don't even know what sorta MP's (c or v) I have. I just stick it in (so to speak) and see if I like it or not!!!
It's a shame more people on this board don't share your attitude.

Yup -- it's a good, solid, common-sense approach. Works for me!

Posted: **Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:05 am**

Rick Denney wrote:
Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.
Try Horns, Strings and Harmony by Benade, or, if you don't mind a more mathematical approach, The Physics of Musical Instruments by Fletcher and Rossing. The second one has an excellent discussion of impedance. Neither address tubas specifically, but they both discuss conical instruments. Both are available at Amazon.

Rick "with the warning that tubas, like all non-linear systems, are complicated even if you understand the physics" Denney

Thanks for the information on the books! They sound interesting -- looking forward to getting them ordered.

Posted: **Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:33 pm**

Well, the mpc I had with me when I tried out that Besson 995, was a PT64. Theoretically an F tuba mouthpiece. Sam comment "that is a good mouthpiece for that tuba" and I noticed he had an old PT he was using. I thought it said 53 on it, but I can't find a PT 53 listed anywhere. It was bigger than my 64, but definitely the same shape.

So.

MA

TubeNet

WHY funnels for pistons and bowls for rotors???

WHY funnels for pistons and bowls for rotors???

Excellent past discussion

Efficient playing

Why...?

Why

Re: Why

Re: Why

Theory vs. testing

Physics et al