TubeNet

Hello,

Did anyone here got the chance to compare a same mouthpiece model in these different materials ?

Does it change anything to the sound ?

thx

So the material is not changing the sound ? Why do some company them in titanium ??

"If you build it he (they) will come" Oft misquoted line from the mind of Ray Kinsella in "Field of Dreams"

Pete

ds_le_moulin wrote:So the material is not changing the sound ? Why do some company them in titanium ??

I had always thought that these were created as an alternative to kids allergic to certain kinds of metal which stinks for those kids. Silver or stainless steel or a kellyberg... Atleast the kellyberg is affordable.

Note that even if the "resonance" etc. of these materials is irrelevant*, there's a literally superficial quality at the mouthpiece rim where it's in contact with your face, that could make some slight difference. Here it's not vs. brass, because no one likes a plain brass finish, but rather vs. silver plate, gold plate, and whatever finishes people are putting on the steels and titaniums. Maybe some have more grip than others, for example.

(* ... and resonance is indeed irrelevant, as you can intuitively apprehend by banging a mouthpiece on something hard and comparing the resulting sound to what you want to get out of the tuba. Moreover, if resonance properties made an appreciable difference between these metals, what about a Kelly polycarbonate mouthpiece with radically less mass and different resonance properties? But the only way you know someone's playing a Kelly is that it looks different.)

I found that the biggest difference is the responsiveness. After 30 years on a Schilke 51D, I bought a Giddings and Webster Kadja in stainless steel. I did a back-to-back comparison with many music colleagues and students and the consensus seemed to be that the stainless had more immediacy to the attack, more strength to the front end of the note. The quality of the sound itself was very similar, but many said that the stainless gave very slightly more warmth and clarity.

I got my tubist son a G&W Baer MMVI CC and he did a back-to-back comparison for his orchestra conductor in the large rehearsal room. The old mouthpiece was a Conn-Helleberg (I know it is not apples-to-apples). The conductor said the stainless sounded like a different player, with a more solid attack to each note.

I have not tried titanium, but would like to.

If the material made an insignificant difference in the sound, we'd probably see more pBones and Tiger Trumpets performed publicly. A soprano saxophone sounds pretty different from a Bb clarinet and I'm sure the material has something to do with it.

"...the biggest difference is the responsiveness."
And what units do you measure responsiveness in?
But, all kidding aside, the interior dimensions of each mouthpiece would have to be identical, and both your audience, and you yourself, would have to be unaware of which mouthpiece you were using for your experiment to have any validity.
Not saying your new piece isn't better, but very unlikely to be identical to the old.

sweaty wrote: If the material made an insignificant difference in the sound, we'd probably see more pBones and Tiger Trumpets performed publicly. A soprano saxophone sounds pretty different from a Bb clarinet and I'm sure the material has something to do with it.

It has nothing to do with it. The saxophone and clarinet are very different acoustically, to the extent that though they're of similar length, the clarinet's lower register is really an Eb woodwind about like an alto saxophone. But you can get a clarinet made of metal - and it sounds about the same as a clarinet made of wood, or of plastic, or hard rubber.

Many trombonists spend time fussing over their selection of materials for leadpipes and bells- brass (yellow, gold, rose), nickel silver, or Sterling silver. Do you really think they're all just imagining things?

I have noticed a big difference in timbre from different bell materials, and lead pipe materials on my instruments.

I have tried titanium mouthpieces, but my experience is limited.

I feel that for me the stainless mouthpieces tend to have more lower overtones present in the sound, and less of the upper harmonics. This isn't good/bad- it all depends on what you are looking for.

I tend to favor brass mouthpieces and yellow bells on my horns, but I am always up to trying something different.

sweaty wrote:Many trombonists spend time fussing over their selection of materials for leadpipes and bells- brass (yellow, gold, rose), nickel silver, or Sterling silver. Do you really think they're all just imagining things?

+1


The first cornet/trumpet player in my main quintet told me he had a special-order Bach Strad trumpet made with a solid sterling silver bell (not plated). I have not personally heard it, but he said that trumpet had an absolutely gorgeous sound and that it was impossible to overblow due to it's sterling silver bell. He also said it was very heavy, weighing almost twice that of a regular Bach trumpet. He gave it to one of his daughters years ago as a gift.

------------------------------

In my old UMI catalog, the Conn 8D french horn is noted for it's thick, dark sound due to it's wide bell throat. But they also state that nickel-silver is used in the 8D because it sounds "brighter" than yellow brass, and it "tames" the 8D's "darkness". In other words, the Conn 8D would be even darker in tone if it were made in yellow/gold/rose brass. Apparently, the higher the copper content in brass: yellow -> gold -> rose; the warmer/darker the sound.

-------------------------------

I can guarantee that if an Alexander 163 tuba was made in thicker brass, there would be a slight difference in sound compared to an identical 163 in the regular thinwall lightweight brass.

I can also guarantee that a blokepiece "Imperial" made of thin sheet brass (with exact inner dimensions as the regular one) would play & sound different to an identical regular "Imperial" blokepiece


-------------------------------

The shape/geometry of tubas and mpcs are most important, but the material is important too

Well ... whatever! really. In the end, as mentioned above, we won't often see otherwise-identical mouthpieces made of different stuff, so my theory and your theory about why they sound the way they do are "immaterial."

I suspect the same might be said of tubas - though here the intention is to make them the same, two tubas are going to sound a bit different, whether they're made of the same materials or not. Past that, whether bell material makes a difference or not - I don't know enough about it to take a position on it, but once in a while I do see someone brave enough to express some skepticism, and yes, I do think people can draw invalid conclusions from what they hear.

sweaty wrote:Many trombonists spend time fussing over their selection of materials for leadpipes and bells- brass (yellow, gold, rose), nickel silver, or Sterling silver. Do you really think they're all just imagining things?

Those parts of a trombone ARE what resonate & can have a lot to do with how the instrument responds,
especially in the bell area!
A mouthpiece is just a device to channel the buzz from your lips into the horn & the horn amplifies the sound.
Mouthpieces DO NOT resonate & making them from different materials will not affect the sound of the instrument.
A mouthpiece is basically just a funnel to get your buzz into the horn, that's it........nothing more

Some people believe that the amount of size or mass of the exterior changes the sound as well. I do not embrace those beliefs.

I had Dave Houser make a lightweight version of his LM7 mp, and I can assure you that is is different to his normal (heavyweight) LM7.

Cheers,

Cam

TubaKen wrote:"...the biggest difference is the responsiveness."
And what units do you measure responsiveness in?

Milliseconds would probably be most appropriate for musical instruments.

sweaty wrote:Many trombonists spend time fussing over their selection of materials for leadpipes and bells- brass (yellow, gold, rose), nickel silver, or Sterling silver. Do you really think they're all just imagining things?

I don't see anyone claiming that the materials used in the resonating part of the horn (i.e. the bugle, even the valve section to a point) make no difference. They clearly do. By virtue of its sheer mass, though, even the thinnest, lightest mouthpiece resonates little if at all. The mouthpiece's job is to receive, shape, and funnel the sound energy into the instrument as efficiently as possible. These functions are affected by the size and shape of the cup, rim, throat and backbore. These, not the composition of the blank, change the sound and response.

Joe,

I suspect the reason there was little (or no) apparent difference between your usual mp and the "super light" version is that there wasn't a huge difference in weight. It would be interesting (only a bit) to compare the "super light" to a heavyweight one if one existed.

FWIW I prefer the "normal" weight mouthpieces like Blokepieces, Laskeys, Klier etc to heavyweight ones.

Cheers,

Cam

Hello !

Thanks for all your answers. Even though it got a bit away from the original question

I was wondering what it changes to the sound, not what we feel (because feelings are... well : b...s...)
So I would have been interested to know if someone has been trying the same model of a GW (because they produce the same mouthpieces in different materials) in stainless and Titanium.

Then about the deviation in the subject: I have same mouthpiece in 3 different weights, heavyweight, normalwieght and lightwieght. It changes a bunch of things within the feelings, and the sound

ds_le_moulin wrote:I have same mouthpiece in 3 different weights, heavyweight, normalwieght and lightwieght. It changes a bunch of things within the feelings, and the sound

Well, that's all that matters then..........isn't it?
It changes a bunch of things

Well, people started to speak about the weight etc.. But it's not the subject of this conversation...