TubeNet

I'll call it the Kanstul effect.

Are old mouthpieces (like my Conn Geib) made from a different alloy of brass than modern (brass) mouthpieces? My Conn Geib (to my ears) feels and sounds significantly different (better, to my ears) than the Stofer Geib that is a copy of my specific Conn mouthpiece. I'm not certain, but I think the Stofer has a slightly larger throat...(?), so I'm curious if there is a difference between the alloy of the metal used in these vintage mouthpieces?

FWIW, I'm really enjoying the Conn Geib, except that it's narrow throat takes constant attention to make sure that I'm using the correct airstream. I'm pretty used to it by now, but still, if you do it wrong, it'll back up on you quickly and remind you that you were wrong.

It could be simply radioactive decay of unstable isotopes.

If you have a reasonable set of drill twist bits, you can use them as approximate throat gauges. If not ... it's nice to have a reasonable set of twist bits. Sizes like 5/16, 19/64, 9/32. I think you're right, the throat is a place where a small difference is a big difference. Backbore shape too, but I have no idea how to compare that, between two different mouthpieces.

bloke wrote: I always sound best using that mouthpiece...

Yes, but no matter which horn you use it on you always get a case of the munchies...

I was going to get one of those, but as I understand it, they aren't worth the dough if the weed wasn't harvested back in '87 during the Harmonic Convergence.

Well... thanks...?

The answer is not in the brass.

Rick "but in the shape" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:but in the shape

In total agreement, I doubt even the material is important.

Donn wrote:It could be simply radioactive decay of unstable isotopes.

If you have a reasonable set of drill twist bits, you can use them as approximate throat gauges. If not ... it's nice to have a reasonable set of twist bits. Sizes like 5/16, 19/64, 9/32. I think you're right, the throat is a place where a small difference is a big difference. Backbore shape too, but I have no idea how to compare that, between two different mouthpieces.

Yes, but when measuring, start with the shank end of the bit, not the tip end, so the sharpened flutes do not inadvertently scrape the interior plating.

The way I measure a throat is to take a drill bit that is slightly smaller, and then add one ring of masking tape at a time until the shank starts to drag through the throat, then take a micrometer to measure what I have, and adjust for any compression of the tape accordingly.

Most mere mortals play a mouthpiece that has a throat diameter that is a machinist's letter size drill bit, not a fractional size. An "O" drill bit is .316; a "P" drill bit is .323; a "Q" drill bit is .332. These three drill bit sizes are the throats or bore of the vast majority of tuba mouthpieces played in the USA, with a few smaller (especially for F tubas) and a few larger (according to the Bach mouthpiece manual, an 18 has an "S" throat).

As do many other people who do not play professionally and are starting to have to deal with limitations of breath support: I play a "P"; that rhymes with "T"; and that stands for...Tuba.

windshieldbug wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:but in the shape

In total agreement, I doubt even the material is important.

I agree... but I was curious enough to ask. "Brass" is a general term, and just like people claim differences in yellow/gold/York-magic alloys in the rest of the instrument, I'm curious what is actually used to make mouthpieces, and if differences in brass make a difference. People claim differences in brass vs. stainless vs. titanium... and wood, solid silver, etc...

One reason I ask is because my Conn Geib and my Stofer Geib (which used my exact Conn as the reference point) play rather differently to me. I haven't measured them, and I suspect that the CG has a smaller throat... but if I were to assume that all else was equal, there are still some differences. FWIW, I like the Conn Geib better in many ways, except I wish that it had a larger and more modern-sized throat.

Likely going to try a Blokepiece next.

I had about 8 old mouthpieces analyzed for metal content. There were small random differences which were obviously just contamination, but other than that they were all very close to current formulation for standard 360 brass.

It's not the material.

Doug Elliott wrote:I had about 8 old mouthpieces analyzed for metal content. There were small random differences which were obviously just contamination, but other than that they were all very close to current formulation for standard 360 brass.

It's not the material.

Can't argue with that! Case closed ! Thanks!