Mouthpiece question

[scottw]

I play a vintage Eb tuba [1865] that has always sounded terrible on E, Eb, and F below the staff, oddly enough. I tried a Denis Wick 4 this week and was astounded how well this fixed the 3 really poor notes. I should be happy, right? Problem is that in fixing those, I now find that low Bb, B, and C are extremely hard to center and to get much on an attack. I had been using a Conn Helleberg. What I am now wondering is if slightly increasing [drilling out] the throat diameter of the Wick 4 would help the low end without destroying the newly-fixed notes. I know, the TNFL can't hear it, etc., etc., but, in theory, would this seem likely to help the now-bad ones but preserve the now-good ones? It is a pretty expensive gold-plated 'piece, so I would hate to just destroy it if there weren't a likelihood of success. Maybe just more practice on this will help, but I am skeptical.
Any TNFL help will be appreciated!

[Doug Elliott]

Experiment with how far it fits into the receiver.

[scottw]

Experiment with how far it fits into the receiver.

To what end? Should it go further, would that tend to help or hinder? Or, as you say, experiment and see what works? Right now, it goes in 3/4th inch, out of a maximum of 1 3/4" to the first groove on the shank.
Your help is much appreciated!

[vespa50sp]

I play a vintage Eb tuba [1865] that has always sounded terrible on E, Eb, and F below the staff, oddly enough. I tried a Denis Wick 4 this week and was astounded how well this fixed the 3 really poor notes. I should be happy, right? Problem is that in fixing those, I now find that low Bb, B, and C are extremely hard to center and to get much on an attack. I had been using a Conn Helleberg. What I am now wondering is if slightly increasing [drilling out] the throat diameter of the Wick 4 would help the low end without destroying the newly-fixed notes. I know, the TNFL can't hear it, etc., etc., but, in theory, would this seem likely to help the now-bad ones but preserve the now-good ones? It is a pretty expensive gold-plated 'piece, so I would hate to just destroy it if there weren't a likelihood of success. Maybe just more practice on this will help, but I am skeptical.
Any TNFL help will be appreciated!

So you must have the old british tuba shank (small tuba Euro)? So the Conn must stick out a bit while the Wick 4 fits fine?

I've be rotating between a Wick 4 and Conn Helleberg in my old Eb horn and while it is easier to play the low notes on the Conn, I find that the Wick 4 sound is lovelier so I'm settling on that. Plus I think you'd want an Eb horn to center naturally on Eb below the staff with no valves pushed. The lower Bb is 1-3, the B is 2-3 and the C 1-2 so the air has to travel more.

Spend some time with a tuner and the slides after getting used to the Wick? Maybe it would lock in on the lower notes better then.

[scottw]

No, the receiver is larger. There was some really bad lead pipe/receiver work done on the horn sometime in the distant past. We have restored pretty much all of the previous mess, including a tuning bit that enters the receiver, then the mouthpiece goes into the bit. This both adjusts the angle and brings the pitch down to about where it should be. The Helleberg went in a little further than does the Wick 4L, but not much more. I agree that it is nice for the Eb to actually sound good on an Eb tuba! First time! But, unless I can work with it to get the bottom serviceable, I may have to try something else yet again. The low Bb was actually a pretty good note with the Conn [pulled 3rd slide is quite long], and it now centers terribly with the Wick 4L. I do know I haven't had enough time on it to fairly assess whether it is the answer or not. Gotta love old horns!

[Doug Elliott]

Changing the insertion depth effectively changes several aspects and the results are not necessarily predictable. 3/4" is probably not deep enough; at that point the receiver still has some taper to go getting smaller when it should be starting to expand. The tuning bit isn't helping either.

Yes, I think it should go further, but I said "experiment" because that's what is needed. You have a much less than ideal situation going on.

[ghmerrill]

No, the receiver is larger. There was some really bad lead pipe/receiver work done on the horn sometime in the distant past. We have restored pretty much all of the previous mess, including a tuning bit that enters the receiver, then the mouthpiece goes into the bit.

I used to use a Wick 5 on my 1924 Buescher Eb. It was okay. It was pretty much the best I could find. But since I got the Dillon adapter I use a TU-17 and it works better. Better/easier intonation and better resonance. A Bach 25 would work similarly. You might try something along those lines.

This both adjusts the angle and brings the pitch down to about where it should be.

So wait ... Does this imply that your horn is actually high pitch and you (or a previous owner) have attempted to "adjust" it downwards essentially by lengthening the lead pipe? If that's the situation, I don't think that any number of pitch and resonance problems should be a surprise. And if that's true, you might consider eliminating that lead pipe approach and changing the pitch of the horn in a more effective way.

[besson900]

In my and a lot of tuba techers opinion mouthpieces or tubas are just pieces of steel.
Everything is in your head and You shouldn't think that something is wrong with your mouthpiece.Play exercises for your problemsearch and after few months you gonna see progres.Of course it's easier to play on high level instruments or mouthpieces but everything is going from your brain:)

[ghmerrill]

In my and a lot of tuba techers opinion mouthpieces or tubas are just pieces of steel.

Interesting view. I would have thought that these would have been mostly brass.

[Donn]

That's just your opinion.

There could be something to vespa50sp's notion of a little work with tuner and slides, bearing in mind that you're adjusting the slides for tone as much as pitch. It may be that with the tuning bit and everything, you're really looking at ranges that aren't in tune with each other.

1865 is really old.

[opus37]

In my and a lot of tuba techers opinion mouthpieces or tubas are just pieces of steel.
Everything is in your head and You shouldn't think that something is wrong with your mouthpiece.Play exercises for your problemsearch and after few months you gonna see progres.Of course it's easier to play on high level instruments or mouthpieces but everything is going from your brain:)

I disagree with this statement. Although there are a group of right mouthpieces that fit a tuba and player combination, the they are not just a piece of steel/brass. They are an integral part of the system we call tuba playing.

[scottw]

No, the receiver is larger. There was some really bad lead pipe/receiver work done on the horn sometime in the distant past. We have restored pretty much all of the previous mess, including a tuning bit that enters the receiver, then the mouthpiece goes into the bit.

I used to use a Wick 5 on my 1924 Buescher Eb. It was okay. It was pretty much the best I could find. But since I got the Dillon adapter I use a TU-17 and it works better. Better/easier intonation and better resonance. A Bach 25 would work similarly. You might try something along those lines.

This both adjusts the angle and brings the pitch down to about where it should be.

So wait ... Does this imply that your horn is actually high pitch and you (or a previous owner) have attempted to "adjust" it downwards essentially by lengthening the lead pipe? If that's the situation, I don't think that any number of pitch and resonance problems should be a surprise. And if that's true, you might consider eliminating that lead pipe approach and changing the pitch of the horn in a more effective way.

With the lead pipe that came with the horn damaged, we first got it de-dented, then fixed the tears that resulted in leaks. The pipe is basically around the side of the bell stack, so a tuning bit was the way the repair tech both extended the pipe and dropped the pitch a mite. As is, I usually pull the tuning slide about a quarter to a half inch. I get what you are saying: this system is not optimal, but then again, it is 151 years old! I do not do much serious playing on this horn, just period stuff which requires minimal exertion, but I still would like to sound good, too. The tone is pretty good with the Eb behaving better. I just have to figure out the lower notes now. The intonation is really pretty good considering the lack of a 4th valve with all those 1-3, 1-2-3 fingerings.
As to a Bach 25--I have always looked down on 22's and 25's, but with the size of this horn, they might work. Interesting. Thanks!

[vespa50sp]

http://www.uni.edu/drfun/articles/tuning.html
This may be useful

[Beervangelist]

Interesting discussion that answers some questions I had about my old Conn 22J Tuba. I've been playing it without a bit, and occasionally questioned how the lead pipe positions my face, but naively didn't consider that it came with a bit.

The question now - what would I use for that bit or where would I find it? A cursory search turns up several options for the 2-piece sousaphone bits, and I'm thinking I could experiment with using one of them, but I wonder if anyone has a replica of the original concert tuba bit for the 2xJs?

[PaulMaybery]

Hi Scott.
From my experience with these mid 19th-century tubas, is that often times, like yours, the receiver is indeed set up to take a mp with a rather large shank. However, many of those mps from that period were rather short compared to modern pieces, but with a rather short stubby shank. Maybe a half inch shorter. What that seems to translate is that the venturi or the throat of the mp is much closer to the instrument than a modern mp (which happens to have a longer shank.) So while a modern piece will fit the receiver, it does throw the horn off, not just making it overall flatter, but it does effect how the partials allign themselves. In effect what is happening is that it actually increases the lenght of the smaller diameter tubing. Where as, with a true period mp, you would adjust the tuning , more than likely in the middle of the horn and thus substantially add to the "volume" by increasing the larger tubing.

I recall a similar situation with Arthur Lehman (euph soloist from the Marine Band) who designed a mp with a slender shank that set further in the receiver. He would make up for the pitch of the horn, by pulling the main tuning slide. This was on his Besson Imperial euphonium. The result, as he claimed, was that it affected the 5th partial which was naturally flat and the 6th which was naturally sharp, correctively pulling them closer to a usuable pitch.

So, what may be the issue is something similar. A modern piece will change the taper and relation of narrow to wider tubing and may result in intonation issues.

Also from my experience with 30 years with the Yankee Brass Band and dealing with many of these mid 19th century horns is that even at the very best, they are "cantankerous" when it comes to modern pitch standard. They are very quirky. It also seems that there is really no one type of instrument that is typical of the period. Overall pitch was more or less a "crap shoot" as was the general design, in that differences between manufacturers was extremly inconsisent. Some of the guys in the Yankee Brass Band have their own horns with the orginal mouthpieces. There really does not seem to be modern equivalent pieces. Some of them have actually had mouthpiece makers copy originals so they share them with others. Some find certain modern pieces that produce some good results.

I have about 200 period cornet mouthpieces, and each is drastically different from the other, telling me that there was no one type of mp for the cornets, and likely this is the same for other instruments. Some of our players have used large Mike Finn mps, others seem to feel that the Denis Wicks are viable. Bob Eliason was very successful with an old Conn 2. It didn't look period, but it did function very well on his Lehnert Centennial Eb Bass.

Hope you get some ideas. By the way, thanks for your earlier email. I'm doing fine and playing more now than ever. Hope you are also well and kicking butt.

Best wishes
Paul