TubeNet

I recently learned of the old "Dr. Young" mouthpiece/s. I think that I already have most design concepts covered in my mouthpiece collection, but one more won't hurt. Would anyone have one to part with? Thanks.

Wessex has one on their sight but apparently not available? Maybe a call to them could help you.
http://www.wessex-tubas.com/shop/access ... /young-1r/" target="_blank

Wessex Tubas does have the Young tuba mouthpiece in stock

I have just added to website page - http://www.wessex-tubas.com/shop/access ... /young-1r/" target="_blank

bloke wrote:It appears that current "Dr. Young" mouthpieces are quite conservative, regarding their dimensions, compared to the USA-made versions (by Reynolds) of the past.

I don't know if the Reynolds version was exactly how Dr. Young wanted. Wessex have done some further development with Dr.Young on the new Wessex YOUNG tuba mouthpiece.

We have also put into production a Young euphonium mouthpiece which has never been available before.

bloke wrote:We don't know much of anything, do we...? yet we post.

It never stopped me!!

Is this the same Dr Young that got dragged off that plane recently??

I do have a Reynolds "Dr.Young" It actually worked rather well on the BMB CC 6/4 BAT. (Got it for 5 bucks at a Brass Armadillo Antigue store in Des Moines many years ago) With the dimensions of the piece, it does offer a great deal of fundamental, hence the compatability with the BAT. The BMB is already designed to play at a relatively high pitch, so the long shank and cup really did not pull the pitch below standard A=440. I do recall something from Fred about it not really being what he intended. So Kiltie, I think you are on to something here. Wessex has a relationship with Fred and so I would tend to think that the current Wessex version of the "Dr. Young" is more than likely what he really wanted. Maybe Jonathan call fill us it a bit more.

I played one of the Reynolds ones years ago. It stuck out so far that the pitch was about 1/2 step flat. The entire thing seemed acoustically silly. Other people have enjoyed these mouthpieces, though, so who knows!

Paul let me try is Dr. Young mouthpiece a while ago. I played about 30 seconds on it before politely handing it back and saying "too big." It's not to say that I couldn't get used to it over time, but it's just a lot different than anything else.

Then again, look at the tubas that Dr. Young has designed -- also unusual and not particularly desirable for most of us, even if there are characteristics that are improved or desirable about them.

KiltieTuba wrote:Don't most of us want an in tune tubas without a bunch of slide pulling or lipping? Those are the tubas Dr. Young has had made.

Yes, but most of us want it to look like a normal tuba.

There are always innovators who push the boundary and contrive unique solutions to problems. But I'm guessing that Fred's tubas will end up like many others, ideas that never caught on and will secure their own places in tuba-making history. I'm not saying anything negative about his work or his stuff, it's neat... but not really intended for mass production.

I have played Dr.Young's tubas. He has done extensive development and they are designed to have excellent intonation across the range and this they achieve. The biggest problem is the extra weight created by the extra valves and tubing - as well as having to learn the unique fingering. It is for those reasons Wessex has not considered making.

Yesterday I got my Wessex Dr. Young mpc- thank you, Jonathan.

Big, heavy and with a superb sharp inner rim.
Next time, I'll compare it to my Original- SSH.
Uli