Page 2 of 2

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:50 pm
by Michael Bush
Lectron wrote:Have I tried different shanks, wall thickness, gaps, veturis and experienced less kick-back and more accessible low register?

Yes I have.

Has the actual "interface" ment just as much as the holes itselves?

Yes it has

Could I tell from just looking at the MPC?

Nope. Mouthpiece, receiver and leadpipe has to work together

Did theories/physics back up findings?

Surprisingly yes

Why do some of the best players in the world seem to take a mouthpiece they've been using for two or three decades and put it in one tuba and then another and another, and it always seems to work?

Certainly I myself notoriously like to try a lot of different things, but one of the lessons of that seems to be that it just doesn't matter that much. Of all the factors in mouthpiece design that could matter, the shape of the end of the shank just seems to be the last and least.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:59 pm
by Donn
Surely it counts for more than the material the mouthpiece is made of? At least the shank end is involved at a fairly critical juncture in the air stream.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:04 pm
by Michael Bush
I'll give you that the material it's made of and the shape of the end of the shank are probably at least tied for the least important, other things being equal. If material nudges shank end out as the least important factor, I can live with that.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:08 pm
by Lectron
Michael Bush wrote:Why do some of the best players in the world seem to take a mouthpiece they've been using for two or three decades and put it in one tuba and then another and another, and it always seems to


Why do I always sound like me?
On some equipment it's just easier for me to sound like me

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:16 pm
by Michael Bush
Lectron wrote:Why do I always sound like me?

Because.

And that's really the point. Mouthpieces do matter, but it just seems possible to overthink them, and I feel pretty confident we've reached that point when we start worrying over minuscule measurements at the end of the shank. It would be more productive for us both to go practice.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:40 pm
by Donn
But as long as we aren't keeping you from your practice, then there's no harm done, right?

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:47 pm
by Lectron
Donn wrote:But as long as we aren't keeping you from your practice, then there's no harm done, right?


That's kinda my point....
IMO.....having the leadpipe moved for better ergonomics, tveaking the trasitions, alligning the valves perfectly etc.....
Makes practicing and preforming even more fun :tuba:

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:55 pm
by Michael Bush
Lectron wrote:
Donn wrote:But as long as we aren't keeping you from your practice, then there's no harm done, right?


That's kinda my point....
IMO.....having the leadpipe moved for better ergonomics, tveaking the trasitions, alligning the valves perfectly etc.....
Makes practicing even more fun :tuba:

Both of you do as you please. I will.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:03 pm
by lowbrassmaniac
when we start worrying over minuscule measurements at the end of the shank

They actually do matter for some people. Like 8.43mm throat bore giving someone air hunger and an 8.25mm bore not producing the same effect (all other measurements the same notwithstanding). Or how notes can suddenly become in tune switching from a 32.00mm rim diameter to a 32.50mm rim diameter. Everyone is different, and has different needs at certain points in their tuba playing career. One thing for sure is more practice is always good.

Re: Mouthpiece Design question -

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:51 pm
by TubaSailor
Well... .I tried it, and as the wiser heads on the TNFJ predicted, there was little-to-no effect. It may have opened up the tone a bit, but not enough for me to put any money on it. FYI- I tapered the inside at a 18 degree included angle (9 degree per side) until 1/2 of the perpendicular portion of the shank end was gone. (the wall thickness at the end of the shank was 50% of original) My thoughts going in were that since the Rudy's don't have a traditional step at the receiver like many horns, it may have played into whatever design drove that decision by smoothing the transition even further. Apparently not enough to notice. - thanks for all the input and opinions. I'm back to the lurker mode.

:tuba: