TubeNet

For years I quietly played my Besson Sovereign tuba with my reliable Bach 24AW.
Everything I asked of it, it gave me.
No concerns. No limitations. No desire to ever change crossed my mind. Loved it.

Over the last few months, I have purchased an old Besson 782 and a brand new Willson 3400.
My Bach has an American standard shank.
It does fit the 3400 but almost bottoms out in the European large shank receiver.

Secondly, I am getting older and my upper range is not what it was, although my lower register has got much better (work that one out).
May be a shallower mouthpiece could help to even things out, I guess, without losing darkness of colour in my sound.

Thirdly, having tried a number of models of tuba before I bought, I realised that my Bach didn’t work as well on some of these that I had tested.

I decided to investigate an alternative mouthpiece for use with my Willson 3400.
So many mouthpiece makers.
So many mouthpiece models and variation of models.
$ to $$$$$$$ price tags.

Now, after 8 weeks of trying, I have six (6) mouthpieces in addition to my original Bach 24AW.

By the way, I discovered the 24AW replicas I have bought with Euro large shanks are dimensionally nothing like my Bach, especially in depth of cup.

Have I found the one? – NO!

I am starting to run out of money, and have lost the will to buy more.

Some of these mouthpieces require major investment to procure, but I have bought used and cheaper replicas to keep costs affordable, until I find the one.

Have bought a mouthpiece. Played it twice. Then put it back in the box it arrived in. Not good, that.

It is frustrating and I can see similar souls periodically selling off several tuba mouthpieces, so they can then buy more(?).

The things I now know in comparison to my Bach are:
- Must have a Euro large shank;
- Don’t like cone shaped internals;
- Don’t mind bowl shaped internals but prefer pear shaped;
- Like AW wide rims, but maybe could do with a slightly narrower rim to improve flexibility, but not too narrow;
- Not into ultra-heavy mouthpieces as I may drop these on my foot;
- Happy with silver plated.

Wonder who else is lost in the mouthpiece maze?

Geoff

Hello Geoff,

After using a 24 AW for some time I have got kind of problems you are indicating, as well.
I am not unhappy with an Alliance Les Neish. Has some characteristics of the 24 AW, but smaller rim and (thus) greater flexibility (for me). Big bore and deep cup. For specs, please look at Alliance website.
Hope you will have an opportunity for trial.
Best,
Hubert

Forgot: rim of Alliance Les Neish is very comfortable.
Hubert

hubert wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:42 am Forgot: rim of Alliance Les Neish is very comfortable.
Hubert

Thanks. I had though LN mouthpieces were based upon Dennis Wick's models?? But will take another look. G

Not a direct answer, since I have no experience with your tubas.

But, Robert Tucci (Hornboerse) will happily provide guidance on suitable Tucci mouthpieces for a given goal.
And they are not too pricy.

Similare with Joseph Klier: vast range and knowledge to guide you based on what you are looking for.
Also, not too pricey

Used both with positive experience

Good luck.

I would try a Perantucci PT-65.
It worked for me on the E-flat Tuba and has a a wide AW like rim.

Good luck

I've been down this road. I know it well. The 24AW will not work with the Willson . Its just the wrong type /style /shape. It will work with a Besson compensator and its derivatives /clones. The Willson type instruments and its fellow travellers --Mirafone , MW et al., (ie. non compensators) live in a different sound world . My rotary MW EE flat doesn't get on with a 24 AW but sings with a Perantucci 84 . The Perantucci 65 is quite good but doesn't have the biff that you might look for having played a Besson.
Maybe you have tried the 84 and I'm steering you towards a mouthpiece you have tried and discounted. If so, my apologies but if not, it might be worth a last go.

Now isn't ideal, but if you wait for the pandemic to slow down there will be tuba conventions again. Most vendors are happy to let you try their mouthpieces. I used to do this all the time when I was looking for a new mouthpiece.

Thanks very much to everyone for your thoughts and good advice.
It is most welcome.
Nice to know that I am not alone.

At the moment I am using a PT-65 in my Willson.
It has a fat sound, reasonable range, and excellent flexibility.
I had tried it on day-1 after receiving my lovely 3400.
Had put it away because in mid-range I was fizzing (losing air) from the sides of the mouthpiece.
On no other mouthpiece does this happen for me.
This may be my fault, rather than the Tucci, but it was extremely distracting.
I went back to it yesterday and will stick with it for a time.

I had tried the PT-65 when I tested a NS Miraphone, being recommended as “more suitable” than my Bach 24AW. – It clearly was, by the way.

I bought both a Josef Klier 24AW and 24W at a good price.
Rough measures showed the rims and their diameters to be close to my Bach 24AW.
However the bowl depth was not.
Very approximately the JF 24AW (0.1” shallower) and JF 24W (0.2” shallower) in comparison to the Bach.

All the best.
2021 will be a great (better) year both sides of the Pond, for sure.

When I shop for MPs (which I haven´t done in years, but right now I´ve been at it), I go two lanes:
- either replace what has worked already, because it´s broken
- or seek contrast to what is already there.
- I do not believe in the effectiveness of fine-tuning, as in 8.0 vs 8.2 mm bore.

Also, I keep two or three different MPs to use for different purposes.
Most of the time, this adresses difference in delicacy of playing or amount of raw power output.
Other than that, I try to put as little blame as possible on the MP: most of the time, it´s ME who´s messing up.

Geoff,
Did you try a Bach 24W? It has the exact rim of the 24AW that you loved for decades but with a shallower cup. I've had more than a handful of times when no other mouthpiece would work for a customer but everything came together for them when I handed them a Bach 24W.

So often we think we are going to improve on what we already have, we forget to shop in the same brand that has been working for us. We're out of stock but click on the 24W option that shows out of stock and then put in your email address using the "Notify Me" option that pops up below. We'll get some more back into stock and notify you when it gets here.
https://www.dillonmusic.com/bach-standa ... mouthpiece

Matt Walters wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 6:21 am Geoff,
Did you try a Bach 24W? It has the exact rim of the 24AW that you loved for decades but with a shallower cup....

Hello there fellow Bach user,
I bought a JF 24AW and JF 24W for that very reason with their Euro large shanks.
These have been found to be shallow on depth in comparison, with the JF 24AW being about 0.1" shallower in depth of cup than my Bach 24AW.

I'm guessing the link you gave is for an American standard shanked MP? - not the Euro large that I need.

But all ideas gratefully received, Geof

Two additions, Geoff:

There is a review of the Alliance Les Neish by Simon Howell (Cory Band) on the Alliance website.
Thomann's return policy is applicable as well for mouthpieces (see Thomann website). This is the case with some other companies as well, e.g. FMB, Gütersloh, Germany). My experience: Thomann's refunds come within 2 weeks after you have sent back the mouthpiece.
Best,
Hubert

I am down to a PT-64 and PT-65.
Happy with both depending whether I need to have a high-end bias or low-end.
Still waiting to get to band where I can strengthen my embouchure and smooth the wrinkles.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/ofnZ5QQJh-8[/youtube]

Congratulations, Geoff.
Hubert

I saved money by studying as deeply as possible the physics of how mouthpieces work. Suddenly all the claims and snake oil lies become laughable.

I remember when Wick mouthpieces came out - the new concave shape was meant to cool the air. Now we have vast lumps of brass - and gold, probably - that - well - in my opinion, scientifically I can see no reason behind. But then I am a bear of very little brain. For me they are like the bits of metal we are meant to stick to our horns, the Bernoulli/Venturi craze, heavy valve caps, raw unpolished jazz school etc etc.

Mouthpiece fact - The only operative bits are the diameter - controlling the length of the membrane [lips] buzzing - and the total capacity - controlling whether higher or lower harmonics are encouraged and strengthened. The shape of the edge is just a matter of personal preference. It cannot affect the soundwave.

The mouthpiece is simply a funnel. Your lips buzz - bounce against each other - 'once' in a nano second and that buzz suddenly pushes air out and jolts the molecules right in front of them. They in turn jolt the molecules right in front of them. jolts the molecules right in front of them etc etc etc. This jolt [sound wave] travels through the still air in the mouthpiece and horn in that nanosecond to the bell where it is bounced back to the lips by the invisible 'wall' of the room air pressure which is greater than inside the horn. This reverse wave now pushes the lips back into your mouth, to be instantly forced out again by your 'next' air push. This happens millions of times.

Experimentation over 1000s of years has resulted in antelope horns, ram's horn, alphorn, wooden tube whatever of the right shape and length to make this process produce the best sounds.

Mouthpieces were invented to make blowing more comfortable. But then it was found that having a mouthpiece that was not only comfortable but also a funnel or cup shape helped the sounding of the horn. The physics of this is extremely complex. But forget any nonsense about the Venturi effect in the mouthpiece or just beyond. That is ignorant mythology. Venturi was experimenting with liquids or gases in a restricted tube. Horn do not use air (gases). it is nothing to do with the air flow, air column, air turbulence, wind or even elves at the bottom of the garden. Horns do not use air or depend on air flow at all. As the video below proves absolutely air passes slowly through the horn simply because it has nowhere else to go. The only way we have to make the buzz is air from our lungs - after that buzz, air is irrelevant. Venturi does not affect energy (sound) waves.

Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZvDvuxjHvU. I spoke to him and discussed different metals especially of bells and thicknesses of horns and mouthpieces - all also pure fantasy.

However, the mythology has helped many thousands in giving them confidence etc - and made money for the genuinely convinced manufacturers and promoters. They all ahve abruptly stopped communicating when I start a dialogue and then ask for the science behind their claims.

What the science does prove is that the larger the cup - the more low harmonics are encouraged within the wave of sound energy travelling down the horn. I also copied in 1969 and John Fletcher and bought a 24AW and enjoyed the darker more velvety sound.

Its different sound is because the soundwaves jolting one another forward through the mouthpiece are reflected by the walls of the mouthpiece in innumerable directions as they 'crowd' through the mouthpiece and down the horn. This does not make a good sound. Just play only your mouthpiece - but it does make a clearer sound and pitch than the lips alone. The shape of the 'static air' space through which the sound waves travel greatly affects their sound. If the stationery air is strongly restricted - a shallow jazz mouthpiece with a tiny hole - they sound different from a deep, round cup with a large hole. What is happening is that they can create higher harmonics more easily if 'narrowed' but those notes lose many of the richer sounding lower harmonics. The same note on a much bigger mouthpiece sounds drastically different.

So double blind test the different mouthpieces. They will make very little difference unless appreciably larger in volume or width. I use a tiny 1900 Besson 'BB' mouthpiece for solo and ensemble because it gives a beautiful, focussed and clean sound. I use a 24AW for bigger stuff. I find my range is the same on both. That is down to changing embouchure for altissimo and rolling in the lips tightly and pushing air forcefully from the abdomen. But that is another story. BUT the really high range does sound thinner on the 24AW as you would expect.

The expansion speed and bore changes of the bugel - saxhorns as opposed to tubas - as opposed to today's hi-brids - really dictate the sound, in my humble opinion.

You can look at https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/u ... /Brass.pdf but I found it far too scientific for my head.

Deleted

Hooray, hooray. At last a scientist has answered my fuzzy and incomplete understanding of all this. I never did sciences - so have cobbled together my mythology of what happens. Thank you. Thank you. YOU SHOULD HAVE A SPECIAL THREAD ON THE SCIENCE OF PLAYING. I am asking the team to set this up. We really need your expertise directly tto help thousands of us to improve and cut through to the truth - so .....

1) COMMERCIAL CLAIMS Now what do you think, in your opinion, about a)the 'Venturi gap', b)heavy mouthpieces, c)heavy valve caps d) horns (bells) made of different materials, plated or lacquered please.

2) NODES - Am I correct in stating that once a standing wave is created sound energy travels along it in opposite directions and where the energy 'meets' a compatible energy 'pulse' a node is created.
Are the claims true that I have heard that these must be at precisely the right place on the horn, or making a dent at a nodal point can help a problem note, or if you thicken the metal there a difference is discernible or bad internal workmanship (a step in the joint/bore etc) makes a difference.

3)BELLS / BORE -What is the scientific difference between:
a)a huge sousa-type bell on an upright and a narrow 1860s era narrow bell.
b)wide bore as aopposed to narrow bore
c) bore widening at different stages along the bugle. eg British basses get fat immediately after the valves with no long mouthpipe. Traditional (now rapidly being exterminated) Czech/European tubas seem to have a long narrower mouthpipe and a generally slower increase after the valves.
d) 3 valves as opposed to more.
e) the position of the valves along the bugle and their spacing from one another.

4) MOUTHPIECES
Can you give us a layman's explanation of how they work and what really makes a difference - rather than my attempts.

Thanks for all the extensive replies.

At the outset of this thread, it was simply an expression of my own frustration in having to buy seven (7) mouthpieces before ending up with one I am happy with. There must be a better way, avoiding heavy marketeering and a reducing bank balance?

All the scientific comments, above, I am more than comfortable with, being an engineer of many decades and familiar with fluid dynamics, low pressure systems, mechanical structures, metalworking, base metals, coatings, harmonics, inherent variation, and the rest, but more to do with aircraft design than musical instruments. All of these aspects of science must play apart to a lesser or greater degree in horns.

To close: The acid test was that with my MP (7) collection there is some variation in sound produced, with the same horn, but not that much, however, more variety in range (high/low), comfort, side leakage, fit in receiver, articulation & response, etc., etc......

Many Wilson 3400 users will tell you that they work best with the ME (Marty Erickson) mouthpiece. He's the one who designed the horn. My takes is that any tuba that needs one particularly m.p. to play well, is not a 'm.p. sensitive' tuba, but a bad tuba. I briefly owned a 3400. I traded it for a Besson 983 and was NEVER happier.

Also, the 24AW gets a bad rap from a lot of people. It's funny that it was good enough for John Fletcher (he also used a Conn Helleberg).