Further to recent post concerning getting modern receivers on older horns I'm wondering...
...Wouldn't you get a step (down) in the bore at the end of the receiver into the leadpipe??
Or is the bore-
A). The same, or
B). Nearasdammitnotworthworryingabout the same?
Best,
MP
Changing receiver - don't you get a 'step'?
-
Peach
- 4 valves
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: London, UK
-
Chuck(G)
- 6 valves
- Posts: 5679
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
- Location: Not out of the woods yet.
- Contact:
-
WakinAZ
- Community Band Button-Masher
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:03 pm
- Location: Back Row
Chuck, Joe, to pick your collective brain a bit more:
Is most of the size difference between "small" and "standard" shank receivers at the front part of the receiver where the mouthpiece goes in? In other words, does the size difference become less as they approach the place where they both can attach to the same diameter leadpipe, thus making the step issue not a big deal?
Just curious,
Eric "who may or may not have sniped a small shank receiver horn today on a certain website
" L.
Is most of the size difference between "small" and "standard" shank receivers at the front part of the receiver where the mouthpiece goes in? In other words, does the size difference become less as they approach the place where they both can attach to the same diameter leadpipe, thus making the step issue not a big deal?
Just curious,
Eric "who may or may not have sniped a small shank receiver horn today on a certain website
" L.-
Chuck(G)
- 6 valves
- Posts: 5679
- Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
- Location: Not out of the woods yet.
- Contact:
Ever use an AGR? That can introduce a huge "bump" between the end of the mouthpiece and the leadpipe--but unless you're at the extreme, it's difficult to notice much of a difference.
Given the wide range of sizing in "standard" shanks, I can't seem to find any evidence that a slight mismatch between the end of the leadpipe and the mouthpiece shank amounts to a hill of beans.
What does seem to make a difference in going to a larger shank receiver is the increased volume and throat size of the back end of the mouthpiece. A small-shank mouthpiece does seem to "slot" a bit more easily than a large-shank one on the same horn--and this may be the perception that some are using to say "don't change it".
One can take a Weril euphonium large-shank receiver and put it on a Yamaha YEP-321 leadpipe with virtually no other changes (both instruments have the same bore). I like the end result--looks exactly the same as the original 321 receiver, but opens the horn up a bit more--at the expense of some mouthpiece resonance.
If my memory isn't faulty, it seems to me that the YEP-621 "pro" 3+1 noncomp euphonium does use a large (i.e. bass trombone-size) receiver, even though the bore is the same as the 321.
Given the wide range of sizing in "standard" shanks, I can't seem to find any evidence that a slight mismatch between the end of the leadpipe and the mouthpiece shank amounts to a hill of beans.
What does seem to make a difference in going to a larger shank receiver is the increased volume and throat size of the back end of the mouthpiece. A small-shank mouthpiece does seem to "slot" a bit more easily than a large-shank one on the same horn--and this may be the perception that some are using to say "don't change it".
One can take a Weril euphonium large-shank receiver and put it on a Yamaha YEP-321 leadpipe with virtually no other changes (both instruments have the same bore). I like the end result--looks exactly the same as the original 321 receiver, but opens the horn up a bit more--at the expense of some mouthpiece resonance.
If my memory isn't faulty, it seems to me that the YEP-621 "pro" 3+1 noncomp euphonium does use a large (i.e. bass trombone-size) receiver, even though the bore is the same as the 321.