Heavy mouthpieces

[Donn]

How in the world could there be a "blind" test...unless (I guess) you literally blindfolded the player along with the other observers.

Yes, wouldn't hurt to blindfold everyone, and use a tuba stand. I was thinking a mask could be taped around the mouthpiece - that might be more effective than the blindfold, in case the tuba player is tempted to cop a feel - and probably the mass-effect proponents would accept that some tape and paper on the outside would not affect performance.

Experimenters would need to try some things until it's clear that the setup is going to leave everyone with no clue to mouthpiece identity. I was more dubious about the mouthpiece parameters, though - I mean, is a PT-88+ really identical to a PT-88 but for the mass? It would be easy for small differences to sneak into the backbore or something, on purpose or maybe even accidentally depending on how they make these things. Maybe better to just tack a gob of lead onto the same actual mouthpiece and see what happens.

[Rick Denney]

I was more dubious about the mouthpiece parameters, though - I mean, is a PT-88+ really identical to a PT-88 but for the mass?

It depends on whether you want to answer the question for yourself or for posterity. If for yourself, then just find that one that works for you over a period of months. Yes, that's a difficult search, but join the club.

For posterity, though, you'll be trying to prove the hypothesis that mass makes a noticeable difference. Once that is proved, then you'll try to model those differences.

You must characterize all the factors that could contribute to the difference, but you don't have to quantify them, only their effects. So, you collect your sample population: A range of mouthpiece pairs which supposedly vary only in mass, plus a range of testers, and a test protocol that explores where those differences are hypothesized to be. So, if Ivan claims that the difference is in endurance, the test protocol needs to measure that effect, and that might be really difficult. You also need a panel of judges to measure the effect, which will be necessarily subjective.

The blind testing part is that neither the tester nor the judges know which mouthpiece is being used. The mouthpieces must be randomized to avoid any bias, and each replication of the test (and you'll need replication to builds your statistics) must use a different random order. Theoretically, not even the guy putting the mouthpieces into the tuba should know which is which, but if the person has a reasonable poker face and says nothing, that probably isn't important.

Once you have your data, then you have to first characterize the light group as a group, and the heavy group as a group. Each group will represent variability, and that variability will include any subtle differences in the shapes of the mouthpieces. Then, you can do statistical testing to determine if the light group is different than the heavy group. First, you test to make sure the averages are different for each measure, using a parametric test such as a paired-t test. Then, if you have a significant difference, you try to model the effect of those differences by plotting your data against a range of measurements, such as clarity, core, color, etc., to look for relationships between the data and the measurement. If you see a relationship, then you conduct statistical testing to determine if it is significant, such as regression analysis.

Sound like a pain in the butt? Yup. But anything less is just a mess of opinion, in which case for a mouthpiece I'm going to use, I'll value my own opinion and those who are listening to me more highly than that of someone who is evaluating the mouthpieces only for their use.

Rick "who takes the opinions of even top players on topics like this as a point of consideration and not as transferable truth" Denney

[lgb&dtuba]

Will variances in embouchures be taken into account?

[Donn]

But anything less is just a mess of opinion

Well, suit yourself, but I would worry that the effort that goes into the first part (setting up and performing the experiment) might be in some ways wasted in the process of trying to make numerical data out of the observations for the second part (statistical analysis.)

I think it would be a significant event if the experiment could be performed for a small panel of sophisticated listeners, and their impressions could simply be recorded in their own terms. If, for example, Roger Lewis goes in saying that heavy can give you more focus but steal color out of the sound, and comes out saying, "well, definitely if you were to throw the mouthpiece at the conductor, there would be a difference", then I think most of us would consider that a mess of opinion that was worth getting. Or, of course, if believers and skeptics alike came out agreeing that there's something going on there.

Forget endurance or subjective phenomena for the present. There's a long standing hypothesis that mass changes listener-perceivable properties, due to simple physics, and it would be plenty interesting to get even a reasonably controlled observation where a handful of experts can agree that they heard vaguely similar differences, or no consistent differences.

Why care? Well, for my immediate purposes I guess I really might not be directly affected by whatever outcome - just have my own light/heavy preferences for other reasons. But I have always felt that reasonably factual information about sound-related properties of mouthpieces is a good thing. If mass itself is a significant parameter, then we have potential factual information that's compromised by the natural skepticism about it. If it isn't, then maybe mouthpiece makers will be motivated to distinguish their mouthpieces in the marketplace on the basis of other parameters, and we'll learn more about backbores and such things that are at present so poorly characterized.

If it seems potentially offensive to suggest that the mass hypothesis could be false, even though so many people whose ears are so much better than mine subscribe to it, well, I hope not. It's an extremely subjective matter that I suppose demands a level of listening that can't be purely objective, if there were such a thing as objective listening at all, and in the end I don't expect much of this is ever going to answer to science. It's just that in this particular matter, people seize on what seems to be a shred of science and want to explain to you how mass does this or that, and on that level, it seems dubious.

[Rick Denney]

But anything less is just a mess of opinion

If it seems potentially offensive to suggest that the mass hypothesis could be false, even though so many people whose ears are so much better than mine subscribe to it, well, I hope not.

I didn't say that the opinion was useless, I merely said that is was nothing more than opinion. I give great weight to the opinions of someone like Roger Lewis or Alan Baer. But that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to state their impressions as objective fact, such as "heavy mouthpieces add core to the sound." Clearly, they did for the person who perceived that, within the constraints of that particular mouthpiece, instrument, player, and situation. Does it transfer? That would take some science, it seems to me.

Your previous comments were directed at separating the difference between subtle differences of shape and the mass. You may not like my converting those judgments into numbers (though, in fact, scientists do that sort of thing all the time, in the assumption that the noise of subjective judgment can be filtered out like any other noise as long as you have enough data), but the only way you'll know is by measuring the effects of a bunch of them in a way that filters out that effect (or that highlights it). Until then, you'll just be speculating, which is, of course, most of what we do on Tubenet.

For me deciding which mouthpiece I prefer, I would give about five points to the collective opinions of all the experts in the world who have never heard me play, 10 points to my own impression, 20 points to a qualified listener of my playing, and 50 points to that same listener three months later.

I do not think that strategy is offensive, nor do I think it is offensive to suggest that it is impossible for any group of experts to be so detached from each other and from their own expectations that they are not subject to severe subjective biases.

Rick "suspecting that the mass of the mouthpiece interacts with the resonance of the instrument and the characteristics of the player in unpredictable and stochastic ways" Denney

[dwaskew]

"Obviously, we are very self-absorbed with our equipment...about 300,000% more than those around us."

and I'd put that estimate at very low. probably more like ten times that.....

[Tubaryan12]

I have used heavy mouthpieces and liked the sound out of the horn.
I have used light mouthpieces and liked the sound out of the horn.
The only difference I have been able to make a comment on is that the lighter mouthpieces seem to give me more feedback through my lips. I like more feedback when playing orchestra stuff and don't seem to care one way or the other when playing anything else. Why?...I have no idea.

[Rick Denney]

Have you ever looked at the crap horn players and trumpet players are chasing around after.

I recall a trumpet player who continually invests in schtuff. The result is an unlacquered horn with Monette-style braces (not a Monette, though), special this and special that, heavy mouthpiece, and most recently lead weights around the bell. Intonation and tone are as bad as ever, with intonation getting worse, seemingly. I think he would achieve his objectives more closely by spending that money on lessons, or by learning to listen to himself a little more objectively.

The guy two chairs away in that section has some old something-or-other. I can't tell one trumpet model from the next, but it's probably a plain Bach, with a generic-looking Bach mouthpiece. And he sounds great on it.

Sometimes people do subtle things to their instruments in the hopes of getting subtle results. They neither expect others to notice nor do they care--they do it to please themselves. But people (particularly amateurs) who need radical changes might be advised to consider radical actions towards improvement before wasting time on subtleties. No sense in dealing with 5-cent anomalies until the 30-cent issues are resolved, and no sense in looking for a slightly darker sound until some sort of a characteristic sound is in place. Otherwise, how would one know if it worked? Hint: There are very few or no radical improvements one can make with equipment, assuming a competent instrument in reasonable condition, and a mouthpiece of classic design.

Rick "a lesson for us all" Denney

[MaryAnn]

Yah....reminds me of when I was a baby horn player. (I will always be a baby tuba player, methinks...) Changing mouthpieces changed my sound, and I went through the collect-a-cigar-box-full stage trying to fix my sound. Then quite a few years down the pike, I had a decent embouchure and a decent sound. Mouthpieces make a very small difference, now; it's about which one works to lock in the partials better and which one has more clarity; the fine points, which is of course what this discussion is about.

I feel for the poor trumpet guy who doesn't have a good embouchure and doesn't know how to get one; he's stuck with fiddling with equipment.

MA

[lgb&dtuba]

But people (particularly amateurs) who need radical changes might be advised to consider radical actions towards improvement before wasting time on subtleties. No sense in dealing with 5-cent anomalies until the 30-cent issues are resolved, and no sense in looking for a slightly darker sound until some sort of a characteristic sound is in place.

Around 10 years ago we hosted Steve Sykes and put on a concert featuring him. During his visit I asked him to play my Sanders for a minute or two so I could hear what it sounded like in the hands of a truly great professional. It was quite an eye opener.

Steve's sound and tone on my tuba rivaled what he was doing on his Eb (Besson, I think it was). I am NOT saying that my Sanders is as good as a Besson. I am saying that someone like Steve Sykes can get a beautiful sound out of just about any tuba (in decent shape). And if you cannot get a great sound out of what you have, the odds are very much against you doing so simply by buying another tuba. No matter how much you spend.

It was obvious to me that until I could sound like that on my Sanders buying another tuba would be a complete waste of money. I still have that Sanders. But I did replace my $300 genuine Selman euph with a TE compensating euph. Some instrument shaped objects really do need replacing.

[Donn]

Hint: There are very few or no radical improvements one can make with equipment, assuming a competent instrument in reasonable condition, and a mouthpiece of classic design.

Rick "a lesson for us all" Denney

I think we've already agreed that the opinions of others are just that - only opinions. So given that it's your opinion, it may be a lesson for you, but not necessarily for me I think.

I personally like to experiment with mouthpieces. (I'd like to experiment with tubas, too, but can't have everything.) Lately I haven't had the urge for a while, but when I do, I'm not ashamed to say that I will occasionally find some improvements with a new mouthpiece that make the experiments worthwhile. That's rewarding to me, and of course that's the opinion that counts.

[Rick Denney]

During his visit I asked him to play my Sanders for a minute or two so I could hear what it sounded like in the hands of a truly great professional. It was quite an eye opener.

I had the same experience (also with a Sanders) during my first lesson with Mike Sanders, lo these many moons ago. I had a chance to compare his sound on the Sanders with what he did with his Alex. My (admittedly many) tuba purchases since that time have accompanied more realistic expectations as a result of that experience.

Rick "who didn't actually dislike that Sanders except for its poor durability" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Hint: There are very few or no radical improvements one can make with equipment, assuming a competent instrument in reasonable condition, and a mouthpiece of classic design.

Rick "a lesson for us all" Denney

I think we've already agreed that the opinions of others are just that - only opinions. So given that it's your opinion, it may be a lesson for you, but not necessarily for me I think.

I personally like to experiment with mouthpieces. (I'd like to experiment with tubas, too, but can't have everything.) Lately I haven't had the urge for a while, but when I do, I'm not ashamed to say that I will occasionally find some improvements with a new mouthpiece that make the experiments worthwhile. That's rewarding to me, and of course that's the opinion that counts.

Are your experiments resulting in radical improvements? Does your playing require radical improvement in order to provide a basic characteristic sound and reasonable intonation? If the answer is no in both cases, you are demonstrating my point (and you fall into the category I described that you did not quote of a person making subtle changes in hopes of subtle effects). If the answer is yes in both cases, then I submit it's not the mouthpiece making the difference, and in a few months the sound will settle back to "you".

There's nothing wrong with experimentation. It's the expectations one brings to the experiments that can cause those experiments to be a distraction from what's really important. One cannot progress from "poor" to "good" through a series of hardware experiments, however successful they might seem. One might progress from poor to good because of the practice during those times, and one my progress from good to a brand of good they prefer as a result of those experiments. But if one is poor, too much of a hardware focus will likely inhibit progress.

Rick "who couldn't tell much difference between mouthpieces before reaching a minimum functional skill level" Denney

[Donn]

Are your experiments resulting in radical improvements? Does your playing require radical improvement in order to provide a basic characteristic sound and reasonable intonation? If the answer is no in both cases, you are demonstrating my point (and you fall into the category I described that you did not quote of a person making subtle changes in hopes of subtle effects). If the answer is yes in both cases, then I submit it's not the mouthpiece making the difference, and in a few months the sound will settle back to "you".

Don't know, maybe somewhere in between. But it's academic, right? As someone with a tuba, I have an interest in mouthpieces and the funds to buy a few. I have appreciated the differences. Maybe other people with tubas do not notice the difference between mouthpieces, because they're better players than me or worse I don't care, but I think it's kind of a shame if it's because they haven't bothered to try, because they think they haven't earned the right.

[Rick Denney]

Don't know, maybe somewhere in between. But it's academic, right? As someone with a tuba, I have an interest in mouthpieces and the funds to buy a few. I have appreciated the differences. Maybe other people with tubas do not notice the difference between mouthpieces, because they're better players than me or worse I don't care, but I think it's kind of a shame if it's because they haven't bothered to try, because they think they haven't earned the right.

Again, you are reading into my words what I don't believe is there.

I never said anything about "earning the right". I said that mouthpieces won't make a bad player into a good player, and those who expect them to are doomed to disappointment. And those who perceive that a mouthpiece has done so are deluding themselves.

Most of us have a crappy sound to somebody. That isn't the point. I have bought LOTS of mouthpieces. But perhaps after the first couple, I never bought one to make myself a better player. When you say you have appreciated the differences, that's fine. So have I.

But if we are willing to say that a mouthpiece results in player improvement, then all one has to do to keep improving is buy more mouthpieces. Presumably, as long as mouthpieces improve (and there's always a mouthpiece maker out there claiming his latest creation is better than anything yet made), so should the players who buy them. This is nuts. The mouthpiece makes a difference, and maybe we like that difference, but it's not making us better. It's making us different, and perhaps in a way we want or that is more appropriate to our situation. The goal of fundamental improvement and the goal of fine tailoring of the hardware are different goals and involve different expectations.

Listening to my trumpet-player friend really clarified that distinction for me. He keeps chasing equipment esoterica, and the much better player who manages to make do with his old Bach and a standard Bach mouthpiece must wonder what the guy thinks he's achieving. He's demonstrably not achieving a characteristic sound and reasonable intonation. I suspect better tuba players and musicians on other instruments listen to me and think the same thing. As I said, it's a good lesson for all of us.

Rick "thinking this is a crucial issue for anyone wanting to improve" Denney

[bttmbow]

Sorry, but I have not read the contents of this ENTIRE post...

Don't get rid of a mouthpiece if you love it; bloke is right. Mouthpieces are personal; get ones that agree w/you and hold onto them, even if you don't have a tuba that matches that mpc.

(Heavy mouthpieces can do good things w/some players on some horns, so make up your own mind.)

[Allen]

This thread seems to have turned into a general discussion of mouthpieces and what possible differences they might make.

A while back I decided I needed an alternative different mouthpiece for my 4/4 CC tuba. I was using a somewhat large piece, and thought that something smaller would help me while playing high stuff. So, I got a smaller piece and practiced with it for a couple of weeks. Then, I asked my teacher for his opinion. He had me go back and forth between the two pieces, then said, "No matter which mouthpiece, you still sound like you." He offered that my articulation was a bit cleaner up high with the smaller piece. [I thought that I could get that effect with more practice.] It seems that I have a sound concept in my head, and I adjust my playing until I hear that sound. I've gone back to just using the large piece with my CC tuba. A friend was horrified when I told him that I traded that smaller mouthpiece away: "You mean you didn't keep it and simply add to your mouthpiece collection?!?"

With my large F tuba, I use two different pieces. The reason is that they make it somewhat easier to get two different sounds that I want (a lighter and brighter sound, or a darker sound with a heavier low end).

Cheers,
Allen

[Donn]

Rick "thinking this is a crucial issue for anyone wanting to improve" Denney

OK, maybe I see why it seems so vacuous to me - a semantic problem that stems from living in a completely different universe where people are striving for something I don't even recognize. Like,

The mouthpiece makes a difference, and maybe we like that difference, but it's not making us better. It's making us different, and perhaps in a way we want or that is more appropriate to our situation.

Huh? That isn't better?

See, maybe it's this: I have never been subject to approval from anyone on the question of whether I was a good or bad player per se. I assume people care whether I can keep up with the music, play in tune, get a satisfactory tone, attack, volume, etc. Of course, these are all things that a mouthpiece can very definitely help with. On my own, I have further ideas about how I would like to sound, but then the mouthpiece plays a role there, too.

But that's all I want - to be different, in a way I want or that is more appropriate to my situation. To be better in some other way, maybe I just don't have the background to appreciate that.

[Rick Denney]

Huh? That isn't better?

I'll try once more, from a different perspective, as much to improve my ability to express what I'm thinking as anything.

Many kidlets read this forum. Some of them are in high school, and some are in college. Some are adult beginners who have money to spend.

They have a choice to make. Will they focus on their own fundamentals, or will they seek to solve their problems by purchasing different equipment? Those of us with a little more experience see that as a gray area with lots of overlap, but I'm trying to pull the white and black apart and understand each separately. So, I'm making a distinction between refining equipment choices for a specific desired effect and buying equipment to solve a fundamental playing fault. It's true that the "desired effect" may make me seem to be a better player. But in fact, I'm bringing the same skills to the instrument as I was before, and buying the equipment has done nothing to improve my skills.

So, I have no beef with people who tweak hardware in search of a desired effect as long as they don't then think (and say) that the hardware made them better. We read all the time about how this mouthpiece or that mouthpiece gives more core to the sound, provides better pitch, cleaner articulations, more fundamental, more color, more breadth, more focus--whatever. They might, but only within the context of that player's skills. If that player does not have the skill to explore that improvement, or if even after the change the player still does not have basic competence, then it's just throwing money at a problem that can't be fixed by money.

Again, my observation of my trumpet-playing friend has made this much more clear to me. I'll bet that he's spent several thousand bucks on schtuff, and that could have bought him a couple dozen lessons with a good pro. That would have been a wiser expenditure, in my view. For him, the money is no problem and it might be a fun science experiment, and that's fine, but he won't know how his experiment turns out because any effect he might be seeking is buried down in that poor sound. I see me in that example.

I have read many times where top pros have come here and told us that the equipment doesn't matter. I have argued that it does on many occasions. But that was before I realized the distinction I'm now trying to make which they probably understand, listening as they do with much more refined ears. In the most important ways, they are absolutely right--a good player will still be a good player on even mediocre equipment. Being a good player on good equipment is better, of course, but moving to the good equipment won't solve any skill problems for a poor player. I love having good equipment, and I like the effect I get by using it. But I really do need to be vigilant about my own beliefs and expectations. It's quite easy to fall into the trap of believing (even if just sub-consciously) that because I have a Holton 345 I can make a big, orchestral sound. That trap is the death of improvement, and if it can tempt me with 37 years of playing experience, how much more might it tempt those with less experience?

Mouthpieces, being more affordable than tubas, are especially tempting targets for this trap. Typical belief: If I get a heavy mouthpiece, my sound will have more core and focus. Yes, maybe, compared to before, but it might still be a crappy sound. (Reminds me of the Cosby joke: "Cocaine intensifies my personality, man." "Yes, but what if you are an asshole?") Much, much more improvement would have been possible by making a few changes to the embouchure and air flow. The way I (now) keep my own expectations in check is to avoid thinking that a mouthpiece will make me "better". When I switched from the PT-48 to the Stofer Geib, I noticed more color and bite to the sound. Given that the PT-48 is a great mouthpiece for clarity, this surprised me. The upper register is also a bit more secure, though I'm still limited by my own skills in that area. The lower register isn't quite as big, but then I use that mouthpiece on a Holton 345, which provides all the bigness the world needs. I came to prefer the characteristics of that mouthpiece over the course of several months. But it did not make me a better player.

Rick "a slow learner" Denney

[Matt G]

I'm guessing here, but I would say that the changes in mass are physically minimal while psychologically subjective. Standing on the bell end while hearing a player of professional caliber switch mouthpieces leads one to believe that the difference is minimal. A good player can go from a Bach 32E to a Bach 7 and have a small change in sound across the money register, but the player will notice the comfort and compatibility which we won't often hear.

The heavy mouthpiece issue is also somewhat misleading, just like tuba debates. Mostly insofar that the player locally may notice a difference, but the outward audience will not. Heck, the best "audience" sound out of all my horns was a 188-5U, and that is compared to a YCB-822, VMI Neptune (piston), MW 32, and a big Frankenstein 6/4 BBb. The closest in sound was my original 186-4U BBb, but it wasn't nearly as good as the 188. The YCB-822 sounded great from the mouthpiece, the Neptune sounded great in the next seat, as did the Holto-phone, and the MW 32 sounded like an Alex up-close, but it didn't carry. The 188 sounded good far away. As a player, I found that most important. When the brass players around me heard the 188, they thought it sounded huge. I played a Rudy Meinl 5/4 CC on a concert, and it didn't want to get past the stage, no matter how loud I pushed.

When playing, I tried many mouthpieces. I brought along a decent musician with a good ear who didn't play tuba. In the end, what normally sounded best was something of standard weight, of a normal size, and normal bore. This was not referring to my comfort, but what sounded best in perspective. Ultimately, I used a Bach 7 and Dillon M1C 99% of the time and a Bach 18 on F tuba (YFB-622) and the York Eb. There is only so much a half inch can do acoustically.

There are many different mouthpiece for many different people. Personally, I always tried to match students with what felt the best and allowed them to tongue and slur well. After that, practice makes the most difference. Horn choice is far more important than mouthpiece, but funds limit most of us to what and how often we can choose. Mouthpieces are more financially accessible, and therefore are often touted as a panacea for tuba players.

Overall, I owned one heavyweight mouthpiece. I was a Bach 6-1/2 AL tenor shank. I bought it for euphonium playing, and the only reason it was a "Mega-tone" was because that is all the music store had in stock.

If you dig a heavy wall piece, that's fine. It's great that option is available. I still think the biggest measurable difference is psychological, and not physical.