Shallow mouthpieces

[Tubaryan12]

Are there any negatives to playing a mouthpiece that is too shallow? The only mouthpiece I've spent any considerable time on that would be considered shallow is the Marcinkiewicz N4. I loved the tone, but the cup was too wide for me. I'm considering having a couple of Bach 22 rims shaved down and re-contoured to rid them of nicks and I though I would take them down a millimeter or 2 to see what would happen. Any thoughts? I have 2 or 3 that would make good candidates for this. One I hope to match the rim from my Perantucci 12 mouthpiece, one I wanted to have a standard Bach rim contour. Any suggestions for the 3rd would be helpful. Should any adjustments to the throats and backbores be done at the same time?

T.N.F.J......have at it.

[Kevin Hendrick]

You might consider the Marcinkiewicz ST4 -- I have one, and like the sound, but the throat diameter is rather small (0.302"), and the high range (top of the staff and above) tends to go flat. Bloke had one (don't know if he's sold it yet), and he enlarged the throat on his to around 0.325" ... I would think that'd be a good modification. The ST3 might also work well (same diameter, but deeper cup, though both are shallower than the N4).

The only problem I can see with going too shallow is that your lips might brush the bottom of the cup, upsetting the buzz ...

[imperialbari]

The only problem I can see with going too shallow is that your lips might brush the bottom of the cup, upsetting the buzz ...

It you look at many tuba and bass trombone mouthpieces, they most often start with a cylindrical portion exactly with the purpose of offering a free space for the buzzing lips. I remember one large bassbone mouthpiece, which actually expanded from the aperture down to where the cup portion starts. Only I don’t remember which model.

bloke announces the blokepiece as shallow. It is so with two disclaimers not yet denied by bloke. It starts with a cylindrical portion sufficiently deep to allow for a healthy buzz. And it has the reverse throat taper. Both features taking the worst limitations out of a shallow cup.

To the OP: If you do the shaving yourself, and if you ultimately can afford loosing the mouthpiece(-s)in question, then go for it. Work in small increments and test thoroughly. If you achieve a good and desirable result please be aware that shaving even more it not at all guaranteeing an even better result.

For tech reasons the brass alloys used for mouthpieces contain lead. Apply strong hygiene. No dust in the air and no dust on your lips. Have the mouthpiece plated as the last stage of the process.

Klaus

[Kevin Hendrick]

The only problem I can see with going too shallow is that your lips might brush the bottom of the cup, upsetting the buzz ...

It you look at many tuba and bass trombone mouthpieces, they most often start with a cylindrical portion exactly with the purpose of offering a free space for the buzzing lips. I remember one large bassbone mouthpiece, which actually expanded from the aperture down to where the cup portion starts. Only I don’t remember which model.

I was thinking of the Loud LM-12, which is (as I understand it) considerably shallower than any other currently-offered tuba mouthpiece (well under an inch). I understand it does expand significantly from the aperture downward, which would help. The two Marcinkiewicz mouthpieces I was talking about are in the 1.2" - 1.3" cup depth range, so wouldn't be a problem.

[Donn]

Are there any negatives to playing a mouthpiece that is too shallow?

Semantically, that's a given. There must be some negative consequence, or it wouldn't be "too" shallow.

Practically ... well, there's probably a reason why mouthpieces are like they are, but once in a while the reasons for such things are crummy ones, so it's always good to try something before taking everyone's word for it. My understanding is that the effects of a shallow cup, and a narrow cup, are not fully independent - a wide but shallow cup may resemble a deep but narrow cup in some respects - so it sounds like you're headed for the extreme end of the spectrum.

[iiipopes]

A shallower cup usually reinforces upper overtones, sometimes at the expense of fundamentals. If you tend to "stick your face in" the mouthpiece, you can "bottom out" and lose any room for the embouchure to vibrate, as has been noted.

As far as cleaning up and recontouring the rims, contact Matt & Vladimir @ Dillon Music for their expertise in such. They have advised me in the past regarding mouthpieces and modifications and I have been absolutely satisfied with their recommendations and work, including their inhouse replating.

And as above, there is no substitute for try before you buy or modify. I'd borrow some examples to try before diving into the modifications.

Generally, the throat and backbore are matched to the overall geometry of the cup. I don't think that the small amount of metal to be removed from a rim to smooth and recontour it is sufficent to warrant any modifications elsewhere. At least it wasn't on the Curry 128D that I had the rim modified. But then again the Curry does have a rather deep cup so there was not as much proportional difference involved, either.

I also noticed that when I had the opportunity to try the entire PT line at a showing that the smaller throated mouthpieces also went flat for me in the upper register. But it's not so simple as simply getting a .324 drill bit and going at it. The geometry of the throat as it transitions the backbore also has impact on intonation and "slotting" characteristics, so care has to be taken in this regard. Generally, as the throat diameter is increased, if it is just a straight drilling, then the throat is effectively lengthened, which will tighten the slotting, and may affect the intonation in other parts of the range. If the bit is "wobbled," or rotated so that the throat is blended more into the backbore, then the slotting tends to widen, but can also affect the response of the mouthpiece.

The bottom line is that mouthpiece modification involves a great many interrelated variables that are difficult to isolate when the performance of a single variable is at issue, in this thread the geometry of the cup.

[jon112780]

In my own limited playing, I've found:

1a.) Shallow mouthpiece = narrower (stiff) 'slots' / faster response / brighter sound / easier high range
1b.) Deep mouthpieces = wider (loose) slots / slower response / darker sound / easier low range

2a.) Shallower mouthpieces usually make the horn's 'slots' more obvious, (good if the horn plays in tune, bad if it doesn't).
2b.) Deeper mouthpieces give your chops more 'wiggle room' to find the pitch (fine if you have a good ear, bad if you don't).

3a.) German style rotary horns usually have narrower 'slots' (less easily manipulated by your chops).
3b.) American style piston horns usually have wider 'slots' (more easily manipulated by your chops).

4a.) Horn plays perfectly in tune = choose whatever mouthpiece will help generate your preference between color and response.
4b.) Horn plays moderately in tune = find a nice blend of color and response, while keeping intonation in the back of your mind
4c.) Intonation sucks = get a different horn ($$$) -OR- find a different/deeper mouthpiece to (hopefully) make intonation managable.

Take this for what it's worth...

[Tubaryan12]

Some clarification:

I will not do this modification myself. No way, no how. Re-plating will be done, of course. Using my cheap but trusty Harbor Freight digital calipers, I have just over 12 mm of rim to play with in total. I only plan on shaving off between 2 to 6 mm in total. I have nothing to loose with this experiment except my cash and time. I have 4 Bach 22's in total. One I will leave the same or have it match the mouthpiece I like best after the experiment. 1 has small dings so that one I would shave the least. The other 2 have major issues on the rim and on the outside of the cup so those I can go to the extreme if I choose. Total dept of the mouthpieces is approx. 37 mm deep (1.46 inch) so 6 mm off puts me at 31 mm (1.22 inch). That puts me about the depth of the Marcinkiewicz ST4.

[iiipopes]

Last weekend I got to try a G&W new Baer. It has a moderately shallow funnel. The mouthpiece, to me, was the incarnation of what could be called an uber-Conn 7B. Good intonation, good centering, a lot of overtones available to shade in whatever direction was required, and not so wide as to lose your embouchure in the bottom of a bathtub.

[Tubaryan12]

G&W new Baer. ......The mouthpiece, to me, was the incarnation of what could be called an uber-Conn 7B...

That's what I thought G&W thought about the Matanuska:

Based on a Helleberg 7b, but with better pitch, articulation, and clarity of sound.

[iiipopes]

G&W new Baer. ......The mouthpiece, to me, was the incarnation of what could be called an uber-Conn 7B...

That's what I thought G&W thought about the Matanuska:

Based on a Helleberg 7b, but with better pitch, articulation, and clarity of sound.

Indeed. So also goes the Baer.

[Tubaryan12]

TubeNetizens,

Recently, I started playing on a Miraphone TU-23 mouthpiece and I like the shallow cup alot. Problem is that the throat bore is too small (7.50mm). I would like a mouthpiece with about the same cup depth and inside diameter (32.50mm), but a throat between 7.9 and 8.20mm. I'm not quite ready to bore out the TU-23. Any suggestions?

[KHHS]

I would like a mouthpiece with about the same cup depth and inside diameter (32.50mm), but a throat between 7.9 and 8.20mm. I'm not quite ready to bore out the TU-23. Any suggestions?

The JK 4D (Joseph Klier) comes close to that with a bore of 7.8mm. But i can't tell more, since i have played neither.