WHY funnels for pistons and bowls for rotors???

[smurphius]

All these words.... So confusing.


The question I have in relation to this would be this: Does the embeture of a particular player add another varying factor to this complicated equation, or does simply having lips buzzing on the mouthpiece be all she wrote?

Do particular sized tubas require certain shaped mouthpieces, or does this again relate back to the conical versus cylindrical nature of the beast at hand?

Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.

Bye all.

[TubaTodd82]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't we always be looking for the most efficient way to do something. I agree that in music sound is the most important factor, but what is the point of working harder than you have to. If you can generate a better sound more efficiently why not? If a certain mpc makes you sound the way you want to why not use it, be it funnel or cup shaped. If something can be done more efficiently why would you want to work harder to accomplish the same result.

Todd

[manatee]

Just to complicate matters further, out here on the west coast, I don't really know of anyone I play with who uses a Helleberg. Is this a west vs. east thing?
A lot of people I know here play Marcinkiewiczs which I find too wide, and are, as I understand, a sort of hybrid of c cup and funnel.
Come to think of it, I have always liked C cups! For that matter what tuba player wouldn't?

[TubaRay]

Just to complicate matters further, out here on the west coast, I don't really know of anyone I play with who uses a Helleberg. Is this a west vs. east thing?
A lot of people I know here play Marcinkiewiczs which I find too wide, and are, as I understand, a sort of hybrid of c cup and funnel.
Come to think of it, I have always liked C cups! For that matter what tuba player wouldn't?

As for it being an west vs. east thing, I really don't know. Many in Texas use a Helleberg.

As for the C cup issue, I find I cannot disagree with your assessment.

[JayW]

Well I remember way back when a teacher telling me that this "rule" about funnel vs bowl shaped cups meant nothing to him. and that i should focus on getting the best sound possible. I will agree that there is a difference in sound with a helleberg style vs. the c cup ctyle, but also add that every persons facial features are probably almost as important. In addition, it all comes dow to your ear and what you hear as being good...and hear as not being good. I personally love using german style mouthpieces on my piston valve horn.... but have had equal success with helleberg style. I wonder where this "Rule" of using mouthpieces started and if it was not maybe taken out of context by someone.

[Rick Denney]

I see his point, but since when has music been about efficiency? For me, music is all about the sound...

One of the things I have learned, though, is that the sound and the efficiency are strongly related. I've never known a player with a really good sound who didn't also have a high level of efficiency--getting a lot of sound for a relatively small amount of air.

And the notion that the American sound is without color also doesn't wash with my experience. I daresay that the big sound of a big tuba--in the hands of a big-tuba master like Gene Pokorny or Mike Sanders--has the same upper harmonics that they would have from a rotary instrument. But the mix of those harmonics will be a little different, giving the sound a breadth and resonance not found with smaller instruments. Rotary tubas have a lot of character in the sound, but the big tubas have a sweetness that doesn't at all line up with an adjective like "dark". It's the really big rotary tubas that can get tubby-sounding if the player is not...efficient.

Rick "who uses much more air to produce much less sound" Denney

[Rick Denney]

All these words.... So confusing.

Yup. Words are not terribly effective in describing sound.

The question I have in relation to this would be this: Does the embeture of a particular player add another varying factor to this complicated equation, or does simply having lips buzzing on the mouthpiece be all she wrote?

Yes, the embouchure of the player has an effect. Sound results from resoance, which is a filtering and amplification process, and what resonates is the combination of the impedance of the embouchure, the mouthpiece, and the tuba. All three affect the result. But if you hold the embouchure constant, you can look at the differences in impedance (resonance) in the other two.

Do particular sized tubas require certain shaped mouthpieces, or does this again relate back to the conical versus cylindrical nature of the beast at hand?

More important than anything else is the tone concept of the player. The player searches for a mouthpiece that, when combined with his instrument and lips, produces the tone he wants. Some want a sound with little upper harmonics, others want a bright sound with lots of upper harmonics, and still others want a sound with both, where those harmonics are well-tuned. I fall in the latter camp, but my embouchure and poor air supply puts me in the bright-sound camp. So, I compensate with funnel mouthpieces and big tubas. As I improve, however, I'm finding more use for shallower mouthpieces.

There has been a rule of thumb that big tubas want small mouthpieces, and vice versa. Generally, I have found that rule to apply most of the time for me, though my sample is too small to draw any conclusions. I'm using a Laskey 30H (mid-size funnel) on my Holton, while the best mouthpiece for my smaller York Master is an Elliott T-6 cup and shank, which is very large. I like the PT-48 on the Miraphone, because it emphasizes the power-sound characteristics of that instrument. Occasionally, I'll use the PT-48 on the Holton, too, because it absolutely prevents woofiness, which I don't like even when playing a big instrument.

Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.

Try Horns, Strings and Harmony by Benade, or, if you don't mind a more mathematical approach, The Physics of Musical Instruments by Fletcher and Rossing. The second one has an excellent discussion of impedance. Neither address tubas specifically, but they both discuss conical instruments. Both are available at Amazon.

Rick "with the warning that tubas, like all non-linear systems, are complicated even if you understand the physics" Denney

[TubaRay]

Dixie cups, paper cups, foam cups, coffee cups... They're all great.

Doc

We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

[cambrook]

There are no rules, as many have said. Even if there were, rules are made to be broken The only "rule" is to find what works best for you, and unfortunately you can't really do that without actually trying a mouthpiece for yourself.

Here is what Scott Laskey had to say when I asked him about the differences between the 30H (funnel) and 30G (bowl) and which he thought might be best on my Rudi 5/4CC. As background information I was using a Schilke Helleberg 11 at the time.

My opinion as to which cup is best for you-----
I have always held the belief that the rotary tubas run the risk of sounding like sub contra-bass euphoniums if the player is not careful in their mouthpiece selection. Due to the rotor design, the attacks come out sounding like a "duh" as opposed to the "Tee" quality present in the piston design.
The Geib cup is a bit more brilliant in its sound and will aid the quality of the attack.
Therefore in most cases, I prefer the Geib on rotary valved tubas. Especially if the instrument had a red or gold brass bell.

I think that if you want to make the transition into my new mouthpieces, the only question you need ask yourself is if you want more "point" on the attack and if more brilliance in the sound would help you in the orchestra. If so, then go for the 30G..
If you wand a more colorful version of your current sound, then the 30H.

BTW, I ended up buying both to try them for myself, and use the 30H most of the time.

[winston]

.

[MartyNeilan]

We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

What is this, the football locker room?

Marty "who probably wishes he wore a cup once or twice when playing his horn" Neilan

[Kevin Hendrick]

Dixie cups, paper cups, foam cups, coffee cups... They're all great.

Doc

We're beginning to see cups everywhere.

We do seem to be "in(to) our cups", don't we?

[Kevin Hendrick]

Gad, I don't even know what sorta MP's (c or v) I have. I just stick it in (so to speak) and see if I like it or not!!!

It's a shame more people on this board don't share your attitude.

Yup -- it's a good, solid, common-sense approach. Works for me!

[Kevin Hendrick]

Tubas are so blasted complicated. I wish I knew more about the science of the tuba. Makes me want to hide in the library with some books on the subject if there were any to be found.

Try Horns, Strings and Harmony by Benade, or, if you don't mind a more mathematical approach, The Physics of Musical Instruments by Fletcher and Rossing. The second one has an excellent discussion of impedance. Neither address tubas specifically, but they both discuss conical instruments. Both are available at Amazon.

Rick "with the warning that tubas, like all non-linear systems, are complicated even if you understand the physics" Denney

Thanks for the information on the books! They sound interesting -- looking forward to getting them ordered.

[MaryAnn]

Well, the mpc I had with me when I tried out that Besson 995, was a PT64. Theoretically an F tuba mouthpiece. Sam comment "that is a good mouthpiece for that tuba" and I noticed he had an old PT he was using. I thought it said 53 on it, but I can't find a PT 53 listed anywhere. It was bigger than my 64, but definitely the same shape.

So.

MA

[crbarnes]

I have read all the posts here and did not see any mention of the variation in cups e.g. Helleberg, Geib and conventional cups. There is a difference and these are not the only variations, but are common ones. The conventional cup MPs like the Bach line vary quite a bit from the Geib cups in my experience.

I have a 1291 and have tried at least 20 different MPs AND talked with Scott Laskey, etc., etc.. While the Helleberg (aka 30H) are supposedly better than the Geib (aka Laskey 30G) for piston valve horns, I find that on my horn the 30G sounds better. I "play test" it for people from tuba players to listeners and so far, this is the best sound on my horn. Al Baer, who was on the design crew for the 1291 concurs that this works the best.

NOW, when I borrowed Tony E.'s Holton 345 to play the Ride, the 30H sounded much better, so go figure. The thing I like about the Lasey line is the only variation is the cup so you can really play test them to see if there is a difference in sound, articulation, etc. There was universal agreement in my listening panel (a few friends) that the 30H sounded best on the Holton.

The bottom line is that sound is the thing but it is not just tone, it is also articulation and intonation. These can and are affected by the MP. Shank is another thing. I had a conventional shank as it "fit" the receiver of my 1291. Al Baer was quite adamant about using the European shank, so I tried it and it had all the effects that he said it would, so there is also the issue of receiver and turbulence at the end of the MP to consider.

The "best" combination is the one that is right for you and sounds the best, not just to you, but to those who are farther away. This may sound simplistic, but it is who we play for, after all. Sitting under the bell we do not hear what others do as we play.

All this being said, Arnold Jacobs talks about MPs in
Song and Wind and his philosophy was that you decided what sound you needed for a specific purpose and then picked the MP accordingly. So there goes the idea that there is a perfect MP for a horn.

Where does this all leave us? With our ears and a firm concept in mind of what THE characteristic sound of a tuba is and we open yet another can of worms because it depends on where we are playing, doesn't it? Using a BAT in a quartet or a quintet or a pea shooter in some monster orchestral piece doesn't always make any sense. What initially feels good may not be the best choice either. A pressure player would like a cushioned rim more than a sharp, but should the player get a MP that adapts to faulty technique or change technique? I prefer the latter. Then a sharper rim is of no consequence and one can benefit from the things it offers.

Seems like I have found more questions than answers in my explorations. I have been playing for over 40 years. Maybe in another 40 I'll have THE answer Bottom line? Don't get stuck in a rut and if it sounds good to you and those for whom you play, then it is the best combination you can find. Maybe the pros do sound the same if using a rusty no name MP and a piece of surgical tubing and a funnel, but those of us who are but mere mortals can use all the help we can get.

[CJ Krause]

***

[Tabor]

I think it really depends on the particular mouthpiece, tuba the player and the desired sound. I usualy play either a mediumish sized funnel or a very large bowl cup mouthpiece. They each lend the horn certain qualities which sound good to me, but are very different from each other.

-T