Receiver/leadpipe dymanics

[Dan Schultz]

Does anyone have mechanical drawings relative to leadpipe/receiver design? I want to do some in-depth study of exactly what is going on here and will probably end up doing my own AutoCad drawings if there are none out there.

[JayW]

I dont know if they have it on auto-cad but you could try Matt Walters @ Dillon Music since I know he has done a lot of work on the design , especially with their AGR.

When you find what you are looking for maybe you could finally explain it to me in terms I'll understand

[Dan Schultz]

Does anyone have mechanical drawings relative to leadpipe/receiver design? If you find anything useful, a tip would be welcome. I have to do something about the leadpipe on my BBb, since there is no proper receiver but almost straight tubing ending with a small ferrule, with results like in this picture: Sven

Yep This is the sort of problem I'm wanting to find answers to. I've seen many horns with what I think are very ill-fitting receivers or no receivers at all. Some have the taper built right into the leadpipe. When there is a receiver, there is often a step at the top of the leadpipe. On top of that, there is another step at the bottom of the mouthpiece. Most people buy new mouthpieces without ever considering that even minor deviations in the taper can cause a rather large mis-match in the leadpipe. It seems to me that when you buy a new mouthpiece, it needs to be fitted to the horn.

[Rick Denney]

Yep This is the sort of problem I'm wanting to find answers to. I've seen many horns with what I think are very ill-fitting receivers or no receivers at all. Some have the taper built right into the leadpipe. When there is a receiver, there is often a step at the top of the leadpipe. On top of that, there is another step at the bottom of the mouthpiece. Most people buy new mouthpieces without ever considering that even minor deviations in the taper can cause a rather large mis-match in the leadpipe. It seems to me that when you buy a new mouthpiece, it needs to be fitted to the horn.

I think this was part of the point of the Adjustible-Gap Receiver. The notion was to manage the position of the tip of the shank with respect to the joint between the receiver and the leadpipe.

My York Master has a leadpipe that extends all the way to the opening, and the receiver is a collar that is swedged and soldered over it. But there was no taper. Prior owners used small-shank mouthpieces to fit the small opening. Doug Elliott saw the problem and reamed out the opening to build about an inch of proper taper. Then, he shaved a shank to extend into it about that amount. At the time, Matt Walters told me that since I had no gap anyway, the AGR would not be beneficial--there would be nothing for it to adjust against.

I think if you go back through the old archives where Matt describes the AGR, you'll find stuff that will interest you. In particular, I remember a post from at least five years ago by Kelly O'Briant about the AGR on his Yamaha 621. I've played that instrument, and didn't find that it made a glow-in-the-dark difference from my side of the mouthpiece. I wouldn't know the difference it might have made out front. Andy Smith used to own that instrument and might recall something.

You could accomplish the same thing as the AGR with a custom-tapered shank, unless the differences in the gap had musical value such that you would like to be able to change it.

Of course, the AGR has a particular taper size, too. It is not a tool for handling wide variations in shank taper dimensions.

Rick "who suspects the effects are subtle at best" Denney

[Dan Schultz]

Rick "who suspects the effects are subtle at best" Denney

Oh... I agree completely. However, I think several subtle effects might add up to real problems.

Dan 'I need all the help I can get' Schultz

[Rick Denney]

Dan 'I need all the help I can get' Schultz

Don't we all.

I found the old Kelly O'Bryant post, by the way. It was longer ago than I remembered.

http://www.chisham.com/tips/bbs/dec1998 ... /7380.html

Rick "thinking that, as usual, determine what is 'right' is the hard part" Denney

[JayW]

I was actually just at Dillons friday and had the chance of spending some time with a gentleman who was having an AGR put onto his King 2341 (newer) , when all was said and done we dialed it all the way in, and then all the way out playin ght same passages and the difference was, I think, quite noticeable. Now of course that was testing it at its extremes...But from playing and standing back and listening I can see how the distance of thos gap certainly can make a difference and also makes it easier to stay with the same mouthpiece and simply adjust the horn to fit it, instead of the other way around. I also believe the AGR does come with two differnt size "receivers" so that it will more easily accomodate Euro and Standard shank Mpcs.

I do wish Matt Walters would chime in, I know he has a wealth of knowledge and experience on this topic.

[Matt Walters]

Changing the gap at the reciever makes no difference if:
1) The player sucks no matter what.
2) There are worse things wrong with the horn.
3) People have a tin ear and can't hear it. My wife can't hear half the squeaks and rattles in the car that I can. It sucks to hear the heater fan rubbing and the dealership guys won't do a thing becasue they couldn't hear anything quieter than a firecracker.

It won't turn an Ebay t*rd into a gem, but correcting a bad gap setting will make a positive difference.

[Chuck(G)]

I installed an AGR as part of a "Besson shank" refit.

It's truly amazing to take a couiple of "standard American shank" mouthpieces and set the AGR so the first mouthpiece just butts up against the end of the leadpipe, then take the second "standard" mouthpiece and notice that it won't even go in so far as to get a snug fit before hitting the leadpipe.

One of the most expensive (brass) mouthpieces that one can buy is partcularly guilty of a lousy fit when compared with a random sampling of others. Beats me how the manufacturer can talk "precision"when the shank iis so far wrong.

While the AGR expands my choice in mouthpieces, I thought that the original receiver and Besson-shank mouthpiece played just as well as the "standard shank" but same-model mouthpiece does now.

I experimented with beveling the inside edge of a tuba mouthpiece shank to form a sharp edge. I hoped that it would make a difference. If it did, I couldn't detect it.

Lowering my expectations, I wish the manufacturers would learn to cut the ends of leadpipes at right angles, without burrs and to the right length to get a good fit in whatever receiver is being used.

When they start doing that, I figure we can bug them about establishing a real standard for receivers and mouthpieces.

[Dan Schultz]

It's truly amazing to take a couple of "standard American shank" mouthpieces and set the AGR so the first mouthpiece just butts up against the end of the leadpipe, then take the second "standard" mouthpiece and notice that it won't even go in so far as to get a snug fit before hitting the leadpipe.

OK, Chuck. I could put AGR's on all my horns and continue to use my collection of mouthpieces with shank diameters that are all over the place... OR

I could first find the smallest regular shank MP in my current collection and assume that should give me a fair indication of the smallest material condition of all regular shank mouthpieces. Next, I could turn all the larger 'regular' shank mouthpieces to match the smallest one... with a good degree of precision. Next, I could develop an optimal leadpipe/receiver tolerance and as closely as possible, make the receiver/leadpipe combinations of all of my horns the same. Sounds like a lot of damned trouble to do something the manufacturers should have done already

In the final analysis, this probably would not help my tuba playing one iota but I would have the satisfaction of knowing I have done the best I can to provide reasonable equipment. This lack of standards really is upsetting. It's just a quirk of mine probably due to the fact that I spent 30 years in tool design and manufacturing where tolerances really meant something other than just 'the little marks on a ruler'

[JayW]

Dan,

Wouldnt you agree however that these differences you speak of are probably what makes playing the tuba so interesting? AND what allows so many great players to find "their" optimal setup that works for them the way they want it to, instead of a generic standard ?
I am just curious, although I agree with you and your point totally, I am just trying to play devils advocate.

[MaryAnn]

This is not exactly on topic but I keep trumpeting it anyway: leadpipe design, which is a "larger" topic than just receiver design. Walter Lawson has done amazing things with leadpipes:

http://www.lawsonhorns.com/V2pipe.htm

DO take a look.

If he would just design a leadpipe for F tubas, the "stuffiness" problems would probably disappear.

MA

[Lee Stofer]

Everyone has been contributing at least an element of truth to the discussion. Here's my observations based upon what I've played, seen and worked on;

There is a fundamental difference in the leadpipe and receiver on German/Czech low brass instruments compared to those built in the Anglo-Saxon style (terminology borrowed from Mr. Robt. Tucci). The German/Czech-style instruments have a sleeve soldered on to the leadpipe before it is ever bent, and the manufacturer uses a tapered reamer to (hopefully) conform the inside of the small end of the leadpipe to the mouthpiece shank size. Traditional German/Czech instruments do not have a removable receiver, but the leadpipe extends to the end of the receiver sleeve, so you are literally putting the mouthpiece into the leadpipe end on a Mirafone, for example. For a European instrument like this, the better mouthpiece manufacturers back-cut a taper into the end of the mouthpiece shank. It needs be no more than about 1/16", and it makes a huge difference in the response of one of these instruments. On Anglo-Saxon-style instruments (Besson, American-made instruments, many Yamahas), there is a removable receiver that is soldered onto the leadpipe. The leadpipe should tightly fit into the receiver, which has a channel cut into the receiver for it. Optimally, there should be no gap, and if it is fit well-enough, it should be as seamless as the European leadpipe. I play a mouthpiece with either a very thin shank end, or a back-cut shank on both styles of instruments, with good success. If the leadpipe does not fit well, and particularly if there is a little ring of excess solder in the joint (does happen, often), then there will be a bump in the receiver-leadpipe connection. It is possible that introducing a gap (Dillon AGR, etc.) might help compensate for some other problem in the instrument, but, having installed one of these, I think that part of the benefit is having a good, careful installation of a receiver on a leadpipe where all the parts fit (!) I did a repair last week for a university student who had a fine Besson euphonium, except that the receiver did not properly fit any mouthpiece. I removed the receiver, took measurements several times, then opened-up the receiver on the lathe, maintaining the proper tape for his Schilke mouthpiece. It appears that too much silver plating accumulated in the receiver during plating, and once it was cleaned out and smoothed, the mouthpiece was a perfect fit, and the intonation troubles he was experiencing vanished. I also made sure that, as I was re-soldering the receiver onto the leadpipe, no excess solder lurked inside. Mistakes are made in manufacturing every day, and once they are corrected, many no-so-good instruments become great instruments.

[Dan Schultz]

Dan,

Wouldnt you agree however that these differences you speak of are probably what makes playing the tuba so interesting? AND what allows so many great players to find "their" optimal setup that works for them the way they want it to, instead of a generic standard ?
I am just curious, although I agree with you and your point totally, I am just trying to play devils advocate.

Oh yes Aside from my own quest for information on this subject... I am also convinced that the real reason why things all of a sudden seem to 'come together' is that some of these issues finally optimize through trial and error. That quest for the 'best mouthpiece' is fine, but is it really the mouthpiece or simply the way it 'fits' into the receiver that finally 'works'. My goal is to understand what is really happening when my horn all of a sudden sounds good. I guess it is the engineer in me that drives me crazy

Lee Stofer has done a great job of explaining some of the differences in one of his posts. Thanks, Lee.

[Leland]

Speaking of G&W, their super-thin shank tip wall (thinner in titanium than in steel, actually) goes completely against the Monette version, which is as thick-walled as most receivers themselves.

Talk about not having a standard fit...

[tubamirum]

I don't know if this pertains to tubas, but the gap is critical on trumpets. It can be experimented easily by wrapping a piece of tape or paper around the mouthpiece shank, thereby increasing the gap. When you try this be sure to play all ranges as the response changes. Unfortunately, the only way to decrease the gap is to machine down the shank, and that is something most of us don't want to do unless we can afford another m p. Bob Reeves a mouthpiece maker in California has done a lot of work on this topic.

[Dan Schultz]

BTW, my Conn Helleberg mpcs have a shank taper of about 1:40. I thought 1:50 was normal?Sven

The taper should be .050" per inch (total). The actually specification out of Machinery's Handbook is .600" per foot ... EXACTLY. That would equate to 1:20 total or 1:40 on one side. Morse tapers are fairly close but not exact. The morse taper specifications is 5/8" per foot but in actuall practice, the rate of taper is a few thousanths more or less than that depending on the size of the taper.

[Dan Schultz]

I don't know if this pertains to tubas, but the gap is critical on trumpets.

Yup! Research indicates that the higher pitched instruments are affected more by small changes in lengths and configurations.

[Chuck(G)]

You know, a couple of the professional organizations that I belong to set standards (e.g. IEEE). Why not institute an "ITEA standard" shank? For a manufacturer, it means a minor adjustment in tooling to be able to say that his mouthpieces have "ITEA standard shanks".

Just a mindless thought...

[Dan Schultz]

You know, a couple of the professional organizations that I belong to set standards (e.g. IEEE). Why not institute an "ITEA standard" shank? For a manufacturer ... Just a mindless thought...

NOT a mindless thought in my opinion. A standard for the size of a taper would be very easy to do. A simple insertion gage with a go/no go dimension would work. A plus or minus diameter standard is just not good enough. I honestly think that some of the 'better mouthpiece' quest might be over if the manufacturers would abide by this simple standard. Of course... if all of sudden we had great mouthpieces I expect the sales would drop like a rock and the price would triple Maybe we should leave well enough along and just quit sharing these little secrets