Receiver/leadpipe dymanics

[Rick Denney]

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...

Oh, hell. Not another fricking standards committee.

Rick "already tormented by too much work in standards committees" Denney

[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, it means a minor adjustment in tooling to be able to say that his mouthpieces have "ITEA standard shanks".

Just a mindless thought...

Oh, hell. Not another fricking standards committee.

Rick "already tormented by too much work in standards committees" Denney

Yeh.... BUT standards for tubas You'ld have to love it

[Bob Mosso]

Oh, hell. Not another fricking standards committee.

I feel a standard would be best in this instance, but it would probably work out something like this:

Draft version of ITEA-666 submitted for industry comment, Japan forms a JITEA committee, the two main Japanese manufacturers don't agree so JITEA-666 and JITEA+666 are created, the European Union creates EUITEA-666 a direct copy the ITEA spec except in two languages, the EUITEA-666 was supposed to take effect in 2006 but is pushed out indefinitely, the EU dumps EUITEA-666 in favor of the new EUITEA-60666-3-2, China markets mouthpieces that claim to meet all of the international specs but doesn't actually meet any of them, the Germans are still on vacation.

[Chuck(G)]

Oh, hell. Not another fricking standards committee.

Rick "already tormented by too much work in standards committees" Denney

I feel your pain, Rick. Let's start the reform by repealing all of those nasty ASME standards for fasteners. Think of the added billable hours as you painstakingly specify the dimensions of every single rivet, nut, washer and bolt in a design.

A simple standard for a mouthpiece shank outer dimensions might make a lot of sense.

Chuck "who knows the pain of standards committees firsthand, but is glad that their work was respected by industry"(G)

[Kevin Hendrick]

Oh, hell. Not another fricking standards committee.

I feel a standard would be best in this instance, but it would probably work out something like this:

Draft version of ITEA-666 submitted for industry comment, Japan forms a JITEA committee, the two main Japanese manufacturers don't agree so JITEA-666 and JITEA+666 are created, the European Union creates EUITEA-666 a direct copy the ITEA spec except in two languages, the EUITEA-666 was supposed to take effect in 2006 but is pushed out indefinitely, the EU dumps EUITEA-666 in favor of the new EUITEA-60666-3-2, China markets mouthpieces that claim to meet all of the international specs but doesn't actually meet any of them, the Germans are still on vacation.

ROTFLMAO ... ain't that the truth! (been there a few times)

[Rick Denney]

Chuck "who knows the pain of standards committees firsthand, but is glad that their work was respected by industry"(G)

You aren't telling me that you are actually taking my comment seriously, are you?

You know better.

I hate those standards committees, but I still sit on them.

Rick "who persuades his bosses that it is important" Denney

[Dan Schultz]

Chuck "who knows the pain of standards committees firsthand, but is glad that their work was respected by industry"(G)

You aren't telling me that you are actually taking my comment seriously, are you?

You know better.

I hate those standards committees, but I still sit on them.

Rick "who persuades his bosses that it is important" Denney

Spent more time than I care to remember in ISO meetings. I got one automotive suppier certified in less than six months What can I say ... it was a living Glad those days are over.

[Chuck(G)]

Spent more time than I care to remember in ISO meetings. I got one automotive suppier certified in less than six months What can I say ... it was a living Glad those days are over.

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

[ThomasDodd]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

BASIC on steriods. Yeah, I remember it.
I glad I never had to use it though.

[Chuck(G)]

Bill, it might be the gap, or it might just be the mouthpiece-leadpipe equation has changed some. I've always thought that the small-shank Besson tubas played very nicely with the appropriate mouthpiece. In particular, small-shank Denis Wick mouthpieces seem to work very well with Besson/Booseys.

If you think a gap might help, try wrapping a bit of tape around your mouthpiece shank to act as a shim. Plumber's teflon joint tape is very inexpensive, thin and conforms well to odd shapes.

[Dan Schultz]

I have a 1976 B & H Imperial E flat on which I changed the small leadpipe and receiver to the bigger one used on the 981s. ..... Do you think the missing gap is a problem?

Bill, I am not familiar with the mouthpipe/receiver setup on the B & H horns. However, from the information I've been able to gather, the absense of a gap is a good condition... as long as the mouthpiece seats properly in the taper. I am curious about something, though... is the small end of your mouthpiece smaller than the smallest part of the leadpipe? In other words, even though there is no gap, is there a radial step between the end of the mouthpiece shank where it meets the leadpipe?

[Joe Baker]

Think of the added billable hours as you painstakingly specify the dimensions of every single rivet, nut, washer and bolt in a design...

I'm not opposed to a move toward standardization; but consider that there are thousands upon thousands of EXTREMELY expensive random-sized "nuts" out there, and standardizing the "bolts" is going to fix everything?
______________________________
Joe Baker, who thinks local repair shops are going to have a lot of business bringing old "nuts" into compliance with new "bolts", and certain old "bolts" will gain cult status beyond anything we've seen to date.

[Chuck(G)]

I'm not opposed to a move toward standardization; but consider that there are thousands upon thousands of EXTREMELY expensive random-sized "nuts" out there, and standardizing the "bolts" is going to fix everything?

No, Joe, it won't fix everything, but it's a start.

[Joe Baker]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

You mean FORTRAN 90, 77, IV? (Altogether now... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.)

I'm actually looking at my FORTRAN manual right....NOW!
________________________________
Joe Baker, who hasn't looked INSIDE his FORTRAN manual in close to 20 years, however.

[Chuck(G)]

X3J3 for me--you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

You mean FORTRAN 90, 77, IV? (Altogether now... the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.)

Actually, the goal was supposed to be FORTRAN 88, but there was just too much er, "discussion" to make that deadline (I don't think anyone was really happy with the end result--I'd moved on long before the standard was adopted).

Language standards are a funny kettle of fish. They initially defined the minimum supported subset (e.g. USA BASIC FORTRAN--you'd really have to be a relic to remember that one) and extensions were a free-for-all game.

Well, if you alow extensions, then every vendor has his own extensions--and the vendor's customers will use those extensions--and then you have IBM FORTRAN, CDC FORTRAN, DEC FORTRAN, etc. And you're back where you started without standards.

I think it was the COBOL 75 group that first drew the line and said "if you want to claim to be a standard implementation, then you may not implement extensions to the language without the explicit consent (e.g. a command-line switch) of the user and you must not be silent on nonstandard usages."

For F8x, there was a different question: "Are we here to certify existing practice (e.g. do we call IBM VECTRAN standard) or do we write a new language?" That was a hard one--no vendor wants his implementation of a neat feature to be called "nonstandard". and there were threatened walkouts of major participants. I think much of the discontent came from the committee authoring in essence, a brand new language.

But at the end, I think, while standards evolve, the results are worthwhile.

30 years ago, if you walked into a bicycle shop and asked for a bottom bracket, you'd have to know what kind: BSC, French, Italiian or Swiss, which differed from one another in almost every conceivable way--in diameter, spacing, thread direction, thread pitch and thread profile. Did any offer advantages over the others--sure, but the advantages were slight and, in most cases, of little tangible value.

I think we could do with a standard for mouthpiece shanks--this doesn't preclude a manufacturer of mouthpieces from offering special-order products for some vintage receiver type (so-called "deprecated" usage). But it does provide a strong impetus for new products to conform to the standard.

Forgive the OT rambling.

[Dan Schultz]

I'm not opposed to a move toward standardization; but consider that there are thousands upon thousands of EXTREMELY expensive random-sized "nuts" out there, and standardizing the "bolts" is going to fix everything?

My original intent was for this thread to broaden my own wisdom and also make it known to others that there are flaws in the processes by which tubas (and anything for that matter) are manufactured. I tend to develop my own standards where I feel they are applicable.

[OldBandsman]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

[Rick Denney]

you guys remember FORTRAN, right?

Not if I can help it.

Rick "who spent years digging around in FORTRAN traffic simulation models" Denney

[Rick Denney]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

Yes. I always recommend using the tuning bits made by the instrument's manufacturer. King bits have a bit more angle than Conn bits, and some required custom bits to fit a particular leadpipe arrangement.

Rick "who still has a couple of Conn bits lying around" Denney

[Dan Schultz]

This is sort of back to the original question...

Do tuning bits used on sousaphones and helicons have the same problems? Seems to me they might double the chances for trouble.

Yes. I always recommend using the tuning bits made by the instrument's manufacturer. King bits have a bit more angle than Conn bits, and some required custom bits to fit a particular leadpipe arrangement.

Rick "who still has a couple of Conn bits lying around" Denney

Martin and Bundy seemed to taken things a step further... Their bits appear to have been designed to maximize unobstructed flow through their bits.