king 2341 leadpipe

[Sandlapper]

FWIW, I've got one of the new style Kings and it has a gorgeous sound with the with a Blokepiece symphony with the p size shank Bloke mentioned. The standard American shank stainless symphony would not seat properly, the mouthpiece would just twist while the horn was being played unless I wrapped it in paper or use a brass shim. After I almost pushed the shim down the lead pipe I got one with the p shank. That's a great mouthpiece for the horn.

[Dan Schultz]

I'm glad to see this thread. I keep 'generic' receivers from Allied as well as some of the new 2341 King receivers around the shop and have used them universally for repairs. I didn't realize there was a difference and have not received any complaints.

[Ken Herrick]

To my mind it sounds like what I long regarded as a design fault with Kings has been resolved. On my old Monster rotary and my current 1241 it seemed the receivers were just a shade too small. On the old king I resolved this by turning the mp shank down a bit.

On the 1241 I opened the receiver up so all my Schilke "Hellebergs" go in farther. This slightly reduced resistance and improved overall response but more apparently opened up the low range considerably. The 'preferred note' range is very easy and tunes well and the valved combinations play much easier as well. Certainly no need for a fifth valve and one could get by without a fourth as far as low end from low Eb on down to the pedal range is concerned. You get a nice set of fingering alternatives.

Even with the custom Helleberg F the low range is easy and it meant being able to use a small cup mp for a different tone colour and weight of sound without sacrificing playability.

[Sam Gnagey]

I pay a lot of attention to how the gap between the end of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the lead pipe affects the response of an instrument. I have a student with a new 2341. The American shank mouthpiece he was usinglooked like it went in too far to me. We switched to a Laskey mouthpiece with a Euro shank, and the response, slotting and clarity immediately improved. I agree with the previous post that reasoned UMI had made an error in producing and using these non standard, over-bored receivers.

[Matt Walters]

The nickel silver mouthpiece receiver installed on the current version of King 2341 BBb tuba is the same receiver originally designed for the Conn 5xJ CC tubas. After I made the prototype CC tuba, the factory installed an American only shank receiver on it and freaked out the intonation got worse. They went back to a mouthpiece receiver that fits American and the slightly larger Euro shanks allowing individual players to find something that worked best for them.
If you don't like how little of your American shank mouthpiece is sticking out the receiver, just machine off some of the large end of the receiver and you will see more of the shank. Of course that doesn't change the gap which you can't see.

[Dan Schultz]

The nickel silver mouthpiece receiver installed on the current version of King 2341 BBb tuba is the same receiver originally designed for the Conn 5xJ CC tubas. ..... Of course that doesn't change the gap which you can't see.

Matt... your explanation is absolutely AMAZING! Like I mentioned... I've been using BOTH styles of receivers and couldn't see any real difference in how they fit the horn. I happen to have two Mike Finn MP's with as close as you can get stems and BOTH styles of receivers in the shop. To settle my own curiosity I took the attached images a few minutes ago.

Just for grins... I calculated the engagement using the dimensions from the back of the receiver to both the leadpipe step and the end of the MP stem and they BOTH set up a gap of .340".

They look different but perform EXACTLY the same on the leadpipe.

[Dan Schultz]

It all depends on where the mouthpipe begins...i.e. the "choke point"...i.e. "where the receiver stops getting smaller and the mouthpipe starts getting bigger..."

Joe... I am in firm agreement with you. I think the 'no gap' approach such as can be had by utilizing an older European leadpipe where the receiver is actually part of the leadpipe AND putting a razor edge on the end of the mouthpiece thus producing a smooth flow would be ideal.

However.... modern manufacturing combined with the fact that NO ONE has been able to establish a standard MP shank sort of stands in the way of reason.

Everyone cannot afford to have a MP custom fit to their face and horn. Monette sort of has this figured out. Check out their one piece MP and leadpipes for trumpets.

[Matt Walters]

Dan,
Thank you for the picture showing the internal gap of two different looking receivers that create the same gap. Gap is the space between the end of mouthpiece shank and beginning of leadpipe. You just showed people what is most important in mouthpiece receiver design.
It has been my experience that the gap affects the response characteristics more than the concept of the receiver swallowing most of the mouthpiece shank to prevent the mouthpiece vibrating like a tuning fork (Monette's concept). Sadly, it is easier to sell someone on what they can actually see instead of what matters. Does a Monette style mouthpiece that sits with it's weight close to the receiver play better because of that visual selling point or is it really that the shank is shorter and creating a larger gap inside the receiver?
My conclusion is: If you find a mouthpiece you really like, and then find a tuba that has great sound, intonation, & response on that mouthpiece; BUY IT AND PLAY IT. Who cares what is going on inside if it works well for you.

[Donn]

I happen to have two Mike Finn MP's with as close as you can get stems and BOTH styles of receivers in the shop. To settle my own curiosity I took the attached images a few minutes ago.

Just for grins... I calculated the engagement using the dimensions from the back of the receiver to both the leadpipe step and the end of the MP stem and they BOTH set up a gap of .340".

They look different but perform EXACTLY the same on the leadpipe.

The mouthpieces are American shank and European large, to match the different receivers? (It doesn't read that way, but it matches what everyone else seems to be saying, and explains why you'd need two mouthpieces for the experiment.)

[Dan Schultz]

The mouthpieces are American shank and European large, to match the different receivers? (It doesn't read that way, but it matches what everyone else seems to be saying, and explains why you'd need two mouthpieces for the experiment.)

I was trying to be as clear as possible inasmuch as those mouthpieces in the two different styles of receivers are the same. They measure .530" diameter on the small end of the shank. There is no difference in how they fit the receivers and the 'gap' is the same.

This does not concur with ALL of the statements in this thread but does echo the facts that Matt is trying to state that BOTH of the receivers in question accomplish the same thing. They just look different.

[Donn]

I'm sorry, maybe too early in the morning -- both Euro large shank mouthpieces, then?

[Dan Schultz]

I'm sorry, maybe too early in the morning -- both Euro large shank mouthpieces, then?

Yes. European shanks... different receivers... same 'gap'. The only difference is what you see on the OUTSIDE of the assembly.

The size of these new receivers is merely an attempt by the industry to insure that the smaller tuba shanks do not interfere with the end of the leadpipe. That was never a problem with the older European tuba leadpipes/receivers since the MP shank never really had a chance to butt up against anything inside the leadpipe.

The jury is still out (and probably will be forever) as to how 'the gap' affects things but until the industry decides to adapt a uniform standard regarding the size of the MP shank we are stuck with just experimenting with different things until we find something that works for us.

[Donn]

The size of these new receivers is merely an attempt by the industry to insure that the smaller tuba shanks do not interfere with the end of the leadpipe. That was never a problem with the older European tuba leadpipes/receivers since the MP shank never really had a chance to butt up against anything inside the leadpipe.

My late '60s King 1240 doesn't seem to have anything in there to butt up against, either. More like bloke's diagram if I understand it correctly. That seems like another way to approach the problem, anyway.

[tokuno]

I have a new-style King 2341 and G&W Baer MMVI mouthpieces in both euro and american shank (had played euro-only for some years, before buying the american-shank for a different horn).

The euro seats firmly without looking like it's perching in a too-small receiver (i.e. 'normal' looking)
The american inserts all the way to the beginning of the "flare-to-the-cup", and loosely seats, but will occasionally drop out of the receiver if I lay the horn flat on my lap (valves up, mouthpiece down).

Per eyeball check, the euro appears to be the much better fit. However, the american shank piece speaks better - cleaner attacks, steadier/stabler/better-slotting high range - so I wrapped a layer of aluminum tape around the std shank so the mouthpiece seats snugly and no longer falls out of the receiver, and I no longer use the euro with this horn.

I assumed the difference between the two mouthpieces was attributable to gap difference, and the aluminum tape of course makes the american shank mouthpiece seat not-quite-so-far-in, but I cannot perceive a difference between playing with or without aluminum tape on the american shank.

I was skeptical of the difference between euro & american, so I tried switching back after some time, to make sure I wasn't "honeymooning".
I also had someone randomly insert one of the mouthpieces as a "sort of" blind test (If I focused, I could probably ascertain which was in use)
I've also had another player compare the two scenarios.

Results are consistent in all of those cases - the american shank is the better player (for me on this particular horn - I don't have access to another new-style 2341 to repeat the experiment)

Frankly, the jerry-rigged aluminum tape fix bugs me a bit (not enough to have the euro piece turned down, though), but it has held up better than I expected - it's been over a year and I haven't touched it.
Nevertheless, every time I re-try the euro shank (because it "looks like it should work better"), it doesn't, and I return to the american shank.

[pjv]

Now the question is is this because of a "gap thing" or is this mouthpiece just better?
What I mean is that they are supposed to be the same mpc, just with two different shank sizes, but is it really so?

[Donn]

It sure sounds like "gap thing", but I guess it might be possible to experimentally confirm by wrapping more of that tape around, to bring it up to .530 European.

[pjv]

Maybe try plumbers tape. It's ultra thin and there's no glue residue.

[Dan Schultz]

My late '60s King 1240 doesn't seem to have anything in there to butt up against, either. More like bloke's diagram if I understand it correctly. That seems like another way to approach the problem, anyway.

Donn... there is a counterbore in the back of the receiver that fits over the mouthpipe. The bottom of that counterbore does butt up against the end of the leadpipe. You may not be able to detect it if it's a close assembly done properly. If you go in with a dental pick you will feel a line at that joint. At that point... if the leadpipe has and inside diameter smaller than the inside diameter at the bottom of the taper... there will be a step that's the end of the leadpipe. I don't see this very often on tubas but it often happens on trumpets where the receiver is assembled improperly and the mouthpiece falls out because the taper of the MP and the receiver never come together.

[Donn]

Sure, maybe that's why the gap seems to be a more compelling issue among trumpet players (but ... don't you mean, if the leadpipe has an inside diameter smaller than the receiver?)

As you note, a non-issue in some European tubas (where the leadpipe effective is the receiver?)

I'm just a little surprised to find that my late '60s KIng isn't significantly different from that, since the step is not detectable. At one point around where I expect the joint is, I can feel a very slight bump, maybe a little solder? but most of the way around it's about as smooth as it could be. It looks like they designed the receiver to match the leadpipe bore rather than to have any gap there.

But of course that's history, if they now have mismatched inside diameters and consequently a gap.

[Dan Schultz]

Sure, maybe that's why the gap seems to be a more compelling issue among trumpet players (but ... don't you mean, if the leadpipe has an inside diameter smaller than the receiver?)
.....

Yes. I got my brains and fingers mixed up on that one. I made the correction. Thanks!