Stainless steel mouthpieces

[Chuck(G)]

[rant on]

Has no one yet come up yet with a generalized system for classifying and standardizing these things?

Something like: It's a type 42 rim that's 5 mm wide with a type 73 cup with a depth of 24 mm and 30 mm wide and has a venturi that's 4.3 mm...

While we're at it, might we not also standardize shank dimensions?

A standard nomenclature would let one specify a mouthpiece precisely and allow anyone to turn it out, based on the specifications. This nonsense of a "Harvey Schmidlap Grand Solo Super-Extra" mouthpiece seems to be devised to do nothing but sell mouthpieces.

It sometimes feels to me as if we've got a bunch of kobolds whittling these things out in caves and leaving them around for unsuspecting humans to discover.

Didn't Traugott Rohner try to come up with a comparative measurement system for trumpet mouthpieces back in the 50's?

[rant off]

Thank you.

[TubaRay]

I would certainly agree with Chuck's assessment of a lack of standardization in mouthpiece specs. Of course we must also recognize that a lack of standardization can prove helplful, at times, to the producer, even if this is done at the expense of the consumer. Heck, we don't even have standard means of identifying tubas. It is understandable why we have troubles agreeing what 3/4, 4/4, etc. are. Try making direct comparisons of even something as objective as bore size.

This brings to mind the confusion brought on by the present copyright laws. For the layman, it can be next to impossible to be certain if a given piece is under copyright or not. My guess is that the mouthpiece industry tries to protect itself in any and every way possible. Although this makes sense to me, it certainly doesn't help those of us attempting to be more scientific in our approach to mouthpiece selection, does it?

[Chuck(G)]

[rant continued]

...and while we're at it, how about a mouthpiece that fits the face?

The face is not flat as a board--it has a rather complex curvature.

I'll wager that with a mouthpiece that fits individual facial contours endurance could be improved dramatically. Maybe trumpeters and hornists can get away with a flat mouthpiece because the area described by said mouthpiece is rather small and a plane is a decent approximation.

But a plane is not any sort of an approximation for a tuba mouthpiece to fit the face.

I can get custom-made shoes to fit my feet, why not a mouthpiece that fits my face?

Making mouthpieces of titanium or irridium or whatever is interesting, but it's still using an 18th century process to make something, it seems, that could be made fundamentally better with modern materials and tooling.

[continued rant off]

[MaryAnn]

A year or so ago I found a horn mpc rim that has a "reverse contour." That is, the rim slants in towards the middle, just like the contour of my teeth.Since it's impossible to play horn without pressure, that thin rim can have a real pinpoint of pressure on teh chops, cutting off the blood supply. The reverse contour rim helped me immensely with endurance, with no change in technique.

Since pressure does me no good on tuba, what with the mouthpiece not touching my lips, only my face bones, a reverse contour rim probably would not make any difference. But for those of you with bigger faces, it would be interesting to see the response if one of the makers would produce a reverse contour tuba mpc rim.

Off topic comment: while I'm typing this there is an ad at the of the page that is contantly changing. Even with the T1 connection, it is slowing donw the internet response time enough to make it difficult to type this. Whoever is the "MM" tuba dealer, please change your ad so it doesn't mess up may ability to use tubenet. Thanks.

MA

[Lew]

[rant continued]

...and while we're at it, how about a mouthpiece that fits the face?

The face is not flat as a board--it has a rather complex curvature.

I'll wager that with a mouthpiece that fits individual facial contours endurance could be improved dramatically. Maybe trumpeters and hornists can get away with a flat mouthpiece because the area described by said mouthpiece is rather small and a plane is a decent approximation.

But a plane is not any sort of an approximation for a tuba mouthpiece to fit the face.

I can get custom-made shoes to fit my feet, why not a mouthpiece that fits my face?

Making mouthpieces of titanium or irridium or whatever is interesting, but it's still using an 18th century process to make something, it seems, that could be made fundamentally better with modern materials and tooling.

[continued rant off]

You mean like Art Hovey's Mouthpiece, pictured on his website here:

http://www.geocities.com/galvanized.geo ... index.html

It seems like a good idea. It would be interesting to try one like this and see.

[Rick Denney]

Mass doesn't really matter, it's more of a concetration of mass issue, it has to do with the resonant signature of the body in question (the mouthpiece).

This is interesting. Don't recall hearing "resonant signature" before, is it something like a tuning fork's ability to form a stable vibrating mass? In the range of human hearing?

If I were to propose a poll, so far there are three options: 1) mass matters, 2) distribution of mass matters, 3) only size and contours of the inside matters. Any more?

The impedance of the lips, the impedance of the mouthpiece, and the impedance of the instrument combine to produce the sound of the instrument and performer. The impedance of the mouthpiece is nearly completely controlled by the shape of the air, because it is the air that vibrates. The metal is so much stiffer than the air that its resonant frequency is many octaves higher than the resonant frequency of the air. The ring of the metal is so far out on the tail of the mouthppiece's impedance curve that any effect just has to be extremely subtle if it exists at all. You can hear the resonance of the air by popping the open end of the mouthpiece flat onto the palm of your hand, and you can ring the mouthpiece like a bell to find the resonance of the metal.

Considering that plastic mouthpieces that damp nearly all material vibrations play very similarly to metal mouthpieces that provide nearly no damping at all, I hardly think that the difference between one heavy elastic metal and another heavy elastic metal is going to matter that much.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but brass has more mass density than stainless steel, and MUCH more than titaniuam. But steel is about 75% more stiff than brass and about twice as stiff as titanium, given the same material dimensions. Steel is also much stronger than brass and titanium is about as strong as steel (though these are generalities, because the strength of steel varies all over the place with alloy and work hardening). The density of brass is only a little higher than steel, so any difference is highly unlikely to be related to density.

I like the smoothness of stainless steel--it feels like gold plating to me. And I like the durability and maintainability of it. Those characteristics alone are reason enough to consider it seriously. Ivan Giddings is mighty smart and he insists to me that the steel mouthpieces play markedly differently than the titanium mouthpieces (and those two are more different from each other than either is from brass, in terms of density and stiffness), and I suppose I'm not prepared to argue with him, but I can't think of any real physical reason why it should be so.

Rick "who thinks the mouthpiece shape and not its mass, density, hardness, stiffness, or material resonance explains 99.something% of how it plays" Denney

[Leland]

Ivan Giddings is mighty smart and he insists to me that the steel mouthpieces play markedly differently than the titanium mouthpieces (and those two are more different from each other than either is from brass, in terms of density and stiffness), and I suppose I'm not prepared to argue with him, but I can't think of any real physical reason why it should be so.

I can't really think of much of a physical reason either, but they really do play differently.

It's still a matter of taste whether someone would prefer one over the other (and either over brass). When I tried the stainless & titanium back-to-back, I was genuinely surprised to feel the difference.

And, not sure exactly why, but the tip of the shank wall on G&W's titanium mouthpieces is about half the thickness of their steel models. As usual, I'm sure that Ivan's got the good explanation.

[Rick Denney]

And, not sure exactly why, but the tip of the shank wall on G&W's titanium mouthpieces is about half the thickness of their steel models. As usual, I'm sure that Ivan's got the good explanation.

You bring up a good point that should not be ignored, even if it's not the explanation Ivan would give. A different material might not change the sound much per se, but it might make it possible to fabricate a shape that does change the sound in important ways.

Steel is strong, and so it titanium. As such, it is possible to make shapes that will be durable that might not be durable in weaker brass. The shape I'm thinking of is the tip of the shank. The G&W mouthpieces I looked at had very sharp edges on the opening of the shank. Edges that sharp would dent easily in brass, but the steel and titanium are strong enough for such an edge to be durable. That may well have an important effect on the resulting sound, and if that's what's happening, then we are both right.

Rick "not at all arguing with those who detect differences, but unable to explain those differences in terms of material characteristics only" Denney

[Kevin Hendrick]

A year or so ago I found a horn mpc rim that has a "reverse contour." That is, the rim slants in towards the middle, just like the contour of my teeth.Since it's impossible to play horn without pressure, that thin rim can have a real pinpoint of pressure on teh chops, cutting off the blood supply. The reverse contour rim helped me immensely with endurance, with no change in technique.

... it would be interesting to see the response if one of the makers would produce a reverse contour tuba mpc rim.

That's interesting -- about 30 years ago I had an extended opportunity (more than a year) to play on a Neill Sanders prototype tuba mouthpiece with exactly that kind of rim. It was great! Hated to have to turn it in. Don't know if that design was ever produced, but I'd sure like to have one.

[Ivan Giddings]

Mouthpiece design, and materials are important. The short answer is every thing effects everything. The long answer is that Bob and I and our closest "kobold"' relatives go through a lot of experimentation.
Here are some recent experiments. We have made mouthpieces from 15- 5 stainless steel and hardened them to 42 Rockwell C, and even though the shape is the same as our 15-5 stainless un-hardened mouthpieces the hardened mouthpieces play better in many ways.
So we then made a mouthpiece from a tool steel that could be hardened to Rockwell C scale 62 (this is very hard!!!!) and it played poorlyï

[Paul S]

Good point Joe.

I am sure that every musician agrees that even with all the fantastic new materials and innovative designs we have to work with, it still all comes down to... Is the sound as pleasing to the listener as it can be and will it allow me to to do an easier and better job of creating that most pleasing sound?

[Chuck(G)]

[quote="Ivan Giddings"]Ivan “who wishes my "Kobolds" would have kept a lathe out of my path at timesâ€

[Rick Denney]

As my mind references paper-thin oboe reeds (constructed of bits of shaven cane) playing passages that are (let's face it) commonly far more exposed and critical that tuba parts, I think back to a time when I played a "weaker brass" mouthpiece with an extremely thin back-end...I always felt that it was my responsibility (not the material's nor the manufacturer's) to avoid damage. For that matter, I have access to some contrabass instruments constructed of fiberglass that are quite resistant to being bent.

You don't really know how thick the brass is on that shank. The brass mouthpieces I've seen that have a sharp edge got there by putting a relatively short chamfer on the inside edge of the shank. It's possible to start with a sharp edge and being the taper back smoothly using something stronger like steel, so that there is no chamfer. Doing so will make very thin walls on the shank. In brass, these might collapse, distort, or fatigue if made from a weaker material, no matter how much care the owner takes.

I'm just guessing with this, but it is true the the different properties of materials make different shapes possible.

As to Ivan's report that there is a difference in sound between hardened and unharded steel of the same dimensions, I'll have to take his word for it, but I can think of no physical explanation for it. If that difference were noticeable, a plastic mouthpiece should be unplayable, it seems to me.

Rick "but then there's the beer-can effect" Denney

[Leland]

You don't really know how thick the brass is on that shank. The brass mouthpieces I've seen that have a sharp edge got there by putting a relatively short chamfer on the inside edge of the shank.

Talking about differences in design approaches...

The Monette mouthpiece I fiddled around with a few years ago had a thick wall at the end of the shank. Honest -- it was at least twice as thick as the metal at the tip of a typical brass mouthpiece.

I remember it clearly, because its mere presence surprised me quite a lot.

[Chuck(G)]

Hey Chuck G, do you happen to have any Schmidlaps for sale? I'm looking for one to fit my Original Machiavelli G# tuba.

No, all I have is an Emo Fumppe--all out of Schmidlaps.