Survey of tuba mouthpiece masses -- results posted!

[bort]

Because I don't have enough going on in my life, I thought it sounded like a fun idea to collect and mess around with some data about the mass of tuba mouthpieces. This is purely for my own interest and sharing with the wider community, when I have something to share. It's not for school, homework, etc...

My particular interest and reason for all of this is about the mass of tuba mouthpieces -- what's an overall range, distribution, etc., and how might it be affected by a few different variables (like brand, plating, shank, etc.). I'm also interested to see what "heavy" means to different manufacturers when it comes to "heavy" versions of tuba mouthpieces.

I realize that not everyone has easy access to a scale that will accurately measure the mass, but it's worth checking. I have a small kitchen scale that I've been using for my own measurements, and that seems to work pretty well.

This might turn out to be interesting, or it might turn out to be completely boring. But I won't know until I collect enough data that I can start looking through some results.

The survey is anonymous, there is no personal identifying information. There is no direct benefit to you for completing the survey, and obviously, it is purely optional. All responses will be helpful and greatly appeciated. And please, be kind, I threw this thing together quickly in a few minutes. So if there are any glaring errors or omissions, please let me know... but yeah... be kind. Any other questions -- please let me know!

At this point, I'm planning to keep the survey open for a period of 2 weeks (closing on June 18). If there are not enough replies by that point, I may keep it open a bit longer.

THANK YOU!

https://forms.gle/ZCagCEu1R4x4zGHH9

[bort]

Statistics only! Keep your engineering jargon outta here! : P

37 replies so far -- awesome! Thanks to everyone who has participated, and keep 'em coming!

(And thanks for the PM's letting me know about various missing brands from the list. Just continue to use the "other" category, and I'll just have to clean up the data a bit before summarizing it. No problem.)

[Ken Herrick]

But I guess maybe some people do.

yep.

[bort]

One reason this came to mind for me was because I was considering buying a heavy version of a mouthpiece I already have.

The Thein RCC has a mass of 195 grams. I contacted Thein to ask about the heavy version, the RCC-H, and was told the mass of that mouthpiece is 199 grams. Heavier by only 4 grams?

Their explanation was that there is more mass between the bottom of the cup and the shank, so while the number is about the same, the outer dimensions of the mouthpiece change its characteristics enough. And also, if I wanted a different mass... Then just tell them what number I do want, and they can work with that.

By comparison, the medium-sized standard-weight Thein RCMF is about 225 grams. And so far from the 40 or so responses I have received, the average mass is somewhere in the 225 to 250 range. So that RCC-H is still less than most regular mouthpieces.

Does mass make a difference? I guess that's up to the player to decide. If it makes the player's job easier, or makes them feel more comfortable and not working as hard to get results... Then sure, it makes a difference. On lightweight mouthpieces, I tend to experience a kind of "ringing" in the mouthpiece at higher volumes. I call it "buzz back", but I don't know if that's really accurate. I also played on a Bach Megatone 18 for about 10 years (318 grams, 3rd highest recorded so far), including all of college and a heck of a lot of playing. Maybe I'm just used to the feel of a heavy mouthpiece.

[Donn]

Their explanation was that there is more mass between the bottom of the cup and the shank, so while the number is about the same, the outer dimensions of the mouthpiece change its characteristics enough.

And they're not the only manufacturer that presents exterior shape as a factor, apart from total weight. One of the few that has given players the opportunity to really decide for themselves is Denis Wick, with the "Classic" and "Heritage" shapes that are quite different outside but apparently the same inside. Their online material includes a Classic diagram alleging that "The profile helps produce a sound rich in overtones", and then for the Heritage, "Much research has gone into the subtle reworking of the exterior shape to give even more powerful maximum dynamics and volume in all registers." Get both and see what you think.

I also played on a Bach Megatone 18 for about 10 years (318 grams, 3rd highest recorded so far), including all of college and a heck of a lot of playing. Maybe I'm just used to the feel of a heavy mouthpiece.

Note that Bach says they put a larger throat in their Megatone mouthpieces. That's a much more significant factor, right?

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[bort]

Thanks to everyone for the replies ... Up to 58, which is probably 57 more than I expected.

Will leave this open until June 18, and then share some findings. Interesting observation so far ... The lightest is barely there (plastic Kelly), and the heaviest is WELL over a pound.

[Billy M.]

Will leave this open until June 18, and then share some findings.

IN BEFORE IT'S CLOSED!

[bort]

Thank you to everyone who participated -- a total of 67 responses to the survey.

Will probably lose a few during data cleaning (e.g., I see a couple of 0 gram measurements), but still, a good showing, and I appreciate your help with this.

I will report the findings here when I have a chance to pull it together.

Thanks!

[barry grrr-ero]

Bort, I didn't take the survey because - since I own only one tuba - I use different mouthpieces for different situations and different rooms (acoustics). Because my Dillon Roylance lends a 'brighter' tone than I care for, I just bought a Tucci RT50+, which has a heavy shell (it's dimensions and rim are rather similar to the Roylance). Now I find out that Dillon makes the Roylance in both a medium and heavy weight (twice as expensive as the Tucci). I wrote to Matt and he suggested I try the medium weight (which makes sense to me). I may do that if I'm not satisfied with the Tucci (I'm playing it outdoors tomorrow). I might just buy a 32.9 rim for my Bloke-piece. I have a 33.2 flat, Helleberg style rim for the Blokepiece, and that's great for really big 'blows'.

In spite of all the technical and scientific gibberish on which way to blow into a mouthpiece and how to buzz your lips, I think it's safe to say that every mouthpiece make and model has its own 'sound' and playing characteristics on any given tuba. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be 50 billion m.p. models and various options. It can even be true with two examples of the very same make and model.

Barry Guerrero

[Donn]

It can even be true with two examples of the very same make and model.

There's that. I forget if the mail-order places used to send out 3 for you to pick 1, but they sure did (on request anyway) for woodwind mouthpieces, and it was no joke.

The variation in critical dimensions has been kind of a scandal with some of the top saxophone mouthpiece brands, though not enough to put much of a dent in sales. The facing is much more critical than anything on a brass mouthpiece, it's make or break at imperceptible differences.

In my personal opinion, the notoriously defect-ridden mouthpieces are "hand finished" - they start with a bin of identical mouthpiece "blanks" and give someone a chance to ruin each one before it's boxed up and shipped. This is the worst possible way to make a mouthpiece to any kind of affordable price. In recent years CRC machined mouthpieces have become available, that need little or no disfiguring human "touch", and these are reliable but not cheap.

And then they make perfectly good mouthpieces in molds, also reliably identical. In the long run (if wind instruments have a long term future at all), the reliable consistency of mold manufactured mouthpieces ought to prevail over the classic milled brass construction. It would have to be some material that actually is reliably precise, which might be polycarbonate or might not.

[peterbas]

Deleted

[barry grrr-ero]

Just play your horns the way that works best for you. All this gibberish is pointless. Let the sound and the phrasing you want be your guide.

[bort]

I learned to play tuba in the 10th grade, because I thought it looked cool, I thought it sounded cool, and it was a whole lot better than playing trumpet. Oh, and the band didn't have any tuba players, so I wanted to fix that.

Beyond that... I think it's outrageously easy to play the tuba. You KNOW what it's supposed to sound like, and there is NO mystery to what your output is supposed to be. It's not hard to understand. Repetition and accuracy... That's the hard part.

Side note -- I just had a nice coversation with a non -US mouthpiece maker, who flat out said that masses of mouthpieces is such nonsense that he wouldn't even measure them. It's that unimportant in his eyes.

[peterbas]

Deleted

[bort]

Tables and charts below, but a few results:

* We ended up with 63 observations. There were 67 replies, but 4 of them were recorded as 0g mass... so they had to be thrown out.
* That's really a pretty small sample size by any measure, but especially since there were so many singleton measurements (1 measurement for 1 brand). Whatever, it's what we got, so I used it anyway. Not quite as scientifical, but whatever.
* The Kellyberg plastic mouthpieces were the low-end outliers, super light! I had forgotten about those!
* A HUGE Romera mouthpiece topped the charts at 780g.
* The middle 50% of the measurements fall between 196.5g and 263.0g, with a big peak around 230g or so.
* Didn't really have a lot of data for mouthpieces described and sold as "heavy" models... so nothing to really glean from that, except that the few that were "heavy", were actually "heavy."

Results below! Thanks again for the replies and free data!

Distribution of masses:


Summary Statistics


Calculation of Quartiles:


Average mass by brand (with number of observations):

[peterbas]

Deleted