What mouthpiece gap?

[je]

This spring I purchased a Willson 3060-FA5 CC tuba, which was my first Euro shank tuba. Of course I got ahold of some mouthpieces with the correct shank, but when I came across discussion here about mouthpiece gap, I started wondering why American shank mouthpieces don't bottom out. Well, it turns out that there doesn't appear to be anything to bottom out on in the Willson receiver, nor the Yamaha YEB-632II (which looks like it might even have two tapers); only the King 2341 has a receiver with a limited depth before hitting the end of the lead pipe. And of the euphonium, baritone, trombones, and tenor horn I have in the house, only the Besson tenor horn and possibly the ~1965 King 3B trombone appear to have limited receiver depth.

This begs some questions, first of which is whether I'm missing something obvious. And if not, how can receiver gap be such a big deal when so many instruments don't have anything to gap with? Is there anything bad about using, say, an American shank mouthpiece in the Willson, as long as the mouthpiece seats without wobbling?

[bloke]

- Most tuba mouthpiece shanks these days are considerably longer than - just as an example - the shanks of traditional American-style Bach-shaped mouthpieces, and...

- Most receivers these days are counterbored in the back so as there's a smooth choke point where the small end of the receiver smoothly transitions into the small end of the mouthpipe tube with no bump.

... So it's quite possible for a mouthpiece to not hit a stopping place at the large end of its shank and for the small end of its shank to extend into the actual mouthpipe tube.

...but I have found that a whole bunch of mouthpiece receivers on tubas - these days - are what I would call "fake Euro".

I could say a lot more, but most of my responses are way too long so I'm just going to stop.

[je]

I dont know who else does this, but Cerveny leadpipes go all the way to the end. There is a thick sleeve that fits over the end, but the end of the leadpipe is flush with the end of the receiver. So it's impossible to have a gap unless the horn has been altered in some way.

[bloke]

I dont know who else does this, but Cerveny leadpipes go all the way to the end. There is a thick sleeve that fits over the end, but the end of the leadpipe is flush with the end of the receiver. So it's impossible to have a gap unless the horn has been altered in some way.

The counter-bored receivers - which have been a thing for quite a while now - imitate this as far as the internal shape is concerned.

It it takes a lot of care and a bit of courage, but I've actually converted the specific type that you described from small tuba shank to standard tuba shank.

Assuming that overpart that you describe can be un-soldered and slipped off without damaging anything ("no red rot" is sort of a nice-to-have), the flare at the end of the mouthpipe (which functions as the receiver) is then annealed, it's enlarged (by simply using a mouthpiece with a standard shank in really good condition), boring that overpart out about 10/1000ths larger on the inside, and reinstalling it.

[1 Ton Tommy]

Gap has been an endless subject in trumpet circles and the amount of same presumably affects "playability" of the horn. I have several trumpets and have measured the gap indirectly with a depth gauge in the receiver against the mark on the mouthpiece shank. Same would hold true on a tuba I assume. My main trumpet is an LA Benge, Ca. 1970, and I come to find out after much investigation that the end of the receiver is tapered down to the bore of the lead pipe. So there is no fixed dimension to work from. Doesn't really matter though because it has a fine sound and I can play 1st trumpet Bach parts on it. The gap is supposed to affect the high register most.

I'm completely unfamiliar with tuba mouthpiece gap but am willing to be educated. Some previous owner turned the shank on my Martin Eb C3 mouthpiece and it's worked well for decades so I never investigated further. However, that Miraphone C3 does not fit my new Wilson but my C4 does and sounds better in the high register anyway. The Martin 33 fits also but really doesn't cut it on the Eb. I have no idea what the gap is.

[donn]

Not that I have any insight as to answers, but it seems to me there are really two questions here -

1. Does insertion depth matter?
2. Is it relative to an inside diameter step at the end of the leadpipe?

We can easily answer the second question with regard to those tubas that actually don't have any inside diameter step, and apparently many don't.

But if precise dimensions in mouthpiece backbores matter, and I think they do, then it isn't hard to imagine that the shape of the exit area behind the mouthpiece shank matters.

We can refer to this as "insertion depth", because insertion depth affects that shape and nothing else. The same insertion depth that would determine the gap, if there were a gap.

[bloke]

Mouthpiece insertion depth can cause or eliminate a reverse taper in the back-bore of the mouthpiece, by exposing some of the small end of the receiver interior.

Most brass instruments seem to work okay with a little bit of that.

A thing that seems to be somewhat of a detriment is for the mouthpiece to extend past the choke point actually into the mouthpipe tube itself... but heck, they will still play.

Almost no one ever discusses the possible effect of the bump down from the end of a mouthpiece to the receiver.

[gocsick]

It's worth noting that Adams Euphoniums now come with adjustable gap receivers.

https://www.adams-music.com/en/adams/br ... p-receiver



Some Trumpet players make s big deal out of tuning the gap for specific instrument and mouthpiece combinations.... but they are a superstitious lot. The guy who explained it to me also insisted that a copper penny under the 3rd valve bottom cap on my Olds Ambassador would make it slot better.. and that I needed invest in precision valve alignment because a few thousandths of an inch will kill the resonance (ignoring the fact that most trumpets have significant radial play in the valves even when precision aligned vertically..... also isn't felt and cork compressible??).

I night be prejudiced.. but I lump fine tuning the gap in with all the other trumpet nonsense out there. Or maybe.... even it does have a minor effect, assuming the instrument and is basically designed properly, I would improve my sound better with extra practice time rather than mechanical modifications.

[bloke]

Whenever I see one of those on an instrument, I start to wonder what problem they were trying to fix.

I've been around for quite a while, so I've had time to pick out some really wonderful instruments for myself. As long as I don't intentionally grab some horrible (or horrible for me) mouthpiece and stick it in any of them, they all work pretty good, and they all work particularly well with particularly good mouthpieces.

[LeMark]

When I owned my. Adams, I did notice a difference by adjusting the AGR. No idea if the gap was open or closed when I found the spot I liked it most though

[MiBrassFS]

.

[Richard III]

One thing that is also discussed occasionally among trumpet players is clocking the mouthpiece. That would be turning it until a sweet spot is found where the horn plays the best. You then make a mark and always have it inserted just right.

[iiipopes]

On the various tubas and sousaphones I have owned and played, with all sorts of mouthpieces over the decades, I must say that I have not noticed any gap issues that affected tone one way or the other. I say this especially with sousaphones, since with the usual two bits and gooseneck sousaphones are totally different creatures in this regard with everything tapering one into the other. Even the King bits, with their slightly different tapers or diameters, if accidentally switched, have resulted in only the slightest bit of stuffiness for me.

OTOH, on my Boosey & Hawkes 1977 921 Sovereign Cornet (the cornet that in the late 1960's changed the way British brass bands play - low pitch, larger bore, larger tone, etc.) that a standard Bach-taper shank and tip diameter goes in just that much farther into the receiver and results in a stuffy tone. The Wick mouthpiece that was designed for it has about a 4-5 thou larger tip diameter and that gives the correct gap to play the cornet with a big, round, lyrical tone with superlative intonation and articulation response. I purchased a K&G mouthpiece recently and I like its tone, being a little deeper and mellower than a Wick 4B, but not quite as deep or dark as a Wick 4. But it was stuffy, the shank and tip diameter being to Bach standard. So I sent it to Reeves with my Wick 4B to match the K&G shank taper and tip diameter. Now my K&G plays with the same big, round, lyrical tone, just a tad mellower than my Wick 4B by mouthpiece design, but without the stuffiness as before.

By contrast, on my Bach CR301H cornet (f/k/a the King 602, then re-branded by the Cyborg), so long as any mouthpiece is roughly to Bach taper/tip diameter spec, it plays well without stuffiness, whatever the make or model of mouthpiece, and I can shade the tone slightly depending on the mouthpiece: bright and brash with a Parduba, standard "American cornet" tone with a Bach 6C, mellow with a Curry TC or BBC, etc.

Yes, gap can make a difference, but there are too many variables of horns, receivers, mouthpieces, tapers, players, etc. to make any general statements.

[bloke]

There’s basically two types/camps of people. One is unconcerned with the technical aspects of their instruments. They plug whatever into whatever and play. They adapt to the resultant conditions. The other wants to know what affects what. They want to fine tune their experience while playing.

This goes for brass players, golfers, skateboarder, cooks, etc.

Unless it won’t seat in the receiver, I tend to like mouthpieces with shanks that are typically in the camp people refer to as American. For me they provide quicker response, which I prefer.

YMMV. Or not.

I quoted your post, because I liked what you posted.


There are so many variables (mostly, with players, but models of tubas are all CRAZY-different from each other), that I mostly concern myself with
- Is this working?
- Is this working EASILY for me?
- Is this sounding as is should sound?
- Am I noticing the instrument or the mouthpiece? (I never wish to notice EITHER, as - to me - that defines a distraction.)

If It's "all good", then I'm good with it.
Yes, I have a line of mouthpieces with diverse shank sizes, rim contours/openings/cup shapes-and-depths...

...but (out of all of those choices) I use mouthpiece set-ups (and inserted into instruments) that I'm NOT aware of, when playing.

Hell...I really try to not be particularly aware of the notes on the page...whereas - once I've seen them as reminders - I try to forget them and (simply) play them. If I "think about" anything (when playing) I try to think of stuff like "What can I do with this line - or even this note - to make that player - over there - sound even better playing their melody?"

or even - more often than some might suspect - "This bass line in this arrangement of this tune is $h!t. I just need to play the changes, and make sure I don't harmonically clash with any of the other four written parts of this quintet arrangement."

the wonky/technical:
Playing is not the time to be concerned with any of that...but players (seeking maximum results) owe it to themselves to find the best (ie. LEAST noticeable - when using it) equipment.

I've put gadgets on my (about as in-tune as I've encountered) instruments to address FINE-tuning, but - were it that I didn't care for an instrument's RESPONSE - I would have (and have) sold it, and (simply) bought something else.
Nothing is a hard-and-fast rule, but (in my experience) the best trumpet players don't have any "supposedly changes response characteristics" gimmickry screwed-onto or stuck-onto their instruments, whereas it's usually the 2nd and 3rd tier (ie. "OK...I guess we're down to calling _________") players who load up their trumpets with that sort of mess.

[the elephant]

or even - more often than some might suspect - "This bass line in this arrangement of this tune is $h!t. I just need to play the changes, and make sure I don't harmonically clash with any of the other four written parts of this quintet arrangement."

I have done this so many times it isn't even funny. In some cases (I'm talking to you, Arthur F.) the arrangements are simply a goofy "rhythmized" melody with four accompaniment parts similarly "rhythmized" and nothing else, so the arrangements, while fun to play, suck to listen to. These are great for "milling music" gigs where no one is listening to us but on recitals or other performances where the audience showed up to hear some music these typically are described as being "cute" (but only rarely as being "good") to listen to.

I have found that simply adding a separate bassline (whether walking or some sort of complementary "rhythmization" to fill in some of the terrible gaps in the arrangement can greatly enhance it.

I have gone so far as to enter the entire arrangement into Finale, apply one of my basslines ("Just the changes, ma'am.") and then see where this works and where it fails, then tinkering with the bassline until it both sounds "real" while filling in the worst of the harmonic gaps. If you do this carefully you get a bassline that outlines the changes while leaving very few gaps in the implied harmony (meaning it is no longer implicit but explicit) while sounding like some very clever bassist was doing a solid job in a combo.

In the case of Arthur F. frequently he writes 7, 9, or 11 chords on EVERY DAMNED BEAT which starts to sound like a musical version of all frosting and no cake. Simply deleting the tuba part usually does zero to the harmony if a good bassline is applied to the arrangement.

We also tend to use a drum kit on these. A bassline and a drummer turn these "overly quaint" 1970s arrangements into something that works very well.

In the case of "Let it Snow," I doubled the length of the piece by adding a solo over changes and a better ending. The result is fantastic if you have a drummer.

I have started "fixing" a lot of arrangements at the gig in this manner. One of the most popular is for an arrangement of a piece by Marc-Antoine Charpentier to take all the eighth note runs and other like figures and double dot them, which we call "French" style, for lack of a better term. It really pimps out the arrangement with the (limited and tastefully) added ornamentation

There is a lot of very sketchy material in the quintet literature. The bar is low at some publishing houses. Do they actually listen to these before they engrave the parts and slap a price tag on them?

[bloke]

The arrangement (that brass quintets gush over) of "A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square" features nice changes - and is a nice arrangement - but a bit too static, rhythmically. Also, the bass notes written are just fine, but (again) the bass line - in that arrangement - just doesn't add/define any pulse.

I add (subtle/tasteful/NOT "hey look what I can do!!!") "electric bass-ish" figures (where helpful) to define the pulse, just a bit more...a few of those figures that I add might be wiggly and octave-y, but never intrusive, and always "background" (ie. "music"). Hell, there's no drummer playing brushes...Western music...and most ALL music - even "free/cadenza" stuff - relies on PULSE.

I also push (tempo) the bridge on that arrangement (to add interest...ie. "music"...and it fits the unsung words to do that as well...and the melody - as well - becomes busier...) and then settle back when the song returns to the "A".

[the elephant]

Yeah, that is an excellent transcription of the Manhattan Transfer arrangement. It is a capella, so no bassline, just voices. I have tried adding to that one, too, but ended up going back to the written part. We play that all the time in both my quintets. I entered it into Finale years ago because the handwritten parts (and likely five generations of Xeroxing) have made them hard to read, and we do a few things with stretches to be more like the recording, so I added notation for that so it is not "added in" but part of the original part.

NB - We also push the bridge a lot as MT does it on the album. It is sort of too free to apply a bassline the way we play it. It is like an ensemble recitative and takes a LOT of eye contact to pull off that way.

[MiBrassFS]

.

[the elephant]

As a general rule, trumpeters are gullible; not open-minded, but genuinely, wantonly, excitedly gullible. I laugh at most of them for their silliness.

When you google "gullible" it shows a photo of an orchestra trumpet section.

[Mary Ann]

When you google "gullible" it shows a photo of an orchestra trumpet section.

Not going to bite on that one. Mr google and his trumpet section can live without me.