vitamin E, frequency response, and cute curves

[bloke]

not-at-all, in my experience.

Years ago, I was sent this (mailed to Texas - as Mrs. bloke and I were enroute, where my son-in-law formerly lived) the day before a shared recital with him at UT Arlington.
(At that time, he was principal horn in Fort Worth.)

I plugged it in, and it played PRECISELY like my non-skeletonized (identical INTERIOR dimensions) mouthpiece that I had been using.
I thought it was a hoot, so I used on our at-his-house one-time run-though, at the university for the one-time run-though with Steven Harlos (AMAZING pianist) and on the recital. It was the SAME as my other mouthpiece...NO difference (other than looks).

Oh yeah: The RIM was ALSO skeletonized.

The "skeletonized" rim design was kept, and is what is produced to this day.
Those of you who bought some of my very early mouthpieces (and then later bought others) surely noticed the difference.

Mouthpieces are thick chunks (even when skeltonized) of brass, steel, Lexan, bronze, or what-have-you. They are not conducive to vibrating, and a reasonably smooth interior finish will send the player's vibration into-and-through the instrument the same way, if the interior shape is the same.

OK...plastic rims (and more-easily-scratched silver/gold-plated mouthpieces - once scuffed...even by light beard stubble - are more "grippy" than rims which are far more scratch resistant (steel, titanium, etc.) and that contact difference can affect flexibility, but that's about it ASSUMING everything else (rim contour and all interior dimensions) are the SAME.

TRUMPET players' instruments are small and can weigh at little as 2 lbs., so - when they play on a skeletonized OR bulked-up mouthpiece, they will likely FEEL the difference in WEIGHT, whereby they might easily confuse the tactile with the sonic (as so often happens with musicians from beginners to accomplished professionals).


I'm not going to argue with anyone about this. (again: Argue with your spouse or you significant-other...That's what they're there for.) People disagree with each other on things far more obvious that this.

IMPORTANT detail from above which (I tend to suspect) many will tend to overlook:
The rim contours and ALL interior shapes must be identical for two mouthpieces to play the same, but an oz. or two of more-or-less material...nope, no difference.

OK...Perhaps I'm just insensitive.

[dsfinley]

I agree with this. I think the PT-50 and PT-50+ are equally as hard to play on.

[gocsick]

I did a literature search after reading some of your earlier comments on this subject Joe. I found exactly one paper where mouthpiece mass was studied. The relevant bit is

“This and other evidence suggests that increasing the mouthpiece mass does not significantly alter the coupling between the air vibrations and the shell vibrations.”

Hockie, P. L., and D. Kjar. "Tactile feedback from brass instrument shell and air column vibrations.” Abstract 5aBV5, 127th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), 1994.

In this context s “shell vibrations” means mechanical vibrations of the instrument’s structure as opposed to vibrations of the air column inside the bore.

I found zero studies that explored the effect of Mouthpiece mass on acoustics of the actual sound produced. I tend to think that people who actually study acoustics and the physics of brass instruments instead that the effect size must be close to zero.

[tubanh84]

I agree with this. I think the PT-50 and PT-50+ are equally as hard to play on.

I don't know if it was my two specific mouthpieces or what. I'd never had much of a preference for megatone or + or whatever people were calling them mouthpieces, EXCEPT my 50 and 50+.

Background - this was all on my PT6 (rotary)
The 50 was wild. If I needed bright, raw, noisy, loud, you name it, I went with the 50. That thing had no limit.
The 50+ was a LOT more refined. I could control it much easier. It didn't have the same top end as the 50, but it was a much more flexible mouthpiece.

I made the 50+ my everyday mouthpiece and really only plugged the 50 in to amuse myself and remind me why I liked the 50+.

I also couldn't play EITHER mouthpiece unless I was really in shape. If I took a few weeks or months off, I'd play my Helleberg for the first week back and then switch to the PTs.

Then I found the Mike Finn H and really haven't looked back.

[bloke]

I'm pretty sure that any of the Bach Megatone mouthpieces - compared to the standard similarly numbered models - feature larger throats. Thus, their interiors are not identical, which is why they play differently from the standard models - having nothing to do with weight or mass.

[bort2.0]

I'm pretty sure that any of the Bach Megatone mouthpieces - compared to the standard similarly numbered models - feature larger throats. Thus, their interiors are not identical, which is why they play differently from the standard models - having nothing to do with weight or mass.

Here are the specs for Bach standard and Megatone mouthpieces:

Standard: 8.33mm/.328"
Special: S, 8.84mm/.348" (Standard 24W, 24AW, 7 & 18)
9.00mm/.354" (Standard Mega Tone 7, 18 & 24AW)
R, 8.62mm/.339" (Standard Mega Tone 12 & 22)
https://mouthpieceexpress.com/specshub/ ... bores.html

I've used a Bach Megatone 18 for more than half of my 30+ years of playing the tuba, on many fancy and not fancy tubas. I bought it when I was about 14 or 15, and used it like it was the only mouthpiece in the world (throughout HS, college, and beyond)... not because it was the world's most perfect mouthpiece, but because I didn't have any money, and since it was the mouthpiece I owned, it WAS the only mouthpiece in MY world. I've even been using it in the orchestra again this winter/spring.

Yes, the large backbore makes a difference (probably ALL of the difference).

I do think the added mass can be beneficial.

One of the things that bothers me tremendously with normal/lightweight mouthpiece is what I call "buzz-back." I'm not quite sure how to describe or explain it, but it's sort of like you can feel the horn and the mouthpiece not working so happily with each other -- possibly that the resonance of the tuba is noticeable back to the mouthpiece itself. It doesn't always happen, and seems to happen more with some tuba/mouthpiece combinations than others.

It's usually something in the "feel" of the mouthpiece, but other times it almost seems to have a hollow sort of vibration/buzz sound that is audible. (Again, more like resonance, since your head and skull/bones are connected to something that is vibrating).

When this happens, if I take my hand and put it on the mouthpiece, it deadens the resonance and vibrations and the feel (and ?maybe? the sound) improves, and it's a more pleasant experience as a player. Or, if I use the MegaTone, then I don't get this experience at all. I'm not sure it's as science-y as sending the vibrations and resonance back to the bell, but it does seem to eliminate and dampen the resonance at the mouthpiece, which I don't want.

It's sort of like the leather belt around the bell (or "tone strips" or "tone ring")... but the mouthpiece version of it. I'm not sure it affects the sound. But if it makes playing a little more enjoyable and comfortable for me, then I'm going to do a better job of playing the tuba.

In the end though, I mostly use it because I own it.
And because 20+ years ago, Tom Holtz told me it looked cool.

[Snake Charmer]

I made an interesting experience with MP weight some years ago when playing the Nirschl 4/4 C (which became later the Besson 995): Playing a Bruno Tilz MP on my Besson Eb back then I picked another Tilz for the C, but with a bigger cup. They were made with same outside dimensions so the bigger MP had thinner walls, you could call that one skeletonized for sure. Playing was great but it lacked energy for playing loud. (The Eb MP didn't work well on the C so that was no choice). When trying to achieve a real FORTE I could feel the MP vibrating without getting the energy into the horn. Asking Tilz they gave me a clip-on booster, which itself was even heavier than the MP itself, so it was recreating the Bach Megatone look and effect. Result: Loud playing was easy but playing softly was nearly impossible to handle, it just didn't offer the control when not pushed hard. In the end I wrapped the outside of the cup with three layers of rubber to stop vibrations and it worked well in all dynamics. (Yes, it was bicycle inner tube )

[UncleBeer]

I've always noticed a substantial difference between playing my Bach 7 Megatone and the non-Megatone version, and colleagues in my professional orchestra always noticed without prompting. Just a more slotted, focused playing experience, for which I have no scientific explanation.

[bloke]

I've always noticed a substantial difference between playing my Bach 7 Megatone and the non-Megatone version, and colleagues in my professional orchestra always noticed without prompting. Just a more slotted, focused playing experience, for which I have no scientific explanation.

Throat diameter is different.
Regular version 8.33mm
Megatone version 9.00mm

Personally, I would notice that epic difference instantly.

None of my mouthpiece throats are any larger than 8.2mm, and some of them are smaller.
Whenever I've drilled anything out as large as 8.5mm or larger, the most important difference I've ever noticed is that I have to work harder to focus. I've heard people play very well with mouth pieces that I can barely use to test repaired school band instruments, so I try to resist the temptation to label anything "bad".

[Rick Denney]

These days, specialty mouthpieces are single-point machined in CNC lathes using indexible carbide cutters that will be highly repeatable. In the past, they would have used indexible single-point cutters following a shaped template.

I suspect that the volume producers, particularly of old, use custom shaped cutters in purpose-built machines, with the cutter rammed into the bar stock to machine the interior in one go, like a big spade drill. As the cutters wear and are rehoned, the shape changes. New cutters in the day were probably shaped using templates and hand honed, also with differences in shape.

Rick “repeatability is expensive” Denney

[bloke]

Modern techniques for cutting consist mouthpieces requires tooling maintenance, just as it always has.

[sweaty]

This player shows the effects of extreme weight on a trumpet mouthpiece. The most noticeable things I noticed were firmer slots and more presence heard by the audience.

[Rick Denney]

Modern techniques for cutting consist mouthpieces requires tooling maintenance, just as it always has.

Sure. But it’s easy to replace a standardized carbide insert, which indexes to within a tenth or two, versus grinding and honing a new shaped cutter for the automated machine.

These are Conn cutters for their automated production machines, probably little changed for decades leading up to this.

IMG_1926-dsqz.jpeg (24.35 KiB) Viewed 6056 times

IMG_1928-dsqz.jpeg (29.22 KiB) Viewed 6056 times

(Pics from Conn-Selmer)

Tooling like this would not like stainless steel a-tall.

They single-pointed the exterior, and it may be that these pics overlapped CNC machining a bit. Bach used tooling like this on ancient line-shaft machines. But there’s no way someone like Dave Houser is using this sort of tooling.

I bet repeatability-per-dollar today is ten times what it was when we were kids, but production was a lot greater then, and tolerances probably a bit lower.

Rick “single-pointing curves requires specialized tooling on general-purpose manual machines” Denney

[bloke]

People who make mouthpieces in any quantities use multi-head (and everything inside a cabinet, typically with safety glass on one side), these days.

I suspect (??) that some who use multi-head might have some posed pictures with a mouthpiece mounted in a 1960s or 1970s metal lathe.

[bloke]

This player shows the effects of extreme weight on a trumpet mouthpiece. The most noticeable things I noticed were firmer slots and more presence heard by the audience.

I don't expect everyone to embrace what I have determined to be true, and it's pretty easy to step up to the plate and play better with a mouthpiece that someone has convinced themselves is better. The human mind (and it's effects on the human body's execution of tasks, based on attitude and confidence in an appliance) is a curious thing.

Other than the examples that I've put forth of the rims that are easy to scuff up (such as plastics and plated brass), the only other difference I can think of (with leaving a whole bunch of material from the diameter of minimum size of cylindrical rod required to make any particular mouthpiece) is that it takes longer to warm up, and the player will be playing on a cold mouthpiece for a minute or more longer, and - if they have a long gap in time between playing and then playing again in a particular piece of music, it's going to be the same thing all over again.

[JC2]

This player shows the effects of extreme weight on a trumpet mouthpiece. The most noticeable things I noticed were firmer slots and more presence heard by the audience.

Excellent video!

From past experience listening to a top 0.1% tuba player going back and forth with between a heavy and light mouthpiece, the difference is actually pretty obvious. You need the kind of player that can play you the same thing identically a few times in a row to really appreciate the difference.

[bloke]

absolutely identical inside dimensions and rims, then?

[JC2]

Yes.

[bloke]

...yet not the same player playing both mouthpieces simultaneously at the same precise moment in time (as that's impossible).

There's really no science or reliable conclusion to be drawn when there's a human factor.

There's also this:
Let's say that there's some mouthpiece and instrument that - though impossible to determine - somehow it WAS possible to determine that a instrument and mouthpiece were better than the instrument and mouthpiece the person was accustomed to playing... and that the player could somehow play exactly as well on one followed up by the other.

That player is still going to be either accustomed to theirs vs. the better one, and won't be immediately aware of an equally good or better way to play on the better equipment - at least not the first time around, as they well have been accustomed to what they've been using.

(I've posted quite a few times about the importance of giving an instrument/mouthpiece combination what it needs, rather than what we think we need to give it... I feel like I'm pretty much on track as far as that belief is concerned.)

When I have two or three mouthpieces in my hand that all seem to play a particular instrument pretty darn well, I'll spend weeks playing all of them one after the other through all sorts of types of music until I make a decision, though this of course - also isn't scientific more reliable - because I'm nothing more than a fickle and fallible human...and even then, I might go through the same set of mouthpieces months later and decide that I made the wrong choice months earlier.

The human factor makes any comparison of fairly close to equal pieces of equipment fickle, unreliable, and subject to the human's performance level (not to even mention biases) on a given day or moment as well as the human's whims and confusing of one type of sensory sensation with another.

I've gone back and forth with mouthpieces with the world's harshest critic, Mrs. bloke, and it's quite common for the mouthpiece that doesn't "feel" (tactile) the best to me - nor even maybe not even sound the best to me (from under the bell) to consistently (and above and beyond) sound the best to her from across the room.

That's not scientific either, but I'm better off trusting that than myself (as I'm too biased - likely to favor what feels best and to put forth a more focused human effort, as well as being too busy operating the instrument to really focus 100% on how something sounds).

[bloke]

My own biases and things that I believe to be true are pretty obvious to anyone who's bought any of my mouthpieces and allowed me to pick a rim for them.

- A narrower rim without a sharp interior turn into the cup is better than a wider one (and) with a sharp interior turn to the cup, because the latter tend to pin down the face and affect flexibility negatively, as well as (often) causing physical discomfort (with probably many players simply accepting physical discomfort as part of the playing experience since the very first day they ever played).

- When throat sizes become tremendously large, nothing much occurs other than a greater requirement on the player's part to produce the same (desired) quality and timbre of sound. If a throat size is not ideal, probably barely too small is better than barely too big.

Rim widths and their contours - and throat diameters - probably have more effects on how well a mouthpiece performs than cup shape, even cup depth, and back bore size and contour...though of course all these things affect ease of playability and resonance. (As the rim is where the human being articulates the instrument, it surprises me that so few people view this as the most important part of a mouthpiece.) Leaving stuff on the outside of a mouthpiece - or even on the outside of the much thinner sheet metal instrument which (might ??) actually barely vibrate - does nothing other than feel heavier (if it's enough white to perceive) to a player, a players may confuse FEELING the added weight or SEEING the extra mass (or a soldered-on or clamped-on object) with HEARING a difference. That said, humans are very adept at realizing and at self-fulfilling prophecies (expectations).

Just as with quite a few people who are far more highly respected than I am and with more experience than I have, nothing I said above is scientific.

People become frustrated and confused when there's an infinite number of choices in regards to something.
Which painting in the Louvre is the best one?
Which of these 500 sofa mass produced paintings at this sofa painting sale on this Sunday only in this one day rented room by the vendor is the best painting of all of these mass produced paintings?
Who was a better trumpet player, Carl Severinsen or Maurice Andre?

I'm also pretty convinced that a lot of people buy mouthpieces because they like the person or company who made them. After all, when we like someone, thar person is automatically wise and - when we don't like someone - that person is automatically stupid.

etc. etc. etc ad infinitum