vitamin E, frequency response, and cute curves

[kingrob76]

Many, many years ago I was at Baltimore Brass trying out Dave's personal 2145 with his mods. I normally carry a few mouthpieces with me and one of them was my Deck 3, which was the second or third mouthpiece I tried in it. As soon as I started playing, the horn started rattling and Dave exclaimed "What did you do to my horn????" to which I said "I just changed mouthpieces". I switched again and it stopped. Another one, no rattle. Deck 3... rattle. Dave came over, located the rattle, and took the horn for adjustment.

I would infer that (rattle aside) a heavy mass mouthpiece does interact differently with the instrument, but is that something that actually leaves the business end of the horn to reach the listener? No idea. Like most things, if the operator believes it's helping then that's enough (akin to lucky socks).

[bloke]

Many, many years ago I was at Baltimore Brass trying out Dave's personal 2145 with his mods. I normally carry a few mouthpieces with me and one of them was my Deck 3, which was the second or third mouthpiece I tried in it. As soon as I started playing, the horn started rattling and Dave exclaimed "What did you do to my horn????" to which I said "I just changed mouthpieces". I switched again and it stopped. Another one, no rattle. Deck 3... rattle. Dave came over, located the rattle, and took the horn for adjustment.

I would infer that (rattle aside) a heavy mass mouthpiece does interact differently with the instrument, but is that something that actually leaves the business end of the horn to reach the listener? No idea. Like most things, if the operator believes it's helping then that's enough (akin to lucky socks).

I can believe that.
Don't all of those series feature huge throats, which would mean that you were putting as much air in there as those huge throats require - thus the air column was vibrating more than normal and causing that loose whatever to vibrate.

[JC2]

@Bloke

Did you watch the trumpet video? It's near irrefutable evidence that weight does make a difference.

[bloke]

@Bloke

Did you watch the trumpet video? It's near irrefutable evidence that weight does make a difference.

If it's a human being (particularly if one with an opinion) playing an instrument on A/B videos, I'm not interested in watching it.

I can play my F tuba and my 6/4 B-flat tuba on two different videos (same microphone placement, same recording levels, same location and angle of the tuba bells) and nearly irrefutably demonstrate how the F tuba (and with a shallower mouthpiece) produces a much broader sound than the 6/4 B-flat.

I don't mean to poke fun, but even though I haven't played much trumpet in the past several years, I could make a video with a Schilke 6A4a mouthpiece and make it sound like it's a symphonic mouthpiece, and then I could stick in a Bach 1 mouthpiece and make it sound like it's a screamer mouthpiece, depending on how I play the instrument... and it would be far easier for daily professional players of the trumpet to do that then it would for me to do that.

[bort2.0]

I used my Bach Megatone 18 at orchestra rehearsal tonight, just because of this thread.

I also sat there for 40 minutes before playing a single note, and even then, that note was a whole note.

Nailed it, though.

[bort2.0]

PS, while we're debating small differences, the Megatone 18 is standard shank, and was being used in a Euro shank tuba.

"But what about the gap?"

Meh... If there's any difference, it's long ago been unlearned during the constant ongoing "do this to sound like that" physical-mental training we all do as tuba players. Maybe there's a difference. But Im not too convinced of that either

[bloke]

Congrats on the whole note. (no sarcasm... Tuba whole notes are important.)
My various tubas and other instruments offer characteristic sounds which attracted me to acquiring them... but once I settled in on the very specific types of sound I wanted them to make, I'm now bound and determined to make those sounds, even if the mouthpieces I choose to use with them aren't ideal... which is sort of the point I was trying to make in my last post (but my flaw in writing is that I often get too much into the rhetoric, rather than getting to the point).

[bort2.0]

Congrats on the whole note. (no sarcasm... Tuba whole notes are important.)
My various tubas and other instruments offer characteristic sounds which attracted me to acquiring them... but once I settled in on the very specific types of sound I wanted them to make, I'm now bound and determined to make those sounds, even if the mouthpieces I choose to use with them aren't ideal... which is sort of the point I was trying to make in my last post (but my flaw in writing is that I often get too much into the rhetoric, rather than getting to the point).

Yup. I mean, hey, what else are you going to sound like?

[bloke]

The instruments and their mouthpieces feature strong sonic tendencies, but our minds and the way we shape our mouths and lips and the way we blow into the instruments can overcome a lot of tendencies.

[Rick Denney]

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.

By multi-head, I suspect you mean a production turning-center with a tool turret for changing cutters under computer control. They might use custom-built machines that move several cutters into the work using independent feed screws, but I wonder if any manufacturer makes enough mouthpieces to make a custom production machine pay. The photos I posted used a shaped cutter mounted in a tailstock turret and a single-point cutter, template or computer-controlled, mounted on a cross slide turret. Both had tool changers (turrets). The tailstock turret switched between a drill (for the throat and as a pilot), a chamfer bit, and the shaped tool. But I think all that was machinery placed on a conventional manual lathe, from the little I could see of it. It was not a modern CNC turning center.

By the way, I snipped those images out of a video that showed the entire machining process.

Rick “mouthpieces made in the thousands, not millions” Denney

[Rick Denney]

deleted—wrong button.

[russiantuba]

I actually think the weight and mass mean quite a bit for a mouthpiece. I noticed on the MMVI Baer, the throat has a bit of a thicker mass on the outside than the original, which is the main difference I have noticed. I have played megatone mouthpieces like the PT 50+ I owned for a year, and it just dampened the overtones in comparison to a normal PT 50 (I don't like either mouthpiece), and I have played on super lightweight mouthpieces, and even owned the Hammond XL Geib style before switching to a Geib, and though it had a centered, brighter sound than the Geib, the lightweight nature didn't help with projection. The Stofer Geib had a much tighter throat as well, and the Sellmansberger Symphony (and as from my last post, apparently the OG) cups have a similar style as a Geib, and at least for the Symphony, a bit more focused and clear--and I noticed the distribution of weight.

I know Giddings made a mouthpiece for Sam Pilafian where you could remove the outer shell that demonstrated this effect. https://www.gwmouthpieces.com/products/ ... 0407377089.

I would be interested to playing around with this concept to existing models. I have stated this for the last couple of years, and even though they are more expensive up front, going to the modular system of mouthpieces, and I will include this as part of the modular system, is the way I would suggest many to go to.

[bloke]

Again, I'm probably insensitive...
...or my lips just aren't strong enough to make a non-blobby mouthpiece vibrate.

==============================

@Rick Denney

Once a mouthpiece is scanned and then the outline is either left as it is or it's altered with the cursor, that scan can be fed directly into a computer which is read by a multi head cutter and it takes about a minute to make a mouthpiece.

If it's steel, at least the rim needs to be buffed.

If it's brass or bronze, at least the rim needs to be buffed in it needs to be silver plated.

If someone's willing to pay for a scan, a prototype, buffing, and plating, they've got a mouthpiece. If they are on site, they can look through the glass and watch it being made.

[Jim Williams]

Here's another hypothesis that I think may apply to heavywall mouthpieces as well as other gizmos:
There's an analogy between radio transmitters & receivers and brass instruments. We could view a brass instrument/player/mouthpiece as a tuned circuit. With my ham radio gear, the transmitter feeds power to the antenna. With a tuba, a player is feeding power to the tuba. Devices like heavywall mouthpieces may well serve to increase the "Q" (response quality factor) of the tuned circuit. A high-Q system will enhance power transfer (from transmitter to antenna or from tuba player blowing into a mouthpiece) on frequencies it is set for, at the cost of attenuated power transfer on frequencies removed from the focal point. This might explain why players feel better slotting when using a heavywall mouthpiece. It is enhancing certain frequencies and attenuating frequencies away from the focal point. I could go on with more, but I'll stop here...anyone with knowledge of radio electronics, please feel free to chime in.
But my two cents is that most of these gizmos increase the Q of the tuba. What remains unknown--and never stated by the gizmo makers--is what parts of a signal are suppressed when the gizmo is used, with what consequences. Are harmonics attenuated? If so, which harmonics, by how much, and with what effect on the sound?
Someone could look at a waveform produced by a tuba WITH the gizmo vs. the waveform produced by the tuba WITHOUT the gizmo, holding everything else constant, and determine what the gizmo has changed in the waveform.
Adding MASS of any kind to a brass instrument is kinda like adding a capacitive hat to antenna. Response to input will change.

[bloke]

Okay then... Make my day:
...for $300 extra, how about if I made some of my models with an exterior that resembles the cylinder of .44 Magnum revolver? Surely that would improve attacks...(??)

[dsfinley]

Okay then... Make my day:
...for $300 extra, how about if I made some of my models with an exterior that resembles the cylinder of .44 Magnum revolver? Surely that would improve attacks...(??)

Whether it changes anything or not is a moot point. This would be pretty dang cool. Sellmansberger OG Ultimate, Eastwood Edition

[Rick Denney]

Again, I'm probably insensitive...
...or my lips just aren't strong enough to make a non-blobby mouthpiece vibrate.

==============================

@Rick Denney

Once a mouthpiece is scanned and then the outline is either left as it is or it's altered with the cursor, that scan can be fed directly into a computer which is read by a multi head cutter and it takes about a minute to make a mouthpiece.

If it's steel, at least the rim needs to be buffed.

If it's brass or bronze, at least the rim needs to be buffed in it needs to be silver plated.

If someone's willing to pay for a scan, a prototype, buffing, and plating, they've got a mouthpiece. If they are on site, they can look through the glass and watch it being made.

That’s how modern CNC machining centers work. I was explaining how it used to be done, and why there might have been more variability in lower-price mass-production mouthpieces.

I wonder if the old-line German manufacturers are still using shaped tools rather than CNC single-point indexible inserts. Depending on production levels, it might be cheaper to keep using and maintaining the old machines and cutter concept.

But CNC single-point machining centers have certainly revolutionized low-production and one-off mouthpieces.

Rick “knows how to grind custom cutters but still usually uses relatively modern indexible carbide inserts in an 80-year-old manual lathe” Denney

[Rick Denney]

Here's another hypothesis that I think may apply to heavywall mouthpieces as well as other gizmos:
There's an analogy between radio transmitters & receivers and brass instruments. We could view a brass instrument/player/mouthpiece as a tuned circuit. With my ham radio gear, the transmitter feeds power to the antenna. With a tuba, a player is feeding power to the tuba. Devices like heavywall mouthpieces may well serve to increase the "Q" (response quality factor) of the tuned circuit. A high-Q system will enhance power transfer (from transmitter to antenna or from tuba player blowing into a mouthpiece) on frequencies it is set for, at the cost of attenuated power transfer on frequencies removed from the focal point. This might explain why players feel better slotting when using a heavywall mouthpiece. It is enhancing certain frequencies and attenuating frequencies away from the focal point. I could go on with more, but I'll stop here...anyone with knowledge of radio electronics, please feel free to chime in.
But my two cents is that most of these gizmos increase the Q of the tuba. What remains unknown--and never stated by the gizmo makers--is what parts of a signal are suppressed when the gizmo is used, with what consequences. Are harmonics attenuated? If so, which harmonics, by how much, and with what effect on the sound?
Someone could look at a waveform produced by a tuba WITH the gizmo vs. the waveform produced by the tuba WITHOUT the gizmo, holding everything else constant, and determine what the gizmo has changed in the waveform.
Adding MASS of any kind to a brass instrument is kinda like adding a capacitive hat to antenna. Response to input will change.

This will be my boring dissertation on the topic of the thread, not just a response to Jim’s theory. Run away now. You have been warned.

Jim, you have to consider the frequencies. An RF transmitter will be sensitive to effects in two very different frequency bands—base-band audio (for radio, 200-3000 Hz for typical single-sideband operation) and a carrier frequency that maybe be anywhere from 1.8 to 1200 MHz. And on the receiver side, the receiver will be mixing that signal with one or two intermediate frequencies (70 MHz and 455 KHz for the traditional up-conversion triple heterodyne method). With all those frequencies in play, there are all sorts of opportunities for oscillation (ringing) well above hearing that can cause audible intermodulation distortion. Most of that, however, is “heterodyning”—the result of imperfectly reconstructing the base-band audio from the single sideband—and not intermod at all.

But there is no carrier frequency or heterodyne reception in a tuba. The lips produce frequencies in the range of maybe up to 20 KHz, most of which is attenuated out because the tuba only resonates harmonic frequencies with any strength.

The mechanical ringing of a metal mouthpiece shell is all over the map. I cannot get multi part threaded mouthpieces to ring at all—the threaded connections seem to damp oscillations altogether. A Conn Helleberg (light) rings at about 4.7 KHz, a one-piece brass Sellmansberg (heavier) rings at 5.7 KHz, and a very heavy Mike Finn 4 rings at 5.9 KHz. But to get them to ring at all, I have to strike them with a metal striker when they are floating on a soft, fibrous surface that minimizes contact. In a tuba, the taper shank damps those frequencies almost completely. Those gooey lips pressed up against them damp what remains to a dull broadbanded thud.

I don’t think there is the slightest shred of acoustic content in a tuba tone that reaches anywhere near 4-6 KHz, and even if ringing there mixed with tuba tones, the intermodulation would have to be well over 60 dB down, and I’d bet more like 100+ dB down if it exists at all. In other words: inaudible.

And I doubt that anyone’s lips can feel vibrations of 4-6 KHz, even assuming those vibrations wouldn’t be completely masked by the mechanical buzz vibration, which it would be.

But even if they did, I have not heard anyone opine that threaded mouthpieces affect the sound (as long as the parts are tight) and those threads have about as profound an effect on the resonance of the metal as making it out of plastic.

Also: Brass rings more than stainless steel. Did anyone ever notice that?

Various theories have been postulated about the effect of the resonance of the air inside the mouthpiece; the “popping” frequency heard when you slap a mouthpiece opening with your palm. Popping frequencies for my largish collection mouthpieces range from 390 Hz to 430 Hz, with those being the peak of a fairly broadbanded hump. (The Redhead is still asleep, thank goodness, else she’d have just shook her head as I was popping mouthpieces into the spectrum analysis app on my phone). I found no consistent correlation between popping frequency and mass or material, nor did I see the slightest presence of the ringing frequency when popping those mouthpieces that didn’t already damp ringing. Popping frequencies are definitely within the harmonic envelope of tuba sound, but they are all about the same despite that the mouthpieces themselves behave quite differently.

Mouthpieces are the first impedance-matching device downstream from the lips, and the interior shape affects all sorts of standing waves at frequencies that do work on the high-frequency noise in the buzz. The more of that noise (harmonic and enharmonic distortion, in electronics terms) it lets through, the more zip there will be in the sound, though enharmonic noise may detract from it. Brass instruments need (especially) harmonic distortion to cut through air and room noise effectively. Trumpets and trombones have high levels of harmonic content in their sound.

Examples of that abound. Moog famously made a mistake in the sine-wave oscillator amplifier for the Mini-Moog Synthesizer of the early 70’s, which caused significant second-order harmonic distortion. Musicians loved it—it made it much easier to amplify to rock-band levels and compete with electric guitar sounds.

Listening to Mason Soria’s sound compared to the excellent grad student he was teaching revealed one difference between excellent and world-class: His sound had that little bit of additional zip that gave it more meat and carrying power. That zip was increased harmonic content, not “darker”, or “more rich in fundamental.” I think people who say such things as I put in quotes have never looked at a frequency spectrum analysis. Mr. Soria’s sound had that zip even playing very softly.

I can think of no physical reason for the material or mass of the mouthpiece to affect that result, as long as the mouthpiece is stiff enough not to vibrate in the popping frequency range or below. I have to conclude that interior differences account for observed effects, assuming those effects could be detected at all in controlled testing. Bias is unavoidable, though, as Rob pointed out, a placebo effect is still an effect. It just can’t be attributed to the feature as claimed.

Rick “thinking we had this discussion 20 years ago at that other place” Denney

[bloke]

@Rick Denney

As far as old school machining is concerned, there's a little set of steel contours that machinists used to purchase and keep for reference.

It's interesting how the different contours of tuba mouthpiece rims line up with that little set of contours.

I can't remember what they're called. I need to go down the street to my machinist friend and ask him to pull them out and tell me what they're called.

[Rick Denney]

@Rick Denney

As far as old school machining is concerned, there's a little set of steel contours that machinists used to purchase and keep for reference.

It's interesting how the different contours of tuba mouthpiece rims line up with that little set of contours.

I can't remember what they're called. I need to go down the street to my machinist friend and ask him to pull them out and tell me what they're called.

They’re called radius gauges. I have an old Lufkin set.

Rick “old Lufkin precision stuff was as good as Starrett back in the day” Denney