TromboneChat

In the long-running thread "Who in their right mind plays a Bach 1 1/2G ?? ", Horn Builder recently posted this comment:

Quote from: Horn Builder on Sep 03, 2007, 06:52PMG'day all,

I find it interesting that people have this "rose coloured glasses" view of NY and Mt Vernon Bach product. That they are the "Holy Grail".

That contrasts with the widely help belief that, as stated by Sam Burtis, and echoed by many others, "if you want a custom mounthpiece, line up a dozen Bach's and find the one you like". Sam, I believe, was talking about the Mt Vernon and early Elkhart era. Consistency was not something that was a big selling point for Bach in those days. The way the pieces were made didn't allow for anything like the consistency achieved today with CNC lathes, as used by almost every mouthpiece maker out there, including Bach.

When I was at the shop last week I was shown the safe that holds all the mouthpieces, hand selected by Mr Bach himself, that represent "exactly" what each of the models was supposed to be like, according to Mr Bach. Each of those pieces was digitised and that info was used to program the CNC machines that now cut Bach mouthpieces. The consistency of Bachs mouthpieces today is better than it ever has been, due to the method that they are produced.

But there-in lies the rub. Each one of the "perfect" mouthpieces, which has then been copied hundreds of times over, wasn't one that Chris (and others like him) think are the "very special indeed" mouthpieces. If only Mr Bach had chosen one of those...

M


This got me to thinking, and since I have just been through a summer where I once again went through another level of playing/equipment/idiom/you-name-it and made a certain sort of playing breakthrough...only to once again end up on the same NY Bach m'pces that I was using BEFORE the change...I thought that I would make a post that tries to explain how and why I...and apparently a WHOLE BUNCH of other pretty good players, on other brass instruments as well...seem to keep coming back to early Bach m'pces.

I don't know about these "rose colored glasses" idea...but I personally have used the darkest glasses possible in finding my choice of m'pces. For almost 30 years, I have chosen m'pces blindfolded.

Well...blind, anyway.

And the better I have become as a player...still growing after all these years, thank whatever rules this dimension in which we all live...the more often the m'pce that came up at the end of a choosing session has been a NY Bach.

Why?

Because they are centrist m'pces. That's the best short answer that I have been able to come up with, anyway. That is, they do a combination of everything that I want to do better than any others. Sound first, plus all ranges, flexibility, all volumes and tonguing/attacks. And rim comfort as well.

Now...my main area of trombonistic expertise lies in playing  .525-ish and .500/.509-ish tenor trombones in American idioms. Jazz, latin, B'way, pop...you know. That stuff. And over the years I have fairly well settled into a preference for 6 1/2 AL-ish equipment on the .525 horns and 11C-ish equipment on the smaller ones. I LOVE the way a good 12C plays and sounds as well and have tried and tried again to play them on smaller horns, but I have never been able to manage to get a good, smooth connection down into the range below say 4th partial G on one, and as an improviser my baseline rule in choosing a m'pce is that I must be able to smoothly negotiate all of the ranges on it that I want to use as a soloist. So until I figure out how to do that on a 12C rim or have one made that has an 11C-ish rim but plays JUST like my great NY 12C, I'm 11C player on small horns. I do keep trying 12C-ish m'pces, though. Y'never know...

I have assembled a pretty good collection of m'pces in the 6 1/2AL, 11C and 12C ranges in the process. I had a BUNCH of 6 1/2AL-ish ones made and/or altered from stock originals over the years, and have collected a lot of 11C/12C sized m'pces as well. I gave up on the custom/customizing m'pce route. Too expensive and too imprecise. Since absolutely NO one seems to have ever really codified what makes a m'pce work, custom m'pce design resembles a collaboration on a sculpture between two blind men. Always working in the dark, always working on feel. I have found it better...and much less expensive, as well...to find the general area of m'pce that I like, try many, many of them, choose a few and then leave the really fine adjustments to the soft machine.

To me.

After all...most really fine m'pces that are chosen by a number of fine players are a result of a kind of informal survey that was taken by the maker. Good players X, Y, and Z etc. have m'pces made for them, a general consensus begins to arise, and sooner or later...if the manufacturer is good, of course...here ya go, here's the 6 1/2AL. And so on.

So anyway...there I am, say with a new horn or having not played a particular sized horn for a while or having just altered one of my horns in some way...leadpipe, plating, tuning slide, whatever...and I want to see if a little m'pce change might do some good.

Or...I have changed something about the way I am practicing and playing, reached a breakthrough of some kind and I am curious to see if another m'pce might help.

Whatever the reason, this seems to happen to me a couple of times a year.

And on the table in front of me are all the likely suspects I can round up.

About 10 or 12 m'pces in the 6 1/2AL or 11C/12C class. All with some plumber's tape on them so they fit into my slightly widened leadpipe receivers to the approximate depth that I generally like.

I close my eyes, jumble them all around and commence playing them.

Pretty soon, several have de-recommended themselves. Too stuffy, usually. Then another few. Not right in the high range, not right in the low range. Then one or two more. Sound. Then there are three. Or maybe four. And I start to get a little creative.

As in...which one MAKES ME PLAY?

On which one do I hear the best?

And invariably...and I do mean ALWAYS, at least over the past several years...the survivors are the Mt. Vernon and NY Bachs, and the winners are the NY models.

Why?

Go figure.

Why the NYs over the Mt. Vernons?

They seem to deal with volume better, and they are more open. They are also a little less "refined", to some degree. I have to be the one that is refined. This is a small drawback...the Mt. Vernons are such beautiful singers...but like all beautiful singers, they do not belt as well. And I am a boxer/puncher, to mix metaphors. I have to be able to do both, and I can box on the NYs when I take care of my chops (read...practice correctly) but I cannot punch with the same power on the Mt. Vernons no matter in what shape I may be.

So there I am...blindfold test after blindfold test, several times a year for any number of years.

Playing NY Bachs.

Now...I try every damned m'pce I can get my hands on. I try ones that I hear in a rehearsal or gig; I try them at conventions and in stores. But I only buy the ones that immediately recommend themselves to me. There are precious few of them, and those that I have bought...other than Mt. Vernon and especially NY Bachs in approximately the right sizes, which I will generally buy sight unseen if I have the money and they are in good shape...always seem to disappoint in blind competition with my Bachs.

So it goes.

Now you may well say that I have so thoroughly trained myself to play those Bachs that I am incapable of appreciating other m'pces. And that may well be the case. Y'pays yer money...and of course y'spends yer time...and y'takes yer chances.

Or it MAY well be that Mr. Bach was a m'pce designing genius who found himself in a period of time and in a place... pre-WW II NYC...where brass playing was in a sort of golden age. Before mics became the predominant influence in the production and dissemination of musical sound.  And in the same place but another time...the Mt. Vernon era, post-W.W. II...where ANOTHER golden age occurred. The studio scene. And he listened to great player after great player after great player, took their suggestions and preferences and created great all-around m'pces.

I try to live as much as I possibly can live in a pre-mic world myself.

Hell, except for research purposes I do not even much listen to recorded music anymore. It's like eating canned peas, even the BEST of it. After sitting in a room with the best of the best here in NYC? Fuggedaboudit. It sounds like gruel. Even on the BEST of systems. CDs worse than vinyl, digital worse that tube systems, ALL of them worse than the real thing.

And I choose NY Bach m'pces in blindfold tests.

Hmmmmm...

Now...am I saying that YOU should choose NY Bachs?

No.

Of course not.

But I AM saying that you should choose your equipment...all of it...as much as possible in blind tests. And no matter HOW odd the results may be...go with them. Give ANY result the benefit of several weeks of concentrated effort.

You be bettah off.

Bet on it.

The truth lies in your ears, in your body and in your soul. In instances like this the mind is only good for primitive mathematical equations. It is a critic, not a creator.

Go for it.

You’ll be glad you did.

At least...I'm glad that I did.

Later…

S.

Nice post Sam.

I've never been disciplined enough to do the blindfold method, but I probably should.

I always seem to come away from a trombone show with a new mouthpiece. The problem is, I am working there at the Shires display, not on my regular practice routine at all, just finding a minute here or there to play a few notes. I try to cover my everyday bases as much as I can, but it never happens in as careful and deliberate a fashion as I achieve at home - even in Vegas, where I was playing in the Cramer choir.

So I usually end up with a good mouthpiece, and one that is "easier" to play than my Laskey 93D (and of all modern mouthpiece makers, it may very well be Scott Laskey who understands best the classic Bach designs), in the sense that I get a good basic sound without thinking too much or being in tip-top shape, and usually the pitch center feels a little easier to come by, whether or not that is actually the case.

I usually play this mouthpiece for several weeks when I get home, but I always find myself back on a Laskey. Why? When I am in shape and taking care of business, I get better results. Better response and better, more colorful sound, more easily changed and shaped for the diverse situations I find myself in. It might still happen that one of these trombone show mouthpieces sticks in the long term - who knows?

I've put away some really good mouthpieces, and I heartily recommend them for people who don't get along with the Laskey: The Schilke Symphony Series and Karl Hammond's new designs are great, as are the new tweaks of the Giddings & Webster line. Doug Elliott has made some changes to his large bass trombone line that I'm eager to try in the future. I don't quite get along with them myself, but I hear people sound great on Griego and Greg Black mouthpieces.   

There are a lot of great choices for people who either can't get their hands on - or need a size that you can't get in - an old Bach. And the best way to choose one (to choose any equipment really) is to have an extremely clear idea of how you want it to sound and feel, and let go of any and all preconceptions of what "should" get you there. That's where Sam's blindfold comes in VERY handy...

It's fun!

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Sep 04, 2007, 07:01AMNice post Sam.

I've never been disciplined enough to do the blindfold method, but I probably should.

---snip---
Discipline?

WHAT discipline?

You line up a bunch of m'ces, play them, eliminate the ones that work least well until you come up with the one that best suits your playing at that moment (A moment, by the way, that should be when you are in passably good playing shape. In the kind of shape in which you normally live and work, anyway.), and then you play it for a few weeks.

If it doesn't work out, you go back to your other m'pce...provided of course that you haven't chosen "your" m'pce in the blindfold test, which happens more and more often as you refine your act...and play it until you have another practical reason to try switching.

AIN'T no discipline involved. Not as much as you need to practice regularly and well, anyway.

Try it.

You'll learn something. Even if what you learn is that it doesn't work for you.

Bet on it.

Later...

S.

I get what you're saying, Sam (or at least I think I do).  The part that gets me is this:

Quote from: sabutin on Sep 04, 2007, 06:25AM
About 10 or 12 m'pces in the 6 1/2AL or 11C/12C class. All with some plumber's tape on them so they fit into my slightly widened leadpipe receivers to the approximate depth that I generally like.

Plumber's tape? That just seems like you've added a completely new factor in whether or not that piece plays well.  What if you added too much tape?  What if it's too high or too low on the mouthpiece?  Do you think you've ever thrown out a piece because it didn't play well, when in actuality it didn't play well because you toyed with the function/design?  I am really quite curious.  BTW, how/why did you come up with applying tape to the mouthpiece in the first place? 

Surely the plumbers tape is more detrimental to the buffing or replating of a mpc!!!
I always thought metal on metal is better than having some foreign material between the mpc and leadpipe.

Quote from: Chris Fidler on Sep 04, 2007, 09:27AMSurely the plumbers tape is more detrimental to the buffing or replating of a mpc!!!
I always thought metal on metal is better than having some foreign material between the mpc and leadpipe.

I've used the plumbers tape at times as well, and it really works. The whole point of it is that it fills available space to create a seal. I've found no detriment except the hassle. And I've seen the way Sam uses the stuff - he has it worked out.

Quote from: Tim Boyer on Sep 04, 2007, 09:17AMI get what you're saying, Sam (or at least I think I do).  The part that gets me is this:

Plumber's tape? That just seems like you've added a completely new factor in whether or not that piece plays well.  What if you added too much tape?  What if it's too high or too low on the mouthpiece?  Do you think you've ever thrown out a piece because it didn't play well, when in actuality it didn't play well because you toyed with the function/design?  I am really quite curious.  BTW, how/why did you come up with applying tape to the mouthpiece in the first place? 
I found long ago that as much as 1/16" difference in how far the shank of a m'pce enters the receiver makes a huge difference in how that combination plays. I started by buffing  my m'pce shanks down until they went into the receiver too far and then building them back up again until I hit a sweet spot. Now, since I have removable leadpipes on my Shires horns I ask them at the factory to open up the receivers a little and then I do the same thing to my m'pces.

How do I know what's right?

Trial and error.

Blinfolded trial and error, to some degree.

How do I know if it's too high or low? I put it on the very bottom of the shank, so that it is parallel to the end. Teflon plumber's tape is VERY malleable. It takes on the contour of the shank/receiver interface perfectly.

S.

P.S. Don't try this at home unless you are a REALLY good player. Results may vary.

Widely and to no good effect if you do not have your act fairly together.

Quote from: Chris Fidler on Sep 04, 2007, 09:27AMSurely the plumbers tape is more detrimental to the buffing or replating of a mpc!!!
I always thought metal on metal is better than having some foreign material between the mpc and leadpipe.

Not in my experience.

LOTS of it.

30+ years and counting since I started doing this.

The DEPTH is the thing.

Listen...

So there you are with a leadpipe receiver. Soldered in or not.

And you put a m'pce in it that you have been told has the right taper for the receiver.

For almost ALL receivers. (How's THAT for a corporate myth, by the way?)

I don't believe it.

What if the taper(s) are off? Either or both. Have you SEEN what's working on the assembly lines at some major manufacturers? Lawnmower blade grinders. Bet on it. What if at the end of your m'pce there is a gap between the lip of the shank and the wall of the receiver? What then? What if on an older horn or m'pce the receiver or shank metal has worn down?

Plus...as "objectively" as I can manage to test this, the proper depth...which appears to be consistent on any one horn, by the way, no matter which m'pce I am using AND no matter how long or short the entire m'pce may be...just works better. I can tell on a horn that I know well when the tape is wearing down too far without looking. I start to chip Abs and Gs above middle C when I am not in the best of shape. Maybe 40 times this has proven to be true, and the other 10? Leaky spit valve.

Hmmmm...

Proof enough for me...

Inefficient, turbulent airflow.

Further...with a little creative (and blindfolded) experimentation you can often find SEVERAL sweet spots. One that helps the low range and flexibility, one that helps the high range and slotting, and one...the Goldilocks spot, as far as I am concerned...that is a perfect blend of the other two.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it until proven otherwise.

Later...

S.

Sam,

The point of my initial post has been missed.

I wasn't saying that NY or Mt Vernon mouthpieces weren't good (they most cetainly can be fantastic), but that consistency was not a strong point of this era. The point about "rose coloured glasses" was aimed at the people who believe that every one of these mouthpieces was a "holy grail".

Having owned several of various sizes, (including one 4G that was "Very" individual)I feel I have some basis for the opinion. But it's just that, my opinion....

Quote from: Horn Builder on Sep 04, 2007, 06:55PMSam,

The point of my initial post has been missed.

I wasn't saying that NY or Mt Vernon mouthpieces weren't good (they most cetainly can be fantastic), but that consistency was not a strong point of this era. The point about "rose coloured glasses" was aimed at the people who believe that every one of these mouthpieces was a "holy grail".

Having owned several of various sizes, (including one 4G that was "Very" individual)I feel I have some basis for the opinion. But it's just that, my opinion....
My post was not put up in opposition to yours.

Just as a commentary on the whole idea of m'pce and equipment choice.

It "got me to thinking".

Thanks.

S.

Quote from: Gabe Langfur on Sep 04, 2007, 09:38AMI've used the plumbers tape at times as well, and it really works. The whole point of it is that it fills available space to create a seal. I've found no detriment except the hassle. And I've seen the way Sam uses the stuff - he has it worked out.
One of Sam's first good posts about it :
http://forum.samburtis.com/viewtopic.php?p=2226#2226

I quite agree that the mouthpiece/leadpipe relationship is a very important factor.... yet ANOTHER important factor. I've never liked the idea of tape as a solution... but what else can you do?
On instruments with removable leadpipes I can try my collection, which covers a wide range of apertures, but then, of course, the whole pipe is different each time. I've seen on a trumpet, an adjustable reciever which allows any mouthpiece to seat correctly... but trumpets have step-type leadpipes (so do King bones)that allow such an approach... traditionally, trombones do not.
The critical factor is the distance between the venturi at the mouthpiece throat and in the leadpipe.. it does make a difference... one good reason that one mouthpiece will not be the best in every trombone... but that's another thread.... and by the way Sam... it's a shame you split this thread off mine... they are in pretty much the same place at the moment... and my 1 1/2G thread has survived major digression in the past, and is all the better for it.... still, you were just showing respect for the rules, eh ? 
Chris Stearn.

Quote from: blast on Sep 05, 2007, 02:09AMI quite agree that the mouthpiece/leadpipe relationship is a very important factor.... yet ANOTHER important factor. I've never liked the idea of tape as a solution... but what else can you do?
Well, if you are a basically non-experimentinmg player who basically uses only one m'pce, you can have a good brass tech custom match your chosen m'pce with your chosen leadpipe once you have found the ideal depth that you want to use. But my whole life seems to be an ongoing experiment, so I have never gotten around to doing that. I am thinking about doing it with my .525 Shires/NY Bach Clarke S  and .500 Shires/NY 11C combinations, but to tell you the truth since I do play so many different setups I have almost no reliable "feel memory", to coin a term. That is, I adjust very quickly to equipment changes and thus have to A/B equipment within a minute or so of each other or I get lost in the forests of possibilities and physical memory and thus probably won't be able to accurately compare the two feels..

I'll do it eventually.

Any day now.

Aaaaany day now...

QuoteOn instruments with removable leadpipes I can try my collection, which covers a wide range of apertures, but then, of course, the whole pipe is different each time. I've seen on a trumpet, an adjustable reciever which allows any mouthpiece to seat correctly... but trumpets have step-type leadpipes (so do King bones)that allow such an approach... traditionally, trombones do not.
Chris...could you tell me more about the difference in King leadpipes? I have never heard of that.

QuoteThe critical factor is the distance between the venturi at the mouthpiece throat and in the leadpipe.. it does make a difference... one good reason that one mouthpiece will not be the best in every trombone... but that's another thread.... and by the way Sam... it's a shame you split this thread off mine... they are in pretty much the same place at the moment... and my 1 1/2G thread has survived major digression in the past, and is all the better for it.... still, you were just showing respect for the rules, eh ? 
Chris Stearn.

It wasn't about the rules, Chris. I don' do so well with steenking rules.

I just wanted to attract the attention of non-1 1/2G and/or non-bass players as well. I know your thread has done so, but I'll bet a LOT of people have skipped it because its title contains the term "1 1/2G".

Later...

S.

Right Sam. I did skip it because of the basstrombone inflection but did indeed poke my nose into this thread of yours which I find very . . .  stimulating. I'll be following the discussions vividly . . . .

..Chris...could you tell me more about the difference in King leadpipes? I have never heard of that.
Later...S.
[/quote]

Most, if not all,  the earlier Kings and some of the new ones have a two piece leadpipe.
There is an actual mouthpiece receiver that is soldered onto the leadpipe, and then inserted into the upper tube.
I think the 2 & 3B's now are the only ones made as such.
Makes it a little more difficult to pull the pipe when requested.

Eric

Quote from: Erling on Sep 05, 2007, 07:06AMRight Sam. I did skip it because of the basstrombone inflection but did indeed poke my nose into this thread of yours which I find very . . .  stimulating. I'll be following the discussions vividly . . . .
Go check out the other one as well, Erling.

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,23254.0.html

12 pages of interesting stuff.

Sam

Quote from: bonearzt on Sep 05, 2007, 07:18AM..Chris...could you tell me more about the difference in King leadpipes? I have never heard of that.
Later...S.


Most, if not all,  the earlier Kings and some of the new ones have a two piece leadpipe.
There is an actual mouthpiece receiver that is soldered onto the leadpipe, and then inserted into the upper tube.
I think the 2 & 3B's now are the only ones made as such.
Makes it a little more difficult to pull the pipe when requested.

Eric


Hmmm...

Does anyone have any ideas about how that procedure affects and/or p[roduces the typical King sound and blow?

Classic 2Bs and 3Bs?

I have noticed that any number of manufacturers make horns that are relatively Conn or Bach-like, but only Kings are really Kings. In those models, anyway.

S.

QuoteGo check out the other one as well, Erling.

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,23254.0.html

12 pages of interesting stuff.

SamYes, Massa, will do 

I hope nobody minds, I put a sticky on this topic so that it stays at/near the top of the queue. This and Chris' 1 1/2G thread are both worthy of featuring, IMO!

bonearzt beat me to it with the leadpipes in Kings, thanks. The Callet bass pipe was also made this way. What you get.. as you do in all trumpets, is a step, that the bottom of the mouthpiece should butt up against if it is a good fit. the adjustable reciever allowed the mouthpiece to slide in and out so that it could be pushed in until it met the step in the pipe. In theory, the trumpet has no sudden jump in the bore, where the trombone will always have one at the end of the mouthpiece shank, unless it's a king or Callet pipe.

Chris Stearn.

Another fascinating thread, like the 1-1/2G one.  I recently bought a late 50's Olds Opera, when it gets back from the tech, I'll try a blindfold test to find a mouthpiece, something I haven't tried that seems worthwhile.

Where else could I learn about the difference in King leadpipes?  I wonder if that does give 2B/3B's that distinctive sound... must be more than the curved brace, right?   

Quote from: blast on Sep 05, 2007, 09:31AMbonearzt beat me to it with the leadpipes in Kings, thanks. The Callet bass pipe was also made this way. What you get.. as you do in all trumpets, is a step, that the bottom of the mouthpiece should butt up against if it is a good fit. the adjustable reciever allowed the mouthpiece to slide in and out so that it could be pushed in until it met the step in the pipe. In theory, the trumpet has no sudden jump in the bore, where the trombone will always have one at the end of the mouthpiece shank, unless it's a king or Callet pipe.

Chris Stearn.

Yeah but...what does it DO???

Provided of course that:

A-The width of the metal at the opening at the end of the m'pce and that of the step at the end of the receiver are exactly the same.

B-The m'pce actually goes in far enough so that it does butt up against said step.

and

C-That depth is the proper one for the m'pce/horn/player interface.

A lotta ifs there.

Anyone ever see a trombone with an adjustable receiver that could ameliorate a few of those questions?

S.

Quote from: slidejj on Sep 05, 2007, 10:21AMAnother fascinating thread, like the 1-1/2G one.  I recently bought a late 50's Olds Opera, when it gets back from the tech, I'll try a blindfold test to find a mouthpiece, something I haven't tried that seems worthwhile.

Where else could I learn about the difference in King leadpipes?  I wonder if that does give 2B/3B's that distinctive sound... must be more than the curved brace, right?   

Olds horns open a whole 'nother can of kickass. They used a different taper in their receivers and what that decision essentially guaranteed is that only their m'pces fit right. AND...their m'pces sucked. Which is one reason why Olds horns never became as popular as their quality suggested they should become among serious pros.

Have fun trying, though...

Once again, a little creative buffing of your m'pce and some teflon p[lumber's tape should help with the problem.

Later...

S.

Quote from: sabutin on Sep 05, 2007, 10:23AMYeah but...what does it DO???

Provided of course that:

A-The width of the metal at the opening at the end of the m'pce and that of the step at the end of the receiver are exactly the same.

B-The m'pce actually goes in far enough so that it does butt up against said step.

and

C-That depth is the proper one for the m'pce/horn/player interface.

A lotta ifs there.

Anyone ever see a trombone with an adjustable receiver that could ameliorate a few of those questions?

S.

I agree... a lot of 'ifs'.
Somebody at King, probably way back, thought it would help make a better trombone. I bet most of the other makers tried it, found that it made little or no difference, and kept on with the simpler, cheaper style leadpipe.
Let's face it, there's every chance that most trumpets and mouthpieces do not fit together perfectly.. leaving a worse kind of gap than our end-of-shank step down.
Chris Stearn.

I thought most trumpets were designed to HAVE a gap between the end of the mouthpiece and the leadpipe, and that the dimension of that gap was important.

Yes, most of the trumpet players I know that have adjustable receivers "dial in" a particular gap between the end of the piece and the pipe.

I think the King style pipe could have applications in all bore sizes, it's just a question of getting someone to make them.

Cheers
M

Quote from: blast on Sep 05, 2007, 09:31AMbonearzt beat me to it with the leadpipes in Kings, thanks. The Callet bass pipe was also made this way. What you get.. as you do in all trumpets, is a step, that the bottom of the mouthpiece should butt up against if it is a good fit. the adjustable reciever allowed the mouthpiece to slide in and out so that it could be pushed in until it met the step in the pipe. In theory, the trumpet has no sudden jump in the bore, where the trombone will always have one at the end of the mouthpiece shank, unless it's a king or Callet pipe.

Chris Stearn.


Actually...

With trumpets, the optimum distance from the leadpipe (or venturi, what you want to call it) is 2mm. My friend's father learned this for the first time in his career (30+ years) at the recent Yellowstone Jazz camp. His friend, a trumpet player formerly with Buddy Rich, showed him that by placing a small rolled up piece of paper in the leadpipe, the mouthpiece would be the right distance away from the leadpipe. He had even done a placebo blind test... and Dr. Bull (my friend's father) was wowed out of seat at how well his Strad 72 played with the mouthpiece just the 2mm away from the start of the leadpipe. Lucky for them, one of their favorite Bbs is a Courtois with a screw on the leadpipe to change the distance.

Actually one of the things that I'm having done is having the old leadpipe removed and Shires leadpipe installed.  The original receiver is very weird, it's hard to get a mpc to fit well.  I was actually having more success with small shank mpc with adaptor which convinced me I had to find a more "standard" leadpipe.  But the sound of that nickel bell... sweet.

Quote from: sabutin on Sep 05, 2007, 10:28AMOlds horns open a whole 'nother can of kickass. They used a different taper in their receivers and what that decision essentially guaranteed is that only their m'pces fit right. AND...their m'pces sucked. Which is one reason why Olds horns never became as popular as their quality suggested they should become among serious pros.

Have fun trying, though...

Once again, a little creative buffing of your m'pce and some teflon p[lumber's tape should help with the problem.

Later...

S.

I would have to agree with what Gabe said, that there should be a gap.

I had a mouthpiece altered so that it sat in to the horn ( a 2b+ ) with no gap......the result.........absolutely dreadful.

As to there being an optimum gap, I think this is going to vary depending on the myriad of variations between horn, mouthpiece and most importantly the player.

Incidentally, I have seen quite a few pipes that have been removed from older King 2b's and they were made in one piece just like Bach's and Conn's are.

Would be interesting to know when they changed over?, and who was behind it ?


BellEnd

Quote from: Bellend on Sep 06, 2007, 02:26PMI would have to agree with what Gabe said, that there should be a gap.

I had a mouthpiece altered so that it sat in to the horn ( a 2b+ ) with no gap......the result.........absolutely dreadful.

As to there being an optimum gap, I think this is going to vary depending on the myriad of variations between horn, mouthpiece and most importantly the player.

Incidentally, I have seen quite a few pipes that have been removed from older King 2b's and they were made in one piece just like Bach's and Conn's are.

Would be interesting to know when they changed over?, and who was behind it ?


BellEnd

I stand corrected about the gap. The trumpet I was shown was designed to eliminate the gap.. at least that's what the designer told me. I don't know about other models... and that was a pre-production example. They must have gone their own way.
Chris Stearn.

Interesting thing is that turbulence is a very vital factor in horn design, too. If it's induced in the right spots (like at the end of a mouthpiece, or the handslide receiver shank) it can have fantastic benefits. If it's removed, it can have disasterous results. Oh, gawd, there's another can of worms just opened up....

Cheers,
M

QuoteOlds horns open a whole 'nother can of kickass. They used a different taper in their receivers and what that decision essentially guaranteed is that only their m'pces fit right. AND...their m'pces sucked. Which is one reason why Olds horns never became as popular as their quality suggested they should become among serious pros.
 I take a certain amount of issue with this as I've got several Olds mouthpieces and some of them are quite good.  They're just different...not like anything else really, and I have had less uccess with them on horns other Olds. 

But with an Olds with the right one, watch out.  I had an Olds Standard that I still regret selling and it was absolutely amazing with both an Olds 3 and an Olds 12C that i had.

The problem was, as I see it, that they went their own way while the rest of the American market went for a more standardized apporach..the days of playing the mouthpiece that came with the horn came to an end in the late 40's / 50's and Olds never moved beyond it.  That and a really small outfit on the West Coast exclusively without input/output to the rest of the country and there you have it.

I have a European shank NY bach 8 that work FANTASTIC o the Olds Opera.  One day I'll buy a horn to go with the mouthpiece.

The very issue of turbulence of various horns is why I have several mouthpieces in the smae genral sizes.  Well that and resonance too.  Different horns react differently so why not some different pieces to work best with them.  i have a mouthpiece that works great on a lot fo things, but a couple of pieces just bing out the most of other horns.

We have to be willing to give up a little on the soft/malleable side too to get the right combination.

But or faces/playing concept has to be in shape enough that we can both tell the difference between what works and doesn't, and so that we can make the neccessary adjustments ot use the quipment that is best suited to each other.  I.E, the soft tissue to mouthpiece to instrument interface.

A quick note...Sam's teflon tape trick really works.  I don't use it because I mainly play vintage istruments for which there are either no or inadequate replacement parts, so I am unwilling to modify them in an attempt to do this.  A good playing horn is worth more than the $200 I'll spend on finding the right mouthpiece.

Woo-Hoo
-Ben

Quote from: griffinben on Sep 06, 2007, 07:10PM I take a certain amount of issue with this as I've got several Olds mouthpieces and some of them are quite good.  They're just different...not like anything else really, and I have had less uccess with them on horns other Olds. 
I should heve been more specific.

They did NOT "suck". They played very well when matched with Olds horns. But they FELT like they sucked when played with other horns, and thus they also felt strange compared to the mainstream Bach-ish m'pces to which most of us had grown accustomed.

So...the horns didn't play well with other brands of m'pces, and the m'pces that DID make them play well felt...well, they felt foreign, to put it mildly.

Thus...the horns never got as popular as they might have gotten.

A self-fulfilling, Catch-22 kind of prophecy.

Better?

---snip---

-Ben
[/quote]

Quote from: Horn Builder on Sep 06, 2007, 04:46PMInteresting thing is that turbulence is a very vital factor in horn design, too. If it's induced in the right spots (like at the end of a mouthpiece, or the handslide receiver shank) it can have fantastic benefits. If it's removed, it can have disasterous results. Oh, gawd, there's another can of worms just opened up....

Cheers,
M

Or...there's another can of worms closed up.

How?

Do not worry about "the gap". OR turbulence. Simply find the right m'pce depth...right for YOU...and go on about your business.

I'm my OWN wind tunnel.

You can be, too.

S.

QuoteI take a certain amount of issue with this as I've got several Olds mouthpieces and some of them are quite good.  They're just different...not like anything else really, and I have had less uccess with them on horns other Olds.

I should heve been more specific.

They did NOT "suck". They played very well when matched with Olds horns. But they FELT like they sucked when played with other horns, and thus they also felt strange compared to the mainstream Bach-ish m'pces to which most of us had grown accustomed.

So...the horns didn't play well with other brands of m'pces, and the m'pces that DID make them play well felt...well, they felt foreign, to put it mildly.

Thus...the horns never got as popular as they might have gotten.

A self-fulfilling, Catch-22 kind of prophecy.

Better?

Yes'm, much better.  I figured as long as we're talking about "why choose any mouthpiece" we might as well explore the different sides of the issue. 

Poor buisness plans included...

Just as a minor aside, several trumpet playing friends speak of the Olds recording modle trumpets with almost reverential deference...or at least the ones open to sounds other than Bach's.  Aparently they play great with any mouthpiece, so i don't know what was up with the trombones.

-Ben

SENT  TO  MARCOFLEX  FOR  TRY OUT
========================
NY 8
MV7C
MV 7C
MV 7C
NY 11C
NY 12C
NY 7C
MV 12
MV 12C
MV 12C
and for   kicks  olds  12c  like  art sares  used

So what about the Bach mpcs that are generally considered to be in between the 6.5AL and the 11C in size? I've been playing a 7C for a month or so on my .500 bore horn and think I like.
     Observation: even if the end of the mpc shank is snug against the receiver wall, there's still a big change in bore equal to 2X the shank wall thickness.
     I have a .525 bore slide put together by Graham Middleton with Shires tubes and crook and a King 607 handle and leadpipe. It had a fitting to connect it to a King .525 bell and I converted it to a Shires fitting. Graham was working at Shires at the time and sent me the fitting along with a short piece of tubing for me to cut and connect to the lower tube inside the taper, so that the lower tube would be .525 all the way to the end of the taper. I'm not sure I can detect any difference with or without this 3/8 of an inch of tubing. With it, there's a single large change in bore at the end of the taper into the neckpipe. Without it, there's two smaller, close-together changes in bore.

The distance from the end of the m'pc to the smallest part of the receiver makes a big difference in response.  Burt Herrick and Larry Minick both understood this and it's one of the features that makes them superior to stock leadpipes.

Bob Reeves in hollywood makes an adjustable gap receiever for trumpets.  Someone also makes one for tubas but the name escapes me.

The Duo Gravis has a two piece leadpipe that accounts for much of it's edge.

In my mind I always pictured the taper of the backbore flowing smoothly through the leadpipe as a single taper...Way Wrong.  A taper, a constriction and another taper... a dual venturi.

Old shanks and old receivers change over time, moving the distance from the backbore to the leadpipe constriction...which most players accomodate over the years.  It's only when trying a different horn and the response is very different that the notice.

QuoteSomeone also makes one for tubas but the name escapes me.
Steve Dillon

Mouthpiece gots t'feel right.  Love how the Bach 7C plays for lead/solo stuff, and I can get more punch in the mid-to-low range than on other smaller pieces, but I find it uncomfortable.  Bach 6.5 AL feels good and sounds good all up and down the range, will always want to have one handy.

Wick 6BS and 10CS FEEL great to me.  The 10 is my fave for lead/solo work and the 6 is overall nice but limits me a little in the lower register, as it feels weak and I perceive that it sounds mushy down there, narrow backbore does that I think.

On leadpipes, I don't even know what the heck kinda leadpipe is in my Yamaha 684 .525, but that thing slots just right in all partials so that I can use all of my favorite alternate positions in the high register.  Can't say the same of the Bach LT16M.

I know this thread is about choosing mpc's, but I was surprised by some of the comments about leadpipes. 

John, you said that "In my mind I always pictured the taper of the backbore flowing smoothly through the leadpipe as a single taper...Way Wrong.  A taper, a constriction and another taper... a dual venturi." 

So, from the point where the lips buzz, the first "constriction" is the mpc throat; then the "sound pipe" (not "leadpipe") opens in the mpc backbore; at the end of which it constricts down again in the leadpipe (the "second taper"), and then expands again through the end of the leadpipe, and eventually becomes the bore size of the horn.  This is the dual venturi? 

(BTW, is "venturi" single or plural?  Is one a ventura -- NOT THE CITY!!-- and more than one venturi?. . .  But does that mean that Ventura is just another "windy city" . . . ?)   

I remember now a picture from the old Schilke catalogues that had a cross section of a trumpet mpc inserted into a leadpipe.  This showed the "gap" between the end of the mpc and the beginning of the venturi. 

Questions: 1. As previous posts have mentioned, King trombones seem to have this "trumpet like" set up.  (I think my old King 4B was like this.)  Is this one of the characteristics that gave King trombones (and presumably Benge horns too) their unique sound?  (Leaving aside other things like bell shape, materials, gauge of metal, etc.)?

2. What about the "traditional" German/Viennese style trombones?  If I remember previously discussions, they didn't have leadpipes, just a mouthpiece that fit into the 1st yard or downpipe of the slide.  Same question: Is this one of the things (all others being equal) that give the "traditional" German/Viennese style trombones their unique sound? 

3.  What about the fashion a while ago of using a mpc. "holder" without a leadpipe?  I remember this was popular a while ago for bass trombonists.

Don't know how to answer your trombone questions, but I can handle the "venturi" one.

"Venturi" is singular.  The plural is "venturis".  Though it looks like it could be one of those odd "i" ending plurals, it's actually named after G.B. Venturi, an Italian physicist who died in 1822.

Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster Online:

: a short tube with a tapering constriction in the middle that causes an increase in the velocity of flow of a fluid and a corresponding decrease in fluid pressure and that is used especially in measuring fluid flow or for creating a suction (as for driving aircraft instruments or drawing fuel into the flow stream of a carburetor)

So, did anybody conclude if there is one IDEAL gap for the mouthpiece and slide reciever? Someone said it is 2mm for trumpet, but what about trombone?

I mean, it's possible that it exists, and it's based on real physics in some way. For example, Sam is fooling around with plumber's tape to get the "sweet spot" on each mouthpiece. But, let's not forget that mouthpiece shanks are different. So, maybe he's just finding the maesurement as it relates to that shank/leadpipe combination.

And...How would one measure these, anyway?

I just acquired a Yamaha 354,with a Blessing 6 1/2 AL mouthpiece. I just got used to playing higher register semi-consistently on my old Mannheim with the standard,larger mouthpiece that came with it. So far,I haven't been able to really hit those high , and yet on the Yamaha.

Should I give myself more time or should I try out a larger mouthpiece or a smaller one in order to hit those notes?

(The Blessing mouthpiece is a small shank.)

Quote from: janettem on Mar 26, 2008, 02:31PMI just acquired a Yamaha 354,with a Blessing 6 1/2 AL mouthpiece. I just got used to playing higher register semi-consistently on my old Mannheim with the standard,larger mouthpiece that came with it. So far,I haven't been able to really hit those high , and yet on the Yamaha.

Should I give myself more time or should I try out a larger mouthpiece or a smaller one in order to hit those notes?

(The Blessing mouthpiece is a small shank.)
I have no problem getting those notes with a Blessing 6.5 AL on a 354 (I own both), but it took me more than 15 years on trombone to get a solid high C with this combo...

Before, a smaller mouthpiece helped...

It might be worthwhile to see what happens if you get a mouthpiece with the same rim size that you were using before.  Is there a small shank version of your other piece?

Quote from: AxSlinger7String on Mar 27, 2008, 05:46AMIt might be worthwhile to see what happens if you get a mouthpiece with the same rim size that you were using before.  Is there a small shank version of your other piece?

I believe there is. I'll check it out when I hit the local stores here...once I get some $$$ to do it!

I may have to wait till my lip heals a little more to try to hit those notes consistently.

I played for about 15 minutes this morning,and went a little higher,but I may have to practice more to be able to hit those notes without flubbing them!

choosing a mouthpiece is a long, hard, arduos process.

1. Get a wide range of mouthpiecs
2. Find ones that feels nice and comfortable and make a good sound to you.
3. Get some experienced players and musicians in general to hear you play on them.
4. Buy the mouthpiece that recieves the most positive feedback from others..

I did this with 8 mouthpieces, some shiny gold ones etc.... I went blindfolded and had a few people listen. I ended up picking a stock standard 1.5G.

Go figure.

There's nothing wrong with the 1.5 -- except it usually isn't gold-plated, and doesn't have too many artists endorsing it.

New member (but old player) here. Very interesting thread. I'm not necessarily a curmudgeon, but am on this topic. I've been looking for my ideal mouthpiece for 50 years and may have finally figured some things out.

First, I hate Bach mouthpieces - all of them. They are the standard, but they do not fit my embouchure at all. It's probably good advice for most players to line up as many Bachs as possible and pick the one that plays the best - but for some of us, that will just compound our frustration. I have about a dozen of them and can't play on any of them for more than a minute. I just hate the feel and the tone.

Having laid off for 20 years and recently started the journey back, one thing became crystal clear to me - there is only one type of mouthpiece that I can play on well and that gives me the tone that I want. Basically, they were a style made around the turn of the 19th century. They are funnel-shaped and have absolutely flat rims. Years ago, I started on my grandfather's mouthpiece of that type and foolishly moved on. The only modern mouthpiece that comes close to that style is a Conn 3 and I don't believe they are made any more. I used one of those in my younger days (college) when playing a big bore horn several hours per day. I can't handle that one any more for a variety of reasons and have gone back to my lifelong back-up: my grandfather's funnel-shaped mouthpiece. Thank goodness for ebay because now I have been able acquire several more of that same type in a variety of sizes.

My truth for mouthpieces: try every type you can get you hands on and stay with what you are most comfortable with and which makes covering your desired range the best. Do not convert to some mouthpiece because it is popular with other players or fits some pre-conceived notion that you or your teacher has. Choosing a mouthpiece is personal. What works for one person has nothing to do with any other.

H George