Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MP sizes


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mike Sherline on December 18, 2002 at 04:22:07:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MP sizes posted by SHS Tubamaster on December 17, 2002 at 18:09:37:

Well, Mr Denney, I can hardly refuse such a request,
though I don't feel very knowledgeable on the topic. I've
spent many hundreds of dollars trying to find the right
mp. I think my 2155 (and my tbn section) loves the bronze
Dillon M-3 the most; so do I for the sound and flexibility,
but it sure takes a lot of air. In reply to SHS Tubamaster,
who asked: "what exactly would be a strongly bowl-shaped
mouthpiece?", of course you're right about Bachs. Mouthpiece
Express has charts comparing the rim and cup diameter, cup
depth, and backbore of the various Bachs and Yamahas, and
possibly some others. The PT chart (free from Custom)
describes the 65 as "very round", and the 68, 70, 80, and 88
as having "very rounded bottoms" (no jokes, please).
Some of the 50 and under models, though funnel shaped, are also
described as having rounded bottoms, so I guess the difference
is in the overall bowl shape of the cups on the higher numbers.
I have to confess that I can't very well describe how cup shape
effects playing qualities or sound - unfortunately you just have
to spend the money and try them out. Of course you're fortunate
to live near Doug Elliott - and smart to avail yourself of his
expertise.
By the way (with apologies to the list mgr), your essay
on the importance of proper punctuation and capitalization
is excellent - thank you for that.


Follow Ups: