Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Custom Mouthpieces


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

Posted by Doug Elliott on August 05, 1999 at 12:03:35:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Custom Mouthpieces posted by Jay Bertolet on August 04, 1999 at 11:56:25:

If you could lookat the inside of any brass instrument, you would see that the idea of a "smooth, consistent conical expansion" is a joke. You'd find misaligned tubes and blobs of solder, not to mention dents and last week's lunch. Any abrupt change in bore size is probably detrimental. Of course, the better instruments are made more cleanly and designed with smoother connections and tapers, and they play better. Since it's not practical to completely smooth the transitions- the end of the mouthpiece has to be thick enough to avoid damage- it helps to bevel the end. Some things that work, however, seem to contradict this- a tight backbore can compensate for a leadpipe that starts too big, and also helps large bore F's where the bore is out of proportion for the length of the horn.
It would have been nice if the manufacturers had standardized receivers a hundred years ago, but it's a little late for that now. It would not quite leave enough room for individualization of backbore size, for example, an Alex really needs a much larger backbore than you can put in a standard size shank.
You say at least 3 of your tubas don't have a traditional receiver- that's exacly my point. There is no traditional receiver- every manufacturer has their own ideas about receivers, not to mention length of leadpipe, bore size, where the flare starts, bell flare and size, etc., and there's nothing wrong with that. Every player and playing situation is different.



Follow Ups: