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


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

Posted by Jay Bertolet on August 06, 1999 at 15:04:33:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Custom Mouthpieces posted by Joseph Felton on August 06, 1999 at 13:10:29:

Excellent points Joseph!

But, unfortunately, you're also stating the obvious. Certainly there is no hope of a perfectly symetrical and consistent graduation for any conical instrument save a valveless one, and even that would be difficult to build in the extreme. I like the example you offer about how Rudolf Meinl graphs nodal points on a straight tube to determine how to position the wrap of his tubas. I personally think that is an ingenious technique and it explains to me why his instruments have such high quality (just my opinion). What I'm after, and where I was trying to go with my last post, is to try and clean up those aspects of the overall tube that are both unanticipated and relatively simple to correct. I would no more endorse the study of a project to compensate how valves affect the gradual conical expansion than I would go out and buy a seven valve tuba so that I never had to use "combinations" which inherently lead to flawed intonation. Much is possible but what is practical?

What I'm trying to pursue are two main points. You raise a very valid issue about the particular balance of a given tuba. Certainly, with the plethora of mouthpieces on the market, any given manufacturer could never design a receiver that would perfectly couple any mouthpiece and any leadpipe. I just don't believe that pursuing a model coupling of mouthpiece and leadpipe has anything to do with the balance of the tuba. In fact, I begin to wonder how much of what happens when we plug a mouthpiece into the tuba and blow and then say "it feels good!" is based on how well the shank seats in the receiver rather than cup or backbore dimensions. So it seems like establishing what constitutes a "correct" position for the shank in the receiver would have no effect on the balance of the tuba and would be relatively easy to accomplish. The other premise I'm pursuing is the assertion that what happens earlier in the wrap is much more important than what happens later. As a result, I'm tending to focus on the mouthpiece and leadpipe for a starting point. Remember that what I'm really trying to find is better centering capability and better intonation. While things like valve placement and specific wrap will affect these things, I feel that to change them would be to disturb the balance of the tuba, as you said, and I don't want to go there. Besides, the side effects of such a procedure could be devastating to the sound and response and I'm satisfied with those aspects of my current crop of instruments.

I wish I'd been able to attend that presentation by Gerhard Meinl. It sounds like it was a very interesting discussion and certainly germane to the current discussion. But you're wrong about the tuba with the strategically placed dents. I'd plunk my money down in a heartbeat! I really don't understand why anyone would opt not to buy a tuba that played great. How a tuba looks cosmetically is so far down on my list it isn't even a consideration. Most of the audience is so far away from me that they'd never even see the tuba clearly, anyway. Ah, but what would they hear?

Great post Joseph!


Follow Ups: