Posted by Rick Denney on December 15, 2003 at 17:00:54:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smaller mouthpiece for bigger horn posted by bloke on December 13, 2003 at 23:14:08:
Yup. But that doesn't make what I'm saying untrue (at least when I get it right).
Almost all my tuba mouthpieces have very similar popping frequencies--within a semitone. That means that their designers have balanced cup volume, shank length, throat diameter, and all the other things that have an effect. Enlarging the throat a little bit probably doesn't have that much effect, and the way it shapes the tone might have a bigger effect if it is changing the emphasis on some out-of-tune harmonics on the tuba. My statement was simplistic.
(Speaking of getting it right: I think I mis-wrote above. Larger throat = higher frequency center. But it still makes the mouthpiece more steerable.)
There are examples where it really matters. The receiver on my York Master had never been reamed, and it was an untapered barrel bore about the diameter of the tip of a standard shank. A bass trombone or old Besson shank fit fine. A mouthpiece with reasonable intonation was difficult to find on that tuba, with the Wick 1 being the best of several poor choices. Reaming the receiver to the proper taper, however, which Doug did for me, opened the door to mouthpieces that allowed in-tune playing, though it still had some funny notes. This might be as much from the bigger throat making it more steerable than anything, but it seemed to me like more than that.
Here's another example: When I play a Bach bass trombone mouthpiece on my Besson euphonium, it's nearly 20 cents flatter than when I play a Steven Mead mouthpiece. The Bach is a 1-1/2G, I think, and the Mead is a 3 (and the 4 is the same). The two have popping frequences more than a semitone apart.
Rick "who finds the optimal mouthpiece for the YM to be unnecessarily large for the Holton" Denney