Re: Re: Re: Re: Effect of Bore Size


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

Posted by Rick Denney on November 19, 2003 at 13:19:39:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Effect of Bore Size posted by Roger Lewis on November 19, 2003 at 07:39:06:

As Chuck suggests, this is probably a simplification that doesn't hold in all cases. As the saying goes, all models are false but some are useful, and this rule is probably as good a place to start as any.

On the other hand, the big Doug Elliott mouthpiece that makes such a noticeable difference on the York Master makes the Holton a bit harder to steer. The smaller (i.e., shallower and with a smaller throat) PT-48 works well on the Holton and provides just as big and resonant a sound as the bigger mouthpiece. On the YM, though, the bigger mouthpiece has a glow-in-the-dark effect. Of course, the valve bore of both tubas is the same.

In comparing these two to my Miraphone using my largish collection of mouthpieces, I've come to the conclusion that each tuba/player combination has a maximum workable mouthpiece size, where going larger provides no benefit. Your thesis is that this maximum workable mouthpiece size varies inversely to the size of the instrument bore. I can't confirm that--all my BBb tubas have a similar bore despite quite different overall size. But I can confirm that a larger overall tuba seems to have a smaller maximum workable size with the same player. This would fit Chuck's data, too--the helicon he mentions, while small of bore, is likely not particularly small of body.

The York Master's receiver was not properly tapered from the factory, which had not been noted by previous owners. When Doug reamed it out to have the proper taper, it opened the door to mouthpieces that would really work on the instrument. It had a noticeable effect on the sound, and the larger throat made possible by the larger shank also loosened the horn up a bit which helped with intonation.

This may sound like I favor large mouthpieces just because I happend to use them, but I'm not sure I do. I'm of the growing suspicion that the smallest mouthpiece that provides the needed effect and sound should be the preferred choice. To that end, each tuba/player combination probably has a minimum effective mouthpiece size in addition to a maximum. Even great tuba players seem to divide into the small-mouthpiece versus large-mouthpiece camps. I'm using large mouthpieces, but I think it's because I'm not efficient enough to make good use of small mouthpieces.

Rick "in ramble mode as usual" Denney


Follow Ups: