Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post Reply
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

My current mouthpiece (Hammond F1) in my shires large-bore, via Noah Gladstone's sterling 42 leadpipe doesn't show any consistency in note tuning with slide position, and the shifts to correct are on the order of cms. Another mouthpiece (Wick 4.5 AL) has larger projection and better tuning per position. I am guessing the problem is the amount of mouthpiece projection.

Interested in anyone's experiences with this and how to correct. Thanks!
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
BGuttman
Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:19 am
Location: Cow Hampshire

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by BGuttman »

If the mouthpiece goes in too far, you can fix that with some plumber's Teflon tape on the mouthpiece shank.

I've seen this in reverse with my Conn 36H alto: standard small shanks stick out too far and have horrible alignment of the partials, while the Conn 7C that was supplied with it has great alignment of the partials. Too bad I'm not comfortable with the Conn 7C.
Bruce Guttman
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orchestra
"Almost Professional"
User avatar
Matt K
Verified
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Matt K »

Those pieces aren't terribly similar. You're probably just more familiar with one and compensate automatically with it, whereas the other one is more foreign to you and requires more effort for you - at least for now.
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4530
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Burgerbob »

What's the trombone?

Like Matt said, you're probably just more familiar with the other piece. The Friedman tenor pieces are also pretty oddball compared to most of the stock offerings today.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
Doug Elliott
Posts: 2950
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Maryand

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Doug Elliott »

By "greater projection" I think you are referring to how far the mouthpiece sticks out of the horn, which seems important as to the overall length.
A much more meaningful measurement is how far the shank goes into the receiver, because the backbore to leadpipe relationship is actually more important to how it plays.
There are good mouthpieces that are long, and good mouthpieces that are short. Either way they need to fit into the receiver at a point that gives the best resistance and response, which will also be the most consistent tuning,
"I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two."
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

Good discussion, and yes to Doug- how much the mouthpiece sticks out of the leadpipe.

Burgerbob's comment is interesting and one that I've not heard before: can we discuss the Friedman pieces please? I respond well to Hammond's more conical shape, rather than standard bowl, but maybe Friedman takes this further, or just tweaks everything differently? BTW that's my primary and most familiar mouthpiece, although I would have preferred a wider rim (3-ish) with sharp inner rim (like a Wick).
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
Burgerbob
Posts: 4530
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
Location: LA
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Burgerbob »

raschultz wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 12:42 pm Good discussion, and yes to Doug- how much the mouthpiece sticks out of the leadpipe.

Burgerbob's comment is interesting and one that I've not heard before: can we discuss the Friedman pieces please? I respond well to Hammond's more conical shape, rather than standard bowl, but maybe Friedman takes this further, or just tweaks everything differently? BTW that's my primary and most familiar mouthpiece, although I would have preferred a wider rim (3-ish) with sharp inner rim (like a Wick).
As far as I know, the Friedman tenor piece (no matter the brand, with small differences of course) is a 3 rim, shallower, conical cup, and a pretty small throat. They're designed to fit Jay's face (3 rim), and balance out the LT50 slide while still achieving a clear principal tenor sound (all the other things). I'm sure they work to a degree on other horns and designs, but I would assume they work best on a LT50 slide/light gold bell 42.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

Thanks, Burgerbob- you are right on the F1 specs. As a BTW my own setup is: F1, Noah's SS MV-taper leadpipe. Shires components are: NS slide, Truebore, B tuning slide in gold brass, 3YM bell (3 was an experimental predecessor of 7). My face is small (I'm 5'6) so narrower rim is good. I get plenty of solidity in my sound rom all that- no need for more mass on the mouthpiece from what I can tell. That should darken and mellow out the tone but hard to find in a funnelly cup.

Maybe there needs to be consistency between the tapers of leadpipe and tuning slide? Doug et al- please feel free to chime in on this one.
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
LeTromboniste
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:22 am
Location: Sion, CH

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by LeTromboniste »

Not all mouthpiece fit all horns for all players. It might be that there something wrong with how far the mouthpiece goes in, but it's also entirely possible that the proportions in that particular mouthpiece design don't combine well with your playing and/or the horn.

As is mentionned above, if this mouthpiece was designed to be in tune when used in a bass slide, it might very well not be in tune for you on a smaller slide.
Maximilien Brisson
www.maximilienbrisson.com
Lecturer for baroque trombone,
Hfk Bremen/University of the Arts Bremen
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

Thanks, LeTromboneiste- makes sense. BTW my slide is tenor, NS, bach-width, with bass crook (all Shires standard I believe). But you're right- maybe this setup (and my embouchure) don't work well with the F1. That would mean finding a replacement though 😳 that may not have the F1's characteristics that apparently make it tricky to match. Appreciate your thoughts and everyone's perspectives here.
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

BTW I also have a Doug Elliott piece: XT series, N104 rim, G cup, F shank; I don’t think I’ve tried this in the new pipe though; I will try that also.
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
Matt K
Verified
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Matt K »

There isn't really a "standard" Shires slide, although you could certainly make the argument a TW47 or similar might be, which has just a "wide" crook, but with a .547 bore rather than the .562 bore the bass crooks have. The most "Bach" slide Shires sells is a TB47YCL. Yours sounds like a TB47NLWL maybe? The "L" at the end is the important part: Bach length. Shires and Edwards slides are a little shorter than Bach slides, and the bell in turn is a touch longer. They do both sell the longer length, but it isn't quite as popular.

Your leadpipe is also a bit of the beaten path. That isn't to say it can't or won't work. Just that you have to consider all the parts of the horn. If you had a T5VNY bell with a thayer valve and a TB47YCL, it probably works swimmingly. If you have a 2RVET7 bell and a rotor with a T47LW slide (which is what I play), probably not as good a match. Or at least it doesn't work for me on that horn. Sterling is also a little more "dense". I love it as a material but it's way too expensive for me to experiment and I've been successful on yellow in the last few years. Although my bass pipe is sterling at the moment. At any rate, it might seem silly to suggest that such things affect intonation... and while it might not directly affect intonation, it might make it harder to control the instrument for you and in turn make it slightly more difficult to play in-tune, etc.

That's one reason why proponents of stock horns argue that you should pick something common and practice until the proverbial plating wears off. If you have something others have played, you probably won't need to worry about it being wrong and if it is, you can at least overcome it and then from there have a baseline against which you can evaluate other options.

I'm not in that camp, personally, but it probably does behoove you to make intentional, incremental changes. I actually made a similar progression of rim sizes. I went from a 5ish piece to Doug's XT102N (1.02") to XT104N (1.04"), the last of which is roughly 3G and have been there for almost a decade at this point. During the latter rim changes, I didn't have to guess what part of the piece was best. I was fortunate to go over to Doug's and swap things out like trying eyeglasses. Takes all of the guesswork out of it.

My suggestion would be to figure out what rim size works best for you first and then go from there. You're in good company if the 1.04" size works for you, fortunately. But it doesn't for everyone and there's nothing wrong with either.

EDIT: I see you just posted you have an Elliott setup already. That rim is probably going to be very similar. I think the cups are probably a touch deeper than the friedman. The shanks you're playing on make a big difference. You probably want a G8 or G9 and an F8 or F9. On Bach horns, I tend to like the 9s more than 8s. I don't know when you purchased it, but if you got them from Doug recently, definitely hit him up for advice.
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

Hi Matt, good calls. Shires horn is from 2000; DE mouthpiece is from 2011. I also do incremental changes, the latest being Noah's SS leadpipe. F1 was maybe 5 years ago. I didn't know about Shires handslide lengths and probably have TW47NLWL but would need to check on his site. I have no 7th position.

On the DE: I agree that mixing F and G components is a disaster (for me). F cup is too shallow for me, G works well. I have F9 and G8 shanks; I am excited to try the DE with XT 104N, G cup, G8 shank. Maybe that's my ticket!
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
Matt K
Verified
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by Matt K »

raschultz wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:48 pm Hi Matt, good calls. Shires horn is from 2000; DE mouthpiece is from 2011. I also do incremental changes, the latest being Noah's SS leadpipe. F1 was maybe 5 years ago. I didn't know about Shires handslide lengths and probably have TW47NLWL but would need to check on his site. I have no 7th position.

On the DE: I agree that mixing F and G components is a disaster (for me). F cup is too shallow for me, G works well. I have F9 and G8 shanks; I am excited to try the DE with XT 104N, G cup, G8 shank. Maybe that's my ticket!
Ah! Re-reading your original post with that additional context makes sense. The lack of 7th position is odd. It's probably not Bach length if it's that sharp. Usually, the longer slides add an extra inch or so of non-conical tubing and so you'd have to push your tuning slide in a touch to bring it up to pitch even, and probably wouldn't be missing 7th. Or at least I've never heard of someone missing 7th on such a longer slide. You can determine your model by the number/letters on the handslide cork barrel. It should be right below the slide tenon. Though if it's from the early 2000s, it might be closer to just a TB47NLW or something, if I were to guess. That would be a similar slide to the Bach 42 LW, all nickel, no oversleeves, Bass crook.

Yes, definitely try the G8. Doug also has a new set of shanks this year marked "*" that I find to be really, really great. Would be worth getting one just to try, if you have the cash, especially with his return policy. I might even recommend trying a G10* on that horn. I'd defer to his expertise, obviously.

If you check out his handy comparison chart: http://dougelliottmouthpieces.com/serie ... chart.html Note that the 4.5AL is roughly his "I" depth. My suspicion is that this leadpipe probably needs a little deeper cup. "I" might be a little extreme. It does feel really good but in my experience, going that deep has a Goldilocks period that I usually return from within a few weeks. If you came from a bigger pipe such as a 3 or 3L, that definitely makes sense. The "G" depth might be a good compromise between the shallower F1 and the deeper 4.5AL. Or if you're feeling like trying something else new, the G+ or H depth technically splits it a little bit closer to the 4.5AL.
User avatar
raschultz
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 2:48 pm
Location: NW Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by raschultz »

Wonderful! Thanks Matt and all for this very enlightening dive into the topic. For me this was a very successful dialog. BTW please feel free to chime in as I won't close it for a while instead will try things out. Thanks.
https://www.orionboneworks.com


Vintage Bach 16. Mouthpiece: Wick 4BS
Shires custom large-bore tenor. Mouthpiece: DE 103 sym, F+ cup, G8 shank
Shires Q alto. Mouthpiece: Giardinelli 3m with Denis Wick 5 rim
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4491
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Tuning vs. mouthpiece projection

Post by harrisonreed »

Try the new DE Sym models. They are great
Post Reply

Return to “Mouthpieces”