Table of MP Elements and their Effects on Playing

[jpwell]

Librassco
Good advertising on a place I would never do business with.

[Doldom]

Sometimes I feel sorry that there's no or very few scientific analysis on subject of brass playing. In my medical background, there is a term called "level of evidence", and an expert opinion is regarded the lowest level of evidence. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial is regarded as the highest evidence. So, if some breast cancer expert says "chemotherapy before surgery in resectable triple-negative breast cancer is better than surgery before chemotherapy", it is regarded that it has lowest level of evidence, unless, there's some randomized clinical trial that evidently shows the results.
I think "the truth" is only one. But a lack of scientific studies in the brass playing field, there are so many hypothesis that have not been proved yet.

[LIBrassCo]

Sometimes I feel sorry that there's no or very few scientific analysis on subject of brass playing. In my medical background, there is a term called "level of evidence", and an expert opinion is regarded the lowest level of evidence. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial is regarded as the highest evidence. So, if some breast cancer expert says "chemotherapy before surgery in resectable triple-negative breast cancer is better than surgery before chemotherapy", it is regarded that it has lowest level of evidence, unless, there's some randomized clinical trial that evidently shows the results.
I think "the truth" is only one. But a lack of scientific studies in the brass playing field, there are so many hypothesis that have not been proved yet.

While I wholeheartedly agree, I think perhaps the challenge ends up being the cost/benefit from creating the level of evidence you're referring to, at least in this field. It's just too small (I wish this wasn't the case). To further my supposition, at face value most companies are profiting off of expert opinion exclusively, and would have little reason to want to change their methodology to align with a more objective viewpoint (I.E. trust me because trust me). Mind you I'm not saying what I claim on a random internet forum sounds any better. At least in person I benefit from being able to put an actual product on front of a player and have them see for themselves there's actually significant differences in what I make.

That all being said. If someone ever wanted to foot the bill for some actual objective analysis (which to be honest I'm not even sure how you could truly do in this case), I'd certainly throw a model or two into the ring for funsies.

[Doldom]

While I wholeheartedly agree, I think perhaps the challenge ends up being the cost/benefit from creating the level of evidence you're referring to, at least in this field. It's just too small (I wish this wasn't the case).

Yes, sadly the pool of trombone players is maybe too small to perform a meaningful randomized trial... cost/benefit of trial would not be good.
By the way I like your rim. I have narrow rim that have similar inner diameter and similar profile, but I don't think I benefit from the narrower rim. flexibility, slotting, both are better with your wide rim. so maybe your opinion on rim is right. But again my small trial includes "me" and I can definetely feel the difference of rim before playing, so the small trial by me cannot be randomized so that even I cannot trust my results. I should rule out bias and placebo effect, but I can't.

[LIBrassCo]

While I wholeheartedly agree, I think perhaps the challenge ends up being the cost/benefit from creating the level of evidence you're referring to, at least in this field. It's just too small (I wish this wasn't the case).

Yes, sadly the pool of trombone players is maybe too small to perform a meaningful randomized trial... cost/benefit of trial would not be good.
By the way I like your rim. I have narrow rim that have similar inner diameter and similar profile, but I don't think I benefit from the narrower rim. flexibility, slotting, both are better with your wide rim. so maybe your opinion on rim is right. But again my small trial includes "me" and I can definetely feel the difference of rim before playing, so the small trial by me cannot be randomized so that even I cannot trust my results. I should rule out bias and placebo effect, but I can't.

Hah! I gave up on the rim width argument about 3 years ago. On bass trombone I switched everything over to a more standard rim width. On tenor mine are mostly still on the wider side, other than the Sprotts, and another artist line that will be coming out. This will be thinner. That being said, I still keep the rim as comfortable as possible with very little bite on the radius going into the cup. When people complain about that it's always just the wrong size mouthpiece, easy fix.

I myself play a wide comfy rim. It's just nicer to my face. No loss of flexibility, or any of that other stuff. I can also play on a small rim on bass trombone and get a huge sound so....

[GabrielRice]

Sometimes I feel sorry that there's no or very few scientific analysis on subject of brass playing. In my medical background, there is a term called "level of evidence", and an expert opinion is regarded the lowest level of evidence. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial is regarded as the highest evidence. So, if some breast cancer expert says "chemotherapy before surgery in resectable triple-negative breast cancer is better than surgery before chemotherapy", it is regarded that it has lowest level of evidence, unless, there's some randomized clinical trial that evidently shows the results.
I think "the truth" is only one. But a lack of scientific studies in the brass playing field, there are so many hypothesis that have not been proved yet.

This is not medicine, though. Measurable outcomes like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and mortality don't exist in the same way. Sure, you can measure sound in various ways, but the subjective experience of playing is always an essential factor in instrument and mouthpiece design. Not just "how does it sound," but "how does it sound both behind and in front of the bell" and "how does it feel" and "do you feel confident to play the music you need to play."

To further complicate matters, switching to a different instrument or mouthpiece changes the way you play over time, and then other adjustments might be needed. Initial impression is obviously extremely important, but how is it working two weeks later? I was just trading texts with a friend about mouthpiece experiments he's doing for a new bass trombone he bought. What worked with his old horn doesn't work as well with the new one. He's a high level professional who needs his equipment to free him to make music.

To go back to the example that started this whole thread, Phyllis Stork's video about the bore...I have been to the Stork shop many times and used to play custom mouthpieces from them. Admittedly, they are less well tuned in to what today's trombonists want, but their trumpet mouthpieces remain very, very popular for good reason.

I have seen Phyllis work with a trumpet player friend, and it's clear she knows exactly what she's talking about. Her expertise goes beyond "you should play this mouthpiece" to "you should play this mouthpiece for a few months, practice this way of playing with these exercises, and then come back for an adjustment." This is not snake oil or a sales technique to rope in players to buy more mouthpieces; I've seen and heard the results with players I know well. And this is very much like the work Doug Elliott does with his clients.

Expert opinion is incredibly valuable in the subjective experience of performing music. Even measurable outcomes will always have an anecdotal element. And even in medicine, the relationship between doctor and patient is extremely important, right? Great science about breast cancer treatment outcomes is obviously necessary, but so is communication with the patient. I believe there is even research to back up the improved outcomes when the patient feels good about their relationship with the doctor and that they are heard and understood.

For as long as there have been musicians, there have been instrument makers and technicians, and musicians have found instrument makers and technicians whose expert opinions they trust. I know string players who travel across the country to have their instruments worked on by one luthier and one luthier only. In the 21st century those experts have more scientific resources at their disposal for sure, but those are tools, and tools are not the same thing as skills and experience.

[LIBrassCo]

Objective > Subjective

This is simple

If that can't be agreed upon there's nowhere to start.

This is why so many companies do well, they thrive in the woo woo bs that is subjective as hell, not to mention non existent.

[GabrielRice]

Objective > Subjective

This is simple

If that can't be agreed upon there's nowhere to start.

This is why so many companies do well, they thrive in the woo woo bs that is subjective as hell, not to mention non existent.

I don't agree.

[LIBrassCo]

Objective > Subjective

This is simple

If that can't be agreed upon there's nowhere to start.

This is why so many companies do well, they thrive in the woo woo bs that is subjective as hell, not to mention non existent.

I don't agree.

Shocker.

[BassboneJ25]

This thread has been great! Who says trombone players can’t have fun!

[LeTromboniste]

Objective > Subjective

This is simple

If that can't be agreed upon there's nowhere to start.

This is why so many companies do well, they thrive in the woo woo bs that is subjective as hell, not to mention non existent.

You said earlier that you start by making a rim that is as comfortable as possible and go from there. Ok. Please define "comfort" in a way that is scientifically objective, and not a question of subjective preference.




On a more general note, when you have a system and infinitely complex as a brass instrument, interfacing with a unique human body and subjective human mind, it's will never be possible to be completely objective, or to fully know and understand everything about every phenomenon that's happening and their myriad of interactions. The practice and the theory will never perfectly align. And there will always be a portion of individuality, aesthetic preferences, people's unique physionomy, mind and experience. To try to remove the humanity out of a tool meant to create art is profoundly misguided.

[hyperbolica]

So, looking at this engineering wise; one factor at a time is TERRIBLE engineering practice. If we take all those variables, they will each have a MEAN effect as well as possibly two way and three way interactions with other variables. My general thought that to convey things properly, the largest effect is the interaction (I mean this statistically) between the player and some features (like rim size and shape). The next strongest factors are probably interactions between some features, like rim size and cup depth. Maybe then you get to just the mean effects of each. If we can figure out a decent way to measure the output, we could pretty easily quantify it. But it wouldn’t make for a very interesting chart, I’d wager that you will have a ton of features that we can feel make a difference, but they are barely statistically significant and dwarfed by the player.

Cheers,
Andy

I think what you'll find is that there are certain relationships - ratios mathematically - that are more important than others and more important than individual measurements. Some necessary measurements will be tough to make, such as the player's lip thickness or structure. These might seem subjective, but I'm sure there's a way to characterize them objectively or even numerically. Thick lips tolerate thin rims better than thinner lips. But thin lips are probably also more effected by wide rims. The Stork videos include some discussion about this. Not everything is a linear relationship.

And info on cup or backbore shape may be difficult to incorporate mathematically. A volume vs depth comparison could characterize conical vs cup bowl shape. Maybe a similar ratio for backbore dia vs shape via volume could be made. And then maybe it is complex enough that it has to be calculated using acoustic software that finds nodes within the mouthpiece and waveforms at various pitches at the exit of the shank. Then you have to evaluate what software output equates to positive changes.

You can simplify it as a mostly 2D problem because most things in a brass instrument are axisymmetrical. It would take probably a team of people with expertise in multiple areas to make something like this happen. Theoretical analysis and practical experimentation to verify results. As well as some players who can sense and express results in a meaningful way.

And for the techno optimists, yes, you could use AI to do the analysis, but AI requires a lot of data, and it's not even clear what kind of data you'd need to collect. So either way, this is a big project. And one that would require funding. I think anyone willing to foot the bill for this kind of work would be savvy enough to not share it publicly, or at least not share the most mysterious parts publicly. Unless you could get a university or gov't to fund it. Hard research into the arts? Maybe a big music school in a big manufacturing state. Michigan?

About LIB dude (Jeff Gittleston?), he exposed himself several years back with some sort of misguided trombone design project that just went sideways and kind of backfired on him here in the forum. He's a guy who is much better with his hands than his mind. A machinist or brass polisher, sure, but a design/analysis guy - no. There is a function in the forum called "friend/foe" which is one way to turn down the noise.

[LIBrassCo]

Objective > Subjective

This is simple

If that can't be agreed upon there's nowhere to start.

This is why so many companies do well, they thrive in the woo woo bs that is subjective as hell, not to mention non existent.

You said earlier that you start by making a rim that is as comfortable as possible and go from there. Ok. Please define "comfort" in a way that is scientifically objective, and not a question of subjective preference.




On a more general note, when you have a system and infinitely complex as a brass instrument, interfacing with a unique human body and subjective human mind, it's will never be possible to be completely objective, or to fully know and understand everything about every phenomenon that's happening and their myriad of interactions. The practice and the theory will never perfectly align. And there will always be a portion of individuality, aesthetic preferences, people's unique physionomy, mind and experience. To try to remove the humanity out of a tool meant to create art is profoundly misguided.

Na, this has turned into an argument and is of zero merit. You and I have next to zero common ground, no point in continuing. I'll keep telling you you're wrong, and you'll do the same. We'll both know we're right

[LIBrassCo]

So, looking at this engineering wise; one factor at a time is TERRIBLE engineering practice. If we take all those variables, they will each have a MEAN effect as well as possibly two way and three way interactions with other variables. My general thought that to convey things properly, the largest effect is the interaction (I mean this statistically) between the player and some features (like rim size and shape). The next strongest factors are probably interactions between some features, like rim size and cup depth. Maybe then you get to just the mean effects of each. If we can figure out a decent way to measure the output, we could pretty easily quantify it. But it wouldn’t make for a very interesting chart, I’d wager that you will have a ton of features that we can feel make a difference, but they are barely statistically significant and dwarfed by the player.

Cheers,
Andy

I think what you'll find is that there are certain relationships - ratios mathematically - that are more important than others and more important than individual measurements. Some necessary measurements will be tough to make, such as the player's lip thickness or structure. These might seem subjective, but I'm sure there's a way to characterize them objectively or even numerically. Thick lips tolerate thin rims better than thinner lips. But thin lips are probably also more effected by wide rims. The Stork videos include some discussion about this. Not everything is a linear relationship.

And info on cup or backbore shape may be difficult to incorporate mathematically. A volume vs depth comparison could characterize conical vs cup bowl shape. Maybe a similar ratio for backbore dia vs shape via volume could be made. And then maybe it is complex enough that it has to be calculated using acoustic software that finds nodes within the mouthpiece and waveforms at various pitches at the exit of the shank. Then you have to evaluate what software output equates to positive changes.

You can simplify it as a mostly 2D problem because most things in a brass instrument are axisymmetrical. It would take probably a team of people with expertise in multiple areas to make something like this happen. Theoretical analysis and practical experimentation to verify results. As well as some players who can sense and express results in a meaningful way.

And for the techno optimists, yes, you could use AI to do the analysis, but AI requires a lot of data, and it's not even clear what kind of data you'd need to collect. So either way, this is a big project. And one that would require funding. I think anyone willing to foot the bill for this kind of work would be savvy enough to not share it publicly, or at least not share the most mysterious parts publicly. Unless you could get a university or gov't to fund it. Hard research into the arts? Maybe a big music school in a big manufacturing state. Michigan?

About LIB dude (Jeff Gittleston?), he exposed himself several years back with some sort of misguided trombone design project that just went sideways and kind of backfired on him here in the forum. He's a guy who is much better with his hands than his mind. A machinist or brass polisher, sure, but a design/analysis guy - no. There is a function in the forum called "friend/foe" which is one way to turn down the noise.

No idea who you are, but foe it is!

[WGWTR180]

Hyperbolic I use the Foe label sparingly but have now done so. It's an amazing feature as the "foe" can still babble on and on but one who has labeled a poster "foe" will never see it.

[WilliamLang]

There's just not a way to make one mouthpiece that's subjectively better than everyone else's. It's a bit like fashion, to me. Both are arts, and both need to fit the person and create a positive relationship and communication to the given audience. Like a soft vs. structured shoulder in a bespoke suit communicates something differently, and has different uses for different people. A rounded vs. sharper rim to me can be seen in a similar way, does it serve the artist and work with them or not? It just won't be the same for everyone.

And I say this as a LI Brass artist (of sorts) who loves the mouthpiece that I play on, and said mouthpiece anecdotally didn't really seem to work for anyone else. Students of mine that respond well to the LI Brass style and models that I have for them to try, I encourage them to go buy one - students that don't, well, you have to do what's best for them.

There's a lot of info out there, good and bad, and it's quite hard to tell which is which, honestly. But I don't think it's possible to say "x" is better, only that it works better for some people. That's the beauty of the whole art side of this thing we try to do.

[JTeagarden]

One of the qualities I like about trombonists in general is a kind of "go along to get along' view of things that reflects our typical role as team players and pack hunters.

There was, is, and always will be someone who can outdo me in every aspect of playing (or any other arena in which I operate), and for many years, I viewed music and every other endeavor as a competition, perhaps an admittedly very American view of life and one that only got me so far.

The epiphany came when I realized that nobody else's success was actually holding me back, and that I was actually competing with myself, and always had been, and that improving upon yesterday's version of myself was both practicable and likely of success.

Happy, but never 100% satisfied!

[JTeagarden]

I bought a bass trombone MP from LIBrass, and it works absolutely great for me, it kind of plays big without actually being big, and so was interested in knowing exactly why, since I lie in a "mouthpiece-poor" region of the country, and have no way of trying a number of them side-by-side.

The hope was to at least gain some insight into what particular design elements seem to be mission critical for me, and ideally beyond that, why...

[LIBrassCo]

I bought a bass trombone MP from LIBrass, and it works absolutely great for me, it kind of plays big without actually being big, and so was interested in knowing exactly why, since I lie in a "mouthpiece-poor" region of the country, and have no way of trying a number of them side-by-side.

The hope was to at least gain some insight into what particular design elements seem to be mission critical for me, and ideally beyond that, why...

Pleasure to work with you! Guys like you are the only reason I stick around here!

[Wayne]

Is a standard large shank Shilke 51 considered to have a "sharp bite"?

[Savio]

In this tread i hold a little with librasso.

[Cmillar]

Thank God there are different types of mouthpiece rims with different shapes, diameters, and even materials in order to suit the wide variety of faces on the planet.

[Posaunus]

Thank God there are different types of mouthpiece rims with different shapes, diameters, and even materials in order to suit the wide variety of faces on the planet.

Not just 'faces' (anatomy), but also our embouchure, the way we play, what we play, ...
There are no universal 'silver bullet' mouthpieces!

[Doldom]

This is not medicine, though. Measurable outcomes like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and mortality don't exist in the same way. Sure, you can measure sound in various ways, but the subjective experience of playing is always an essential factor in instrument and mouthpiece design. Not just "how does it sound," but "how does it sound both behind and in front of the bell" and "how does it feel" and "do you feel confident to play the music you need to play."

I agree, but in medicine there's also studies based on "subjective values" like pain scale(VAS) or quality of life questionnaire or patient-doctor rapport you mentioned. So it is not impossible to perform a study with subjective values, although of course it would not get a highest possible evidence level.
That being said, I also don't have a clue of how to design a study on brass playing, but maybe if we get to know all the physical phenomenon of brass playing then we can start from there. If someone can build a device that can measure live-time oral cavity pressure, intra-mouthpiece air pressure and speed, contact pressure of mouthpiece-lip, elacticity of lip, size and position of aperture, etc... the maybe AI will find out some correlations between physical values and good playing(that feels good).
Or maybe just using the end product(recording), some near future AI can be used to analize the recording to objective level. subdividing categories like flexibility, tone, resonance, articulation,, etc.. and AI scoring them each and then maybe we can perform a study with that. AI nowadays is already being used to interpret whale language, which is highly music-like, and the same technology could be used to analize brass playing.
I agree that expert opinion is very important in these fields, but maybe it's not enough. without objective evidence, experts will have different opinions on subjects and don't agree each other, endlessly.

Maybe I can throw a can of worm. I saw the Stork videos, and the logic seems sound and very interesting, but want to hear what others think. Stork says that with thin lip player, thick rim will be helpful, and with thick lip player, thin rim will be helpful. in this video.

I think I have somewhat thick lip, so will I be benefitted with thin rim eventually? right now thin rim is not comfortable for me so I'm using wide rim mostly, but with months of playing will the thin rim become more good or not?
By the way why the most bass trombone mouthpieces have thin rim anyway? I mainly play tenor so don't know about bass much and I was always curious about that.

[LIBrassCo]

Comfort=good.

Forget the rest man.

[Bach50b3]