Mouthpiece shank tapers

[Mary Ann]

Something I know nothing about with tubas. I'm familiar with Morse tapers (e.g., horn mouthpieces can have a Morse 0 taper or a Morse something-else taper.) My euphonium's leadpipe (Sterling Perantucci) takes neither a typical American shank nor a typical Euro shank; the American shank barely goes in and the Euro shank rattles. I use a Kelly Euro shank with, um, painter's blue tape on it and it has worked fine for many years. So .... someone recently talked about a Jarno taper on a tuba mouthpiece. Never heard of that before. Is that an "American taper?" All my tuba mouthpieces "appear" to have about the same taper except for a small Bach Eb mouthpiece, but I had that machined by someone local to fix it after it was sent to me with a roughness that I would not personally shove into a leadpipe I cared about, and that was on an old Eb with a narrow leadpipe. So I have no idea what that taper is except that it is smaller.
So what is Jarno and what else is there? I hope it's not like 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, and 6/4 differences.

[bloke]

Jarno is a SINGLE taper ratio, starting at a geometric point and expanding forever.

Most all mouthpiece tapers (other than - obviously - some oddballs) can be plotted somewhere along the Jarno taper.

I own two (expensive) Jarno reamers. One the handles the two or three common tuba ranges (which all overlap) and another than handles the three common trombone/euphonium taper ranges (which all overlap).

Jarno is a very simple rate of taper, as it is 1:20, on diameter.

Jarno tapers use a greatly simplified scheme. The rate of taper is 1:20 on diameter, in other words 0.600" on diameter per foot, .050" on diameter per inch. Tapers range from a Number 2 to a Number 20. The diameter of the big end in inches is always the taper size divided by 8, the small end is always the taper size divided by 10 and the length is the taper size divided by 2. For example, a Jarno #7 measures 0.875" (7/8) across the big end. The small end measures 0.700" (7/10) and the length is 3.5" (7/2).
The system was invented by Oscar J. Beale of Brown & Sharpe.

Jarno taper chart.png (27.01 KiB) Viewed 1472 times

I'm pretty sure that the two that I purchased were acquired from this maker:

(Since I often use them by hand - in receivers - I drilled a hole in each one through their square ends.
I believe I own a #4 and a #5.)

https://www.newmantools.com/reamer/SchedulU1.htm

As you surely know, most horn receivers - as well as many rotary long-mouthpipe tuba receivers are not "reamed" but are burnished (with smooth-surface steel into annealed mouthpipes' small ends) - from the mouthpipe tubes themselves, and then a thin-wall "overpart" is placed over the flared receiving end of these mouthpipe tubes, to protect them.

bloke "Even though dealing with people's messed-up receivers is less troublesome than messing with people's messed-up valves, casings, and slide tubing, I do it less often; therefore I have to concentrate a bit more when doing it."

[donn]

Aren't tuba mouthpieces generally Morse - Morse 2? Apparently within a tenth of percent of that Jarno 1:20 taper, and in any size it looks to me like Morse is very close to 1:20, for this purpose.

Rumors occasionally surface of old tubas from Europe or elsewhere with small receivers of unusual taper.

[Yorkboy]

My experience is that the Jarno #5 is adequate for most of my tuba receiver applications.

I like the idea of drilling a hole in the square shank.

[bloke]

The goofy European receivers (whether tuba or horn) tend to be those burnished into the mouthpipe tubes themselves, as this is done by hand, and not machined.

I've owned at least to such "goofy" receivers:
- I had to open up my R. Meinl 5/4 out to "Euro", because the large end of it's standard shank receiver was way too large.
- I had to correct the standard shank receiver on my B&S Symphonie F (which was made shortly after they moved from small receivers to standard shank receivers) because of a similar issue, but I was able to correct it without moving it up to the next size.

...and yes, Donn:
bloke is always wrong...even if only a little bit, and even if possibly not.

[iiipopes]

Way before the Bach cyborg "normalized" USA shank tapers, several companies had their own taper. The ones I can think of are King, Blessing, York, and Olds. Conn had different cornet tapers; I don't know about anyone else. Schilke has the "normal" taper, but treats the gaps differently.

I feel there is something slightly different in Miraphone shank tapers: Bloke's Imperial and others wobble slightly, but a Miraphone Rose Orchestra does not.

[donn]

Schilke has the "normal" taper, but treats the gaps differently.

You're saying the small end is not the same diameter? Given the same taper, that's what's left. I've mentioned before that my mouthpieces, all American "standard" to my knowledge, mostly measure closer to .530 than the official (?) .520.

As for that euphonium ... I guess that's messed up, but maybe it would be easier to guess how, if we knew what is your "American" shank. Bass trombone size? (Approximately the same as old tuba small shank, if that helps.)

What Doug Elliott offers in shank sizes:

Small shanks: (for small shank euphoniums)
4 - most popular backbore for small shank euphonium
5 - larger backbore, more open, for a bigger sound

Medium euphonium shanks: (for some Besson, Willson, and others)
6E - for medium-shank euphoniums, E taper fits medium-shank Bessons and Willsons;
6Es - a slightly smaller taper to go in farther, works better for some older Bessons. Similar fit to the Denis Wick euph shanks.

Large shanks: (for large shank euphoniums)
8 - standard large shank backbore
9 - larger backbore, for a bigger sound on larger euphoniums

Note that while the others are just internal variations, the medium options differ in external size. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Kelly's Euro shank matches his "6Es", and a "6E" Euro mouthpiece would fit fine.

[bloke]

It seems like they shouldn’t, but harder metals ask for more accurately tapered receivers.
You mentioned Miraphone, and again those things are hand-shaped with a smooth burnishing cone in the mouthpipe tubing itself, rather than in a machined receiver…and you are referring to particular Miraphone tubas that you have used and owned, rather than some that I’ve owned or some that others have owned. Big being a sheet metal receiver, over time they can conform to a particular mouthpiece’s taper.
Whereas a brass shank can schmooze into a receiver that it doesn’t quite fit and jam into it so that it doesn’t wobble, it’s going to be more difficult for a stainless steel shank to behave in that way. Actually a bronze shank is going to encounter the same difficulty, because it’s more like steel in that way.

[bloke]

This is a sidebar, but some receivers are what I refer to as “fake euro“.
They are actually standard shank receivers, but extend out farther - so that if a euro shank mouthpiece is inserted in them, they cover more of a euro shank mouthpiece, but yet they are just short enough on the large end so that a standard shank mouthpiece (perhaps even Bach - with that ring) can still fit in them, not bottom out, and not quite reach the choke point (where the mouthpipe tube begins).
When these “fake euro“ receivers are encountered, often they are paired with mouthpipe tubes that begin with not particularly large inside diameter’s…perhaps somewhere in the under-.550” bore range, as “genuine euro” receivers tend to physically/geometrically line up best with larger bore mouthpipe tubes.

[iiipopes]

Schilke has the "normal" taper, but treats the gaps differently.

You're saying the small end is not the same diameter? Given the same taper, that's what's left. I've mentioned before that my mouthpieces, all American "standard" to my knowledge, mostly measure closer to .530 than the official (?) .520.

Gap has nothing to do with shank taper or end diameter. It is the distance between the end of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the leadpipe in the receiver. Trumpet players are who mostly talk about it, claiming the size of the gap makes a big difference in response and intonation. It may be of importance on larger brass instruments as well. Or not. I mentioned Renold Schilke, because he was a proponent of no gap. In other words, he advocated the end of the mouthpiece shank butting right up against the leadpipe inside the receiver, where most other manufacturers, influenced by Vincent Bach, whether by design or manufacturing tolerance so a variety of mouthpieces may be used in their instruments, have some sort of a gap. Here is a primer on Schilke's view of mouthpiece aspects, including gap, which is, of course, aimed at trumpet players, but may have application for the rest of us:

https://www.everythingtrumpet.com/schil ... sions.html

Vincent Bach, on the other hand, was a proponent of a gap, for the reasons in this article.

http://www.thetrumpetblog.com/gap-or-no ... -distance/

Bob Reeves developed his sleeve system, essentially a way to adjust gap, after discussing the matter with Eldon Benge and his experiments. This is a different approach, where the sleeves do have a different diameter end, which causes the gap to be larger or smaller, depending on the preference of the player. I mention this last approach, because it is similar to tuba players using a mouthpiece with a different tip diamether, whether the .490 old British/Eb shank, the .520 "American" shank, the .530 hybrid shank, or larger shanks, because as we know, the different tip diameters do insert to different depths. This by definition does affect gap, but is not the cause of it. How the receiver is soldered onto the leadpipe is the primary determinant of gap, given the use of mouthpieces of the manufacturer's recommended tip diameter:

https://bobreeves.com/blog/the-history- ... piece-gap/

Whether you agree or disagree with either Schilke's or Bach's conclusions, or advocate for Bob Reeves' sleeve system, the articles demonstrate there are many different geometric aspects of mouthpiece design, construction, and application than just cup diameter, throat size, backbore, and shank size.

For example, I just got a new tuba that takes a standard American Shank .520 mouthpiece in what we now call standard taper. I have experimented with other mouthpieces, including mouthpieces with the "in-between" tip size, different taper, extenders, both straight and souzy bits, (think the bit on an old Martin tuba) and a couple of other items. My experience is that the tuba has superlative intonation and tone with a "standard" mouthpiece shank inserted as designed. Variances in throat, backbore, cup geometry, etc., may affect perceived tone slightly, but not intonation to any noticeable degree. But, any deviation from a "standard" shank well seated causes intonation to go right out the window fairly quickly.

YMMV. These are my observations from my experiences.

[donn]

Gap has nothing to do with shank taper or end diameter. It is the distance between the end of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the leadpipe in the receiver.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but given that

1. a mouthpiece shank is fully determined by those two parameters, taper and end diameter,
2. if Schilke mouthpieces have a normal taper and a different gap,
3. they have a different end diameter.

Whether there's actually a gap as understood by trumpet players, depends on what's actually there in the receiver. The story as I've heard it is that rarely, if ever, does the leadpipe insert into the receiver so that the end of the leadpipe tubing is exposed and there's a wider chamber between that and the mouthpiece shank. Either the leadpipe runs the full length of the receiver, as bloke alluded to above re European receivers, or to the same effect, the receiver has a wider internal diameter socket on the far end that accommodates the leadpipe and matches the leadpipe's internal diameter on exit. The upshot being that if you poke around in there, you'll find nothing to make a gap with, and you'll be left thinking, "why, oh why, did I ever listen to trumpet players!?"

[iiipopes]

Gap has nothing to do with shank taper or end diameter. It is the distance between the end of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the leadpipe in the receiver.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but given that

1. a mouthpiece shank is fully determined by those two parameters, taper and end diameter,
2. if Schilke mouthpieces have a normal taper and a different gap,
3. they have a different end diameter.

Whether there's actually a gap as understood by trumpet players, depends on what's actually there in the receiver. The story as I've heard it is that rarely, if ever, does the leadpipe insert into the receiver so that the end of the leadpipe tubing is exposed and there's a wider chamber between that and the mouthpiece shank. Either the leadpipe runs the full length of the receiver, as bloke alluded to above re European receivers, or to the same effect, the receiver has a wider internal diameter socket on the far end that accommodates the leadpipe and matches the leadpipe's internal diameter on exit. The upshot being that if you poke around in there, you'll find nothing to make a gap with, and you'll be left thinking, "why, oh why, did I ever listen to trumpet players!?"

No, they don't necessarily have a different diameter. The main item it depends on is how far down the lead pipe the receiver is soldered. And yes, the space between the end of the leadpipe and the mouthpiece is EXACTLY what Vincent Bach describes as the gap. Again, as I posted, there is much more to it than simple diameter of the tip of the mouthpiece and the taper. What bloke alludes to is one particular manufacturer still using 19th century methods, not brass instruments generally which use the modern construction method of soldering a separate receiver onto the end of a lead pipe.

On modern tubas, given a particular tip and taper of mouthpiece shank as recommended by the manufacturer, if you solder the receiver at the tip of the lead pipe with just enough insertion to be stable, you will have a larger gap. If you solder the receiver further down onto the leadpipe, you will have a lesser gap. If you go too far down the lead pipe to solder the receiver, you will have no gap, and possibly insufficient depth to seat the mouthpiece.

Please go re-read IN FULL the articles I linked.

[bloke]

Unless it’s some hillbilly job, nearly all receivers are mouthpipe specific, and are undercut in the back to receive the exact outer diameter of a specific mouthpipe with the inner diameter lining up with the end of its receiver’s smallest and end perfectly… So there is no adjustment on receivers, unless they’re just back-of-some-combo-store jammed-on-a-mouthpipe crap.

...so (to clarify) there really is no "bump" inside (properly-fitted / designed-for-a-specific-instrument) soldered-on (machined) receivers, just as there is no "bump" inside of those formed from the mouthpipe tubing itself.

This is not necessarily true with trumpets, though I believe some have also moved to this same "undercut insertion" design.

=====================
With a beveled mouthpiece shank exit bore - or one which opens up to such a large size that very little metal is at the back end of the mouthpiece's exit bore anyway (assuming a reasonably careful mouthpiece owner, who doesn't drop their mouthpieces ) there really is no "bump" at all, then...

me...??
I generally prefer the "feel" of not much space between the end of a mouthpiece and the choke point (the point where a receiver ends and a mouthpipe's expansion begins)...probably (again: for me) no more than an eighth inch / 3mm or so of "reverse taper" receiver interior exposed...

[donn]

No, they don't necessarily have a different diameter. The main item it depends on is how far down the lead pipe the receiver is soldered.

... which is not about Schilke mouthpiece tapers. Whatever the situation with receivers (which anyone can verify as to their own tubas), a Schilke mouthpiece shank can only have a different or normal taper, or a different or normal opening - after that, the possibilities have been exhausted.

(Actually I've heard that Schilke large shank trombone mouthpieces, which I suppose could also be inserted into a large euphonium receiver, used to have two different tapers on the same shank - Morse on the small end, and Brown & Sharpe on the large end, which allowed them to semi-fit either Bach or Conn style receivers of the era - I don't know, pre-WWII, something like that. The issue is real with old Conn and Reynolds bass trombones, but I don't know of any common example of a similar problem with tuba shank tapers - whatever we call it, it always seems to be close enough to the same taper as to make no difference.)

[bloke]

With the OLD Conn 88H trombones, about the only thing that fit into those venturis' formed receivers was the friggin "Remington" (not very large...sorta 6-1/2AL-ish) stock mouthpiece...so Bach and Schilke (due to the popularity of the model) began offering their mouthpieces with Conn's goofy taper, as an option.

I may (??) be fictionalizing my memory...but did those funny-shank mouthpieces have an "R" stamped on them...yes, or no?

' pretty sure that "Remington" taper was/(is) more cylindrical than the Jarno ratio.

[donn]

Remington's name was associated with some of the mouthpieces - for the 88H? - and the taper was Brown & Sharpe - for 70H, Reynolds, etc. That's the way I understand it. Not bothering to double check this, it looks to me like a Brown & Sharpe 5 taper is about 1:24. The small end was larger than the small end of a Bach large shank, but the large end was smaller, so Schilke could shave the small end down to Morse taper. It wouldn't be a tight fit to the end inside the Conn receiver, but the rest of the shank would be a solid fit, and vice versa in a Bach receiver. I believe they really did it, but I've never seen one and I don't know if many were made that way.

[bloke]

Emory Remington (Eastman professor / trombone god / Conn endorser), had a signature mouthpiece with Conn.
I'm thinking the large shank was supplied with the model 88H (and fit) and the small shank may (??) have been supplied with the fancy version of their bell-front baritone horn, which (unlike the plain version) they called a "euphonium".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Remington

One of his students - listed in the wiki - is a close friend of mine. He owns a 73H bass and a 70H bass, and (currently) is looking for a nice Elkhart-vintage 88H.

Remington's name was associated with some of the mouthpieces - for the 88H? - and the taper was Brown & Sharpe - for 70H, Reynolds, etc. That's the way I understand it. Not bothering to double check this, it looks to me like a Brown & Sharpe 5 taper is about 1:24. The small end was larger than the small end of a Bach large shank, but the large end was smaller, so Schilke could shave the small end down to Morse taper. It wouldn't be a tight fit to the end inside the Conn receiver, but the rest of the shank would be a solid fit, and vice versa in a Bach receiver. I believe they really did it, but I've never seen one and I don't know if many were made that way.

[donn]

Emory Remington (Eastman professor / trombone god / Conn endorser), had a signature mouthpiece with Conn.
I'm thinking the large shank was supplied with the model 88H (and fit) and the small shank may (??) have been supplied with the fancy version of their bell-front baritone horn, which (unlike the plain version) they called a "euphonium".

There have been reports of a Conn Connstellation euphonium with a receiver that fits no known mouthpiece.

Unless maybe you can find a Conn Constellation 5B. The Conn bass trombone Brown & Sharpe taper large shank is 3B.

[the elephant]

[Mary Ann]

^^^^ A year and a half later?