TubaForum.net

Since a few years happy with my MW 3450 CC: nice sound of a contrabasstuba, great flexibility (approaches that of the bigger F-tubas). But, from the beginning I had my doubts about the width of the leadpipe. My mouthpiece (standard European shank) fell in rather deep, and the high register (from c1) was rather difficult and "uncertain". Probably my own shortcomings.....?? But, now I have applied a mouthpiece adapter, that brings the mouthpiece further out of the receiver (about 2 cm!!) and....for me the instrument plays a lot easier in the high register, perfect in tune and without noticeable loss of sound. I cannot explain. You perhaps? Would be interested.
Hubert

I've found that (to my own tastes/preferences/ease-of-playing experiences) narrower choke points - and narrower capillary portions of mouthpipe tubes aid in all sorts of aspects of playing, including general focus, legato, BOTH extremes of the pitch ranges, resonance quality, and more...

...and on all sizes of (bass/contrabass) tubas.

euphoniums: The differences in diameters are less, so (at least, to me: particularly as I'm a mere euphonium doubler) the noticeable differences are less.

If the first few inches of your mouthpipe tube (and not just the receiver itself) seems wide (and particularly if the outside measurement of it indicates something like "significantly larger than 6/10 of an inch" - which would indicate that the small-end of your mouthpipe tube's INSIDE is something approaching 9/16" or more) ...ok: and if the finish on your instrument is worn enough so as you wouldn't be really messing up the looks of it...

...You might (??) have some enlightening fun having someone make you an after-market mouthpipe with a small-end perhaps no larger than .525", and (maybe?) not even quite achieving the bore size in your #1 piston (ie. with a large end a bit LESS THAN 3/4" i.d.)

What I typed above reads like a bunch of pompous academish blather...
Instead, READ: If the lacquer or silver finish on your instrument isn't in perfect-new condition, you might also have fun experimenting with a smaller mouthpipe tube.

...I've also wondered (??) how some of the instruments in this size range might play with a .709" or .728" bore size - rather than the same-ol' .748" bore size used on "everything".

Finally..."Euro" shank mouthpieces (with thick walls at their exit bores - ie. at the backs of those mouthpieces) seem counterproductive, to me...ie. "Why make something bigger on the outside, when it's no bigger on the inside?"

Thanks a lot, Bloke. Seems to confirm my findings. By the way...the adapter I use, is very thin-walled at the end. Perhaps part of the improvement, as well...?? Yes, a new leadpipe probably would be ideal. But for now I am happy enough with the result of applying the adapter to let a (rather expensive) new leadpipe be (.....for the time being at least).
Thanks again, best,
Hubert

Perhaps the adapter fixed “the gap”.

This used to be something I laughed about as such a minor thing. I decided to have my gap set on my Gronitz F because my mouthpiece wobbled (an ancient C4). The tech, a tuba specialist, said it had the wrong receiver size and other things but decided to set the gap correctly to a standard F tuba mouthpiece shank.

The horn plays totally differently. Very centered, flexible, etc. I contacted Alan Baer ages ago about which mouthpiece shank for the 1291. I was told by the Miraphone product rep it’s a standard receiver after a debate on Facebook and Baer said the gap is a euro with the stock receiver. The horn plays better, IMO, with a euro.

That gent seems (??) to routinely prefer quite a space between the exit ends of their mouthpieces and the choke point (where the receiver ends and the mouthpipe expansion begins).

Again...for most modern-era-made tubas (whether a soldered-on receiver, or a mouthpipe-tube-formed receiver) the transition (choke point) is smooth.

The word "gap" seems to imply the lack of a "butting up" of the end of a mouthpiece to the (exposed) end of a mouthpipe, which I why I avoid "gap" and refer to it as "choke point". I could use the word "venturi", but I'm not sure how many understand the definition of that...
(The wonderful old tall model 712 York B-flat tuba (sold on consignment at a store, recently) probably features the old-school exposed-end-of-the-mouthpipe-tube type of set-up attempted to be shown just above.)

IMPROVEMENT
Today I hade made a very thin walled, conic sleeve, 6 cm in length, with a small rim at the larger end. I have inserted that about 5 cm into the receiver. That is far enough to go some way into the leadpipe itself (not only into the receiver). And yes, in line with Bloke's earlier remarks and advise, this is the improvement I need: easier high register, and perfectly in tune there; no loss of sound, perhaps on the contrary; somewhat improved flexibility; shank of mouthpiece fits OK. No new leadpipe needed!! Happy
Thanks again, Bloke.
Hubert

What bloke wrote rhymes with the effects of the two interchangeable leadpipes that come with the ADAMS Ftuba.
The "solo"-one provides clarity, flexibility and effortless high range.
The big one makes it somewhat harder to play high, but offers an even more solid bottom.

So, could it be the changed-out-receiver-to-take-standard-shank be the reason the high range on my 183 is flat? I'm obviously not up to modifying it myself. I wish one of you tuba tinker-withs were within driving distance, just to see what happens with various mods.

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:01 am (The wonderful old tall model 712 York B-flat tuba (sold on consignment at a store, recently)

@bloke What? How did I miss this?