TubaForum.net

Hi all,
I have a Gronitz PCK that has an American shank receiver, but it's ever so slightly too small and my mouthpiece doesn't go all the way in. This has caused some intonation and response issues. How would I go about sourcing a replacement receiver so things fit as they should? For added context, I use an AT1Y.

The least expensive and most elegant solution is to un-solder the receiver, mount a .5+ Jarno taper reamer in a lathe, ream out the existing receiver a bit, and reinstall it.

As a former owner of that model, there are some intonation and response issues - regardless of mouthpiece insertion depth...so you might (??) just consider playing it and leaving it as it is, or searching for another instrument. I replaced my PCK with another model, recenly sold its replacement, a few people know where it's located and have actually played it, and will probably vouch that (even though just another production model) it outplays PCK tubas (yet isn't a more costly model than a PCK).

Thanks for the information! You are correct, mine is one of the last Kleinhorst-made PCK's made around 2017(?) with the smaller leadpipe and Bauerfiend valves. I'll be looking into replacing the receiver with something properly fitting. I've tried a few US-shank mouthpieces that yield the same results (doesn't go far in enough by about 5mm). I'll upload pictures later once I'm by my horn.

5mm is nearly the difference between the most common interpretation of "standard" shank mouthpieces and "small" (or bass trombone size) shank mouthpieces.

I googled your mouthpiece (so as to see who made it). Wick is a maker of small shank mouthpieces, so would they offer to sell you that model in small shank?

What if one of their domestic customers wished to use that model of mouthpiece with a vintage B&H/Besson tuba?

======================================

I'm not trying to sell any mouthpieces, here...

I consider a .375" bore throat to be colossal, but that's someone's else business.
I'm pretty sure - though - that I wouldn't be able to do much - embouchure-wise - to raise the pitch of that G up in the staff (which is definitely an issue, with that model) with a throat that large...(and anyone is welcomed to label me a "weakling" or whatever).
When I owned my PCK (same parts as described), I had difficultly keeping the low range from becoming to "bright" (at least, for my own tastes) at louder volume levels (much as with Yamaha trombones - but whatever). I found that smaller-throated mouthpieces (even smaller than "average" - and I consider "average" to be around 8.2mm or .323" or so) kept me from "overloading" that instrument, and kept my low-range sonority more under control. A Conn Geib accomplished that (or my own Symphony cup with an Orchestra Grand back-bore, had I had a line of mouthpieces - way back then would have also accomplished that)...

...but that's not for me to say...

What I HAVE suggested (as a reminder - as I tend to type too much non sequitur stuff or - at best - too much information) is to ASK WICK if they will sell you a small shank version or if you can mail yours to them and have it returned with a small shank (letting them know that you do NOT need that shank replated - to save on additional time and cost).

-------------------------------------------

When I owned this PCK and made this recording (as I was concerned that the low range and "double low" range timbre didn't match) I ran through these one night in my old retail location. (There is one excerpt that I recorded with my F tuba, and that one should be obvious.) The mouthpiece that I was using featured a c. .350" (probably a bit larger) throat. After listening to this, I rounded up an old Conn Geib (not "knowing" anything, but TRYING something) and it helped those ranges' timbre match.



------------------------------------------

something else:
Around that time, I was studying occasionally with Mr. Baer. (Just in case anyone hasn't noticed) I've REALLY tried to avoid any sort of "So-and-so says/does...") but - at that time - he was using a very similar PCK and was inserting a EURO shank (even more set-back) mouthpiece into that instrument (this was also before any mouthpieces appeared on the market bearing his name)...and I'm now wondering (??) if he might have been striving to accomplish the same thing (with that set-back) that I found that I could accomplish with a smaller-throated mouthpiece (with a standard shank and less set-back).

bloke "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies. I'm a GUESSER, and don't KNOW a damn thing."

As mentioned quite a few times, I'm not a tuba collector, but I have five tuba family instruments (not including a couple of euphoniums - which differ from each other in a few ways, and some other instruments) that I use fairly regularly, because each one is the most suited for particular types of venues and ensembles. I use the same rim profile on every single one of those instruments, but I don't even use the same inner cup diameter on each of those instruments and nor do I use the same cup, nor the same back-bore, nor the same throat on any of those five instruments' mouthpieces.

The the very recent Helleberg II variant and the really shallow and small-throated one (two l that I just introduced in regular one-piece silver plated brass) were a fairly selfish endeavor to search and discover mouthpieces which suited two of those five instruments better than those which I was doubling up from other instruments of that five.

I continue to probably sound like I'm trying to sell a mouthpiece, but you should believe that I am not.

One last thing:
In the past - even well into adulthood, when I studied with this, that, or the other teacher, I would always try to use the mouthpieces that they used (for a while). I finally had to give up on that. Those teachers were all very wise - which is why I studied with them, but we all don't wear the same shoes, and we also don't all choose the same tennis rackets or golf clubs - even though some of us are quite good at tennis and golf.. or at running.

Here is a link with photos of how my mouthpiece fits on my PCK versus how it's supposed to fit according to Dr. Tindall (who's opinion I trust based on how his mouthpieces are supposed to fit).

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... clB34cm9-S

I watched a recording of Alan Baer being interviewed and he was VERY passionate about the distance between the end of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the leadpipe (the "gap") as being a critical factor in things like response and slurs. He stated that the airstream from the mouthpiece "crosses" itself and needs to be set to cross exactly once, or else you could get something similar to turbulence. This got me thinking, which is usually expensive for me.

I have a friend who makes mouthpieces and asked him about it, and he said yes, it's a thing, but, it seemed to him the results could vary a bit from person to person. He made me two copies of a mouthpiece I like very much (because I wanted different material than the original mouthpiece) on my Eastman 836 which turns out to have an "Alexander" sized shank. One he made in Euro and the other he made with the Alex shank. I will tell you I instantly had a preference for the feel and response of the Euro shank (in the Euro receiver) vs the Alex shank. So I decided I would play with some my Houser stuff and do the same thing with Euro and American shanks. I found I always preferred one over the other and in most cases I preferred euro sizing in the euro receiver - but not always. I definitely found quicker and more lively response in a couple combinations (and it's embarrassing how many Houser-made cups / shanks / rims I have), usually on smaller cups, with the american shank in the euro receiver.

Rather than focus on how far a mouthpiece is sticking out I would suggest focusing on the gap distance instead and see if that yields better results.

Today, nearly all mouthpiece receivers are undercut in the back (precisely to the wall thickness of the mouthpipe tube, and conscientiously/carefully, so that the small end of the mouthpipe's bore is flush with the small end of the receiver.

"Gap" is a word that I avoid, because (at least, to me) it implies some sort of bore distortion step-down (where there typically is none).

I prefer "choke-point" (basically, a venturi) where the small end of the receiver meets the small end of the mouthpipe tube (again: smooth/flush/no bump).

The fatter a mouthpiece shank is, the less it inserts into a receiver and - thus - the more of the (tapered DOWNWARD) receiver appliance is exposed past the mouthpiece.

The INSIDE of the mouthpiece shank is tapered OUTWARD.
The mouthpipe (from it's very beginning) is tapered OUTWARD.

...so "mouthpiece setback" simply puts more or less REVERSE TAPER (again: exposing more or less of the interior receiver appliance) into the bore of the instrument, because receivers are tapered INWARD.

Renold Schilke (trumpet player/maker) always thought that it's best for there to not be much "set back" at all, but that's what he thought.

Having studied with Mr. Baer, I never heard any "maybe's" out of his mouth.

"This is this...That is that" etc.

That's fine. Confidence is good, and - with success comes confidence...
ie. "I did this, and had a great deal of success with this. Thus, this is it."

...and others are also successful, and others' thises and thats (with which they've been successful) might also be valid.

That having been said, I'm also convinced that some extremely successful people (as all extremely successful people work very hard) are extremely successful in spite of some of the equipment - and equipment components - that they're choosing to use. Although I've met him, I've not asked, "Hey guy, what mouthpiece is that?", but others have told me that a high-profile European soloist (who no one disputes is a superb player) uses a "plain-ol' " mouthpiece. Most really great players of the past also used "plain ol' " mouthpieces. An extremely high-profile principal trumpet player moved from a Bach 7C to a much larger mouthpiece decades before he retired...so many-many-many others began playing on the mouthpiece to which he switched. Lately, someone close to him stated that moving to that much larger mouthpiece was (simply) due to an injury. Having heard that, now quite a few trumpet players are going back to exploring 7C mouthpieces...

Check out this crappy diagram:

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:20 am Check out this crappy diagram:

8-28-23.png

Thank you for that crappy diagram. I suppose if I put enough brain energy into it, I could have pictured that in my head, but your version is much easier on my limited gray cells.

York-aholic wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:52 pm

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:20 am Check out this crappy diagram:

8-28-23.png

Thank you for that crappy diagram. I suppose if I put enough brain energy into it, I could have pictured that in my head, but your version is much easier on my limited gray cells.

Quite a few OLD receivers feature an abrupt bump (no undercutting on the mouthpipe tube receiving side of the receiver), but most modern receivers do not. That can be eliminated with a reamer but (assuming that the mouthpipe tube wall is at least half a millimeter thick) that defines enlarging the choke point from an abrupt X i.d. to a smooth X + (≥) 1mm.