tuning lead pipe

[Tim Jackson]

In past, during adventures in diving deep into the web, I have seen articles on "stepping" or altering the lead pipe to correct inherent intonation problems (or even individual pitches) on brass instruments. Seems like most of the research had to do with trumpets. Very interesting stuff. Is there still work or ongoing experimentation in the area?

On another note/node -
!. what happens when there is a dent in or out where the node hits?
2. how much of a solder glob does it take to start screwing up a pitch?
3. What makes a slot in the upper register have what I call "soft edges" meaning easily drifts into the neighboring tone?
4. how does the position or depth of the mouthpiece affect certain partials?
5. Why, how, or can mouthpieces affect the overall intonation of the instrument?


Thanks for any thoughts as I node nothing.

TJ

[DonO.]

When I was in high school we needed to use “bits” in the lead pipe to get the mouthpiece to reach our mouths. Some used one, others used as many as three. That’s what I thought they were for. In retrospect, I’m sure they had an effect on tuning and intonation, but since the only thing our marching band director cared about is how loudly we could play, I’m certain that any intonation problems went unnoticed.

[bloke]

For several years, someone with an eastern European-looking name that begins with a P (not avoiding saying their name…just don’t remember their name) was aggressively marketing trumpet mouthpipe tubes with stepped bores, and making claims about them in the advertising.

I haven’t seen those ads in quite a while.

Personally, I believe that I have determined that mouthpipes that start smaller bore beginnings might make favoring/lipping pitches easier, but that all of the pitches remain just as in tune or out of tune as with mouthpipes that begin somewhat larger. I have no scientific findings (nor even quotations of “The Science“ offered up by others) to offer to this thread.

[Mary Ann]

Walter Lawson, a custom horn maker, really had that all down. I don't know whether to say down to an art or down to a science, but a Lawson bell or Lawson leadpipe could dramatically change your instrument for the better. I put a Lawson bell on my "slippery" horn (slots were not secure) and suddenly all the notes were there. Not only on my Schmid but on someone else's Schmid that they tried my bell on. I use a Lawson mouthpiece for the same reason; it just makes the horn both play and sound better.

There was that guy over on the other forum who dropped his mouthpiece on his rotary F tuba, and quite suddenly the low C was immediately accessible. But did the manufacturers take notice? Nope; it is a matter of pride to be able to play the thing WITH a difficult C.

[bloke]

I believe that the F tuba “C“ thing results from a couple of things:

- players approaching that pitch as if it’s an open C on a C tuba (totally different resistance), whereas the approach should be more like that of playing a C tuba’s low G - though the embouchure set is obviously not as open. I actually find that some of the “old-school/described-as-smaller F tubas (Alex, Miraphone 80, and even old M-W 45) offer fourth a stronger C than many of the so-called “easy C“ newer models, when that pitch is approached properly (ie. not played as if playing a C tuba).
- manufacturers patronizing C tuba players (who complain about C on F tubas not being able to be played in the same way) - and altering those instruments’ bore tapers to imitate the feel of an open C on a C tuba - thus: screwing up a lot of other things - things which are really the reasons why an F tuba should be considered - in the first place - for certain applications.

Both of those things having been said, the truth of the matter is that – even today – there really have not been that many remarkably good C or F instruments introduced to the market.
(I ended up with a remarkably good F instrument right off the bat – due to blind luck, and bought and sold so many C instruments – finally finding an acceptable one – that I would really have to think hard to try to remember all of them that have passed through my hands.
Euphoniums cannot be effectively negotiated as if they are the same thing as contrabass tubas, and F tubas are halfway there. (Certainly, the same C on a euphonium - 1-3-4 - cannot be approached in the same way that an open C is approached on a C tuba.)

As to French horn mouthpipe tubes, Mr. Lawson got the ball rolling with aftermarket horn mouthpipes, and others have followed.
When someone shows me a replacement mouthpipe tube on a French horn - that they report improves the playing characteristics, those usually – to me – look to be smaller, rather than larger. I have found the same to be generally true with tubas.

[Sousaswag]

I've also seen somebody post about "the dent" on their horn... (Pt-6 maybe??)

I don't really know if dropping your mouthpiece in random places on your leadpipe, or your tuba, for that matter, is a good idea. Accidents happen, sure, but I've always been led to believe that dents in leadpipes aren't good.

I'm also not sure that I believe that some random dent is going to fix wild pitch problems on an instrument.

People who have "the dent" seem to claim otherwise, but I'm somebody who tries to keep their instruments as pristine as possible, and, like others, I've been going through quite a few instruments over the last few years until now.

Sometimes it just takes a while to find the right fit. YMMV.

[jtuba]

@bloke

https://www.brassinstrumentworkshop.com/pilczuck-pipes

Rich Ita is a fine repairman based in the suburbs of Atlanta. I can't say I know any of the local trumpet players making a leadpipe swap, but I never asked either

[bloke]

I suppose the obvious question - based on this is:

"If this

is valid, what happens when the tuning slide is moved, and why isn't the entire instrument stepped ?"

[The Big Ben]

When I was in high school we needed to use “bits” in the lead pipe to get the mouthpiece to reach our mouths. Some used one, others used as many as three. That’s what I thought they were for. In retrospect, I’m sure they had an effect on tuning and intonation, but since the only thing our marching band director cared about is how loudly we could play, I’m certain that any intonation problems went unnoticed.

Horns like the Conn 2XJ actually have their leadpipes a little bit shorter to allow the use of bits for the reasons you mention. Played without a bit, a 2XJ is difficult to keep some notes in tune. I think it's the same with the big Martins and many sousaphones.

[Nworbekim]

When I was in high school we needed to use “bits” in the lead pipe to get the mouthpiece to reach our mouths. Some used one, others used as many as three. That’s what I thought they were for. In retrospect, I’m sure they had an effect on tuning and intonation, but since the only thing our marching band director cared about is how loudly we could play, I’m certain that any intonation problems went unnoticed.

Horns like the Conn 2XJ actually have their leadpipes a little bit shorter to allow the use of bits for the reasons you mention. Played without a bit, a 2XJ is difficult to keep some notes in tune. I think it's the same with the big Martins and many sousaphones.

i have played a few horns that played sharp for ME for one reason or another... i found that sousaphone bits could/would bring them down.

[bloke]

The vintage Besson 3+1 comp. B-flats - to me - are sharp-natured.
I'm going to eventually build a deluxe one - from a conglomeration of parts (including those nickel-silver inside/outside slide tubes, that mostly are found on the 3-valve compensating versions, as well as interchangeable recording 24" and upright 17" bells.

Rather than a bit - or bits - I'm probably going to extend the main slide.

The Martin 6/4's require two (and particular-to-Martin) bits. Otherwise, there's no usable playing position (nor usable tuning). With the others mentioned, people can do as they prefer.

[richarmandi]

Hello,
The name of the lead pipe maker was 'Pilchik' (not sure of the spelling). Decades ago I had a 6/4 project horn that Bob Rusk installed said stepped lead pipe. As I recall it didn't do much to solve any intonation issues but it did make the instrument a bit freer blowing and slotted notes in the upper register slightly better. I have no idea where the horn might be now..... this was a looong time ago....

[iiipopes]

There was that guy over on the other forum who dropped his mouthpiece on his rotary F tuba, and quite suddenly the low C was immediately accessible. But did the manufacturers take notice? Nope; it is a matter of pride to be able to play the thing WITH a difficult C.

Yes, the birth of "The Dent." I did a similar thing on a Besson 3-valve BBb Comp tuba I used to own: I dented the knuckle on the primary bore between the 1st and 2nd valve. Immediately the 5th partials were in tune. When I got some repairs done otherwise, I forgot to tell my tech to leave it alone, and the tech lifted the dent, thinking it was the thing to do. My fifth partials went flat again. So I took a small ball peen hammer and gently tapped, reintroducing the dent incrementally, until the 5th partials were in lipping distance, but not risking either occluding the knuckle or fatiguing the brass.

[Matt Walters]

So I took a small ball peen hammer and gently tapped, reintroducing the dent incrementally, until the 5th partials were in lipping distance, but not risking either occluding the knuckle or fatiguing the brass

Very well could be. But maybe the intonation didn't actually change as much as the pitch center became easier to lip the note in tune. I remember Walter Lawson telling me something like: "changing intonation with the leadpipe was inconclusive as the leadpipe affected the response." (How it feels to the player, etc.) The final result of playing more in-tune is the goal and it doesn't matter how you get there, or which phenomena facilitated the desired results. (Unless something else deteriorated in the process.)
Always ask what else could be going on here.

[Rick Denney]

It was Steve Hoog, as I recall, whose F tuba had the magic dent. The F tuba was a Parantucci-era B&S, maybe a PT-10, also as I recall.

The low C on the earlier Symphonie model is not difficult to play once one learns how to play it. I can play it, so it can’t be that hard, but I couldn’t play it reliably at first. It’s not like my little Yamaha, which can tolerate a big mouthpiece and play the low register like a contrabass, but which requires a better player than me to make it sing the way the Symphonie can sing.

But no two tubas are identical, and Steve’s F may well have specially benefitted from the magic dent for whatever reason. I don’t in any way question his experience, but I do doubt it’s broad applicability to every B&S F, given that mine lacks the dent and plays a low C even for me.

Rick “taking the legend back to its root” Denney

[donn]

So I took a small ball peen hammer and gently tapped, reintroducing the dent incrementally, until the 5th partials were in lipping distance, but not risking either occluding the knuckle or fatiguing the brass

Very well could be. But maybe the intonation didn't actually change as much as the pitch center became easier to lip the note in tune. I remember Walter Lawson telling me something like: "changing intonation with the leadpipe was inconclusive as the leadpipe affected the response." (How it feels to the player, etc.) The final result of playing more in-tune is the goal and it doesn't matter how you get there, or which phenomena facilitated the desired results. (Unless something else deteriorated in the process.)
Always ask what else could be going on here.

The pitch center for that particular partial became easier to lip, right? I mean, it makes sense to me - 5th partial is naturally flat, in principle, so the ideal tuba will have weak support for the 5th partial, rather than strong support which would pull you away from the pitch you're trying to play. Some feature in there that interferes with formation of nodes.

[bloke]

I hope (??) I'm agreeing with Matt by saying...

More resistance (for me) defines easier "lipping"/favoring.
Dents (de facto: a smaller bore) tend to contribute to resistance.

[cjk]

It was Steve Hoog, as I recall, whose F tuba had the magic dent. The F tuba was a Parantucci-era B&S, maybe a PT-10, also as I recall.
...

Confirming that it was a PT-10. The dent was on the bow close to the 5th valve just in case anyone wants to experiment.

[Mary Ann]

Well I in my ignorance think it has something to do with nodes. My MW 182 F, I could play the low C but it distinctly felt funny. I presume if I had played it longer I would have gotten better at it, but I really didn't like the funny feeling of it.

[Mary Ann]

I believe that the F tuba “C“ thing results from a couple of things:

- players approaching that pitch as if it’s an open C on a C tuba (totally different resistance), whereas the approach should be more like that of playing a C tuba’s low G - though the embouchure set is obviously not as open. I actually find that some of the “old-school/described-as-smaller F tubas (Alex, Miraphone 80, and even old M-W 45) offer fourth a stronger C than many of the so-called “easy C“ newer models, when that pitch is approached properly (ie. not played as if playing a C tuba).
- manufacturers patronizing C tuba players (who complain about C on F tubas not being able to be played in the same way) - and altering those instruments’ bore tapers to imitate the feel of an open C on a C tuba - thus: screwing up a lot of other things - things which are really the reasons why an F tuba should be considered - in the first place - for certain applications.

Both of those things having been said, the truth of the matter is that – even today – there really have not been that many remarkably good C or F instruments introduced to the market.
(I ended up with a remarkably good F instrument right off the bat – due to blind luck, and bought and sold so many C instruments – finally finding an acceptable one – that I would really have to think hard to try to remember all of them that have passed through my hands.
Euphoniums cannot be effectively negotiated as if they are the same thing as contrabass tubas, and F tubas are halfway there. (Certainly, the same C on a euphonium - 1-3-4 - cannot be approached in the same way that an open C is approached on a C tuba.)

As to French horn mouthpipe tubes, Mr. Lawson got the ball rolling with aftermarket horn mouthpipes, and others have followed.
When someone shows me a replacement mouthpipe tube on a French horn - that they report improves the playing characteristics, those usually – to me – look to be smaller, rather than larger. I have found the same to be generally true with tubas.

Weeellllll -- given that I had my MW 182 F with its funny feeling low C at the same time as I had my 184 CC Mphone, the G below the C on the Mphone was easy, while the C below the F on the MW was not. The G on the Mphone centered and the C on the MW did not. It had no "slot." So it's not that. I really do think the makers don't care that their F tubas have a problem for a lot of players out of pure arrogance that if you're not good enough to play it, possibly you shouldn't be. Unfortunately that, in today's market, is not working out so well for them.