Long vs short Tuba shanks

[Low Brass Excerpts]

Hi all,

I'm trying to figure out why some tuba mouthpieces have long shanks and others have short shanks.Does this change the sound/feel/blow?

[Kevbach33]

So long as the overall length between mouthpieces is the same (±a couple mm) and the insertion depth is the same, I'd imagine the difference is likely negligible with regard to interior design. However, the distribution of the outside mass, regardless of shank length, can change the way a given piece feels. Do you have a picture to show what you mean?

Sidebar, but related:
The only time I generally hear the term "long shank" used is in relation to Schilke trombone mouthpieces. Older large shank Schilke pieces are longer overall than current production in order to fit both modern receivers as well as Conn instruments with the so called Brown & Sharpe taper (slower than Morse, roughly .040"/in vs .050"/in) reasonably well. Here the added length does have an impact on feel: I find that, between 58s (a bass trombone size) that I've played, the long one feels more stable whereas the short piece feels more open. It's more pronounced since the mouthpieces are smaller overall than tuba mouthpieces (duh).
/Sidebar

I hope this helps

[bloke]

Regardless of the length...

If a small (bass trombone size), standard, P (Perantucci/Miraphone/Schilke size), or euro (largest common size) mouthpiece shank is inserted into a receiver that is DESIGNED to accept THAT PARTICULAR SIZE mouthpiece shank...

...if the mouthpiece inserts more than 1-1/8" or so, there's a risk that the end of the mouthpiece will extend past the choke-point (into the mouthpipe tube - which I PERSONALLY judge to be detrimental to response and resonance).

As far as exterior cup shapes extending way down (so that insertion portions of mouthpieces are minimal in length) or whereby a chunkier shank leads down to a usable shank...I (PERSONALLY) judge that stuff to be mumbo-jumbo, BUT - in this belief (whereby exteriors mouthpiece shapes or mass do NOTHING perceivable) - I suspect myself to be in the overwhelming MINORITY.

[Aiden Pisterov]

Hi all,

I'm trying to figure out why some tuba mouthpieces have long shanks and others have short shanks.Does this change the sound/feel/blow?

Are you talking about those shortie Doug Elliott shanks? I was wondering about them to. Does that supposably have something to do with "gap" and all that by making the mouthpiece farther away from the end of the receiver? I have some of both lengths and the short ones only insert 3 / 4 of an inch or so. The regulars go in about an inch. The ends of the shot ones are also real thick.

[bloke]

yeah...whoops !!

good point.

yes...
Thanks, previous person who posted.

Are you referring to mouthpieces whereby the entire mouthpiece (via a short BACK-BORE...and not just the exposed part of the exterior shank) is shorter?

[Low Brass Excerpts]

This is what I mean

[bloke]

When I was young and quite clumby - I would drop mouthpieces (mostly, because I didn't have any crap-yet-usable mouthpieces to march with, sousaphone tuning bits would loosen, etc.). After I screwed up their shanks too many times, I would file them off shorter and ream out their back-bores...stuff like Conn Helleberg, Bach 7, etc...the same mouthpieces I used indoors on tubas such as 186, etc...

When they got to be about as short as those "short-shank" mouthpieces, I would put them in a drawer and buy another.

They played different...different feel...but also different sound.
I couldn't hear/feel the grass grow (and certainly still cannot), but they weren't...the same...and (perceived) not in a good way.

That's probably not much useful information, but that's the only thing I've got (since I previously wasted your time with completely off-topic information).

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

I'm not sure about anything regarding mouthpieces, but I think that - besides the obvious change in tone - that shallower cups also promote immediacy of sound. I also tend to think that I have observed that the closer the end of a mouthpiece is to the choke point (past the receiver), that also promotes immediacy of sound.
I can't comment with even an intelligent guess on the affect of a short back-bore, because the only experience I've had with them is that which I explained in a previous post - whereby I was probably only 19 years old, and just filing off, re-rounding, and re-reaming cracked ends of shanks.

[BRS]

.

[bloke]

known...but others may not...so good info

[Rick Denney]

Don't assume that the outside surface has any relevance to the inside surface, beyond the requirement that the two surfaces don't get too close. Those old Conn mouthpieces have a pronounced concave outside shape that makes them look as though the cups are very shallow, like an oversized horn mouthpiece. But that is not necessarily the case at all.

Insertion depth is important in my view, but that affects how much of the shank is inside the receiver, not how much might be showing outside the receiver.

Rick "the great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" Denney

[kingrob76]

The weirdest thing about that LM15 isn’t the shank, it the cup(s).

“Maybe they’re related.”

My LM-15 is one of 3-4 pieces I would NEVER sell. I try this on all bass tubas because when it works it's amazing. Of course, when it doesn't work it's an absolute disaster. That double cup layout is unusual, for sure.