TubaForum.net

The capillary (small end) portion bore size - I believe - has a remarkable effect on the resonance qualities of a brass instrument.

I personally seem to be mostly drawn (pun?) towards tubas with mouthpipes with small capillary bores.

They seem to generally offer a "prettier" resonance quality, a more controllable low range (regarding pitch - sure: and resonance - at volume level extremes and during crescendo/dimininuendo situations), and easier pitch "steering" overall.

A couple of my instruments' mouthpipe tubes are scantly larger than the exit bores of the mouthpieces that I use with them, with some of the others' small-end i.d.'s not being any larger than 13.5mm.

This topic isn't discussed very much at all, as swapping out tuba mouthpipes and custom-bending them is much more of an ordeal than with trumpets or even horns. That being the case, I believe many of us might choose mouthpieces that are compensating for things that might better be addressed in mouthpipe tubes.

I have moved my two *overly large* tubas to leadpipes where the first six or so inches are smaller and have a more gradual taper, so the following section has to taper faster to get to the valve bore size. For these two "fast taper* tubas, this seems to help them a lot to not feel *loose* to me when I play them. (These being my 345 and my Kurath.) I had to ditch the mouthpieces I had used on them for years as pretty much everything changed, with the vast majority of those changes being positive.

I installed a leadpipe from a 188 (larger small end, faster tapering initial six-inch run) on my classic 186. It was one of the older ones with the larger leadpipe, and it benefitted this tuba, but that leadpipe was damaged enough that I replaced it with a modern 186 leadpipe, which did not work so well. In this case, the slower-tapering instrument benefitted from the larger leadpipe, again — mostly — with a few negatives introduced in the changeover. Oddly enough, I did not have to change the mouthpiece after this leadpipe change.

On balance, I greatly prefer the "bigger" horns with the "smaller" leadpipes, and the "smaller" horn with the "bigger" leadpipe.

It just worked out that way for me.

I am starting to become a fan of skinny-opening leadpipes on BA tubas.

In horns, leadpipes are a big deal, with many custom ones out there. Walter Lawson was amazingly smart and designed mouthpieces, bells, and leadpipes that made significant differences on the playability of various kinds of horns, not just Lawson horns.

I'm wondering if, since the receiver on my Eb has been changed to accommodate a modern mouthpiece, if that has had an unknown effect on the entire instrument.

Therefore, American shank/Miraphone accepting leadpipes are #1.

USA, USA!!

My old Alex 163 CC had a huge receiver. I assume that translated to a huge mouthpipe tube, as well.

I wonder if a smaller one would have impacted the intonation tendencies..? (Super flat bottom line G, and very flat E, Eb, D and Db in the staff)

That's probably mostly a bugle issue though.

arpthark wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:51 pm My old Alex 163 CC had a huge receiver. I assume that translated to a huge mouthpipe tube, as well.

I wonder if a smaller one would have impacted the intonation tendencies..? (Super flat bottom line G, and very flat E, Eb, D and Db in the staff)

That's probably mostly a bugle issue though.

Am I wrong, or do some of those Alexander mouthpieces feature really small throats?

mostly to Wade:

The pipe on that Holton B flat tuba that I built might actually start a little bit larger than some of my others, but the bore size of that instrument is only 11/16 of an inch.

Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything Wade said, just another remark about such things. That tuba seems to work pretty well. I guess I'm wondering if it supplies the needed resistance later instead of earlier...??

FWIW, the several York 3/4” bore tubas I have been acquainted with sport original (unfortunately often rotted and dented beyond repair) mouthpipes with a long narrow-ish straight-ish taper from the receiver end and continuing for several inches, starting at @ .500. IIRC, I was told by a most knowledgeable tech (can’t remember exactly who at present but I have a pretty good idea) that he suspects it was primarily to facilitate manufacture.

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 5:16 pm

arpthark wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:51 pm My old Alex 163 CC had a huge receiver. I assume that translated to a huge mouthpipe tube, as well.

I wonder if a smaller one would have impacted the intonation tendencies..? (Super flat bottom line G, and very flat E, Eb, D and Db in the staff)

That's probably mostly a bugle issue though.

Am I wrong, or do some of those Alexander mouthpieces feature really small throats?

I had one once upon a time and yeah, mine had a super small throat and a monster shank.

cjk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:59 am

bloke wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 5:16 pm

arpthark wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:51 pm My old Alex 163 CC had a huge receiver. I assume that translated to a huge mouthpipe tube, as well.

I wonder if a smaller one would have impacted the intonation tendencies..? (Super flat bottom line G, and very flat E, Eb, D and Db in the staff)

That's probably mostly a bugle issue though.

Am I wrong, or do some of those Alexander mouthpieces feature really small throats?

I had one once upon a time and yeah, mine had a super small throat and a monster shank.

... de facto, the mouthpipe is built into the mouthpiece...

What then would be a good opening mouthpipe dimension for a 11/16" bore tuba?