Funnel vs Conical

[Mary Ann]

I was perusing the JK mpc site and see they are pushing their new line of mpcs that are "conical." So, ok, I thought a funnel and a cone are the same shape? There are horn mpcs out there that really are funnels -- straight sides. Tuba mpcs, and most horn mpcs. have some "bowl-ing" at the bottom.

[Rick Denney]

I was perusing the JK mpc site and see they are pushing their new line of mpcs that are "conical." So, ok, I thought a funnel and a cone are the same shape? There are horn mpcs out there that really are funnels -- straight sides. Tuba mpcs, and most horn mpcs. have some "bowl-ing" at the bottom.

I suspect "conical" = "funnel" in general. Lots of times, word-by-word translations come up with interesting synonyms for the word that gets the most common usage.

As you point out, nobody except maybe Fred Young made a truly conical shape with straight sides in a tuba mouthpiece. But in the continuum from less bowl-shaped to more bowl-shaped, German mouthpieces have tended to the latter and probably they need lots of words to explain a departure from the norm.

Of course, we are much more clear in the words we use.

Rick "Hellebergish versus Geibish" Denney

[bloke]

nearly off topic:

Old Conn "Chief" (later: "1") and (basically the same) Holton 52 mpcs. were straight cones, but were also (borderline) comically large. I've also seen some OLD/crude mpc's that are straight funnels.

Ignoring various depths, most mouthpieces are curved funnels, bowls, or a combination of the two.
yes: Very few are straight funnels/cones.

psst: A whole bunch of mpc. throat openings are unnecessarily/detrimentally large, but what do I know?

[GC]

I've found a few antique Conn Eb mouthpieces that were conical, fairly flat cones with the diameter and depth not far from equal. And the Warburton TG4 is not truly conical, but it's surprisingly close.

[donn]

Internal shape of Conn 1 as measured by James New, with some Helleberg and (Conn?) Geib superimposed for comparison.


Here's one way the inside contour can be "conical" without really being conical -- no bottom. (This is a great mouthpiece, by the way - my favorite on contrabass, though honestly few could tell the difference.)

The other way - like those old Eb mouthpieces, I guess - basically amounts to filling in the sides, which in effect reduces the volume without making it more shallow. That seems to be more or less the Conn way - not just the Helleberg Variations but even their trombone mouthpieces. (Other makes tend to only use the words - Denis Wick 2L for example "deep, funneled Helleberg-type cup", ha ha, no. Conns aren't strictly conical, but you can tell the difference.)

Mighty curious about the Warburton TG4. I'd probably have one now if I'd seen this earlier, something of a fan based on a mouthpiece he (I think) made for Dillon but I don't remember any mention of this in the online info. But Josef Klier is easier to scare up here, not to mention a good deal less money. I'm guessing this new "Classic" line is an ordinary sort of shape that just leans more towards the conical than its predecessor.

[BRS]

.

[DonO.]

I think the diagram of the Conn mouthpiece vs. Helleberg/Geib explains it very well. All three could be called “conical”. But I would call the Conn closer to being “funnel” shaped because of the large back bore.

50 years ago when I was a teenager I took several lessons with Philip Catelinet while he was at Carnegie Mellon. One of the thing he showed me was his collection of mouthpieces, and he talked to me about mouthpiece theory and what he liked in a mouthpiece. He would take commercial mouthpieces to a shop to have the back bores drilled out and enlarged. He said he felt the more closely a tuba mouthpiece could be made to resemble a French horn mouthpiece, i.e., a true funnel, the better. I tried playing on one. I couldn’t even make a sound. The air just seemed to disappear. How he played on those, I have no clue.

[bloke]

There may have been some variation, but an old Chief that I cleaned up for someone and all of the Holton 52 mouthpieces that I've bought or had in my hand were super deep straight funnel mouthpieces that were also longer than most other mouthpieces overall. I was able to lay straight edge against the cup interiors. Maybe, the Conn 1 and Chief aren't exactly the same, as some people believe, or maybe Chief mouthpieces varied?

I've wondered why Holton made a mouthpiece like that, which was so similar to that old Chief mouthpiece that I worked on. Then years ago, I saw pictures of a Holton sousaphone that had all sorts of American Indian themed engraving on it. Did Mr. Kuhn ever play Holton instruments?

[Rick Denney]

I have a Revelation 51 somewhere in the pile. I should measure it up.

Rick "who tried it in the Holton one (1) time" Denney

[BRS]

.

[Mary Ann]

I never liked the Holton series of horn mouthpieces, nor have I ever been fond of Holton horns, although the MerkerMatic was not bad. After the usual "box 'o cups" I ended up with a Lawson S660 with a Thompson T1 rim, which slants inward. Funny about that -- Walter Lawson REALLY knew his tapers. Maybe I should have also gone for a Lawson leadpipe in addition to the bell and mpc. However, Lawson horns play like tanks. My Schmid plays like a Ferrari.

[bloke]

A principal horn/friend would agree with you re: Lawson horns.

...with apologies to Willson tuba fans...I suspect sort of the same type of thing...

[Tubeast]

WILLSON fan here...
To my German mind, the word "cone" is tied to the expression "Konus", which is very strictly defined as a rotationally-symmetrical shape the cross section of which consists of a trapezoid.
Therefore, it has a large diameter on one end, a small diameter on the other, and straight (non-curved) lines connecting the two.

For quite a while, I used a mouthpiece like that. Later, I got one of similar size, but with a Helleberg-style shape.
In my experience based on direct comparison, a truly conical mouthpiece offers a more hoarse, less colorful / beautyful sound.

The conical MP is used today to fend off stray dogs that won´t behave.

[donn]

I now have examples of both - Exclusive size 5A and Classic Exclusive 4AA.

The 5A came first, represented as a Classic Exclusive but it turned out to be the old Exclusive. (Moral of this story - if "branding" is your job, this was a joke. Give it a real name.) In the Classic Exclusive blurbs, the Exclusive interior is represented as "apple shaped", but it isn't anything like any apple I ever saw. I'd call it a slightly larger relative of the Conn 2 - middle of the road slightly conical, medium deep. Easy to play, generous and pleasing sound. I think I'm going to be using it a lot on my Eb tuba, and it's fine for the contrabass too,

Since my purpose was to find out about this new conical mouthpiece, not really so much about scientific comparison, the Classic Exclusive is a size larger all around. That's probably the biggest difference. The cup shape is pretty conical, but like I say, one way to get conical is to go deep, and it's pretty deep. It's a deep Helleberg. Flatter and sharper than average rim, about as conical profile as my Conn 7B, and maybe 1/16 inch deeper than any of the Helleberg copies I have, and with a big throat bore.

Sounds good. If I didn't have that C1 James New Conn 1 copy, it would be strong contender for my big BBb. (The C1 is a little smaller rim interior and rounder rim, and it's possible that if I got used to that, it would be a different story ... but I doubt it.) It has a full, lively sound. Not as easy to play as the smaller Exclusive, which is to be expected.

[edit] It's pretty big -- and this is only the "4" size, with increases like 1/2 mm to 3, 2, and 1. I know it's kind of natural for tuba players to reckon that the biggest must be the best, but from putting this 4 on my face, I have a hunch the 1 is pointless. [/edit]