Mouthpiece science?

[Murray]

Robert, The premise of my argument, which you haven't aknowledged once, is that the mouthpiece, which BY ITSELF is useless, can not be designed by itself, and for itself. While I am not saying that a mouthpiece can't be improved, by technology, trial and error, accident, or whatever, all I'm saying is that you can't tell me that by using a formula, or the laws of physics, that you will improve one's playing through the mouthpiece, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL OF THE COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF SOUND. This is what you are claiming, and I don't buy it. I don't care if yo have NASA and it's space computers, and even HAL working to design your mouthpieces. Without taking ALL FACTORS into consideration, you can't tell me that the work done was scientific, unless you start to measure the energy one uses to produce sound, along with measuring the trumpet's resistence. THEN, and only then, can we start talking about science. Design a mouthpiece "scientifically" without considering the energy source, and the destination of that energy is ludicrous.

As an aside, I read an interesting article a couple of years ago about a contest held in Mexico between highly trained runners from the USA, supported by a leading sporting company, and Mexican runners, who ran not for excersise, but rather for transportation, and communication daily, since they didn't have phones in the mountains. The night before the race, the Americans went to sleep early, while the Mexican contestants stayed up late, drinking beer,since they apparently weren't very concerned about the outcome. Anyway, suffice it to say that the Americans, with their fine running shoes lost the long distance race to the Mexicans, who ran in their sandals made out of tires, or barefooted. And let me tell you, the sporting company wasn't too pleased about it.

[Leedplyr]

Murray,
Did you read Mr. Keiths posts? He has said that no matter how good the mouthpiece is, it depends on the player. He has acknowledged your point several times.
You do not seem to get the point.
Look at his questions he has posted.

"How is the sound produced in the trumpet? Is it magic or acoustics? What is a pressure or standing wave? How is one set up in the trumpet? How does the ear hear sound? What is a pressure drop? What does the harmonic series look like for a straight cylindrical tube vs. the trumpet air column? What effect does the bell have on the harmonic series when added to a cylindrical tube? What does a mouthpiece do to the harmonic series when added to a cylindrical tube?"

It is quite obvious that the poeple he has been learning from have considered more than just the mouthpiece.
It looks as though these people have been quite thorough in considering all of the components in the production of sound.

As you have said you have to consider the energy output of the individual player. That is a variable that Mr. Keith has agreed with you on. You have mentioned the resistance of the trumpet. Mr. Keith is miles ahead of you if you read his last post. Do you know any answers to his questions?

Do you honestly think that a better designed mouthpiece will not improve a person's playing? I certainly do. It looks to me that from this series of posts and past posts that you just like a good debate. Read Mr. Keith's post again and try to learn something.

P.S. I do like your comments on staying up late and drinking beer. Perhaps I will do that tonight. Have a cold one also Murray. I'll buy if I ever meet you in person. No hard feelings. We are all on the same side here.
C. Revas

[Murray]

Welcome to the forum, LP. Yes, you are right, I love a good debate. Have I read Robert's post? Yes. Now let's get started.

My point was never that "It depends on the player". Although, it does, of course. This point was made by Robert. My point is that a mouthpiece can not be designed as a seperate entity. As some people claim it can, and then call it "Scientific", impying that it is better. I'm not impressed in the slightest by standing waves, sound drops, mail drops or whatever. YOu say, " It looks as if these people ( and we ALL know who you are alluding to) have been quite thorough in considering "all" the components in the production of sound". Really? Have these people "scientifically" measured the energy output of each player to whom they sell a mouthpiece? This should be included in any "scientifically" developed mouthpiece. OF COURSE NOT! It would be impossible, and futile.

You imply that your mouthpieces are "better" since they are developed with pressure drops , and other terminology designed to impress potential buyers. While these mouthpieces may indeed be better FOR YOU and FOR ROBERT, please don't claim that they are better for everybody. After all, it's just another mouthpiece. For me, a $30 Yamaha might be better, REGARDLESS of the "low technology" design. The proof is in the player, and what he or she prefers.

REaders and fellow trumpeters, if you have read this debate this far, you know that you should reach your own conclusions. DON'T be fooled by marketing hype. Let's not forget that mouthpiece makers prey on trumpet players' desire for an easy way out. Some of them have their slogans, "constant pitch center, computer balanced, mega this, mega that. They are ALL in business to make money, and they probably ALL believe that their product is the supeior one. So, make your own judgements. But remember, "better designed" is subjective. One can design a mouthpiece which according to physics "should" be better. The real proof is taking that supposedly "better" mouthpiece and playing it. If you like it better, then it is. If you don't then it's not. THAT is the bottom line.

[TptProf]

[Murray]

Robert, there is no doubt that pressure drops etc. are ways of measuring physical forces. These forces have existed long before people even thought about making trumpets out of metal. They can be measured on any mouthpiece. The manufacturer of the mouthpieces that you have been referring to believes that by mathematically changing the dimensions of the mouthpiece, he can alter these forces to influence the playing characteristics of the mouthpiece. Whether or not this technique produces a better mouthpiece is subjective. Theoretically, one might think it would, but after trying the mouthpieces, I felt like my Bach was for me a better mouthpiece.

When you ask me, "what does the mouthpiece do to the harmonics of the air column?", I would say to you, "that depends on who's playing that mouthpiece!" This is the crux of what I have been saying. You can't just study the physics involved without including the player. And since the very same player is in a constant state of flux, then "scientific measurements" don't mean the same thing, as if you were studying pieces of metal, that don't change their physical dimensions. Same thing if you talk about the bell, or the cylindrical section of the trumpet. These can't be studied seperately, without involving a player. Otherwise, you end up having players, "defy the rules" by sounding exactly the opposite of what they should be sounding like. A certain backbore might be made to sharpen the upper register of the trumpet, and then, somebody will come along, and "break the rules" by sounding flat on the same mouthpiece. If a bell is supposed to influence certain notes in the harmonic series, you can bet that certain players will end up doing the opposite. If only it were so simple to invent a program that instanly improves the function of a mouthpiece that would work for whoever played it! But, it isn't. That's really all I wanted to say.

YOu are absolutely right that technology has made enormous strides, especially in the last 100 years. Let's not forget that we as humans, are pretty much the same animals as we were 100 years ago. Look at the famous cornetists of yesteryear. With their instruments and mouthpieces, that would by today's standards be considered inferior, they learned how to play incredibly well by anybody's standards. Who knows, maybe they would have played even better with more modern equipment? We will never know...

[Andy Cooper]

Your may be able to practice your way through this problem with the help of your teacher. Long distance the best suggestion I could give you is based on your statement that you go "sharp" in the upper register and that it sounds "thin". The Schilke 15 is a nice mouthpiece but some players find the #26 throat and the (in my opinion larger backbore) more tiring. The Since you like the rim and general cup size you might try out some of the similar Yamaha mouthpieces which I believe have a smaller throat size. I have not done a side by side test against the Schilkes so perhaps another poster can help. The most likely Yamaha models to try are the 16, 15, 14 series though I think the rims are more like the Schilke 4 rim. If these seem to be an improvement you could consider a custom Schilke 15C3 cup with a smaller throat on an appropriate backbore. You might be able to practice your way through this and build up the strength to overcome a possibly overly open mouthpiece. Technique returns quickly for the come-back player - range and endurance take longer.

[ This Message was edited by: Andy Cooper on 2002-02-10 23:06 ]

[Jim]

I think Murray and Trptprof are both correct regarding mouthpiece design and perhaps I might be able to sort through their technical and adversarial diatribe. I think Murray is saying that, for a piece to be scientifically designed, it would have to be specifically constructed for an individual player; otherwise the piece is only the manufacturer's best guess as to how it will perform for a given player. I would think that most would agree with this position. Mr. Keith"s views that mouthpieces designed by way of advancing science technologies/manufacturing techniques are beneficial is also well taken. It certainly is easier to move from one piece to another in, for example, the GR line and be able to predict to some degree what the playing characteristics might be since the pieces are CONSISTENTLY constructed via scientific manufacturing processes. Therefore, I think both of these knowledgeable posters are "right on' with their thoughts. Just my thoughts, Jim

[Pat]

The best text I have seen on mouthpieces is the Storks' "Understanding the Mouthpiece." It goes into the different variables (rim, bite, cup shape and depth, throat and backbore) of a mouthpiece and uses hypothetical players to illustrate how a change in one of the variables might help a player I believe its $7 or $8 and can be ordered from the Storks.

[_Don Herman]

I almost hate to get into this, but regarding a couple of earlier comments...

All IN MY OPINION; save your flames...

(1) The mpc doesn't significantly impact the harmonics of the horn, except perhaps in relationship to how far into the horn it goes (moving the nodal points by varying the net length).

(2) The mpc does affect the resistance to (air and acoustic energy) flow at the point of sound generation, the lips. That is, what matters is how your lips react to pressure gradients in the mpc (and elsewhere).

(3) Describing a system doesn't always provide an understanding of how it works. Naming a disease doesn't provide a cure, and describing all the physical dimensions/vectors of a mouthpiece doesn't tell you how to choose the right one for you. But, it provides a common ground, or language if you will, for trying things until you find what fits. If you can't describe the problem in meaningful terms, it's hard to prescribe a cure.

As best I can tell, what GR offers is a meaningful, consistent, and complete set of mpc specifications. Deciding if it works for a particular player is based upon empirical evidence -- a guy with embouchure A, playing
style B, etc. will likely want mpc X. An empirical approach is certainly not unscientific, but it has its limitations. Making a prediction based on empirical evidence and/or history is what most of us do, mpc makers or not. Do not Monette, Stork, and others do the same? For that matter, don't we ourselves?

I'm struggling to see the point in this whole thread. Yeah, nobody can choose a "perfect" mpc for me "scientifically", as the variables I introduce are as yet unknown and unmeasured. That said, chances are that with a little time and effort somebody who figures out generally how and what I play can get awfully close. And, if something's not quite right, the GR (Stork, insert favorite guru here) descriptions provide a basis of discussion for further experiments. Change the alpha angle in one direction, does it help or hurt? Chances are, GR has to figure out from our much more primitive language (too much bite, need a softer rim, more V in the cup, etc.) exactly which variables to modify and in what direction. Perhaps over time his system will become accepted by others and common ground will be found for scientifically discussing mpc (and trumpet) design.

It will likely be long after that the player himself can be quantified, but it seems likely that eventually machines and computers will be developed to give us a look at what we're doing and thus how best to match mpc to man (woman). Then all arguments will become moot as we all will know what works best, without emotional attachments and arcane arguments about whether a particular magic works better even if we can't measure it.

As trumpet player, I doubt it. - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley

[Warbird]

Any of you play on a 1X sized mouthpeice? I have one and I have fallen in love with it... Just curious if anyone else has used it.

In Christ,
Joseph N. Pack

[jgadvert]

Hey Murray!!

Have you tried the mpc that these guys are advocating?

When so many people say good things about a product(that is not a big money item) why not try it? Then you will really have something to debate about!!

I purchased one and certainly aint posting my comments here. I learnerd my lesson!

[Murray]

JG, Yes, I actually did try not one, but two of the aforementioned mouthpieces. Somebody reading the forum graciously offered to buy them, so I sold them. I found that Bach and Yamaha mouthpieces work better for me for the type of music that I play.

[jgadvert]

Murray:

Oh..you did try them. I'd be interested in hearing the positives and negatives of the ones you tried. Sizes would help. Like I'm wondering what size bach mpc you use

But email me though. Wouldnt want to be the cause of negatives being posted publicaly.

I am using one now and on the positive side, it really is free blowing and slots better than the one I was using...best thing since sliced bread

[Paul.Trumpet]

empty

[jgadvert]

Just a quick mention Paul...you may have to alter your playing a bit to get the full feeling for what those mpcs have to offer. Varying resistence with different mpcs....

Vs. the ones you mentioned, you have to back off extra or you could collapse. I backed off so much that I was in the other room while playing them the first night.

Interesting shtuff