V shape vs U shape cups

[tim]

Can anyone explain the playing tendencies of each?

[Meng]

After using 60 steel balls (diameters from 7.144 to 40mm) for these measurements, it's hard for me to tell which mouthpiece is the V shape cup or U shape cup.

Some look similar, but sound and feel completely different.

[modelerdc]

Looks like convergent evolution. One thing to keep in mind is that if the cup depth is keep constant, a bowl will have more volume than a funnel, and if the volume is keep constant the funnel will be deeper than the bowl. Few comparisons take this into account. Deeper means darker, but so does more cup volume, and they can be achieved in different ways. As the diagram above shows for most common designs the differences in cup shape are subtle, and there are many things that affect how the mouthpiece plays other than cup shape. In practice no one plays a perfectly bowl shaped cup, and almost no one plays a perfect funnel, almost all mouthpieces combine features of each.

[ghmerrill]

Yes -- I was recently chatting with someone at Hickey's about mouthpiece design and he (a trombone player himself) said that all the mouthpieces are hybrid to one degree or another. I seem to prefer more V-shaped ones -- possibly because of all the years playing tuba where the Helleberg-style pieces are very common.

I've used both styles on tubas over the years, and eventually settled on a Perantucci bowl-shaped piece for the 4/4 Bb horn I played for a long time. The German/Czech tubas seem to sound and respond better with a bowl type -- at least for me. And I now use a bowl-shaped (Kelly 25 clone of the Bach) on my little 3-valve 1924 Eb tuba), but was using a Wick Heritage 2XL or 3XL piece on my large compensating Eb when I had it. But I have to say that my all-time, go-to, it-will-always-work-at-least-reasonably-well-on-any-tuba piece has been the Schilke 66, which is a mildly scaled down (in size) Helleberg.

This might be an interesting thread for you by some euph players comparing playing features of the two types (and specifically talking about DE pieces): https://www.dwerden.com/forum/forum/eup ... sus-funnel.

[ssking2b]

I recently went to a Giardinelli Symphony G mouthpiece on my euphonium. That piece has a pronounced V shaped cup. It has greatly improved my projection without brightening up the sound. Previously I used a Parker LaDuke mouthpiece. Before that it was a Bowman1, preceded by a Meade Ultra 4. The Giardinelli is the best so far, and the only one with a pronounced V shape.

[harrisonreed]

After using 60 steel balls (diameters from 7.144 to 40mm) for these measurements, it's hard for me to tell which mouthpiece is the V shape cup or U shape cup.

Some look similar, but sound and feel completely different.



2024-09-12 19.54.25.jpg

None of those are V shaped. They're just different degrees of being shallow or deep.

[ghmerrill]

It's real hard to determine the actual interior shape of a mouthpiece by eyeballing it or taking depth measurements unless you've got some good equipment for that. The easiest way to get a rough idea might be to "cast it" with some "appropriate" material.

[cmccain]

If you keep the volume constant, i.e., a deeper V mp and a shallower U mp, the U shaped piece will have greater resistance than the V shaped. The V shaped will also allow faster air flow through it (as discussed in the thread @ghmerrill shared).

Lately, I've been using a more U-shaped mouthpiece for bass trombone and a V-shaped mouthpiece for tuba. When I had a more V-shaped mouthpiece on bass trombone, I felt like my sound too often lacked definition and edge. Having a U-shaped mouthpiece now helps me shape my sound a little better, especially down in the low range. On the other hand, I have had much better success with a V-shaped mouthpiece on tuba. Considering the amount of air I need to move on tuba, the V shape feels like less work to move and a lot less effort starting and stopping notes.

Interestingly, it was the low range on each instrument that made me realize I needed different shapes for each horn. YMMV.

[hyperbolica]

I recently got a Curry 1.5d bass bone mpc. It gives the best bass bone sound so far, followed by Stork and DE. The honeymoon period has not expired, but lining up my favorites, the Curry gives mire clear sound per unit air. This is also the most conical cup they offer. They describe it as very dark, but my experience was that it was very clear, and you can back off on the input a fair bit compared to other pieces.

I consider myself very much a pilgrim in bass bone matters, (which to me means someone searching, but without a lot of answers at this point) especially in the area of mouthpieces, but I think I'm circling in on things that work best for me. The pedal F and below range is opening up slowly for me. The Curry 1.5D seems to combine many aspects I've been looking for including the conical cup. Looking at the bowl, it is visibly more conical than other pieces, which I agree, all seem to fit into a narrow range. This is the first Curry I've played.

https://www.currympc.com/Trombone-Mouthpieces.html

[Kbiggs]

After using 60 steel balls (diameters from 7.144 to 40mm) for these measurements, it's hard for me to tell which mouthpiece is the V shape cup or U shape cup.

Some look similar, but sound and feel completely different.



2024-09-12 19.54.25.jpg

IMG_0340.jpeg

[hyperbolica]

After using 60 steel balls (diameters from 7.144 to 40mm) for these measurements...

How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece? Angled sides would touch at a smaller diameter than the ball diameter. You'd either need to know the angle of the sides (which is what you're trying to find), the insertion depth relative to the depth of the true spherical center or you'd have to use pins which would stop at an actual diameter. A ball would only really measure the min diameter of the throat. Am I getting this wrong?

I've done similar measurements and plots of backbores, but I used pins.

[cubetrom]

I generally prefer a more U-shape mouthpiece on trombone.
V-shape for baritone and euphonium.

[Meng]

I use a height gauge type caliper.
For the balls in the cup or backbore, use one standard length gauge block as the auxiliary extension tool.
Measured and calculated the position of these balls, relative to the rim surface, or relative to the end face of the backbore.
Then draw them all in CAD software and add a few necessary tangent lines.
If there are enough balls of different diameters, a good enough curve can be formed.

After using 60 steel balls (diameters from 7.144 to 40mm) for these measurements...

How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece? Angled sides would touch at a smaller diameter than the ball diameter. You'd either need to know the angle of the sides (which is what you're trying to find), the insertion depth relative to the depth of the true spherical center or you'd have to use pins which would stop at an actual diameter. A ball would only really measure the min diameter of the throat. Am I getting this wrong?

I've done similar measurements and plots of backbores, but I used pins.

[ghmerrill]

I measured the position of these balls, relative to the rim surface, or relative to the end face of the backbore.

The phrase "position of these balls" exhibits some ambiguity and inaccuracy, particularly in the context of hyperbolica's question and concern about what position on the ball is actually used in a given measurement (and how this can vary). It still looks as though your approach can't -- by itself -- provide an accurate description of the curve it's attempting to measure, but only a rough idea of what the curve looks like.

Do you see the problem? Am I missing something?

[Meng]

I have tried to improve my reply, please check it again.

Actually, when I drew these balls into the CAD software, most of the curve I wanted was formed.

I measured the position of these balls, relative to the rim surface, or relative to the end face of the backbore.

The phrase "position of these balls" exhibits some ambiguity and inaccuracy, particularly in the context of hyperbolica's question and concern about what position on the ball is actually used in a given measurement (and how this can vary). It still looks as though your approach can't -- by itself -- provide an accurate description of the curve it's attempting to measure, but only a rough idea of what the curve looks like.

Do you see the problem? Am I missing something?

[ghmerrill]

That picture appears to show the surface of the tube to be tangent to the ball at its greatest diameter at each point of measurement.
So it appears to indicate that you are assuming that in each case the ball "stops" at a point where its full diameter is exactly measuring the tube diameter. Is that your assumption, or am I still missing something?

[Meng]

I measured this length, then calculated the relative position of the balls' center, and then drew all the balls.

I don't think it's the greatest diameter, just the point where the ball contacts the cup.

That picture appears to show the surface of the tube to be tangent to the ball at its greatest diameter at each point of measurement.
So it appears to indicate that you are assuming that in each case the ball "stops" at a point where its full diameter is exactly measuring the tube diameter. Is that your assumption, or am I still missing something?

[ghmerrill]

I don't think it's the greatest diameter, just the point where the ball contacts the cup.

This is the point that Hyperbolica was making in asking "How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece?" If it's not measuring the greatest diameter, then you don't know what it's measuring since you have no way of inferring the diameter at the actual point of contact. And so you end up with an even cruder approximation of the curve than you think you do.

This is kind of nit-picky , and may yield all the information you want -- I.e., whether the interior of the mouthpiece is "more like a bowl or more like a funnel", but the meaning of "bowl-shaped" and "funnel-shaped" in that sense may be very rough and approximate. The approach has all the trappings of a precise experiment and measurement, but it's really an improved "guesstimate" -- though maybe good enough for your practical purposes, and better than just eyeballing it.

[Meng]

I found the curves of the Bach 5G and Hammond 10L from wedgemouthpiece.com and the VennCAD software database.

After a quick comparison, I think the results are pretty consistent.

Anyway, this measurement is cheap and quite interesting, and useful to me and my friends.

I don't think it's the greatest diameter, just the point where the ball contacts the cup.

This is the point that Hyperbolica was making in asking "How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece?" If it's not measuring the greatest diameter, then you don't know what it's measuring since you have no way of inferring the diameter at the actual point of contact. And so you end up with an even cruder approximation of the curve than you think you do.

This is kind of nit-picky , and may yield all the information you want -- I.e., whether the interior of the mouthpiece is "more like a bowl or more like a funnel", but the meaning of "bowl-shaped" and "funnel-shaped" in that sense may be very rough and approximate. The approach has all the trappings of a precise experiment and measurement, but it's really an improved "guesstimate" -- though maybe good enough for your practical purposes, and better than just eyeballing it.

[Doug Elliott]

Using that one as an example, there's no way to describe that as primarily either U or V.

[Meng]

Btw, I have some pin gauges with the accuracy of 0.01mm. These are very cheap and easy tools to use to measure throat diameter.

Using the Go/No-Go method, if the 7.15mm pin gauge can pass through and the 7.16mm pin gauge cannot pass through, then the throat diameter is between 7.15 and 7.16mm.

After measuring more than 20 mouthpieces, I found that the accuracy of the throat diameter was far below my expectations. Some of them were far from the official website parameters.

For example, my friend and I bought the same model 2 mouthpieces in the same year, one is 7.16~7.17 mm, and the other is 7.20~7.21 mm.

I guess that it may be challenging for many mouthpiece factories to achieve a processing accuracy of 0.01mm or 0.02mm.

I don't think it's the greatest diameter, just the point where the ball contacts the cup.

This is the point that Hyperbolica was making in asking "How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece?" If it's not measuring the greatest diameter, then you don't know what it's measuring since you have no way of inferring the diameter at the actual point of contact. And so you end up with an even cruder approximation of the curve than you think you do.

This is kind of nit-picky , and may yield all the information you want -- I.e., whether the interior of the mouthpiece is "more like a bowl or more like a funnel", but the meaning of "bowl-shaped" and "funnel-shaped" in that sense may be very rough and approximate. The approach has all the trappings of a precise experiment and measurement, but it's really an improved "guesstimate" -- though maybe good enough for your practical purposes, and better than just eyeballing it.

[ghmerrill]

Using that one as an example, there's no way to describe that as primarily either U or V.

Yes, we need a richer descriptive vocabulary here. Might you go for "tulip bulb"? Or perhaps "hopper"?

[Doug Elliott]

"After measuring more than 20 mouthpieces, I found that the accuracy of the throat diameter was far below my expectations. Some of them were far from the official website parameters."

Bingo!
That goes for nearly all manufacturers, and throughout the mouthpiece, not just the throat.

I would guess that instruments are subject to the same variances.

[ghmerrill]

Perhaps one cannot expect the same degree of precision in products, generally, as can be found in the products that are used to measure them. Once you get down to very fine dimensional differences, those can often be accounted for by factors such as normal tool/cutter wear, and the criteria or intervals for replacing those on the production line. Some manufacturers are more diligent than others, and some decisions will be made on the basis of economics. If you want real and dependable high precision from a manufacturer, you have to be willing to pay for it. This is why you might choose to buy from Mitutoyo rather than Harbor Freight -- if the difference matters to you.

[Posaunus]

Harrison Reed's laser scans, posted here before, will give you an accurate visual of mouthpiece interior profiles.

[harrisonreed]

Harrison Reed's laser scans, posted here before, will give you an accurate visual of mouthpiece interior profiles.

Just want to make sure the record is straight -- I don't do any scans. I have sent mouthpieces to Vennture and they scan with a probe on a fixed plane. All their scan work and the work from Kanstul is available through their application.

Everything they've done for me has been accurate, and extremely high quality.

[Meng]

There is another interesting discovery.

A few months ago, I found out that there is a more advanced measurement device now, Industrial computed tomography, Industrial CT.

There are some labs that provide this measurement service.

I send the size of trombone mouthpiece, they said it can scan 3 to 5 mouthpieces at one time and the cost is about $100 with the 85um accuracy by the normal voltage.

Harrison Reed's laser scans, posted here before, will give you an accurate visual of mouthpiece interior profiles.

Just want to make sure the record is straight -- I don't do any scans. I have sent mouthpieces to Vennture and they scan with a probe on a fixed plane. All their scan work and the work from Kanstul is available through their application.

Everything they've done for me has been accurate, and extremely high quality.

[Meng]

Just now, I found out this BETA Angle from this webpage, which seems to be able to quantitatively distinguish between V-shape and U-shape.
https://www.grmouthpieces.com/category-s/239.htm

I calculated the beta angles of these mouthpieces and the values ​​are between 33 and 39 degrees. It still seems useless.

截屏2024-11-21 23.08.45.jpg

截屏2024-11-21 23.04.37.jpg

[hyperbolica]

Btw, I have some pin gauges with the accuracy of 0.01mm. These are very cheap and easy tools to use to measure throat diameter.

The accuracy of the pins is one thing. The increment between measurement sizes is another.

This was the set I used for measuring backbores of trumpets. I could do trombones (and probably tubas) with this as well. For measuring tbone cups you need a much larger set (from about 0.275" to 1.200", in 0.003" increments - biggest diameter on McMaster-Carr is 0.750" - it would be close to $1000 worth of measuring pins if it existed), and the data you get in reality won't be nearly as pretty as what you claim.

IMG_20241121_102649763.jpg

[Meng]

I only have 28 pin gauges from 7.00mm to 7.27mm with 0.01mm increments. The total price is no more than $5. Only used to measure throat diameter and throat length.

Btw, I have some pin gauges with the accuracy of 0.01mm. These are very cheap and easy tools to use to measure throat diameter.

The accuracy of the pins is one thing. The increment between measurement sizes is another.

This was the set I used for measuring backbores of trumpets. I could do trombones (and probably tubas) with this as well. For measuring tbone cups you need a much larger set (from about 0.275" to 1.200", in 0.003" increments - biggest diameter on McMaster-Carr is 0.750" - it would be close to $1000 worth of measuring pins if it existed), and the data you get in reality won't be nearly as pretty as what you claim.

IMG_20241121_102649763.jpg

[LIBrassCo]

Btw, I have some pin gauges with the accuracy of 0.01mm. These are very cheap and easy tools to use to measure throat diameter.

Using the Go/No-Go method, if the 7.15mm pin gauge can pass through and the 7.16mm pin gauge cannot pass through, then the throat diameter is between 7.15 and 7.16mm.

After measuring more than 20 mouthpieces, I found that the accuracy of the throat diameter was far below my expectations. Some of them were far from the official website parameters.

For example, my friend and I bought the same model 2 mouthpieces in the same year, one is 7.16~7.17 mm, and the other is 7.20~7.21 mm.

I guess that it may be challenging for many mouthpiece factories to achieve a processing accuracy of 0.01mm or 0.02mm.

This is the point that Hyperbolica was making in asking "How do you tell what diameter a ball measures in a mouthpiece?" If it's not measuring the greatest diameter, then you don't know what it's measuring since you have no way of inferring the diameter at the actual point of contact. And so you end up with an even cruder approximation of the curve than you think you do.

This is kind of nit-picky , and may yield all the information you want -- I.e., whether the interior of the mouthpiece is "more like a bowl or more like a funnel", but the meaning of "bowl-shaped" and "funnel-shaped" in that sense may be very rough and approximate. The approach has all the trappings of a precise experiment and measurement, but it's really an improved "guesstimate" -- though maybe good enough for your practical purposes, and better than just eyeballing it.

Did I read this right? Are you saying a difference of .001" in the throat of a mouthpiece isn't acceptable? .01mm is .0004", that's aerospace grade accuracy. Are you saying mouthpieces should be made with the accuracy of aerospace components?

[Meng]

The 0.01mm accuracy is just the increment provided by the store where I bought these pin gauges.

I don't have any special requirements or expectations for this accuracy. Not to mention acceptable or unacceptable.

There are too many factors that affect the mouthpiece performance, and the throat size and accuracy are not very important in my opinion.

This list is the official parameters and the actual measurement results. There are some deviations, and I am not sure whether it is a processing capacity issue or a trade secret.

For me, it is just an interesting observation and experience.

Btw, if the same brand and model of mouthpieces purchased in the same month can have the same or similar experience, I think this may be the expectation of many people.

截屏2024-11-22 19.22.14.jpg

[/quote]

Did I read this right? Are you saying a difference of .001" in the throat of a mouthpiece isn't acceptable? .01mm is .0004", that's aerospace grade accuracy. Are you saying mouthpieces should be made with the accuracy of aerospace components?
[/quote]

[harrisonreed]

I demand my mouthpiece be made to even tighter specifications than the James Web Space Telescope's mirrors!

[LIBrassCo]

I demand my mouthpiece be made to even tighter specifications than the James Web Space Telescope's mirrors!

[LIBrassCo]

The 0.01mm accuracy is just the increment provided by the store where I bought these pin gauges.

I don't have any special requirements or expectations for this accuracy. Not to mention acceptable or unacceptable.

There are too many factors that affect the mouthpiece performance, and the throat size and accuracy are not very important in my opinion.

This list is the official parameters and the actual measurement results. There are some deviations, and I am not sure whether it is a processing capacity issue or a trade secret.

For me, it is just an interesting observation and experience.

Btw, if the same brand and model of mouthpieces purchased in the same month can have the same or similar experience, I think this may be the expectation of many people.


截屏2024-11-22 19.22.14.jpg

Did I read this right? Are you saying a difference of .001" in the throat of a mouthpiece isn't acceptable? .01mm is .0004", that's aerospace grade accuracy. Are you saying mouthpieces should be made with the accuracy of aerospace components?
[/quote]
[/quote]

In reality anything +- .002" is considered acceptable, I shoot for +- .001", but I would by no means discount a mouthpiece manufacturer as having sloppy tolerances if they stick to the .002" number. There have been cases of mouthpieces being off by something like .009" in the throat, which is excessive.

For anyone who needs some context, a sheet of average printer paper is .004", so we're talking a tolerance of half that thickness. No one (and I mean no one) can feel the difference on of .002" in the throat of a mouthpiece. If they say they can, they're full of it. I've tested this deliberately, where both I and the player don't know which is which, and unsurprisingly there is no consistent result.

[BGuttman]

I demand my mouthpiece be made to even tighter specifications than the James Webb Space Telescope's mirrors!

You realize that just specifying tighter tolerances than the equipment can provide means the supplier has to make enough parts to find one that meets your spec-- and you have to pay for all of them.

[harrisonreed]

I demand my mouthpiece be made to even tighter specifications than the James Webb Space Telescope's mirrors!

You realize that just specifying tighter tolerances than the equipment can provide means the supplier has to make enough parts to find one that meets your spec-- and you have to pay for all of them.

Money is no object! The lathe had better use unobtanium boring bars and be calibrated to account for the coriolis force and the changing harmonics of the brass bar as chips come off. That .00000000001±.0000000000001 inch means the difference between hitting a note beautifully, or chipping it completely.

[BGuttman]

You've been in the Military too long

[Savio]

I try to avoid the mouthpiece debate, but the Mt Vernon 1 1/2g is the answer to all question's out there. Yup!!!

In the old days I believed the Bach was U shape and the Schilke was V shape?

Am I right when to day it's nearly a norm to change and even play different mouthpieces/instruments often?

James Morrison do play both trumpet and trombone. And it's amazing! How can we other's learn to do that? Is it possible only for certain players to do this? I can't even get a sound out of trumpet?

Make a glizz all !!
Leif

[ghmerrill]

You've been in the Military too long

Still, it's good to see a commitment to standards -- even unattainable ones.

[Meng]

On this page, there are some outlines of Bach and Schilke.
https://wedgemouthpiece.com/all-trombone-mouthpieces

Before this measurement and observation, my friends and I felt that Bach 5G and Schilke Sym D5.1 were U shape, Denis Wick and Stork were V shape.

Recently I discovered that the shape openness of the throat entrance, seems to be more interesting.

截屏2024-11-23 10.15.09.jpg

截屏2024-11-23 10.15.50.jpg

截屏2024-11-23 10.21.25.jpg

截屏2024-11-23 10.30.22.jpg

截屏2024-11-23 10.30.35.jpg

I try to avoid the mouthpiece debate, but the Mt Vernon 1 1/2g is the answer to all question's out there. Yup!!!

In the old days I believed the Bach was U shape and the Schilke was V shape?

Am I right when to day it's nearly a norm to change and even play different mouthpieces/instruments often?

James Morrison do play both trumpet and trombone. And it's amazing! How can we other's learn to do that? Is it possible only for certain players to do this? I can't even get a sound out of trumpet?

Make a glizz all !!
Leif

[Posaunus]

On this page, there are some outlines of Bach and Schilke.
https://wedgemouthpiece.com/all-trombone-mouthpieces

Interesting (I think).

Thanks to Dr Dave Harrison at Wedge for all these mouthpiece cup profiles.

[ghmerrill]

Can anyone explain the playing tendencies of each?

Reviewing this thread, I'm not clear on how this initial question has been addressed. We've veered into some esoteric details of measurement technology and accuracy -- which has been interesting in a few uber-geeky ways. But I don't think I saw any answers to the "playing tendencies" question.

My gut feeling from all of this is that, for any really mouthpiece makers involved, the answer is along the lines of "That question really can't be answered because it assumes a simplicity of shape, cause, and effect that just isn't there." Or at best "Well, if I wanted to enhance result x, then I'd maybe make the piece a bit more V-shaped; but if I wanted to enhance y I'd maybe make the piece a bit more U-shaped. But there really aren't any accurate generalizations that can be made based purely on some notion of 'shape' in this sense."

So the real answer to the original question is "No." because there aren't any such general tendencies devoid of a lot of other complexity?

[Kbiggs]

While it’s important to measure a mouthpiece for design, manufacture, and consistency, it’s not as important for us as players.

Yes, cup size and shape are important. Rim size and shape are important. So are throat size and the shape immediately before the throat. Then there’s backbore, projection (not sure if that’s the right word for how far the mouthpiece fits into the receiver/leadpipe), along with other variables.

To me, a U-shaped cup is one that has straight-ish inside walls that go downwards into the cup, and then move to a flatter bottom to the cup. Throat shape can vary from very sharp like some sacbut mouthpieces to very gentle like a Wick mouthpiece. A V-shaped cup is one that feels like the walls very quickly move inwards towards towards the center and the throat, more like a French horn mouthpiece.

When I was playing Monette mouthpieces, I had a conversation with David Monette. At one point, he used his finger to run down the mouthpiece from about the throat to the end and said something like, “That’s where it makes a difference,” or perhaps “That’s where the magic happens.”

I haven’t any idea whether he is right or wrong. I’m not an instrument or mouthpiece designer, and people who play his mouthpieces and horns love them. My lesson from that conversation is that there’s much more to a mouthpiece than just rim size and cup shape/depth. I have enough to deal with just playing the damn horn.

[LIBrassCo]

In reality, mouthpiece design is a sum of the parts, more than being defined by any one feature. When someone asks me if my mouthpieces are U or V shaped I just kind of chuckle. They're both, and neither, because it's honestly a very oversimplified way to look at it. The same could be said for cup depth. The way I do my designs, neither of these things means much of anything, it's the contour of the cup and transition into the throat that matter. I guess more old school designs may stick to something like this, but with the design software and manufacturing that's available today, there's really no reason to.