In another post I put up today a person suggested using an adapter for a small shank mouthpiece going into a large bore horn. We’ve probably all had to do this at one time or another, but I’ve always assumed that it was not the best thing to do. Does anyone know how the vastly different way an adapted mouthpiece sits in the lead pipe effects things? Like I said, I’ve always assumed that it was bad, but in reality I have no idea. :D

They're awful. :good:

[quote="PosauneCat"]In another post I put up today a person suggested using an adapter for a small shank mouthpiece going into a large bore horn. ... Like I said, I’ve always assumed that it was bad, but in reality I have no idea. :D[/quote]

Good assumption.

Those adapters were introduced when there was not the current readily available proliferation of mouthpieces. One of the adapters actually was provided with my new Conn 88H in 1972. Never used it; don't plan to in the future. Easy enough these days to get a large-shank mouthpiece that will fit your needs.

[quote="Burgerbob"]They're awful. :good:[/quote]

Yep, that’s what I’ve always thought.

One of the finest trombone players I have ever heard, the late Derek James, played many years in the London Philharmonic and Royal Philharmonic on a Bach 4 with adapter in his Conn 8H. Anything can work. I remember him saying that he wasn't a proper alto player as he used his tenor mouthpiece in it.... the Bach 4. Must have been a good 4.

Chris

I think Bill Pierce did his recordings on a 12C with an adaptor on an Olds Opera.

It can work but there are limitations. A small shank backbore is just not big enough to get the full potential out of a large shank instrument.... for most players.

Yes Bill Pearce used a 12c with adaptor on his Olds Opera

In his later years our old second trombonist, Kevin Thomson played a 4 with a shank after the holidays, until he felt ready to go back to the 4G. Sounded just as good.

Kevin sounded the same on everything.

I'm not advocating the use of a shank...I would never do it myself, just saying that great players can get away with some bizarre setups.

Chris

That was me. At the end of the day, the adapter is just a piece of brass. There's little difference between a large shank mouthpiece and an otherwise identical small shank mouthpiece an an adapter. But the important part there is the "otherwise identical small shank mouthpiece". For example, the 6.5AL large & small shank have the same backbone (the "L") which is why the large shank variant has enormously thick walls. I think most people would find it very difficult to determine the difference between a small shank 6.5AL with an adapter and a large shank 6.5AL.

So the problem as Doug noted is that on large bore horns, the throat, backbone, etc. are typically not suited for the large bore, especially not for what most players use a large bore for. But someone using a shallow piece on a large bore is also atypical. And at $10 or thereabouts, it's hardly a high-risk experiment. But in my experience, on Doug's pieces, using one of the large shanks is always superior to using the adapter.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]I think Bill Pierce did his recordings on a 12C with an adaptor on an Olds Opera.[/quote]

Bill Pearce used a Mt. Vernon Bach 12 (no letter) - at least according to this article:

https://www.trombone.org/articles/view.php?id=105

But back to the original question...

The traditional application for a large-shank tenor is playing in a large ensemble (symphony orchestra or symphonic band); we expect the symphonic trombonist to be able to put out a lot of volume while retaining that "symphonic" sound (whatever the heck that is). That small shank mouthpiece has a (comparatively) smaller throat and backbore than its large-shank equivalent (the 6.5AL being an exception), making it more difficult (though certainly not impossible) to get the "big sound" (the need for which is probably the reason you're playing on that big horn in the first place).

The addition of an adapter also introduces an extra step (and thus an extra node) in the air column, adds extra mass in the receiver area, and impacts the acoustic coupling between the mouthpiece and the instrument. All of these things arguably have the potential to change the sound of the system as a whole. It's impossible to say if that change will, to your ear, positive or negative - only that a perceptible change is a possible outcome.

[quote="Matt K"]For example, the 6.5AL large & small shank have the same backbone (the "L") which is why the large shank variant has enormously thick walls. I think most people would find it very difficult to determine the difference between a small shank 6.5AL with an adapter and a large shank 6.5AL.[/quote]

One might argue that the large shank 6.5AL is just not very good.

I mean, I don't personally like them. But it is one of the, if not the, most popular mouthpieces ever. In contemporary times, it's certainly on the smaller side for large bore stuff though. And several of the copies (of which I personally own a Shires copy) of the 6.5AL and Clarke pieces have the same super thick walls. As do the not-exaclty-copies-but-inspired-by-similar-pieces like the Yamaha 48L.

[quote="spencercarran"]<QUOTE author="Matt K" post_id="152512" time="1625747309" user_id="48">For example, the 6.5AL large & small shank have the same backbone (the "L") which is why the large shank variant has enormously thick walls. I think most people would find it very difficult to determine the difference between a small shank 6.5AL with an adapter and a large shank 6.5AL.[/quote]

One might argue that the large shank 6.5AL is just not very good.
</QUOTE>

The 5GS could be thrown into this mix as well. I bet it's fine as a small shank piece for a .525" tenor; but, after acquiring a 5GL (and before that a 5G) I found it's too resistant as a large shank piece in a .547" large tenor, even with the beveled back bore (~8mm in from the tip) that the large shank 6 ½AL doesn't have.

I don't plan to have any experience with a large shank 6 ½AL for reasons before reaching the throat. :shuffle:

[quote="spencercarran"]<QUOTE author="Matt K" post_id="152512" time="1625747309" user_id="48">For example, the 6.5AL large & small shank have the same backbone (the "L") which is why the large shank variant has enormously thick walls. I think most people would find it very difficult to determine the difference between a small shank 6.5AL with an adapter and a large shank 6.5AL.[/quote]

One might argue that the large shank 6.5AL is just not very good.
</QUOTE>

I’ve NEVER met a 6 1/2al I’ve liked. I don’t get why they’re so popular.

The adapter is how I got started on bass trombone.

It was a way to eliminate one new thing from this thing that would have many new things about it.

I wasn't having to fight all the battles at once on the first day. I think I stayed on that for the first semester, then went to the no-name large shank mouthpiece that was in the case (it was a school horn), sensing that I wasn't yet getting the full oomph out of the horn.

And then the next summer I went to the music store and ordered the largest bass trombone mouthpiece they had in the catalog.

Do you guys find this "resistance" problem with a small backbore on tenor depending on range played or all the time for every note? I would expect only the lower notes, but I do not know for sure.

Anyway, it seems there should be plenty of opportunity to make a better adapter, one that fairs out the steps to resemble a full sized large shank. Then the nodes created as mentioned could be perhaps eliminated.

Now that especially folks like Doug create separate shanks the need for an adapter seems minimal.

[quote="baileyman"]Do you guys find this "resistance" problem with a small backbore on tenor depending on range played or all the time for every note? I would expect only the lower notes, but I do not know for sure.

Anyway, it seems there should be plenty of opportunity to make a better adapter, one that fairs out the steps to resemble a full sized large shank. Then the nodes created as mentioned could be perhaps eliminated.

Now that especially folks like Doug create separate shanks the need for an adapter seems minimal.[/quote]

The resistance problem will be across the range. The backbore ideally is tailored to the instrument, so that the right amount of airflow goes in, as well as planning the "gap" in the right spot. An adapter creates a huge step, and no matter what you do, even if you chamfer it, it creates a weird, inefficient gap.

On my own experience I've noticed that tighter backbores on a large bore tenor or bass trombone feel like there is LESS resistance. This is because they can't deliver the slower, larger volume of air into the vibrating air column that you need to get the horn to actually push back on you. So no matter how much air you try to use, all you get is a fast, small air stream that meets no resistance in the horn. Like firing a rifle bullet out of a cannon, it would actually go no where, because the is no pressure build up.

Likewise, on the other extreme, on alto, if I use something with a large backbore (like the Alessi alto mouthpiece), there is too MUCH resistance. This is because the larger backbore allows me to deliver so much air into the vibrating air column that makes up a note, regardless of the register, that the note vibration causes it to back up. With a tight backbore, the correct quality of air is basically guaranteed on alto.

I know a lot of people here don't like or understand the gun reference, but I think it is a really good one. In a cannon, if you try to fire a rifle bullet through it nothing will happen. Even if you put an entire cannonball's worth of powder into the rifle cartridge, it can't deliver enough of an explosion to create a pressure wave and build up resistance behind the tiny rifle bullet once it's in the cannon barrel. If the cannon ball is fitted to the cannon, almost to the point where it will be scraping the sides the whole way, then when the powder goes off the pressure build up is huge and the cannon ball is blasted miles and miles out of the barrel. If the ball is larger than the cannon, then no matter how much powder you use the resistance will be too great and all you wind up with is a split cannon.

It's much more about resonance than air flow. You can blow much more air through even a small backbore, than you use in playing. What feels like resistance is actually inefficiency of resonance.

A too-small backbore isn't capable of fully resonating a large bore horn. It will just play like a smaller bore horn - not necessarily a bad thing if that's what you need or want. No adaptor with any amount of bevel will change that.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]It's much more about resonance than air flow. You can blow much more air through even a small backbore, than you use in playing. What feels like resistance is actually inefficiency of resonance.

A too-small backbore isn't capable of fully resonating a large bore horn. It will just play like a smaller bore horn - not necessarily a bad thing if that's what you need or want. No adaptor with any amount of bevel will change that.[/quote]

I think you're right. Perceived resistance vs actual resistance.

I don't think adapters are all that great, is the gist of it.

Usually I'd want the correct shank on a mouthpiece, to have a minimal "Step" at the end of the mouthpiece. I know that some mouthpieces (like the bach 6 1/2AL) in large shank already have a pretty big step, as the backbore is identical to the small shank version, so I guess on those it would not matter as much.