Do Leadpipes Fundamentally Kill Response?

tombone21 · by **tombone21** » 2020-07-07 3:00 p.m.

It seems to me that the aspect of the instrument that has been toiled over and had the most R&D put into by manufacturers is the overall response or resonance of an instrument. Starting maybe with instrument techs taking off those 2 bell braces on Bach f attachments, the heavier mouthpiece trend (and back to the lighter mouthpiece trend we can see now), heavier bells in the 90s (that also has come back to bells trending lighter), edge bracing in the 2000s, then Edwards' harmonic brace. Now we're seeing a greater variance in valve cap material (even wood!) and Ultimate Brass' development of Resonance-Enhanced mouthpieces.

What part of the instrument can still be improved? If the first point of response comes from the vibrating lips, then transfers to the mouthpiece, the next part of the instrument is the leadpipe. The venturi in every leadpipe means that only the end of the leadpipe and the leadpipe collar are in contact with the inner slide tube. If there was a way to mill a leadpipe out of a straight tube of brass that fits flush with the slide, could that alter the resonance and response of the entire instrument? Has this already been done? Maybe those longer Thein leadpipes that they offer on altos follow this idea?

Elow · by **Elow** » 2020-07-07 3:30 p.m.

From my understanding the shape that the venturi is helps give resistance so if you make it a straight tube then it would feel a lot different to play.

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2020-07-07 3:30 p.m.

Have you had a chance to try the long leadpipes? They do make a difference but honestly I'd use a stock Bach pipe any day over one of those.

It's a bit like how the tech for Long Island Brass makes his own heavyweight furreles without gaps. They're cool and sure do look nice but they are also fixing a problem which kind of doesn't exist. Those small gaps are part of the reason a Bach or Conn play the way they do.

All that said I'm always interested to see what new ideas people come up with! I just think the long leadpipe thing will go the way of the adjustable cup mouthpiece!

cigmar · by **cigmar** » 2020-07-07 3:45 p.m.

Don't mean to go off topic but what is this Resonance-Enhanced mouthpiece from Ultimate Brass I'm hearing a lot about. Their website makes no mention of it and can't seem to find anything specific about it. Is it in their entire line, what is it, what does it claim to do, etc.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2020-07-07 3:51 p.m.

Good thought, but it's already been done.

<FACEBOOK id="1796666270558115"><LINK_TEXT text="https://m.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/photo ... 15/?type=3">https://m.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/photos/a.1671405663084177/1796666270558115/?type=3</LINK_TEXT></FACEBOOK>

Anonymous · by **Anonymous** » 2020-07-07 4:05 p.m.

[quote="cigmar"]Don't mean to go off topic but what is this Resonance-Enhanced mouthpiece from Ultimate Brass I'm hearing a lot about. Their website makes no mention of it and can't seem to find anything specific about it. Is it in their entire line, what is it, what does it claim to do, etc.[/quote]

<LINK_TEXT text="https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php? ... ed#p116740">https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15399&p=116740&hilit=Resonance+enhanced#p116740</LINK_TEXT>

From a guy trying to sell his Resonance-Enhanced mp

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2020-07-07 4:21 p.m.

leadpipes haven't really killed response yet for anyone, no? Some players go with no leadpipe for awhile and come back, some do the opposite. it's all to taste and phsiology i guess, which now that i'm reading it is maybe a boring answer. it's cool people are trying stuff though!

i have two ultimate brass mouthpieces now, one regular, one "enhanced". they play fine, definitely on the light side compared with the Shires and Greg Black style I'm used to, and they honestly don't reinvent the wheel for me. I would place them closer to the Lindberg mouthpieces on a weirdly specific spectrum from Lindberg to Greg Black, if that's worth anything to anyone.

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2020-07-07 4:24 p.m.

[quote="tombone21"]If the first point of response comes from the vibrating lips, then transfers to the mouthpiece, the next part of the instrument is the leadpipe. The venturi in every leadpipe means that only the end of the leadpipe and the leadpipe collar are in contact with the inner slide tube. If there was a way to mill a leadpipe out of a straight tube of brass that fits flush with the slide, could that alter the resonance and response of the entire instrument? Has this already been done? Maybe those longer Thein leadpipes that they offer on altos follow this idea?[/quote]

You're on the right track, but you are still missing the point. Sound is created by vibrating the air inside the instrument, not vibrating the instrument.

The instrument vibrating does color the sound, however. The harmonic response of the metal structures that comprise a brass instrument can contribute to a distinct timbre.

The largest effect of what you're suggesting (billet-machined leadpipe with a cylindrical outside dimension) would be to increase the mass of the instrument. This would make the instrument more resistant to sympathetically vibrating with the air column inside it, and cause it to feel more dead.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2020-07-07 4:37 p.m.

It would quite a bit of mass. It would also make it quite a bit more expensive to make on a large scale while preserving consistency.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2020-07-07 4:48 p.m.

Again... this has already been done.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-07 4:52 p.m.

The most important part of any equipment is the hype.

"Ultimate"

"Megatone"

"Tone ring"

"Tone booster"

"Resonance"

"Enhanced"

etc

etc

etc

In the 1970's people got their mouthpiece "skeletonized" because it helped the resonance.

Then came heavy mouthpieces and heavy horns, because it helped the resonance.

Now lighter mouthpieces and horns are coming back, because it helps the resonance.

Which leadpipe? Long, short, yellow brass, red brass, sterling silver? Soldered or threaded? They all help the resonance.

If you don't play just like whoever your idol is, you have nobody to blame but your equipment.

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2020-07-07 5:21 p.m.

[quote="Burgerbob"]Good thought, but it's already been done.

<FACEBOOK id="1796666270558115"><LINK_TEXT text="https://m.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/photo ... 15/?type=3">https://m.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/photos/a.1671405663084177/1796666270558115/?type=3</LINK_TEXT></FACEBOOK>[/quote]
Just to back up what Burgerbob is saying. This guy has been at the past couple ITF's and usually goes to other shows. He was the one I was referring to in my first post.

It's interesting... But again not many people are going for it over a traditional leadpipe.

Dennis · by **Dennis** » 2020-07-07 6:04 p.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]The most important part of any equipment is the hype.

"Megatone"

If you don't play just like whoever your idol is, you have nobody to blame but your equipment.[/quote]

:good: :good: :good:

One of my teachers said, "Back in the old days we used to practice."

My favorite part of Bach's Megatone series was Selmer opening the throat a drill size along with the heavier cup. Are the tonal differences due to the larger throat or the added mass?

Because of the confounding of the effects, the answer is necessarily "yes."

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2020-07-07 6:29 p.m.

[quote="Dennis"]

One of my teachers said, "Back in the old days we used to practice."
[/quote]

That being said, there's a reason we don't play hollowed-out ram's horns anymore.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2020-07-07 7:04 p.m.

That leadpipe looks like an excuse

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-07 9:40 p.m.

[quote="Elow"]From my understanding the shape that the venturi is helps give resistance so if you make it a straight tube then it would feel a lot different to play.[/quote]

I believe his thought is for the outside of the leadpipe to match the inside of the upper tube incorporating the taper inside.

Probably be REALLY heavy and dead due to the extra mass.

IMHO the lead pipe/venturi/whateveryouwanttocallit is basically a continuation of the transition from the throat of the mouthpiece to the bore of the inner upper slide tube.

The "faster" the taper, meaning it opens up more rapidly, the less resistance it will impart.

As opposed to a "slow" taper that will increase the resistance felt.

Also, a long leadpipe will feel more resistant than a short one for similar reasons.

There is no lead pipe that actually "constricts" the airstream, this can be demonstrated by looking into the lead pipe or upper tube and viewing the end of the mouthpiece shank.

King came the closest with the 2 piece lead pipe/mouthpiece receiver assembly where the actual beginning of the pipe almost butts up against the mouthpiece shank similar to trumpets.

This is the limit of my knowledge regarding leadpipes.

My other thought is that no two pipes will play or feel exactly the same!!! Which it part of the black magic voodoo of them.

The ONLY way to find a pipe that works for you is to play absolute blind play tests in actual playing situations.

Cover any markings and just grab & play until you hit that magic "Oh Yeah!"

Eric

Elow · by **Elow** » 2020-07-07 9:46 p.m.

[quote="Bonearzt"]I believe his thought is for the outside of the leadpipe to match the inside of the upper tube incorporating the taper inside.[/quote]

I can’t imagine how hard that would be to manufacture

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-07 9:51 p.m.

Outside probably machined to spec and a special $1000 reamer for the inner taper.

That's all...

Eric

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-08 10:13 a.m.

[quote="Bonearzt"]

IMHO the lead pipe/venturi/whateveryouwanttocallit is basically a continuation of the transition from the throat of the mouthpiece to the bore of the inner upper slide tube.

Eric[/quote]

That is what I believe.

I have been careless enough to say so online and have taken some abuse for it.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-08 10:36 a.m.

What's to believe? It's pretty obvious to me.

But I guess I tend to think about those things more than most.

Fridge · by **Fridge** » 2020-07-08 10:43 a.m.

How about just practicing? Seems like the age old way of playing better......from an old guy.

Fridge

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-08 10:44 a.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]What's to believe? It's pretty obvious to me.

But I guess I tend to think about those things more than most.[/quote]
The distinction that Tim is referencing is whether or not there is a second venturi beyond the throat of the mouthpiece (there is).

The smallest point of the leadpipe is about 1/2" past the end of the mouthpiece on most horns. The min diameter of a LOT of leadpipes is smaller than the exit diameter of most moutpieces.

Don't believe me? Get something to measure it and check it.

Cheers,

Andy

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-08 12:10 p.m.

[quote="Fridge"]How about just practicing? Seems like the age old way of playing better......from an old guy.

Fridge[/quote]

People don't buy into that one any more....gotta be some bit of equipment that fixes everything....

And to the OP...it's quite the opposite...leadpipes are a big part of response...very big.

I, of course, have the ultimate leadpipe...a two piece pipe made for Phil Teele..... he left SO MANY great notes in it...

Chris

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-08 12:52 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="Doug Elliott" post_id="119208" time="1594218976" user_id="51">
What's to believe? It's pretty obvious to me.

But I guess I tend to think about those things more than most.[/quote]
).

The smallest point of the leadpipe is about 1/2" past the end of the mouthpiece on most horns. The min diameter of a LOT of leadpipes is smaller than the exit diameter of most moutpieces.

</QUOTE>

We've had this discussion before. It will never be resolved. The best I can do is make the disagreement clear to those who are blessed enough not to remember the last time. We do get new people sometimes.

If you look at a leadpipe in cross section, the bore goes from wide to narrow to wide. At first glance that looks like a classical venturi and it is often referred to that way.

The reason it starts wide and gets narrow is it has to accommodate a tapered mouthpiece shank, which also starts wide and gets narrow.

The reason it widens out again is it has to smoothly transition to the inner slide.

The section that narrows contains the mouthpiece shank, and inside the mouthpiece the internal bore is widening through that section.

I contend that the function of a leadpipe is a smooth transition from mouthpiece throat to inner slide. If given some mouthpiece and leadpipe combinations there is a narrower spot in the leadpipe than in the mouthpiece it is not intentional but an accident of geometry. I have mouthpieces with thick metal in the shank that i doubt this happens for, but a in thinwalled mouthpiece it might occur. To be specific, I agree it is likely there is a spot in the leadpipe narrower than the outside diameter of the mouthpiece, but not so likely than the inside diameter of a mouthpiece.

I could be wrong. Anybody have a design drawing with dimensions?

I suspect that the way most leadpipes are made is to draw the widening exit section over a mandrel, and ream the entering mouthpiece section. I guess you could draw it in one operation but you'd need two mandrels I'd think. I would do it that way because I need the area the air touches to be very smooth but where the mouthpiece is doesn't matter as much.

Burgerbob · by **Burgerbob** » 2020-07-08 12:53 p.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]<QUOTE author="Fridge" post_id="119210" time="1594219387" user_id="2960">
How about just practicing? Seems like the age old way of playing better......from an old guy.

Fridge[/quote]

People don't buy into that one any more....gotta be some bit of equipment that fixes everything....

</QUOTE>

Ahh yes, the kids these days that just don't practice at all.

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2020-07-08 12:54 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="Bonearzt" post_id="119155" time="1594172434" user_id="54">

IMHO the lead pipe/venturi/whateveryouwanttocallit is basically a continuation of the transition from the throat of the mouthpiece to the bore of the inner upper slide tube.

Eric[/quote]

That is what I believe.

I have been careless enough to say so online and have taken some abuse for it.
</QUOTE>

[quote="Doug Elliott"]What's to believe? It's pretty obvious to me.

But I guess I tend to think about those things more than most.[/quote]

I’m not heaping abuse, just presenting an observation...

I remember John Sandhagen on the old forum observed that from the rim of the mouthpiece to the end of the leadpipe, there are actually two points of constriction: the throat of the mouthpiece, and the venturi portion of the leadpipe. I believe this is true. You can see it if you take a leadpipe out of the slide tube. There is a “waist” that can be seen after the receiver. The “waist” on the outside is where the venturi is on the inside. Another way to say it: between the mouthpiece throat and the leadpipe venturi, there is a “bulge.”

I have no idea what purpose this bulge serves, or how it affects the sound of the horn. (I can imagine, however, that the length of the bulge and the size of the venturi opening are critical.) All I know as a player is that it affects the way the horn plays. Some designs work better for me, others not so much. For the designer and manufacturer, however, I would think this is a critical area of the instrument.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-08 1:33 p.m.

It is a byproduct of fact that it has a tapered receiver. That "2nd venturi" is not an acoustical feature and is not necessary.

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2020-07-08 1:52 p.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]It is a byproduct of fact that it has a tapered receiver. That "2nd venturi" is not an acoustical feature and is not necessary.[/quote]

Whether or not the 2nd "venturi" is necessary, it certainly is an acoustic feature (if present). I'll try and concoct a more thorough explanation soon. To an above point, the leadpipe's function is not to "smooth the transition from backbore to slide tube."

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-08 1:55 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]We've had this discussion before. It will never be resolved. The best I can do is make the disagreement clear to those who are blessed enough not to remember the last time. We do get new people sometimes.[/quote]
It could be resolved, I'm trying to tell you... but you hold on to this.

If you look at a leadpipe in cross section, the bore goes from wide to narrow to wide. At first glance that looks like a classical venturi and it is often referred to that way.

The reason it starts wide and gets narrow is it has to accommodate a tapered mouthpiece shank, which also starts wide and gets narrow.

The reason it widens out again is it has to smoothly transition to the inner slide.

The section that narrows contains the mouthpiece shank, and inside the mouthpiece the internal bore is widening through that section.

I contend that the function of a leadpipe is a smooth transition from mouthpiece throat to inner slide. If given some mouthpiece and leadpipe combinations there is a narrower spot in the leadpipe than in the mouthpiece it is not intentional but an accident of geometry. I have mouthpieces with thick metal in the shank that i doubt this happens for, but a in thinwalled mouthpiece it might occur. To be specific, I agree it is likely there is a spot in the leadpipe narrower than the outside diameter of the mouthpiece, but not so likely than the inside diameter of a mouthpiece.

I could be wrong. Anybody have a design drawing with dimensions?

One of these days I'll take a junk 6 1/2AL and leadpipe I have and have them cross-sectioned so that you can see this, but I am not around a tool room with enough free time to do that these days.

Yes, I do have design drawings with dimensions. They are not mine to share, so I will not (I, uh, probably shouldn't have them..). There is a designed constriction about 1/2" from the end of the mouthpiece. I have been paid to make that point in an instrument and used gages to specifically verify that dimension. Please believe me. Or, just figure out a way to measure it.. Accident of geometry or not, this point is there on virtually all one-piece trombone leadpipes and also on two piece, trumpet style leadpipes. The entire function of Reeves Sleeves is to optimize this gap.

~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://trumpetmouthpiece.com/collectio ... or-trumpet">https://trumpetmouthpiece.com/collections/accessories/products/reeves-sleeves-for-trumpet</LINK_TEXT>

Link with some images from another trumpet maker to define what this gap does... Different construction issue, same basic geometry issue:

~~[url]~~<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.whyharrelson.com/jasons-blo ... reduce-gap">https://www.whyharrelson.com/jasons-blog/mouthpiece-gap-harrelson-shim-kit-to-reduce-gap</LINK_TEXT>

I suspect that the way most leadpipes are made is to draw the widening exit section over a mandrel, and ream the entering mouthpiece section. I guess you could draw it in one operation but you'd need two mandrels I'd think. I would do it that way because I need the area the air touches to be very smooth but where the mouthpiece is doesn't matter as much.

Not reamed, as that is a metal cutting operation, more of a burnishing/forming operation to get the mouthpiece taper in the correct location (again, I've been there, run that machine). Doing that at the right depth and measuring it accurately is a pain. Small errors move the point quite a bit (and in some cases change the diameter). My $0.02 is that the variance in measurement of this is a big portion of why we often say that leadpipes have a lot of variation. Also explains why some like Sam Burtis spend time adjusting the fit of the mouthpiece with teflon tape to set the depth in the horn. I think we do, at least theoretically, want your smooth transition without the secondary venturi... reality is that for our response we expect that second one to be there and it feels funny without it (Psst, lots of leadpipe makers have made one without it... The more 'standard' ones with that point at about a 1/2" out sell more). I would wager a large number of our design features on instruments are more based around what we as the players 'expect' rather than what we would theoretically prefer. Kinda a New Coke type response from us to the manufacturers. We say we prefer something, we test it blind and prefer it, but out in the world, we choose the less optimal design for some other reason.

Cheers,

Andy

Thrawn22 · by **Thrawn22** » 2020-07-08 2:18 p.m.

It's the money invested/spent that has the most impact on sound. After that it's how much bs you can spew to others to back up such an expenditure whilst convincing yourself the expenditure was worth it. I have a buddy that adheres to this philosophy.

This subject reminds me of the idea that engraving has an impact on how the bell responds and yadda yadda yadda. The evolution from very ornate artistic engraving to minimal engraving back to very decorative engraving.

Doug said it best, it's the hype.

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2020-07-08 2:31 p.m.

[quote="Thrawn22"]

This subject reminds me of the idea that engraving has an impact on how the bell responds and yadda yadda yadda. The evolution from very ornate artistic engraving to minimal engraving back to very decorative engraving.
[/quote]

My guess is this had less to do with playing characteristics and more to do with Firing the Engravers -> No Engraving -> Mechanical Engravers.

CharlieB · by **CharlieB** » 2020-07-08 3:01 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]The smallest point of the leadpipe is about 1/2" past the end of the mouthpiece on most horns. The min diameter of a LOT of leadpipes is smaller than the exit diameter of most moutpieces.

Don't believe me? Get something to measure it and check it.

Cheers,

Andy[/quote]

I must have misunderstood. Out of curiosity, I just now measured the internal dimension of the necks of my several leadpipes and found them all to be significantly larger than that of the mouthpiece stem. The dimensions were of course equal at the contact point of the stem of the mouthpiece, but the leadpipes all expanded from there.

A leadpipe is not just a transition mechanism from the mouthpiece stem diameter to the slide inner diameter. It is a carefully designed venturi tube that works in conjunction with that other venturi (the mouthpiece) to shape the air stream. Designs of leadpipe shapes are as varied as the shapes of mouthpieces, and different leadpipes create different characteristics in the way a horn plays/sounds. Can those characteristics be predicted by measuring leadpipes? Only in a very general sense. The pipe is only one part of the mouthpiece-leadpipe-horn-embouchure combination; so, too many variables.

But the above is all about the internal shape of the leadpipe. The original poster wanted to know if a more massive leadpipe machined from a solid billet of brass would affect the performance of the horn. Yes. Anywhere you add mass to the horn it has an effect. Positive or negative? Don't know. It's all empirical. Given the impracticality of machining a solid billet leadpipe, we may never know.

WilliamLang · by **WilliamLang** » 2020-07-08 3:15 p.m.

it's ok to talk about this stuff, and figure out what makes a difference and what doesn't.

there's some hype and some products that don't do much out there, but i don't think anyone is saying parts replace practice at all. they work together, or we'd just have free buzz competitions. there's no shame in trying to optimize the instrument.

today's trombonists practice just as much if not even more than past generations. that's just how it goes in most human endeavors.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-08 3:17 p.m.

[quote="CharlieB"]...

Given the impracticality of machining a solid billet leadpipe, we may never know.[/quote]
To bring up Aiden's point above, the MADpipe does exist... you can buy one today if you want:

~~[url]~~https://www.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/

They even have this handy picture to illustrate this area and what they are trying to avoid:

Even has a picture and patent for it:

Cheers,

Andy

tombone21 · 2020-07-08 3:45 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="CharlieB" post_id="119250" time="1594234914" user_id="250">
...

Given the impracticality of machining a solid billet leadpipe, we may never know.[/quote]
To bring up Aiden's point above, the MADpipe does exist... you can buy one today if you want:

~~[url]~~https://www.facebook.com/MADBoneInc/

They even have this handy picture to illustrate this area and what they are trying to avoid:

</QUOTE>

Totally forgot about MADbone! Probably because I've never been able to try it in person but the design seems very interesting to me.

~~[url]~~https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2474019842636731

Kinda reminds me of a Bach K valve before Thayer and Hagmann hit the scene. I guess the integration of the mouthpiece eliminates the "step" between the mouthpiece shank and leadpipe. I wonder if the effects would remain if it was just the leadpipe on its own. I'm sure they've already tried something like this, but making a product that is more familiar to the rest of the trombone community would probably gain more traction even if the effects are slightly minimized compared to the fully integrated system in the MADpipe.

If the length, material, venturi size and taper of the leadpipe make an undeniable difference, why wouldn't filling out out the "waist" of the leadpipe to connect the entire pipe to the rest of the horn?

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-08 3:46 p.m.

[quote="CharlieB"]The original poster wanted to know if a more massive leadpipe machined from a solid billet of brass would affect the performance of the horn. Yes. Anywhere you add mass to the horn it has an effect. Positive or negative? Don't know. It's all empirical. Given the impracticality of machining a solid billet leadpipe, we may never know.[/quote]

If the OP wanted to change the mass to the leadpipe, but retain the same internal dimensions, it seems to me the only option is to change the material.

Possible metals and their density in pounds per cubic inch:

Magnesium .064

Brass .308

Silver .379

Lead .409

Gold .687

You aren't going to get much more dense than gold, even with the exotics like indium or osmium.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-08 3:56 p.m.

[quote="tombone21"]Totally forgot about MADbone! Probably because I've never been able to try it in person but the design seems very interesting to me.

~~[url]~~https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2474019842636731

Kinda reminds me of a Bach K valve before Thayer and Hagmann hit the scene. I guess the integration of the mouthpiece eliminates the "step" between the mouthpiece shank and leadpipe. I wonder if the effects would remain if it was just the leadpipe on its own. I'm sure they've already tried something like this, but making a product that is more familiar to the rest of the trombone community would probably gain more traction even if the effects are slightly minimized compared to the fully integrated system in the MADpipe.

If the length, material, venturi size and taper of the leadpipe make an undeniable difference, why wouldn't filling out out the "waist" of the leadpipe to connect the entire pipe to the rest of the horn?[/quote]
Just to nitpick... Bach's K valve came out about a decade after Thayers were introduced. The K valve was the reactionary one there.

I'm intrigued by his concept, I have just chosen to get off the Leadpipe rodeo trying to figure out what is going on there and work on blowing into the little end with what little time I have on the horn these days.

That said... my two favorite leadpipes:

1)Bass pipe made with the venturi ~ 1/2"-3/8" closer to the mouthpiece. This was an intentional process change on this pipe as a test.

2)Bach 50 Pipe that the mouthpiece sits in at least 1/8" farther than any other Bach pipe I have. Have not measured where exactly the venturi is on this or what the diameter is, but.....

Placebo? I don't know. I made a concious decision not to care about it anymore and just try to tongue and blow on this part. I am not good enough for this to make a difference even to what I repeatably hear, let alone other players or the audience.

Cheers,

Andy

paulyg · by **paulyg** » 2020-07-08 3:58 p.m.

I will do my best to address this later in a more detailed way, but the idea of "shaping the airstream" is a complete cul-de-sac in terms of understanding the actual role of the leadpipe (or ANY construction element of a brass instrument).

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-08 4:13 p.m.

[quote="paulyg"]the idea of "shaping the airstream" is a complete cul-de-sac in terms of understanding the actual role of the leadpipe (or ANY construction element of a brass instrument).[/quote]

Agreed.

The air need not move at all.

What is shaped is where the sound wave travels.

Still probably want a smooth transition, though; any impedance change will give you a reflection where maybe you didn't want one.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-08 4:25 p.m.

In a general sense, smoother is better. The best instruments have less gaps, reversals, discontinuities, etc. Where a discontinuity like the "2nd venturi" exists, it's useful to consider the average contour of a longer area instead of focusing on the discontinuity itself.

Thrawn22 · by **Thrawn22** » 2020-07-08 4:31 p.m.

[quote="paulyg"]<QUOTE author="Thrawn22" post_id="119242" time="1594232288" user_id="3709">

My guess is this had less to do with playing characteristics and more to do with Firing the Engravers -> No Engraving -> Mechanical Engravers.[/quote]

True. Can't forget how money directs production.</QUOTE>

Kbiggs · by **Kbiggs** » 2020-07-08 4:33 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]

Placebo? I don't know. I made a concious decision not to care about it anymore and just try to tongue and blow on this part. I am not good enough for this to make a difference even to what I repeatably hear, let alone other players or the audience.

Cheers,

Andy[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. The placebo effect is real. But you’re right: “I made a concious decision not to care about it anymore and just try to tongue and blow on this part. I am not good enough for this to make a difference even to what I repeatably hear, let alone other players or the audience.”

CharlieB · by **CharlieB** » 2020-07-08 8:26 p.m.

[quote="paulyg"]I will do my best to address this later in a more detailed way, but the idea of "shaping the airstream" is a complete cul-de-sac in terms of understanding the actual role of the leadpipe (or ANY construction element of a brass instrument).[/quote]

Thank you for that distinction.

A more accurate way of stating that would have been to say, "Modifying the compression pattern of the air stream."

Sound cannot travel in a vacuum because the waves are series of compressions and rarefactions that can only exist where there is matter. Solid, liquid or gaseous.....doesn't matter. In our case, it's moving air. The performance of the sound wave is affected by variations in the air density and velocity as it encounters changes in its travel path.The primary sound waves also create a sympathetic vibration of the horn, which in turn influences the pattern of the primary sound wave. Air traveling through a venturi is both accelerated and decompressed, which makes the size and shape of a venturi a significant factor in the character of the sound wave that eventually exits the horn. Short version: Changing pipes changes the sound.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-09 7:43 a.m.

The inner bore of a mouthpiece expands like a cone.

If there is a section of the leadpipe that is smaller past the point where the mouthpiece ends, I suspect it would intersect the size of the cone if you extended the mouthpiece cone. In effect, I think there is a gradual expansion of the bore more or less continuously from mouthpiece throat to inner slide, with a little uncertainty in the short section between end of mouthpiece and the point at which expansion of the leadpipe begins. Given that mouthpieces aren't all the same length, variations in manufacturing tolerances, etc., there's probably some slop in that area. I don't see any intent for it to function as an actual venturi.

If you wanted to control this completely, you could pull the leadpipe and use a mouthpiece with a 10 or 12 nch shank. !? but then the end of it would be so think it would deform easily.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-09 10:29 a.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]The inner bore of a mouthpiece expands like a cone.

If there is a section of the leadpipe that is smaller past the point where the mouthpiece ends, I suspect it would intersect the size of the cone if you extended the mouthpiece cone. In effect, I think there is a gradual expansion of the bore more or less continuously from mouthpiece throat to inner slide, with a little uncertainty in the short section between end of mouthpiece and the point at which expansion of the leadpipe begins. Given that mouthpieces aren't all the same length, variations in manufacturing tolerances, etc., there's probably some slop in that area. I don't see any intent for it to function as an actual venturi.

If you wanted to control this completely, you could pull the leadpipe and use a mouthpiece with a 10 or 12 nch shank. !? but then the end of it would be so think it would deform easily.[/quote]
So, as long as we are thinking rather than doing or measuring, some thought questions:

Mouthpieces aren't all the same length, but the gage line insertion and taper rate on the OD of the shank are all the same for a given family size. Aside from wall thickness at the end of the shank, the nominal opening size is roughly identical on all moutpieces of the same shank size, correct?

Is the minimum bore of a tenor .547 leadpipe the same size as a .562 bore bass leadpipe? Can we validate this?

If the goal is to continue the taper, all leadpipes for a given shank size should have the same minimum bore, can we verify this? Similar to above, an Alto trombone leadpipe would have the same minimum diameter in the leadpipe as a .525 horn then, right?

If all the diameters are the same, what exactly are manufacturers doing when they say pipes are tighter? Are they making different taper mandrels rather than just adjusting the intersection of the tapers to change the minimum diameter?

If the taper rates are what is different, why on earth are they almost all the same length?

Back to the real world, anybody seen those MADpipes in person, what is the wall thickness at the end? More like a mouthpiece or like a leadpipe?

Cheers,

Andy

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-09 2:51 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]So, as long as we are thinking rather than doing or measuring, some thought questions:

Aside from wall thickness at the end of the shank, the nominal opening size is roughly identical on all moutpieces of the same shank size, correct?
[/quote]

I can't measure, I've never changed a leadpipe. If something doesn't work right I figure I should practice more.

Aside from wall thickness the opening is identical? I have no idea what that means. Maybe I'm stupid. It seems to me if the OD is the same, and the wall thickness differs, then the ID will be different.

As everything else follows from that, I don't understand anything you typed, except that you want to call something a venturi that really looks like a cone to me. I concede. A leadpipe is a venturi until you put a mouthpiece into it so that's what we'll call it from now on. Done.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-09 3:41 p.m.

<ATTACHMENT filename="39D1B032-AFAF-4271-8219-906B6DF94CCA.jpeg" index="2">~~[attachment=2]~~39D1B032-AFAF-4271-8219-906B6DF94CCA.jpeg</ATTACHMENT>

Some ‘measurements’, COVID edition... found a pen in the drawer really close to the diameter of the end of a Bach shank.

Fits in the 50B. (Checked 3 of 4 50B pipes downstairs, didn’t bother to check the funky one that I know isn’t like the others. Ages on pipes are from 1950, 1970, 2019. They all felt about the same.
<ATTACHMENT filename="2DB4595F-BE9F-43F6-9428-FA68C89C5065.jpeg" index="1">~~[attachment=1]~~2DB4595F-BE9F-43F6-9428-FA68C89C5065.jpeg</ATTACHMENT>
Doesn’t fit in the 42B. Didn’t dig out the other 547 pipes down stairs, That would have taken a bit more effort.

<ATTACHMENT filename="9841E811-6EB7-417E-9712-D4F4914F8322.jpeg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~9841E811-6EB7-417E-9712-D4F4914F8322.jpeg</ATTACHMENT>

Not pictured.. maybe fits in my other favorite bass pipe. Could probably have forced it, not going to do that for this.

*don’t get sticks and pens stuck in your leadpipes, techs don’t need that extra work right now. Wish I had my old pin gage set about now.

Cheers,

Andy

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-13 8:52 a.m.

From the King Bass trombone thread this little nugget about leadpipe design on the Duo gravis:

On the mouthpiece end of the horn George optimized taper by using his knowledge of trumpet

construction. Most trombones have the mouthpiece sit inside a "leadpipe" with a sudden drop to the

leadpipe bore at the small end of the mouthpiece. The new bass had a trumpet style leadpipe. The

mouthpiece receiver ends an acoustically insignificant distance from the near edge of the actual

leadpipe. To the acoustic flow, the end of the mouthpiece and beginning of leadpipe is "invisible."

Cheers,

Andy

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-13 10:24 a.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="timothy42b" post_id="119331" time="1594294991" user_id="211">
The inner bore of a mouthpiece expands like a cone.{/quote}

More or less, but not always a constant taper, the shape of the backbore is determined by the manufacturer for specific reasons discovered by experimentation.

[/quote]Mouthpieces aren't all the same length, but the gage line insertion and taper rate on the OD of the shank are all the same for a given family size. Aside from wall thickness at the end of the shank, the nominal opening size is roughly identical on all moutpieces of the same shank size, correct?

Cheers,

Andy
</QUOTE>

No, the wall thickness at the end of the shank is a function of the end of the backbore at the end of the shank.

The taper rate & length, in most cases, determine how far in the shank sits, also depending on the size & taper of the receiving end of the leadpipe.

Eric

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-13 10:57 a.m.

[quote="Bonearzt"]<QUOTE author="elmsandr" post_id="119341" time="1594304940" user_id="147">
Mouthpieces aren't all the same length, but the gage line insertion and taper rate on the OD of the shank are all the same for a given family size. Aside from wall thickness at the end of the shank, the nominal opening size is roughly identical on all moutpieces of the same shank size, correct?

Cheers,

Andy[/quote]

No, the wall thickness at the end of the shank is a function of the end of the backbore at the end of the shank.

The taper rate & length, in most cases, determine how far in the shank sits, also depending on the size & taper of the receiving end of the leadpipe.

Eric
</QUOTE>
Eh... I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that the mouthpiece taper is standardized. Small shank and large shank mouthpieces use a morse taper rate (if not the exact size in the machinery handbook).

Both small and large shank pieces sit nominially 1.0" into leadpipes. Wear and manufacturing variability aside, the nominal depth is the same. Thus, the OD of all small shank mouthpieces at the leadpipe interface is the same. Similar for Large shank pieces. The ID of that part does vary, but I will note that tends to vary by mouthpiece maker, not indivual specs. That is, all of my Bach mouthpieces seem to have the same wall thickness, regardless of size (6 1/2 - 30 CB), which is a little thicker than my Schilke pieces etc...

If a leadpipe is to just be a truncated cone, the tip of the cone has the same interface diameter for all leadpipes that have the same shank size. I think it is pretty clear they are NOT designed or existing as a truncated cone. We call them a venturi because there IS a venturi in there.

Cheers,

Andy

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-13 11:21 a.m.

I'm saying the wall thickness at any point along the shank is dependent on the size & shape of the backbore. Considering the standard Morse taper, the wall thickness will vary from thin with a large backbore, to thick with a small backbore.

Not to be condescending to anyone, but here is a description of a "venturi":

http://www.hendersons.co.uk/wms/venturi_principle.html

So with this in mind, the "venturi" of a leadpipe does not function in a similar manner.

The only "venturi" will be the throat or transition from the bowl/cup of the mouthpiece to the backbore. And from there it's a constant taper through the leadpipe into the upper slide tube of the hand slide, or through the trumpet leadpipe into the legs of the tuning slide assembly.

In my 30+ years of repairing and building brass instruments, I have never experienced a leadpipe of ANY kind that actually restricts the airflow past the end of the mouthpiece shank.

Eric

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-13 1:53 p.m.

[quote="Bonearzt"]I'm saying the wall thickness at any point along the shank is dependent on the size & shape of the backbore. Considering the standard Morse taper, the wall thickness will vary from thin with a large backbore, to thick with a small backbore.

Not to be condescending to anyone, but here is a description of a "venturi":

http://www.hendersons.co.uk/wms/venturi_principle.html

So with this in mind, the "venturi" of a leadpipe does not function in a similar manner.

The only "venturi" will be the throat or transition from the bowl/cup of the mouthpiece to the backbore. And from there it's a constant taper through the leadpipe into the upper slide tube of the hand slide, or through the trumpet leadpipe into the legs of the tuning slide assembly.

In my 30+ years of repairing and building brass instruments, I have never experienced a leadpipe of ANY kind that actually restricts the airflow past the end of the mouthpiece shank.

Eric[/quote]
Where I am talking about the wall thickness is only at the exit of the mouthpiece, also mostly irrelevant to my point, I should not have brought it up. The only point there being that with a standardized taper, the gauge line at the end of the mouthpiece is the same diameter, nominally, for every horn that accepts that mouthpiece.

Again, if there is no venturi, the minimum diameter of the interface for two large shank leadpipes would be identical (a Bach 42 and a Bach 50, for example). The exit diameter of a 6.5 is the same as a 1.5 (and a 4G, 3G, 2G, and 3 different 1.5s that I have handy). They are all the same ID going into the horn, but I can clearly feel a difference in diameter inside the pipes. Beyond a few pens, I have nothing at home to get a better measurement than that. If there was no venturi, what was George McCracken trying to fix with his deisgn of the Duo Gravis Leadpipe?

I tend to agree that we probably WANT there not to be a venturi, that a defined taper from throat to bore of horn is the most logical and consistent design, but it is not what currently exists in the most of our horns. We have a defined choke point about 1/2" into the horn from the end of the mouthpiece. It is there intentionally and repeatably.

Cheers,

Andy

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2020-07-13 2:07 p.m.

I think what we really need to consider is the rate of taper of the leadpipe from the mouthpiece into the upper inner tube. I'm sure there is a difference between a faster or slower taper (or none at all in my CoolWind trombone).

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-13 2:15 p.m.

Yeah, we're hung up on the word "venturi" and can't get past it. (I warned you.)

If mouthpieces were more standardized, I think the ideal shape would be a step in the leadpipe.

The shape of the leadpipe would be a contracting cone to match the taper of the mouthpiece shank, but that would end with a right angle step that the mouthpiece end hits, and an expanding cone from there. But that step has to be larger than the largest ID of the mouthpiece shank or you have a sharp edge in the path of the sound wave. And mouthpieces vary a lot.

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-13 6:11 p.m.

Okay, the story of a wasted 30mins of my life..

My two piece ex Phil Teele pipe plays amazingly...there is quite a gap between the end of the mouthpiece shank and the start of the pipe section, so tonight I got out the torch and moved the pipe in so there was only a small gap. Ruined it !!! Torch out again and restored the gap.. back to amazing.

If it works, don't mess with it.

Chris

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-13 6:45 p.m.

Eric is right, I was going to post that myself but decided not to waste my time.

By the loose definition of "venturi", the entire bottom inner slide is a venturi, getting smaller from the end crook. And then some small bore horns have a "choke point" at the beginning of the gooseneck where it's smaller than the slide bore. So I guess you could say 4 venturis.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2020-07-13 7:47 p.m.

This thread is crazy.

"Does a leadpipe fundamentally ruin the response?

"No. Next slide"

Dennis · by **Dennis** » 2020-07-13 10:24 p.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]Eric is right, I was going to post that myself but decided not to waste my time.

By the loose definition of "venturi", the entire bottom inner slide is a venturi, getting smaller from the end crook. And then some small bore horns have a "choke point" at the beginning of the gooseneck where it's smaller than the slide bore. So I guess you could say 4 venturis.[/quote]

In Vincent Bach's writings on brass instrument design, he discussed the need for "choke" points in the designs. As I recall, the intent was two-fold: to provide some resistance to the player, and to bring the overtone series back into alignment.

I'm not sure if this justifies the underbore valves used in the 42B or not. I am pretty sure it is partial justification for using the same neckpipe in the 36 and 42.

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-13 11:28 p.m.

Yes, some Bach models have that choke point... But the better ones don't.

In any case it would be a stretch to call it a venturi.

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2020-07-14 12:05 a.m.

I know very little about leadpipes (all my trombone pipes are soldered in), but it's my understanding that at least some (most?) trombone leadpipes narrow a bit downstream of the mouthpiece receiver end, and then expand toward the pipe's downstream end as they widen to the inner slide bore. (This could easily be resolved by showing a cross-sectional drawing of a leadpipe.)

If my speculation is true, the narrowest point of the leadpipe would be known to most fluid mechanicians as a "venturi." As fluid (air, in this case) flows through the narrowest spot (the "venturi"), the velocity is higher and the air pressure is lower. This region will provide a slight additional resistance to flow through the tube (pipe) than if it were cylindrical or uniformly tapering wider as the flow progresses downstream.

I'm not sure what this controversy is all about, but I see no reason to not label the narrow region a "venturi."

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-14 9:13 a.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]

I'm not sure what this controversy is all about, but I see no reason to not label the narrow region a "venturi."[/quote]

The reason some of us don't like to label it that is because that narrow region has a mouthpiece shank in it, and the mouthpiece bore is widening in that area.

If that section is empty of a mouthpiece shank then it is narrowing and it does "look" like a venturi.

We've been arguing this point for at least 10 years that I can remember and this is probably the most polite discussion we've had, compared to some of the previous.

Chris's experiment is very interesting. I had always thought a gapless transition would be better and I think trumpet players pay extra to have that installed, but it appears this is not the case.

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-14 9:27 a.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="119816" time="1594699508" user_id="158">

I'm not sure what this controversy is all about, but I see no reason to not label the narrow region a "venturi."[/quote]

The reason some of us don't like to label it that is because that narrow region has a mouthpiece shank in it, and the mouthpiece bore is widening in that area.

If that section is empty of a mouthpiece shank then it is narrowing and it does "look" like a venturi.

We've been arguing this point for at least 10 years that I can remember and this is probably the most polite discussion we've had, compared to some of the previous.

Chris's experiment is very interesting. I had always thought a gapless transition would be better and I think trumpet players pay extra to have that installed, but it appears this is not the case.
</QUOTE>

No no, as I have it from our trumpet playing brethren, a small gap is an important part of the design. I've messed about with this before and found that on two piece trombone pipes, there has to be a gap. You can fine tune that gap, but get rid of it and the pipe does not work properly. I can think of no physical reason for this but it is what it is.

Chris

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2020-07-14 10:18 a.m.

https://stomvi-usa.com/learn-about-the-annulus-gap/

https://www.grmouthpieces.com/category-s/244.htm

From the trumpeters.

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-14 10:47 a.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]

No no, as I have it from our trumpet playing brethren, a small gap is an important part of the design. I've messed about with this before and found that on two piece trombone pipes, there has to be a gap. You can fine tune that gap, but get rid of it and the pipe does not work properly. I can think of no physical reason for this but it is what it is.Chris[/quote]

This "gap" is another part of the lead pipe voodoo!!

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-14 10:52 a.m.

Bach trombones (and probably others) have a huge gap in the bell receiver just under the valve.

It's really the same situation of a tapered receiver plus badly fitted parts. There's no acoustical reason for it.

The leadpipe is the same, The only reason that venturi exists is badly fitted parts - and the only reason a gap is necessary is because it's compensating for something else. The same effect can be accomplished other ways but everybody's used to it being that way, so it continues. The only necessary venturi is the throat of the mouthpiece.

Things like the MAD pipe and other one piece designs are a start in the right direction, but need to be vastly improved from what I've seen.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-14 11:11 a.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]

No no, as I have it from our trumpet playing brethren, a small gap is an important part of the design. I've messed about with this before and found that on two piece trombone pipes, there has to be a gap. You can fine tune that gap, but get rid of it and the pipe does not work properly. I can think of no physical reason for this but it is what it is.

Chris[/quote]
That's pretty much all I have been trying to point out. There is something "there" on leadpipes a short distance from the end of the mouthpiece. The size of that something and the distance downstream from the mouthpiece is very important to our expected response of the leadpipe.

This is a prime example of where I think good metrology could add a lot brass instrument construction. I do not think that any manufacturer that I have seen (and I've been to a lot of them) honestly has any idea how much variation they have here. It is a lot easier to make things the same and optimise them when you know where they actually are and how much they vary.

Unfortunately between this thread and the leadpipe materials thread, I began playing with my drawer of pipes again... I remember now why I forced myself to not care about it. Too many variables for me.

Cheers,

Andy

elmsandr · 2020-07-14 11:11 a.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]

No no, as I have it from our trumpet playing brethren, a small gap is an important part of the design. I've messed about with this before and found that on two piece trombone pipes, there has to be a gap. You can fine tune that gap, but get rid of it and the pipe does not work properly. I can think of no physical reason for this but it is what it is.

Chris[/quote]
That's pretty much all I have been trying to point out. There is something "there" on leadpipes a short distance from the end of the mouthpiece. The size of that something and the distance downstream from the mouthpiece is very important to our expected response of the leadpipe.

This is a prime example of where I think good metrology could add a lot brass instrument construction. I do not think that any manufacturer that I have seen (and I've been to a lot of them) honestly has any idea how much variation they have here. It is a lot easier to make things the same and optimise them when you know where they actually are and how much they vary.

Unfortunately between this thread and the leadpipe materials thread, I began playing with my drawer of pipes again... I remember now why I forced myself to not care about it. Too many variables for me.

Cheers,

Andy

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2020-07-14 11:18 a.m.

[quote="Doug Elliott"]Bach trombones (and probably others) have a huge gap in the bell receiver just under the valve.

It's really the same situation of a tapered receiver plus badly fitted parts. There's no acoustical reason for it.

The leadpipe is the same, The only reason that venturi exists is badly fitted parts - and the only reason a gap is necessary is because it's compensating for something else. The same effect can be accomplished other ways but everybody's used to it being that way, so it continues. The only necessary venturi is the throat of the mouthpiece.

Things like the MAD pipe and other one piece designs are a start in the right direction, but need to be vastly improved from what I've seen.[/quote]
Not to derail further... but on that handslide receiver... I happen to know that some handslide receivers were made special with that gap on that assembly on a brand that did NOT have that gap designed in because some REALLY great players wanted it there. Was a treat walking around and checking all valve sections to make sure they were properly identified and not mixed with the standard parts.

Expected response, not the acoustic necessity drove them being swapped out.

Cheers,

Andy

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-14 11:23 a.m.

Sorry Doug, I don't buy into the badly made parts need gaps idea.... when I first went down to see Mick Rath, I put the idea to him about butting all the tube together so there were no gaps....he just laughed and said it was far from that simple.... some places need gaps, others don't. Good old trial and error over long periods of time have gotten us to where we are now. That area between the slide receiver and the valve is a crucial design point... some makers leave a gap, some butt the valve tube up, some fit a restrictor.... depends on the overall concept...

Chris

Doug_Elliott · by **Doug_Elliott** » 2020-07-14 12:23 p.m.

Of course I agree it's the overall concept. But also, judging by the extreme inconsistency in both leadpipes and slide receivers, I agree with Andy's comment "I do not think that any manufacturer that I have seen (and I've been to a lot of them) honestly has any idea how much variation they have here."

There remains plenty of room for improvement in both design and manufacturing. My 42B (that I don't have anymore) had a space between the slide receiver and valve that was .630 ID and about 3/8" long. I think that was badly made parts, not a design feature. And right now I have a 36 slide receiver that has almost no inside taper - another badly made part.

The "good old trial and error over long periods of time" tells us that parts that fit better play better. When it's part of the overall design concept.

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-14 2:44 p.m.

Yes Doug, I've taken a NY Bach apart and been amazed by the shabby build quality...but it was a great horn...even if it was thrown together. There are people who build to high standards...on the large scale side Yamaha are very good with build...again, I've taken a Yammy apart and was very impressed. The shoddy Bach played better....

Chris

Tbarh · by **Tbarh** » 2020-07-15 12:04 p.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]Yes Doug, I've taken a NY Bach apart and been amazed by the shabby build quality...but it was a great horn...even if it was thrown together. There are people who build to high standards...on the large scale side Yamaha are very good with build...again, I've taken a Yammy apart and was very impressed. The shoddy Bach played better....

Chris[/quote]
I somehow doubt that the bell flare was a result of shabby build quality.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-15 2:49 p.m.

[quote="Tbarh"]<QUOTE author="FOSSIL" post_id="119874" time="1594752240" user_id="7109">
Yes Doug, I've taken a NY Bach apart and been amazed by the shabby build quality...but it was a great horn...even if it was thrown together. There are people who build to high standards...on the large scale side Yamaha are very good with build...again, I've taken a Yammy apart and was very impressed. The shoddy Bach played better....

Chris[/quote]
I somehow doubt that the bell flare was a result of shabby build quality.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>
</QUOTE>

Everything you could see was fine...it was tubes sawn at an angle, inconsistent gaps ,etc... Just not what you would expect from a legendary maker.

Chris

mrdeacon · by **mrdeacon** » 2020-07-15 5:45 p.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]<QUOTE author="Tbarh" post_id="119961" time="1594829080" user_id="3637">

I somehow doubt that the bell flare was a result of shabby build quality.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>[/quote]

Everything you could see was fine...it was tubes sawn at an angle, inconsistent gaps ,etc... Just not what you would expect from a legendary maker.

Chris
</QUOTE>
If anything that really speaks to how much the effect of juju magic has on instrument production. Having magical parts can overcome shoddy construction.

I'm also sure that these old designs like the Bach 42 and Conn 88h are designed in a way to work despite shoddy construction if that makes sense.

Bonearzt · by **Bonearzt** » 2020-07-15 8:10 p.m.

[quote="FOSSIL"]<QUOTE author="Tbarh" post_id="119961" time="1594829080" user_id="3637">

I somehow doubt that the bell flare was a result of shabby build quality.. <EMOJI seq="1f609" tseq="1f609">😉</EMOJI>[/quote]

Everything you could see was fine...it was tubes sawn at an angle, inconsistent gaps ,etc... Just not what you would expect from a legendary maker.

Chris
</QUOTE>

Ya gotta wonder if these "inconsistencies" are what made the horns special!

Eric

Tbarh · by **Tbarh** » 2020-07-16 3:50 a.m.

My point was that the magic of superb bell construction (and the craft of spinning) can make up for bad assembly.. When i visited the Shires shop in '98 Steve left all part of manufacturing to his crew except the bell spinning, which was almost like a sacred ceremony.. There is said to be some mojo regarding how Bach wanted the bell thickness to be along the flare..

FOSSIL · by **FOSSIL** » 2020-07-16 7:01 a.m.

[quote="Tbarh"]My point was that the magic of superb bell construction ( and the craft of spinning) can make up for bad assembly.. When i visited the Shires shop in '98 Steve left all part of manufacturing to his crew except the bell spinning, which was almost like a sacred ceremony.. There is said to be some mojo regarding how Bach wanted the bell thickness to be along the flare..[/quote]

Interesting how we started at one end of the trombone and have ended up at the other ! I think Steve is a little unusual.... making bells is really hard work...in a factory situation I would think it's not the most popular specialization...though buffing is for sure the least popular.... in a design, everything is important, but if I had to say which bits had the biggest effect, I would say leadpipe, then bell....

does that bring us back on thread ?

Chris

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2020-07-16 9:01 a.m.

Steve tried training somebody else to spin bells many times over the years before he one who could do it to his satisfaction. That guy's name is Rodrigo, and he took over that job completely in the couple of years before Steve left the company.

It is hard work, but it also requires touch, especially to spin bells from thinner metal like the 2RVE and the 7YLW and 7GLW. Unless you have a good feel for it, those lighter weight bells can tear very easily.

tombone21 · by **tombone21** » 2020-11-01 1:39 a.m.

Decided to provide an update to my initial inquiry into leadpipes. I decided to take the plunge down the rabbit hole, searching and buying leadpipes for my Shires large bore. I now have several very different designs and materials at my disposal but I think I am zeroing in on a setup that works for me.

To start off, Shires has been making a series of leadpipes that pretty accurately matched my original quorum: creating a leadpipe that retains contact with the inner slide, therefore all the vibrations of the leadpipe are (theoretically at least) transferred to the slide. They're called "H" pipes, and I believe can be had in any length or venturi. They are constructed by milling a solid piece of brass, therefore keeping the venturi but making the outside shape a totally straight line. I ordered mine as a 2.5L, which was my leadpipe of choice at the time. When I received it, I immediately noticed a weight difference. When weighing all of my leadpipes, I got this data after weighing each pipe 10 times and taking the average. (I am using a crude coffee scale that only rounds to the nearest half-gram.)

Pictured from top to bottom:

2.5: 31.5g (8 & 3/4")

2.5L: 34.5g (9 & 3/4")

2SS: 36.5g (9 & 3/4")

Brasslab T-90 Hwt: 38.5g (8 & 3/16ths inches)

2.5HL: 45.75g (9 & 3/4")

As for how the Shires heavy pipe plays: the response is there. Really requires little to no effort to make the notes speak, across all registers. If you've tried a Hartman mouthpiece, it's a similar feeling (to me). I often find myself using both more air and tongue than I need to make note connections happen; backing off and relaxing really makes the horn sing with this setup. But at the end of the day, for me, I don't really like things that add weight or mass to my instrument. I play one of the lightest bells that Shires makes and 10/10 times will pair it with a lightweight mouthpiece.

Adding weight in this very specific place on the horn (inside the inner slide tube) has been incredibly fascinating, and the BrassLab pipe that I had for a while before Shires delivered this H pipe to me is great as well, but to different effect. If you squint, you can see that there is still a definite venturi in the BrassLab leadpipe. I'm not sure what makes it heavier, but it is (and is also the shortest leadpipe in the arsenal). The result there is mostly in sound, and a more subtle version of the change in response the Shires H pipe affords. Very curious to see if there are any reactions or questions, I will do my best to answer them all.

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace

Do Leadpipes Fundamentally Kill Response?