|
From: Bob
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:48 PM
Hi,
I need your expert
advice. I play your LDS4 & VM4 Studio Master trumpet mouthpieces
along with the FL4 Studio Master flugelhorn mouthpiece. These are
terrific mouthpieces for commercial use. I have also used a 3D+26C which I must admit is a comfortable rim feel, but the sound potential
is not the same as the Studio Master series. (Is the diameter larger
than s/master 4?)
I would appreciate
your advice--- I have been intrigued as to why the Studio Master
series 4 were produced with a very narrow rim when I guess most
commercial players would prefer a wider rim setting?
I need to enquire if you can produce the
same rim on a piece that I can use for legit (i.e., the same rim but
with a 'C' type cup with a 26 throat, or larger). Also, I need a
cornet piece for British style Brass Band (i.e., same rim as S/master
4 but with deep, almost flugelhorn cup, and large throat similar to
Denis Wick style.
Hope you can help, I
have tried most makes (Warburton since 1990 until 6 months ago-GR
recently, (disappointed) Schilke and everything in the world, however
your pieces have superior sound quality, if I can secure a rim match.
Look forward to
hearing from you,
Regards,
Bob
Dr. Mouthpiece:
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your inquiry. To answer your questions:
"I have also used
a 3D+26c which I must admit is a comfortable rim feel, but the sound
potential is not the same as the Studio Master series. (Is the
diameter larger than s/master 4?)"
Yes, the Vacchiano #3 (fig. #1) is a few thousandths larger (.002" - .003")
inner diameter wise than the Studio Master #4 rim.
|
 Fig. 1
Cross section of Vacchiano #3 rim.
We characterize
this rim as being rounded. You can see by the red highlighted
area that the contact point on this rim is very generous. The
yellow area is what I would term "ambient contact" area in that
I would expect the majority of players to engage this part of
the rim in most playing circumstances. |
"I need to enquire if you can produce the
same rim on a piece that I can use for legit (i.e., the same rim but
with a 'C' type cup with a 26 throat, or larger)."
Yes, this is no problem. We can put the Studio Master #4 rim
(see fig. 2) on any
cup, bore or back bore configuration that you desire. This can be
done at the standard stock price.
"Also, I
need a cornet piece for British style Brass Band (ie., same rim as
S/master 4 but with deep, almost flugelhorn cup, and large throat
similar to Denis Wick style."
Again, this is no problem. I would suggest the Vacchiano A+ cup
design which falls into the Wick category.
"I
would appreciate your advice--- also I have been intrigued as to why
the Studio Master series #4 were produced with a very narrow rim when
I guess most commercial players would prefer a wider rim setting?"
|
Fig. 2 Cross section of Studio Master #4 rim.
By contrast, you
can see that the Studio master #4 rim is much narrower
(the overall contact area measures only 3.5mm as opposed to the
Vacchiano #3 rim which measures a total of 6mm.!) The arrow
also helps to indicate the "high point" of this rim which is
quite dramatic and slopes off very quickly as compared to the
Vacchiano #3 rim. |
Variety is the spice of life, is it not? This rim is especially
suited to players whose lips are a bit on the fleshy side, but who
can still make use of shallower mouthpieces. Since these player's
lips are already fleshy, the narrower rim design allows their thicker
lips to vibrate more freely than the more common wider rim designs!
Best wishes,
Dr. Mouthpiece
From Bob:
Hi,
Further to recent
mail, I obviously want to pursue the situation but I do not want to
bore you with trivia. As an experienced player (ex pro & brass
consultant) I have been aware of most of the theories in terms
of brass instruments, particularly trumpets, but have perhaps
not had the focus on the mouthpiece which I do believe now is the
most important factor (which is why so many famous players can sort
their instruments, but still consult on the mouthpiece end.)
Through my career, which has been diverse (Solo
Cornet with one of the finest brass bands in Europe, 1st Trumpet
with one of the top brass quintets in the UK, freelance orchestral,
Big Band lead & Jazz chairs) I obviously have needed equipment to
cater for all these scenarios. My priority was always to have
uniformity in rim, hence my use of Warburton 3 series since 1990,
however I always felt that there was a conflict between this and
the sound which I could acquire from different pieces from other
manufactures (some were better for some things than others etc.,
etc.) Within your camp you have experience of both classical and
commercial which I respect. I only have experience of the 3D and
Studio Master, but as previously stated the response of your pieces
is so much superior than anything I have played before.
Obviously the major
change for me is the diameter, from Warburton 3 series (17.00 mm)
to Studio Master which I guess is around 16.5mm,) but having the
narrow rim on the SM seems to compensate somehow . Anyhow the SM
rims give so much more accuracy and cleanliness of sound I can
hardly find words to describe the difference.
I have quite large
fleshy lips and was always convinced that you had to go large to
get the sound, (and your chops in there) however after all these
years I am not sure if this is correct thinking, (having observed
your writings on narrow rims - better vibration for heavier chops).
I have almost
made up my mind to pursue the following to match my Studio Master
setup:
For legit
Trumpet, S/m4 rim on C type Vacchiano cup (med/deep) but with 'pump
it up' configuration on the cup. I need your advice on the appropriate
throat size (I was thinking 24/25) which would maximize focus but
provide flexibility without losing core sound. The back bores on
SM models are large so I guess the Vacchiano C b/bore would be
similar to retain focus without getting too big --perhaps you can
advise on balance of this setup.
For cornet I would
take your advice on the A+ cup, but would seek your advice on which
model the S/M 4 rim would sit (also can you do this with short
'British' style shank to fit British type lead pipe?)
Sorry this is so
exhaustive, but dealing with this from a distance is difficult and
having spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds on mouthpieces
(experience) in the past I want this to be my final set up
Your VM4 & LDS4 with
flugelhorn FL4 (Studio Master) are absolutely fabulous---- can't
express how this has improved everything --only hope that I can
continue to cope with the 'downsize' from 17.00mm (Warburton 3) to
16.5mm Studio Master size.
Look forward to your
advice before I order.
Dr.
Mouthpiece:
Dear
Bob,
Thank
you for your thoughtful response. Please allow me to convey to you
my thoughts on what you are experiencing.
"Obviously the major change for me is the diameter, from Warburton 3
series (17.00 mm) to Studio Master which I guess is around 16.5mm,)
but having the narrow rim on the SM seems to compensate somehow .
Anyhow the SM rims give so
much more accuracy and cleanliness of sound I can hardly find words
to describe the difference."
This last phrase holds the most significance for me. What it tells
me is that the smaller inner diameter is helping you to focus down
your aperture which, I feel pretty confident in saying, is the
reason why you are enjoying improved accuracy and cleanliness.
"I have quite large fleshy lips and was always convinced that you
had to go large to get the sound (and to get your chops in there).
However, after all these years I am not sure if this is correct
thinking, (having observed your writings on narrow rims -better
vibration for heavier chops)"
Yes
indeed, "herein lies the rub" as they say. I can certainly
understand your concern and confusion. I think the best explanation
I can offer you is to say that there are basically two major
approaches to playing the instrument. One relies on the compression
of the muscles of the lips to control the aperture, the other
relies more on the pressure of the mouthpiece to control the
aperture. Both of these approaches will work for players with
fleshier lips (obviously players with thin lips cannot hope to get
very far using pressure).
However, if the
fleshy lipped player does not have enough room inside the rim (i.e.,
inner diameter is too small) he will be forced into a pressure
style of playing. For the fleshy lipped player, this is not the
worst thing in the world. In fact, the world is full of fleshy
lipped players (including a great deal of fantastic lead players)
that use a pressure approach. The most important thing that makes
this approach work well, is how well the player uses his internal
mechanism for producing sound and range. Of course, this is what
separates the greats from the not so greats. When the player is doing
everything right internally (this would be using the tongue arch,
syllables and projection of air) very little pressure is required,
except in the extreme range when playing loud. Even in this extreme
instance, the wise fleshy lipped player has learned to control the
degree of pressure used to be only what is required to create the
"seal", not enough to disturb the aperture.
As
a fleshy lipped player, you have probably had the luxury of being
able to keep your chops in a fairly relaxed state most of the time
(as opposed to a thinner lipped player that has to spend more time
controlling the aperture.) Again, this is why I feel that you are
benefiting from the smaller ID. It is helping to close down your
lips for you and the
thinness of the rim still allows for your lips to vibrate.
Things to look out for!
All the good things having been listed,
let me take on some of the caveats. Again, what is going on with
your aperture is what will decide, ultimately, if the smaller ID is a
good thing or bad.
Scenario #1 This is the case of many a lead player who uses a
mouthpiece like a Callet. The general idea is that the inner
diameter is incredibly small (we're talking the equivalent of a
Bach 17) with something like a 29 bore. The plan for these
mouthpieces is that all the player is going to do is put their lips
together and blow as hard as they can while manipulating the air
flow with the tongue. Again, many lead players gravitate to this
approach naturally, finding it the most efficient means of playing.
When they find a mouthpiece designed to facilitate this
method, they eagerly grab on. Unfortunately, for many players
this can be the beginning of the end. Over time, the player
discovers that they are using more and more pressure, because it
winds up being the only tool that is left to them. They cannot fit
enough of
their lips into the rim to use their musculature to close down
their aperture, and at this point they are also unable to take
advantage of their natural gift of just plain having lots of lip
inside the rim. The more pressure the player uses, the more the
aperture spreads. When this happens the player gets either the
infamous "air ball" or sometimes a kind of "ripping" sound as their
lips flap inside the cup.
Scenario #2
The other alternative is that the player
starts playing lighter and lighter, knowing that if they 'hit the
gas" their lips will spread apart. The biggest shame of this
downslide is that in most cases you start with a very strong
player, one who is using all the tools available (compressing the
muscles of his aperture, "tanking up" and blowing lots of air).
Yet, because they failed to understand the full implications of the
path they've started down, they are reduced to having nothing left
to use. This type of mouthpiece set up will work well for some, but can be a very dangerous trap for most. Even
though this is the extreme case, you will need to be on the look
out for the same issues.
The
critical element is to maintain a healthy balance.
Pressure:
Everyone who plays with any kind of weight to the sound
uses some pressure. Fleshy lipped players can, obviously, get away
with using more than others. The line in the sand again, is the
condition of the aperture. If you start to use so much pressure
that you spread your aperture, this will turn into an unworkable
situation over the long haul.
If the
smaller ID is helping you to close down the aperture, this is a
good thing. If you have been the type of player who has used your
musculature to close down your aperture in the past, and you feel
that you don’t have this control anymore, even though the results
seem to be better, I would be on the look out. I am not an advocate
of taking positive tools out of a player's hands, no matter how
good the short term gains look.
Also,
along the lines of using the aperture as the guide, you want to be
sure that you don’t start feeling the need to pull your lips out of
the rim. We have a close friend who had played with Maynard's band
back in the "Rocky" era. This guy has the thickest lips I've ever
seen on anyone. Not just a lot of red showing, but the amount of
flesh that exists from inside to outside would measure at least an
inch thick front to back...no exaggeration! He played the whole
time on a mouthpiece with the inner diameter of about a Bach 10
1/2. Obviously, you cannot fit that much lip into the inner
diameter of a 10 1/2C. His approach involved consciously opening
his aperture. He described his concept as "pursing his lips out as
though you were going to kiss your grandmother". Indeed, this was
the only way he could free up his lips to vibrate at all in that
small area. The problem was that this left him in the position of
having to use pressure to control the aperture. Too much
pressure, especially when under stress (not in a controlled manner)
is deadly. His Achille's heel wound up being that the pressure would
cause swelling, making his already impossibly large lips swell even larger
becoming
less resilient, leading to more pressure and the "white
out"...(aperture spreading with no sound). This type of problem is
especially magnified on the second and third day of playing. I'm sure you've
known the type of player who sounds great on one day, and then
can't play for the next two.
That's
about all I can think of for now. Please let me know if this stirs
any questions. Don’t hesitate to load up on your concerns, it's
only your livelihood we're talking about here!!!!
With
kindest regards,
Dr. Mouthpiece
FROM
BOB:
Further
to recent info you very kindly sent me, I do believe there is so much
accuracy in what you say and I will hasten to add this was not a
perspective which I had fully considered sufficiently in the past.
Having now studied what you have said, I am convinced that although
there are lots of variables in a mouthpiece in terms of diameters, cup
shapes, back bores, throats, etc., that it is the rim shape that
influences the start of the process which brings the other criteria
into play. Whilst not wanting to disrupt things too much by
experimenting with lots of pieces, I did some tests over the last
couple of days using pieces which I had played in the past (my
experience) and found this quite interesting. First off, I tried my
old Bach 3C against my old 7C and although the diameters, I guess are
quite close,
[editor's note: They are not!!!!] the production on the 7C was much better and this I
believe is due to the narrower rim configuration . I had a similar
good feel re an Olds 3C (old 'onion' shape) which has a narrow rim.
Although the Bachs & Olds have in no way the performance qualities of
the Storks, it certainly endorses what you say about the narrower rim
shape being an advantage.
I did
not fully understand what you meant about 'focus down the aperture'
initially, but I think I do now in as much as there is not much
aperture disturbance using the smaller diameter because I believe
this is compensated for in the narrower rim, in other words I still
feel as though I have room in there. As I have for many years studied
Claude Gordon principles in terms of air control and tongue levels it
also brings into play your other comments (I have always been able to
play very high notes even on deep mouthpieces). I could probably use
a 10 1/2C with difficulty but never anything like a Bach 17.
I am now
fairly convinced (thanks to your advice) that I am moving in the
correct direction, so I am happy with the rim shape and diameter (a
concern was that I might not have the same flexibility for certain
work going smaller) but I have maintained this, particularly using
the flugelhorn with S/Master FL4. I would hope to replicate this flexibility in a cornet mouthpiece.
We just
need to decide now which A+ cornet base would best fit a S/M4 rim and
also if you think my proposed set up for the 'legit' trumpet piece is
feasible (again, in this I am looking for flexibility without losing
sound focus). If you have any comments which would suggest otherwise
please let me know. The S/M VM4 is proving each time I use it to
be superb for me for commercial work and ( by accident) the LDS4 sits well
for piccolo trumpet. (Why did I not have these 20 years ago !!!).
Your
comments would once again be very much appreciated, many thanks once
again.
Kind
regards,
Bob
Dr. Mouthpiece:
Dear Bob,
I'm so glad to hear that something I had said had proved of value
to you! Unless I have missed something, I think we are down to fixing
the cornet specs and those for a legit piece. For the cornet piece,
it would be helpful to know what you are currently using and how it
works for you. If you have been using something like the Wick 4, you
may want to go as far as the A+ cup. This is the bigger and deeper of
the two, (a #18 bore with a deep cup) but, it plays more securely in
the upper register with less "squirrelishness", in other words, it
slots better. There are many players in the UK
who are using this piece, so I know that it also covers the "brass
band" thing! There is no problem at all with putting the short shank
on this configuration.
Now for the legit piece. You had written:
For
legit trumpet, S/m4 rim on C type Vacchiano cup (med/deep) but with
'pump it up' configuration on the cup. I need your advice on the appropriate
throat size (I was thinking 24/25) which would maximize focus, but
provide flexibility without losing core sound. The back bores on SM
models are large so I guess the Vacchiano C b/bore would be similar
to retain focus without getting too big --perhaps you can advise on
balance of this setup.
This is
a bit of a sticky wicket. It is pretty much impossible for me to
select "out of the blue", as it were, which piece would fit you best.
I would sure love to be able to send you a bit of a choice, on trial,
so that you can "play test" your way through some options to see
which will actually work best for you. I certainly think that
somewhere between a "C"+ or perhaps even a "D"+ cup we should find
the answer. I do think that looking at a "D"+ (the + sign is the symbol
for the
Pumped
cups) would be worth your while. The
Pumped
variation adds volume in some very interesting ways.
You may be surprised at the volume of sound attainable while
maintaining flexibility and response by downsizing in the right
areas! If you are okay with receiving some pieces on trial, I would
prefer going about things in this way.
With all best wishes,
Dr. Mouthpiece
FROM
BOB:
Hi,
Have worked thro the samples you kindly sent me. I
think I must be practical and say that the pieces I have finally
decided to keep are as follows:-4C+26c/4D+26c/4d+26d/4e+26d(four)--
I think for me these are the most efficient and will more than
cover my needs together with the commercial SM pieces I
already own.
I am very grateful to you for your help and advice
in finding a progressive sequence of pieces that truly work for me
after so many years of frustrations. In
summary, your pieces are fantastic and I wish I had discovered them
many years ago.
I shall have no hesitation in recommending the Stork
product where ever I can.
Best
regards,
Bob
|
HOME |
Products| Services | Our Library| About Us | History | Contact |
Doctor Mouthpiece 
