Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post Reply
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by harrisonreed »

I find mouthpieces REALLY interesting. Nothing seems to be able to completely change they way someone sounds and plays more than swapping a mouthpiece on them. Finding mouthpieces that work is a magic experience. I have noticed a couple patterns -

If I don't have the right cup width, my range goes away. The high F is not reliable for me on a 5G width cup. I cannot play a high F on the 4CL without really finessing it, when it should be easy to do so.

If the cup is really deep, the sound can be impressive and the lower register is fat, but playing even a couple of high notes tanks my endurance. I have a 2G that feels great and sounds great but people would have to be on drugs to use that on tenor. The 1C has a big cup, and my endurance goes pretty fast on that one as well. The Bousfield O3 has almost as large a cup, but a smaller throat, and doesn't seem to tank my endurance as much.

If the rim is fat, it tanks my endurance. The difference on the same mouthpiece between a DE 106 and 106N is incredible. The normal width seems to tire me out.

If the throat is large, I can play a lot louder more easily. The Alessi 1C is a formidable mouthpiece that can be played extremely loudly with relative ease. The 4CL can be played ridiculously loudly. Loud might even be the wrong word. It has a ton of PRESENCE. Mouthpieces with smaller throats can be played loudly but need finesse -- I need to pucker a bit more and really get the mouthpiece pressure off my face to even come close.

If this is all true ... Then why isn't the lindberg 4CL design concept seen in any other mouthpiece? It's got a pretty shallow cup, the largest throat of any mouthpiece you've ever seen, but the thing most people complain about is the rim. "oh it's loud, sounds good, and articulates great, but the rim sucks" Well, why don't we just fix the rim?

I heard Matt has his 5CL threaded for DE rims. How did that work out? I'm thinking of having my 4CL threaded for XT threads, which would mean widening the cup contour a bit so that the rim would match up without a step (otherwise where it matches would add almost the entire rim's worth of length to the mouthpiece). Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I just crazy? I know everyone always warns about boring out the throat because it will ruin the mouthpiece. What about using everything from a "bored out" mouthpiece that already seems to work and changing the rim?

Is there any other design that combines a shallow cup with a .319" throat that plays in tune and balanced?

I probably shouldn't have tested the 4CL again, but I gave in to temptation. In my mind, if the thing actually fit my face, it would be like cheating.
User avatar
ithinknot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:40 pm

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by ithinknot »

harrisonreed wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:08 pm I probably shouldn't have tested the 4CL again, but I gave in to temptation. In my mind, if the thing actually fit my face, it would be like cheating.
I guess this might be an itch that you'll just have to scratch.

You know which rim sizes and contours suit you... but how do you know the 4CL's throatzilla isn't also part of why your high range suffers on it?

The CLs are so idiosyncratic overall that attributing playing characteristics to individual design elements seems risky.

If you try one of Doug's larger backbores mentioned in the other thread, you'll be able to play louder, sure. Will it be worth it? You'll find out - but at least you'll know what the variable was.
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by harrisonreed »

ithinknot wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:43 am
harrisonreed wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:08 pm I probably shouldn't have tested the 4CL again, but I gave in to temptation. In my mind, if the thing actually fit my face, it would be like cheating.
I guess this might be an itch that you'll just have to scratch.

You know which rim sizes and contours suit you... but how do you know the 4CL's throatzilla isn't also part of why your high range suffers on it?
The Greg black alessi model has nearly the same massive throat and backbore (.295"), but my range is not hindered in any way on that piece. The Griego version has a large throat as well, though smaller than the Greg Black, and my range is not hindered on that either. That said, my endurance playing "athletic" music on those pieces is not great. Ten minutes, sure, a concert in a trombone section no problem, but a whole recital or 25 minute concerto that isn't pretty tame? Not unless I was practicing with quality for 6 hours a day. No way. On the flip side, I don't have any major endurance issues on the 4CL (or any shallow cupped mouthpiece it seems), but find it extremely difficult and uncomfortable to play a high F on it. Around a D, the range just sort of stops. The same thing happens on a 5G or 6.5AL. My teeth feel weird playing those too, afterwards. I think the smaller outer dimensions put the pressure of the mouthpiece (which isn't much) all onto one of my crooked front teeth instead of spreading it out.

I do believe that a smaller throat can aid in endurance as well. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because I know I can't push something like the V3 past a certain limit, and it stops giving back after a certain point. Pieces like the Alessi or Lindberg let you push them, and you keep getting more. You'd think the high F would be really difficult on the Alessi, and if you teacup it it is, but if you just push more air it happens. I could see that mentality contributing to fatigue.
The CLs are so idiosyncratic overall that attributing playing characteristics to individual design elements seems risky.
Like you said, maybe I gotta just bite the bullet. I agree with this. However in this case my gamble is that the mouthpiece design is sound as a whole, and I really only want to change one aspect of it, the rim. So I'm hoping that it isn't only one part of the design that accounts for the way it plays, but the sum of the parts that makes it what it is. Maybe an 80% version will be great.
If you try one of Doug's larger backbores mentioned in the other thread, you'll be able to play louder, sure. Will it be worth it? You'll find out - but at least you'll know what the variable was.
I am going to pursue this once the option is available, for sure. Looks like it is still a work in progress. Maybe the backbore is what I'm really after and that would be awesome. The new backbores won't widen the throat entrance in the cup that they need to mate up with though. I feel like that factor might be key, but it would be great if it wasn't. I haven't measured the narrowest part of any DE cup larger than a XTC+, so I don't know.

FWIW I'm as happy as a clam on all my small bore gear, and use DE mouthpieces on those. I have never been satisfied with my large bore setup, but have only ever found gear increasingly closer to what I want. I convince myself I'm satisfied, but each improvement just makes me see what else can be improved, probably because I am much more passionate about that kind of playing. I've never tried and don't own a large shank DE mouthpiece and want to change that. Perhaps the E cup I want to try is all I need to scratch this itch.

Why can't I have a mouthpiece that has incredible resistance when I want to play softly, so I can whisper with it without wasting air, but also let's me push against that resistance and keep getting more and more out of my horn the more I push it? It must exist or be possible.

:pant:
User avatar
ithinknot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:40 pm

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by ithinknot »

It's all interesting :amazed:
harrisonreed wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:08 am I do believe that a smaller throat can aid in endurance as well. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's because I know I can't push something like the V3 past a certain limit, and it stops giving back after a certain point. Pieces like the Alessi or Lindberg let you push them, and you keep getting more. You'd think the high F would be really difficult on the Alessi, and if you teacup it it is, but if you just push more air it happens.
On the big stuff, I think at some level one has to simulate resistance somewhere else to get things under control at lower dynamics. I don't know how much of that is mental expenditure, and how much is face. I've tried some of the largest Warburton backbores and even a Monette (don't judge me, it was used and cheap, and educational up to a point) where there's an extra 20dB if you want it, and you can absolutely bludgeon high register things using giant bloody-minded air alone, in a way that is globally exhausting but almost easy on the chops... But then you go back to something balanced like a DE setup and the others just seem silly and encouraging of inefficiency. (The less extreme Warburton shanks are nice - that wasn't meant as a global criticism.)
Maybe the backbore is what I'm really after and that would be awesome. The new backbores won't widen the throat entrance in the cup that they need to mate up with though. I feel like that factor might be key, but it would be great if it wasn't.
Doug will explain this better, but the narrowest point isn't at the interface, but down inside the shank. On the G/G8 combo I have, the meeting point is something like .320", but the throat proper is .262". (Mine are pretty old, so may not reflect his current designs exactly, but you get the idea.) So for any given cup, he could make an absolute drainpipe throat if he really wanted to... :wink:

(On Warburtons, the throat is in the cup, and the backbore really is just a backbore.)
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by harrisonreed »

I didn't realize it was that big on the G cup.
MikeS
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:04 pm

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by MikeS »

Speaking just from my own experience, I find large throats more tiring to play because I have to work so much harder to keep the pitch from going flat in the upper register. I’m pretty sure I remember Doug Elliott saying that everything on a mouthpiece affects everything else on the mouthpiece. I don’t know what you trade off to counter a large throat’s tendency to want to play flat up high.
Kbiggs
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
Location: Vancouver WA

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by Kbiggs »

MikeS wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 am Speaking just from my own experience, I find large throats more tiring to play because I have to work so much harder to keep the pitch from going flat in the upper register. I’m pretty sure I remember Doug Elliott saying that everything on a mouthpiece affects everything else on the mouthpiece. I don’t know what you trade off to counter a large throat’s tendency to want to play flat up high.
My experience, too.

Remember that the shape of the backbore can also dramatically change the way a mouthpiece feels and responds. Perhaps a “tighter” backbore (a narrower profileL) could help reduce endurance problems while maintaining a larger throat...?
Kenneth Biggs
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
User avatar
LeTromboniste
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:22 am
Location: Sion, CH

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by LeTromboniste »

MikeS wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 am Speaking just from my own experience, I find large throats more tiring to play because I have to work so much harder to keep the pitch from going flat in the upper register. I’m pretty sure I remember Doug Elliott saying that everything on a mouthpiece affects everything else on the mouthpiece. I don’t know what you trade off to counter a large throat’s tendency to want to play flat up high.
I'd be curious to know what mouthpieces you were comparing and how the rest of the specs compared. According to every mouthpiece maker I've discussed this with, opening up the throat while keeping everything else exactly the same should make the higher partials go sharp, not flat (that has also been my experience everytime I've had custom work done where I've been able to test the mouthpieces between each little adjustment).
Maximilien Brisson
www.maximilienbrisson.com
Lecturer for baroque trombone,
Hfk Bremen/University of the Arts Bremen
User avatar
Doug Elliott
Posts: 2950
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Maryand

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by Doug Elliott »

Agree, acoustically a larger throat will make the high range sharper.. The players who have the high range pitch go flat are just not able to control it and are probably using a mouthpiece size they shouldn't be on in the first place.
"I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two."
MikeS
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:04 pm

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by MikeS »

LeTromboniste wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:46 pm
MikeS wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 am Speaking just from my own experience, I find large throats more tiring to play because I have to work so much harder to keep the pitch from going flat in the upper register. I’m pretty sure I remember Doug Elliott saying that everything on a mouthpiece affects everything else on the mouthpiece. I don’t know what you trade off to counter a large throat’s tendency to want to play flat up high.
I'd be curious to know what mouthpieces you were comparing and how the rest of the specs compared. According to every mouthpiece maker I've discussed this with, opening up the throat while keeping everything else exactly the same should make the higher partials go sharp, not flat (that has also been my experience everytime I've had custom work done where I've been able to test the mouthpieces between each little adjustment).
I am not sure I can offer a true apples to apples comparison but here are the examples I had in mind. On Euphonium for years I used a Perantucci 4 with a .315” throat. The Giddings Kadja, with a very similar rim size and depth but a .285 throat really improved my upper register intonation (which tended flat) and ease of play. I had a similar experience on medium bore trombone going from a 5GS with a .261 throat to a Giddings Nakazawa with a .234 throat. Again, these have pretty similar rim sizes and cup depths. My experience could certainly come down to faults in my technique and airflow management. While I have my doubts, the change from brass to stainless might also play a role. Anyway, you said you were curious and you asked nicely. :-)
User avatar
Slidennis
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:38 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by Slidennis »

harrisonreed wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:08 am
ithinknot wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:43 am

I've never tried and don't own a large shank DE mouthpiece and want to change that. Perhaps the E cup I want to try is all I need to scratch this itch.

Why can't I have a mouthpiece that has incredible resistance when I want to play softly, so I can whisper with it without wasting air, but also let's me push against that resistance and keep getting more and more out of my horn the more I push it? It must exist or be possible.

:pant:
I think I nailed that (resistance + easy blowing) precisely with a DE LT E cup paired to an 8 backbore...
...with a large shank leadpipe in .525/.547 slide... (Conn SL2547)

I'm really delighted with that combo from now on...

It makes my Conn 52H bell sings like a real medium bore (if not small bore, if pushed), and have a great depth of sound and flexibility... The very low range is a bit more work.

This mp also came with a 4 backbore that I could pair to 2 different small shank leadpipes in the same slide : the trombone is, for my liking, completely unbalanced, and lack that depth of sound that I'm so fond of with the other combo...

And I compared it with a CL4 I have as well, that I liked much... as I always leaned to small cups large bored mpcs (only a few exist) The Lindberg is too airy for my linking when played softly, and doesn't have that incredible smoothness and eveness in response that the DE mpc has, going from ppp to FFF... no sharp sound characteristic transition with the DE mpc that I had with the Lindberg...

For what it's worth...
Last edited by Slidennis on Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Denis the musician wannabe trying to depart from gear geeking... :shuffle:
sungfw
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:15 am

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by sungfw »

MikeS wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:36 pm
I am not sure I can offer a true apples to apples comparison but here are the examples I had in mind. On Euphonium for years I used a Perantucci 4 with a .315” throat. The Giddings Kadja, with a very similar rim size and depth but a .285 throat really improved my upper register intonation (which tended flat) and ease of play.
I'm not sure it is an apples-to-apples comparison. I have an older model Perantucci 4 (the Perantucci line was redesigned to a more bowl-shaped cup sometime around 2009-2011) and an G&W Kadja. I suspect that the significant differences in the internal and external profile of their cups, the shape of their backbores, and mass distribution have as much, if not more, affect on the intonation as the diameter of the throat per se.
User avatar
harrisonreed
Posts: 4488
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Rethinking Throats and Backbores

Post by harrisonreed »

I will soon have an experimental mouthpiece in my hands to test this all out on.
Post Reply

Return to “Mouthpieces”