Dr. Young Mouthpieces

[MartinMan]

I know there has been a lot of discourse on the forums about these in the past, and the vast majority of which not exactly being the most positive (particularly of the old Reynolds examples) but I recently tracked down a NOS Wessex version and I have to say I'm absolutely blown away with how well it plays for me and how much I'm starting to prefer it to all my other pieces.

For the unfamiliar, the concept for the mouthpiece is a straight funnel shape. No cup or bowl-like taper to speak of, just a deep funnel all the way to the back, and stranger still there is no backbore in the shank, just a straight taper all the way through. On the Wessex version, the transition from the cup to the shank is very sharp and abrupt, as well as the inner edge of the rim. It looks like a mad science experiment gone wrong at first glance and the Reynolds ones look even more comical - Essentially a tuba-sized french horn mouthpiece.

Nearly all of the comments I've seen on these say that they feel basically like blowing into a trash can, and if the total air hog quality of them weren't bad enough, that it also strips all the character out of your sound; that you end up with all core and no color. Even despite all the negative comments, I couldn't help but be curious when I saw a Reynolds Dr. Young posted on Facebook recently, and while I messed out on that one unfortunately, I reached out on a whim to Wessex to see if that had any unsold ones lying around and as luck would have it, they did.

I knew that it would be a risk taking a chance on such a bizarre design and I was prepared for the worst when it arrived, but I'll be dammed if I didn't immediately start clicking with it! To me, It didn't feel like an air hog at all, but the lack of resistance felt very open and freeing, like I was truly pushing air THROUGH the horn instead of just into it. The sharp rim was surprisingly comfortable as well. I Feel like I'm slotting notes more accurately than before and its super easy to shift between partials. I do agree with the "massive core of sound" comments, but not at the expense of other colors in my tone. Pedal tones also absolutely RIP in this thing, but my high range doesn't feel negatively impacted either.

The best result so far however has been the effect its had on my endurance. I took it out busking with a brass band and yesterday and spent a good two hours continuously vamping (loudly) under soloists in the 90 degree heat and it's the first time I've played that loud for that long without getting winded. I can back off and get a nice full sound, or I can really give it some gas and make it bark without things breaking up.

I guess it just goes to show that each design out there has its right fit somewhere. I have no doubt that a mouthpiece like this probably wouldn't be a good fit for a lot of folks, but I'm having a real "glass slipper" moment with this thing in my limited experience so far!

And no for the record this is is not an ad or an endorsement. The Wessex model has been out of production for several years, and the other iterations even longer. just my experience with this particular one.

This is also my official WTB post for anyone who is has one of the earlier (unbranded, Reynolds or Wessex) examples and might want to part with it, as I'd really like to have a backup for this one just in case (I'd especially love the super rare acyclic version but I know that's a long shot).

Anyways, kudos to Dr. Young and his outside-the-box ideas. He may not have made the most popular mouthpiece by any means, but I'm certainly glad I happened to find one.

Anyone else out there have good experiences with one of these or is it just me?

[bloke]

The outside shape doesn't hint at the inside shape (at least not with the Holton version), but the Conn Chief (later Conn 1,) and the Holton 52 are both deep straight funnels, but maybe not quite as deep as the Young mouthpieces to which you specifically refer (ie. non-Reynolds Dr.Young).

I can play those things, but all I get out of them is a bunch of bass knob turned up till 11 and treble knob turned down to -1.

Yeah, the Reynolds one is pretty crazy. I don't know if any other Dr. Young ones are way deeper or less deep (??).

I did meet him with his pit model King (before we had it torn down and built back with seven valves) and with him playing it with one of those mouthpieces back in 1974 at a T.U.B.A. regional Tennessee/Kentucky shindig in Knoxville.

[gocsick]

My Wessex Baritone came with a scaled down one... a true cone with a wide throat.. It actually wasn't bad.. I was surprised.. I actually use it with my Olds Ambassador F attachment trombone (0.510" bore) and it opens up the low register a lot.

[MartinMan]

Yeah, the Reynolds one is pretty crazy. I don't know if any other Dr. Young ones are way deeper or less deep

The later, non-Reynolds ones are slightly less deep (and physically a good deal shorter in overall length) which maybe explains why I'm having some good results with this one compared to the reputation of the older ones.

My Wessex Baritone came with a scaled down one... a true cone with a wide throat.. It actually wasn't bad.. I was surprised.. I actually use it with my Olds Ambassador F attachment trombone (0.510" bore) and it opens up the low register a lot.

That one is still up on the Wessex site and after my initial impressions of the tuba version, I'm tempted to order that one at some point as well and see how it might perform as a bass trombone mouthpiece.

[Mary Ann]

Well, all ya'll already know that a funnel mouthpiece doesn't keep a French horn player from having a tremendous range.

[bloke]

Well, all ya'll already know that a funnel mouthpiece doesn't keep a French horn player from having a tremendous range.

usually either 9' or 12' expanding bugle...so by "funnel" you're referring to (ref: Dr. Young) a c. 2 inch deep or deeper funnel, then?

[Diego A. Stine]

I managed to end up with the Reynolds Dr. Young that came up for sale. It doesn't sound bad, I understand the concept that he was going for. The cup is simply too deep to play up to pitch. I'll see if I can make another video demonstrating it.

[bloke]

off topic / sidebar

Some of you know that I've built quite a few of my own instruments. Whether I build them from parts or buy them manufactured and alter them, I always set up my main tuning slides whereby I can manage to play them up or down to pitch all the way between about 65° Fahrenheit and about 78° Fahrenheit.

Quite a few C instruments designs utilize very short tuning slides in order to be only C length rather than B flat length, as their designers / builders are attempting to make them as conical as possible even though they are only 16 ft long.

I believe I could push in the slides far enough on most of my own contrabass instruments to accommodate the tuning characteristics offered by that mouthpiece.

Dr Young mouthpiece... Yeah I agree with Mr Stine... Just too deep and too long... collector curiosities, other than for Dr Young himself.

[Jperry1466]

I got the chance to visit with Dr. Young at a TUBA symposium in the early 1970's, and he explained the theory behind his design. He hated back pressure and kept shaving the throat and bore of his mouthpiece to make it more free-blowing. For me, it was similar to using a 5 gallon bucket for a mouthpiece; Dr. Young apparently had lungs of steel. When he played on the clear acrylic version of his invention, you could see that he tongued between his teeth, but he was quite a player and tuba enthusiast. He let me play his floor-length King Symphonic tuba, which was pretty cool, too.

Fast forward to the next year and my first teaching job: one of the band directors before me had bought one of the Reynolds models which I found in my desk drawer. I knew that no kid would be able to handle it, and we needed tuba mouthpieces, so I traded an old 24AW of mine for it. I still have it.

[donn]

I still have it.

Does it play up to pitch, compared to what you usually play?

When he played on the clear acrylic version of his invention

Thinking about @MartinMan's find, it occurred to me that the interesting old mouthpieces of yesteryear don't need to be lost to us. Not that I know what I'm talking about, but if the internal dimensions can be accurately represented in a 3D "model", and if someone has a printer and the right kind of resin material. My favorite saxophone mouthpiece is 3D printed, I'm pretty sure, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[bloke]

I don't know much of anything about these.
I have stuck Reynolds versions into tubas and played them for a moment or two.

I've read stuff on the interwebs over the years about
"The Reynolds version was disappointing to Dr Young."
"His actual personal deep funnel cup mouthpiece was much different from Reynolds."

... and other such things.

If a bunch of people want to throw some money at me and prepay for perfect copies of a particular Dr Young mouthpiece (upon which everyone agrees is "the secret to a happy life"), I can fairly easily produce a bunch of silver plated brass ones (provided I'm supplied with one that everyone agrees should be duplicated).

That said, I really don't want to, and I would neither engrave my name or Dr Young's name on them.
Finally, it would need to be a big batch (again: prepaid)... not just 6 or 12.
Other people could do the same thing.
I expect a self-answering question to ask is "Why hasn't anyone?"

[Rick Denney]

I’ve looked at a few of Fred Young’s mouthpieces, and I would suggest the Reynolds version is out on the tail of the distribution. Most I’ve handled were shorter and cuppier, with the distinguishing feature being the lack of any backbore taper.

If the Holton Revelation 52 really similar, then I don’t think the design would be for me. Joe’s description matches my experience, with an added dose of woofy airiness. The 52 is the Woofmaster. I need to dig it up and measure it.

Rick “gone in a much cuppier direction in recent decades” Denney

[bloke]

I’ve looked at a few of Fred Young’s mouthpieces, and I would suggest the Reynolds version is out on the tail of the distribution. Most I’ve handled were shorter and cuppier, with the distinguishing feature being the lack of any backbore taper.

If the Holton Revelation 52 really similar, then I don’t think the design would be for me. Joe’s description matches my experience, with an added dose of woofy airiness. The 52 is the Woofmaster. I need to dig it up and measure it.

Rick “gone in a much cuppier direction in recent decades” Denney

Based on my casual examination, the Holton 52 is a extra deep straight bore funnel cup, the throat is huge, and the back bore is also a straight bore funnel (I believe).

The following are suppositions and not based on any research:

I've seen pictures of a Holton sousaphone that was heavily engraved with American Indian-referencing engraving, as well as the word "Chief" (possibly "Big Chief") appearing prominently.

John Kuhn was mostly known as a Conn instrument player, but I can't help but suspect and suppose (who else would that instrument have possibly been made for?) that Holton made that instrument for him seeking his endorsement. The Conn Chief mouthpieces that I've seen look very very similar to the Holton Revelation 52 on the inside, and this would include the later Conn 1.

I can't help but wonder or even go farther and to suppose that what eventually became the 52 model Holton mouthpiece was originally one that Holton made for Mr Kuhn, in order of that the entire outfit with which they supplied him would be Holton made, to avoid him using even a Conn.mouthpiece.
AGAIN EVERYTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS SUPPOSITION AND ATTEMPTING TO ALIGN THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN WITH THINGS THAT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO ME PERSONALLY. I HAVE DONE NO RESEARCH IN THIS REGARD.

other random tidbitty info:
These Chief, conn 1, and Revelation 52 mouthpieces - to which we are now referring (vs. Dr Young, about which I know little) - all seem to have used virtually the entire diameter of a 2-inch cylinder of brass, as they all seem to measure really close to 2 inches (minus a tiny bit of cutting and buffing) around the outside tangents of their rims.

[Jperry1466]

I still have it.

Does it play up to pitch, compared to what you usually play?

I checked again (after many years), and it plays between 15-20 cents flatter than my usual mouthpiece. If I push my tuning slide all the way in, it gets a lot closer but still not quite there.

[graybach]

From the old board. Some interesting info about Dr. Young himself and his mouthpieces and instruments, though one does have to log in to view the attachments, one of which includes pictures of a few of his mouthpieces.

http://forums.chisham.com/viewtopic.php?t=88736

[MartinMan]

I had a successful gig test of the Wessex piece this weekend. Playing outdoors with three separate bands back-to-back for around 6 hours straight with only set breaks in between.

Aside from a sore shoulder, tired feet, and a lot of sweat, my chops felt great. The first time I had a marathon playing session like that where I didn't have anxiety about how I'd be able to have the endurance to make it through.

I never realized how much the back pressure from the horn was affecting my body while I played. Historically, when playing for long stretches, I'd encounter an issue where my soft pallet stops creating a seal between my mouth and nose and I basically can't play after that point. I've also always felt like the amount of resistance I would get from the horn (even larger bore and/or large bodied tubas) would "fight" me when I'd try to really put some air though them, but with this mouthpiece, it all seems to be cleared up for me. It makes me wonder if I unintentionally developed some incorrect or unusual techniques early on when playing (I was not taught tuba by anyone who played tuba as a primary, and I did not go to music school so my technique has never been put under the magnifying glass as more formerly trained musicians have) because no one else I've talked to seems to struggle with this, but for whatever reason, this design seems to be a good accommodation for my particular playing style. My articulation feels cleaner, my notes feel more centered, tone is more full, range is better, plus the aforementioned resistance/endurance issue is solved. And strangely enough it doesn't feel like an air hog.

It feels like I've been running with weights on this whole time and someone finally took them off and I can sprint full speed for the first time! I know it's not something that will work for everyone (as evidence by the overall lack of popularity of the design) but so far it sure looks like it works for me.

I've never tried the original Reynolds design which is so notorious for its issues, but I'm glad there are a few more contemporary examples out there like this one with a few tweaks to the design to make it better.

[bloke]

I'm not commenting on any other copy or version of Dr Young mouthpiece, because I've never played any of them other than the Reynolds version (whereby to comment would be out of ignorance).

My most recent models of mouthpieces (more similar than different as compared to my biggest sellers) have been including
a little bit more resistance (slightly more pronounced venturi) which I personally find to be less work (with certain types of tubas in particular, but not all) and offer me more low range security (with those types of tubas) as well as focus.

I have been known to produce marketable playing with mouthpieces (and even instruments) that I would personally never choose to use.
Were I to show up at a job (totally messing up) failing to remember to bring EITHER my tuba OR my mouthpiece, I would be VERY GRATEFUL to find available ANY playable tuba and ANY playable mouthpiece.
This is neither and instrument-specific nor mouthpiece specific remark. That said, I prefer less unnecessary work vs. more unnecessary work. I gravitate towards tubas and mouthpieces which both seem to play better than I myself actually am able to play.

main comment:
(NOT being that "blah" is right and "blah blah" is wrong)

"To each his own."

[donn]

I've had that soft palate failure, when playing bass clarinet when I wasn't used to it. That's about as far as you could get from playing the tuba ... maybe oboe or something. You must really be unloading on that tuba mouthpiece.

I'd sure go for one of those mouthpieces. I am very fond of the Conn Precision 1, which is very roughly a similar concept - deep, anyway - but I bet it's effectively a much more normal mouthpiece. Between that and a Schilke 67 with the similar outside shape, I might have to look to be sure which I was playing. Both have a curved interior contour, the Conn 1 just doesn't bottom out but keeps dropping into the backbore. It doesn't feel strikingly open, probably less so than for example a Marcinkiewicz H1. Mainly just a nice rim and a little more core-y tone.

[Kingconn]

I have an unmarked funnel mouthpiece that I have tried on various horns but haven't found anything it works with. I have a couple of Conn 1's that I like a lot. They are about the same large I.D. as the Helleberg but deeper and completely funnel shaped. FWIW

[MartinMan]

I have an unmarked funnel mouthpiece that I have tried on various horns but haven't found anything it works with. I have a couple of Conn 1's that I like a lot. They are about the same large I.D. as the Helleberg but deeper and completely funnel shaped. FWIW

If you ever decide to get rid of the funnel mouthpiece, let me know. I'm still looking for a backup to the Wessex.