Leadpipe receiver reamers

[heinzgries]

Here a repair tool. For example, its good for altos like Conn or Courtois, which have a smaller leadpipe receiver.
So it fits a normal tenor shank perfect.

https://www.ferreestoolsinc.com/product ... er-reamers

[harrisonreed]

How do you use it?

[heinzgries]

put it in the receiver of the leadpipe and turn it like a corkscrew, but with feeling and caution.
I have done this on my Conn 34H. Now the mouthpiece goes in 1 1/16 zoll

[tbonesullivan]

The brass of the receiver is usually continuous with the leadpipe, and is NOT super thick. You could easily go right through it.

[trombonedemon]

So, why would you want to ream a Lead Pipe?

[harrisonreed]

To make normal shank tapers work in wonky leadpipes, like the Conn alto has. But this seems not too safe.

[heinzgries]

No, its not a wonky leadpipe, the Conn alto has a smaller receiver than a normal tenor small shank receiver. So the mouthpiece goes not far enough in. Doug Elliot makes a special backbore for these altos. The other way is to use the reamer. Now every small tenor shank fits deep enough in my Conn alto.

[harrisonreed]

the Conn alto has a smaller receiver than a normal tenor small shank receiver.

= Wonked out leadpipe. Pardon my use of english slangisms. I consider the old 88H leadpipes that fit Remington mouthpieces to be "Sir Wonks-a-Lot" leadpipes too.

I still want to know what drugs they were were baked on when they designed that leadpipe for the conn altos. At least the Remington sort of makes sense

[brassmedic]

My guess is they didn't have any way to make the leadpipe bigger. Isn't the 34H the only sub .500 bore they make now? It's probably a simple matter of the laws of physics. You can't fit a leadpipe with an outer diameter larger than .491 inside a slide tube with an inner diameter of .491.

With the 88H, they got around the problem of the leadpipe being a larger diameter than the slide tube by making a long receiver with room to solder the slide tube in and still leave a gap at the top to accomodate the leadpipe. Can't do that on the 34H because the receiver is very short. It probably would have cost money to engineer a solution, so they just didn't bother.

If you ream out the leadpipe to make it accept a "normal" insertion depth, you're probably making it very thin. And here's the question: What's wrong with having the mouthpiece stick out further? Obviously Conn's engineers didn't think that was a problem. Why does the mouthpiece have to go in further?

[heinzgries]

What's wrong with having the mouthpiece stick out further? Obviously Conn's engineers didn't think that was a problem. Why does the mouthpiece have to go in further?

Perhabs, Doug Elliot can answer this question better, he makes special shanks for Conn and Courtois altos. If i remember right, BGuttman wrote in an other topic that his 36H comes with the original mouthpiece which goes deeper in the receiver than a normal tenor shank mouthpiece. And he said the intonation was better with a mouthpiece that goes in far enough.

[brassmedic]

Oh, I see. So it's designed to fit their own proprietary shank size. Interesting.

[tbonesullivan]

The Bach alto, the 39, is a .468" bore instrument, but as far as I can tell it comes with a regular Bach 12C, and they fit in as one would expect. I don't know however if the leadpipe is entirely encased inside of the slide tube.

Never played another alto so I don't have any real basis of comparison. I find that most altos I hear people playing are bigger, and honestly just sound like a small bore tenor trombone.

[BGuttman]

The Conn 36H has an unusual leadpipe and uses a mouthpiece shank that is a little smaller than a standard Morse shank. I don't know if this was something Lindberg wanted or if it was a way to try to sell a special mouthpiece line. I can only say that my Conn 7C had all the partials in tune with each other in the 1st position, while the Bach 7C (and all my other mouthpieces) did not.

[harrisonreed]

What's wrong with having the mouthpiece stick out further? Obviously Conn's engineers didn't think that was a problem. Why does the mouthpiece have to go in further?

Perhabs, Doug Elliot can answer this question better, he makes special shanks for Conn and Courtois altos. If i remember right, BGuttman wrote in an other topic that his 36H comes with the original mouthpiece which goes deeper in the receiver than a normal tenor shank mouthpiece. And he said the intonation was better with a mouthpiece that goes in far enough.

What's interesting is that, at least on my 36H, Doug and I both tested the alto S shank and good regular alto shank, and the regular alto shank played a LOT better. It could be because I've warped the receiver through years of using normal taper mouthpieces. This is despite the fact that the alto S seated better and went in the correct amount.

[brassmedic]

The Bach alto, the 39, is a .468" bore instrument, but as far as I can tell it comes with a regular Bach 12C, and they fit in as one would expect. I don't know however if the leadpipe is entirely encased inside of the slide tube.

Never played another alto so I don't have any real basis of comparison. I find that most altos I hear people playing are bigger, and honestly just sound like a small bore tenor trombone.

I never pulled a Bach alto leadpipe, but the 42 has a flared end on the slide tube to accomodate the leadpipe, so their alto may employ the same technique. If you think about it, this adds cost. You can't just have a guy sitting at a bench putting slides together. He has to insert the slide tube into the receiver and then flare the end of the tube. Probably would need to heat it and run a tapered tool into it at a lathe or something motorized, then solder it together. Once the tube is flared, the receiver can't be removed without shrinking the tube back down. The way Conn does it is simpler, so I imagine they'd be reluctant to implement that change in construction.

[heinzgries]

Thanks Bruce, that you post this statement again.

[JohnL]

Bach spec for a standard small shank mouthpiece is .476" (12.1 mm) at 1" (25.4" mm). Obviously, there would not be room enough between the wall a .481" (12.2 mm) tube and the mouthpiece for much of a leadpipe. Similarly, a large shank mouthpiece is .546" (13.9 mm) at 1" (25.4 mm), so there would be essentially zero room for a leadpipe in a .547" tube. Fitting a large shank mouthpiece on a medium (.525"/13.3 mm) bore horn puts you "inside out" from a dimension standpoint. Something has to give.

Three approaches I've seen...

1) Make the receiver (and thus the mouthpiece shank) smaller.
2) Expand the end of the inner slide tube.
3) Shorten the inner slide tube so that it does not extend all the way to the receiver.

As to why Conn chose the specific approach they did on their alto? Search me. Maybe they wanted to discourage people from using anything other than what came with the horn?

[Doug Elliott]

In most mouthpiece-to-leadpipe situations, if the end of the mouthpiece is too far away from the leadpipe's venturi, it feels stuffy and doesn't play well. If it's too close to the venturi it feels too open and is uncontrollable.
So it's a matter of finding the balance that works.

[trombonedemon]

In most mouthpiece-to-leadpipe situations, if the end of the mouthpiece is too far away from the leadpipe's venturi, it feels stuffy and doesn't play well. If it's too close to the venturi it feels too open and is uncontrollable.
So it's a matter of finding the balance that works.

In your professional opinion what has more of a profound affect on feel and sound, the material or the make of the lead pipe.

[Doug Elliott]

I have no idea. I know it may seem odd considering what I do, but I have never messed around with leadpipes. I have always chosen horns I like as they are.

[GabrielRice]

In most mouthpiece-to-leadpipe situations, if the end of the mouthpiece is too far away from the leadpipe's venturi, it feels stuffy and doesn't play well. If it's too close to the venturi it feels too open and is uncontrollable.
So it's a matter of finding the balance that works.

In your professional opinion what has more of a profound affect on feel and sound, the material or the make of the lead pipe.

Material can be significant, but the taper is the most important defining aspect of a leadpipe.

[Mikebmiller]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a Venturi?

[BGuttman]

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a Venturi?

In Engineering parlance, a Venturi is a constriction in a pipe, usually tapered on both sides. They are in jet engines to try to increase the thrust of the expanding vapors. In a leadpipe, the leadpipe often constricts a bit more after the mouthpiece before expanding to the diameter of the inner slide. The shape and position of this constriction often affects how partials line up and the apparent resistance of the instrument.

[elmsandr]

About 1/2” beyond the end of the mouthpiece is the smallest portion of the leadpipe. Having that relationship between the mouthpiece and the leadpipe if pretty crucial for the horn to play well.

Cheers,
Andy

[gosterman]

I don't get the half-inch recommendation -- what to measure is my question. My old 1975 Bach 50B looks like it has a fairly short mouthpiece receiving taper and my shank may stop 1/2 inch from the end of that, not sure. Also, mouthpiece shank lengths vary by a quarter inch or more sometimes, so this doesn't seem too scientific anyway. How far is the throat supposed to be from the lead pipe venturi?
Back in the day (around 1975) Schilke put a "Bach shank" on a Schilke 59 for me, otherwise the standard 59 would have stuck out a mile on my Bach 50B. I think my ideal length is about 2 inches from the mouthpiece rim to the trombone. This is judging from my Bach-shanked Schilke and my Dennis Wick 2AL, both feel good to me, but Bach factory mouthpieces stick out farther than that. Does 2 inches seem too short? I know the shorter lengths result in a much freer blow, Doug Elliott is certainly correct about that. A small change in length can make a big difference in playability. My guess is that factory shanks are somewhat oversized intentionally. Does anyone agree with that?

[Matt K]

The only reference to half-inches is Andy's mentioning that the venturi often is narrowest .5" past the end of the shank, inside the leadpipe. Are you sure you responded to the right thread? This one is a few years old. I also just skimmed b/c I think I was on a bit of a sabbatical when this was posted and likely never read the full post. Just making sure since there has been other discussion n other threads where people were talking about insertion depth more recently which seems to be what you're talking about.

[gosterman]

Thanks for your reply. I've gained some insight into how to search this site as well as coming to a conclusion about mouthpiece insertion depth.

[Bonearzt]

The reamers shown will actually remove metal, NOT a good idea when dealing with trombone leadpipes, these are more for the solid receivers like on trumpets and euphoniums.

The forming mandrels shown below on that page are better suited for trombone leadpipes as they will slightly stretch the metal and reform the shape to hopefully match the mouthpiece shank.

[WGWTR180]

I have no idea. I know it may seem odd considering what I do, but I have never messed around with leadpipes. I have always chosen horns I like as they are.

More players should follow this advice. Many spend waaaaaaaay too much time chasing their respective tails on this subject.

[spencercarran]

I have no idea. I know it may seem odd considering what I do, but I have never messed around with leadpipes. I have always chosen horns I like as they are.

More players should follow this advice. Many spend waaaaaaaay too much time chasing their respective tails on this subject.

Instrument designer (hopefully) put some thought into an appropriate leadpipe when designing a trombone. If they didn't, there's probably other things wrong with the horn too