Shank Lengths - Short/standard/long

[BrianJohnston]

Hi,

There was a thread a while back about why some shanks are shorter or longer than others. I've heard and felt that longer shanks provide a clearer slot, while shorter shanks are more open and have more flexibility.

What effects does shank lengths have on the sound, feel, playability etc.
Wondering other's opinions on this.

[BGuttman]

I'm sure Doug Elliott will give a very comprehensive answer, but understand that the length is one factor of a bunch of interrelated factors that determine the response of the mouthpiece. The shape of the backbore at the very least can alter the overall effect of the length; and one short mouthpiece can play as well as a long mouthpiece with a different backbore.

As an example of how interrelated these can be, I play or played a variety of King trombones. Most mouthpieces go further into these horns than what is considered "correct". But when I used Doug's special King shanks that only go in the "standard" 1 inch (25 mm) the response is odd. My horns play fine on conventional shanks going in just a little further.

[Dsbones]

I was wondering about this exact thing this afternoon also……

[harrisonreed]

Shank length, or overall length? Or shank insertion depth?

For example, a really shallow alto piece will naturally get a long shank if keeping the overall length standard. These things are not necessarily related to the tip diameter, which determines how far into the lead pipe the shank goes.

[BGuttman]

My point is that it's not a matter of A does B and C does D. A does B and D, and C does B and D. So you can't just pull one parameter out of the air and try to assign effects to it.

[GabrielRice]

Bruce is right on. The length of the shank and the backbore taper are related for sure.

[BrianJohnston]

Shank Lengths.

Let's say you have two "identical" mouthpieces, one of them has a shorter than "average" length shank, the other has a longer than "average" shank length...

What tendencies are you likely to find in terms of sound, feel, playability etc.

[tbonesullivan]

I don't think there is really a way to make that kind of general assessment. The placement of the throat, and the shape of the back bore are going to greatly influence things as well, not just how long the shank is. You'd need to have two identical mouthpieces that only differed by shank length, with all other things equal.

[GabrielRice]

I don't think there is really a way to make that kind of general assessment. The placement of the throat, and the shape of the back bore are going to greatly influence things as well, not just how long the shank is. You'd need to have two identical mouthpieces that only differed by shank length, with all other things equal.

And this is exactly what Brian is asking for. You can do it to some extent with older long-shank versions of Schilke mouthpieces compared to the newer short shank versions.

[Doug Elliott]

As long as the backbore is balanced "for what length it is," long or short doesn't matter much. Either can be made to work well.

If you change something that is already balanced well, it will be worse. If you change something that needs to be in the direction you're changing, it will be better.

Imagine that...

[tbonesullivan]

And this is exactly what Brian is asking for. You can do it to some extent with older long-shank versions of Schilke mouthpieces compared to the newer short shank versions.

I was thinking about those. Did those have a "V" shaped backbore, or more of the Denis Wick "Barrel" type? I had one of those a long time ago, and hated it in my 3B because it wobbled all the time.

[Kevbach33]

And this is exactly what Brian is asking for. You can do it to some extent with older long-shank versions of Schilke mouthpieces compared to the newer short shank versions.

I was thinking about those. Did those have a "V" shaped backbore, or more of the Denis Wick "Barrel" type? I had one of those a long time ago, and hated it in my 3B because it wobbled all the time.

I'm pretty certain @GabrielRice is taking about large shank Schilke only, where there is a difference. What can be seen with the eye is the short mouthpiece has a bevel at the end, whereas the long shank backbore flows right to the tip. I'm not sure of any other changes to the backbore.

But, the main reason for the longer shank was a better fit in Conn 8/88H and bass trombones with the slower taper found on Remington and 3B mouthpieces. They can help lower the pitch on shorter trombones too, namely Getzen.

I suppose standard Schilke backbores, large and small (and Euro), are V-shaped or slightly convex; "b" and "a" are progressively tighter or more concave, and "d" is more open or convex. There doesn't seem to be an "e" backbore anymore, which was the most open.

I'm not sure about small shank Schilke pieces, though I thought the extra length of exposed shank on the standard blank looks goofy. Does Schilke specify how deep they're supposed to fit?

[Posaunus]

And this is exactly what Brian is asking for. You can do it to some extent with older long-shank versions of Schilke mouthpieces compared to the newer short shank versions.

I was thinking about those. Did those have a "V" shaped backbore, or more of the Denis Wick "Barrel" type? I had one of those a long time ago, and hated it in my 3B because it wobbled all the time.

I think the old "long-shank" Schilke mouthpieces were only large-shank (e.g., Schilke 51) that seemed to work in a Conn "Remington" taper as well as a standard taper receiver. I wasn't aware that there was a long-shank version of their small-shank mouthpieces. In any case, I don't think Schilke backbores closely resemble either of the Denis Wicks.

[harrisonreed]

I don't think there is really a way to make that kind of general assessment. The placement of the throat, and the shape of the back bore are going to greatly influence things as well, not just how long the shank is. You'd need to have two identical mouthpieces that only differed by shank length, with all other things equal.

Which you can't have. As soon as you change the length of the shank (by any meaningful amount) you change the taper rate of the backbore. ie not identical.

If you made the shank really long, eventually the backbore would just be nearly a cylinder.

That's why I asked my initial question. I have alto pieces with longer shanks than bass pieces. Apples to oranges. So as you say, were talking about overall length, keeping the cup and throat identical and increasing the shank. We've got people giving answers about Remington receivers. We're all talking about different things, partially because the thread you referenced in the OP had posts referencing Remington leadpipes and how far mouthpieces go into them, and other stuff like using tape to change the tip diameter (if it's the one I'm thinking of).

I don't think the issue of Remington receivers is what Brian is asking about . Just making it longer doesn't fix that issue. You need a different external taper rate.

So.... Overall length. If you keep everything else the same, including shank taper and tip diameter, the mouthpiece will have a slower backbore taper by necessity, and play flatter. That could effect the focus the same way that a tighter backbore would on any mouthpiece. It can also affect how the octaves line up.

The whole thing needs to be balanced. Change the overall length (in the shank) and you wind up with something totally different, for better or worse.

[BrianJohnston]

Thanks to all above, this is what I was looking for.

[Matt K]

There’s quite a bit of discussion about this in trumpet world, where Monette pieces have a large (or at least vocal) minority of players on such “short shank” pieces. Trumpet herald has quite a few discussions about this, including from Jim Becker (formerly at Osmun) who has been doing short shank modifications for a rather long time.

When I play trumpet, I also play one of these pieces. It has an absurdly large throat (I want to say an 18! vs the “standard” 28). Works better for me, but I’m by no means even close to being a professional. Better flexibility and more open feeling vs traditional mouthpieces.

[pjanda1]

I find the long shank Schilkes to be really special with my Elky 8H. The slotting and response are telepathic. I've tried many other things, and no shorter shanks work as well in that horn. I had a Bach long Remington shank 5gs (marked 88h) that was darn good, just not the diameter and rim shape I prefer.

Now, I'm messing with a Brassark morse taper 8h pipe while I wait patiently for my 1919 8h pipe. So far, slotting and response are pretty good with normal large shanks. Too soon to say for sure, because this seamed copper pipe is weird in other ways. But, the difference in this single pipe between the normal large shank 51 and my favorite long shank 51 (I have multiples) is much smaller. The normal large shanks seems just fine!

I don't know what is making the difference for my favorite 8h pipe. I have another 8h Remington pipe I need to solder a ring on and try. But for my favorite pipe and the half dozen "long shank" Schilkes of various sizes I've tried, I can say conclusively that it makes a huge difference for me. As in ... More difference than even big differences in diameter or cup depth.

Paul

[BrianJohnston]

I'm revising my question a bit after finally understanding more about this subject:

Lets say you have 3 "identical" mouthpieces with short, medium, long shanks that each have a backbore adjusted to compensate for the different lengths. What would some of the differences be on these three mouthpieces?

My guess(es) would be:

Short shank length: Less slotting, less focus, easier/freer slurs, easier flexibility.
Medium shank length: Balanced version of the above & below.
Long shank length: More slotting, more focus, Tighter/stiffer slurs, less flexible.

[elmsandr]

There are choices made in those different length shanks… did you increase the length of the throat? Change the taper of backbore? Leave a different amount of step at the shank/leadpipe interface?

For fun, you may want to take a chat with Scott Hartman. He’s gone on a bit of a journey with some of these variables himself and developed his interchangeable system around these.

https://hartmanmouthpieces.net/

Cheers,
Andy

[harrisonreed]

I'm revising my question a bit after finally understanding more about this subject:

Lets say you have 3 "identical" mouthpieces with short, medium, long shanks that each have a backbore adjusted to compensate for the different lengths. What would some of the differences be on these three mouthpieces?

There are too many variables here, and how would you "adjust" the backbore? Are you talking about sawing off .25" of shank off the end and then opening up the backbore to reduce the step? It will play completely differently. It might act as you suggest if, instead of changing the whole backbore, you just chamfer the step where you make the cut. I have a feeling that a really short mouthpiece that only goes in half an inch (but otherwise keeps the outside length the same) would play terribly. But who knows!

If you buy into the F-pop theory, reducing the backbore volume by cutting the shank would reduce the amplitude and change the frequency of the "pop" and your mouthpiece would play with a lot less power. I'm not sure if I completely buy into that theory, but there definitely is a correlation between F-pop freq./amplitude and how much a particular mouthpiece projects.

What I've usually seen on "long" mouthpieces is that the backbore follows a normal path, and then the length past the point where the shank diameter would go in 1" either has the backbore chamfered (rapidly expands to meet the end of the shank) or it just keeps on with the profile until the two lines almost meet. My L2 is kind of in-between those two concepts. It plays very open and has a really defined slot.

[Doug Elliott]

There are far too many variables to make any blanket statements. They can all be made to play equally, with enough design work and experimentation.