Mouthpiece rings, what do they do?

[Aspenforest]

I'm curious about how the rings that connect the cup to the rest of the throat influence the sound. I've been interested with the Griego artist lines vs the Markey line as they're quite a bit different.

[trombonedemon]

Add weight to the back bore and throat of the mouthpiece. For me it settles oscillations on the lower end and tightens them on the higher end. You check out on you tube that trumpet player that had an extremely, almost absurd weighted mouthpiece for a significant sound change.

[harrisonreed]

I wonder what they are for too. I thought maybe it was for a collet to grab onto when machining the cup.

[AtomicClock]

Ha ha. Curious about what you mean, I visited the Griego website. It uses the same photo on the Artist and Markey pages. Oops.

[tbonesullivan]

Why stop at the throat? The Marcinkiewicz Proline mouthpieces have them from the shank upwards!

I think it is probably one of those cases where they have both a functional and aesthetic use.

[Kbiggs]

Are you talking about rings inside the mouthpiece, which are usually the result of machining? Or the aesthetic rings on the shank, outside the mouthpiece?

[harrisonreed]

I think they are taking about the area on the outside, where the shank mates to to cup. DE has a hex shaped area there, Griego is a more wavy pattern, Minick was more of a single ring in that area.

[JohnL]

I think they are taking about the area on the outside, where the shank mates to to cup. DE has a hex shaped area there, Griego is a more wavy pattern, Minick was more of a single ring in that area.

Some just have a smooth transition. like the Conn Christian Lindberg or the vintage Olds.

In theory the difference in distribution of mass should do something - but how much, and what difference?

[Aspenforest]

JohnL put it much better than me, but I understand the weight distribution when it's the whole mouthpiece. I'm more talking about that mate spot as Harrison was saying

[Kbiggs]

My 2 cents:

In the past, rings along the shank (more or less over the beginning of the backbore) have been more decorative than functional. It was partly a way for one maker, e.g., Bach, to distinguish themselves from Schilke, or Holton, or others: form over function.

…Minick was more of a single ring in that area.

…and Schilke has one “bump” for small shank mouthpieces and two “bumps” for large shank mouthpieces.

More and more makers are experimenting with and offering different weights of mouthpieces. When you add additional weight, it has to go somewhere (you have to change the exoskeleton profile). If you’ve already added weight to the area surrounding the rim and the cup, the last place available is the remainder of the shank all the way up to receiver. This would be function over form.

What looks pleasing to the eye might not work optimally, and what works optimally might not look pleasing to the eye.