What is the STANDARD big mouthpiece?

[Steve Inman]

I had a Bach 18. It was my "starter" mpc as an adult amateur right out of engineering school. After a few years, I moved to a standard Helleberg (a wee bit larger). I've got maybe 15-20 mpcs (?) lying around the house, including a Bach 12 and a Bach 7 Megatone, Standard Helleberg (Conn), Conn 7B Helleberg, PT-44, PT-88, and scads more.

I ended up liking other choices better than the 18 -- a little small and a little shallow, I thought. I've annoyed my quintet with the Bach 12 vs. std Helleberg comparison test and they prefer the Helleberg with my 56J. I like the sharper rim feel. But before I got the PT-88, I did end up prefering the Bach 7 over a Parke Offenloch and the Helleberg for playing in a larger group as the only tuba. I felt the depth (not quite as deep as the Helleberg ???), combined with a slightly wider cup diameter (though not as wide as the PT-88) gave my sound a bit more brightness (a bit of an edge) to it. I believe you'd get the same effect were you to go for the Bach 12, but with a slightly smaller cup diameter than that of the 7 (of course). More recently, I stumbled on a PT-44, which I like a wee bit better than the Helleberg as I think it has just a little more fundamental in the sound, yet without (somehow) being noticeably darker -- it just seems to add a bit more weight or focus (subtle, but **I** hear a difference).

My thought is that the Bach 12 would give a "gentler" feel due to the rim edge not being quite as sharp as the Helleberg, and a slightly brigher sound, due to the cup depth and shape.

Another "Helleberg" mpc but with a slightly "gentler" rim is the Wick 1(L, XL) -- very deep with a big throat. Got one of those, too.

A few random observations.

Cheers,

[Steve Inman]

I will try another one in the future, though I know Bach doesn't make Euro size shanks, so the adapter will be necessary...

CJH

BTW, I believe I bought a nice "sleeve" adapter from Dillons a few years ago that was fairly inexpensive (don't remember the price) and that slips over the shank of a "standard" mpc to add a bit of girth so it doesn't get swallowed up by a Euro receiver. It's not as long as the complete shank, and is tapered a bit, with a small, rolled top edge to give you something to grip onto to tug it off for removal.

A very nice accessory to have available, at a very reasonable price (if I only remembered what it was). This is NOT the "Adjustable Gap Receiver". IIRC this was less than $20 -- just a tapered piece of metal tubing that slips over your "American" shank to make it fit like a Euro shank into a larger receiver. (Price estimate is NOT an official "Dillon Music" quote! Contact Matt for current pricing -- I could be mistaken, and I don't speak for D.M.)

Cheers,

[big_blue_tubist]

This is getting all very confusing.

What comes with the Miraphone 191/1291 tubas?

I'm pretty sure this is just what WWBW had around at the time, so take it with a grain of salt.. my 191 came with a Mira TU29, the 1291 came with a TU31

Wes, which one did you like better (emphasis on the 191)?


Thanks!

I didn't mean to give you any false hope about input on those two pieces, I hardly used(use) either piece (other than the 29 because my quintet preferred that sound to the SHII).. Just used the 88+ for both.

Sorry,

-W

[kingrob76]

Cups are brighter sounding (though when you want that brightness, it's called "color"), and funnels are less bright. Some funnels a unbright to the point of being dull.

Fascinating. My personal perspective has been just the opposite - when I want a sound that has less bite and blends more, I go for the bowl-shaped one, and when I want a sound with more bite and has more clarity, I go for the more funnel-shaped one.

Rick is a very well-versed tubist and definitely knows apples from oranges, but to me this perfectly illustrates that opinions are starting points, not definitive facts. I'm not disagreeing with Rick, but the next time I sit in with his group we'll have to do the "blind" test and see what each of us hear.

[Steve Inman]

Cups are brighter sounding (though when you want that brightness, it's called "color"), and funnels are less bright. Some funnels a unbright to the point of being dull.

Fascinating. My personal perspective has been just the opposite - when I want a sound that has less bite and blends more, I go for the bowl-shaped one, and when I want a sound with more bite and has more clarity, I go for the more funnel-shaped one.

Rick is a very well-versed tubist and definitely knows apples from oranges, but to me this perfectly illustrates that opinions are starting points, not definitive facts. I'm not disagreeing with Rick, but the next time I sit in with his group we'll have to do the "blind" test and see what each of us hear.

Of course, cup DEPTH and throat dimensions also come into play (throat was discussed briefly previously in this thread -- I never thought about bigger throat passing through more of the "buzz"). I wonder if a DEEP cup mpc would sound darker than a SHALLOW funnel?

Then there are some of the bigger PT mpcs -- 40 through 50, iirc. Some of these "bigger" "funnel" mpcs are described as "rounded at the bottom" -- seems either an odd description OR a clever hybrid approach to keep from having too "dull" of a sound (Rick's description).

Cheers,

[Donn]

Fascinating. My personal perspective has been just the opposite - when I want a sound that has less bite and blends more, I go for the bowl-shaped one, and when I want a sound with more bite and has more clarity, I go for the more funnel-shaped one.

Maybe it's hard to talk about sound.

For me, the funnel shape brings out a quality of sound that's more like the French horn, and the bowl shape tends to be less like the French horn. Not that there's a huge difference, but that's the direction.

[Wyvern]

My experience is that the funnel shape is best for piston tubas and bowl for rotary.

But that is just me - different combinations suit different people.

[Charlie Goodman]

My experience is that the funnel shape is best for piston tubas and bowl for rotary.

But that is just me - different combinations suit different people.

...and to further illustrate, I've always heard the opposite.

As far as the 191/1291 goes, I played with the TU 31 that came with mine for a couple years, but I really didn't care for the sound. I got a PT-48 and that's a lot better for me. I tried a whole bunch of Perantucci 'pieces, and I thought the 88 was waaayyy too big for either me or the tuba, not sure which.

[WakinAZ]

As far as the Bach 12 goes, the sound and response are right in betwen the Bach 18 and the Bach 7. This makes sense since it is exactly in between the 18 and the 7 in size.

Eric "who owns all three, but now is using a Conn Helleberg on his King, since all the Bachs sounded muddy with this horn" L.

[MikeMason]

To answer the original question, I'd say a pt50.