Small mouthpieces on large bore tubas

[TheGoyWonder]

On large tubas (or maybe just large bore) I find smaller mouthpieces get a better tone, like a 191 with a PT-82 or a 20J with a 7B. But then the low range becomes difficult, especially after playing some midrange notes with nice thick tone and then dropping to a lower note without falling off too severely. As compared to a Helleberg or greater which plops the low notes but is a bit hollow/dead for me.

Is this something that players usually overcome, or is small mp/large bore a constant struggle? I'm tempted to think a tuba that starts with a smaller bore would allow a larger mouthpiece while maintaining cohesive tone, thus making low range easier. I've found that with 3/4 horns but maybe extrapolated to larger bodied .68x"-family instruments?

[Rick Denney]

On large tubas (or maybe just large bore) I find smaller mouthpieces get a better tone, like a 191 with a PT-82 or a 20J with a 7B. But then the low range becomes difficult, especially after playing some midrange notes with nice thick tone and then dropping to a lower note without falling off too severely. As compared to a Helleberg or greater which plops the low notes but is a bit hollow/dead for me.

Is this something that players usually overcome, or is small mp/large bore a constant struggle? I'm tempted to think a tuba that starts with a smaller bore would allow a larger mouthpiece while maintaining cohesive tone, thus making low range easier. I've found that with 3/4 horns but maybe extrapolated to larger bodied .68x"-family instruments?

It can be overcome. But for big tubas, which have a tendency to sound woofy, a mouthpiece with a more pronounced cup shape might add the crispness back into the sound without compromising the low register. Examples include the Sellmansberger Symphony and the Stofer Geib.

Rick "who has used both on his big tubas" Denney

[Donn]

Don't forget the internal mouthpiece mysteries - throat diameter is easy to see though often neglected, but there's also a back bore down there, and details of the transition from cup to throat to backbore probably matter too. Heck, grime in there could even matter. Along with depth, width, volume, shape - where there are really kind of an infinite variety of shapes, none of which is really conical or round. And they all kind inter-relate, with each other and with your own physical parameters and playing style, so it's hard to dial in an answer!

I personally think a medium size mouthpiece like that should speak OK on the normal contrabass tuba low range. At worst, maybe with less attack and tone, but this is stuff that can be worked on, and it's worth it if it's the best option for sound overall.

[Doug Elliott]

Rim diameter is more about what your chops need to function through the range.
Cup depth, shape, throat, and backbore are more about what the horn needs to resonate through the range.

When you go "smaller" overall (or larger) but get away from the rim inner diameter that your chops need, the low range will suffer (or the high range).

If a very large tuba needs more focus, get a shallower cup, but keep the rim size that allows you to play all ranges. I like to match backbores and shank tapers too, but other mouthpieces don't allow you to do that.