TubeNet

To try a little different flavor of tone, and a little bit different low end response characteristic on my 186, and on recommendation of Matt at Dillons, I'm trying a Curry 128D next week.

Anybody want to throw in any observations about Curry mouthpieces as I anticipate delivery?

Last year when I was trying quite a few mouthpieces for my new (to me) Mira 184 CC, the Curry 126D was one of my three finalists--and the only non-stainless steel of the three. (I ended up with the GW Taku.)

Their D cup is a really brilliant and unique design. It's a deep funnel that is very slightly rounded just at the bottom, making it a sort of best-of-both-worlds mpc: the funnel gives depth and darkness to the sound, while the slight rounding really helps with articulation. If I'd had a 128 instead of 126--or if they came in stainless--or if I could afford to buy more than one mouthpiece--I may well have gotten one.

They have an elegant shape and seem to be quite well made.

Happy tooting. Let us know what you think.

Thanks. I've tried a friend's Taku, and a LOUD LM-7, and if absolute razor sharp articulation was what I was after, one of those two may have been my choice. But, as you say about the Curry, I'm looking for a depth and breadth of tone with good articulation.

Even though I absolutely love the really broad tone of my Wick 1L, I ran up against my limit with amount of air and articulation with my Wick 1L last spring, and even with more practice, I'm at my limit with lung capacity, etc., due to blood thinners. The Wick 1L has a 8.4mm throat and the Curry has an 8.2mm throat. That isn't much, but my Kelly 18 also has @ 8.2mm throat as measured, and I can really get on it outdoors. But what the Kelly has in core and projection it's lacking in breadth.

It's not just throat, but it's backbore as well, and the Wick 1L has a huge backbore as well. The Kelly is tighter, but not so tight I lose low end as I did on a Schilke 67 I tried about a year ago. The Schilke was incredibly smooth and had great top and mids, but for me it went too far the other way and I couldn't get enough air and low end out of it. I also have a more recent Bach 18, but something in the transition from the throat to the backbore is not together on it, and it feels and sounds grainy and stuffy, in spite of its 8.4mm throat also. I think that's just that particular mouthpiece, however, as I understand recent Bach tuba mouthpieces, just as all others, are different from either the early Selmer or Mt Vernon versions of the same number.

So I'm really looking forward to the Curry.

Thanks for your input.

I had the exact same experience with the Schilke 67.

I hope you like the Curry. I think they're under-appreciated.

OK, it's here. I've had a full evening of playing, both solo stuff and with my long time friend from grade school that now plays euph and has a music ed degree so I can get objective feedback, both positive and negative, if necessary. Short answer: perfect fit. (Well, as perfect as a mouthpiece can be, as we all know the tradeoffs). The Curry is a hybrid cup, with mostly a funnel contour but rounding at the very bottom to a .324 throat and a conventional backbore.

Here's why I tried it: I love my Wick 1 for my Besson, and actually sound better on that combination than any other. But my director likes the sound of the Miraphone better (darker) for concert band. So, as you would think, I first got a Wick 1L for it: same mouthpiece, just a longer shank of larger diameter -- standard "American" .520 at the tip instead of the Besson .490. But this lengthening of the shank on a the 8.4mm bore changed the characteristic of the blow of the mouthpiece to the point I was just losing air inefficiently in a big way, although I loved the big, broad tone and so did the band. The best I can describe the effect of the longer shank is the same as putting a high-rise manifold under a Holly 750 on a small block. When you do that, the runners in the manifold are too large to maintain velocity of the mixture, and your mixture drops out, and the engine runs rough, if it runs at all. The Wick 1 on the Besson, on the other hand, with its short shank, is more like the triple two-inch SU's into the short straight intake manifold of my E-type. Yes, it's overcarburetted at idle, and can lope if you're not careful with a tuneup, but since it's straight in, it still has immediate throttle response, especially through the midrange, as does my Besson.

So, on the advice of Matt @ Dillons, I tried the Curry. It has the same funnel cup at the top and middle of the cup for a good broad tone, but at the bottom curves in a little bit to the slightly smaller throat and conventional backbore, like the matching Edlebrock Performer manifold to a 650cfm 4-barrel. It's also just the tiniest bit shallower than the Wick, but I mean only the tiniest bit. This translated for me, since I don't have the largest air support, to a better overall even tone, more consistent response and intonation, or what would be called in hot-rod lingo "streetability," on the long leadpipe of the Miraphone.

And the best part: all have the same cup diameter and very, very similar rim geometry, so switching between them is a non-issue.

Further musings: Yes, it is not as "open" a blow as a lot of other mouthpieces. But I don't have as large a capacity I used to have, either. If I were 20 years younger, I'd consider having the throat widen from .324 to .327, but not as wide as the 8.43mm or .332 on the Wick. But I'm not, and I won't.

I'm getting great blend with my friend on euph, and he also commented favorably. I believe I will get an even better blend in section in community band than last year, especially as I get better acquainted with the mouthpiece. The low range is centering better with no harsh fly-offs as before. The upper range is going to take some work. But as this is a community band, top of the staff and above the staff are not the order of the day, so I'm not too concerned, just one more item to focus on to make sure with the smaller throat I still keep velocity up as I go up the register.

This would be a great mouthpiece for a King tuba as well, because the throat and backbore not only would fit the long leadpipe of a rotary, but the shorter but smaller bore of the King.

Congratulations, iii!

I'm very happy that it worked out for you. And thanks for the report, though I confess to not fully following the automotive similes.

It's making me want to try the 128D, since I only tried the 126D . . . .