TubeNet

I lost my mouthpiece. Yeah, right, you all say, and I hereby open myself up to all the chastisement the forum wants to give me. I deserve it. I don't know if it fell out of a pocket, got picked up by someone somewhere, or what, but one day a few weeks ago, my old funnel shaped Wick 1 just disappeared.

After taking about a month to figure out what I should do about it, and to set aside some cash for a replacement, I sent an email to Doc Fox at militarymusician.com asking what was available. He told me only the new "Heritage" style was now being made, with its "traditional" look with a thinner rim than the older funnel style I used to have, but with the weight moved to the throat.

Well, not wanting to spend time looking for a used replacement, and after finding out the new Alliance series only comes in the now-standard .520 shank (I have the old small .490 receiver), I ordered a new Wick 1 from Doc.

It came today. I had it sent to my work address, since package delivery is marginally better than my home address, and I even took my Besson to work today so I could slip out during lunch to give it a hoot and a hollar.

WOW! I now know why Wick changed the exterior profile of their mouthpieces. By making the rim thinner, it is now more responsive to me. By putting the weight on the throat, it is now more stable regarding intonation and dynamic changes as well. At times, I had problems with my old Wick 1 both feeling like it could take more work than I wanted to give it, and at various times wrapping a small piece of golfer's lead tape around the throat, then taking it off, then putting a different sized piece on in a different place, etc. I don't have to do that now. I am immenently pleased with this new mouthpiece, and look forward to many years on it. I bought a plastic sleeve for it, and I now have a satchel that I keep all such accessories in, music, oil & grease, pencil, tuner, mouthpieces, towel, etc., so there is less chance of losing this one.

Thanks to Doc Fox ever so much for tracking one down for me and getting it to me so quickly.

If you normally use an older style Wick mouthpiece in the funnel shape, and have any concern about response or stability in your playing, you owe it to yourself to try one of the new "Heritage" style mouthpieces.

Interesting. I've been playing an a 2SL for a few years now, and wanted to get one in gold (I like the way it feels better than silver), but I balked at this idea because of the change. I may end up getting a new one yet...

I interchange between my trusty Denis Wick 3L of the old design and a new "Heritage" 3L, and to be honest, I can't really feel much difference in behaviour or sound between the two. I've even had the long-suffering wife assist by inserting each of them in turn into the Sov EEb while I sat with eyes closed and tried to guess which one I was actually blowing. It was only luck that determined the result. They do, after all, share exactly the same cup and rim dimensions, only the outer shape and weight has changed. Having said that, I do appreciate the lighter weight of the Heritage when I'm carrying the thing in my warm pocket on a cold winter's day, and it puts a smaller dent in the bell if you drop it.

Thanks. It may not be a particular player's "cup of tea," but the combination of the Besson 17 inch bell and the Wick 1 is one of those classic combinations and classic voices that just have to be heard in context and thoroughly appreciated. If you happen to stumble across some of my old posts about the Wick 1, you will read that my only real complaint about the old funnel version was that occasionally I would just crack so bad it would shatter and blat.

This evening, having an hour or so after dinner, I was able to really put it thorough its paces and confirm my first impressions of quicker response, wider dynamic range, and security of intonation.

Nailing runs like the break strain in "The Thunderer" march, with all those accidentals in A maj on the second motif, and better transition over the inherently stuffy B nat and C were just a joy.

I actually had to make myself stop so I could get the house quiet for my son's bedtime. Now, I'm actually going to have to get those leaks fixed in my Besson that I have wrapped with lead tape right now so I can complete the enjoyment.

I posted this some time ago, and it's time to repeat my take on the recent MasterCard campaign ads:

Getting my classic Besson BBb 3-valve comp home off Ebay (with all original hardware intact), including shipping and necessary repairs: @$600.
New Wick 1 "Heritage" mouthpiece from Doc Fox, including shipping: @$80.
Chugging along on the Holst Military Suite on the type of tuba it was written for: priceless.

Yes, Dr. Pl. Ace Bo is a master in these short term wonder remedies for everything. Guess Denis Wick really should promote the positive effect of his mouthpieces on the fingering of odd key fast figures. The intense concentration of a player highly motivated by his new HERITAGE toy of cause will have to be dismissed in any sane considerations.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

If I look on the Dillon's site at the Wick pieces - I see my 2L:




And then the 2XL that looks like a new style:




Then on the Wick site I found a reference to the "Heritage" line:



I believe the Heritage pictured is for bone - is this the mouthpiece iiipopes found for tuba, or is it the "XL" above?

imperialbari wrote:Yes, Dr. Pl. Ace Bo is a master in these short term wonder remedies for everything. Guess Denis Wick really should promote the positive effect of his mouthpieces on the fingering of odd key fast figures. The intense concentration of a player highly motivated by his new HERITAGE toy of cause will have to be dismissed in any sane considerations.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

Klaus, you are being snide, and I do not appreciate it. If there is anybody on this forum that discounts placebo effect, it is me.

I will accept your apology.

brianggilbert wrote:If I look on the Dillon's site at the Wick pieces - I see my 2L:

As I posted above, this is the "old" funnel style like my old Wick 1, that is no longer made.

brianggilbert wrote:And then the 2XL that looks like a new style:




Then on the Wick site I found a reference to the "Heritage" line:



I believe the Heritage pictured is for bone - is this the mouthpiece iiipopes found for tuba, or is it the "XL" above?

All of the new tuba mouthpieces are made with this change in outer geometry, retaining the rim profile, cup diameter and geometry, throat and backbore specs.

If anybody has plans to mail order one of the new Denis Wick mouthpieces in the new "Heritage" outer design, be careful, there is some of the old "funnel" shaped items still in stock, and suppliers are looking at ways of moving them. International internet purchasers are particularly vunerable. Specify the new "Heritage" design in your internet order. Without naming names, you will find that "In Stock" suddenly changes to "Expected in 2-3 weeks" . I got caught when ordering a DW 2L for an older friend who is not on the net. International shipping returns are expensive.

iiipopes wrote:Klaus, you are being snide, and I do not appreciate it. If there is anybody on this forum that discounts placebo effect, it is me.

I can understnad your reaction to Klaus' post, however I would add one small "*" to that. For me, if it works, it works. I don't care what is physically true. If I believe it helps me, then I believe it helps me. Works for me.

iiipopes wrote:

imperialbari wrote:Yes, Dr. Pl. Ace Bo is a master in these short term wonder remedies for everything. Guess Denis Wick really should promote the positive effect of his mouthpieces on the fingering of odd key fast figures. The intense concentration of a player highly motivated by his new HERITAGE toy of cause will have to be dismissed in any sane considerations.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

Klaus, you are being snide, and I do not appreciate it. If there is anybody on this forum that discounts placebo effect, it is me.

I will accept your apology.

Background: Your writing displays a very acute joy with a new playing tool. Most of us have experienced such situations, but also have learned that not all of the achieved benefits are lasting through everyday work situations.

iiipopes wrote:Nailing runs like the break strain in "The Thunderer" march, with all those accidentals in A maj on the second motif, and better transition over the inherently stuffy B nat and C were just a joy.

You write as if it was new for you to nail those accidentals and that you did so because of the new mouthpiece. I don't believe there being a causality between a mouthpiece and mastering a key, which may be less than standard for band players.

It is all fine that you are happy with your new mouthpiece. Your evaluation had been more helpful if not written in a situation, where you were that aroused by its arrival. I didn't attempt to be snide. I just rephrased the punch line of a well-known fairy tale.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

euphomate wrote: I got caught when ordering a DW 2L for an older friend who is not on the net.

I had precisely the opposite experience, I ordered a 2L when the illustrations still showed the old style, and was mighty surprised to see this thing come out of the box. I don't really care for it, honestly. From the description, I expected something more like the 5, which is funnel shaped inside and works very well for me. But while I liked the old exterior shape better, it's purely a cosmetic difference as far as I'm concerned.

And of course the cosmetics would only matter if I were going to be playing it, though good point above, about what works. I think I know pretty well exactly what I don't like about the sound of that mouthpiece and why it sounds that way, but even if I'm wrong about that, and really it just doesn't work for me because it looks dorky ... the reason doesn't really matter so much, as long as I end up playing something that does work for me.

Donn wrote:And of course the cosmetics would only matter if I were going to be playing it, though good point above, about what works. I think I know pretty well exactly what I don't like about the sound of that mouthpiece and why it sounds that way, but even if I'm wrong about that, and really it just doesn't work for me because it looks dorky ... the reason doesn't really matter so much, as long as I end up playing something that does work for me.

If you know exactly why the 2L doesn't work for you, a such description would be very interesting to read. What is counterproductive for you may be the solution to the problems of other players. Anyway precise descriptions are educative reading.

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

Klaus,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I am happy with the mouthpiece. I am happy because it is a superior mouthpiece that facilitates my playing better than the old style did. I only gave two examples that I felt were illustrative of how the mouthpiece functions as a tool that does facilitate the playing: the one example in the context of the embouchure stability in an upper part of the range, and in the other one inherent ideosyncracy of 3-valve comp tubas that may not be such on conventional tubas or 4-valve comp tubas; not that it made my fingers any faster or more accurate.

You are extrapolating where you should not regarding my overall playing. When it comes to tuba playing, I consider myself only an accomplished amateur at best, and confess to that freely. But in other contexts over the decades I have performed professionally on other instruments, and so I am as aware of the "new toy" syndrome better than most, and take pains to discount that syndrome and step back when reviewing a new tool of the trade. The comments about the new style Wick 1 are in such a context: measured, complimentary, but still objective with specific attributes described with specificity and in a relational manner that invites others to share their experiences.

So, back to where we were, I will still accept your apology, for whether you meant to or not, it was still snide, and you were out of line taking a personal shot, instead of merely stating, like the other gentleman above, that his experience was different in not noticing any difference between the new and old style 3L. Your subsequent post was nothing but a justification for your prior remark.

You have historically been a most useful resource for a lot of tuba related issues. Up until now, I have also read with appreciation your posts and benefitted from your experience and insight. You have also indicated some personal circumstances that you were dealing with to try not to compromise the high level and integrity of your posts. We all have respected that. Your prior two posts are not doing anything to maintain that respect.

--

iiipopes wrote:
So, back to where we were, I will still accept your apology, for whether you meant to or not, it was still snide, and you were out of line taking a personal shot, instead of merely stating, like the other gentleman above, that his experience was different in not noticing any difference between the new and old style 3L. Your subsequent post was nothing but a justification for your prior remark.

You have historically been a most useful resource for a lot of tuba related issues. Up until now, I have also read with appreciation your posts and benefitted from your experience and insight. You have also indicated some personal circumstances that you were dealing with to try not to compromise the high level and integrity of your posts. We all have respected that. Your prior two posts are not doing anything to maintain that respect.

When you come down from the panegyrics, you rather will be happy that I pulled the brake on your hype. If the changes in the DW designs were much more than a combination of making all of their models heavyweight without the booster known from their smaller mouthpieces and of making a visual reshuffle to reinvigorate their sales, then all makers would follow their lead.

I used to play the DW 1L on my 981. I found it restricting to my dynamic and range potentials, so I contacted Bob Tucci in Munich on the phone. He is very helpful aside of his evident competences as a player and designer. However he found my choice among his models out of line with my tuba. Yet he sent me a PT-50.

It arrived a Saturday morning at the post office. I took it back before noon and tested it. I found the sound too bright and started doing my usual opening of the backbore testing it all the time on the 981 and the Conn 26K, my only basses back then. I went directly for the sore spots. The range just above the pedal on the 981 was improved, but did not become perfect. Actually I don't expect mouthpieces to solve my problems. I just want them out of harms' way. That is: I want the space to let the embouchure muscles work freely, which includes the sense of resistance created by the combination of mouthpiece and instrument. Then at one point of the modification one part of the modification made an odd problem from the DW 1L era disappear. The range above the 9th partial on the 26K was no longer flat. I could direct the air sufficient effective to play in tune up there. If the high notes make good standing waves on their own, they are much more likely to ring along as overtones, when lower notes are played. That gives richness to the sound and removes the sense of stuffiness.

I played that mouthpiece a few hours ago, as it still is my only mouthpiece to be used on my large receiver tubas and sousaphones in Eb and BBb. I bought a second sample of the PT-50 from Bob Tucci. That one has been much less modified, as I wanted it as a brighter alternative for pushing the tempo in band marches on my very mellow York Master BBb tuba. It never came into real use, as I don't like its less than full sound.

My first day with the originally bought PT-50 had elements of disaster to it. I had suffered an allergic stomach problem a couple of days before. One can recover rather fast from these as compared to attacks by bacteria and vira. Only I had not realised, how much I had dehydrated. The afternoon had a surprise celebration of a section mates' 40 years work jubilee. I happened to be the only tuba showing up. The hostess had given me a 1.5liter bottle of water, which I had half emptied while waiting outside before the performance. Suddenly during one of the light pieces my lungs went totally dry. The larger mouthpiece had caused a larger turnover of air. The temperature was high, and I had no spare water in the body. Dry lungs are stiff and playing looses efficiency. So I put down the tuba after that number and ran out for the remaining water. At each break between numbers I drank heavily. I didn't blame the mouthpiece, as it is just a pick-up tool for the player's buzzed air. And I tried to become more aware always having a large bottle of water available when playing.

This was a report on parts of my first day with a PT-50. There is a funnier story of what happened later that day, but that story was already told back then in 1999.

I have given an apology for a geographical misreading a few days ago. I don't know if that has started a new trend of wanting apologies from me. There will be no one for my previous postings on this thread, as I have been very kind on your postings (also on the newbie thread).

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre

Klaus,

You could have just said that a Wick 1L didn't work out for you and why, and left all the other bullshit out.

I also tried a Wick 1L on my 186 for some time. It had good breadth of tone, but the throat and backbore were too open for the horn, and I had problems with breath management and articulation definition on the lowest range. So on the advice of Matt @ Dillons, I got the Curry 128D which matches a 186 better. So my compliments to Denis Wick on the new style of mouthpiece are not "hype," nor "rave," nor any other expression of hyperbole. They are my straightforward impressions of the mouthpiece. Others will have different experiences with the same mouthpiece, good and bad.

If you will note recent mouthpiece designs, the folks at Alliance are also making the rim a little thinner and putting more mass at the throat. LOUD does this, and other top mouthpiece makers such as Scott Laskey have never veered from the "traditional" profile. Mike Finn makes his mouthpieces this way, recognizing his inspriation coming from an old King 26, which has a similar "traditional" profile as well. Schilke makes them this way. These are just a few of the people who actually do make their mouthpieces this way.

I have yet to play a Perantucci that works for me. But I know better than to denegrate those who play them because they are fine mouthpieces that have been carefully designed and manufactured to meet other players' requirements.

What the other guys said: learn your English better so you don't misinterpret postings, whether from me or any of the other forum members.

Scooby: thank you for helping oil the waters.

imperialbari wrote:

Donn wrote: I think I know pretty well exactly what I don't like about the sound of that mouthpiece and why it sounds that way ...

If you know exactly why the 2L doesn't work for you, a such description would be very interesting to read. What is counterproductive for you may be the solution to the problems of other players. Anyway precise descriptions are educative reading.

Well, here my mastery of the English language has proved inadequate, for the word "exactly" is more ambiguous both grammatically and semantically than I wish it had been. WIth that disclaimer, the tone I get from my 2L is sort of "tinny" - relatively speaking, something is lacking from the upper mid range, compared to the more funnel shaped mouthpieces that I use mostly. And contradicting the manufacturer's description, it is not a "funnel shaped Helleberg type cup" - at the rim, the cup walls appear to be parallel, not sloped. The lower part of the cup is sloped enough that it can't really be called "bowl shaped", but the effect on tone is somewhat similar.

Indeed, others might like this effect. In fact, perhaps others would like it from me - there's no guarantee that what I like to hear from behind the tuba is going to be good for an ensemble. I suppose for those who like such things, this is just the sort of thing they would like. But then they have a lot of mouthpieces to choose from, since the majority of tuba mouthpieces are not particularly funnel shaped, even when advertised as such. It's as though Conn holds some patent on that shape.

Since nobody else will, I will.

I apologize for all the collateral damage that the exchange between Klaus and myself has caused.

Scooby, I did read your post, and not gloss. You are a gentleman to post in the moderated manner that you posted.

To everybody else, I can understand that after this all if you think I am an unmitigated son of a bitch. If the consensus of the forum is such that all believe I overreacted, then I accept that, and make amends accordingly.

I was only trying to post, and open up for positive discussion, my experiences with the new Wick 1 "Heritage" profile mouthpiece, and how in my experience I deem it superior to the older exterior "funnel" profile of Wick mouthpieces.

I guess it's my turn to buy the beer, or other preferred beverage of choice.

Without starting an international incident - the 2XL that I asked about before - is that the same piece you're now playing (I guess it would be the 1XL)?

According to WWBW those orders involve some lead time...