TubeNet

I have "searched the archives" and seen the comparison pictures, but still would like more information, and more opinions on these two pieces. I most likely will order one with the rounded "II" rim, but are currently undecided on which underparts (not underpants) will fit me best.

MartyNeilan wrote:I have "searched the archives" and seen the comparison pictures, but still would like more information, and more opinions on these two pieces. I most likely will order one with the rounded "II" rim, but are currently undecided on which underparts (not underpants) will fit me best.

I've heard bloke A/B version 1 and 2. Version 2 sounded a bit more "round". I did not play version 2 myself. I have version 1.

cktuba wrote:I will piggy-back on Marty's post and ask if anybody has compared these to similar mouthpieces (i.e. LOUD LM-10, Marcinkiewicz N4 or any of the Jim Self Models) on a 4/4+ CC. I can see where they would work well on an F or a BAT... but I am wondering how they would work on a 4/4. In particular I like the Jim Self models overall sound-- but it seems to be lacking a bit in the low range (for me, since I am obviously not Kryptonian like Jim Self).

So, have any of you out there had a chance to compare the Blokepiece to these known quantities???

It is funny you mention that equipment as I own or have owned all of it.

The Marc N4 is shallow. The inner dimension is very wide (33.66mm). The rim is wide. The throat is small (7.67mm). For me, I find the rim to be too wide, the inner dimension too wide, and the throat too small.

The LOUD LM-10 is shallow. The inner dimension is wide (33.5mm) . The rim is still pretty wide. The throat is quite big. At 8.3mm, the throat is bigger than a Conn Helleberg. While I do like it better than the N4 especially in the low register, I find the throat to be too big and the inner dimension too wide.

The Blokepiece is shallow. The inner dimension is wide (very close to 33mm), but a bit less so than the N4 or LM10. The rim is narrow (7mm). The throat is "normal" (around 8mm). It addresses all the things I don't like about the N4 and LM10. It plays really easily down low. I have to consciously *reduce* the amount of effort I use to play the low register on my RM else I over-articulate. The blokepiece plays down low really easily.

The Yamaha Jim Self is fairly deep, yet still sounds clear. It has a normal size throat. The rim is quite wide (C4 wide), but has a fairly square inner edge, more like a Rose Solo. It has a narrower inner dimension than anything mentioned above.

I hope this helps,

Christian

Owning and using the Solo (version 1) in one piece I am especially interested in reports whether there is a significant difference between that mouthpiece and the version 2 underpart combined with the flat/sharper edge rim of the version 1?

Klaus

Bloke,
I didn't know Ursula Andress played Tuba
Being Swiss she must play a Willson
One of the best Bond girls ever

Tuba-G Bass wrote:Bloke,
I didn't know Ursula Andress played Tuba
Being Swiss she must have played a Hirsbrunner
One of the best Bond girls ever

Sad to admit so, but apparently I am better in the know about elderly ladies. bloke used Brigitte Bardot as his lure.

K

Klaus writes "bloke used Brigitte Bardot as his lure"
And I fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
Not the first time I mix up the Blondes

Somewhere I missed the memo on the bloke II or is that the one i own?
I have the Selmansberger Solo
this is mine with the H-kote finish:





also how does it compare to the glitter gold kellyberg?

and when will they come out in lexan?

ken k

Your photo clearly shows the version #1:

The word Solo is one of the determining parameters.

The thick wall around the fairly small aperture of the shank end is the other one.

Klaus

Ken,

Yours is the #1.


I haven't thought about sparkles and lexan but it would make a nice Barbie Doll accessory I'll check with the Blokester..
Dave H.

thank you, so what is the difference with the # 2?
k

ken k wrote:thank you, so what is the difference with the # 2?
k

#2 is said to have same cup and reversed throat (the main idea of the blokepiece)

#2 has a rounded narrow rim versus the flattish rim of #1 with its sharper edge.

#2 has a more open backbore leading to a thinner wall at the aperture of the stem.

Klaus

bloke wrote:
#2 version differences: (subtle)
- rim is slightly narrower yet and more rounded - particularly on the outside edge
- back part of backbore (last 1/2" or so) opens out larger
' no other differences, except now BOTH versions are screw-rim and may be mixed/matched.

imperialbari wrote:
#2 is said to have same cup and reversed throat (the main idea of the blokepiece)
#2 has a rounded narrow rim versus the flattish rim of #1 with its sharper edge.
#2 has a more open backbore leading to a thinner wall at the aperture of the stem.
Klaus

OK, I am confused...
Although Klaus' second and third comments line up with what Joe posted earlier, his first one seems totally different, What gives?

The cup and throat are the same. Not mentioned as a difference. but as the continuum between the two versions.

Klaus

Hi-
Just received my 'Bloke I' screw rim mouthpiece today--it is fantastic--here are some pics:





I love the clarity and power of sound it produces--in fact, I just ordered up a 'Bloke II' screw rim mouthpiece this morning. Highly recommended!
Regards-
mark
jonestuba@Juno.com" target="_blank

My Blokepiece's arrived yesterday and I spent about two hours messing around with them in the garage. So far I am very impressed with both of them. They seem to work best for me on my f tubas but I wouldn't rule them out for a larger tuba that has clarity issues.

On my B&S Symphonie F the #1 is very responsive and has a similar sonic impact as a C4 or 69 C4 but has more even response. Articulations are fast and clean and the low register, low C in particular, is most excellent. What I really like about this mouthpiece is the sound: my B&S Symphonie is a fairly dark tuba for a small bore instrument, the tuba really lights up with this mouthpiece. I wouldn't necessarily say it's bright, it seems to have a more complete rendering of the overtone pallet in the sound. Highly recommended.

Blokepiece #2 is a bit darker and works well on my B&S but I prefer the livelier tone of #1 for that instrument. #2 does work very well with my Yamaha YFB822, however. #1 seems a bit tight for that horn but the #2 makes that tuba feel very secure and is much more even and responsive than with my Mirafone C4. The stock rim on the #2 is a bit too round for my taste so I'm ordering an extra #1 rim for that mouthpiece as well. Also there is a little frosty beer mug stamped on the side of #2, how could any tuba player resist that Again, highly recommended.

Bravo Joe!

Norm Pearson

HI-
Received my Bloke Mouthpiece #2 this morning and used it on a couple of gigs today--felt very nice, and loved the sound it produced on my c. 1960 Mirafone CC tuba--definitely will check out the #1 and #2 side by side and will interchange the rims on each also to see which I like best, but I have to say #2 is another very fine mouthpiece from Joe-highly recommended.
Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank

This particular variation is unsurpassed in the "ease of buzzing" department...

And there I thought the screw rim version was a quite new version, but yours already has oxidized all black. And wouldn’t The Lord of the Rings recommend an O-ring between the rim part and the underpart for better alignment?

I must have used my version #1 too little. It still looks like stainless steel. Hasn’t grown that yellow fungus either.

Klaus

The rim is H-Kote (titanium nitride) black-over-stainless-steel rim (very slick)
The cup is H-Kote (titanium nitride) gold-over-stainless-steel back-part (very...uh...Bloke Bumble Bee !! )

Very obvious additive. Isn’t nitride what conservationists put into their sausages to make the last?

K