TubeNet

I have never really liked Hellebergs. To me they make almost any tuba sound far too thick and/or tubby.


How about you? I am curious if any others feel similiarly.

I have found that when I play with a helleberg, I tend to be rather sharp, as opposed to playing with my Schilke 67, which is only slightly larger.

I tried one with my Conn 20K in marching band in college. It was fine. But so was my Bach 18. So, all the same to me.

That was 7 (damn!) years ago, so maybe I'd have a different opinion now?

Voted neutral as I don't currently own or use one but I did use one for many years before I bought my Eb and found it to be adequate for my needs at that time. Then I purchased one of the R&S heavys to have as a spare and really liked it compared to the Conn so it became my main piece and the Conn got relegated to back-up duty. Now I don't own either and am perfectly contented with what I have for my 983.

I am a longtime Bach mouthpiece user (36+ years) and do not like the response that I get from my Alexander using a Helleberg. However, some people sound very good on the Helleberg so I voted: neutral) I do not play one, but don't have a strong opinion either way.

best,
Mark

I started with a Helleberg and tried a Bach 18 for a little while just to see the difference. I prefer the tone of the H-berg and like the rim better than the Bach also.

The Bach wasn't a 'bad' mouthpiece, though. I could live with it if I didn't have the Helleberg.

But I do!

I used a Conn Helleberg back during my high school days, and I enjoyed it very much. I still use it for marching band on my Conn 20k sousaphone. It gets the job done.

I spent the summer concert season with a very special vintage Helleberg, and recieved several compliments on my tone (from conductors, too!) I generally play on Helleberg-style mouthpieces, but this is the first actual Conn Helleberg (simply stamped "H' on the cup, and "CONN BBbB" on the shank) that I've truly enjoyed using. Probably dating from the 30's, this is a smallish mouthpiece with a big sound, and a very comfortable rim. I was immediately impressed with the breadth of tone, especially coming from a mouthpiece smaller that what I usually use. I don't use the term "organ-like" to desribe the tone of any of my other mouthpieces but it is definitely appropriate here. I am in the process of producing replicas, and hope to have them ready by the end of next month. Yes, I've put my signature band around the middle, and no the shank won't have knurling (at least on the first run) but other than these small details it should be spot-on.


(I think I'll put this rim on a big Geib cup too, like the one I played the school's 1291 with.
Look for these at TUSAB-TEC.)

I tend to play Hellebergs on American horns if they make the horn sound the way I want it to. I tend to play bowl-shaped mouthpieces on rotary European/German style horns; Hellebergs just make them sound too dark and kind of blatty to me. The Bach line is kind of in the middle as far as I can tell.

[Some day, I would like to make molds of the inside of a Bach vs. a Perantucci-type bowl vs. a Conn Helleberg, etc., and really see what the shape is. It's hard for me to visualize looking into the playing end.]

Eric "who likes 'em all" L.

I own a couple of Hellebergs but there's a whole string of mouthpieces that I like better. My current choices are PT-48x and PT-50.

TubaTinker wrote:I own a couple of Hellebergs but there's a whole string of mouthpieces that I like better. My current choices are PT-48x and PT-50.

Dan, just out of curiosity, how would you compare the PT-48 and PT-50 to the Conn-type Hellebergs, other than being larger? They seem to share some attributes with Hellebergs (funnel cup, flattish rim).

Eric "PT-curious" L.

What does Helleberg mean?

The current Conn large Helleberg?

Also the Conn 7B?

Any Conn Helleberg type, marketed as such or not?

Schilke Helleberg, Helleberg II, 67, 66? Laskey 30H?

Anything with nominally funnel shaped cup, whether identified as a Helleberg influenced design or not? Including relatively shallow ones?

I personally hate them. But I won't steer a student away from one either unless I am sure that it is the culprit of a dysfunctional sound.

Donn wrote:What does Helleberg mean? ....

http://www.voigtarnsted.dk/helleberg/index.htm

Bob Kolada wrote:I have never really liked Hellebergs. To me they make almost any tuba sound far too thick and/or tubby.

Almost any tuba?

May be open to question as to whether they're technically Helleberg copies, but there are a few moderately shallow, moderately funnel shaped mouthpieces - Laskey 30F for example. I have Marcinkiewicz H3, H4 and particularly use them for my big Conn Bb sousaphone, which tends to sound dull to me with anything else. The shallow depth does what you would expect - makes the low end a little thin, but lightens tone and response. The funnel shape keeps the lighter tone from getting really bright - i.e., metallic. My ambition is a clearly audible bass voice - so some edge - but without drowning anyone else out.

Starting someone on a Dr. Young in the 5th grade is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard related to the tuba.

I can't remember ever having seen a Helleberg, let go having played one.

'They' 'say' that a DW 2L has a 'Helleberg style cup', whatever that means.
I like that mouthpiece, but I like my latest Tilz WH B2 better. My sound got better on the same tuba, so that's a good thing.

Wim

oedipoes wrote: 'They' 'say' that a DW 2L has a 'Helleberg style cup', whatever that means.

'They' 'lie', in my opinion. But it's complicated - you could more accurately describe cup shape with maybe three parameters - wall, floor, throat transition. The 2L resembles a Helleberg a bit in the throat and floor, but has `vertical' upper walls, and in the end, to my ears, it doesn't work the way a Helleberg should.

The Schilke "Helleberg" is a little this way - not as noticeably, though. I wish I had a Schilke Helleberg II, to compare the two - I think it's supposed to be an improvement.

The Wick 2L is NOT a Helleberg. The Wick 1L is a Helleberg-style, but still a little different. The Wick 2L is more of a hybrid cup. I'm sitting here with one right in front of me.

I like Hellebergs for the 3/4 size tubas. They have enough depth of cup to give these small tubas, like the King 1141, the smaller Conn, and such, some real tone. They sound good, including the Schilke HII, on a small bore souzy like the King or the Jupiter.

The shallower 7B is a great starter mouthpiece, and also works well on a 14K.

I have played a Conn Helleberg, off and on, for over 35 years. Some years ago, I participated in a seminar on mouthpieces, where each player used several mouthpieces on their own instrument, behind a screen, and a panel judged the sound. The panel was unanimous that I sounded best on my Alexander with the Helleberg.

This year, I spent over $1000 on mouthpieces, looking for one that made the dark but cutting sound I wanted from my Nirschl. After all that, I ended up back where I started, with the Helleberg. The Sidey Helleberg comes very close, but it does not play as well as my 1971 Conn.

I also recently modified a Laskey 30F to a Helleberg rim, for my F tuba. It works much better now.

BTW, I presume everyone here knows after whom the Helleberg is named?

I play a King 1241UB that I bought in 1972, and that I have kept in reasonably pristine condition over the last 37 years. I think 1241s are pretty "mouthpiece tolerant" instruments. That having been said, I tend to use my Conn Helleberg when I am playing in a large wind ensemble with two or three other tubas. It seems to provides a reasonably rich, full tone with strong fundamentals, and blends well with the other tubas/low brass instruments. When I am the only tuba playing in a small ensemble, I seem to prefer my blessing 18. For me, it provides a more nimble, brighter and "sweeter" tone that emphasizes more of the overtones. It just seems to work well in small groups. But at the end of the day, my 1241 sounds like my 1241, and I pretty much sound like me, regardless of what mouthpiece I use. The changes in tone, intonation and articulation are VERY subtle, and probably only heard (imagined?) by me.