TubeNet

the cup depth extender is interesting and could as you menitoned take a bit of the edge off of the solo cup. Can they be made out of metal?
i would be interested in trying one.
ken k

Owning 3 blokepieces, one original #1 solo and 2 of those with screw rims, I actually have thought along the same lines of extending the cup depths. But please bear with me, as I thought about getting large O-rings for the project.

Anyway my thoughts so far on the blokepieces are these:

The original #1 solo is very playable with my Boosey F comper, with my 1870 small bore Eb, and with my Alexander 163-sized German Martin CC.

The #2 is very playable on my Besson 981 Eb comper. The sound is not overly bright, yet brighter than the almost contrabass style sound I got with the PT-50. I have tried this mouthpiece on my 4/4 and 5/4 BBb basses. Very playable, but the sound somewhat less open than I want.

The Symphony gives me the sound I want on the BBb basses, but I need to be in a better shape than currently to get the control in the upper mid-range, that I want.

All of my rims are the wider and flatter #1 style, which however has the exact same profile of the inner edge as has the #2. I like wide cup diameters even if they put a quite heavy demand on the player being in good shape embouchure- and airwise.

Klaus

I would certainly buy the cup extender, just to try it. It can't cost that much. I have recently taken delivery on a Symphony model with the Helleberg rim, and, so far, like it very much. I have probably tried every Helleberg rim on the market, and they have all disappointed me (relative to a real c. 1972 Conn Helleberg), except this one, which is superb. The sound of the mpc is exactly what I want on my horn, despite (or perhaps because of) the slightly shallower cup. However, more experiments wouldn't hurt.

It might work well for moving from brass quintet to orchestra.

Trivia: in 1977, while teaching at Colorado State University, I tested a prototype tuba mpc with cup depth adjustable through a screw mechanism. I thought it might be a winner, but the company folded suddenly. Never knew what happened.

SK

My conclusion is that these mouthpieces are for engineer/tuba players. As far as I can tell, you're on your own to figure out what would do best for you. For a non-engineer, it's too perplexing to figure out which underpart and which rim, and as mouthpieces go it's a lot of money to lay down on a bet.

As for rims:

#1 as well as #2 have the same fairly, but not overly, sharp inner edge. bloke wants to stir his nose in everything, only not into his mouthpieces, so he recommends #2. I have sufficiently of lip area and like flatter rims, so I chose #1.

As for underparts, then the shank size is very much dependent on the receivers of your tubas. Mine are small European through American, so mine are all American.

As for backbores I have both in the Solo series for small and large bass tubas respectively (also for a 4/4 rotary CC). I have the Symphony for my BBb basses, but that mouthpiece takes players in good shape. The inner diameter of the #1 and #2 rims are both on the large side offering full sounds, they are not for sissy embouchures.

Some pro players have reported on using the original Solo #1 with their very large CC tubas.

I see I am replying to a post been pulled and to a post telling advice being meaningless. Hurrah!

Klaus

imperialbari wrote:As for rims:

#1 as well as #2 have the same fairly, but not overly, sharp inner edge. bloke wants to stir his nose in everything, only not into his mouthpieces, so he recommends #2. I have sufficiently of lip area and like flatter rims, so I chose #1.

As for underparts, then the shank size is very much dependent on the receivers of your tubas. Mine are small European through American, so mine are all American.

As for backbores I have both in the Solo series for small and large bass tubas respectively (also for a 4/4 rotary CC). I have the Symphony for my BBb basses, but that mouthpiece takes players in good shape. The inner diameter of the #1 and #2 rims are both on the large side offering full sounds, they are not for sissy embouchures.

Some pro players have reported on using the original Solo #1 with their very large CC tubas.

I see I am replying to a post been pulled and to a post telling advice being meaningless. Hurrah!

Klaus

No, advice is what I want! I've just had a hard time getting any.

talleyrand wrote:My conclusion is that these mouthpieces are for engineer/tuba players. As far as I can tell, you're on your own to figure out what would do best for you. For a non-engineer, it's too perplexing to figure out which underpart and which rim, and as mouthpieces go it's a lot of money to lay down on a bet.

Well, the alternative is to try out all 50 or 100 PT mouthpieces, if you prefer not having to experiment with 6 or 8 pieces and parts.

The system is utterly non-engineer-oriented. Any engineer would require (or develop) a design guide based on fulfilling requirements. The engineering approach would make it more deterministic and less experimental. But since we don't really know much about mouthpieces beyond what we can experience, and since everyone seems to prefer something a little different from everyone else for reasons nearly impossible to explain or model, we have to settle for mostly non-engineering methods, such as trying things to see if they work and sending them back (or selling them off) if they don't.

Rick "figuring the average 50-year-old tuba player owns at least a dozen mouthpieces, all bought with a complete lack of engineering process" Denney

I've lost track of the number of rims, but either way, there are only 2 underparts, so the number of combinations is only 2 x (number of rims). Not bad at all, plus you can cut out some number of them automatically if you know what you don't want (e.g., I would not want Lexan).

So can I safely assume that if I only play in ensembles, never "solo", I want the Symphony underpart?

Can I assume that if a Helleberg rim is working great for me in BBb horn, one of the Helleberg style rims will be the way to go with a Blokepiece in an F?

Okay, thanks.

I'm sending bloke an order by snail mail for a Symphony underpart and a small Helleberg style rim. I still feel like I'm at Keeneland, but with at least somewhat more information than if it was my first time.

bloke wrote:

skeath wrote:...I have probably tried every Helleberg rim on the market, and they have all disappointed me (relative to a real c. 1972 Conn Helleberg), except this one, which is superb...

SK

I REALLY appreciate the nice comments, but a possible reason that you might like it could (??) be that the cup isn't a Helleberg cup.

Yes, I realize that. I was concerned with the rim only. If the rim contour (flatness), rim width, or cup width are not to my liking (within a very small tolerance), the cup shape/contour is irrelevant. I like the sound of the Bach 7 on my horn, but don't like the rim; the Symphony with a Helleberg rim seems to bring together the best features of the Bach 7, the Laskey 30H, and the Conn Helleberg, but in steel. I have only played it a few days, and on one concert, but so far it seems very promising.

SK

LJV wrote:

bloke wrote:I should have just said "deep bass".

Define "deep..."

http://www.contrabass.com/" target="_blank

So. . . with the spacer I could have my Sellmansberger Symphony and Solo, then extend the Solo to the "BlokePiece Quinet" or the "BlokePiece Chamber" ?!?

j/k, but I would be interested in the spacer to have a mouthpiece in between, maybe for playing solo on my CC. . .

let us know, Joe.

--T. J. "who already has too many mouthpieces, but can't seem to part with any of them" Ricer

tuben wrote:That, or you could just do the Apple thing...

Bloke, would you please wear a black turtleneck and give an overhyped speech next time you release a new mouthpiece/rim?

bloke wrote:I have JUST the logo to stick on the side of a mouthpiece for some of you guys...

Appropriately, this mouthpiece (specifically designed for "bad" playing of "bad" tubas) will be the equivalent of the ever-popular Kuan-Yin 24AW, except the backbore will be jam-packed with a bunch of worn-out Limbaugh cochlear implant batteries.

I see bloke very seriously accommodates to the engineering point of view on this topic which some despise, which some deny the existence of, and which I like, even if I don’t have the deeper understanding of all parameters in mouthpiece-making.

I like bloke’s attempt of describing cup and rim variants, yet we already have seen better descriptions than words are able to provide, when it comes to the #1 and #2 rims:



For nerds like me it would be helpful to see the curves for all available rim contours. I am especially interested in one of the Helleberg interpretations.

Maybe the most radically rounded version (#2?) should be used as the reference for a set of paired comparisons. Putting all curves in one illustration might end up quite confusing.

Klaus