TubeNet

I'm sure you looked at the title and thought something different, but for you who are clean of mind........

Is there a real difference in using a bowl shape as opposed to a funnel shape in mouthpieces when considering a rotary horn or piston horn?

I know what many will tell you.....funnels are for pistons, bowls are for rotors. I think it is a bit more of a personal choice that works differently for everyone. I've used a PT-88 as my main mouthpiece on a couple of piston tubas over the years. I recently tried out a 1292, and liked the response of the tuba with the 88 better than that of the GW Baer that I sampled along with it.

To each his own on this. I just don't think it's as clear as pistons-funnel, rotors-bowl.

ckalaher1 wrote:I know what many will tell you.....funnels are for pistons, bowls are for rotors.

All generalizations are false, and this one isn't even useful. (I'm not attributing this to you--I realize you are quoting "conventional wisdom.")

My Miraphone 186 plays better with a funnel, and my Holton prefers a bowl. The Holton doesn't need the mouthpiece to make a round tone--it does that all by itself. And the Miraphone can get rather buzzy with a cup. Based on those two common examples, I might generalize the opposite of what you quoted above.

But my York Master prefers something a bit more funnelish, and the little plastic Martin even moreso. The sousaphones like their bowls. I use a pretty shallow bowlish mouthpiece in my B&S, and the same mouthpiece works well in my Yamaha 621. I'm trying the imagine the basis for any generalization.

Rick "choosing a mouthpiece for each horn on its own merits" Denney

I use the mouthpiece that sounds the way I want to sound, responds the way I would expect the mouthpiece to respond, is compatible with the instrument (intonation, fits in teh receiver, etc), and the rim has the feel I like against my lips. I know this does not really answer your question, but these are the things for which I look in selecting a mouthpiece.

Good luck!

Just like anything else, it depends. The PT82, a deep bowl of the PT "German" series, sounds great on a large bell throat tuba, like the GR51/PT605. Just about anything will work on a 186, although the Curry D cup (hybrid) that Matt Walters recommended to me does fantastic for my retrofit St Pete bell. My custom Kanstul, which is half way between a Bach 18 and a Kelly 18 in cup geometry sounds best with my recording bell on my 186. A guy I played in section with a couple of years ago played a Bach 18 on his century-old rotary and sounded fantastic.

It's not whether it's rotors versus pistons. It's the bell geometry that makes more of a difference. The new Miraphones with the wider flared bell sound better with the Miraphone Rose Orchestra mouthpiece, a deeper, more funnel shape. The older "stovepipe" bells sounded better with the C4/TU23. Those are my observations. YMMV.

As you figure it out with actual mouthpieces and a tuba, be sure to make a recording and go by that. And ask people in the room who are good judges. I've been learning again that you can't go by what the bell sounds like sitting by your ear.

I'm going to have some mouthpieces for sale pretty soon that sound great in my left ear, but a recording and some informed opinion from others told a different story.

Like 8 years ago, a fellow tuba player and I talked about making a website with a matrix of tuba's matched up with what mouthpieces people played them with. The idea was for a three tab "page". Left had instrument and instrument specs. Center was mpc's. Right had a brief 500 char or less description by each "entry" of how the mouthpiece played/sounded on that horn.

Sounds like something like this is still needed... I know I wrote up a .php script that did the injections automatically. IE, anyone could send an email to a specific email address and this script would add the horn/mpc/descrip to the database.

Should be even easier now. Hrmmm... I think I may even look at some domain names tonight. It wouldn't be a bad project to resurrect. And it sounds like the amount of available resources to make it work are far more complete. (Front end software was what killed me. I would have had to write a lot of stuff to make it work the way I wanted at the time. )

Back on topic. The only truth I've ever found about mouthpiece selection is two-fold. 1. Try as many different options as you can. 2. Go with what feels (sound and physical impressions) the best, but make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. Sometimes (2) requires a good ear of a teacher/mentor/friend. Starting with the "usual suspects" of mouthpieces is the best place to start.

Just start with the basics to identify the "type" of mpc, and then branch into size and options from there.

One hunt for me proceeded like this:
Got a YBB-641 (medium large rotor.)
1. Had a 24AW, Conn 2, Schelkie-Hellburg F. None really worked. 24AW just felt "middleschooly", the Conn 2 wasn't bad, but lacked something. The SHF was too small.
2. Tried Bach 7/18, SH2, PT-88 and a Wick 2L. Liked the Wick (I'm preferential to their rims), but didn't sound good with it. The PT-88 (and another pair of PT's I borrowed) made me sound like I was a robot behind a sheet of plexiglas. The SH2 felt great, but I couldn't control it. Ended up going with the Bach7.
3. A few concerts later, I felt like I still wasn't getting enough out of the horn. My sound quality was dark and rich effortlessly. But I wasn't able to get any real control over faster articulations. High range was good and clear, but not very focused. Pedals sounded fair and clear, but couldn't bite if I needed them to. I went back through a round of about 10 mpc's. (Two PT's, two more Wicks, everything in the Bach line, a DEG pvc for the heck of it) Ended up between a borrowed Conn-Hellburg and a Scheilkie-Hellburg II. Went with the SH2.

That mouthpiece, after I learned how to "use" it, has ended up being being a great fit for a few tubas since then. It actually felt pretty darn good on a YBB-321 for a few years as well, which surprised me.

I've played both rotor and piston controlled horns with no clear "funnel/bowl" benefits. So many other factors determine which is the ideal for the horn, group you're playing in, and material.

Good luck in your hunt!

My observation comparing the very similar size cup PT-90 with funnel MF H on my rotary Neptune is that the cup provides more resistance blowing wise and I feel a bit more in control, while the funnel provides less feedback but a richer more silky tone.

I prefer to use the funnel MF H for sound, but when I have got a technically difficult piece often revert to the cup PT-90 for security. I guess that will get less as I gain confidence with the feel of the MF H?

I wonder if cup mouthpieces are recommended for rotary tubas just because they tend to be more open blowing, particularly Kaisers?

fshalor wrote:Like 8 years ago, a fellow tuba player and I talked about making a website with a matrix of tuba's matched up with what mouthpieces people played them with... Sounds like something like this is still needed... I know I wrote up a .php script that did the injections automatically. IE, anyone could send an email to a specific email address and this script would add the horn/mpc/descrip to the database.
Should be even easier now. Hrmmm... I think I may even look at some domain names tonight. It wouldn't be a bad project to resurrect. And it sounds like the amount of available resources to make it work are far more complete. (Front end software was what killed me. I would have had to write a lot of stuff to make it work the way I wanted at the time.)

And such a site would be grossly inaccurate for just about everybody, including probably yourself.
They're just mouthpieces- go for the one you feel is comfortable, let's you play as high and as low as you need to comfortably, and gets you somewhere in the ballpark of what you want soundwise.

To "muddy the water" just a little more, over many years I have tried/played many different mouthpieces on my King 1241. (At least 15 mpcs come easily to mind.) The two that have outperformed all the others have been the MF-2B and the Conn 120S. The MF is a bowl cup and the Conn is a funnel cup. They are both deep cups and their cup diameters are reasonably similar (32.5mm +/- 0.2mm). However, again, one is a classic bowl cup and the other is a classic funnel cup.

Yes, there are differences between the two. The MF-2B offers a little more resistance and provides a slightly rounder, warmer tone. The Conn 120S is a little more free blowing and allows me to project a little more powerful tone when needed. The MF is a bit more secure for me in the upper range; the Conn is a bit more secure for me in the lower range. However, both of these mouthpieces are a lot of fun to play on my 1241. They both have spot on intonation, and they both slot extremely well. The bottom line is that these seem to be the two mouthpieces that best help me exhibit my strengths and best cope with my weaknesses as a tuba player, albeit in slightly different ways. It just so happens that one is a bowl, and one is a funnel...go figure.

Now based upon the above, if anyone knows of a mouthpiece that incorporates the best of both a MF-2B and a Conn 120S, please let me know.

TubaBobH wrote:To "muddy the water" just a little more, over many years I have tried/played many different mouthpieces on my King 1241. (At least 15 mpcs come easily to mind.) The two that have outperformed all the others have been the MF-2B and the Conn 120S. The MF is a bowl cup and the Conn is a funnel cup. They are both deep cups and their cup diameters are reasonably similar (32.5mm +/- 0.2mm). However, again, one is a classic bowl cup and the other is a classic funnel cup.

The reason that the MF2B did so well is that MF patterened his original line of mouthpieces after the King 26, the stock mouthpiece that would have come with the tuba when new.

iiipopes wrote:

TubaBobH wrote:To "muddy the water" just a little more, over many years I have tried/played many different mouthpieces on my King 1241. (At least 15 mpcs come easily to mind.) The two that have outperformed all the others have been the MF-2B and the Conn 120S. The MF is a bowl cup and the Conn is a funnel cup. They are both deep cups and their cup diameters are reasonably similar (32.5mm +/- 0.2mm). However, again, one is a classic bowl cup and the other is a classic funnel cup.

The reason that the MF2B did so well is that MF patterened his original line of mouthpieces after the King 26, the stock mouthpiece that would have come with the tuba when new.

That might be factually true, but come on. I hope all the furniture in your house is patterned off the blueprint. I hope all your pillows still have the tags attached. I hope you never change the tires on your car.

No, the reason the MF2B did so well is that TubaBobH was playing that tuba, with that mouthpiece, and he couldn't find much of a better combination for himself. This stuff is all WAY too complicated to reduce to explanations like that.

And in response to the OP:
A rotory valve tuba requires a Bach 24AW. A piston tuba, on the other hand, should be matched with a 1972 Conn Helleburg. You're welcome.

No, the bottom line reason that the MF2B did so well is simply that Mike Finn makes damn fine mouthpieces, and the combination worked well for TubaBobH. I can make it even simpler. Should I?

Or I can go the other way and really get into an esoteric discussion of physical impedance and static wave theory. What is your preference?

One size mouthpiece does not fit all.

iiipopes wrote:One size mouthpiece does not fit all.

Very true! Because of what is the other side of the mouthpiece, a person with their own individual shaped face, oral cavity, sound concept and other attributes. What may be a great mouthpiece for one person, may just not work for someone else.

So best never to buy a mouthpiece just on recommendation. You can only tell if it works for YOU by trying yourself!

A lesson I have learnt wasting too much money in the past buying mouthpieces which have been 'recommended'

Jonathan "who now never buys new mouthpiece without first trying and finding it works better for ME"

iiipopes wrote:No, the bottom line reason that the MF2B did so well is simply that Mike Finn makes damn fine mouthpieces, and the combination worked well for TubaBobH. I can make it even simpler. Should I?

No need. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I wrote in my post.

Or I can go the other way and really get into an esoteric discussion of physical impedance and static wave theory. What is your preference?

My preference has nothing to do with it. You're a free man. But I will definitely post a difference of opinion, especially if it's a gimme, like the implied "best mouthpiece is the one the tuba company usually ships with the tuba new" argument I first posted about.

One size mouthpiece does not fit all.

True, nor do senses of humor necessarily line up for all people. I'll be sure to use more smileys next time I crack a joke, for clarity.

I have learned my lesson on many different levels after seeing some of these responses.