TubeNet

How do the heavy shell mouthpieces differ in performance compared to the normal ones? Does the heavy shell only improve the mouthpiece, or does the heavy shell have negative aspects?

As fish mentioned the Perantucci as an example, I would guess an 88+ is exactly the same inside as PT-88. I can't think of other makes that have regular and heavy versions that are identical. Try them both sometime at a conference somewhere. I'll bet you a new Alan Baer the answers to your questions are no, and no.

It's pretty easy to compare a Bach 18 and an 18 Megatone. I play a Monette 94 and Conn Helleberg which are supposed to have the same cup and rim shape. I find they're pretty similar but that the Monette is darker and more slotted.

My $.02

The second page of this thread has some discussion regarding these:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54735&p=467093&hilit=TUHH#p467093" target="_blank

It doesn't take much interior change to make "pretty similar" play "pretty different."

Bach even says that the Megatone models are not the same inside dimensions as the "same" non-Megatone models.

from the Bach Mouthpiece Manual.

The inner contours are precisely the same as the original Bach Mouthpiece..... The MegaTone throat is also slightly larger than standard"

Last time I checked, the throat was part of the "inner contours."

burningchrome wrote:I play a Monette 94 and Conn Helleberg which are supposed to have the same cup and rim shape. I find they're pretty similar but that the Monette is darker and more slotted.

That could be due to the bore, couldn't it? I've read that it includes an unusual straight throat section or something along those lines.

It would be easy to find out if the mass really has anything to do with it. Just buy a second one, verify that it plays the same (!) and then file off as much exterior mass as you can without messing up the rim or cutting through to the inside.

The inner contours are precisely the same as the original Bach Mouthpiece..... The MegaTone throat is also slightly larger than standard

I wouldn't call a 9mm throat "slightly larger"

Please don't come down on me for not being a sponsor. I get no monetary compensation for any sales from the Warburton site.

I just wrote a bit of a blurb on this subject and it seems pertinent to the topic.

http://www.warburton-usa.com/index.php/ ... mouthpiece

I don't know if the differences I've found between the mouthpieces I've played with and without added mass are entirely my perception or not. If it is, there is a tenancy for me to play clearer when at greater volume in the lower/est registers on a heavy mouthpiece. It just happens for me on far too consistent a basis for me to discard as hooey. I'm absolutely a skeptic when it comes to the search for the holy grail of mouthpieces, but I've found the closest thing to that for me now.

In the design process for my mouthpiece, the low register was always consistent and the tweaking of the inner dimensions (including back bore and cup shape/depth) was minute but effected the response, clarity and intonation in the mid and upper registers. There was an ease of sound production and clarity of attack in the low registers on all the versions of this mouthpiece I tried. Version 7 was the one that was, well, the One. Also, throughout the designing I only gave Mr. Warburton qualitative notes and never, ever suggested what he might do to the mouthpiece itself. I only said things like: "The mid register between C in the staff and F above that was difficult to centre," or, "Once I get over top-space G, tuning gets a little wonky." I trusted him to just know what to do based on his experience. Sure I thought of things like tightening up the back bore for some things or changing the cup shape to less/more of a funnel shape... I just can't convince myself that I'd know better than Terry Warburton when it came to mouthpiece fine tweaking.

So, my point?

I feel that mass will somehow, by means and physics this tubist doesn't quite understand, effect clarity in the low register more than any other aspect of a tuba player's playing. I'm not guaranteeing that it will make a huge difference for the OP nor anyone else, but in the last 18 months, I've really spent a great deal of time observing and experimenting with heavy walled mouthpieces (not to mention my 8 or so years prior to that loving my Parke Offenloch mouthpiece). Keeping clear rhythm when I'm honking out Romeo and Juliet is noticeably easier with the heavier mouthpieces I've used.So, if you love all the other aspects of your mouthpiece and think you want to add to those traits a more rockin' low register for when the likes of Respighi and Prokofiev, you may want to give the heavier version of your piece a try or experiment with other heavy mouthpieces.

TubaMusikMann wrote:

The inner contours are precisely the same as the original Bach Mouthpiece..... The MegaTone throat is also slightly larger than standard

I wouldn't call a 9mm throat "slightly larger"

Throat diameter for a standard Bach 7 (also 18, 24W & 24AW) is 8.84 mm (.348").
Throat diameter for a MegaTone 7, 18, or 24AW is 9 mm (.354").
The MegaTone throat diameter is less than 2% larger than the standard diameter.
What would you call that, if not "slightly larger"?

bloke wrote:Not to be picky , but the difference in the area of the throat (which, seemingly, is what would matter) is nearly 3.5% larger with the increase from .348" to .354", isn't it?

"You are correct, sir!"

(if you were starting with something like a Marcinkiewicz N4 -- throat diameter .302" -- and hogging it out to .354", the diameter increase would be about 17%, and the area increase would be over 37% ... I'd call that a noticeable increase )

In some cases, .001" or less in the throat or backbore can make a noticeable difference in playing.

...even large bore, bass trombone, and tuba mouthpieces.
.001" can easily make the differences between "not quite right," "OK" and "plays great."