TubeNet

Ever wonder why Baskin-Robbins has 34 flavors? Why not just butter almond, which I like best? Oh, you like strawberry? Your friend likes chocolate marshmallow? Do you see the reason why some like one mouthpiece and others don't? Whatever works well for you will not necessarily work well for someone else and vice versa. I think Hellebergs are a lot like vanilla---nearly everyone likes that!

well, I for one do not find the standard Helleberg mouthpiece to be my first choice, however the mouthpieces i do use owe much of their design to the original helleberg design..... You need to remember the Helleberg was probably the first "standard" as far as modern pro mouthpieces go, but the design is still subject to the human factor...and that man (specifically his face/mouth) is not created equal. Almost every major mpc maker has some kind of "copy" or "reproduction" of the helleberg, so Mr Helleberg was obviously on to something when he designed it. Just my thoughts FWIW

well as was said earlier by Doc, the sound that the Helleberg produces is what many american tuba players are looking for. At the risk of starting something I will say this: There is a definite difference in the sound traditionally associated with american Tubists compared to British tubisist as compared to european tubists. In part the instruments we traditionally use in a pro setting are different (yes I know there are exceptions to this) and ultimately a different fundamental goal in sound.

I have heard some of my friends/teachers that play on Conn Helleberg and produce huge, monsterous sound, definitely not what I call "thin". That said, I don't like the mouthpiece very much myself, and I know several other well-respected players who don't think very high of these, either. You mentioned that your mouthpiece is a Bach 24AW, it's fairly small compare to the regular Conn Helleberg (31.25mm donut rim v. 33mm cutter rim), if you get a chance maybe you want to try the Conn helleberg 7B, or Schilke Helleberg, they are also Hellebergs, but are smaller in size and have more reasonable rims to work with.

Well I would say yes and no. The only way I can think to describe it would be to listen to some recordings...say of Jacobs...... then maybe Lind...maybe add a roland Szentpali in there....and I think you have three outstanding tubists with three very distinct sounds.

everyone is entitled to his/her opinion....and I do agree with you, I hold John Fletcher very very high too..... I am simply trying to give an example of what I was talking about

Hey, it cool. I totally respect your opinion too..... I was just trying to give a sensible answer to your question. As for the stainless mpc's I strongly reccomend trying them.... they have a very unique feel, excellent response and create a really massive sound when desired.

I've been playing a Helleburg on my 186 BBb. To me, the mouthpiece gives me a "loud" sound, however, it doesn't have very far to go before it gets "edgy". Anyone else have this problem? I want a piece that has more "felt presence", or a "broad tone". Maybe organ-like is what I'm looking for? I do love the rim of the Helleburg.

While mouthpieces are the topic:
It's income tax time, so I'm probably going to purchase a new mouthpiece. Without the resources available to try pieces before I buy, what would you suggest? The people I've already asked have recommended the PT line. Of the PT line, I have rounded my pick to a '50, '36, or '88. Any opinions based on my horn and opinion of the Helleburg?


Thanks guys, you all are the best!

The Tubenet is a truly beautiful thing.


-Josh Stanley

Well, for me, when I first started using a Conn Helleberg, I was completely surprised by how much quicker the response was when compared to the Bach 18 that I had been using. That's why I used one almost exclusively for several years afterward.

But -- I wonder if that had anything to do with my previous life as a trombone player. After five or six years of that, I thought that the muddiness I was first experiencing was inherent to tubas, and the extra clarity that I later found with a Helleberg design was very welcome indeed.

I almost can't play at all on a 24AW.

Of course, we all know that August Helleberg made a whole range of mouthpieces, mainly designed specifically for each horn.

Whatever floats your boat! I saw a professional performing on a pink Kellyberg (plastic) Saturday night.

I'm not a pro but the variety I usually carry is as follows: Conn Helleberg 7B, Yamaha Roger Bobo Solo, Kellyberg, Kelly 18, and a Miraphone TU33. I have several very different horns... ranging from a very large Martin 'Mammoth' sousa to a very nimble Miraphone 183 Eb.

Whatever works for you is fine, but I can't use a Bach 24AW for anything but a paperweight.

I think it's possible that the mouthpiece is praised so highly because of the way it changed the American standard and perspective of the mouthpiece design in the early 20th Century.

These designs have had copies and modifications done to 'em in such that very many players are playing on a derivation or perhaps a closer copy to the original model Helleberg created so many years ago by the famed tubist.

I personally use a Helleberg (CB AJ model which is a copy of Jacobs mouthpiece which he personally modified) and do think it's a great mouthpiece but that's along the lines of 'for me'. Others mileage will vary.

A lot of people also see the things that help factor in the love of these mouthpieces. Arnold Jacobs used a Helleberg for a majority of his playing. Gene Pakorny is said to have used or uses a Laskey 30H which is a 'modified' Helleberg, Floyd Cooley's mouthpiece is a modified Helleberg... the list could go on and on.

Personally my favorite tubist because of his sound is John Fletcher and (correct me if I'm wrong) he played on a 24AW mouthpiece for a majority of his playing. Does that mean I'll go back to using a 24AW? No. But will I work my hardest to get a sound very similar to his? You better believe it.

mattwatts wrote:I have looked at those (G&W), but its quite a lot of money to risk on something that I have no idea what it will be like. Just had a quick look through previous posts and can't immediately see what people think of them. Whats the general consensus?

They are quite good general mouthpieces. Whether they are the best for you is something only you can decide. But look beyond the stainless-steel gimmick--the shape is completely effective.

And even the stainless steel is more than a gimmick. I find that it has the feel of gold, in terms of slippery smoothness. In comparison to gold-plated mouthpieces, the G&W mouthpieces are really not that expensive.

Now, to your original subject. We should remember that when one uses the term "Helleberg" they are talking about a class of mouthpieces more than a specific mouthpiece. The class generally includes all mouthpieces of the funnel design, as opposed to the bowl-shaped mouthpieces made by Bach and many others. In that sense, a Wick 1 is a Hellebergish mouthpiece.

Both types of mouthpieces are well represented in the kits of great artists, of course. Given the popularity of the Geib-cupped mouthpieces and the bowl-shaped PT-88, I would not say that the Helleberg approach dominates current mouthpiece design.

The Conn Helleberg is not THE Helleberg, of course, but it is the most commonly available example. Thus, it serves as the archetype of that class, just as the Bach 18 serves as the archetype of bowl-shaped mouthpieces.

Rick "who prefers mouthpieces more in the Helleberg direction, but who is not that much a fan of a Conn" Denney

mattwatts wrote:The thing that I particularly didn't like on the one I tried was the rim, but now I realise they can be different and I will look into these G&Ws more closely.

Scientifically speaking, what is the difference in effect of funnel versus cup? What difference does it make to sound, attack, range etc?

Lots of folks don't like the flat, sharp rim of the Conn Helleberg, though there are those who like the mouthpieces just because of that rim. But most models of Helleberg design don't have the same rim as the Conn. The G&W has a flat rim, but it is more rounded on the inside edge. The Parantucci mouthpieces seem to be more round than flat, and so on.

Generally, the deep funnel mouthpieces are supposed to emphasize the lower harmonics in the sound and de-emphasize the upper harmonics. I find this to be the case, but not necessarily desireable for every situation. I find myself using shallower mouthpieces than I used to, but still with a funnel concept of a smooth transition into the throat. I find the difference more obvious on euphonium. On my old Besson, a cup-shaped mouthpiece like a Bach 1-1/2 G produces more of a trombone-like timbre than the funnel-shaped Steven Mead mouthpieces made by Wick. The latter produce a much rounder tone with less edge.

Rick "who sometimes likes a little edge on tuba sound, particularly on a big tuba" Denney

As an 18 yr. old tuba player I know I'm not the upmost authority on this subject...that said...I don't think that the mouthpiece really makes that big of a difference (unless you're not really used to it). I play a UMI Helleberg on a 30 yr. old Miraphone CC tuba that has a deformed bell that buzzes occasionally and that has a hole covered by duct tape and I have been told by fellow tuba players (and specifically Brian Bowman) that I have a dark, rich, fat sound. So, imho I think that when you get used to a mouthpiece, you can achieve any tone that you want (most of the time).

The term "helleburg" refers to any number of different mouthpieces based on designs by its namesake. They all are funnel shaped and have fairly narrow, sharp rims. The Conn Helleburg is one particular manufacture, and the 7B is a slightly smaller version.

tuba4sissies wrote:Um...

Please explain the differences in a:

Conn Helleburg?

A Helleburg

and

UMI Helleburg..

I played a helleburg once when i was a beginner.. i had a good sound as far as i remember. So im going to play my friend's again.. and then ill see

all i know is that he has a "Helleburg 7B"

First, it's Helleberg, not Helleburg...

UMI is now the parent company of Conn-Selmer, which makes the Conn Helleberg. The Conn Helleberg and UMI Helleberg are the same thing.

As other posters have said, Helleberg was a famous tuba player who designed mouthpieces for his individual horns that all seemed to have a funnel shape to them. These days the term Helleberg does nothing more than describe a mouthpiece based on Helleberg's funnel design.

The good folks at Kelly mouthpieces recommended a 24 AW plastic mouthpiece(harvest gold,baby) for my Eb King.I like the wide rim.I also found that with plastic the horn is less likely to blatt.I like to be able to pour on the power an not have the bell crack.Cool!
Played a three hour gig at a seafood joint and for the first time in a year,found no allergic breakout on my lip the day after.My tube net buddies taught me a lot about metal allergies and made me aware that my metal mouthpiece could be the culprit.After a gold mouthpiece failed to be a cure,I called Kelly Mouthpieces and this new plastic one could be my career saver.I learned about these here on Sean's Tubenet and I remain,grateful to you all.
Dennis Gray

tuba4sissies wrote:Um...

Please explain the differences in a:

Conn Helleburg?

A Helleburg

and

UMI Helleburg..

I played a helleburg once when i was a beginner.. i had a good sound as far as i remember. So im going to play my friend's again.. and then ill see

all i know is that he has a "Helleburg 7B"

Conn = UMI. Conn was purchased by UMI, who also purchased King, so they are all the same company now. If it's marked UMI, it's newer than one that is marked Conn.

"A Helleberg" can either mean a Conn/UMI Helleberg or a mouthpiece of Helleberg design.

Conn/UMI sells two models of Helleberg mouthpieces. The larger one is officially called the 120, 120S, or just S, but I've never seen any of these marked on the mouthpiece (the marking will just be "Helleberg"). The 7B is the smaller model of the same design.

Rick "the answer man" Denney