TubeNet

Hi guys -
well, finally got my hands on the HB2P i've been lusting after and am thrilled at how well this horn plays.

ONLY problem - my mouthpieces are all Amer. shank - so i've had to run a bit of tape around them to get them to seat -

so naturally, i'm gonna go wth a new mpc - and before I pull the trigger on the euro shank version of my fav. - i'm wondering what other guys who play this horn have found to be good matches.

I read somewhere that Tilz m10 was a killer mate - but i've yet to find anyone who has them for me to try.

thoughts?

Aaorn

I believe the Tilz M10 is the old version of the PT88. If you want the M10 (or the RM equivalent), contact Lee Stofer.

Jill Corbett of the Travis Brass (and Air Force Band of the Golden West) brought her HB-2P to play the Bernstein Mass with the Walnut Creek band last December. I believe that she used a PT 88+ and got an absolutely beautiful sound with that combination. I have also seen her use the PT 88+ with her PT-6 rotary.

I've found the G&W Bayamo to be a fantastic pairing for an easy, full sound. Playing Porgy & Bess last week (and backing way down for the choir) made me wish for something that didn't resonate quite so much, as that mouthpiece sure does project. Been interested in the other offerings from Gilling's line to see what they may bring out in the HB.

Otherwise I've begun experimenting with the Sellmansberger output and found great results with the Solo cup for lighter purposes. Really want to test an Imperial during ITEC.

I've had good success with the Parke Ofenloch. Recommended to me by Mark Tetreault of the Toronto Symphony who also plays the HB-2P.

Lee Stofer can sell you a Stofer Geib with a Euro shank and that works wonderfully well on my HBS 192 (BBb). I was surprised because I am used to a smaller mouthpiece, like a Conn 1 or a Conn 2 or a Bach 18 or a King 26. But none of those has a Euro Shank. I also had Doug Elliot make a mouthpiece with a TU R Cup and a 1.30 Rim and a Euro Shank which works well. I have a TU T cup I can use but it does not work so well as the R cup. Some day, I would love to get the Conn 1 copied with a Euro shank and try it but I certainly will never modify the original Conn 1 I own.

I have discovered that both Hirsbrunners I have owned respond best to a mouthpiece whose cup is cylindrical, from the rim down to a conical (not rounded) taper to the shank. Rounded cups nor funnel shaped cups seem to work so well.

I hope this gives you a little more information for experimentation.

When I first had an HB-2P, there weren't many choices in mouthpieces, certainly not as many as now.

I always used either the PT-50 or an old Perantucci (Tilz) 20. The PT-50 was "supposed to be" the same as the old 20 after the redesign of the shape, but it wasn't. Not even close. If you can get your hands on one, I'd recommend it. It made for a great all-around mouthpiece on it, from orchestra to quintet to solo stuff.

Mitch wrote:When I first had an HB-2P, there weren't many choices in mouthpieces, certainly not as many as now.

I always used either the PT-50 or an old Perantucci (Tilz) 20. The PT-50 was "supposed to be" the same as the old 20 after the redesign of the shape, but it wasn't. Not even close. If you can get your hands on one, I'd recommend it. It made for a great all-around mouthpiece on it, from orchestra to quintet to solo stuff.

Mitch, which mouthpiece are you suggesting is the good one? The PT-50 or the Tilz 20?

Well, both were good, but my favorite was the Perantucci (Tilz) 20.

I don't care what the chart says; the PT-50 is simply not the "same" as the Perantucci 20. Similar, maybe, but not the same. To the eye, the back bore on the 20 is a hair bigger, going by the fact that both are the same outside diameter but the metal is clearly thinner on the Perantucci 20. And, currently owning both, they simply don't feel the same to me.

And, yes, cktuba, I also think the old 20 has an greater facility at clearer articulation than the PT-50. That's why I hunted one down when mine was, well, "disappeared without my participation." I got the PT-50 being told it was "the same," but it wasn't. Felt like a completely different mouthpiece to me. Maybe a tiiiiiiiiiny bit darker, but the feel was totally different.

+1 to Curmudgeon's comment.

FWIW - I liked the Laskey 30H (& later 28H) when I had a HB2P

Curmudgeon wrote:No two PT50's are the same, nor are the old PT20's that were made by Tilz.

True, however there are certain characteristics I've found in each Perantucci 20 I've played that I've not found in the PT-50's I've played. There are common-enough characteristics within each that I believe are enough to qualify them as two entirely different mouthpieces.

No two Ford Escapes are exactly the same either.

Here's one:



and here's one:



You can argue they're technically the same, or you can recognize that while they're supposed to be "the same" (i.e., they are both a "Ford Escape") they're really not. All 2014s will share certain features, while no two will be exactly alike, and all 2005s will share certain features, while no two are exactly alike. And all the 2005s will be identifiably different from the 2014s.

That's all I'm sayin.' Say what you want. The PT-50 and the Perantucci 20 are NOT the same mouthpiece.

(BTW, holding my two next to each other, to my eye, the throat of the 20 is plainly, clearly smaller than the throat of the 50, and the 20 is also probably 2 mm taller than the 50.)

However far back you go, mouthpiece makers producing different models had to be ably to reliably produce to certain specifications, or what's the point of calling anything by a model name? What would be the difference between a Perantucci 19 and a Perantucci 20? How could anyone buy anything if they didn't know that within certain reasonable tolerances they were going to receive a mouthpiece with the characteristics the manufacturer said it would have? I'm certain those guys probably went out of business long before many people bought anything. They may not have matched exactly within a nanometer, but I'd be willing to bet they were awfully close to the same, certainly not with variations plainly visible to the naked eye.

My $.02.