TubeNet

Does any one have opinions on the Josef Klier "Exclusive Line" of Tuba Mouthpieces. I have used one on Bass Bone on occasion for when I needed a little extra presence.I would not use it as a full time piece though(great low register, lacks focus as you ascend).
The Tuba model I am interested is the T2AA (33.50 rim and deep cup).
Thanks , John McKevitt

JK mouthpieces - I started with a 4C and then went on to a 3B for a long time. They are middle of the road, perhaps a little bit more on the bowl shape side than funnel shaped. Same for the rim, middle between sharp edge and softly rounded. As they are not too expensive, you can have more than one and find out what a different diameter or shallower/deeper cup does for you. Quality of workmanship is very good. They are very popular in Germany.

I like them because they're systematized; no wild guesses when you order one. Want a wider cup? Choose the next highest number. This, in contrast to the Perantucci line which uses descriptions such as "for the stronger player with big lips".

For me excellent for the price.
Their numbering system is a big great help, indeed.
And, over here, they are very generous with shipment for trail periods.
Hubert

My bride just came back from a business trip to Germany and brought me a JK T2A--Spent several hours this weekend with it, and I really like it on my PT-4P. She picked up a Miraphone TU23 to replace my (permanently) loaned C4. Side-by-side they appear similar in their external casting, finish quality, and general rim shape (rounded crown and external shoulder, moderately rounded inner bite). Obviously different shapes internally. I've not looked around for the answer, but I suspect they're made in the same shop; anyone here know?

As other posters note: easy to understand numbering system and a good price point. I think that I saw them for sale by the Horn Guys in CA. I'm considering getting a few across the range of sizes for trying with my students. One concern that I have is the shank size--I've only seen the European size in the states; not sure how they'll work on the smaller Yamaha receivers.

Almost all Miraphone mouthpieces (except for a few relied to a specific soloist) are being made by Joseph Klier.
By the way, a great lot of European/German producers of brass instruments have their mouthpieces made by one of the three specialized German mouthpiece "turners" : Joseph Klier, Werner Christian Schmidt and Bruno Tilz.
Hubert

Horn Guys isn't doing much with Klier at the moment. We ebb and flow. Mostly we have a few double horn and rotary trumpet mouthpieces, and a few contrabass trombone. Maybe more another time...the tuba mouthpieces look good.

Don't forget mouthpiece maker Josef Lausman, near Nauheim. He makes Denis Wick, Helleberg, Perantucci, Canadian Brass, and Faxx among others. The Faxx mouthpieces are also branded for B&S/MW and Blessing.

Ferguson

Thanks for the info. There are so many choices out there at a range if costs. I'd like to find a few (6 or so) mouthpieces that represent 1) practical 2) available 3) affordable options for students to try. Seems like the only things I have available for them are the things that I've tried and have on hand. Sort of limits them to what works for me. But I don't have infinite resources to buy a manufacturer's entire line. The JK line is layed out logically enough that it looks like you could have a few models across the range and direct students to intermediate sizes if one is too large/small. What have other folks done for fitting younger/inexperienced students into mouthpieces (thread creep)?

BTW, it looks like Dillon may have them in stock in the US.

Marcinkiewicz uses a similar system, but only in depth - the rim is constant for a given model. So I have a deep H1, a shallow H4 and an H3 in between.

I mention that only as a matter of academic interest, though, because they don't seem to me to be a likely candidate for introductory mouthpieces - mostly tend to run big, and while there's a more ordinary sized (but shallow) student model, it isn't particularly economical anyway.

Here's the Klier chart. As you can see, they run the gamut and are logically ordered.

The trombone mouthpiece chart likewise. It looks like depth is absolute, not relative to width, right? as for example the 31mm rim isn't offered in "extremely" or "very deep", it starts at "deep", and the 30mm rim starts at "medium." My bass trombone mouthpiece is a 1AK, 28mm which puts it in the 1¼G size range, but it isn't as deep as a 1¼G, even though A is the "extremely deep" column. As they are German, I imagine they adhere quite strictly to this schedule, so even the 29.5mm 03AK would be this same depth, in proportion more shallow than "extremely deep?" Same with tuba mouthpieces, the larger ones maybe not so deep, relatively speaking?

It would be interesting to see how the profile changes with depth. I have a 1BK too, which is not much difference to draw conclusions from, but my casual impression is that it gets narrower in the middle as it gets shorter, thus preserving the shape of the bottom of the cup to some extent. Like the difference between Conn 2 and 3, though they're not the same width. The alternative is to do it like Marcinkiewicz, where the bottom of the cup becomes a little more flat as it gets shorter.

Donn wrote: It looks like depth is absolute, not relative to width, right?

Not sure I understand your question, but here's more info from Klier re: cup shape:

UncleBeer wrote:

Donn wrote: It looks like depth is absolute, not relative to width, right?

Not sure I understand your question

"Relative" would be like "when we say `extremely deep', we mean the ratio of depth to width is greater than 1.23."
"Absolute" would be like "when we say `extremely deep', we mean it's 37mm deep, regardless of how wide it may be."

but here's more info from Klier re: cup shape:

That may address the second point, about how the shape changes with depth. In this one - with trumpet mouthpieces? - they introduce the term "flat cup". That could be a poor translation, but it matches the diagram to some extent - the shallower mouthpieces retain a steep wall profile at the top, which makes the shape more bowl like than the deeper ones.

So OK, this may all seem rather obsessive, but more generally, my point is that as you vary these parameters, you get different mouthpiece designs. My guess is that as long as you exercise some discretion and stick to the leftwards couple of columns, they'll all be decent, but a case could be made that for example the PT series picks out some winners from the infinite possible combinations of depth, width, rim, throat etc. The "sweet spot" theory.

Donn wrote:... but a case could be made that for example the PT series picks out some winners from the infinite possible combinations of depth, width, rim, throat etc.

But again: unless you're at a trade show that sports the entire line of PT pieces, you're at the mercy of their 'descriptions' about how a particular model is designed for "stronger player with big lips". Virtually useless.

Yes. Your last point is what I'm trying to get to: are there a few (?? how many ??) mouthpieces that I could have on hand to find out what works for a student? For example, a range of rim sizes and cup depths/shapes that--if not an exact match--would identify the general direction that the student needs to go to get a better fit. Sort of the Goldilocks story: "...that's too hard; that's too soft--well, the one in the middle is just right..." Given the subtle interactions of each of the "tunable" facets of a mouthpiece, this is probably wishful thinking...

UncleBeer wrote:But again: unless you're at a trade show that sports the entire line of PT pieces, you're at the mercy of their 'descriptions' about how a particular model is designed for "stronger player with big lips". Virtually useless.

Well, to be fair ... if I go through the list on their site, I see that sort of thing - for example, the PT-86 is one of your big lips pieces:

Perantucci wrote: PT-86
Model PT-86 offers a very wide cup for players with particularly large lips. It favors middle and low registers, particularly when high volume is desired. The tonal denter is round and weighty.

I don't know, maybe it's useful, maybe not. "Organ-like tone of enormous volume", many mouthpiece manufacturers are worse but at least their spelling is better. But select that mouthpiece and look at its page,

Perantucci wrote: PT-86
* CUP CHARACTERISTICS: 33.7 mm. diameter - Very wide diameter with moderate depth.
* RIM CHARACTERISTICS: Width 7.5 mm. -Slightly rounded inner edges.
* THROAT BORE: 8.3 mm.
* Model PT-86 offers a very wide cup for players with particularly large lips. It favors middle and low registers, particularly when high volume is desired. The tonal denter is round and weighty.

Still not sure who needs a "tonal denter", but they're pretty good about rim shape, dimensions, etc. Most models have more about cup shape, this one's an exception.

For the OP, if you don't already have this covered, the Faxx line are notably good German made copies of the most popular Conn/Bach designs, and run about $50 each, so they'd be a good backup set. I'd wish for something like the Schilke 66 too, but Schilke, Perantucci, Marcinkiewicz etc. are a little more spendy. The Josef Klier mouthpieces are relatively affordable and good quality.

Donn wrote: Still not sure who needs a "tonal denter", but they're pretty good about rim shape, dimensions, etc.

Dunno. Modifiers such as "very" and "slightly" are for me so subjective as to be worthless. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words, so why not just show a cross-section of the piece? It can't be that hard. And the "bigger lips" thing is just absurd.

I love the Mike Finn cross sections.