TubeNet

Approval from others is so subjective that it is difficult to draw conclusions from a brief comment.A conference with him might flesh out his opinion for you.
If that is not possible,listen optimistically,and hope your mouthpiece has solved the problem.

jomazq wrote:how did that happen? did someone(I) lie to me(myself) about mouthpiece design?

There are lots of things said about mouthpiece design that fail to mention the most important part--the player.

There has been a trend towards larger and larger mouthpieces in the last decade or two. That trend has come from the perception among tuba players that a bigger mouthpiece makes a bigger sound. For that to have a hope of being true, however, the chops have to be strong enough to provide a clean buzz in all that open space.

Lots of folks (myself included) have a tendency to get an airy, unfocused sound with too big a mouthpiece. A smaller mouthpiece provides the focus and clarity that most conductors, etc., prefer. Getting a focused, clear sound on a big mouthpiece takes a very strong and well-trained embouchure powered by a lot of air.

Lately, I've been using a Laskey 30H mouthpiece on my Holton. It's smaller around than the PT-48 I sometimes use. The PT-48 is big around, but not as deep as a lot of funnel-shaped mouthpieces. It's about the only big mouthpiece I've tried that produces a good, clear sound even with me playing it. The Laskey tone is a little rounder, and still plenty big, but it is not that big a mouthpiece.

I'm also playing an MF-4 on F tuba, which is actually quite small. After learning (sort of) how to blow that mouthpiece, I'm finding that I can do more things on it even on tubas that used to seem to want big mouthpieces.

My point is this: Big mouthpiece only produce big sounds if your chops are strong enough to put a clear, focused buzz into them. Big mouthpiece will expose flabby chops in an instant.

Rick "offering only one possible explanation" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Lately, I've been using a Laskey 30H mouthpiece on my Holton.

Rick...

Just out of curiosity, have you also tried a 30G on your horn? I'm curious as to what the slightly more "bowled Geib cup" might do on a big piston axe. Also, how would you compare the rim/inner edge of the 30H to the Schilke Helleberg II, if you have any experience with that piece?

Thanx...

...Dave

poomshanka wrote:Just out of curiosity, have you also tried a 30G on your horn? I'm curious as to what the slightly more "bowled Geib cup" might do on a big piston axe. Also, how would you compare the rim/inner edge of the 30H to the Schilke Helleberg II, if you have any experience with that piece?

Dave, I've never tried a 30G. The PT-48 is more bowl-shaped than the 30H, and it provides a sound with more square corners on it, if that makes any sense. I would have said more "core" to the sound, but the 30H puts real core into the sound, too. It's just a little rounder. And because it's smaller, it's a little less work.

I don't have a Schilke Helleberg II, but I find the rim of the 30H to be quite similar to a Conn Helleberg, with just a bit more roundness. It still has the flat face. The width of the rim is about the same. It feels a lot like the Conn Helleberg, but a little less so. It's similar to the Doug Elliott 130-2N rim (his 4N rim is what he says is like the Conn), but a hair sharper. If Doug made something just like it, it would be a 3N, heh, heh.

Volume-wise, it's less deep than a Conn Helleberg, less deep than a Mirpahone Rose Orchestra, about the same depth as a Doug Elliott R cup, and a hair deeper than the PT-48. The Doug Elliott R cup seems pretty close, of the mouthpieces in my collection. The old Parantucci PT-1 is also in the same ballpark, but with a slightly rounder rim.

Rick "whose only Schilke mouthpiece is completely different" Denney

jomazq wrote:how might one weigh the advantages and or disadvantages of different' mouthpieces?

Same as how you evaluate the instrument...use what makes it easiest for you to produce the effect you want out front. The problem is that it's hard know what's happening out front. My Holton sounds much bigger with my biggest mouthpieces, but I can't control them or make the cleanest sounds on them.

Most of the time, the tuba is not asked to move earth. Thus, most of the time, a mouthpiece optimized for moving earth is optimized for the wrong objective. What many tuba players for get is that our pitches are at the limit of pitch recognition for most people, and therefore clarity and purity of tone are more important than bigness or loudness. If you make your cleanest sound on a smaller mouthpiece, then that's what you should use, at least for now.

I have always used a contrabass mouthpiece on my Yamaha F tuba, because that's what seemed not to bottle up the low register when I bought it, like most F tuba mouthpieces did. The problem was that I didn't know how to make a focused buzz in a smaller mouthpiece, and was using mouthpiece size to make up for that lack. The result was a fuzzy and airy sound with attacks that were less clean than I would have preferred. Now that I've spent a year with the MF-4 (F tuba sized) mouthpiece on my B&S, I've learned a little how to blow that sort of mouthpiece. My loudest playing is still forced and the sound spreads, but I'm working on it. When I put that mouthpiece on my 621, all the fuzziness and airiness goes away. And now that I know better how to blow the mouthpiece, the bottom is not badly affected like I thought it was before.

There is no requirement to use a big mouthpiece in order to make a big sound. Your mouth may not be shaped that way.

Rick "who suggests taking some lessons with a teacher who will listen in a big room and give you advice" Denney