Mouthpiece Suggestions

[jpetty24]

Hi all, I've run into a dilemma. I am trying to find a mouthpiece that will fit me better, but I don't know a whole lot of what is out there and what I should try. I am looking for a moutpiece with the tone, range, comfort, and playability of a 24AW, but with the dynamic contrast capability, and clarity of articulation of a helleberg 120s, or the best compromise I can find. I've played some of the larger rim sizes(PT-36) and get close to the tone I want, but it is too hard to control and will take more time to upkeep than I have to give. Any thoughts, suggestions or questions are much appreciated.

[Billy M.]

Range and playability are based upon how often, effective, and consistent your own practicing is. You have a fairly large differential in cup diameter switching between a 24AW (31.25mm) and a Helleberg 120S (32.50mm). And clarity of articulation is sometimes associated with a sharper rim edge of Helleberg type mouthpieces and the comfort you desire is usually relegated to more "cushiony" type rims that the 24AW mouthpiece has.

Perhaps you could try one of the Laskey 28 series mouthpieces. They have a fairly sharp inner bite but the rim is more crowned than flat which allows for comfort (particularly for longer play sessions).

[jpetty24]

Because tuba is my secondary, it doesn't often get the strenuous work that i put in on my euphonium, but I do still play a lighter routine(shorter) on it everyday and scales, an etude or two i.e. the basics, but by no means will I compete in a solo competition with my tubists in the studio. To be very specific, the 24AW thickness of tone is to die for for me, but I get a better all around useable sound, flexibility and clarity on the helleberg.

Thank you Billy for the info on the Laskey piece, funds permitting... I will look out for one to try in the future as that does sound like a good balance of what I a looking for. Cup size will take some experimenting, but I'll probably start with the H for consistencies sake.

[Donn]

Consider the possibility that the 24AW works for you partly because of its large throat and/or backbore - I don't know the backbore details, but the 8.84 mm published throat size is about as big as they come.

[jpetty24]

Donn, I had completely overlooked the fact that the 24AW had such a large throat/backbore. I had aimlessly assumed it had a smaller throat because it was a smaller piece. Would I be right to assume that the smaller rim and cup of the 24AW worked for me because it had a larger throat to compensate? I ask because I want to understand the tuba range of mouthpieces better as well as helping me make more educated mouthpiece choices in the future.

[Doug Elliott]

The 24AW is a strange combination of extremely wide rim, small inside diameter, and extremely deep cup with large throat and backbore. You say you like the sound, and that's probably from the deep cup more than the other factors.

For you I would suggest a narrow style rim for the same reason it works well for you on euphonium.

As a relative beginner on tuba, you don't really know what you need yet but in general it will follow along the same lines as what works on euphonium.

[Donn]

Would I be right to assume that the smaller rim and cup of the 24AW worked for me because it had a larger throat to compensate?

I don't know, but here's another data point. Of the three I have with 8.7mm throats, two are small bass tuba size mouthpieces: an old Conn "Giant", and a Conn 3. (They could very well be 8.8mm, especially the Conn 3, the 11/32 bit was pretty loose in there but I don't have an 89/256 inch drill bit to check. The third was a King 26.)

Conn had their own thing going on, did they just like big throats? Well, my 7B with a little larger cup has a narrower throat, more like 8.3mm, and I believe the larger 120S has a smaller yet throat, so here's an inverse relation between throat and cup size that probably wasn't entirely accidental. (These are also the most funnel shaped cups you will find anywhere, as far as I know.)

That King 26 is not small, though. If you're interested in something similar new, I guess that would be Mike Finn MF1 or MF2 - I don't know them, but they seem to be well liked among those who have them.

[edit - and might try a Kellyberg, which should be much like your 120S, but with a hair larger throat, I get at least 8.3 mm instead of 8.1 mm.]

[joh_tuba]

http://amzn.com/B0006J4QBO

The above linked item plus a digital caliper will take all the guesswork out of knowing throat sizes.

[MikeW]

Since you are playing an E-flat, the Denis Wick 2 (EDIT: 2L for an American standard shank size) is worth a look - a mostly funnel shape (based on the E-Z Tone), about the same diameter as a Bach 18, and it works very well on most E-flat tubas. I see from the Denis Wick website that they now offer the 2XL, where the X means a more rounded rim, for improved comfort.

[joh_tuba]

My token VERY unscientific observations.. I reserve the right to change my mind on all points at any time.. and then change it again when I'm proven wrong a third time.

Rim is mostly about personal taste but does influence how you interact with the mouthpiece which in turn can change your product.

Bowl size and shape probably matter but maybe not as much as we think within normal parameters. Cup volume might matter more than shape.

The real business of the mouthpiece happens in the throat. Both size and *taper* into and out of the throat can have a HUGE affect on sound and response. A larger throat that is a straight cylindrical section might feel stuffier than a smaller throat that only hits the apex momentarily. A straight section *might* lock in the slots a bit more. A larger throat might put a bit more sizzle into your sound. etc..

Because it's easy to see the rim and cup tuba players focus on those attributes when choosing a mouthpiece. We trust the designer to optimize the 'back end'.

It would be a more interesting world if we all had a favorite throat and didn't give much thought to cups and rims(treating them as an afterthought). I think this would be more in line with reality. The throat impacts the product the most, cup second, rim third.

As it currently sits the gold standard throat size seems to be 8.2mm(.323"). Very few deviate significantly from this although taper into and out of the throat is ALL over the place. Is this an accident of history or based in acoustic merits? Why is a the Deck throat(9.5mm) such an outlier when it obviously worked for him?

On a related note, I wonder how modular mouthpiece designers solve these problems. If you are to offer multiple rims, cups and shanks you need to pick points in all the variations that are always identical. If you don't want a sudden change in taper you must pick one at the time of picking the diameter of the set point. It's certainly not an 'illusion of choice' BUT the design choices are notably limited because it's modular.

[bort]

Why is a the Deck throat(9.5mm) such an outlier when it obviously worked for him?

Because Deck himself was an outlier!

[Donn]

As it currently sits the gold standard throat size seems to be 8.2mm(.323"). Very few deviate significantly from this

I'll go along with that if you say "significantly" means by 8% or more. That would still leave the Bach "Mega" stuff out of the picture, and just barely exclude the Miraphone C4 on the small end.

[jpetty24]

Doug, I would completely agree with you! That is the main reason why I reached out to the more educated public of things that may be good for someone of lesser experience. The narrower rims do work better for me on tuba as well, but I am trying to find the balance between comfortable, and effective. There have been some pieces I've played that have that balance in the rim, but the other characteristics don't fit my sound concept.

[iiipopes]

British tuba players are extremely talented. They play marvelously well in SPITE of their bad teeth and their beloved 24AW's.

LOL!

[iiipopes]

As it currently sits the gold standard throat size seems to be 8.2mm(.323").

Indeed. As I have gotten older, it has become more difficult to fill up a Wick 1, Wick 2, Bach 18, etc., with their respective 8.4X mm diameter throats, with proper breath support to extend a phrase. So I have also backed off to mouthpieces with the 8.2X mm throats to help me with breath support. My "18" was made by Jim @ Kanstul off their standard model with the cup i.d. enlarged to match my other mouthpieces: 1.28 inches; it is just a little deeper than a Bach 18 so the low end isn't so grainy. I have my Kelly 18, an older one when the specs were still 1.285, not 1.29. For everything else I have the Imperial Blokepiece with the 32.6mm lexan modified helleberg rim and a spacer trimmed to .080. All my other mouthpieces, as some of you may remember from my for sale thread, have all gone away.

[Doug Elliott]

Because it's easy to see the rim and cup tuba players focus on those attributes when choosing a mouthpiece.

Not in my experience.

The throat impacts the product the most, cup second, rim third.

Wrong. Big wrong.

Why is a the Deck throat(9.5mm) such an outlier when it obviously worked for him?

Because he thought of the throat first and put a 3/8" throat in every mouthpiece. Not the right thing to do in my opinion. I don't think it's so obvious that it worked for him.

On a related note, I wonder how modular mouthpiece designers solve these problems. If you are to offer multiple rims, cups and shanks you need to pick points in all the variations that are always identical. If you don't want a sudden change in taper you must pick one at the time of picking the diameter of the set point. It's certainly not an 'illusion of choice' BUT the design choices are notably limited because it's modular.

Yes, choices do have to be made but they don't have to be that limiting.

[Donn]

The throat impacts the product the most, cup second, rim third.

Wrong. Big wrong.

Maybe it would be fair to say, though, that certain qualities are more directly affected by the throat, others more by the rim, etc.?

I mean, for example, conventional wisdom says that the rim edge has certain effects on facility. If you're someone who can manage to get the tone you're satisfied with from practically any mouthpiece but you crave what you get from a sharp rim edge, then of course the rim is most important. Others may not notice any important difference in rim shapes, but may have a tonal issue with a particular tuba that leads them to stick to a certain cup shape.

What exactly does the throat do, and what does the backbore do, to the playing characteristics of the mouthpiece? I'm guessing they do something that's important to some players, anyway, and it's worth bearing this in mind rather than assuming you can get the ideal mouthpiece by looking at catalogue specs -- who publishes backbore dimensions?