TubeNet

Bach, Holton, Melton, Yamaha, DEG?

No

Close, but when that is a relative term.

Not even all of the BACH 24AW's are the same!

Similar perhaps but not the same. Many of the Bach 24AW rims are too donut shapped for me. I prefer the Faxx 25AW, which is said to be a cnc copy of a Mt. Vernon Bach. I tried the plastic kelly 24AW, had a more conventional rim than the usual wide 24AW type. The Wick 3L is about the same size and depth as the 24AW but with a narrower flatter rim and a more open back bore.

modelerdc wrote:Many of the Bach 24AW rims are too donut shapped for me. I prefer the Faxx 25AW, which is said to be a cnc copy of a Mt. Vernon Bach. I tried the plastic kelly 24AW, had a more conventional rim than the usual wide 24AW type.

Could you elaborate, for someone who's never looked real close at any of them - the Bach 24AW is wide and very rounded? That sounds awful indeed.

Conventional is not so wide and more flattened?

None of them have a real inside edge to the rim?

As noted in one of the responses above the Bachs seem to vary, depending on when they were made. My experience is that many of the Bach made in recent years have a rim that is too rounded for me, and in combination with the wide rim this is not good. Like many players I don't really like the wide rim of the 24AW, but as long as the rim still has enough definition (bite) near the inner rim, then the part of the rim toward the outside doesn't really matter too much. I fell that narrow rounded rims or flat wide rims (7B) can help you focus the sound, but that too wide and too rounded make sound production harder. For me the Faxx 24AW is flatter with more bite than the often too rounded Bach rims, and it works well for me. Also the 24AW gets trashed pretty often here, for reasons that I understand. Not the best match for everyone and every horn. However for me it's a very good match for my 3+1 Boosey E flat tuba, almost as if they were made to go together.

My current theory is that the match between tuba and mouthpiece is more in the bottom half of the mouthpiece, than the top. Throat, backbore, etc. According to the published measurements the 24AW has an unusually large throat, and I think same with the Denis Wick 3. I wonder if there's something about the compensating ductwork that makes those English tubas respond better with a large throated mouthpiece?

Tsk. Many players, like modelrc who I have no reason to think is English, notice this match between the 24AW (and DW 3L) and the English tubas. It's the tubas, not the players. (It was nice of you not to mention their teeth, this time.)

You should give the 24AW a try on your Besson, might be great! File off some rim to make room for your nose if necessary, or apparently the Kelly copy has already had this done.

Donn wrote:My current theory is that the match between tuba and mouthpiece is more in the bottom half of the mouthpiece, than the top. Throat, backbore, etc. According to the published measurements the 24AW has an unusually large throat, and I think same with the Denis Wick 3. I wonder if there's something about the compensating ductwork that makes those English tubas respond better with a large throated mouthpiece?

On the other hand, a large throat used to make those tubas (Imperials and first-run Sovereigns) play flat enough to need the notorious "Fletcher cut", which removes 3 inches of tubing from the bugle, thus raising the pitch by 30 cents or more (modern Sovereign versions leave the factory already cut).

For what it's worth, on my B&H 3+1 Imperial, the sound I get with a DW 2 (larger ID, smaller bore of 8.45) is much closer to what I want than the sound I get with a DW 3 (smaller ID, larger bore of 8.78), so I would say that the response is better with the smaller throat. On the other hand the "sound in my head" tends towards a contrabass "presence", rather than a Bass tuba "projection", so YMMV.

Maybe ... I was actually thinking of a Denis Wick 2 when I wrote that, because it's one of a handful of mouthpieces I didn't used to like, that I now like much better now that I'm playing a King 1240. It may not have the 3's extravagantly large throat, but it's still moderately large - and we aren't accounting for back bores, no idea how they stack up there.

Having spent a significant amount of time in the UK, in almost all aspects: a tourist, a resident student (not just an inter-term trip), an internship, researching family history, etc., involving in some years extended stays where I really got to know the culture, I agree with bloke. At some point, a long time ago, when mouthpieces were too shallow and bores were too small, somebody tried a 24AW that probably came into the country with something like the Sousa band a century ago. Since the deeper cup tended to reinforce the fundamental of the Eb Boosey & Besson tubas, unlike the "Kozy-Kup" and the other mouthpieces of the day, its usage started to spread. Once it became an "accepted" mouthpiece, even the venerable Wick 3 could not displace it, with the societal deference to "tradition."

It is the exact opposite of the USA - always trying the next new mouthpiece to try to get that little bit of extra oomph.

Now, somewhere between these two extremes there is a happy medium. I would opine that upon the transition to a different instrument, configuration, ensemble or repertoire, that an initial mouthpiece safari is probably necessary, if only out of curiosity. But once a good combination of mouthpiece and horn is identified, then the answer is practice, practice, practice.

When I changed the bell on my 186 from the stock detachable to the Besson, I also went on another safari, the first since acquiring the tuba in the first place. But once the respective safari's were done, they were done. Yes, out of curiosity through the years I purchased off the forum various mouthpiece just for curiosity's sake, knowing they would be flipped once I had added each experience to the collective database. Those who are regulars will remember my threads divesting of the safari rejects, as well as the curiosity episodes. I would like to think that this is a middle of the road approach between the two extremes of, "That's the way we've always done it," and "This newest (fill in the blank) will get you (desired result.)

And, like bloke, for all the reasons he sets forth as to why a 24AW, well, just simply isn't a good mouthpiece, I wholeheartedly agree.

Hmm.
We are not so stupid or stuck in a tradition-vacuum in the UK to keep playing 24AWs when something demonstrably better be available to transform our playing...
I used to think they were an unbalanced mouthpiece like a lot of you but what is clear is that the 24AW does work for a large number of players here in the UK who sound great on them on the Eb.
Tuba players in the UK are using a wider range of instruments and mouthpieces than in the past but the pairing of a compensating Eb and the 24AW remains strong and one only has to attend a concert or hear a recording to know it obviously works.
I think a 24 is something which is hard to move to if one is used to much wider internal diameters coupled with narrower rims. If one is brought up playing a 24 this is not an issue it seems.
I don't really use one personally as I've become accustomed to larger openings so find them quite restrictive. I do use a Monette Mendoker C on my Eb which has lineage back to a 24AW and Warren Deck's designs.
That a lot of our finest Bb Tuba players use them in BrassBand is testament to the fact they CAN work in the lowest register.
So I can see why folk trying one out would find them odd and despite me not using one, I'll defend the use of the 24AW, particularly paired with a compensating Eb

well said!!!

All other comments aside. No two Bach mouthpieces, and precious few others, are ever exactly alike. I have a magic Bach 18 and I've been through dozens of others looking for another that has that special sound in it. Found one that was close but it is not the equal of the good one.