TubeNet

Hi all! I have been looking at getting an Alan baer original CC mouthpiece. I'd love to try one out, but I can't really do that without purchasing one. So, I am turning to you as my "Comparison tester". I suppose the question is how would the mouthpiece compare to my tried and true PT-50?

I've used both on the horns in my sig. I like the PT-50 so much that I purchased a gold plated one from Custom Music and gave my silver one with a small dent in the shank to a college section mate. I sold the Baer piece. The wider rim and different cup architecture of the Baer wasn't working for me. Also, both the sound and the low range response weren't what I was looking for. The GW shank size difference has been explored in another thread. The PT-50 (from behind the horn) gives a more luxurious sound very similar to the Mike Finn MF3H. Where these both suffer and the Blokepiece Symphony with a standard 33.2 #2 rim excels is in what as I call low range "traction" on the MP. For me this means less embouchure change attacking and tonguing notes below low G. The sound produced by the Blokepiece although to me seems less full of overtones etc. may be better projected into the hall with more core. As much as I love the PT-50 and MF3H I keep coming back to the Blokepiece. Also the Blokepiece is the only one of the three that I can somewhat reliably tongue a pedal Bb on my CC horns. Funny how that is when the other pieces have more apparent volume.

FWIW, I like the Baer MMVI a lot more than the Baer original. IIRC, the cup is the same on both, there is an extra but of mass on the outside of the MMVI, and the rim of the MMVI is flatter, sharper, and narrower. I forget what the PT-50 is like, but I think the MMVI rim might be closer to the PT-50.

I really don't like stainless mouthpieces, but otherwise I like the Baer MMVI. Maybe not my favorite mouthpiece of all time, but a trusty old stand-by.

Besides cost, the PT-50 is going to be a lot cheaper new than the Baer. Used, you can often find them both for about the same price.

FWIW, I agree with the above post about the Mike Finn 3H. It's a very nice mouthpiece. Heavy as hell, but it sounds very nice on my tuba.

Tampaworth wrote: The GW shank size difference has been explored in another thread.

Can you send the link?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72984" target="_blank

bloke wrote:strikingly different mouthpieces

1/immense depth + somewhat conservative rim
2/ conservative depth + very broad rim

' too different (in my view) to "compare".

And both are mouthpieces that seem to appear quite often in the used marketplace. This might suggest that quite a few people are finding something not so extreme or not so conservative in one way or another to be more satisfactory?

bloke wrote:
I view the very brief descriptions offered as accurate.

Sure, me too. I just meant to add the thought that the brief descriptions might point to why they are so often for sale, and thereby to suggest it might be worthwhile to look for some third option.

Michael Bush wrote:

bloke wrote:
I view the very brief descriptions offered as accurate.

Sure, me too. I just meant to add the thought that the brief descriptions might point to why they are so often for sale, and thereby to suggest it might be worthwhile to look for some third option.

That's why I presented my view on the Blokepiece Symphony

MP threads are like "what oil should I use" threads on the Harley Davidson forums. They piss some people off because the subject has been covered ad nauseum, but it sure seems like a lot of people read them.

Have you tried to message Giddings and Webster about your desire to try one? When I bought my Baer a few years back, I remember particularly good service.

I never tried the PT50 but the Baer MMVI had a rim that was just too wide for my liking. Additionally, the cup was not very deep for a CC mouthpiece.

Tucci once mentioned that another mouthpiece maker refered to the Perantucci PT-50 as "the 1 1/2C of the tuba world". That would have to be the venerable Helleberg. The PT-50 is more solid in sound and has an excellent balance of all desirable attributes. This way or that, a good mouthpiece with a good balance in the price as well!

Eugene

big_blue_tubist wrote:Have you tried to message Giddings and Webster about your desire to try one? When I bought my Baer a few years back, I remember particularly good service.

I actually hadn't thought of asking, maybe it's worth a shot.

Tampaworth wrote:MP threads are like "what oil should I use" threads on the Harley Davidson forums. They piss some people off because the subject has been covered ad nauseum, but it sure seems like a lot of people read them.

Sorry if this had been covered before, I'm still relatively new to the area.

tyrell1111 wrote:Sorry if this had been covered before

This is a public forum and your question is valid. With over 600 views, other people including myself share your interest. I like that these threads spur the more experienced to share some cool factoids here and there as you see in this thread.

Which shank size do you need? I have a Euro-shank GW original Baer not currently in use. You are welcome to try it if you cover the shipping...let me know.

Gary Dahl

g3dahl wrote:Which shank size do you need? I have a Euro-shank GW original Baer not currently in use. You are welcome to try it if you cover the shipping...let me know.

I play a Miraphone 1291 right now, so I think I would need a standard shank, otherwise I would definitely take you up on that offer.