TubeNet

I picked a Stofer Geib after trying a lot of schilke products and a heleberg 7b. good low range and doesn't suck the wind out of ya. I use it on a mira 191. short n sweet

• Lexan Kellyberg (I have one, but want to know what others think about it.)

Kellyberg, I keep one in my oil bag, useful MP, reduces the amount of available timbre on any horn.

I do not own a Stofer Geib, but I have played on one a few times. It’s a good contrabass mouthpiece. I find that the Geib cups work especially well for rotary CC tubas. In my experience, I’ve had better luck with Helleberg style cups for piston CC tubas (Conn, PT-48, AT-3U, etc). My favorite Geib mouthpieces that I have played on are as follows: Denis Wick AT-4U (currently in use, VERY comfortable rim and sounds great), Stofer Geib (tried a few times, comfortable, good sounding), Laskey 30G (previously owned, great sound, very sharp rim that I don’t find comfortable).

Lexan Kellyberg - my go-to "good in a pinch" 'piece. It lives in my Army sousaphone case for cold weather, or backup when I forget to bring something else. Also tend to use it (or a metal Helleberg 120) to test drive horns, as this shape of mouthpiece usually proves tolerable, if not ideal, for me (even on a lot of bass tubas).

The lexan Kellyberg works well on my 36K sousa, because it feels warm to my lips in all weather conditions. point.
I have mouthpieces that fit my sound on my tubas better, including the sousa, but in case of emergency, the Kellyberg would be acceptable on all of them.

Lexan Kellyberg - my go-to "good in a pinch

+1 (x2, a clear and a yellow)

I used my lexan kellyberg full time until I discovered the Kelly lexan kt 50. That’s my full time piece now and the kellyberg is an excellent spare.

The Kellyberg rocked for me when I had the Martin. Better than the Schilke H 2.

I used a Stofer Geib for a little while, but I didn't like the small bore of the mouthpiece. It played well and sounded nice, though. FWIW, at that time I also owned the original Conn Geib that Lee copied to make his copy. The Conn played and sounded even better, but felt even tighter (small bore).

I wanted to like both a lot more than I actually did.

I'm pretty sure that's on ME as a player, and not the mouthpiece!

I have a red lexan Kellyberg and I love it. It seems to me that it is rather comfortable while allowing me to produce OK sound.

My current bandmates dont want me to play with a plastic mouthpiece (apparently THEY know best what tuba should sound like, and more importantly look like), though, so I dont use it as much anymore. Before, it was my main mouthpiece for a BBb tuba for a few years. Cant beat the feeling of playing with a mouthpiece that doesnt feel cold or hot no matter the weather. I never had any problem adjusting to playing non-metal mouthpiece, as opposed to playing metal mouthpieces with awkward shape.

bloke wrote:

I'd personally be interested to hear from someone who has tried BOTH the red AND the maroon.
Red does seem as though it would be the obvious choice, but how can anyone know - without having done a comparison?

The maroon is on sale for $17 + shipping.

If that doesn't make it sound better nothing will!!

I have/play both the lexan and stainless Kellyberg. Seem about the same to me (other than the obvious weight & rim feel differences)

My Kellyberg is "crystal" blue, and I think that's an important distinction - who knows, how the opaque Lexan is affected by the extra adulterants.

Anyway, hard to tell the difference, between the Kellyberg and the excellent Faxx fhb. The Kellyberg's rim isn't as sharp edged, and the interior profile of mine is more funnel shaped, I think enough to account for a slight but not reliably perceptible difference in tone.

hey, I also own a crystal blue kellyberg. Crystal blue is the best. For me there was a difference with the stainless, but I did not make scientific comparisons. Found the stainless to be brighter and with "less bottom", but that may be just me....

Yeah, the crystal blue has some real low end presence.

The Stofer Geib has been in and out of the Wyvern now for about a year. At first I gave it a straight shot for about 6 months. (I realize you mentioned the Monette - but I have to add it into the comparison) For a couple of simple reasons I did not end up with the S/G. That other (Prana 94) won my little comparison.
Accoustically I thought the S/D was sweet, capable of a huge warm sound, particularly on larger tubas.It was incredible on the Wessex York prototype.
I rather liked the smaller throat, and I really couldn't tell you beans about the length of the throat or back bore.
I felt the throat was balanced perfectly with the size of the cup to make it possible for it to accept a huge sound.
Volume was never an issue, nor was timbre or any aspect of the quality of sound.
My issue was with the rim. At first I found it extremely comfortable. It allowed for incredible sensitivity for the articulation/release of sound. I did not keep jumping back and forth for these first months. I wanted to know what this piece could do on its own. I believe when we swap back and forth after only a few minutes, what we experience for a large part is how the chops react to the previous MP.
To cut to the chase, for me the rim was a little narrow and sunk into the lip tissue a little too quickly when playing strenuous charts for extended periods. I also realize that the rim is one of the sweet features of this MP. Had I not had the Prana 94, I would still be playing the S/G. The S/G is a rather sophisticated piece, whatever that means.
I pulled it out last week for another go at it, and put it away after just 2 orchestra rehearsals.
It is strange that in the 1960s I had an original Conn Geib,($5,00) kept it for a few months and sold it back for $4.00.
Being a young player, I did not understand how to deal with the sharper rim and on graduation with a class of 500 (7 times throught Pomp and Circum...)worked myself a nice water blister on my upper lip. But that could have happened on the Conn 120.
On its own the S/G is a beautiful creation and a wonderful tool. I would recommend it, but it ain't cheap. $250 in gold.
Buy it and get used to it. Take the time without a bunch of yapping from others, and have it tell you what it needs.

On a sidebar, I am curious as to what the S/G might feel like in Lexan.

tubajazzo wrote: Found the stainless to be brighter and with "less bottom", but that may be just me....

Nobody liked "less bottom!!"

I really like KELLY Mouthpieces. I have used the Kellyberg on my sousaphone for both marching band and NOLA brass band. I have also used the Kellyberg on my Conn 25J tuba and the Kellyberg works well. I recently purchased a KELLY KT-50 and I think it’s great! For me, the KT-50 offers a similar feel and similar playing characteristics as the PT-50 mouthpiece. For my JP 3 + 1 EEb Tuba, the Kelly 24AW works very well. The Kelly 24AW is not the same as a Bach 24AW. Completely different rim...much thinner.

Why Kelly lexan Mouthpieces?
Well, let’s just say that I have sensitive skin and an underlying medical condition that flairs up from time to time that makes playing on silver plated, gold plated, stainless steel, lexan rimmed, and titanium Mouthpieces very uncomfortable. Yes, I have tried them all. Multiple Times...

Lexan vs Brass vs Stainless Steel vs Titanium?
Yes, in my opinion they offer their own unique tonal qualities. However, they all offer the ability to produce a good sound. With that said, I really think that the biggest differences in timbre, articulation, intonation, and efficiency are a result of the internal dimensions of the cup, throat/backbore, the shank/receiver relationship, and the rim shape. Ultimately, it’s what feels comfortable and enables the player to produce the desired sound, clarity, and intonation “out front” that really matters. I highly recommend recording yourself both individually and in an ensemble before you decide what works best. It’s not how clear and awesome you sound at your seat that matters, it’s how clear and awesome you sound in the audience seats that matters.

I keep Kellybergs in my car, gig bag, in the tuba room, and at home. They’re cheap enough to have multiple of and I don’t mind lending them out if someone forgot a mouthpiece or for pep band when it’s the end of October in South Dakota and we have snow.

Plus they draw attention and as a tubist, I crave attention.

(I think we all know that the Glow-in-the-Dark is the one you really want )

I haven’t tried the glitter gold 24AW. However, I have tried the Harvest Gold 24AW. The Harvest Gold 24AW enables the performer to exhibit a certain “earthiness” in their sound with a little “dirt” when the situation calls for such tonal qualities. Perhaps the Glitter Gold 24AW would enable the performer to produce a “pretty” sound with some “sparkles?”