TubeNet

Anyone own or spent time with one? I assume g&w, now just Giddings, is the only source. Curious,specifically titanium bayamo.

Have one, use it occasionally - Big sound, warms up quickly, but for me (personal opinion) it seems to have a coarser tone/breaks-up easier. This is the older style, heavy wall, and it weighs about the same (maybe slightly less) as a newer style, lightweight in Stainless. Anything specific you need to know about them? It does give the 4345 a bigger sound, but doesn't seem to do the same with my larger horns.

TubaSailor wrote:Have one, use it occasionally - Big sound, warms up quickly, but for me (personal opinion) it seems to have a coarser tone/breaks-up easier. This is the older style, heavy wall, and it weighs about the same (maybe slightly less) as a newer style, lightweight in Stainless. Anything specific you need to know about them? It does give the 4345 a bigger sound, but doesn't seem to do the same with my larger horns.

Pretty much this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5BeptSdH7M" target="_blank

But seriously, that is true. They have a great feel.

Hi Mike. I played the older style Baer, in titanium, on my Besson 983 Eb when I wanted it to sound like a 3/4 or smallish 4/4 CC tuba. It worked! It was much 'darker' and smoother sounding than the stainless steel version of the very same piece.

Then when I got the Neptune, that just didn't translate. I can't say why, but it just wasn't a match. I sold that m.p. off (I no longer have the 983). Now I use the new style Baer (Euroshank) with the extra dense stainless steel. That piece works wonders on the Neptune. I think the extra dense stainless steel may accomplish pretty much the same thing as the titanium does.

I don't know if any of this helps, but it's fuel for thought. I would try the new style Baer first before committing to the extra expense of a titanium piece.

I've played both the titanium and stainless steel versions of the Giddings Baer MMVI. The titanium provides very clear articulations, dark tone, excellent range, fast response, and worked very well in a quintet setting. The titanium had good dynamic range, with the ability to play pianissimo passages beautifully with ease, but very loud dynamics were somewhat limited compared to the regular steel version. For me, the stainless steel version is also very articulate, responds quickly, provides greater dynamic range, greater projection, and provides a larger denser dark resonant tone. YMMV.

I believe... cue spooky music from xfiles

I believe, too...that there is a big influence from wall thickness or outside dimensions according to material used for the mouthpiece.
Years ago I looked for a big mouthpiece for my new Nirschl CC and found a Tilz M32. It was great in intonation an sound, but it had a nice big cup with very thin walls and it proved impossible to play really loud. For this Bruno Tilz gave me a very heavy booster, with that I could play three times louder. But soft playing was nearly impossible... So at last I covered the outside of the cup and the transition into the shank with rubber (yes, old bicycle inner tube!) and it worked great for all dynamics. (Bloke: it was ONE tuba with ONE player using ONE mouthpiece, so it was nearly scientific!).
So regarding the different material properties there may be a difference between two mouthpieces of the same dimensions.

bloke wrote: As I have pointed out before, the vast majority of (almost all?) saxophone players are absolutely convinced that plated brass mouthpieces or stainless steel mouthpieces or aluminum mouthpieces always sound brighter than hard rubber mouthpieces, but there really is no such thing as a hard rubber mouthpiece and any metal mouthpiece with exactly the same dimensions for saxophone.

I think that misconception is starting to fade a little. Might have been almost all, 20 years ago, but these days it depends - players who follow this stuff are starting to realize. And the mouthpiece I use for tenor sax is a newer Claude Lakey, "hard rubber" but CNC milled I assume to the same specs as the more widely known plated brass variant.

I don't know if that option - using the same cutting template with a similar enough material - is so much an option for brass mouthpieces.

Just to continue th sax mp derailment... even if the same interior dimensions are used on saxophone mouthpieces of brass and hard rubber- the exterior dimensions will be different.

More specifically the beaks of the mp will be different meaning the player will take in different amounts. This has a huge effect on sax sound- if you “swallow” a mouthpiece like a jazz guy or just the tip like a more legit guy.

bloke wrote:I understand that I'm in the minority who don't see any difference in mouthpieces with identical interior dimensions and identical rim contours, as long as the rim material doesn't grab at players' skin..

Minority is an understatement. I believe that number to be 2. Counting me.

It certainly feels different in terms of player feedback, but I can’t promise it sounds different out front. Player feedback is an important factor to me. If I’m enjoying the feedback, I tend to play more.

Bought myself a titanium Bayamo after trying it and a steel version back-to-back[-to-back-to-back-to-back...] at the Army workshop. I went back and forth quickly enough that I started to forget which mouthpiece I was playing, but one still felt nicer, and when I finally decided that one was nice enough to care about, it was the titanium model. When Ivan handed it to me to try out, he said, "I hesitate to say to try it, because it's a lot of money to spend, and you might like it as much as some of the other guys do."