TubeNet

If you are staying with something in the general vicinity of a 6 1/2 AL, have you tried the Denis Wick Ultra SM6? Similar to what you have noted on your modified mouthpiece, the Ultra SM6 is essentially a 6 1/2 AL with a slightly deeper cup and a hair more open throat and backbore. I have two: one in medium shank for my B&H 3-valve comp, and one in small shank for my Wessex bell-front. The large (standard Euph) shank may be exactly what you need, but you will know better than me. I find it does exactly what you have described: a little smaller diameter than the now-typical Wick 3, 4, or 5 rim, to retain control, and a more pleasing lower register, while keeping good definition in the mid register and security in the upper register.

bloke wrote:The c. 1.020 width (vs. 6-1/2AL 1.000 width) of the ten-buck/no-name is helpful (to me) for overall quality of sound, and the slightly deeper (yet NOT "bowl-shaped") cup of the ten-buck/no-name smooths out the low range resonance just a bit...AND the throat of the ten-buck/no-name is NO LARGER than a typical 6-1/2AL, as a "blown out throat", often, defines the ruin of an otherwise-successful design.

I agree completely. Those are the same reasons I don't use the larger Euph mouthpieces, either. It took quite a safari to find the Ultra, especially with its 6.66 mm throat and "V" backbore, instead of the "blown-out" 7.4 mm throat and large backbore.

Congrats on finding an inexpensive mouthpiece that suits your needs. All of my experiences with such mouthpieces over the years have been mediocre at best and typically dismal in general.