Marcinkiewicz H Hellebergs

[Donn]

Marcinkiewicz lists a series of Helleberg style mouthpieces, with a range of cup depths, H1 to H4 in order of decreasing depth.
http://www.marcinkiewicz.com/mouthpiece ... andard.htm

Anyone seen one, have any idea how their dimensions compare with other reasonably common models like Laskey 130H and F, Conn Hellebergs, etc.?

The occasion is the return of my big Czech Eb helicon from a brief visit to Oberloh, now playing a lot cleaner and with a new receiver for American shank. I was about to conclude that these mouthpieces are nearly unknown among the Tubenet gang, when I searched "old Tubenet" and found lots of references to the H1, and one comment about the H4 that leads me to guess it might similar to a 130F. Here's to Old Tubenet!

[Tubaryan12]

Anyone seen one, have any idea how their dimensions compare with other reasonably common models like Laskey 130H and F, Conn Hellebergs, etc.?

Do you mean Laskey 30H?

If so, according to AndyCatt's list, the Marcinkiewicz H series have a larger interior cup size (33.60mm vs. 32.89mm) and the throat of the Marcinkiewicz is larger (8.33mm vs 8.20mm-7.49mm for the range of Laskey 30 series). The same can be said for the Conn Helleberg as well (32.5mm i.d. and 8.10mm throat)

I have played the Marcinkiewicz H2 and liked the sound that I got with it in my horn, but I don't have the chops to handle a mouthpiece that large.

[Chuck(G)]

I have played the Marcinkiewicz H2 and liked the sound that I got with it in my horn, but I don't have the chops to handle a mouthpiece that large.

Isn't this why it's useless talking about mouthpieces, expecting that a mouthpiece that works for one persion is going to work for another? Someone with more "meat" on their lips might find the H2 small. That same person doesn't mind a sharp narrow rim that would be found to be darned uncomfortable to another. That's why designations like "large" are pretty useless. Are size 13 shoes "large"? Not if you have size 15 feet!

The best advice that anyone can give is "try a bunch of mouthpieces and see which ones work for you."

[iiipopes]

In addition to the Laskey and the Marc, also consider a Wick 3L as it is also designed for Eb horns, with a moderate cup, sizable throat, and Bachish rim, as compared to the rest of the universe of mouthpieces.

[Donn]

Isn't this why it's useless talking about mouthpieces, expecting that a mouthpiece that works for one persion is going to work for another? Someone with more "meat" on their lips might find the H2 small. That same person doesn't mind a sharp narrow rim that would be found to be darned uncomfortable to another. That's why designations like "large" are pretty useless. Are size 13 shoes "large"? Not if you have size 15 feet!

The best advice that anyone can give is "try a bunch of mouthpieces and see which ones work for you."

For sure, but that still leaves a lot of mouthpieces untried. The Josef Klier catalogue alone at Dillon would keep me busy for a while, and where do I even get all those Bruno Tilz models? My starting hypothesis is that there's some help in gross generalization based on width, depth, H vs G shape, etc. And asking for ideas about dimensions, I should have said more specifically "depth" - width & bore I can look up myself, but depth is rarely documented and harder to measure consistently, so for that I rely on people's subjective estimates. I think I'm getting an idea, from Bloke's comments and the fact that the range of variation between H1 and H4 is less than 1/8.

Of course the subjectivity issues are worse than you make them out to be. Along with physiology, it depends on the tuba (as bloke already mentioned). Plus the application (orchestra, polka, etc.), experience and temperament of the player. But what really fries it is that over time we adapt to what we have, so after several years of playing X, X really does tend to be your best bet regardless. And inversely, if I were to pick up an H1 just because bloke plays it - or whatever you play - and stick to it and practice a lot, I could probably do worse. Anyway, comments on these mouthpieces from bloke & tubaryan are very interesting notwithstanding, and I'm grateful that they took the time to write.

I do wear size 13 shoes, and unfortunately they are large. Large rims are kind of the same way. I know what you mean, I hate to read advice like "don't get a DW1, it's too large, I use a DW2", but I didn't take tubaryan's comment like that. The rim size could indeed be an issue, even if historically it hasn't been for me. (Actually most of the Marcinkiewicz line is near the top of the wide mouthpiece list, makes me wonder if this is another dimension that depends on who's measuring.)

[Chuck(G)]

Let's see--you're in Seattle and Joe's operation is in Canby. It's a haul, but if you find yourself in the Portland area, give Joe a call and see if you can bring your horn over and try a few mouthpieces. AFAIK, he's never said "no" to anyone, though he is a bit of a strange bird at times.

[Tubaryan12]

...the fact that the range of variation between H1 and H4 is less than 1/8...

fwiw, the cup depth difference (the only real difference in the various Marc. "H" series mouthpieces) between the "1" and the "4" is significantly more than 1/8"...

...It is nearly exactly 1/6".

and this is the most amazing thing about mouthpieces. I switched to a mouthpiece that is less than 1mm smaller in inner diameter and it has made a big difference in my control and "feel". Truly not one size fits all. I switched 3 weeks ago and the 1st thing out of the trombone player sitting next to me after the first practice was "I can finally hear you again"

I think the reason tuba players ask so many mouthpiece questions is because it is not easy to try a lot of mouthpieces. There are very few to try in most towns and it cost a lot of dough to constantly buy > try > return > repeat.

[Donn]

fwiw, the cup depth difference (the only real difference in the various Marc. "H" series mouthpieces) between the "1" and the "4" is significantly more than 1/8"...

...It is nearly exactly 1/6".

? According to the table, H4/H1 = 1.467/1.632 ~= 9/10.

At any rate, much less drastic than the Laskey F/H ratio, which he says is "1/3 more shallow".

I'm comfortable enough with sight unseen mouthpiece purchases. Every mouthpiece I've bought is my favorite. (At least ever since the C4, which was 20 years ago.) They each have their charms, and there's no way I could justify picking one over the other after just a couple minutes alone in a small room. (I have to say, though, not to incite envy or anything, but before the receiver operation I treated my helicon to a Euro shank G&W Diablo, and that's one combination that I could pick in a minute. Probably anything in that line, assuming throats are more or less the same. It's still the best thing I have, but the shank is now not such a clean fit.)

[iiipopes]

Proportions, bloke, proportions, not differences.

What he was trying to get across is that the H1 is roughly 9/10 as deep as an H4, whereas the Laskey F is 2/3 as deep as a Laskey H.

His conclusion presumably being there is not as much difference between Marc mpcs as there is with Laskey mpcs.

(Please correct me if I misinterpreted the point.)

Of course, that does beg the question 9/10 as deep as what? Since the contour of a mouthpiece is a complex curve that defies description except probably by calculus, which is way over my head, at what point is each of these being measured? The crest of the mouthpiece rim? The "alpha" angle, or the tangential point of acuteness in the transition from rim to bowl? The "beta" angle, or the tangential point of acutness in transition from bottom of bowl to throat, or to the narrowest point of the throat, or something completely different?

Specs are a guide to help you get into the ball park. You must still run the bases (try them out) if you want to score the "best" (meaning what set of compromises you can live with having the least overall irritation or inconvenience, since no mouthpiece can do everything) mouthpiece for your personal situation and instrument.

[Donn]

Of course, that does beg the question 9/10 as deep as what? Since the contour of a mouthpiece is a complex curve that defies description except probably by calculus, which is way over my head, at what point is each of these being measured? The crest of the mouthpiece rim? The "alpha" angle, or the tangential point of acuteness in the transition from rim to bowl? The "beta" angle, or the tangential point of acutness in transition from bottom of bowl to throat, or to the narrowest point of the throat, or something completely different?

I use my thumb, planted firmly (but not too firmly) in the throat.

In answer to your question, of course, "9/10 as deep as the H1". This measurement is clearly not useful when reported by different people - for example, Kellyberg is deeper than the Marcinkiewicz H1 by the numbers, but probably isn't really. I was just trying to get a sense of how radical the range might be, across the H series.

Speaking of dimensions and my Kellyberg ... is it common for Helleberg copy mouthpieces to have a slight internal shoulder, about where the outside flares out towards the rim edge? Where other mouthpieces present a uniformly concave slope from the rim to the throat.

[iiipopes]

If you mean the "sharp bite" of the inner edge of the rim, yes. Even though I have never seen one of the very few extant mouthpieces actually used by August Helleberg, tradition is that he liked a flatter rim with a sharper inner edge of the rim in order to get a better "seal" between his embouchure and the mouthpiece for better tone, flexibility and intonation. For me and a lot of others, this just causes reduced endurance, so most Helleberg copies put a little bit of contour to the rim, but retain the sharper edge. Mike Finn makes a 3H, which supposedly has the really flat and sharp rim, but I have not tried one out. The current Conn Helleberg does have the sharper edge, and I did not like it.

Another traditional aspect of the Helleberg mouthpiece is a deep funnelled cup, though not straight sided as, say, a french horn mouthpiece magnified. In fact, some manufacturers will call their deep funnel mouthpieces "Helleberg," even though they may have a rounded rim. My Wick 1 does have that type of deep funnel, though with a more rounded, Bach-ish rim, and I get a nice, deep, spacious tone with it, and superlative intonation and flexibility all the way up and down on my Besson. But it is not called a Wick-Helleberg. Granted, I'm playing the horn the mouthpiece was designed for, so that aspect should be factored into the equasion for any instrument/mouthpiece combination.

A funnelled cup, all things being equal, will tend to truncate higher harmonics while a bowl cup, like a Bach 18, will tend to reinforce them. So if you have an instrument that is particularly bright or dark to begin with, this also needs to be taken into account in the choice of a mouthpiece. For example, my Wick 2 has a more bowl shaped mouthpiece more like a Bach 18, and the tone I get with it is more core and projecting, more suited for solo work.

[Donn]

If you mean the "sharp bite" of the inner edge of the rim, yes.

No, I don't mean that. Check this out:

is it common for Helleberg copy mouthpieces to have a slight internal shoulder, about where the outside flares out towards the rim edge?

If the ``outside flares out'' part isn't helping, maybe because you're looking at a Denis Wick whose outside is utterly different, think ``about halfway down inside.'' Of course a feature found at this location obviously isn't going to be sharp in any way, so maybe ``slight internal shoulder'' will stand without further explanation.

As you observe, not a strictly straight sided funnel, but in this case, I'd have to look at it again to verify this, but the shape above this shoulder may be close to that, and only below does it bowl out a little.

[iiipopes]

I had to think about this one for awhile. Let's try again. If you mean that part of the way down the cup looks like it angles in towards the throat instead of smoothly curving towards the throat, then yes, I believe that is a design point as well. I've never played a mouthpiece that has an actual, though I'm sure smoothed out, angle in the cup. I've only played various degrees of bowls and rounded funnels. The closest thing I can think of is a pipe organ koppelflute, which has an open cone top on a cylindrical body of rather large scale. On the organ pipe, at least, it has the effect of reinforcing the octave partial (hence, the "koppel" designation, because it blends well with other stops), because it is open, but truncating a lot of the upper overtones so it doesn't get in the way of anything else.

[Donn]

Well, all that's clear from this is that it's hard to describe without a diagram. I lied when I said this shoulder is halfway down, it's nearer the top than that, maybe 1/4 of the way into. It is very slight. If I put my thumb in, though, I can feel a slight ridge at this point. Not to worry, this may not be a topic of sufficient interest to pursue any further. It's funny, I have a handful of mouthpieces, and as a rule their internal cup walls present very smooth, continuous curves, and the two exceptions are the cheapest and the most expensive of them, differing by about a factor of 5 in this respect.

[Donn]

I wouldn't think a stock Marcinkiewicz would lie within the "most expensive" category, unless the other four are Kelly, Faxx, DEG, and the like.

It wouldn't be, but that wasn't the other mouthpiece to which I mysteriously alluded. I could guess that it's probably easier to mill the brass stock that most mouthpieces are made of, but it seems more likely that whatever perceptible variations in the shape of the interior are probably intended by design. Hope that clears things up (heh)