Mouthpieces on a VMI 2103

[iiipopes]

So, what mouthpieces have people tried and liked, disliked or had no opinion about on a VMI 2103, and why? If I get one of these tubas, I'll have to get a mouthpiece, since my Wick 1 on my Besson is the small shank.

I know bloke will say Loud LM-7.

Please stay in the neighborhood of 1.28in/32.5mm cup diameter.

[bububassboner]

what price range are you looking at?

[ASTuba]

I had an LM-7, and quite frankly, I didn't care for it. I thought the mouthpiece felt huge to me on it, and I really couldn't make it work for me. I think it was that the backbore was just too big, but I don't know. I just never could get used to that.

Why not try something like a Laskey 30H or 28H? Should be close to the range your looking for.

[Rick Denney]

So, what mouthpieces have people tried and liked, disliked or had no opinion about on a VMI 2103, and why?

Start with a Conn Helleberg. I've never hated that mouthpiece on any tuba.

I used a Miraphone Rose Orchestra on the VMI-made rotary tuba I once owned, but I suspect I'd do something different now.

I see no value in trying to make the VMI something it isn't by putting a toilet bowl on it.

It's sorta hard to be specific, however, because the shape of your face and your playing style will have a bigger effect on the mouthpiece choice than the tuba.

Rick "who thinks the deep funnel is the right starting point" Denney

[iiipopes]

So, Rick -- a Wick 1L cup is about the same as a Conn Helleberg, but I like the rim better. Believe me, I'm not trying to make the VMI anything it "isn't." I don't have the lungs for it. Whaddya think? 1.28 is right in the middle of things:
http://www.ibowtie.com/tubampccharts.html

[Alex F]

I found the Wick 2L useful.

FWIW, Roger Lewis recommended the Bobo Solo Replica when I bought my 2103. It did not seem to work for me but . . .

FWIW2, mine shipped with a B&S Bach 18 copy.

[iiipopes]

I have a Bach 18, and a Kelly 18. My Bach 18 is larger than "spec," as most of them are, and is the same size as both the Kelly 18 & my Wick 1.

I also have a Wick 2; I didn't get along with it too well on my Besson, but maybe on a 2103 it would do alright.

Yes, and I'm very aware of the classic comeback about playing the one that comes with the horn. I have found one grave exception to this thought, however: the UMI/Conn 2 that came with my friend's Conn 56J is not worth much.

[Rick Denney]

So, Rick -- a Wick 1L cup is about the same as a Conn Helleberg, but I like the rim better. Believe me, I'm not trying to make the VMI anything it "isn't." I don't have the lungs for it. Whaddya think? 1.28 is right in the middle of things:
http://www.ibowtie.com/tubampccharts.html

A Wick 1 is a decent mouthpiece. I have one in the small shank for use on the York Master before I had the receiver properly reamed. But after that work, the tuba sounded better with a Conn, and better still with a mouthpiece more suited to my face. It took a some custom work in a one-on-one session with Doug Elliott to improve on the Conn.

According to Doug's chart, the Wick 1 is smaller than 1.28, but of course there is no consistent standard for measuring the curves involved. If the regular Conn seems too big for you, then try the Conn Helleberg 7B. I find mouthpieces that size to be too small to feel comfortable when playing a Bb tuba, but that's not likely to be relevant to anyone else.

If you have the Wick already, then you might as well start with it.

The point of recommending the Conn is that it is the most vanilla mouthpiece of them all. It's inexpensive, versatile, and proven in horns of similar size and type. There is only one thing you can be sure of: The mouthpiece you end up with is unlikely to be the one you start with. No sense in starting with a $200 mouthpiece when you have no experience with the instrument, even if Gene Pokorny wrote you and told you how great that mouthpiece is with his 2103.

I do think the deep funnel designs will prove more effective than the cup-shaped designs on a 2103, unless you want the barkier (thanks to Bloke for that word) sound they provide on a 4/4 rotary tuba. The Conn is the archetype for the deep funnel.

Rick "who knows that Gene doesn't actually own a 2103" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Yes, and I'm very aware of the classic comeback about playing the one that comes with the horn. I have found one grave exception to this thought, however: the UMI/Conn 2 that came with my friend's Conn 56J is not worth much.

I don't know what that classic comeback is, but I have never found the supplied mouthpiece to be particularly effective for me. Assuming (which would be the wrong thing to do here) that the factory selects that mouthpiece on purpose, it just shows that the face and the intentions of the player have a bigger effect than does the tuba. But I think most factories include their cheapest and most vanilla mouthpiece with their instruments, if they supply one at all.

The Holton Revelation 52 that was supplied with the 345 is a woof-monster. It's exactly wrong for that instrument unless you want to sound like a string bass with the pin resting on a mattress. I've heard of one person who actually liked the Yamaha 67c4 that came with my 621 F tuba, but I can't do a thing with it. And so it goes.

Rick "who started with proven generic designs first" Denney

[windshieldbug]

I don't know what that classic comeback is

Bill Bell (or someone of similar stature), when asked about mouthpieces once remarked that the mouthpiece that comes with the horn is usually good enough. With his chops, I'm sure he was correct!

[Rick Denney]

I don't know what that classic comeback is

Bill Bell (or someone of similar stature), when asked about mouthpieces once remarked that the mouthpiece that comes with the horn is usually good enough. With his chops, I'm sure he was correct!

And I'll bet he was saying that to someone who was focused on mouthpiece choices instead of their own playing. That doesn't mean Mr. Bell intended that statement as a universal truth.

Jacobs changed mouthpieces all the time and for a variety of reasons, and it's clear that he experimented quite a bit. He said that it's cheaper to change mouthpieces than to buy instruments. We probably don't want to elevate that to universal truth either.

Rick "who has received good-faith but ultimately unproductive mouthpiece advice from some of the best players in the land" Denney

[iiipopes]

VMI or Jupiter? The answer is...neither.

I played a Jupiter at a band director's school, and it played like a lightweight version of my Besson -- a little thin for me. Meanwhile, WWBW under their new owners jacked the price more than $500 and took it out of the territory.

So, I surfed and found an early 1970's Miraphone 186 with detachable bell for, well, a song. But...

It has both its original detachable recording bell and a retrofitted upright bell. Obviously, the upright bell will be used most. But I'm really looking forward to outdoor gigs, like the county fair, Independance Day, parade floats, etc., for the forward bell.

Unfortunately, to retrofit the upright bell, the wiseacres at Tuba Exchange took the tenon off the recording bell instead of fitting a new one to preserve the recording bell. So I'll have to sort that out first before I can use it. But I did get a good deal on the tuba overall, also in spite of the fact that the upright bell is too short and I have to pull the tuning slide all the way, and they wouldn't help me figure out a longer one.

But, at least I'm back in business, and I'm getting a longer main tuning slide and a couple of other niggles sorted out thanks to Dan Schultz, who as you all know has done a lot of work on Miraphones and has proper retrofit bells and other hardware for both conventional and detachable bell Miraphones. Also, I found a valve-less carcass of a Besson in great shape to transplant my Besson valve block onto as an ongoing project for the next few months for less than $100 including shipping, so I'm feeling much better now!

As far as mouthpieces, I tried a new Conn 120 Helleberg, and just didn't like it. I tried a Bach 18, and it was a little rough, but that may be the particular mouthpiece and not a statement to be generalized. I tried the Kelly 18, and although it did well, I can finally tell a slight bit of difference coming out the bell between it and its namesake.

I ordered, received and tried a LOUD LM-7 mouthpiece. Very fine mouthpiece indeed. The workmanship is top quality, and even though the bowl is a pretty standard bowl, it looks like they've done something to the throat and the way its taper transitions to the backbore to make it a superlative mouthpiece for cleanness of articulation. If I were needing to do a lot of close mike recording, orchestra work, or other work where absolute clean and technical precision and consistency throughout the registers were the overriding factors, I would keep it. but for me it's a little dry and/or sterile, shall I say, "surgical," or maybe "tight" might be a description also, for me for concert band.

I'm going to stick with my Wick 1 for my Besson and a Wick 1L for my Miraphone to get a little bit warmer, broader sound for my application, as it not only has the best compromise between good slotting and a broad warm tone still with some core, and great response in the bread and butter register of a traditional concert band, but with its ever so slightly larger throat and different backbore taper the 5th partials are not as flat as they can notoriously be on a Miraphone.

Thanks to everyone for all your input. It helped me sort out my situation very well.