BlokePiece I vs. II

[MartyNeilan]

I have "searched the archives" and seen the comparison pictures, but still would like more information, and more opinions on these two pieces. I most likely will order one with the rounded "II" rim, but are currently undecided on which underparts (not underpants) will fit me best.

[cjk]

I have "searched the archives" and seen the comparison pictures, but still would like more information, and more opinions on these two pieces. I most likely will order one with the rounded "II" rim, but are currently undecided on which underparts (not underpants) will fit me best.

I've heard bloke A/B version 1 and 2. Version 2 sounded a bit more "round". I did not play version 2 myself. I have version 1.

I will piggy-back on Marty's post and ask if anybody has compared these to similar mouthpieces (i.e. LOUD LM-10, Marcinkiewicz N4 or any of the Jim Self Models) on a 4/4+ CC. I can see where they would work well on an F or a BAT... but I am wondering how they would work on a 4/4. In particular I like the Jim Self models overall sound-- but it seems to be lacking a bit in the low range (for me, since I am obviously not Kryptonian like Jim Self).

So, have any of you out there had a chance to compare the Blokepiece to these known quantities???

It is funny you mention that equipment as I own or have owned all of it.

The Marc N4 is shallow. The inner dimension is very wide (33.66mm). The rim is wide. The throat is small (7.67mm). For me, I find the rim to be too wide, the inner dimension too wide, and the throat too small.

The LOUD LM-10 is shallow. The inner dimension is wide (33.5mm) . The rim is still pretty wide. The throat is quite big. At 8.3mm, the throat is bigger than a Conn Helleberg. While I do like it better than the N4 especially in the low register, I find the throat to be too big and the inner dimension too wide.

The Blokepiece is shallow. The inner dimension is wide (very close to 33mm), but a bit less so than the N4 or LM10. The rim is narrow (7mm). The throat is "normal" (around 8mm). It addresses all the things I don't like about the N4 and LM10. It plays really easily down low. I have to consciously *reduce* the amount of effort I use to play the low register on my RM else I over-articulate. The blokepiece plays down low really easily.

The Yamaha Jim Self is fairly deep, yet still sounds clear. It has a normal size throat. The rim is quite wide (C4 wide), but has a fairly square inner edge, more like a Rose Solo. It has a narrower inner dimension than anything mentioned above.

I hope this helps,

Christian

[imperialbari]

Owning and using the Solo (version 1) in one piece I am especially interested in reports whether there is a significant difference between that mouthpiece and the version 2 underpart combined with the flat/sharper edge rim of the version 1?

Klaus

[Tuba-G Bass]

Bloke,
I didn't know Ursula Andress played Tuba
Being Swiss she must play a Willson
One of the best Bond girls ever

[imperialbari]

Bloke,
I didn't know Ursula Andress played Tuba
Being Swiss she must have played a Hirsbrunner
One of the best Bond girls ever

Sad to admit so, but apparently I am better in the know about elderly ladies. bloke used Brigitte Bardot as his lure.

K

[Tuba-G Bass]

Klaus writes "bloke used Brigitte Bardot as his lure"
And I fell for it, hook, line, and sinker!
Not the first time I mix up the Blondes

[ken k]

Somewhere I missed the memo on the bloke II or is that the one i own?
I have the Selmansberger Solo
this is mine with the H-kote finish:





also how does it compare to the glitter gold kellyberg?

and when will they come out in lexan?

ken k

[imperialbari]

Your photo clearly shows the version #1:

The word Solo is one of the determining parameters.

The thick wall around the fairly small aperture of the shank end is the other one.

Klaus

[stainlessmpman]

Ken,

Yours is the #1.


I haven't thought about sparkles and lexan but it would make a nice Barbie Doll accessory I'll check with the Blokester..
Dave H.

[ken k]

thank you, so what is the difference with the # 2?
k

[imperialbari]

thank you, so what is the difference with the # 2?
k

#2 is said to have same cup and reversed throat (the main idea of the blokepiece)

#2 has a rounded narrow rim versus the flattish rim of #1 with its sharper edge.

#2 has a more open backbore leading to a thinner wall at the aperture of the stem.

Klaus

[MartyNeilan]

#2 version differences: (subtle)
- rim is slightly narrower yet and more rounded - particularly on the outside edge
- back part of backbore (last 1/2" or so) opens out larger
' no other differences, except now BOTH versions are screw-rim and may be mixed/matched.

#2 is said to have same cup and reversed throat (the main idea of the blokepiece)
#2 has a rounded narrow rim versus the flattish rim of #1 with its sharper edge.
#2 has a more open backbore leading to a thinner wall at the aperture of the stem.
Klaus

OK, I am confused...
Although Klaus' second and third comments line up with what Joe posted earlier, his first one seems totally different, What gives?

[imperialbari]

The cup and throat are the same. Not mentioned as a difference. but as the continuum between the two versions.

Klaus

[bisontuba]

Hi-
Just received my 'Bloke I' screw rim mouthpiece today--it is fantastic--here are some pics:





I love the clarity and power of sound it produces--in fact, I just ordered up a 'Bloke II' screw rim mouthpiece this morning. Highly recommended!
Regards-
mark
jonestuba@Juno.com" target="_blank

[Norm Pearson]

My Blokepiece's arrived yesterday and I spent about two hours messing around with them in the garage. So far I am very impressed with both of them. They seem to work best for me on my f tubas but I wouldn't rule them out for a larger tuba that has clarity issues.

On my B&S Symphonie F the #1 is very responsive and has a similar sonic impact as a C4 or 69 C4 but has more even response. Articulations are fast and clean and the low register, low C in particular, is most excellent. What I really like about this mouthpiece is the sound: my B&S Symphonie is a fairly dark tuba for a small bore instrument, the tuba really lights up with this mouthpiece. I wouldn't necessarily say it's bright, it seems to have a more complete rendering of the overtone pallet in the sound. Highly recommended.

Blokepiece #2 is a bit darker and works well on my B&S but I prefer the livelier tone of #1 for that instrument. #2 does work very well with my Yamaha YFB822, however. #1 seems a bit tight for that horn but the #2 makes that tuba feel very secure and is much more even and responsive than with my Mirafone C4. The stock rim on the #2 is a bit too round for my taste so I'm ordering an extra #1 rim for that mouthpiece as well. Also there is a little frosty beer mug stamped on the side of #2, how could any tuba player resist that Again, highly recommended.

Bravo Joe!

Norm Pearson

[bisontuba]

HI-
Received my Bloke Mouthpiece #2 this morning and used it on a couple of gigs today--felt very nice, and loved the sound it produced on my c. 1960 Mirafone CC tuba--definitely will check out the #1 and #2 side by side and will interchange the rims on each also to see which I like best, but I have to say #2 is another very fine mouthpiece from Joe-highly recommended.
Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank

[cjk]

This particular variation is unsurpassed in the "ease of buzzing" department...

[imperialbari]

And there I thought the screw rim version was a quite new version, but yours already has oxidized all black. And wouldn’t The Lord of the Rings recommend an O-ring between the rim part and the underpart for better alignment?

I must have used my version #1 too little. It still looks like stainless steel. Hasn’t grown that yellow fungus either.

Klaus

[cjk]

The rim is H-Kote (titanium nitride) black-over-stainless-steel rim (very slick)
The cup is H-Kote (titanium nitride) gold-over-stainless-steel back-part (very...uh...Bloke Bumble Bee !! )

[imperialbari]

Very obvious additive. Isn’t nitride what conservationists put into their sausages to make the last?

K