Kelly Mouthpieces

[Donn]

but as I understand "tooba's" comments, he wasn't commenting on cold weather playing, but on a direct comparison between the 2 mouthpieces under normal conditions, in which case the 5% might be significant.

Well, here's the problem with that idea, and with Art's idea that someone ought to play two equivalent mouthpieces to a blindfolded listener: first, there aren't two equivalent mouthpieces, to a 5% level of accuracy like that, and second, I doubt there is a standard of ideal mouthpiece graduated that fine. Not because, as you somewhat offensively presume, you have higher standards than the rest of us, but because there are too many differences that aren't better or worse, just different.

I don't know what the story is with their 18, but for example their 1 1/2G bass trombone mouthpiece is (I think anyway) known to have a little larger bore than the Bach equivalent. That probably makes it, in some ways, better - for some people, some of the time anyway, but I'm sure there's someone who, on some days, might prefer the Bach. Or a Faxx, or something. I don't know what you'd have to do, to find an exact match for the Kelly 1 1/2G.

[SousaSaver]

...and following up on Donn's comments, not all mouthpieces have the same response for all people. This means that an 18 might be great for me, but awful for you for various reasons. You might be used to a different shape of mouthpiece, you might have different physical features that don't make that mouthpiece comfortable for you.

This is one of the reasons that I find people asking for mouthpiece recommendations odd. I know that having a bit of knowledge is a good place to start your search, but I still find it strange...

[iiipopes]

Kelly doesn't slavishly copy technical specifications. On their website, they say that they structure their mouthpieces to approach the tone of the mouthpieces they're modeled on. This necessarily includes dimensional variation to take into account the lexan versus brass. Yes, the Kelly 18 is significantly deeper than a Bach 18, but also, at least with the 2 Kelly 18's I've had, the two Bach 18's I've had, and the Blessing 18 I've borrowed, the overall tonality and response is very, very similar.

[Donn]

but I still find it strange...

What he said. If you could see my mouth.

[tubajazzo]

Kellyberg Lexan and Stainless: I have them both, and although the dimensions are supposed to be the same, they are a bit different. The overall tone characteristic is the same in both, but the lexan piece gives a slightly fuller sound in the low register, whereas the SS has advantages in the upper range, sounds brighter up there and has a clearer attack (for me). The rim of the SS version feels sharper to me. I play them on a MW 2011FA (HoJo), which is a smaller Bb. I bought the lexan first (crystal orange) just for curiosity, and was so impressed that I ordered the SS a few days later.

Gerd

[peter birch]

but as I understand "tooba's" comments, he wasn't commenting on cold weather playing, but on a direct comparison between the 2 mouthpieces under normal conditions, in which case the 5% might be significant.

Well, here's the problem with that idea, and with Art's idea that someone ought to play two equivalent mouthpieces to a blindfolded listener: first, there aren't two equivalent mouthpieces, to a 5% level of accuracy like that, and second, I doubt there is a standard of ideal mouthpiece graduated that fine. Not because, as you somewhat offensively presume, you have higher standards than the rest of us, but because there are too many differences that aren't better or worse, just different.

I don't know what the story is with their 18, but for example their 1 1/2G bass trombone mouthpiece is (I think anyway) known to have a little larger bore than the Bach equivalent. That probably makes it, in some ways, better - for some people, some of the time anyway, but I'm sure there's someone who, on some days, might prefer the Bach. Or a Faxx, or something. I don't know what you'd have to do, to find an exact match for the Kelly 1 1/2G.

Firstly, as I understand it, we are not talking about the differences in the mouthpieces, but in the difference a listener heard when the same player with the same instrument changed the mouthpiece, now 5% is a small difference, and it is up to the individual player to decide if that difference is significant to them.
to your next issue, I have never presumed to have higher standards than anyone else, and I have taken great care to express my view that the Lexan mouthpiece is not for me, without being critical of anyone else's view, and I am sorry that you have chosen to take offence at that, I certainly did not intend to give any.
I understand why these mouthpieces are useful, in extreme cold weather, as iiipopes mentions, and where a very light mouthpiece is an advantage, or in a situation where you don't want to damage an expensive mouthpiece or instrument as other people have said, and I guess I am fortunate that non of those situations apply to me, but I stand by my view that for me and in the situations in which I play, the Kelly Lexan mouthpiece make my sound worse

[SousaSaver]

I understand why these mouthpieces are useful, in extreme cold weather, as iiipopes mentions, and where a very light mouthpiece is an advantage, or in a situation where you don't want to damage an expensive mouthpiece or instrument as other people have said, and I guess I am fortunate that non of those situations apply to me, but I stand by my view that for me and in the situations in which I play, the Kelly Lexan mouthpiece make my sound worse

That's fine. I don't think anyone is offended. You shouldn't feel bad because you have a dissenting opinion. These things obviously aren't going to work for everybody. Your experience and opinion are 100% valid. Have you ever tried Kelly's copy of the PT-50?

Also, I was thinking the other day that the sound that you hear may be different than the sound that other people hear in the auditorium or the stands. Has anyone tried this test before?

[toobagrowl]

Well my little "experiment" wasn't really scientific, but it was fun. Both the Kelly 18 and Faxx 18 were very similar in every way except appearance. The "5%" is really just an approximation, and the slight "fuzz" could be a good thing for jazz or some other type of music. There are pros and cons with both 'pieces.

[peter birch]

Well my little "experiment" wasn't really scientific, but it was fun. Both the Kelly 18 and Faxx 18 were very similar in every way except appearance. The "5%" is really just an approximation, and the slight "fuzz" could be a good thing for jazz or some other type of music. There are pros and cons with both 'pieces.

the "fuzz" is an interesting effect, Oystein Baadsvick did it with a coin in the mouthpiece on his last CD, I tried it with a UK pound coin and it id fun.

[TubaBobH]

I still have my old DEG Nylon mouthpiece that I used in HS marching band (1967-71) and in college marching band (1971-75). Today (35 years later) I find that I still prefer it slightly over a Kelly 18 or Kellyberg for outdoor playing. I think, perhaps subjectively, that the DEG has a bit more core to the sound than either of the Kelly mouthpieces, especially at high volume playing. Perhaps this is because of the metal shank on the DEG. Although I still prefer metal mouthpieces overall, I am still amazed at how good the DEG and the Kellys sound - for what they are. If I had to use my old DEG or a Kelly mpc for an indoor concert, I wouldn't lose that much sleep over it.

[SousaSaver]

Those DEG mouthpieces are pretty cool. I like the Kelly's better because they are lighter than the DEG and the I like the one piece construction. I also prefer the lexan to the nylon, for what its worth.