PT-88 ... two questions.

[sceuphonium]

I play tuba in a community band which is often under-staffed in the tuba department. Thanks to the wonder of internet online actions I have a ugly but very playable 1950s Mirafone 186 Bb. I've played it with Helleburg type mouthpieces, but when I loaded it to a friend she left her PT-88 in the bag. Of course I tried it, and for community band I think it's a big improvement, so I'm going to get one.

Two questions:

1 Do I need a PT-88 or the Pt-88 S. My mouthpieces, plus the borrowed one, all show a bit more shank than expected, but respond well and play in tune. Which size does this horn really take?

2 Is a PT-88 just the heavyweight version of a PT-88, or a different animal all together? I like the effect of the heavy helleburg, so if it's like that I might go for it. Or just chicken out and go for what I know will work?

John

[luke_hollis]

I have heard the PT-88 is too deep and woofy for a lot of people.

I recently got a Laskey 30H for a Nirschl and find it to be very focused and effective in all ranges.

[Jack Hoeksema]

For a 186, a PT-88 may be too much mouthpiece. If you like that cup size relatively though, you could try a PT-48 or PT-50. Both are excellent mouthpieces for 4/4 to smaller 5/4 sized horns and can produce a lot of sound.

[rperrym]

I have two Miraphones now and I personally like the American shank best. The Euro shank will work but I did not like the way it fits nor the way it played. But it is really up to the individual.
Rick

[Misterguru]

Not to steer you away, but I thought I would say: I have began taking lessons recently after purchasing a 186 (made in 1966) and my teacher let me try a C4 mouthpiece (Miraphone C4 which is now named TU23). I was really shocked how the upper range became easier to play accurately.

So, I did some searching of posts on here, and there is a lot of good press about the C4 with "stovepipe" horns like our 186's. Schilke also make a very close copy for only $75 shipped named 69C4 (click here)

[chronolith]

To the OP: Can you describe specifically what it is about the PT88 that was such an improvement for you? I know this is not always easy to do, but it might be important to figure out what characteristics of the mouthpiece you like while avoiding the things that don't fit well. A Helleberg and PT88 are vastly different in the rim profile alone. Maybe that is what you are after. Can you compare the cup shapes/depth between the two?

I used a PT88 for a long time and I agree with the others that it is quite a fishbowl to attach to a 186 or similar 4/4. Don't get pulled into the trap that bigger is better (mouthpiece or tuba). There might be a short term improvement simply because it is different.

[Levaix]

Since no one is really answering your questions...

1.) Either or would be fine. If you intend to stay with the Miraphone or get a smaller horn for yourself, probably the S shank.

2.) 88+ is just a heavyweight of the regular 88. Fyi, several people I've known (and people who would know) recommend the regular 88 over the 88+. Just something about the harmonics makes it more "alive."

I had a friend who played an 88 in his newer model 186, but it may not be the best match for that horn. I would recommend ordering an 88 and a 48, then you can keep whichever one ends up working better and send the other one back (just double check the return policy).

[Roger Lewis]

Personally, I use a TU23 occasionally on my 188, but prefer the TU27 Rose Solo model as it has a bit deeper sound to it. This is for quintet and solo playing. When I want a deep, organ-like sound out of the 188 I use a mouthpiece similar to the PT88 (or a PT88 if I can't find my Warburton V8) and it works very well, adding more richness to the sound. It can be a bit woofy if you're not careful, but it works very well in this for larger ensembles. As I recall, the young man that won the most recent tuba position with the Air Force band at Wright Patterson won it on a Miraphone 188 and a PT88 mouthpiece. Great Player!

Just my $0.02.

Roger

[sceuphonium]

OP here. When I tried the PT-88 I found it had a big, room filling sound that filled out the bottom layer in our band's sound pyramid. Warm resonant whole notes. I wouldn't use it in quintet (where I'm always on trom and euph) or recital (which thankfully I'll never do again) but for concert band, I liked it.

Also: I could hear myself a LOT better. With the helleburgs, Bach 18, and such, the sound comes out WAAAaaaayyyy up there at the top of the smokestack. I can hear the pitch, play in tune just fine, but I can't hear how I blend and I can't really hear my dynamics or articulation. Maybe I'm just deaf. It's a rather sterile playing experience. With the PT-88 I have a much better sense of what I'm playing.

[rodgeman]

OP here. When I tried the PT-88 I found it had a big, room filling sound that filled out the bottom layer in our band's sound pyramid. Warm resonant whole notes. I wouldn't use it in quintet (where I'm always on trom and euph) or recital (which thankfully I'll never do again) but for concert band, I liked it.

Also: I could hear myself a LOT better. With the helleburgs, Bach 18, and such, the sound comes out WAAAaaaayyyy up there at the top of the smokestack. I can hear the pitch, play in tune just fine, but I can't hear how I blend and I can't really hear my dynamics or articulation. Maybe I'm just deaf. It's a rather sterile playing experience. With the PT-88 I have a much better sense of what I'm playing.

+1

[tubatom91]

I play on a pt-88 on my Miraphone 188, I've tried hellebergs, blokepieces (solo+symphony), pt-36, C4, tu-23 and the PT-88 is the only one I come back to every time. It might be bigger than necessary but if it gets the job done and you like it, play the hell out of it.

I think I have three PT-88's, not sure why

[SRanney]

For a 186, a PT-88 may be too much mouthpiece.

Opinions are like a$$holes in that everybody has one and they all stink, but I played a PT-88/186 combination from mid-high school through school at Arizona State University and Indiana University. I think it's a great combination and produces an amazingly rich sound.

I wouldn't use it in quintet (where I'm always on trom and euph) or recital (which thankfully I'll never do again) but for concert band, I liked it.

I played the 186/PT-88 combination in brass quintets, tuba quartets (until I got an F tuba), Octubafests/recitals (even the RVW and Hindemith!), concert bands, full orchestras, smaller church orchestras, and even speed metal bands. I even played Bydlo (poorly) on that combination when I was in high school with the local youth orchestra!

In each setting, it performed admirably.

Your mileage may vary, however.

[bort]

Dammit, now I'm going to have to try a PT-88 again. Ugh, thanks guys...

[MartyNeilan]

The 186, particularly the older models, have a very clear and direct sound. Using a PT88 or similar mouthpiece to "fatten it up" may be a good idea for medium to large ensembles.

[toobagrowl]

I agree that the PT-88 will "open up" and "fatten" the sound of your tuba in comparison to most mpcs. But it is a very large bowl mpc - deep and wide.
My mouth/embouchure is not particularly big, so I have more 'issues' (for example, more 'air-attacks' or 'air balls' on soft, quiet passages) on very large mpcs like the PT-88.

[Chen]

PT-88S fits better than regular PT-88, but either will work. And it's actually a good combo provided you are comfortable with the PT-88, which is a very big mouthpiece. For a normal concert band I suspect you won't have too much technically challenging music to play, so PT-88 should be OK. And PT-88 is capable of producing a very nice sound for mid and low range of the tuba.

[ghmerrill]

My Cerveny 781 is pretty much identical to a 186 in terms of the specs, construction, and appearance. It appears that one is a clone of the other, though I don't know which is which. After much trial and error I settled on a PT-89 because it gave me a very rich tone across my entire range. I found the PT-88 to be just a bit too big for me.

The PT-89 seemed especially to richen the mid-range as compared to the Helleberg styles I was using previously. When I got the PT-89 (used, on this forum) I was unaware of the 'S' variant -- and I'm not sure that one is available for that mouthpiece. I subsequently had the shank turned down to the same dimensions as my Conn 120 (Kanstul will do this -- including replating in silver for ~$50), and that resulted in some minor (though noticeable) improvement in intonation on my horn. The standard PT-89 just seemed not to seat far enough into the receiver.

I do find that it is somewhat more difficult to articulate in the low range with this mouthpiece compared to others I have used, but I think that's largely a matter of skill and practice. However, for a bit brighter sound and smaller ensemble work I also use a Miraphone TU-17. After all the stuff I've tried with this horn, I'd definitely recommend that you go in the direction of the Miraphone or Perantucci mouthpieces.

[sceuphonium]

OP again.

"Fatten up my sound"; that's EXACTLY what I want. And when I played the PT-88 before I didn't have any problems with range; of course, in community concert band it's rare to get towards the top of the staff for more than a few bars. Intonation didn't seem to give problems either, so I'll probably be okay. I didn't even notice the mouthpiece was a lot bigger... just the fuller sound, easier low range, and just a tad muddy articulation. And sad to say, if it's something that has to be really fast and precise, I'm already up $#*% creek. I think I'll go with the sound I like and just play and have fun.

John

[ghmerrill]

I think I'll go with the sound I like and just play and have fun.
John

For your own purposes and satisfaction you can't do better than that.