Conn Vs. Schilke

[Maximum_Tuba]

I know this question has probably already been asked somewhere on this site, but I decided to make my own post anyways. What are the differences between the Conn Helleberg and the Schilke Helleberg mouthpieces? I have played the Conn before so I am more interested in details about the Schilke.

P.S. I currently play a Bach 24AW, its nice but I feel like I could get more from a mouthpiece.

[Donn]

Among a number of Helleberg style mouthpieces, I have one marked SCHILKE-HELLEBERG, and it's one of the least faithful or successful versions in my opinion. The name of the game with the Helleberg style seems to be to take this characteristically funnel shaped interior profile and hollow it out to make more internal volume until it's just about bowl shaped, and for me, Schilke went too far with this one, to the point where the side walls are vertical, and they lost the sound. My Conn mouthpieces are on the other hand the most funnel shaped of them, and the most Helleberg-sounding.

Schilke's Helleberg II is a different mouthpiece and seems to be more sought after, don't know if it's really any different from the same size Laskey though.

[ghmerrill]

You really can't tell anything worthwhile by looking at the dimensions or descriptions of these. They are all different in various ways -- some subtle and some more immediately obvious. I've played on a lot of the Schilkes, at least in trying them, including the 62, 66, Helleberg, 67, and 69C4. I've not tried any of the Helleberg-II versions, but these do seem to be more Conn-like from what people say.

There are significant differences in rim width, rim profile, bowl depth and shape, and backbore; and you need to try them on your horn to see what the real differences are.

My own experience is that I found the 67 and 69C4 "too big", the 62 "too small", and the 66 to be (for me) a good mouthpiece on several different horns, though it is on the smallish side for many players. I did not find the Schilke Helleberg to be too much different from the 66 when I owned both of them, but just a bit.

I have always found the Conn 120S to be "too big" for me and to suck the life out of me on a BBb tuba of decent bore size. But over the weekend I was trying out several alternatives (Schilke 66, PT-63, TU-17, Wick Heritage 3L, Wick Heritage 3XL, and Kellyberg) on my EEb horn. I was very surprised to discover that the Kellyberg gave me a great sound and control across the entire range (though sacrificing some ease to the 66 in the high range). And I've always found it to be much more comfortable than the real 120S (I confess to really liking plastic rims). For me it seems to deliver a somewhat "rounder" sound. Some would attribute this to its being plastic, but I suspect (while there's probably something to that), it is more a matter of the shape, throat, and bore than the material.

But you really need to try them over a decent amount of time in order to get a genuine comparison since so much depends on you and your particular instrument.

[Maximum_Tuba]

I am really just curious if the Schilke had a rounder rim.

[Jay Bertolet]

Schilke's Helleberg II is a different mouthpiece and seems to be more sought after, don't know if it's really any different from the same size Laskey though.

An apt observation, since my understanding is that Scott Laskey was the manager in the mouthpiece part of Schilke's operation before going out on his own. Scott may have had a pretty substantial hand in the making of the SHII. I always found it interesting that people talk about Hellebergs like there is only one universal design. Didn't he make lots of different mouthpiece types? The typical funnel has become associated with his name but my understanding is that he made all different kinds of mouthpieces. No two were identical. Anyhow, I find the Laskey H series and a SHII are similar but definitely not the same. Both are a bit smaller than the large Conn Helleberg we have all seen so much.

[Donn]

I am really just curious if the Schilke had a rounder rim.

Yes.