Mouthpiece characteristics

[Robert Tucci]

A rather interesting discussion... bottom line is that making good mouthpieces for F-tubas is a challenge, particularly for large-bore rotary valve instruments that are quite common in our times. Function, ie: response and intonation, are primary concerns but working out a good balance of all factors and coming up with something that sounds good is like a chess game. One move affects many others...
The PT-64 has a long and successful history and goes back over forty years to a time where there was next to nothing in good F-tuba mouthpieces. I have some old mouthpieces that were used by professionals here in Germany at the time. These work well but all too small, with cup diameters less than 30 mm. The PT-64, with a 32 mm cup diameter was the answer. This evolved into the PT-65 at the time I moved from old hand-operated machines to a modern computer-controlled double-spindle lathe. With modern technology making changes in the throat bore, throat length, throat tapers, shank sizes, rim contours etc are quite easy. Getting back to our contempory instruments and the chess game, a combination of play-testing, a strobe-tuner etc and accurate written documentation of the changes made and some common sense can lead to a mouthpiece that serves the needs of many players. The PT-65 has a similar cup to that of the PT-64 but the backbore taper is wider. That is, the backbore opens up quicker on the PT-65. The "65" has become a successful mouthpiece. Just recently I reworked the "64". The semi-cushion rim of the past was changed to a narrower, flatter rim and the cup is a slightly shallower. The backbore remains slow taper but I did modify this to give the sound more center, more "punch". This favors low register response but getting back to the chess game: tightening the mouthpiece also tightens up the intonation. That is, the notes notch in strongly but cannot be pushed around too easily. The "alternate fingering" remarks comes into play. The remark about closing the main tuning slide is good: professional players invariably tune high and blow open. That in itself alliviates many intonation problems and, a relatively shallow mouthpiece can sound big. An F-tuba can never produce the sheer breath of volume that a good CC or BBb-tuba provides but it the tone color is right, live and with much presence, it will work quite well in large ensembles.

Recently and after working more than forty years on F-tuba mouthpieces I developed a mouthpiece based on a completely different concept, for our Bavarian tuba artist and virtuoso, Andreas Hofmeir. This mouthpiece, the AMH "Paul", has a 32 mm cup diameter like many F-tuba mouthpieces but the cup is much deeper and the backbore is very large. Whereas the "64" and "65" use a 6.8mm more, the throat bore of the Andreas Hofmeir mouthpiece is 8.85 mm. This mouthpiece works amazingly well; it sounds good, also in the low register, the intonation is good and the high range is quite managable.

Tuba players are fortunate to have a large selection of good mouthpieces nowadays. A person should simply try as many as possible in order to determine what works best. If a person can make music and "sing" on a certain mouthpiece without having to think about the mouthpiece itself, it is a good one.

As mentioned in another posting, I no longer supply PT mouthpieces to the former distributor. The most popular PT models have been moved to my new RT brand. This includes the revised "64"; the "65" will follow, mouthpieces for CC and BBb-tubas have the priority at this time.

Bob Tucci

[Roger Lewis]

I've found that shallow bowl shaped mouthpieces work well for me in the upper register (or all registers). I have three different mouthpieces that I use on my F tuba depending on the sound that I need. For orchestral paying I use a Tilz M2 mouthpiece as it gives a wider sound. For solo work I usually use the Miraphone TU27 "Rose Solo" model and for extremely high playing I use a Rudolf Meinl 7.8 mouthpiece which is quite small.

Many players prefer the PT65 on their small horns but for me it is a bit bright. I've found that the Rose Solo makes the tuning better on most F tubas and it gives the horn a nice sound with good resonance.

This is what works for ME.

Anything that speeds the air up will push pitch up as well. You might want to try the Schilke 69C4, which has the smallest throat of any commercial mouthpiece out there. The tighter backbore should speed the air up and push the pitch with it.

A manufacturer had a horn that played flat in the high register. To fix that, they made the porting of the first valve 1 mm smaller than the leadpipe. Problem solved as the restriction sped up the air and pushed the pitch where it belonged. I think you want to speed up your air and that should help.

Hapy New Year MaryAnn

[MaryAnn]

I'll point out once again, this is a Norwegian Star Eb, not an F tuba, and it plays VERY differently (better) than my former MW 182 3/4 F tuba for all notes below about Eb below the staff (except for the pedal F and below on the 182, which of course was easy.) That "F tuba gotta-be-an-expert-to play-it range" simply doesn't exist on the NStar. The NStar is midway between the MW and my former Miraphone 3/4 184 CC in terms of air. The low range is just as good as the Mfone's was, and the high range is only very slightly less easy than the 182's was. Mr. Tucci, do you trial mouthpieces or do I have to permanently buy one to try it?
Anybody who would love to play a rotary F except for the work required to get the stupid low C, needs to try one of these because you will be converted in an instant. I've played a B&S Symphonie, I've played a Firebird, and this thing is SO much easier.
Today was busy. Tomorrow I will get the silly thing on a tuner and try all the fingerings I can think of for the higher notes. All the slides are all the way in except for the 5th, which is out about an inch and seems to work well that way for hitting the many-leger-lined low notes, which have wide slots, making it easy for me to nail them.

[MaryAnn]

This Eb does not have a stupid low F and my 184 did not have a stupid low D. But my 182 had a low C that really wanted to be a C# and while I could use that note when called on, it never felt right and I admire those who reach a point where they can make that recalcitrant note work as well as the others. And below that just got worse, for me, until I hit the pedal. I loved the size-vs-me of that instrument and its ease of hauling around, but for anything orchestral it just didn't work. This, being only one step lower, is hauling a$$ on orchestral stuff.
Yes the topic is mouthpiece characteristics but then people start talking about pieces that work in F tubas, and I have found this Eb to be nothing like any rotary F I have played. So while the info is worthy of thought, it has gotten specific for F tubas, and away from the mouthpiece characteristic title.

[Doug Elliott]

I recommend you try my 126 or N126 rim, N cup, and NFAmerican shank. The specs are pretty similar to your PT-64.
I always take anything back for a full refund if it doesn't work for you.

I have been using that, with a larger rim, on my York Monster Eb and the high range is not flat at all.

There are also (potentially) embouchure reasons for a flat high range, but mouthpiece design definitely affects pitch in the high range.

[imperialbari]

Hardly pitch related:

There is a phenomenon in at least two players’ perception of of the width of the cup. Mike Finn, with whom I discussed this, and myself.

When I hunted for alternatives to the PT-50, because the very rounded rim took much attention in some articulation situations, I ran into problems with mouthpieces of a very similar cup diameter, as these felt noticeably narrower than the PT-50.

The problem came from the near edgeless PT-50 not giving a definite sense of the limits of the cup, which made the already wide PT-50 cup feel even wider, whereas the Helleberg-style rims of the alternative models gave an exact sense of the limits of the cup. Hence giving the feel of a narrower cup.

Flattening the rim of the round PT-50 rim by grindinding it flat would not help, as the resulting edge also would give the feel of a narrower cup. And then the depth of the cup would have been diminished, which I hardly would have liked.

Klaus

[Donn]

Interesting trend in Conn mouthpieces: smaller the mouthpiece, larger the throat.

Conn 120S (32.5) 8.1
Conn 2 (31.6) 8.33
Conn 7B (31.5) 8.5
Conn 3 (30.5) 8.73

i looked in my shoe box... i have a couple of conn 2's and one that looks like them, but only says conn... is that the conn 3?

Not likely, but we don't have much to go on there. 30.5 is the inner diameter at the rim, in mm; 8.73 is the inner diameter at the throat. If you have a set of twist drill bits, that's an 11/36 bit.

Furthermore, the cup is noticeably shallower than the Conn 2 or anything like it - and it retains the "funnel" shape of its Conn Helleberg relatives, making it possibly unique among shallow mouthpieces. I've thought somewhat idly about getting a line of copies of the Conn numbered tuba mouthpiece series made, and the Conn 3 would be one of the attractions.

[Doug Elliott]

...
Flattening the rim of the round PT-50 rim by grindinding it flat would not help, as the resulting edge also would give the feel of a narrower cup. And then the depth of the cup would have been diminished, which I hardly would have liked.

Klaus

I agree with you, but flattening by only .005 inch can make a noticeable difference with virtually no change in size feel or cup depth.

[Michael Bush]

i looked in my shoe box... i have a couple of conn 2's and one that looks like them, but only says conn... is that the conn 3?

Donn is right to go to measurements. But FWIW I have such a mouthpiece and its measurements show it to be a 2, absolutely identical with my other one, marked "2". So such things exist.

This of course proves nothing about your mouthpiece...

[MaryAnn]

Well I should have put the silly tuba on the tuner before I asked the question. With the tuning slide all the way in (64 degrees in my practice room) I can get spang right on pitch with the "problem notes." Using either 1st valve OR 23 on the C#, it is entirely lippable to hit the center of what the tuner says is the correct pitch at A= 440. Ain't my freaking fault. Double phooey on the trombone section, and thanks for all the wonderful input on mouthpieces etc.

[barry grrr-ero]

"I measure my Schilke 66 throat at 8.33mm (but - the rim seems very ordinary to me, and can't see anything unusual about length, so maybe we're talking about two different things. My Schilkes are Bach tulips, not Conn lilies.) My Schilke 62 has the same throat, and makes a fair bass tuba mouthpiece"

Yes, 8.33 is a good size throat. But look at the backbore. Your 66 will flare out to the very edge of the shank. I also have no idea what you mean by "tulips" and "lilies". The old Schilkes don't remind me of either Bach or Conn mouthpieces. Compare backbores and you will see some difference.

[barry grrr-ero]

Just to throw another wrench into the works, I think the materials used and the outer shape of the mouthpiece make some difference as well.

Mary Anne, when I owned a Besson 983 Eb tuba (great tuba!), I found that the smaller Dillon Geibs that have Pat Sheridan's name on them worked really well. You might give one of those a shot. Narrow funnels just don't work for me, but they do work well for many people. My lips swell too much, and it becomes a strain to leap about the horn, or produce fat low tones when using - for example - the Conn 7B or Bach 22. That's just me. Mouthpieces are extremely personal, and everyone has to discover what works best for them. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be 600 million different m.p.'s being produced.

[Donn]

I also have no idea what you mean by "tulips" and "lilies".

Sorry, the common bulbous mouthpiece exterior, vs the shape Conn used with Conn 2 and all kinds of mouthpieces in that era. Schilke also used that shape some, maybe around the same time, and it occurred to me that if there was a different era with other more significant internal differences, it could have coincided with external shape. Lilies have that shape, curving out, while tulip petals curve in.

[barry grrr-ero]

Fair enough. Thanks.