Shallower mouthpieces?

[MaryAnn]

I find I do better on cup-like pieces. Yes the sound is deeper "up close" with a more funnel-like, but they are harder to play and I don't know what difference there may be out in the hall. I do know that the highs "fall off" fairly quickly and what you hear up close is not what is heard out in the hall, in terms of frequency content.

In taking a horn lesson once, I was kind of amazed at the harsh sound up close of the teacher. yet I had heard him many times in concert and his sound in the hall was smooth. Distance makes a lot of difference.

[Donn]

Yes the sound is deeper "up close" with a more funnel-like, but they are harder to play

I believe that a funnel shape means a functionally shallower depth - the interior obviously has less volume, for the same throat depth - without the tonal effect of the flat bottom. But effects of harder-to-see dimensions from the throat through the shank could be more noticeable than the cup profile.

[Rick Denney]

I found the Solo to be a bit laser-like in my 186 back when I had it, though it's my standard mouthpiece in my B&S F tuba.

But in my search for which of my many mouthpieces work best in my new Eastman (2341 clone), I'm finding the Solo to be the best of the bunch.

Rick "who bought the Eastman to be smaller, and not trying to use a mouthpiece to make it sound larger" Denney

[iiipopes]

I have played everything from the C4 to the Wick 1 and a lot in between over the years. Yes, there is a difference in intonation from tuba to tuba from mouthpiece to mouthpiece. When I changed the bell on my Bessophone from the stock detachable to the Besson 17" BBb, the mouthpiece I had been using, a Curry 128D with a modified rim, didn't cut it, although it was as close to perfect before. After I changed bells, bloke's shallower Imperial was better, but even that needed a modified spacer to get just the right balance of tone, intonation and response.

I really appreciate the observation that deeper is not automatically better, as the flugelhorn community seems to think at this point. I own a Queenie that has superlative intonation and tone with factory mouthpieces contemporary to the horn. The popular deep "V's" hurt response, went flat as I ascended register, and were generally bland on this horn. The shallower factory mouthpieces made to fit the horn have better projection, intonation (all the way up beyond treble clef 2nd ledger line C) and blend.

I don't know anything but trial-and-error (and for me, that was lots and lots of errors) finding a good player/horn/mouthpiece combination that works. But when you do, as I have been lucky to have done on the instruments I have owned or otherwise played over the years, accompanied by lots of practice, practice, practice, it is marvelous: instead of worrying about playing the notes, you enjoy playing the music.

[Matt G]

A general rule of thumb is that each horn should have its own mouthpiece.

What is nice is that we now have access to a few companies making multipart mouthpieces. The dental structure and embouchure obviously need to have a good interface, so having a rim that can be moved to or replicated on different cups/bores/throats is quite handy.

I, like many others, have owned a C4. I didn’t like the rim on it. At all. For me, it had way too much edge to the sound, likely due to the cup volume and shape. I finally settled on a Bach 7 for that and then my 188. When I went to bigger equipment, like the VMI Neptune, the Bach was too deep. I think I switched to a Dillon G3 and that was a good pairing.

But yeah, mouthpieces don’t commute all that well between tubas, even if they are removable.

[bort]

The C4 isn't bad, I just don't like the fact wide rim

Years ago, with my Marzan tuba, I experimented with the "big tuba, smaller mouthpiece" concept. Clarity was improved... Tone suffered. In fact, and the first rehearsal where I tried it out, at the first break in the action, the euph player (a friend) asked me "what the hell happened to your sound? Knock it off!" Went back to the bigger pieces and never went back.

I'm no Roger Bobo, and never will be. Whatever equipment helps me, I'll take it!

[Donn]

I, like many others, have owned a C4. I didn’t like the rim on it. At all. For me, it had way too much edge to the sound.

That's because of the rim!? All these years, it has prejudiced me against "bowl" cups.

[Matt G]

I, like many others, have owned a C4. I didn’t like the rim on it. At all. For me, it had way too much edge to the sound.

That's because of the rim!? All these years, it has prejudiced me against "bowl" cups.

I put two thoughts together poorly. I edited the prior post for clarity.

I didn’t like the rim. The inner diameter was a bit small and the width too large.

The shallow cup combined with my playing style at the time and a mid to late 80s vintage 186 BBb combined for a very edgy sound at loud dynamics. C just below the staff with 4th valve sounded like a contrabass trombone. Was fun though.

[pjv]

I've been using the Profundo almost exclusively on my solo. I think it does the same work as a spacer+normal rim.

[barry grrr-ero]

As usual, my opinions run contrary to many of the more 'main stream' ones. I'm just a contrarian. I find that in general, shallower cup m.p.'s work well on BBb tubas, bass tubas (Eb or F) and piston valve tubas. Why? . . . for some reason, I find it difficult to play in a melodic manner on most rotary CC tubas while using a shallower cup m.p. Slurs are not smooth and the air 'hiccups' or breaks between the intervals. I can get a very 'punchy' style and short staccatos when using shallow cups, but CC tubas are already good at doing those things (most of them). As much it doesn't feel natural for me to play on narrower funnel m.p. with a sharp, flat rim i.e. 'Helleberg', that's what I find works best on most rotary CC tubas. This is completely contrary to what most people will tell you. For me, It takes time to get used to that type of mouthpiece and to produce full-size low notes on one, but it pays dividends in the long run. If you use a wide funnel or just a very big m.p. in general, you run the risk of the octaves being too small on most CC tubas, which gives the illusion of the upper register being flat (assuming you tuned it to sound good in the mid and lower mid-range). It's clearly a case of bigger is not always better.

In your case, I believe you're using a BBb tuba. I find shallower cups work pretty well on those, even on the rotary ones. One has almost the opposite problem on BBb tubas, compared to CC ones. To be specific, it's difficult to get a uniformly 'punchy' style on one, and to always make the short notes cleanly staccato. Most BBb tubas want to 'speak' more slowly than most CC ones. In a way, you're compensating for the sheer size of your instrument. You should be fine.