New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

The bulk of the musical talk
User avatar
imperialbari
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 7461
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:47 am

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by imperialbari »

iiipopes wrote:
So, back to where we were, I will still accept your apology, for whether you meant to or not, it was still snide, and you were out of line taking a personal shot, instead of merely stating, like the other gentleman above, that his experience was different in not noticing any difference between the new and old style 3L. Your subsequent post was nothing but a justification for your prior remark.

You have historically been a most useful resource for a lot of tuba related issues. Up until now, I have also read with appreciation your posts and benefitted from your experience and insight. You have also indicated some personal circumstances that you were dealing with to try not to compromise the high level and integrity of your posts. We all have respected that. Your prior two posts are not doing anything to maintain that respect.
When you come down from the panegyrics, you rather will be happy that I pulled the brake on your hype. If the changes in the DW designs were much more than a combination of making all of their models heavyweight without the booster known from their smaller mouthpieces and of making a visual reshuffle to reinvigorate their sales, then all makers would follow their lead.

I used to play the DW 1L on my 981. I found it restricting to my dynamic and range potentials, so I contacted Bob Tucci in Munich on the phone. He is very helpful aside of his evident competences as a player and designer. However he found my choice among his models out of line with my tuba. Yet he sent me a PT-50.

It arrived a Saturday morning at the post office. I took it back before noon and tested it. I found the sound too bright and started doing my usual opening of the backbore testing it all the time on the 981 and the Conn 26K, my only basses back then. I went directly for the sore spots. The range just above the pedal on the 981 was improved, but did not become perfect. Actually I don't expect mouthpieces to solve my problems. I just want them out of harms' way. That is: I want the space to let the embouchure muscles work freely, which includes the sense of resistance created by the combination of mouthpiece and instrument. Then at one point of the modification one part of the modification made an odd problem from the DW 1L era disappear. The range above the 9th partial on the 26K was no longer flat. I could direct the air sufficient effective to play in tune up there. If the high notes make good standing waves on their own, they are much more likely to ring along as overtones, when lower notes are played. That gives richness to the sound and removes the sense of stuffiness.

I played that mouthpiece a few hours ago, as it still is my only mouthpiece to be used on my large receiver tubas and sousaphones in Eb and BBb. I bought a second sample of the PT-50 from Bob Tucci. That one has been much less modified, as I wanted it as a brighter alternative for pushing the tempo in band marches on my very mellow York Master BBb tuba. It never came into real use, as I don't like its less than full sound.

My first day with the originally bought PT-50 had elements of disaster to it. I had suffered an allergic stomach problem a couple of days before. One can recover rather fast from these as compared to attacks by bacteria and vira. Only I had not realised, how much I had dehydrated. The afternoon had a surprise celebration of a section mates' 40 years work jubilee. I happened to be the only tuba showing up. The hostess had given me a 1.5liter bottle of water, which I had half emptied while waiting outside before the performance. Suddenly during one of the light pieces my lungs went totally dry. The larger mouthpiece had caused a larger turnover of air. The temperature was high, and I had no spare water in the body. Dry lungs are stiff and playing looses efficiency. So I put down the tuba after that number and ran out for the remaining water. At each break between numbers I drank heavily. I didn't blame the mouthpiece, as it is just a pick-up tool for the player's buzzed air. And I tried to become more aware always having a large bottle of water available when playing.

This was a report on parts of my first day with a PT-50. There is a funnier story of what happened later that day, but that story was already told back then in 1999.

I have given an apology for a geographical misreading a few days ago. I don't know if that has started a new trend of wanting apologies from me. There will be no one for my previous postings on this thread, as I have been very kind on your postings (also on the newbie thread).

Klaus Smedegaard Bjerre
User avatar
iiipopes
Utility Infielder
Utility Infielder
Posts: 8580
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:10 am

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by iiipopes »

Klaus,

You could have just said that a Wick 1L didn't work out for you and why, and left all the other bullshit out.

I also tried a Wick 1L on my 186 for some time. It had good breadth of tone, but the throat and backbore were too open for the horn, and I had problems with breath management and articulation definition on the lowest range. So on the advice of Matt @ Dillons, I got the Curry 128D which matches a 186 better. So my compliments to Denis Wick on the new style of mouthpiece are not "hype," nor "rave," nor any other expression of hyperbole. They are my straightforward impressions of the mouthpiece. Others will have different experiences with the same mouthpiece, good and bad.

If you will note recent mouthpiece designs, the folks at Alliance are also making the rim a little thinner and putting more mass at the throat. LOUD does this, and other top mouthpiece makers such as Scott Laskey have never veered from the "traditional" profile. Mike Finn makes his mouthpieces this way, recognizing his inspriation coming from an old King 26, which has a similar "traditional" profile as well. Schilke makes them this way. These are just a few of the people who actually do make their mouthpieces this way.

I have yet to play a Perantucci that works for me. But I know better than to denegrate those who play them because they are fine mouthpieces that have been carefully designed and manufactured to meet other players' requirements.

What the other guys said: learn your English better so you don't misinterpret postings, whether from me or any of the other forum members.

Scooby: thank you for helping oil the waters.
Jupiter JTU1110
"Real" Conn 36K
User avatar
Donn
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5977
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Seattle, ☯

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by Donn »

imperialbari wrote:
Donn wrote: I think I know pretty well exactly what I don't like about the sound of that mouthpiece and why it sounds that way ...
If you know exactly why the 2L doesn't work for you, a such description would be very interesting to read. What is counterproductive for you may be the solution to the problems of other players. Anyway precise descriptions are educative reading.
Well, here my mastery of the English language has proved inadequate, for the word "exactly" is more ambiguous both grammatically and semantically than I wish it had been. WIth that disclaimer, the tone I get from my 2L is sort of "tinny" - relatively speaking, something is lacking from the upper mid range, compared to the more funnel shaped mouthpieces that I use mostly. And contradicting the manufacturer's description, it is not a "funnel shaped Helleberg type cup" - at the rim, the cup walls appear to be parallel, not sloped. The lower part of the cup is sloped enough that it can't really be called "bowl shaped", but the effect on tone is somewhat similar.

Indeed, others might like this effect. In fact, perhaps others would like it from me - there's no guarantee that what I like to hear from behind the tuba is going to be good for an ensemble. I suppose for those who like such things, this is just the sort of thing they would like. But then they have a lot of mouthpieces to choose from, since the majority of tuba mouthpieces are not particularly funnel shaped, even when advertised as such. It's as though Conn holds some patent on that shape.
User avatar
iiipopes
Utility Infielder
Utility Infielder
Posts: 8580
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:10 am

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by iiipopes »

Since nobody else will, I will.

I apologize for all the collateral damage that the exchange between Klaus and myself has caused.

Scooby, I did read your post, and not gloss. You are a gentleman to post in the moderated manner that you posted.

To everybody else, I can understand that after this all if you think I am an unmitigated son of a bitch. If the consensus of the forum is such that all believe I overreacted, then I accept that, and make amends accordingly.

I was only trying to post, and open up for positive discussion, my experiences with the new Wick 1 "Heritage" profile mouthpiece, and how in my experience I deem it superior to the older exterior "funnel" profile of Wick mouthpieces.

I guess it's my turn to buy the beer, or other preferred beverage of choice.

Image
Jupiter JTU1110
"Real" Conn 36K
User avatar
brianggilbert
bugler
bugler
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Wilmington,DE

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by brianggilbert »

Without starting an international incident - the 2XL that I asked about before - is that the same piece you're now playing (I guess it would be the 1XL)?

According to WWBW those orders involve some lead time...
Chesapeake Silver Cornet Brass Band
Aldersgate Brass
Besson 982
Mouthpieces-a-Plenty
euphomate
bugler
bugler
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Australia

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by euphomate »

[quote="cktuba"]So, with all of this talk about the 1L... what is the real difference between the 1L and the 1XL?

I have a Wick 3L and a 3XL both in the new shape. Cup diameter, shape and depth are identical. The only difference is that the "XL" models of all Wick tuba mouthpieces (and that is only the IL to 3L) is that the XL models have a wider and more rounded rim. For example, the standard 3L rim is 8.11mm wide, and the 3XL is 8.78 wide. Similar differences apply to the IL & 2L. The Wick brochure says that the XL versions "are for the professional player...... give more volume & projection...a little more difficult to control....the rim contours are a little rounder....for players who need to spend long hours in practice or performance". My opinion from using both over a 12 months is there is no doubting the increased level of comfort of the XL. The noticably more rounded inner edge makes the XL feel bigger, but also more vague, particularly in the higher register as there is no "bite". For this reason I prefer the 3L, but if I'm doing a lot of playing, and a little tenderness comes in, I switch to the XL for a day or two. As to claimed volume & projection increase of the "XL" series over their standard "L" brothers? In the eye of the beholder really, if there is any difference it is marginal. So, if comfort is your main priority with a Wick mp, then try the XL. If a more defined inner edge helps you with the top end, centering and attack, you would be better served with the standard "L" series. BTW, I must have tried just about every style and make of mp available to me, and nothing comes close to a Wick 3L for depth, roundness and warmth of tone on an EEb.
Besson BE982 Sovereign EEb tuba
Wessex Champion EEb tuba
Stencil compensating euphonium
User avatar
iiipopes
Utility Infielder
Utility Infielder
Posts: 8580
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:10 am

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by iiipopes »

Hey euphomate -- thanks. I've wondered about the differences in the "XL" series as well, but since it is just that, with the .520 shank, I never had a good reason to get one, since the 1L didn't work out for me on the 186.

I agree: if I played eefer as my primary instrument in an ensemble setting, the Wick 3 would be THE mouthpiece. I tried several mouthpieces on an old Martin eefer I borrowed and the Jay Columbia eefer I borrowed, and the 3 had the best compromise of all aspects, from pedals to stratosphere, tone, intonation and flexibility.

Although there have been good reviews at 4barsrest.com about the new Alliance series, especially as a soloist's mouthpiece; that is one I'd consider, along with an MF4.

I spent another hour with the Besson and the new Wick 1 last night, and it just keeps getting better and better....

I will concede that Klaus obliquely touched on one point that has merit: if the hardware fits, and you feel good and confident about it, then that in and of itself does have a bearing on the desire to practice to become a better player all the way around, kind of like the lift of confidence being outfitted with a well tailored suit can do. But that is not the same as a placebo effect, especially since with eyes shut and the mouthpiece simply being held to a player's lips there should be no difference, as the rim profile and cup size and geometry are the same.

I say this because I had this same experience with my Kelly 18. After I wrapped the lead tape around its throat to stabilize dynamics, I tried a ring of lead tape around the cup right up under the rim to see how that did, to emulate the extra mass on the rim of the old style Wick 1. I lost response and flexibility. I took the lead tape back off the underside of the rim on the kelly, and response and flexibility came back. It is that experience, after seeing a picture of the new style, that tipped the balance of considerations towards getting one of the new style, and of course that is how it worked out.
Jupiter JTU1110
"Real" Conn 36K
User avatar
iiipopes
Utility Infielder
Utility Infielder
Posts: 8580
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:10 am

Re: New Heritage Wick 1 vs Old Funnel Wick 1

Post by iiipopes »

I finally found it! I found my "Old" "Funnel" Wick 1 I've played since I bought my Besson. It had fallen behind a pile of stuff on my less than organized bookshelves in my music room.

I warmed up, and played them both with a very critical ear and awareness of my physicality for an hour a few days ago.

My initial impressions hold completely true: the new exterior profile with its more traditional bowl shape and thinner rim is better all around for me: better tone, better dynamic stability, better intonation, quicker response.

The funnel is now semi-retired and relegated to backup status.
Jupiter JTU1110
"Real" Conn 36K
Post Reply