mouthpieces used with extra-large-bore & tall/conservative-bell-diameter "kaiser" BB♭ tubas

[bloke]

I have such a tuba.
It's roughly 45-1/2 inches tall, the bore size is well over 8/10" (over 21mm), the bell diameter is less than 17-1/2 inches (440mm), and the diameter of the large side of the bow is roughly 5-1/4 inches with this particular "kaiser" BB♭ tuba. (Slightly tighter-wrapped ones - perhaps those that are around 42" tall, etc. - would probably feature a large-side bottom bow diameter closer to 6 inches, with the overall taper actually being about the same as the taper on my own instrument.)

I'm going to eventually be doing a few things to it - to make it more easily playable in tune (to enable a solidly in-tune "open" D and 2nd-valve D♭, as well as an adjustment for the two 2-4 pitches), but I'm trying to occasionally play it a little bit BEFORE it's "ready for prime time", in order to learn about it, and learn "what it needs" (type of air / type of vibration / etc.) to be played to its maximum potential.

I realize that most Americans have limited experience with these (Rick Denney, Steve Marcus, probably) and I would like for anyone who really knows their way around these to let me know what they've found to work best, mouthpiece-wise.

So far, I've determined...
> These tubas are NOT designed to sound like gigantic string basses...ie. They have very little to do with CSO-style 6/4 tubas at all.
> These tubas ARE designed to put out a lot of sound (with a lot of - what tuba players like to describe as - "color"), with a sound that could be described as the sound of what could be imagined/described as the sound of an overgrown (or "on steroids", as is a popular phrase) Miraphone 186 BB♭.
> Deep cup mouthpieces seem to be poor matches, dull the sound significantly, and - actually - seem to offer screwed-up intonation.
> Medium-depth cup mouthpieces seem to work best (for me), regarding (seemingly...??) the characteristic sound, the most resonance, the most flexibility, and the best intonation.

If there are people - out there (particularly if you are a central European orchestral professional), I'd love to here how on-target or off-track you judge me to be, regarding mouthpieces for these instruments.

Just fwiw...
Having very recently played a Červený 601, this is NOT that...not at all.

[LargeTuba]

What makes a 601 differant?

[bloke]

What makes a 601 differant?

With a big fat bell and larger bottom bow, it basically behaves (sounds) like a rotary version of a American 6/4 York-a-phone...except even less treble in the sound, due to the very large valve section bore size.

A nice gentleman took the time to email me a suggestion, based on what a now-retired player apparently used in Germany. I believe I have mouthpieces like that already, and (though they are “just the thing“ for a tuba that I use very often) they just don’t seem to work at all with the big/tall/more cylindrical bugle “Kaiser“ B-flat tuba.
Curiously, several people - who reviewed that mouthpiece - claimed to discover the same shortcomings that I found - in applying it to this type of instrument...but regardless, I really did appreciate that person sending me that suggestion...and again: I was able to read some reviews by those who tried it.

[Mark E. Chachich]

I think that Connie Weldon used a Bach 12 with her Alexander 164. Her Alex 164 was nickle silver (not silver plated) and that may have required a larger mouthpiece such as a Bach 12.

Best,
Mark

[tobysima`]

My teacher uses a huge, very deep funnel on his kaiser. Gives a unique sound, but YMMV.

[Rick Denney]

I use a Sellmansberger Orchestra Grand cup with a Symphony backbore in my Hirsbrunner. The OG cup is a bit Geibish, and the Symphony backbore has the reverse taper to the throat which is about a third of the way down the shank.

The mouthpiece I use in the Holton is the same but uses an Orchestra Grand backbore, which is more conventionally shaped. It also has a smaller throat.

The Geibish cup adds zip to the sound of big tubas to keep them from getting woofy or hollow-sounding. The Symphony backbore seems to work with the Hirsbrunner’s extreme projection, rather than trying to tone it down, but without robbing the sound of its bottom. It adds without seeming to subtract.

But it makes the low register of the Holton a bit more difficult—the OG backbore seems to offer a bit more resistance to help the low notes pop out.

My Hirsbrunner doesn’t have as large a bore size as some kaisers, but it’s still a lot larger than the Holton. What works on the Hirsbrunner might not work as optimally on a Miraphone 190, or a Rudi 5/4.

Yorks and Holtons work by filling a live hall with sound, while kaisers work by opening a channel straight to the listener even in a dead hall.

Rick “already discovered the extreme projection’s effect on close microphones” Denney

[bloke]

I became interested in exploring this type of instrument when that talented player in Europe began putting up videos A/B-ing a York style woof-o-phone C and a Kaiser Bb.
He played both well, but the Kaiser B-flat offered more clarity and definition, as one might expect.

A very talented and conservatory trained tuba player - who was here several months ago - played my Kaiser B-flat for me, so I could hear it from across the room. They personally own some 6/4 York B-flats...and were not at ease playing an instrument with a bell ten inches higher up from their ears than that to which they were accustomed, but the sound coming out to my ears was wonderful.
For electric bass players: Think of playing with round wound strings with a very nice amplifier with the settings tastefully set, versus flat wound strings with the bass turned nearly all the way up and the treble turned nearly all the way down. Some overtones and definition are possible with the flat wound strings and those settings, but the strings really have to be punched in order to achieve those things.

[donn]

Her Alex 164 was nickle silver (not silver plated) and that may have required a larger mouthpiece such as a Bach 12.

I might have come into possession of the same tall dark stranger tuba model in question, back when I had recently become fairly sure which end to blow in. The mouthpiece I favored was a Bach 7. Perhaps more to the point, so did the subsequent owner, and he reportedly sounds great on it.

[bloke]

not being argumentative...and being APPRECIATIVE of reports of what work for others...

...I might (??) be a "wuss"...because the really-deep/really-large-throated mouthpieces aren't "getting it" for me with this particular instrument.

[pjv]

.

[Heavy_Metal]

not being argumentative...and being APPRECIATIVE of reports of what work for others...

...I might (??) be a "wuss"...because the really-deep/really-large-throated mouthpieces aren't "getting it" for me with this particular instrument.

190?

[donn]

At the time ('80s), I believe the conventional wisdom was "C4". I got one, but for me, playing that thing was too heavy a price to pay, for whatever you supposedly get.

[bloke]

At the time ('80s), I believe the conventional wisdom was "C4". I got one, but for me, playing that thing was too heavy a price to pay, for whatever you supposedly get.

You know, Mr. donn...
Regardless of depth, the SHAPE might be “the thing”...I really have NOT yet give any “pure” bowl mouthpieces a good trial... [lightbulb emoji missing from selection]
—————
...and yes, a 190, as the B-flat and C versions have VERY LITTLE in common.
It seems to me that the C version was a “for export/hybrid” design that was thought to be something that might appeal to Americans, being sort of a CSO-York design with a large bore rotary valveset pasted on it, whereas the B-flat is an authentic German kaiser orchestra tuba.

If ANY of the body parts are close to the same as each (beyond the bore of their valvesets), the bells have NOTHING to do with each other at all.

[pjv]

I believe Daniel Ridder is on this board and has extensive experience with older German style tubas from all walks of life.

Without more info it remains a guessing game wherein most of the reactions will most likely not be what you're looking for.

I have such a tuba.

Which make&model? Any guess on the year?

the bore size is well over 8/10" (over 21mm), the bell diameter is less than 17-1/2 inches (440mm),

What is the boring and bell size?

the diameter of the large side of the bow is roughly 5-1/4 inches with this particular "kaiser" BB♭ tuba. (Slightly tighter-wrapped ones - perhaps those that are around 42" tall, etc. - would probably feature a large-side bottom bow diameter closer to 6 inches, with the overall taper actually being about the same as the taper on my own instrument.)

Tight wrap; like an old style Alex 164?

[bloke]

Tall-belled tubas, of course, feature tight-wrapped smaller bows and open-wrapped larger bows.
The topic is appropriate/general mpc. shapes which may be successful for me, so I’m going to avoid entering into mic’ed specs. re: other parts of the instrument...though I understand this is where others dwell.

[DandyZ629]

Marcinkiewicz N4 maybe? Nice and shallow, with not too huge bore? Tommy Johnson sure sounded amazing on his 190 with one?

[bloke]

That seems like a really good suggestion.
Right now, the very best thing I have found is my own shallow funnel “imperial“ (Sellmansberger).
I just wonder if I should look outside my own offerings. I guess I could take the solo and stack it with a tall rim and a cup extender to boot, and I would have a normal-to-deep depth “bowl” mouthpiece to try on the instrument…
...the nice thing being that I could stick a rim on there that I like, so the whole mouthpiece doesn’t seem like something I would reject - simply due to a weird rim.

I do appreciate the suggestions…
…and several of them have made me think of things. I will try some things when I am back from this Thanksgiving odyssey.

Marcinkiewicz N4 maybe? Nice and shallow, with not too huge bore? Tommy Johnson sure sounded amazing on his 190 with one?

[pjv]

On my tall and very conservatively diameter belled tuba I wasn’t happy with the solo+profundo+extender as it seemed to not allow the tuba to resonate fully.
Solo+profundo or Imperial+profundo both work better, though I lean towards the solo.
I’ve tried my N4 as well as my C4 and they are also great but retain the shortcomings which led me to using the Bloke pieces.
These two mpc’s however remain my trusty reserve mpc’s and live in the two rotary valve repair bags I have which go to all gigs and rehearsals (rawhide mallet, screw drivers, corks, oil, etc).

[bloke]

I very appreciate the reports of various successes and reports of less success.

I'm open to trying any general-or-specific suggestions that are easily try-able.

I see other people posting (as attempts to find shortcuts to "the perfect mouthpiece for a blah-blah").

I chuckle when they do it, but here I am doing it myself.

[iiipopes]

This may not be totally on target, but at one point years and years ago I had the opportunity to play a Conn 38K. Yes, as we all know, it had the standard .734 valve block, but the taper to the bugle was large to a large bell throat, but only a 24 inch bell instead of the "standard" 26. I tried several mouthpieces on it, and none gave me the combination of intonation, projection, and tone necessary. The safari began. I finally came across a Perantucci PT82:

* CUP CHARACTERISTICS: 32.5 mm. diameter - Moderately shallow. Very round cup.
* RIM CHARACTERISTICS: Width 8.0 mm. - Rounded rim with slightly sharp inner edge.
* THROAT BORE: 8.2 mm.
* Model PT82 is a high-dynamic range, German style mouthpiece, especially designed for large or otherwise mellow sounding instruments. The low register response is particularly good.

This mouthpiece performed exactly as described on the 38K. With this mouthpiece, I could play everything from privilege tones down to true pedal BBb with a consistent tone and a minimum of transition adjustment, and all the way to the top, for example, the runs in "The Thunderer," with confidence. It is designed for kaiser tubas. It functions as described. I recommend it.