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

[donn]

My tubas all play easily and to expectations no matter which of the 3 Blokepieces bowls I use. (I say 3, but way more with all the modular variables using different shanks rim depths & diameters). I can literally play everything I’m capable of playing on any of my tubas with these mpc’s. The various shapes emphasize differences in the sound but they don’t really restrict my playing.

Do your different blokepiece shanks have essentially similar throat and backbore concepts, and the rims the same profile? If so, and if I had a theory about the relative roles of backbore, throat, cup and rim, that's all I would need for confirmation of that theory.

The C4 has a notoriously narrow neck, by the way.

[pjv]

My tubas all play easily and to expectations no matter which of the 3 Blokepieces bowls I use. (I say 3, but way more with all the modular variables using different shanks rim depths & diameters). I can literally play everything I’m capable of playing on any of my tubas with these mpc’s. The various shapes emphasize differences in the sound but they don’t really restrict my playing.

Do your different blokepiece shanks have essentially similar throat and backbore concepts, and the rims the same profile? If so, and if I had a theory about the relative roles of backbore, throat, cup and rim, that's all I would need for confirmation of that theory.

I have no idea, and maybe that's point.
I'm not great with describing what I'm thinking so I'll give it another whack.

-A MPC WHICH DOESN'T WORK AGAINST ITSELF-
or is at least considerably balanced enough that it doesn't cancel itself out
(in particular registers or volumes for example).

Is it possible that some of these state-of-the-art mpc 's available now have this quality (and obviously not just the Blokepiece)? Wouldn't this allow you to (generally speaking) pop any of these said mpc's in a tuba and sail away into musical oblivion?

The idea behind modular mpc's is to custom size to the users wants, but these parts all have to do their job well.

My experience with what I'm using now is, even though one mpc part is a funnel and the other a cup, I'm not getting a situation where one works and the others a drama. They both work great and simply amplify different characteristics of the sound. Sure, I use the same rim diameter on any particular tuba, but I don't believe that this aspect is the game changer.

[Matt Walters]

Joe,
Somewhere in the cobwebs of my memory I remember seeing an original Alexander mouthpiece that came with an Alexander 164CC. Yes, the true Kaiser. This one had detachable upright bell and bell front bell plus a CC to BBb conversion main slide. Anyway, it's original Alexander mouthpiece was very shallow. Maybe they knew something when they made it?

[donn]

My experience with what I'm using now is, even though one mpc part is a funnel and the other a cup, I'm not getting a situation where one works and the others a drama. They both work great and simply amplify different characteristics of the sound.

Right, I think that's more or less the common experience, isn't it? The performance parameters like that are elsewhere in the mouthpiece. But some people may put a lot of stock in those different characteristics of the sound, you never know.

I'm getting used to a new tuba, and a couple days ago rediscovered my Marcinkiewicz H series mouthpieces. I knew they were unlike all the others in some way, but had found other mouthpieces I liked better. Suddenly with this thing, they shine.(*) I'm sure it's the throat/backbore, though of course no idea what specifically about it. It isn't any tall, dark central european tuba, though - and a Marcinkiewicz H1 is very far from a C4. QED.

Sure, I use the same rim diameter on any particular tuba, but I don't believe that this aspect is the game changer.

That seems to vary somewhat between different players, just from reading the commentary over the years. Much emphasis on practically a hair's breadth difference in diameter. If this is in answer to my question, actually I was interested in the rim surface profile - rounded, cushion, bite, wide, narrow, that kind of thing. Seems to make a difference, but probably per individual, not per tuba - anyone find that one tuba requires a rounded rim and another takes a sharp bite?

(* Caveat: have new tuba, play it a lot, suddenly find X mouthpiece is fabulous; months later, playing less frequently with attendant decline in ability, find that mouthpiece has lost some of its charm. Marcinkiewicz H series, possibly in that category for me.)

[KingTuba1241X]

how about the Schilke 69C4 variant? Btw, is the original poster's horn an OLD 190 with the S-Links or the newer one from the 90's with the uniballs?