Preferred mouthpiece?

[Grumpikins]

Would like to hear what mp you prefer to use. Include what horn(s) and why.

I like a tuba exchange Rose model I bought off Ebay for $15 in 2001. It works great on my mw horn. It does not fit correctly in my old king though. I like it because the inside rim diameter is huge and it feels very comfortable on my embochure. It's basically a larger version of a con hellberg.

Your turn.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk

[Kevbach33]

Well, I have only one for my 2103: a PT-36.

My tuba came with a King system blue piece, which I didn't care so much for the rim shape. Then I went down to a local music chain store and they had the above Perantucci piece.

I love the rim shape: it's fairly narrow, not too round or flat, and has a defined inner bite that's not too sharp, rather reminiscent of my trombone mouthpieces. I'm fine with the diameter. The piece works quite well with the tuba, despite the combo of funneled cup mouthpiece and rotary tuba. My only problem with it is it's a Euro shank, thus creating some resistance/turbulence up front. But I'm not taking the risk of trying to order a PT-36S (American shank) through that place in Michigan.

Are there better options? Sure. Are there better options with the PT-36 rim shape? Unlikely. Hence why I'm hesitant to switch away.

[DonO.]

I am using a Conn Helleberg Standard 120 for my King and a Conn Helleberg 7B for my little Kanstul. Why? I’ve just been a Helleberg man since the mid 80’s. I had been using cup shaped (Bach) mouthpieces to that point and the funnel shaped mouthpiece was a revelation to me. Some people say the Hellebergs “ain’t like they used to be”. That doesn’t matter to me because I’ve always used the newer ones. They’re readily available, reasonably priced, and they make me sound better than I really am. What’s not to like?

[2nd tenor]

I play a Besson Sovereign EEb and have a few pieces that I’ve settled on as working well with it, ie. the combination sounds good, they fit my face and they aren’t too tiring to play. I’ve trialed quite a few mouthpieces over the last ten years and currently use a Wick 2L - if I were in the USA then I guess I’d be be using a Bach 18 now ‘cause they’re similar. Working with one popular manufacturer’s range has helped me to ‘home in’ on what works better for me - note ‘better’ rather than ‘best’.

The Wick range is readily available here in the UK and, though it’s sometimes challenging to me to use, a Wick 2L gives me a slightly fuller low range and slightly fuller tone than a 3L; I’ve had to work up to the (bigger) 2L size and here the 2L is normally thought of as a BBb piece. If/when I haven’t done enough practise than I fall back on a Wick 3L; a Wick 3L used to be my regular piece, the 3L hits a load of sweet spots - Goldilocks size and characteristics - they’re very popular here as a EEb piece and are so with good reason.

If I wasn’t chasing a marginally better sound then a Wick 3L would be my preference. If I’m going to be either playing well up the stave or working on my high range then a Bach 25 copy gives me both better results and is a really easy play (I could play my regular music all day on one).

A comfortable face fit is something that we all take for granted and all of the above ‘pieces just seem right and comfy to me. However, to my surprise, a Bach 24AW copy was just too big (on outside diameter) to fit comfortably on my face shape - don’t assume that every mouthpiece will be comfortable to use.

To an extent we end up playing what’s popular, readily available and does the job slightly better for us than competing products that we also have cost effective access to. Once and whilst something ‘better’ than the rest is found nothing helps you to sound better than well spent practise time - well, that’s what I’ve found.

[donn]

You want one with an opening at both ends, one wider than the other, and the narrow end has a tapered shank that fits in the receiver.

From there, people go in a variety of different directions. If a mouthpiece exists, that's reasonable evidence that it worked for someone. I personally am mighty fond of the Conn 1 of yesteryear, an unusual interior shape with no obvious bottom to the cup, just a long gradual taper. But despite its obvious (to me) excellence, it surprisingly (to me) never did become the standard mouthpiece everyone uses.

[Mary Ann]

You want one with an opening at both ends, one wider than the other, and the narrow end has a tapered shank that fits in the receiver.

From there, people go in a variety of different directions. If a mouthpiece exists, that's reasonable evidence that it worked for someone. I personally am mighty fond of the Conn 1 of yesteryear, an unusual interior shape with no obvious bottom to the cup, just a long gradual taper. But despite its obvious (to me) excellence, it surprisingly (to me) never did become the standard mouthpiece everyone uses.

That's because it won't fit in a French horn.

[Stryk]

You want one with an opening at both ends, one wider than the other, and the narrow end has a tapered shank that fits in the receiver.

I have two other criteria - first it must be comfortable for me. This means it must be compatible with my crooked lower teeth - it cant be a sharp rim to meet that criteria. Second, as we get older, lung issues develop. They aren't as elastic as they used to be and don't hold as much air. For me, that means it has to throttle the air down somewhat. Home for me is a Mt. Vernon Bach 18 that I have played for 45 years. However, I prefer stainless to brass - the 18 is not made in stainless, nor is anything remotely close to it. I like Sellmensberger the best because there are an almost infinite combinations of rims, cups, and shanks to make what works for you. I also like the Giddings Diablo, but again, the rim is not quite what I need. The best thing you can do is find one with a shank that fits your receiver, a rim that fits your mouth, in a metal that works for you and just stick with it. It ain't the mouthpiece that makes you a better player, it's the time playing your horn with the mouthpiece you have that does.

[bloke]

I recommend that you buy A. and B.

A. - those that I like
B. - those that I have for sale

...but B. is the very best.

[donn]

I also like the Giddings Diablo, but again, the rim is not quite what I need.

That reminds me of another fit criterion. I had one myself, for a while, and didn't like it so much. Likely enough if I got another one, I still wouldn't, but it would be different because I'd get a standard shank, and the one I had before was larger. I don't really know for sure what's going on here, but the mouthpieces I generally like, drop well into the receiver, and mouthpieces that stand out farther, I don't tend to like so much.

[Casca Grossa]

I recommend that you buy A. and B.

A. - those that I like
B. - those that I have for sale

...but B. is the very best.

I have two A and two B

[bloke]

[edfirth]

I still have four tubas and use a PT/RT 50+ on all four. The rim feels good and it makes a big deep sound, but with clarity as well. My horns are a King rotaryBb, a King 1241 and a King 2341, and a Yamaha Eb. I also use a PT 88 with a shaved down shank on my little King Eb. Not suggesting this for anyone else but it works great for me. Best, Ed

[dsfinley]

I’m currently using a Conn Helleberg on my HB-1P. I do not love the rim and the sound I make with it isn’t my favorite. I just play better with it than I do anything else. My low register to high register is consistent, I play more in tune and I miss less notes. I’ve tried lots of mouthpieces, some that I like the sound I made with them, but the Helleberg always feels like home.

[bloke]

I have encountered difficulty with the 4/4 Hirsbrunner tubas - particularly the one that the former importer referred to as Model 21 - playing up to pitch. I've encountered the same problem with the Meinl-Weston Ursus. It's not that they're super flat, but just a little bit. The various Helleberg II mouthpieces are not my favorites, but they seem to lift the pitch on these sorts of tubas a couple of hundreds of a semitone while not being shallow mouthpieces.

[rodgeman]

I play on a Dillon Turner G5B (a Geib style mouthpiece) on my Eastman 562. I have also used it on a Cerveny 601 and Mirafone 186. My other mouthpiece is a Helleberg 120. The rims work for me. The PT 88+ worked but required a lot of air and sold it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iiipopes]

Over the decades I have played many mouthpieces, including buying and selling a significant number on both this and the other forum. My safaris are broad, but when I zero in on a mouthpiece that does just about everything I want it to on any particular instrument, keeping in mind there is no "perfect" mouthpiece, then I'm done and I go to the woodshed as necessary. That doesn't mean I get rid of all of them. In addition to my current favorite, I keep a Kelly 18 on the shelf in case of inclement weather, and I have a Kanstul version of an 18 that Jim New made for me when Zig was still alive in a 1.28 inch id rim instead of 1.26.

I have come full circle. I have a Conn Helleberg 120S that is a few years old that is superlative on my Jupiter JTU1110. It has a 1.28 id slightly rounded rim that is comfortable to me.

When Lee Stofer gets done with the 36K I asked him to put together for me with my mods, including the upper 1st valve loop mod, I will probably use the 18 on that one, since I had it made specifically for outdoor concerts with a standard souzy all those years ago. But if that doesn't work, I'll try something else.

When I had my Bessophone I used a Curry 128D before I had the bell changed out, and a blokepiece 2-piece Imperial with a Helleburg rim and spacer after installation of the Besson bell.

When I had my Besson New Standard BBb 3-valve comp, I had a Wick 1.

When I had the use of a 38K it sounded best with a PT82 I bought out of Jeff Rideout's sample case.

Each one of these mouthpieces did what I wanted them to on the respective tubas/souzys I had as my primary instrument at the time. Each of them were anywhere from fair to wretched on any other instrument I may have played, tried, or owned in overlap.

Avoid the two extremes: 1) never trying other mouthpieces, and 2) never settling down on any particular mouthpiece.

[Dents Be Gone!]

I agree, guys. This is the way to go.

[bloke]

Every tuba and tuba-ish instrument I has a different mouthpiece kept/used with it...but all of those mouthpieces feature the same RIM CONTOUR, but NOT the same CUP WIDTH.

Their cup shapes/depths vary.
Their throats/back-bores/shank sizes vary.

I'm sure I could play any of those instruments with any of the mouthpieces (and would be thankful - at a gig/rehearsal - to have ~a~ mouthpiece, rather than ~no~ mouthpiece), but it wouldn't be as easy nor pleasant as it would have been with the mouthpieces I've chosen for the specific instruments.

Some are brass, some are stainless steel, one is partially bronze, some are modular, some are not, some are less modular than others...but to claim that those differences are significant (other than the higher level of scratch-resistance of steel rims) is voodoo. All of the differences are in the rim shapes and interior shapes.

An F cimbasso (with a small shank receiver and an initial mouthpipe tube bore of c. .495"/12.5mm is NOT the same instrument as a hybrid kaiser B-flat factory-fitted with an "American"-style 20" 6/4 bell, yet a .835"/21.2mm valveset bore size. I suppose a baritone or bass saxophone could (with some duct tape, or something...) strive to play their instrument with an alto saxophone mouthpiece...and (again, at a gig) I suppose the baritone/bass saxophonist would strive to make it work (vs. "no mouthpiece"), but I couldn't imagine it being fun nor easy.

[donn]

Some are brass, some are stainless steel, one is partially bronze, some are modular, some are not, some are less modular than others...but to claim that those differences are significant (other than the higher level of scratch-resistance of steel rims) is voodoo. All of the differences are in the rim shapes and interior shapes.

You don't subscribe to possibly significant differences in rim surface? Classically, gold plating here, also titanium nitride, stainless, polycarbonate ...

And external shank size has to count as an internal difference, since it affects the placement of the backbore inside the receiver.

[bloke]

"slick and smooth" is what it is, and "scratchy and not smooth" is what it is.

A highly-polished gold plated surface (for a handful of days or months) feels like highly-polished harder metal - such as polished steel, titanium, or a titanium coated-basically-for-looks steel rim, but - after a few days or months (particularly with male use) - gold plating ends up with a bunch of little scratches (even from beard stubble).

I didn't mention Lexan nor other plastics. They tend to grab, and - at least, for me - they're best reserved for extreme temperatures playing experiences, as they neither seem to hold, absorb much heat for very long (though they seem to warm up quickly and stay warm - as long at there's contact with a warm object (such as skin). I tend to believe that the grabby characteristic (though I've not studied with a microscope - nor borrowed smarter/more-experienced people's knowledge) is due to plastics being soft materials, which may possibly limit just how smoothly they can be polished. ex: Many of us have tried to polish the "road sandblast" out of our headlight assembly clear plastic lenses. We can improve them, but we can never quite get them as they were originally...Whereas (and depending on talent/experience/equipment) materials such as brass sheet metal are fairly easily polished to a mirror-like (at least - to the limits of our eyes and sense of touch) smooth surface.

enamel...' difficult to be accurate, and quite fragile.

I personally have difficultly playing as well as otherwise with any beard stubble. When playing silver-plated or gold-plated mouthpieces, I never do so without a nice close shave just prior, because (in addition to not playing as well) I know that I'll scratch up those surfaces with my "sand-papery" beard-stubbled face.

I hear (but do not know as fact) that more people are irritated by contact with nickel that by contact with silver or gold...but nickel is a hard metal (and - in my experience - more scratch-resistant than silver or gold), and - someday - I might try nickel-plating a nicely-polished mouthpiece to see what I think...also, nickel plating seems to "flow" (make its OWN smooth surface, during the electro-plating process) more than do silver or gold.

======================================

another mouthpiece humbug - not previously mentioned: mass/weight (more vs. less material)
Enough to be stable - and to be able to be easily grasped to insert/extract - is enough.
my own suspicion: The (fading) "chunky" mouthpiece fad was begun by mouthpiece makers who preferred to do less work (time) and affect less wear-and-tear on their tooling (money) via promoting the salient points (humbug) of mouthpiece mass.

======================================

"Harder-metal rims feel different."
- - - - - - - -
I suspect the difference is that harder-metal rims pick up very small scratches at a much slower rate, and people aren't used to new mouthpieces continuing to feel new (ok...not forever, but) "forever".

bloke "I can sell one-piece silver plated brass mouthpieces for less, so my last two models are that, and I've already sold a bunch of 'em."