REVIEW: CHI Brass AJ Adjustable Cup Mouthpiece
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:20 am
Is it worth the hefty $500 (with silver plating — $679 with gold plating!!!) price tag? Is it a gimmick? Is it magic? <snicker>
So I dropped the $$$ needed to get one of these mouthpieces, fully recognizing that I probably would never use it at work. I also fully recognized that this weird piece of gear could teach me a lot about mouthpieces very quickly. I figured that the education itself would be worth the money, especially if I could then sell the mouthpiece for a decent chunk of what I spent on it. (I *KNOW* there are a dozen or so “mouthpiece guys” here who would buy this simply because of what it is and who it is associated with, and it *is* a very cool and interesting piece of gear — I do not fear a complete loss of my money because someone will want this (minus the initial depreciation.)
It arrived about an hour ago and I immediately dropped what I was doing and got the Yamaha out for some play-testing.
First impression — it is SHORT. I mean, like 3/4" shorter than many mouthpieces. I have no idea why this is; it just is. I was afraid that it would not properly seat in my YamaYork's receiver, which is one of those over-long ones that rides about a half inch farther up the shank of a mouthpiece than normal — for whatever reason.
Regarding that receiver: I have noted that "Euro" mouthpieces usually fit pretty well, but do not *play* all that well, as I think they seat too far out. I was convinced that it was an "E" receiver when I first bought it, but for some reason, I tried both my "E" and "A" PT-88s and the "A" one simply plays a lot better. It also seats very deeply into this very long receiver. So I bought a lot of new mouthpieces for this tuba, as I decided that the new, spendy tuba deserved to be trialed with some new mouthpiece designs along with my big box of old ones. In the end, I found five that I liked, but all were "E" shanks, and now I wanted to see how the same ones compared with the "A" shank seating in the receiver.
Oddly enough, neither shape was a clear winner. For some reason, BOTH shapes fit without any perceptible wobble. I do not know how this is possible, but there it is — I am not going to over-analyze it; both seem to fit this tuba very well. In some cases, the "A" bests the "E" version of certain mouthpieces (for *me*) while the reverse is also true for some. In some cases, the two versions are *very* different, while in some there is little to no perceptible difference.
Go figure.
With that in mind, here we go with this funky, new thing I bought…
Okay, so it is short. It is so short with such a long cup/sleeve that it looks weird. I took it out of the box and thought, "Damn, that is one weird-looking mouthpiece." (True story, brah.)
It has some very nice machine work, but the threads are, of necessity, bare brass. The fit is very tight, to prevent leakage of all that nice air pressure we push into the cup as we play. So where these two parts meet and turn against one another the silver has been worn down. Each of these is hand-turned, one at a time, and I believe that this is why. To ensure a proper fit you have to mess with it a lot, making them overly tight and then (probably) hand-lapping them to the correct tolerance, then slapping on a dot of thin grease to keep things moving as designed. All this handwork adds up to a lot of $$$ on the old time clock for the maker.
So all of this handwork to ensure the precise fit that allows them to turn yet not leak guarantees a very high price. Okay, so *that* has been adequately explained to me, now…
So, the plating at the contact points is crappy looking, as you would expect when it has been lapped off — the edges where the parts meet are not as precise as the plating is thin. So the edges are slightly feathered and imperfect. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. (Funny, but in a community where we like to say that catastrophic dents are cosmetic and "don't affect playability" when we want to offload something is the same group that will torpedo a product that is not perfect, cosmetically, in photos, and who think that a nicely cleaned exterior of a soldered tubing joint is an example of "excellent fit and finish" without regards to the INTERIOR of the joint, which is all that matters to a tech who is describing "fit and finish". Just some observations…)
So to get this to function properly the plating is lapped down where the two parts meet. The edges of those "zones" are cosmetically less-than-beautiful. If you understand how this works and how it is fitted together post-plating then we can see that this is not a factor.
Back to the shank: It fits the YamaYork's receiver just like most "A" shank mouthpieces: deeply, but without any wobble at all. It is a very secure fit. But as short as this mouthpiece is, it just BARELY fits. The pitch of the tuba goes up a small amount, accordingly — but not as much as I had expected.
As Jake said about this mouthpiece, the balance between fundamental and overtones is what it alters. It makes the sound "darker" or "brighter" (insert your own understanding of those terms and leave me out of it, please), and that is happening, here. However, while real and something you can both hear and feel, it is not as great a difference as I had envisioned. (I used a real oscilloscope, but cannot figure out how to record the readout for my laptop. Sorry, I get some of my tech from pawnshops, so it can be some pretty ancient stuff. And this one is simply a loaner that I have to return on Tuesday.)
What my limited experience with oscilloscopes tells me is that with the cup screwed down to the stops it sounds and feels (to *me) a lot like a Miraphone C4, and with the cup all the way open it is more like my late-1960s Conn Helleberg. (The 120, not the little 7B.) It stays on the brighter side, meaning more overtones. It has a very neutral feel and tone, being clear and colorful in all ranges. It is not as good in the low register as my very large Warburton TG-1, but is better above the staff, regardless of the cup depth setting.
The rim is very nice, but is a smidge more rounded than what I normally choose for myself. However, I like it and could become used to it in a matter of hours. The width of the rim opening is also pretty comfy for me, so fairly wide. I have not measured it, but the specs are on the website. I will get my tools out and confirm their numbers with the actual mouthpiece at some point, but probably not anytime soon, as that is not something that interests me.
So — on the YamaYork — this is a clear, colorful mouthpiece that makes some very nice sounds, regardless of the cup depth. I tend to like the shallowest setting more, right now. I need to spend some time reading Bordogni and Blazhevich to better understand what this piece is like. And, honestly, I need to do so outside of my bedroom and in the "bullpen" down at the concert hall. (The low brass have used the loading dock area backstage for decades as our personal Green Room where we warm up, practice, snooze, or shoot the breeze during tacets at work. It has a pretty darned good sound for low brass for a loading dock/workshop area.) I will call the stagehand office to see if they will let me sneak in there sometime this summer for a few hours.
I like this mouthpiece a LOT more than I had anticipated. The pitch and response are very even and neutral and are predictable. The mouthpiece has a rim that I like. It does not seem to want to turn out of adjustment while I play it (due to the snug fit). It places my face almost on the bell, just like in the photos of Jake using it.
The weird, short leadpipe with its weird, 45º angle that so many here are prone to fuss about is not an issue for me whatsoever, placing the tuba in what happens to be a very good position (again, for "me"). But this mouthpiece challenges that a bit. I did not have an issue with either holding the horn or seeing music, but — well — it looks weird.
All in all, I am glad I decided to drop this much money on one of these. I do not think I will be selling it — at least not anytime soon.
This surprises me.
A lot.
One last note: The fit is not as precise as it could be. If it were then the piece would regularly seize up. The fit is made loose enough to ensure this does not happen. The slack is taken up with the thin grease used between the two halves. However, the tolerances are tight enough that, when inserted into the receiver on the tuba, when you dial the cup in you can hear a tiny bit of air hissing out as the gap inside closes.
That is a pretty snug fit.
I'm impressed.
But that means that a very tiny amount of grease blows into the cup — and it tastes pretty nasty.
I suppose I should have washed it out before that first use…
INFO
Warburton TG-1 and CHI Brass AJ Adjustable Cup length difference…
Warburton fit in YamaYork receiver. The Warburton is a Euro shank and sticks out a lot farther than normal. In this one case, the Euro version of a mouthpiece plays better for me. I have the "A" shank version, too.
AJ AC dialed to shallowest depth…
AJ AC dialed to deepest depth…
Shallowest depth, full of spit (sorry…). Note the feathered appearance of silver in the cup from what I am guessing is hand-lapping work. Also, while this felt and sounded most like my Miraphohe Rose Solo, it is a lot deeper than that. Not sure why this is, but it is.
Deepest depth. This is a lot like a Rose Orchestra in its depth, but it feels and plays shallower for me, like an old Conn Helleberg. I was hoping for more of a Rose-Orchestra-with-a-better-rim from this, but it does not sound/feel like that to me.
Rim profile… not too shabby…
Please note that CHIBrass is associated with Windsong Press and sells these. Matt Frost of Frost Custom Brass makes them to order. I am not Google; look them up yourself. I was not paid for this review. I dropped my own hard-earned shekels to get one of these things. And so far I like it a lot more than I had imagined I would. We'll see how this pans out over the next season, though.
More later…
So I dropped the $$$ needed to get one of these mouthpieces, fully recognizing that I probably would never use it at work. I also fully recognized that this weird piece of gear could teach me a lot about mouthpieces very quickly. I figured that the education itself would be worth the money, especially if I could then sell the mouthpiece for a decent chunk of what I spent on it. (I *KNOW* there are a dozen or so “mouthpiece guys” here who would buy this simply because of what it is and who it is associated with, and it *is* a very cool and interesting piece of gear — I do not fear a complete loss of my money because someone will want this (minus the initial depreciation.)
It arrived about an hour ago and I immediately dropped what I was doing and got the Yamaha out for some play-testing.
First impression — it is SHORT. I mean, like 3/4" shorter than many mouthpieces. I have no idea why this is; it just is. I was afraid that it would not properly seat in my YamaYork's receiver, which is one of those over-long ones that rides about a half inch farther up the shank of a mouthpiece than normal — for whatever reason.
Regarding that receiver: I have noted that "Euro" mouthpieces usually fit pretty well, but do not *play* all that well, as I think they seat too far out. I was convinced that it was an "E" receiver when I first bought it, but for some reason, I tried both my "E" and "A" PT-88s and the "A" one simply plays a lot better. It also seats very deeply into this very long receiver. So I bought a lot of new mouthpieces for this tuba, as I decided that the new, spendy tuba deserved to be trialed with some new mouthpiece designs along with my big box of old ones. In the end, I found five that I liked, but all were "E" shanks, and now I wanted to see how the same ones compared with the "A" shank seating in the receiver.
Oddly enough, neither shape was a clear winner. For some reason, BOTH shapes fit without any perceptible wobble. I do not know how this is possible, but there it is — I am not going to over-analyze it; both seem to fit this tuba very well. In some cases, the "A" bests the "E" version of certain mouthpieces (for *me*) while the reverse is also true for some. In some cases, the two versions are *very* different, while in some there is little to no perceptible difference.
Go figure.
With that in mind, here we go with this funky, new thing I bought…
Okay, so it is short. It is so short with such a long cup/sleeve that it looks weird. I took it out of the box and thought, "Damn, that is one weird-looking mouthpiece." (True story, brah.)
It has some very nice machine work, but the threads are, of necessity, bare brass. The fit is very tight, to prevent leakage of all that nice air pressure we push into the cup as we play. So where these two parts meet and turn against one another the silver has been worn down. Each of these is hand-turned, one at a time, and I believe that this is why. To ensure a proper fit you have to mess with it a lot, making them overly tight and then (probably) hand-lapping them to the correct tolerance, then slapping on a dot of thin grease to keep things moving as designed. All this handwork adds up to a lot of $$$ on the old time clock for the maker.
So all of this handwork to ensure the precise fit that allows them to turn yet not leak guarantees a very high price. Okay, so *that* has been adequately explained to me, now…
So, the plating at the contact points is crappy looking, as you would expect when it has been lapped off — the edges where the parts meet are not as precise as the plating is thin. So the edges are slightly feathered and imperfect. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. (Funny, but in a community where we like to say that catastrophic dents are cosmetic and "don't affect playability" when we want to offload something is the same group that will torpedo a product that is not perfect, cosmetically, in photos, and who think that a nicely cleaned exterior of a soldered tubing joint is an example of "excellent fit and finish" without regards to the INTERIOR of the joint, which is all that matters to a tech who is describing "fit and finish". Just some observations…)
So to get this to function properly the plating is lapped down where the two parts meet. The edges of those "zones" are cosmetically less-than-beautiful. If you understand how this works and how it is fitted together post-plating then we can see that this is not a factor.
Back to the shank: It fits the YamaYork's receiver just like most "A" shank mouthpieces: deeply, but without any wobble at all. It is a very secure fit. But as short as this mouthpiece is, it just BARELY fits. The pitch of the tuba goes up a small amount, accordingly — but not as much as I had expected.
As Jake said about this mouthpiece, the balance between fundamental and overtones is what it alters. It makes the sound "darker" or "brighter" (insert your own understanding of those terms and leave me out of it, please), and that is happening, here. However, while real and something you can both hear and feel, it is not as great a difference as I had envisioned. (I used a real oscilloscope, but cannot figure out how to record the readout for my laptop. Sorry, I get some of my tech from pawnshops, so it can be some pretty ancient stuff. And this one is simply a loaner that I have to return on Tuesday.)
What my limited experience with oscilloscopes tells me is that with the cup screwed down to the stops it sounds and feels (to *me) a lot like a Miraphone C4, and with the cup all the way open it is more like my late-1960s Conn Helleberg. (The 120, not the little 7B.) It stays on the brighter side, meaning more overtones. It has a very neutral feel and tone, being clear and colorful in all ranges. It is not as good in the low register as my very large Warburton TG-1, but is better above the staff, regardless of the cup depth setting.
The rim is very nice, but is a smidge more rounded than what I normally choose for myself. However, I like it and could become used to it in a matter of hours. The width of the rim opening is also pretty comfy for me, so fairly wide. I have not measured it, but the specs are on the website. I will get my tools out and confirm their numbers with the actual mouthpiece at some point, but probably not anytime soon, as that is not something that interests me.
So — on the YamaYork — this is a clear, colorful mouthpiece that makes some very nice sounds, regardless of the cup depth. I tend to like the shallowest setting more, right now. I need to spend some time reading Bordogni and Blazhevich to better understand what this piece is like. And, honestly, I need to do so outside of my bedroom and in the "bullpen" down at the concert hall. (The low brass have used the loading dock area backstage for decades as our personal Green Room where we warm up, practice, snooze, or shoot the breeze during tacets at work. It has a pretty darned good sound for low brass for a loading dock/workshop area.) I will call the stagehand office to see if they will let me sneak in there sometime this summer for a few hours.
I like this mouthpiece a LOT more than I had anticipated. The pitch and response are very even and neutral and are predictable. The mouthpiece has a rim that I like. It does not seem to want to turn out of adjustment while I play it (due to the snug fit). It places my face almost on the bell, just like in the photos of Jake using it.
The weird, short leadpipe with its weird, 45º angle that so many here are prone to fuss about is not an issue for me whatsoever, placing the tuba in what happens to be a very good position (again, for "me"). But this mouthpiece challenges that a bit. I did not have an issue with either holding the horn or seeing music, but — well — it looks weird.
All in all, I am glad I decided to drop this much money on one of these. I do not think I will be selling it — at least not anytime soon.
This surprises me.
A lot.
One last note: The fit is not as precise as it could be. If it were then the piece would regularly seize up. The fit is made loose enough to ensure this does not happen. The slack is taken up with the thin grease used between the two halves. However, the tolerances are tight enough that, when inserted into the receiver on the tuba, when you dial the cup in you can hear a tiny bit of air hissing out as the gap inside closes.
That is a pretty snug fit.
I'm impressed.
But that means that a very tiny amount of grease blows into the cup — and it tastes pretty nasty.
I suppose I should have washed it out before that first use…
INFO
Warburton TG-1 and CHI Brass AJ Adjustable Cup length difference…
Warburton fit in YamaYork receiver. The Warburton is a Euro shank and sticks out a lot farther than normal. In this one case, the Euro version of a mouthpiece plays better for me. I have the "A" shank version, too.
AJ AC dialed to shallowest depth…
AJ AC dialed to deepest depth…
Shallowest depth, full of spit (sorry…). Note the feathered appearance of silver in the cup from what I am guessing is hand-lapping work. Also, while this felt and sounded most like my Miraphohe Rose Solo, it is a lot deeper than that. Not sure why this is, but it is.
Deepest depth. This is a lot like a Rose Orchestra in its depth, but it feels and plays shallower for me, like an old Conn Helleberg. I was hoping for more of a Rose-Orchestra-with-a-better-rim from this, but it does not sound/feel like that to me.
Rim profile… not too shabby…
Please note that CHIBrass is associated with Windsong Press and sells these. Matt Frost of Frost Custom Brass makes them to order. I am not Google; look them up yourself. I was not paid for this review. I dropped my own hard-earned shekels to get one of these things. And so far I like it a lot more than I had imagined I would. We'll see how this pans out over the next season, though.
More later…
