Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

[JTJ]

Problem with

blueeuph, agree, but everyone has to find their balance point. for me, the sm4 actually hurts my upper register and degrades my overall sound quality, while sm3 sized pieces open it up and allow it to sing. i think this is a function both of rim diameter and cup depth working correctly with my chops.

john

[Bluephonium]

Problem with

I tried going to the SM 3.5 as my primary mpc and found that while the pedal octave rocks, I'm not worth a darn above G above staff. If I had the time to practive more I'm sure I could develop the embouchure for this guy but for now I use it when I want a fatter sound staying in the first 3 octaves. The deep throat makes crisp articulation difficult and the big booger wears me out pretty quick. I have also played the 51D but I found the cup to be a hair deep for my liking. Right now I'm just playing on the Yamaha 51 that came with my horn; it doesn't open up the lower octave like the bigger pieces but I gain flexibility.

How does the Bach 4 compare to a 51D?

Ryan

[tomc]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

Thanks, David and John for your suggestions. A couple more questions: Is the throat measurement width or depth, and how does it affect your sound/playing challenges? How does the backbore size or shape affect your playing? (429 - Bach; medium - Wick 5BL; barrell - SM5)

Tom

[davewerden]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

If you are up for a little light reading...

Bach Mouthpiece Manual

It explains various design factors of mouthpieces.

[warumtobendieheiden]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

OK, here comes my zwei Pfennig worth. It looks like three members experiencing similar mouthpiece issues have joined the thread, and a host of experienced senior members have jumped to their aid with much wise advice.

One bit of advice I didn't recall seeing from anyone was that the Yamaha 53H mouthpiece might be a well-balanced piece for these gents, certainly worthy of consideration if one seeks a good-sounding MP that is a relatively easy blow.
With its 25.91mm cup width, it is a tad smaller than the Wick/Mead/Bach 4 pieces, but a substantial increment larger than the Wick/Mead/Bach 5 and Schilke 51D that are much discussed here.

The Yammie's cup depth is not as deep as the Schilke 51D (I own one and played it for several years), but its throat is slightly larger (.280 v. .277). Contrast the Yammie's throat with the considerably larger throat of the Wick/Mead 4 mouthpieces (typically .290 or even larger), and you will understand why the Yammie is not as tiring to play. To my ear, my SM4 makes a bit more sound, but the Yammie 53H has a tighter tonal focus that largely compensates for the slightly lesser volume. Anyway, just how loud do you need to play?

I have to underline what JTJ and Euphdude have said on the forum so many times: every player has his own physical capacities and must heed them in seeking a mouthpiece. Keep trying pieces until you discover your "sweet spot." There is probably no ideal mouthpiece; consider yourself lucky if you find a happy compromise!

[tomc]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

I'd like to ask Dave Werden a question. I went back and reread your review of the Wick Heritage 4AL and 4ABL mouthpieces. The advantages of the ABL are attractive to me - easier to control, higher range somewhat easier, more centered sound and more endurance. Since you recommended moving from the 6.5 to a 5 en route to a 4, what about the Heritage 5ABL? Would it most likely have the same characteristics that you mentioned with the 4ABL? Do you think it would be suitable for euphonium?Thanks so much.Tom

[davewerden]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

Tom,

Keeping in mind that I have not actually played a 5ABL...

Your theory is good, and I suppose a 5ABL might be a good step-up mouthpiece. Ideally, you would be able to try one before deciding.

[tomc]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

Oh, and thanks for the link to the Bach Mouthpiece Manual. It was very enlightening, especially the info about the throat and backbore, which I knew nothing about.Tom

[tomc]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

Thanks, Dave, for responding so quickly. I live out of the country, so unfortunately, there's no way for me to try one first. But if you think the 5ABL would be as good a possibility as the Bach 5G or standard Wick 5BL that you mentioned earlier in the thread, I might go for it.Tom

[jonromero1]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

i use the brian bowman bb1bt.

great mouthpiece. grreat tone. amazing sound.

the schilke 51d is good, but i find it's a bit harder to hit the higher notes. i'm a second year euphonium major at university of louisiana at lafayette, and i find it's harder to hit higher notes on the 51d. i used the 51d for about 2 years, and the second i used the bb1, it was like everything was fine tuned. the notes hit just right every time. there is less resistance. and it just feels right.

the 4al is bright. it's more for a british sound, while the bb1 or the 51d is more of a darker, deeper american sound on euphonium.

bad thing about the 4al is that the mouthpiece is flat and can kill your lips in just a few minutes, while you can play the bb1 for hours on end.

so in short, if you can spare between 60-100 bucks, get the bb1.

[fsung]

Problem with "deep" mouthpieces?

Originally posted by: jonromero1
bad thing about the 4al is that the mouthpiece is flat and can kill your lips in just a few minutes, while you can play the bb1 for hours on end.

I have a very different perspective on the 4AL vs. the BB1.

I greatly prefer the 4AL to the BB1 precisely because the flatter rim distributes the pressure evenly across the entire contact patch rather than creating a "hot spot" at the crown. I also find the BB1's narrower throat produces higher resistance and, because I have full lips, I have to work much harder to sustain my buzz because of BB1's smaller diameter cup. So I find the larger, more open 4AL much less fatiguing to play than a BB1.

Which is to say that, owing to differences in physiology and psychology (to say nothing of the "sound in one's head"), a mouthpiece that may be perfect for one individual may be totally unsuitable for another.

the 4al is bright. it's more for a british sound, while the bb1 or the 51d is more of a darker, deeper american sound on euphonium.

I suspect that a fair number of members of the forum would disagree with the characterization of the 4AL as "bright." While it is certainly possible to produce a bright sound with a 4AL (just as it is with any mouthpiece), I certainly don't find the Childs brothers' sound, or that of David Childs, Lyndon Baglin, Trevor Groom, or Dave Werden--all of whom play the 4AL--to be bright; in fact, quite the opppsite: I consider them to be exemplars of the characteristic warm, dark, resonant euphonium sound.

I also suspect that many would disagree with the characterization of the American sound as "darker" and "deeper" than the British sound. Indeed, based on previous discussions in the forum of the "American" vs. the "British" sound, I suspect most would consider the typical "American" Euphonium sound to be lighter and sweeter than the typical dark, resonant "British" sound.

[DelVento]

Problem with

Fsung hit the nail on the head here. I don't know where people are getting their definitions of bright and dark when it comes to euphonium sound.

Dr. Bowman's sound has gotten considerably brighther these days, as has Mr. Mead's. However, most of the europeans I hear know have very dark sounds. I suggest buying Ueli Kipfer's CD and listening to his sound...I believe it's one of the darkest out there.

I guess we can get light over here, but I try to think of it as a bit thicker (but still dark). I study with someone with an extremely dark sound, but it isn't "british". It's very hard to characterize euphonium tones...

As to the mouthpieces, it was once said that the BB1 was made for small lips. Not for me.

[JTJ]

Problem with

"It's very hard to characterize euphonium tones... "

Hear! Hear! I am never sure we are talking about the same thing when we speak of light/dark, thick/thin. I know I have my personal mental taxonomy of euphonium sounds, but am never sure how to communicate them in a way people will understand.

Most of the time we can agree on good or bad, though.

No disrespect meant, but I always figure the signature mouthpieces, like the BB1, SM3 and now the SM3U, are primarily meant to compliment a particular players needs. Which implies the marketing, and studio groupthink, which sells them to the world as the right choice for everyone, is just plain nonsense. (See my new post on the SM3U).

[littleguino]

Problem with

I am currently playing on a Yamaha 48. I honestly don't know much about the terms and numbers so I don't really know what that means to me in terms of size. I think it might be smaller than a lot of people are using. My band director has been really pushing the Shilke 51D but I got a chance to use a friends at a camp and I found it extremely difficult to play on.

[JTJ]

Problem with

The Yamaha 48 is on the small side, about as small as one can go and have the mouthpiece be considered appropriate for euphonium. It probably would not hurt to try bigger, but a 51D seems to be too big a jump given your experience with it. There are lots of good mouthpieces between a Yamaha 48 and a 51D.

John