Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: ???

  1. ???

    I have recently tried out a standard 3al and have had some suprising results. After three blind listening tests in a large auditorium, my schools band hall and a large tile room in my house ,and in all three sessions my band director, friends, and parents noticed a distinctive lack of fuzz when compared to the SM3. Does anybody know what to make of this?


  2. ???

    My verdict is that the classic mouthpieces are indeed the best. I had similar results - going from an SM4, to an Alliance E2 (which I loved the sound of, and still do), then to a 4AL. Compared to the SM4, which I re-tested, I found that the 4AL, along with the Alliance gave me a broader sound, as opposed to a projective and "pointy" sound on the SM4. I prefered the 4AL over the E2 because, while i found the sound had little difference, maybe slightly brighter on the 4AL, i found that I had more endurance on the 4AL, and more control in the upper register, while all round technique improved on the 4AL as well

    Why try and change something that is still proving to be the best? Works for the Childs family. They have never played on anything else, and David Thornton of the Black Dyke band has returned to a 4AL after diverting to the SM4 for a short while

  3. ???

    I think it depends on what fits your style of blowing and your horn. The original Wicks are more of a cup shaped piece with a standard backbore, where the SMs are more of a funnel shape with a barrel backbore. I played an SM4 for years on my Hirsbrunner and it worked great, but as soon as I switched horns it didn't work well at all.

    p.s. Dave Childs is now playing on an Alliance prototype, but he did indeed sound fabulous on the 4AL
    Martin Cochran
    Adams Performing Artist
    mceuph75@gmail.com

  4. #4

    ???

    Martin, does that Alliance prototype mean that signature Dave Childs mouthpiece may be on the way?

    John

  5. ???

    Hey John,

    He really seemed to like it, and said that they may indeed be put into production sometime soon. It had the look of a "heavy" wall mouthpiece, a solid outer shape, similiar to the older Giddings and Webster mouthpieces. Of course, Dave would probably sound great on a cardboard tube held together with duct tape.
    Martin Cochran
    Adams Performing Artist
    mceuph75@gmail.com

  6. ???

    Martin..I will see David the 1st week of August. I will make sure he plays on that cardboard tube and ductape.
    Sterling Virtuoso 1052HS & Adams E3 Prototype 0.70 Top Sprung valves
    Sterling Virtuoso 1050HS baritone
    New England Brass Band
    Winchendon Winds/Townsend Military Band

  7. #7

    ???

    Originally posted by: daruby

    Martin..I will see David the 1st week of August. I will make sure he plays on that cardboard tube and ductape.
    Post a recording for us.

  8. #8

    ???

    Some of my best recitals have been held together with ductape.

  9. Backbore???

    What's the difference between a standard, barrel, medium, large and v-type backbore. I have currently just tried a large and v-type. I was told the sound of the V-type was better but after an hour and half concert I felt more beat up v-type than I did with the large bore. The mouthpieces were the BB1 and BB2. The high notes were a little easier on the V-type


  10. #10

    ???

    See this link for a diagram and a basic explanation of the backbore.

    In Wick terminology, the black profile is usually termed "V" shaped backbore; the blue profile (slightly convex) is usually termed "barrel" shaped; the red (concave) is usually termed "funnel." "Medium" is Wick's term for a "V" that flares more quickly than the standard V.

    To say that one backbore type is better than others is highly simplistic. The backbore is only one of a multitude of components that affect the sound and response of a mouthpiece: outer profile, rim contour, rim width cup depth, cup profile, diameter, overall mass, placement of mass, length and diameter of the throat, mouthpiece material, and probably several dozen more. And none of them exist in isolation: changing one component affects the others. That's why mouthpiece design is as much of an art as it is a science.

    If memory serves, the BB2's cup is both shallower and more "V" shaped than the BB1's. If that's the case, it's possible that the reason you felt "more beat up" with with the BB2 than the BB1 is due more to the difference in mass, which would require more energy to produce the resonate, and to the greater resistance of the BB2's narrower throat, than it is to a difference in the shape of the backbore (assuming that the respective backbores are not identically shaped).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •