52D vs Heritage 5al?

[The Euphinator]

Hey guys. I've been using a Bowman BB1 for about a year now, and prior to that a 51D for a few years. I absolutely LOVE my tone on my BB1, although it is starting to feel a little small. My horn came with a "Besson 4" mouthpiece, and the other day I was messing around on it, and I found it was more comfortable, I could tongue better, and my range was extended both high and low. However, I felt like I sounded like I was playing a trombone while using it, because of my tone on that piece. I tried my 51D, it felt a little larger, although I still didn't have the range/tonguing benefits of the Besson 4.

So this has led me to want to get a larger moutphiece. The Besson 4 felt a little too large, so I think I'm going to go with a "5 size" mouthpiece. My main two pieces I'm considering right now are the 52D and the Heritage 5al. I'm extremely happy with my tone on my BB1, I feel like it is miles better than the similar 51D, so I guess I would probably want the deeper one, and what would provide me with a more "American" sound.

So I guess to sum it up, which of these two pieces is deeper, and which would give me a better "American" tone?

p.s.- I play on a 70's Besson compensating Euph, if it matters.

Thanks in advance!

[DaTweeka]

The 52D has a deep, bowl shaped cup, similar to the ones on the 51D and BB1 (though not quite as deep as the latter). The AL series mouthpieces have shallow funnel shaped cups, similar to a GW Alan Baer F solo tuba mouthpiece (best example I could think of). So, the Schilke will be deeper, and give more resistance as well. Personally, I moved away from bowl shaped cups because I find the amount of resistance intolerable (especially on the BB1). When you say you want an "American sound", I'm bamboozled, but if you want a darker tone rather than a brighter one, you can either go bigger cup (which, though it may feel large, will give your musculature more room to work with for high notes ,and broaden your tone considerably). Or, you can go deeper cup, which will give you a crazy amount of resistance, unless you go for a deep funnel cup (see GW Carbonaria) and you'll get a more focused, rounder tone with a lot of punch. Personally, I would go small, deep cup if I wanted a very bright, one-sided tonality. However, I shoot for tonal flexibility, and use a wide, shallow mouthpiece. But, it's all about what works for you. If you can, go out and sit down with these pieces, make some notes.

[The Euphinator]

Well of the two mouthpieces I own right now, the BB1 and the 51D, the BB1 is deeper, and I feel it blows the 51D out of the water tone-wise. I feel my sound is much richer and more focused on the BB1. Since the rims are essentially the same, I'm assuming the deep cup is what does it, so I'm leaning toward the 52D right now. You would definitely think that the 52D would be deeper than the 5AL?

[DaTweeka]

The 52D would definitely be deeper. It would also be wider than the BB1 or the 51D (obviously). However, I think the 52D would have about the same cup depth as the 51D. You might want to look at the 52E2; it's got an even deeper cup, but with a rounded rim, so your slotting may suffer a bit. The 5AL cup is a different animal entirely; it's a funnel. V-shaped. It sucks a crap-ton of air, but feels a lot more open. Personally, I use funnel cups more often than not because I can't stand any kind of resistance on my chops. But, back on topic. If you're leaning towards a deep, cup-shaped cup with a slightly wider rim, sit down with a 52D, a 52E2, and a 5AL. Feel the differences in cup sizes in the Schilkes, as well as the feel in general of the funnel cup on the 5AL.

[The Euphinator]

Ok, this may seem like a silly question, but why would people prefer the 5al to the 52D if the 52D has a deeper cup? I thought euph players would prefer a deep mouthpiece to give better tone, like the reasoning the 51D is looked upon better than the 5g, or the 4al is looked upon better then the 4bl. Then why would the 5al, shallower than a 52D, be looked upon better than the 52D? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm fairly new to mouthpieces.

Thanks

[DaTweeka]

If you haven't tried it, you probably won't get it. So go try it. End of story. For me, it gives me a more open, singing tone that I can get a lot of variety out of. It also gets rid of the resistance\ headaches, and lets me push my air a lot harder without over-blowing on the horn and transcending the borders of what's commonly thought of as "music". However, it's what fits for me, and that's what it's all about; what fits for you, gives the most effect, and does the job when you need it to. For example, my high school band director is primarily a trombone player, but as a player for the Air Force, he gets called on to double on euph (or alto sax) more often than not. He plays on a Yamaha 842 with a Schilke 51D. I asked him why he uses such a small mouthpiece, and he said it was because, when he needs to double on euph, he just pops the piece in and plays what he needs to; no practice required. It's what works for him. As I've said, I can't stomach small rims or bowl cups. They don't work for me. You may get your hands on a 5AL, and have a moment where your mind is blown by the totally different tonality\ capabilites of the funnel cup. Or you may think "Screw this, bowl cup's where it's at". Either way is fine; personally, I'd rather you develop as a player than stick with something that doesn't fit for you only because it appears to be the norm. Seriously, just go and try one out. You'll learn more from that than from what I'm telling you here. Hell, Mouthpiece Express has trial periods for the Denis Wick SM5. Get it shipped out, play it for a week or two, then switch back to the BB1. Take notes, make comparisons, make a decision, and move on with your development.

[aristophanes]

Ok, this may seem like a silly question, but why would people prefer the 5al to the 52D if the 52D has a deeper cup? I thought euph players would prefer a deep mouthpiece to give better tone, like the reasoning the 51D is looked upon better than the 5g, or the 4al is looked upon better then the 4bl. Then why would the 5al, shallower than a 52D, be looked upon better than the 52D? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm fairly new to mouthpieces.

Thanks

Deeper mouthpieces don't necessarily equate to better tone.

Mouthpiece depth is only one factor in mouthpiece choice. Cup shape, throat length and diameter, backbore taper, overall mass, and mass distribution all have at least as influence on the resultant tone as the mouthpiece depth. I have several french horn mouthpiece that are as deep as a 51D, but they're lousy euph/British bore baritone mouthpieces because the other parameters are out of whack.

Other factors to consider are comfort and efficiency. As a rule, Schilke rims tend to be rounder and have less bite than Denis Wick rims. Typically, flatter rims and sharper bites make for cleaner, easier articulation and better pitch security than rounder rims and rims with less bite. And many player find flatter rims less tiring on the embouchure (better endurance) than rounder rims.

[Markmc611]

I'd tag on to what DaTweeka comments by suggesting you record yourself with each mouthpiece and compare them. When you try the mouthpieces, make notes on when you stand and play, versus sitting. When I was an every day player, Yeah, I played 51D. Because that worked and I practiced to maintain that as best I could. Now, I play on a Bach 6 1/2 AL when I get the chance to play Euphonium. I play about 3-4 night a week now, and mostly on trombone and a little bass trombone, when I slap the Schilke 60 in. I'll probably go smaller on the bass trombone mouthpiece too. Any mouthpiece you end up with will have a set of positives and negatives. Finding those things will happen, you just need to try a bunch of mouthpieces. It's a shoe store experience. Where's Megan on this?

[The Euphinator]

Ok well I guess I should try to demo some pieces and see what fits me. What are common pieces around the 25.75 diameter? So far I'm thinking 5al, sm5, 52d, any other suggestions? Also, what your opinion on your suggestions and the ones I just listed?

Ps-Aristophanes, the BB1 is often said to have a sharp bite like you said the wicks do, do you think they would feel similar?

[davewerden]

The following page will show you mouthpieces with a diameter of 25.75 +/- 10% (if I remember how I wrote the code - it's been a while!):

http://dwerden.com/Mouthpieces/tromb....75&Shank=Bass

[The Euphinator]

Noticed the G&W Kadja, that's supposed to be made of stainless steel isn't it? Has anyone had experience with it? How's the depth compared to the 52d and 5al?

[DaTweeka]

I currently play on a Kadja in titanium, and played on a heavy shell SS model briefly a few months ago. I don't have a 52D or 5AL to compare it to, but I do have a 51D and both a 4AL and 2AL to compare against. The Kadja's got a deep funnel cup, similar to the 4AL, but even deeper, and with a much wider throat. This holds true for the 5AL. Against the 51D, the cup is wider, deeper, and more open in the throat. I play with it as my main piece on an old Besson Sovereign that's darkened up considerable with age. I use it to brighten the horn up so I can cut through a large ensemble when I need to. It takes a LOT of air, though not so much as the GW Carbonaria (I've taken up tuba playing to work up more air support, as well as to expand musically). It's a fun piece, and in titanium, it's incredibly sensitive to everything I do with my embouchure. In heavy shell SS, I found it a bit dull and colorless. However, in regular SS, it should be fairly lively and manageable. If you want to experience funnel cup, though... the Carbonaria is the way to go. It's as deep as a tuba piece and has a 1.021 rim. It's a real work out to play on, but when you get it right with the piece, you have reached the mountaintop. Anyways, the Kadja is small and lively. I use it to brighten up, and for solos. I use the Carbonaria so that I can kick myself in the pants every once in a while and appreciate the Kadja a bit more.

[DougElliott]

I think you should know that there are MANY mouthpieces out there that actually measure as much as .020" (.5mm) different that the specs say. Schilke 51's and 52's and Bach 6-1/2AL's are often that much bigger than they're supposed to be, and G&W's are sometimes that way too. I think some of those companies hire orangutans to do their buffing.

[Markmc611]

I think some of those companies hire orangutans to do their buffing.

Yes, but do those "orangutans" have long form verified birth certificates proving valid US Citizenship?

Clyde, part the Caddy......