Tweet
I have been curious about the K&G 3.5D mouthpiece due to a lot of chatter about it on this site. I have been using the Warburton Demondrae Thurman signature mouthpiece on my horns for almost 6 years now. On a Miraphone 5050, a Wessex Dolce and an Adams E3.
So, when Brandon Jones put a K&G 3.5D up for sale recently, I snagged it. Got the mouthpiece yesterday.
I spent the better part of yesterday play testing the K&G (silver) against my Warburton (gold). I judged myself, and I also kept asking my wife which she preferred. I played many, many excerpts and pieces in many different styles. Linda picked the Warburton probably 65-70% of the time. I liked the Warburton probably 80% of the time. That is actually saying something for the K&G, because in other comparisons with other mouthpieces, I liked the Warburton 100% of the time.
The K&G is a really nice mouthpiece. K&G says the inside diameter of their 3.5D is 26.4 mm. The Warburton inside diameter is 26.162 mm. So, you would think the K&G is bigger? No, I don't think so. I measured, and they appear to be pretty much the same. I don't have good measuring tools, so I could be wrong. I think the K&G is smaller than listed, but not by much. The bore of the Warburton is .290 in, but the bore is not listed for the K&G.
The Warburton is THE BEST mouthpiece (for me) that I have played. The K&G you would think would play bigger. The sound was very nice, but not quite as big or full as the Warburton. If I had just tried the K&G without anything else to compare, I would like it (and I did), and it would be a keeper for me. I am still going to keep it. I think it might work well for certain types of music and styles. I want to say it is a little brighter sounding than the Warburton, but just a wee bit of that only. And that doesn't mean that the K&G delivers a bright sound, just that it is not quite as dark and warm as the Warburton. But very little difference.
I just now held up both mouthpieces side by side, and my gosh, they both look very similar (the rim and inside, that is). Both of the rims are medium width and comfortable, with the Warburton being a little wider. The Warburton rim is also more rounded. But they are both comfortable. The bore (hole at the bottom of the cup) looks a tiny bit bigger on the K&G to my surprise after playing it. The cup size and shape appear almost identical to my old eyes. The Warburton seems to have a little more mass overall on the outside and seems a bit heavier.
These mouthpieces, for me, are both great. I may play on the K&G for a few weeks exclusively to see if I change my mind. But from several hours yesterday, I do prefer the Warburton at this point, but I could surely play and get a great sound out of the K&G.
So, when Brandon Jones put a K&G 3.5D up for sale recently, I snagged it. Got the mouthpiece yesterday.
I spent the better part of yesterday play testing the K&G (silver) against my Warburton (gold). I judged myself, and I also kept asking my wife which she preferred. I played many, many excerpts and pieces in many different styles. Linda picked the Warburton probably 65-70% of the time. I liked the Warburton probably 80% of the time. That is actually saying something for the K&G, because in other comparisons with other mouthpieces, I liked the Warburton 100% of the time.
The K&G is a really nice mouthpiece. K&G says the inside diameter of their 3.5D is 26.4 mm. The Warburton inside diameter is 26.162 mm. So, you would think the K&G is bigger? No, I don't think so. I measured, and they appear to be pretty much the same. I don't have good measuring tools, so I could be wrong. I think the K&G is smaller than listed, but not by much. The bore of the Warburton is .290 in, but the bore is not listed for the K&G.
The Warburton is THE BEST mouthpiece (for me) that I have played. The K&G you would think would play bigger. The sound was very nice, but not quite as big or full as the Warburton. If I had just tried the K&G without anything else to compare, I would like it (and I did), and it would be a keeper for me. I am still going to keep it. I think it might work well for certain types of music and styles. I want to say it is a little brighter sounding than the Warburton, but just a wee bit of that only. And that doesn't mean that the K&G delivers a bright sound, just that it is not quite as dark and warm as the Warburton. But very little difference.
I just now held up both mouthpieces side by side, and my gosh, they both look very similar (the rim and inside, that is). Both of the rims are medium width and comfortable, with the Warburton being a little wider. The Warburton rim is also more rounded. But they are both comfortable. The bore (hole at the bottom of the cup) looks a tiny bit bigger on the K&G to my surprise after playing it. The cup size and shape appear almost identical to my old eyes. The Warburton seems to have a little more mass overall on the outside and seems a bit heavier.
These mouthpieces, for me, are both great. I may play on the K&G for a few weeks exclusively to see if I change my mind. But from several hours yesterday, I do prefer the Warburton at this point, but I could surely play and get a great sound out of the K&G.
Comment