Hope you enjoy a rather different style of video! I know I usually try to be Mr. Knowledgeable and Professional on here but sometimes there’s plenty to be learned from a good old-fashioned blunder!
crazy knowing you play on a 1.5A, that's such a giant mouthpiece. I might need to do that for a year or two and then every other mp will feel like a lead piece..
@@IdrankWD40 Honestly… it doesn’t feel nearly as tiring to me as a 1C. There is quite a pronounced difference between 1 and 1.5 in the way they behave on my chops. 1.5 is just big enough to give me all the vibrating room I need, and the A gives me a nice open blow.
@ Since posting this, I literally have not been able to find a single bach A cup mouthpiece for sale online, where did you get yours? Also, i'm seeing that the unmarked mouthpiece that just say "1" are about the same in depth, is this true?
@@IdrankWD40 Like I said in the video, my Bach 1-1/2A is a one-off. It’s a factory custom piece. I just happened to find it on eBay in a crazy stroke of luck. Usually A cups can only be found on smaller diameters like 5, 7, and 9. Pickett makes A cups on every diameter, though. The no-letter cups like the 1 are deeper than the B or C cup, but not as deep as the A cup in most cases.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass There's also often differences in the cup shape and that interacts with chops differently. Then you have bigger (#24) backbores on A cups Vs the standard #10 on no-letter cups. Things get awfully complicated, but the combination of the difference in blow through cup shape, volume and backbore will change how your chops interact with the rim - you could even find that two rims that ARE the same don't FEEL it if enough parameters from the cup downwards are varied in particular ways.
Glad you appreciate the journey! As much as I hate to be wrong about things, that trial and error is how I’ve gotten to the place I’m at today as a gearhead!
A few interesting things to think about, here, Sam... 1) The cylindrical section being longer compresses the octaves (ie: brings the upper register down and the lower register up to pitch)... With the flared/tapered section being identical, a shallower cup will have a longer cylindrical throat (think of it the other way around, the deeper you cut the cup, the more it'd be shortening that cylindrical bore) - that helps balance out the shallow cup itself which would tend to expand the octaves. 2) While the length of the tapered section definitely matters, the rate of change matters a lot too - bigger backbores aren't necessarily longer in the tapered part, they're often just a larger volume through it. 3) Some backbores barely have a cylindrical section at all - if you try a Warburton of a given number and a * model of the same number, the intonation is largely similar... The difference is the star has a slight taper in the throat, and blows more open... This KT does the opposite, basically. 4) The key is to use modular setups to fine-tune in the right ballpark - tight lead backbores will only really work with shallow cups, but for a given shallow cup going a size or two bigger or smaller can still be interesting! With your A cup, you're going to want to stick with bigger backbores, but going a little bigger or a little smaller can still be interesting... The backbore in a modular setup is a fine tuning option to help optimise (as much as is possible) the pitch and response - I would never pick a backbore for sound, the temptation to do so is a hint that the cup doesn't suit the job at hand. Oh, and I learned most of this the hard way too 😂😂 Great stuff as always mate, have a great 2025
@@EnglishTMTB Thanks for all the info Tom. Lots to unpack here. Crazy busy week for me but when I have some breathing room I might shoot you a PM with a couple questions about this stuff.
Side note on Bob Reeves backbores- there’s often 3 (yes, three) tapers… the throat, the middle backbore, and the exit of the backbore. The 692S and 692SL have more than one taper! Often 3-4… a careful eyeball-examination And the tapers are conical- without being CURVED.
@@otmq I wish there were ways to quantify this stuff. I’ve noticed flared ends like on the Schilke A backbore and also wondered about how to measure the initial taper into the throat.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass I haven't used them yet but I plan too - venture mouthpieces can use tools to scan any mouthpiece of your choice. Their app called VennCad (heavily modified version of AutoCad), can then compare different mouthpieces side by side. I'm sure you've heard of them but just in case you haven't I figured I should comment about it!
Only Sam can make a video on something I have 0 knowledge about and make it a compelling watch. I don't know any of the lingo. Still, the example plays gave me enough info to connect what you were saying with the practical differences between mouthpieces and it's so much more of a difference than I'd have ever thought beforehand. Of course, they will all sound the same once collected by the Pierce machine but until then keep experimenting and keep us up to date!
@@rabbidowl1235 They do indeed all meet the same fate at the hands of the Pierce machine, but until then, it’s fun to observe all the differences. Glad all this laughably niche stuff kept you engaged. Much love brother
Maybe a bit off topic of the video or different, but I am a trombone player I found this very interesting! I think the concept of modular mouthpieces is very cool and I do see many people have success with it in the trombone world with makers such as Doug Elliott bring around. Though not quite the same as a modular mouthpiece we also see many successful makers again in the trombone world, such as Griego and Greg Black, who offer a wild variety of rims paired with various backbores, throats, and cups as well which people always rave about. After watching this I am even more intrigued in getting fitted by Doug for some mouthpieces, since I have always loved playing wide rims even as large as 27mm on small bore tenor just never found a good cup to pair along with it! Love the content as always, Sam! Please keep it coming!
@@brianau490 Honestly, I wonder if I ought to get fitted for a DE on trombone(s) someday. A good friend went from always having played on a Bach 6-1/2AL for jazz to getting fitted for a 3-piece DE and he loves it. All I ever really get consistent use out of is Corp. era Bach pieces and they certainly work for me (some remarkably), but it makes me wonder what I’m missing out on. Especially with Bach rims being cookie-cutter (as in no customizability) but very different from one size to the next. I like the diameter/cup of the small shank 3 but it has this awful flat rim. Like you, I’d want to explore how to pair a good rim and cup depth to a big inner diameter (though not as big as yours). I guess I also have the Denis Wick 0AL on bass, so not entirely Bach Corp. pieces, but DW are basically the poster child of flat rims lol.
It's always interesting going on these adventures and realizing why the common trends we see in mouthpiece designs basically standardized on the designs that are around now for balance sake
@@MichaelTarske Honestly, yeah, it’s definitely true that the wheel has already been invented and many one-piece cup/BB combos on the market exist for good reason: they just work. Where it gets really interesting is figuring out the reasoning as to why certain trends break between different models. Like why, for instance, Bach D and F cups are supplied with a narrower 76 BB, but E cups get that stupid-wide 117 that offers virtually no compression. That I suppose is more a function of the types of horns you’re intended to use the E cup on, but to be honest I don’t find my 3E (just sold) to balance well on literally anything: small or large bore Bb, Eb, piccolo.
I have a Picket Brass 1C paired with a Warburton 5 backbore which works fine. I know the throat on the 1C top is a 27, and the W5 has the same throat size. W5 is the standard and most popular commercial backbore from Warburton. I wouldn't imagine a 1A would make a good pairing with most, if not any commercial backbores.
@@sirdaniel1975 That’s basically the point of what I learned here. I have a Pickett #1/27 on the way to pair better with my 1.5A top. If I were to go for a Warburton backbore, I’d probably go 7 or larger.
"Fiddling" with Breslmair parts I bought for a post-war Alexander rotary trumpet taught me more in a few months about mouthpiece design than I would have imagined. I was the guy who only changed because the director came in with a Schilke 16 in high school. Part of it was reading up and researching after I started playing it. Bought a G2 cup, V rim (Bach 1.25 analog) and the standard 2 backbore, plus a their take on a Bach 117, which I found out later was for a pic. That proved interesting, because I found it sort of worked on that rotary if I wanted a pic sound in the upper register, but it isn't a full scale piece in a full size trumpet. When I got my old pre-56 Olds cornet, I had Matt Frost cut me a backbore for it. The G2 is really close to a Heim 1, so I bought an N backbore to put it on my perinet trumpets. One top, four bbs, possibly four trumpets. Doubt I'll ever buy a pic, but YNN.
@@anthonykaiser974 Lots of interesting findings here! It’s crazy how unintuitive backbore science can be considering the comparative straightforwardness of the science of everything before the throat. Every top behaves differently with different BBs and so trying to nail down exactly what a certain BB will do is nigh impossible. I haven’t even touched backbore experimentation on rotary trumpets… oh boy. Food for thought: the Bach 117 is indeed said to balance piccolo well, but it’s actually a humongous backbore. Larger than their “symphonic” 24 and 25 sizes. Part of the brightness you got on the 117 could actually, counter-intuitively, be the fact that the 117 provides little to no “compression” to the tone or airstream, causing you to subconsciously muscle harder for the upper register. I noticed a little bit of this in my own tests of two Bach 1C mouthpieces, one with the standard 10 BB and one with a custom 117.
@SamuelPlaysBrass yes, it is. And rotaries are notoriously good at handling "loud," despite being small bore (mine is a .438 like my Conn 22B NYS.) Watching Prof. Jack Burt's vids on rotary and pic were enlightening.
Thank you for this video, while we all prefer to be known for our great exploits, a good educator willingly shares their mishaps as well. Without suggesting yet another mouthpiece, let me suggest another mouthpiece, if in your horsetrading adventures one should come across your path. The Stork Studio Master series is designed with your situation in mind, if you find one in your preferred diameter give it a shot.
@@perryparsons9960 Thank you Perry. I’m glad you see and appreciate the experience through the same lens I do. As stubborn as I am about diving into new brands, as each is its own rabbit-hole, I may have to give the Stork Studio Master line a look. I really do like my Vacchiano 3P on piccolo, so if their SM series is as well optimized, and I can find a rim contour/diameter combo I don’t hate (I’m picky), no doubt it would be worth a try.
Very good video Sam! What you mentioned about the volume of backbore compared with cup depth relates to a chapter I recently read in 'Music, Physics and engineering' where the author poses that by balancing these attributes as well as throat geometry, similar responding mouthpieces can be made with different backbores and cups but identical volume. Of course this is quite a radical thought from people's experiences compared to a scientific model, but I'm interested in investigating for myself -once I find the time 😂
@@James_Dawes Thanks James! Yep, between varying the cup, throat, and backbore geometry, you get some surprisingly similar mouthpieces. My Bach Symphonic 1-1/4C 22/24 behaves much more like a deeper cup piece thanks to the lesser resistance post-cup. But then factor in gap, venturing, bore, and bell… and then you get some REALLY interesting combinations! Maybe my 1-1/2A + YTR-8310Z plays an awful lot like an XL bore copper bell horn paired with a stock 10-1/2C for all I know.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass Yes!! That's the most exciting moment really - when you make a physics model in real life and it turns out it was alot more complex than you originally imagined 😂
What happened to you is exactly why, whenever my fevered trumpet player brain says, "Lets try a modular!" I smack it back down to the darkness from which it came. On consultation I found a Claude Gordon Personal. It matches me and my horns. Search is over.
@@Naturallystated Ha, glad it’s not just me! Is the CG Personal you have the model with a deep V-shaped cup? Of the CGs, I believe I have only tried the CG3, which I found to be a good mouthpiece for sure, but it turns out to basically be a carbon-copy of a 3C with a flatter rim, an ever-so-slightly more shallow V feel, and something like a 20 throat. Not the world’s most innovative design, I suppose.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass Aw! you made me put my coffee down and look! Yes it is the deep v cup. I find it gives me a "Harry James" sound on my Benge ML with 3 bell, and yet I can still sound sweet. Easy on the lips, and great range. I can reach a double F if I have to.
The Bach pieces while sound darker, are a lot more even sounding throughout your register. I understand your desire and work trying to find a piece as stable but allows a lead/studio sound. I look forward to hearing what you find and what the configuration is.
@@tomgrant5827 Agreed. Any guesses as to why I’ve played so many Bachs for so long? Here are just a few I’ve used a lot: 1-1/2A Megatone (factory custom): main mouthpiece for the last 8 years Corp. era 1E and 3F: lots of the lead work I’ve done in the last half a decade Corp. 3C: commercial work, esp. with my Conn 38B. Great match. Corp (post-MV) 1-1/4C: similar to my main with slight differences in response for certain classical playing Symphonic 1-1/4C 22/24 and 1-1/2C 24/24: C trumpet Corp. 2C: good match for my Bach 239 D/Eb trumpet Large-font 5SV (predates commercial blanks): might be my new choice for piccolo trumpet So yes, I very much agree with you. For lead these days I have tried many things but really like my Reeves 43.5S underpart with custom Bach 1-1/2C rim cut to have Reeves threads by Ken Titmus.
Sam, Sorry you didn't find what you were looking for. Question. Have you played around with the mouthpiece gap? I have found this to be a real game changer along with "clocking" the moutpiece, ie finding the right position the mouthpiece lines up in the receiver to get the best results. I have a couple of Bach 3d mpc from different eras.... And they play and feel different....but i was able to find their sweet spots and horn to pair them with. Enjoying the content!
@@t.l.williams8828 Gap is beyond my current understanding! Back in high school (inspired by your videos, I think), I did occasionally wrap a bit of tape around a mouthpiece to free up the slotting in the upper register. Actually, I completely forgot I used to do that until I read this comment-maybe it’s time to try that out again! Do me a favor and shoot me a Facebook PM if you ever want to sell a Corp. or large-font era 3D. I don’t bother with modern Bachs (turned into an elitist collector…) but I have had no luck in finding a sufficiently old 3D for my collection.
I never really liked interchangeable mouthpieces. something about them just seemed off. I may try a Shilke mouthpiece for classical. I wonder if Shilke horns have a much different sound than a Bach? There is just something about a Bach trumpet that others just don't have I cant put it into words, something about the timbre, maybe darker or something. But never played a Shilke. Their piccs look nice though. haha, this channel is like a gear channel for trumpeters.
@@CanadianDivergent Schilke horns are phenomenal and definitely almost as different as you can be from a Bach in terms of slotting and sound. My YTR-8310Z? Based heavily on a Schilke B7. I love it. Cleaner attacks, more flexibility in going bright-to-dark, better consistency of blow.
@@SamuelPlaysBrassPickett backbores are pretty tight. even their orchestral lineup like the #2 I run feels pretty compact(supposed to be the “middle of the range backbore”). Ideally it’ll balance out just right with the 1.5 A in a way the RT1 probably overcompensated.
Well this may have clarified some rather perplexing things I've encountered trying to use large euphonium and contrabass trombone mouthpieces on a small tuba in F. I still think that cup depth to throat diameter ratio might be more important than backbore volume, but I'm going to open up one of my back bores and see what happens.
I like your bright tone especially since you play a lot of classical segments here. I am experimenting with mouthpieces and I currently use a Conn 5. My preference is small shallow mouthpieces to give me a bright tone in my dreams approaching the tone of Hackett, Butterfield, or Hirt. At my level, I try not to spend too much money on mouthpieces even though I have a sizeable collection! Any ideas on a single mouthpiece or modular setup for me?
@@robertg7538 Thank you! I try my very best to be a well-rounded player tonally, able to go from absurdly dark to absurdly bright so that anything in between feels reasonably achievable in performance. It does put quite a strain on my chops sometimes to practice in such polar-opposite ways, though. The Conn 5 is quite a narrow mouthpiece indeed. I could barely make a sound on it if I wanted to. Ordinarily I recommend that people try out the Yamaha Bobby Shew Lead-I know people say it sounds strident and takes away the low and mid range but honestly, if you’re able to play on it, it has a brilliant sound. Me personally, I have about five minutes of excellent playing on it before I start bottoming out and sounding gross. Anyway, the Shew Lead might be too wide for you. It’s pretty comparable to a Schilke 13A4A, IIRC. You might consider something like a 6A4A or 8A4, or a Bach 10-3/4EW if you really want some intense sparkle to the tone. Those are all shallower than the Conn 5, so do beware of the technique that such cups demand, but if you can acclimate to them, you’ll probably get even closer to the tone of the players you mentioned.
@@chris430811 Not to be Mr. “No Duh”, but I explicitly identified the backbore length as one of the issues with this setup in the video. I would indeed prefer some sort of shorter RT backbore for the types of cups I use, but going full-custom is out of my budget at the moment, especially with the amount of testing I’d need to do to dial in the optimal throat-apex pairing.
So I’m kinda stuck. I’m looking at Schilke mouthpieces because I need a more permanent mouthpiece. However. I’m not sure which would be the closest to a 1.5c because they’re all like 14a4a or 2513c4 or some madness like that.
@@USSArizona2 Fair enough-it took me a long time to wrap my head around Schilke’s sizing system, and unfortunately they have similar inconsistency issues to Bach between and even within sizes from different eras. That said, the first thing I would absolutely unequivocally advise is to NOT trust the numbers! If you look at inner diameters specifically, a Bach 1-1/2C, a Bach 1C, and a Schilke 14 will all claim to be around 17mm. The reason for this is Schilke measures their inner diameters up at the rim, as opposed to where rim transitions to cup like Bach. If you use the Bach system of measure, the Schilke 14 is more like 16.6-16.75. If you use the Schilke system, a 1-1/2C would probably come out to 17.5mm, and a 1C maybe even 18. So there’s no “correct” numerical way to determine inner diameter, but thankfully resources like trumpet.cloud/mpc exist to give you the opportunity to overlay mouthpiece cross sections and figure out the closest equivalents between brands. IIRC, you’ll want a Schilke 16 or 16C2. Probably not a 16C4 as that one will have a flatter rim than the 1-1/2C, which will make the inner diameter feel cramped and block off the low register a bit.
Yeah I’m seeing that now. My 1.5c comes out to about 18mm at the top of the rim. So you’re right. I’m using this for the mello so low range won’t be something I have to worry about as I use my Yamaha 14f4 for songs with notes that tend to be low which is about 1 song. Thank you for clarifying!
Hope you enjoy a rather different style of video! I know I usually try to be Mr. Knowledgeable and Professional on here but sometimes there’s plenty to be learned from a good old-fashioned blunder!
The humility is a good look -- it's great to know plenty, but none of us know it all!
(Now this sort of thing is RIGHT in my nerdzone!!)
Well done Samuel ! I’ve been dabbling in mouthpieces for awhile now . I learned a lot from your “lack of knowledge” 😂 keep them coming 👍🏻
@@Since1970Canucks That was my hope! We shall continue learning together.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass There's no better way!
crazy knowing you play on a 1.5A, that's such a giant mouthpiece. I might need to do that for a year or two and then every other mp will feel like a lead piece..
@@IdrankWD40 Honestly… it doesn’t feel nearly as tiring to me as a 1C. There is quite a pronounced difference between 1 and 1.5 in the way they behave on my chops. 1.5 is just big enough to give me all the vibrating room I need, and the A gives me a nice open blow.
@ Since posting this, I literally have not been able to find a single bach A cup mouthpiece for sale online, where did you get yours? Also, i'm seeing that the unmarked mouthpiece that just say "1" are about the same in depth, is this true?
@@IdrankWD40 Like I said in the video, my Bach 1-1/2A is a one-off. It’s a factory custom piece. I just happened to find it on eBay in a crazy stroke of luck. Usually A cups can only be found on smaller diameters like 5, 7, and 9. Pickett makes A cups on every diameter, though.
The no-letter cups like the 1 are deeper than the B or C cup, but not as deep as the A cup in most cases.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass
There's also often differences in the cup shape and that interacts with chops differently.
Then you have bigger (#24) backbores on A cups Vs the standard #10 on no-letter cups.
Things get awfully complicated, but the combination of the difference in blow through cup shape, volume and backbore will change how your chops interact with the rim - you could even find that two rims that ARE the same don't FEEL it if enough parameters from the cup downwards are varied in particular ways.
I love these types of videos as they showcase your journey of trial and error, ending with wisdom achieved!
🎺🎵🤘
Glad you appreciate the journey! As much as I hate to be wrong about things, that trial and error is how I’ve gotten to the place I’m at today as a gearhead!
@@SamuelPlaysBrass as one music teacher taught years ago...he said "embrace your mistakes, because only then, you can truly learn from them."
A few interesting things to think about, here, Sam...
1) The cylindrical section being longer compresses the octaves (ie: brings the upper register down and the lower register up to pitch)... With the flared/tapered section being identical, a shallower cup will have a longer cylindrical throat (think of it the other way around, the deeper you cut the cup, the more it'd be shortening that cylindrical bore) - that helps balance out the shallow cup itself which would tend to expand the octaves.
2) While the length of the tapered section definitely matters, the rate of change matters a lot too - bigger backbores aren't necessarily longer in the tapered part, they're often just a larger volume through it.
3) Some backbores barely have a cylindrical section at all - if you try a Warburton of a given number and a * model of the same number, the intonation is largely similar... The difference is the star has a slight taper in the throat, and blows more open... This KT does the opposite, basically.
4) The key is to use modular setups to fine-tune in the right ballpark - tight lead backbores will only really work with shallow cups, but for a given shallow cup going a size or two bigger or smaller can still be interesting! With your A cup, you're going to want to stick with bigger backbores, but going a little bigger or a little smaller can still be interesting... The backbore in a modular setup is a fine tuning option to help optimise (as much as is possible) the pitch and response - I would never pick a backbore for sound, the temptation to do so is a hint that the cup doesn't suit the job at hand.
Oh, and I learned most of this the hard way too 😂😂
Great stuff as always mate, have a great 2025
@@EnglishTMTB Thanks for all the info Tom. Lots to unpack here. Crazy busy week for me but when I have some breathing room I might shoot you a PM with a couple questions about this stuff.
@SamuelPlaysBrass No probs, any time - always fun to chat!
Been super busy myself - starting to settle down now 😂
Side note on Bob Reeves backbores- there’s often 3 (yes, three) tapers… the throat, the middle backbore, and the exit of the backbore.
The 692S and 692SL have more than one taper! Often 3-4… a careful eyeball-examination And the tapers are conical- without being CURVED.
@@otmq I wish there were ways to quantify this stuff. I’ve noticed flared ends like on the Schilke A backbore and also wondered about how to measure the initial taper into the throat.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass I haven't used them yet but I plan too - venture mouthpieces can use tools to scan any mouthpiece of your choice. Their app called VennCad (heavily modified version of AutoCad), can then compare different mouthpieces side by side. I'm sure you've heard of them but just in case you haven't I figured I should comment about it!
Only Sam can make a video on something I have 0 knowledge about and make it a compelling watch. I don't know any of the lingo. Still, the example plays gave me enough info to connect what you were saying with the practical differences between mouthpieces and it's so much more of a difference than I'd have ever thought beforehand. Of course, they will all sound the same once collected by the Pierce machine but until then keep experimenting and keep us up to date!
@@rabbidowl1235 They do indeed all meet the same fate at the hands of the Pierce machine, but until then, it’s fun to observe all the differences. Glad all this laughably niche stuff kept you engaged. Much love brother
Maybe a bit off topic of the video or different, but I am a trombone player I found this very interesting! I think the concept of modular mouthpieces is very cool and I do see many people have success with it in the trombone world with makers such as Doug Elliott bring around. Though not quite the same as a modular mouthpiece we also see many successful makers again in the trombone world, such as Griego and Greg Black, who offer a wild variety of rims paired with various backbores, throats, and cups as well which people always rave about. After watching this I am even more intrigued in getting fitted by Doug for some mouthpieces, since I have always loved playing wide rims even as large as 27mm on small bore tenor just never found a good cup to pair along with it! Love the content as always, Sam! Please keep it coming!
@@brianau490 Honestly, I wonder if I ought to get fitted for a DE on trombone(s) someday. A good friend went from always having played on a Bach 6-1/2AL for jazz to getting fitted for a 3-piece DE and he loves it. All I ever really get consistent use out of is Corp. era Bach pieces and they certainly work for me (some remarkably), but it makes me wonder what I’m missing out on. Especially with Bach rims being cookie-cutter (as in no customizability) but very different from one size to the next. I like the diameter/cup of the small shank 3 but it has this awful flat rim. Like you, I’d want to explore how to pair a good rim and cup depth to a big inner diameter (though not as big as yours). I guess I also have the Denis Wick 0AL on bass, so not entirely Bach Corp. pieces, but DW are basically the poster child of flat rims lol.
It's always interesting going on these adventures and realizing why the common trends we see in mouthpiece designs basically standardized on the designs that are around now for balance sake
@@MichaelTarske Honestly, yeah, it’s definitely true that the wheel has already been invented and many one-piece cup/BB combos on the market exist for good reason: they just work.
Where it gets really interesting is figuring out the reasoning as to why certain trends break between different models. Like why, for instance, Bach D and F cups are supplied with a narrower 76 BB, but E cups get that stupid-wide 117 that offers virtually no compression. That I suppose is more a function of the types of horns you’re intended to use the E cup on, but to be honest I don’t find my 3E (just sold) to balance well on literally anything: small or large bore Bb, Eb, piccolo.
I have a Picket Brass 1C paired with a Warburton 5 backbore which works fine. I know the throat on the 1C top is a 27, and the W5 has the same throat size. W5 is the standard and most popular commercial backbore from Warburton. I wouldn't imagine a 1A would make a good pairing with most, if not any commercial backbores.
@@sirdaniel1975 That’s basically the point of what I learned here. I have a Pickett #1/27 on the way to pair better with my 1.5A top. If I were to go for a Warburton backbore, I’d probably go 7 or larger.
"Fiddling" with Breslmair parts I bought for a post-war Alexander rotary trumpet taught me more in a few months about mouthpiece design than I would have imagined. I was the guy who only changed because the director came in with a Schilke 16 in high school. Part of it was reading up and researching after I started playing it. Bought a G2 cup, V rim (Bach 1.25 analog) and the standard 2 backbore, plus a their take on a Bach 117, which I found out later was for a pic. That proved interesting, because I found it sort of worked on that rotary if I wanted a pic sound in the upper register, but it isn't a full scale piece in a full size trumpet. When I got my old pre-56 Olds cornet, I had Matt Frost cut me a backbore for it. The G2 is really close to a Heim 1, so I bought an N backbore to put it on my perinet trumpets. One top, four bbs, possibly four trumpets. Doubt I'll ever buy a pic, but YNN.
@@anthonykaiser974 Lots of interesting findings here! It’s crazy how unintuitive backbore science can be considering the comparative straightforwardness of the science of everything before the throat. Every top behaves differently with different BBs and so trying to nail down exactly what a certain BB will do is nigh impossible. I haven’t even touched backbore experimentation on rotary trumpets… oh boy.
Food for thought: the Bach 117 is indeed said to balance piccolo well, but it’s actually a humongous backbore. Larger than their “symphonic” 24 and 25 sizes. Part of the brightness you got on the 117 could actually, counter-intuitively, be the fact that the 117 provides little to no “compression” to the tone or airstream, causing you to subconsciously muscle harder for the upper register. I noticed a little bit of this in my own tests of two Bach 1C mouthpieces, one with the standard 10 BB and one with a custom 117.
@SamuelPlaysBrass yes, it is. And rotaries are notoriously good at handling "loud," despite being small bore (mine is a .438 like my Conn 22B NYS.) Watching Prof. Jack Burt's vids on rotary and pic were enlightening.
Good video.
I also read the transcript and I've never seen so many spellings of Boc, er Bok, um Bock.
And don't get me started on backboards 🤣
@@RobertCardwell Oh yes… auto-captioning has gotten pretty good, except for brand names and such!
Thank you for this video, while we all prefer to be known for our great exploits, a good educator willingly shares their mishaps as well.
Without suggesting yet another mouthpiece, let me suggest another mouthpiece, if in your horsetrading adventures one should come across your path. The Stork Studio Master series is designed with your situation in mind, if you find one in your preferred diameter give it a shot.
@@perryparsons9960 Thank you Perry. I’m glad you see and appreciate the experience through the same lens I do. As stubborn as I am about diving into new brands, as each is its own rabbit-hole, I may have to give the Stork Studio Master line a look. I really do like my Vacchiano 3P on piccolo, so if their SM series is as well optimized, and I can find a rim contour/diameter combo I don’t hate (I’m picky), no doubt it would be worth a try.
Very good video Sam! What you mentioned about the volume of backbore compared with cup depth relates to a chapter I recently read in 'Music, Physics and engineering' where the author poses that by balancing these attributes as well as throat geometry, similar responding mouthpieces can be made with different backbores and cups but identical volume.
Of course this is quite a radical thought from people's experiences compared to a scientific model, but I'm interested in investigating for myself -once I find the time 😂
@@James_Dawes Thanks James! Yep, between varying the cup, throat, and backbore geometry, you get some surprisingly similar mouthpieces. My Bach Symphonic 1-1/4C 22/24 behaves much more like a deeper cup piece thanks to the lesser resistance post-cup.
But then factor in gap, venturing, bore, and bell… and then you get some REALLY interesting combinations! Maybe my 1-1/2A + YTR-8310Z plays an awful lot like an XL bore copper bell horn paired with a stock 10-1/2C for all I know.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass Yes!!
That's the most exciting moment really - when you make a physics model in real life and it turns out it was alot more complex than you originally imagined 😂
A bit exciting… but a bit frustrating too, I must confess :P
What happened to you is exactly why, whenever my fevered trumpet player brain says, "Lets try a modular!" I smack it back down to the darkness from which it came. On consultation I found a Claude Gordon Personal. It matches me and my horns. Search is over.
@@Naturallystated Ha, glad it’s not just me! Is the CG Personal you have the model with a deep V-shaped cup? Of the CGs, I believe I have only tried the CG3, which I found to be a good mouthpiece for sure, but it turns out to basically be a carbon-copy of a 3C with a flatter rim, an ever-so-slightly more shallow V feel, and something like a 20 throat. Not the world’s most innovative design, I suppose.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass Aw! you made me put my coffee down and look! Yes it is the deep v cup. I find it gives me a "Harry James" sound on my Benge ML with 3 bell, and yet I can still sound sweet. Easy on the lips, and great range. I can reach a double F if I have to.
The Bach pieces while sound darker, are a lot more even sounding throughout your register. I understand your desire and work trying to find a piece as stable but allows a lead/studio sound. I look forward to hearing what you find and what the configuration is.
@@tomgrant5827 Agreed. Any guesses as to why I’ve played so many Bachs for so long? Here are just a few I’ve used a lot:
1-1/2A Megatone (factory custom): main mouthpiece for the last 8 years
Corp. era 1E and 3F: lots of the lead work I’ve done in the last half a decade
Corp. 3C: commercial work, esp. with my Conn 38B. Great match.
Corp (post-MV) 1-1/4C: similar to my main with slight differences in response for certain classical playing
Symphonic 1-1/4C 22/24 and 1-1/2C 24/24: C trumpet
Corp. 2C: good match for my Bach 239 D/Eb trumpet
Large-font 5SV (predates commercial blanks): might be my new choice for piccolo trumpet
So yes, I very much agree with you. For lead these days I have tried many things but really like my Reeves 43.5S underpart with custom Bach 1-1/2C rim cut to have Reeves threads by Ken Titmus.
Great video Samuel!👍👍👍
@@peternaryd_operasinger Thank you Peter!
Sam, Sorry you didn't find what you were looking for. Question.
Have you played around with the mouthpiece gap?
I have found this to be a real game changer along with "clocking" the moutpiece, ie finding the right position the mouthpiece lines up in the receiver to get the best results.
I have a couple of Bach 3d mpc from different eras.... And they play and feel different....but i was able to find their sweet spots and horn to pair them with.
Enjoying the content!
@@t.l.williams8828 Gap is beyond my current understanding! Back in high school (inspired by your videos, I think), I did occasionally wrap a bit of tape around a mouthpiece to free up the slotting in the upper register. Actually, I completely forgot I used to do that until I read this comment-maybe it’s time to try that out again!
Do me a favor and shoot me a Facebook PM if you ever want to sell a Corp. or large-font era 3D. I don’t bother with modern Bachs (turned into an elitist collector…) but I have had no luck in finding a sufficiently old 3D for my collection.
I never really liked interchangeable mouthpieces. something about them just seemed off. I may try a Shilke mouthpiece for classical. I wonder if Shilke horns have a much different sound than a Bach? There is just something about a Bach trumpet that others just don't have I cant put it into words, something about the timbre, maybe darker or something. But never played a Shilke. Their piccs look nice though. haha, this channel is like a gear channel for trumpeters.
@@CanadianDivergent Schilke horns are phenomenal and definitely almost as different as you can be from a Bach in terms of slotting and sound. My YTR-8310Z? Based heavily on a Schilke B7. I love it. Cleaner attacks, more flexibility in going bright-to-dark, better consistency of blow.
I think my Pickett #1/27 is what you need!!!
@@otmq Got delivered at campus mailroom on Monday but I have to wait until it opens back up this coming week. Very excited to try it!
@@SamuelPlaysBrassPickett backbores are pretty tight. even their orchestral lineup like the #2 I run feels pretty compact(supposed to be the “middle of the range backbore”). Ideally it’ll balance out just right with the 1.5 A in a way the RT1 probably overcompensated.
@@SamuelPlaysBrass I’m amazed your chops aren’t bothered by what appears to be an incredibly sharp inner rim on that Pickett top! :O
@@tonyyao4785 Good to know-the #1 should be just fine though, not too tight or flat on the pitch.
@@otmq Eh, we’ll see. I might need KT to mess with it.
Well this may have clarified some rather perplexing things I've encountered trying to use large euphonium and contrabass trombone mouthpieces on a small tuba in F. I still think that cup depth to throat diameter ratio might be more important than backbore volume, but I'm going to open up one of my back bores and see what happens.
@@seth094978 Cup and throat are definitely best friends and need to be appropriately matched, but yeah, that might be worth a shot!
I like your bright tone especially since you play a lot of classical segments here. I am experimenting with mouthpieces and I currently use a Conn 5. My preference is small shallow mouthpieces to give me a bright tone in my dreams approaching the tone of Hackett, Butterfield, or Hirt. At my level, I try not to spend too much money on mouthpieces even though I have a sizeable collection! Any ideas on a single mouthpiece or modular setup for me?
@@robertg7538 Thank you! I try my very best to be a well-rounded player tonally, able to go from absurdly dark to absurdly bright so that anything in between feels reasonably achievable in performance. It does put quite a strain on my chops sometimes to practice in such polar-opposite ways, though.
The Conn 5 is quite a narrow mouthpiece indeed. I could barely make a sound on it if I wanted to. Ordinarily I recommend that people try out the Yamaha Bobby Shew Lead-I know people say it sounds strident and takes away the low and mid range but honestly, if you’re able to play on it, it has a brilliant sound. Me personally, I have about five minutes of excellent playing on it before I start bottoming out and sounding gross.
Anyway, the Shew Lead might be too wide for you. It’s pretty comparable to a Schilke 13A4A, IIRC. You might consider something like a 6A4A or 8A4, or a Bach 10-3/4EW if you really want some intense sparkle to the tone. Those are all shallower than the Conn 5, so do beware of the technique that such cups demand, but if you can acclimate to them, you’ll probably get even closer to the tone of the players you mentioned.
Have you thought about having a shorter backbore
@@chris430811 Not to be Mr. “No Duh”, but I explicitly identified the backbore length as one of the issues with this setup in the video. I would indeed prefer some sort of shorter RT backbore for the types of cups I use, but going full-custom is out of my budget at the moment, especially with the amount of testing I’d need to do to dial in the optimal throat-apex pairing.
So I’m kinda stuck. I’m looking at Schilke mouthpieces because I need a more permanent mouthpiece. However. I’m not sure which would be the closest to a 1.5c because they’re all like 14a4a or 2513c4 or some madness like that.
@@USSArizona2 Fair enough-it took me a long time to wrap my head around Schilke’s sizing system, and unfortunately they have similar inconsistency issues to Bach between and even within sizes from different eras.
That said, the first thing I would absolutely unequivocally advise is to NOT trust the numbers! If you look at inner diameters specifically, a Bach 1-1/2C, a Bach 1C, and a Schilke 14 will all claim to be around 17mm. The reason for this is Schilke measures their inner diameters up at the rim, as opposed to where rim transitions to cup like Bach. If you use the Bach system of measure, the Schilke 14 is more like 16.6-16.75. If you use the Schilke system, a 1-1/2C would probably come out to 17.5mm, and a 1C maybe even 18.
So there’s no “correct” numerical way to determine inner diameter, but thankfully resources like trumpet.cloud/mpc exist to give you the opportunity to overlay mouthpiece cross sections and figure out the closest equivalents between brands. IIRC, you’ll want a Schilke 16 or 16C2. Probably not a 16C4 as that one will have a flatter rim than the 1-1/2C, which will make the inner diameter feel cramped and block off the low register a bit.
Yeah I’m seeing that now. My 1.5c comes out to about 18mm at the top of the rim. So you’re right. I’m using this for the mello so low range won’t be something I have to worry about as I use my Yamaha 14f4 for songs with notes that tend to be low which is about 1 song. Thank you for clarifying!
Definitely noticed the huge, awful, flat difference as you climbed the staff.