MP weights

[Dsbones]

Hi All, pretty sure this has been covered before so please feel free to direct me to the appropriate page. Just wondering, and I have my own thoughts, but what have people found the weight of the blank used for a particular MP, has response, articulation, feel and sound etc etc.

Or if anyone has spent time on the same MP size from the same maker but with both a light and heavy blank etc?

[Burgerbob]

Yup.

Lighter responds faster, more flexible, lower dynamic headroom.

Heavier (meaning regular weight) has more weight to articulation, more even dynamics, more low overtones present.

Too light feels flighty, like you're not quite in control of the sound.

Too heavy has almost no feedback, inflexible, too much work.

The middle ground is typically best IMO.

[harrisonreed]

Lighter mouthpieces also seem to give you more auditory feedback from behind the bell, which is really nice when you are miked or in a room that isn't the most flattering acoustic.

They don't project as well though.

[TomInME]

Too light feels flighty, like you're not quite in control of the sound.

Too heavy has almost no feedback, inflexible, too much work.

Agreed. I prefer lighter because it's easier to play soft on (I find playing soft more difficult than playing loud).

[ghmerrill]

I think I'm not willing to comment with much confidence on this issue with respect to trombone mouthpieces, but on tuba mouthpieces I think it's VERY difficult to separate the "feedback" difference from what you might think is more of a genuine "acoustical" difference. This is because my own sense is that to some degree you unconsciously respond to the feedback difference with breath/embouchure and then think the result of that demonstrates a performance difference in the mouthpiece itself (which I suppose it is, to some degree, but indirectly). Maybe this is just saying, in a slightly different way, what others are.

The most obvious illustration of this, for me, was long time experimentation with Wick tuba mouthpieces for my Eb compensating horn in the 3L, 3XL, 2L, 2XL series, and for both the "Classic" (heavier/thicker) and "Heritage" (lighter, different rim and exterior bowl shape) variants of these. I finally settled on using the 2XL and 3XL Heritage -- mostly the 2XL, but switching to the 3XL on occasion, depending on how long I was having to live in the contra range for a particular piece of music, or how much time I had to spend above the staff. I found the "Classic" series to feel relatively "dead" in terms of feedback -- but part of that was weight (vibratory feedback?) and part was rim difference. The interior specs for the Classic and Heritage variants (cup diameter, throat, backbore) are identical.

I had a similar experience with one or two bass trombone mouthpieces I used, but never put enough time into it to draw and reliable overall conclusions.

[Doug Elliott]

Don't be so sure the Wick Classic and Heritage are identical. There are differences beyond the exterior shape and rim shape.

[ghmerrill]

Don't be so sure the Wick Classic and Heritage are identical. There are differences beyond the exterior shape and rim shape.

I'm not surprised by that, and kind of think the bowl shape/depth may not be identical on them. But they sure don't publicize that.

[islander]

I´ve made 1.5G-sized mouthpieces from zirconium, brass and copper tungsten. Copper tungsten is vastly heavy, difficult to work - it absolutely requires silver plating too - and is very gratifying to play in the lower registers. But it definitely fails as an all-rounder as it sounds rather dull above the staff.

[MStarke]

In developing our small mouthpiece line, we had some of testing around weights.

Very generally speaking our mouthpieces are just a little heavier than most standard offers (e.g. Schilke, Bach, Wick).
Also some of these offerings seem to have a somehow random distribution of weight.
Don't know if that's true, but some bass trombone mouthpieces seem to more or less just cut out more of the inner space on the exact same outer dimensions as a smaller piece.
That obviously makes the mouthpiece lighter, leads to thin rims and also can make the mouthpiece relatively thin just below the rim.
Those are aspects we adressed to a degree with our general design approach, but not in a really scientific way. (I believe there isn't really much aspects around brass instruments that would be sufficient for being considered really scientifically proven in an academic sense)

One example:
In developing the M N model - which is kind of comparable to an 11c, but with a very nice rounded rim, just very slightly wider, but noticeably deeper cup - we had 3 main iterations which all had the same inner dimensions and rim shape, but different outer shapes.
The main prototype turned out to be too heavy and (too me) felt a bit dead in response and not flexible anymore in "shaping" the sound.
So the production model became just a little lighter - don't know anymore the exact weight difference - and kind of came back to these small subleties in response and sound. But I would say it does feel really "stable"with a strong, present sound for that size of mouthpieces. It feels really efficient to play.
The newest iteration, the MSE N (which exists already +- 1 year, but has not made it on the website yet - send me a PM if you want to order it!) is again a bit lighter and the outer shape resembles a traditional design to a degree. I would say it's in the medium weight range. Response is again a bit quicker, sound more flexible, but it's maybe a little bit less present in the sound. It's always a tradeoff.

Currently I play the MSE N on my Conn smallbores.