Miraphone TU25 Rose Orchestra - A Forgotten Mouthpiece?

[iiipopes]

What's weird is the "Solo" Rose has a larger cup diameter than the "Orchestra" version. It's usually the other way around. I liked the rim profile on both of these, but they were slightly too much of an air hog IMO. I'm more of a "closer to a C4" kinda guy, but these are tremendous pieces for the Mirafone horns.

Everybody's impressions of a mouthpiece are different. Hmmm. The throat of both of these mouthpieces is 8.2mm/.323inch. That's actually one reason why I use mouthpieces with this diameter throat: smaller than many others, and I can control the air much better than, say, on a Wick 1 which has a similar depth and geometry cup, but a larger throat, @ 8.4 mm and open backbore. But I can understand the opinion, as a C4/TU23 has a 7.5 mm throat. As always, YMMV.

C4’s actually have a 7.49mm throat. I Wish they were drilled more in the 8mm range!

Oops. Typed it wrong. Corrected. Thanks.

[donn]

For me, anything larger than the .323 inch throat takes more air than I have to give; anything smaller goes flat in the upper register. This has been my experience on the following mouthpieces, all with stock throats: Old King 26, Wick 1, 2, 3, Bach 18 (several variants on a theme) Kelly 18, Curry 128D, Blokepiece Imperial, Conn 2, York antique, Kanstul 18, Conn 120 & 7, Blessing 18, Greigo 32.5mm cup, Taku, Bach 22, no-name 22, no-name Wick 3 copy, everything made by PT that has a 32.5 mm i.d. cup, and most recently, the Miraphone Rose Orchestra.

This is a list of everything in both categories? Where Bach (Blessing) 18 (.348) was too big, King 26 was too big (342)? Conn 2 and 7B will be just over the limit but maybe close enough?

Conn tended to give their shallower mouthpieces wider throats (with the exception of the Conn 1 which apparently operates under different principles), so if throat size were a stand-alone parameter for "takes more air", their 120 Helleberg would take less air than their 7B Helleberg. I haven't noticed that. I'm not saying throat diameter has no effect, I bet if you drill it out a ways there sure would be an effect, just that the effect is in combination with other features (backbore etc.) and not usefully comparable between different mouthpieces.

[KingTuba1241X]

For me, anything larger than the .323 inch throat takes more air than I have to give; anything smaller goes flat in the upper register. This has been my experience on the following mouthpieces, all with stock throats: Old King 26, Wick 1, 2, 3, Bach 18 (several variants on a theme) Kelly 18, Curry 128D, Blokepiece Imperial, Conn 2, York antique, Kanstul 18, Conn 120 & 7, Blessing 18, Greigo 32.5mm cup, Taku, Bach 22, no-name 22, no-name Wick 3 copy, everything made by PT that has a 32.5 mm i.d. cup, and most recently, the Miraphone Rose Orchestra.

This is a list of everything in both categories? Where Bach (Blessing) 18 (.348) was too big, King 26 was too big (342)? Conn 2 and 7B will be just over the limit but maybe close enough?

Conn tended to give their shallower mouthpieces wider throats (with the exception of the Conn 1 which apparently operates under different principles), so if throat size were a stand-alone parameter for "takes more air", their 120 Helleberg would take less air than their 7B Helleberg. I haven't noticed that. I'm not saying throat diameter has no effect, I bet if you drill it out a ways there sure would be an effect, just that the effect is in combination with other features (backbore etc.) and not usefully comparable between different mouthpieces.

I've noticed that those "Takes More Air" type pieces are 10 times out of 10 going to be deep cups. I used to think it was ALL throat, but certainly a combo of both.

[iiipopes]

I bet if you drill it out a ways there sure would be an effect, just that the effect is in combination with other features (backbore etc.) and not usefully comparable between different mouthpieces.

Comparison on paper, who knows what the different effects are. My comments are my direct observations of having played each of these mouthpieces in both rehearsals and in concert over the years. I will not drill the throat, and I discourage others to drill the throat, as that affects the backbore and could foul up intonation and/or slotting. As I stated, these are my personal, real-world experiences. YMMV.

[jtm]

I just got a nice used TU25, and it seems very much as iiipopes described on my tuba (a tuba that seems like it should be a lot like a C 186, though I haven't tried a C 186 to really compare). I do notice the mid-staff E being more noticeably flat then with a shallower mouthpiece, but I'm pleased that notes above middle C are not flat, and the low end is well defined and easy to play.

I'm actually curious to try a TU29, too, as something just a little shallower and maybe brighter.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm trying to learn more about mouthpieces, and I had three, so I'm happy to have got another that is both (1) different from the ones I already had, and (2) quite nice to play and good sounding on this tuba.

[tclements]

newp, I have one....

[bloke]

I personally find that really wide mouthpiece rims and really large mouthpiece throats hamper my playing, so it’s hard for me to evaluate a cup shape mated with either of those characteristics.
As I recall, the MRO features a pretty wide rim, which I have found to be distracting. Were I to get past that, I might or might not like the characteristics offered by its cup shape…(??)
I’ll offer some wide rims (that I would never personally use) in my selections, and even in different embouchure openings.
To each their own.

[KingTuba1241X]

I find that medium-large openings at the rim and cup junction (32.50-33.00mm) is the sweet spot to be able to play quick pedal tones and snap up to high staff notes without much effort. Medium-Shallow cups with a moderate throat bore are also very important if you're looking for a more focused punchy tone. I wish certain mouthpieces that work perfectly fine on contrabass tubas were not labelled and marketed as "F tuba" mouthpieces. "All Purpose" is a better description.