What mouthpiece for your 410 CC tuba?

[Pauvog1]

I used a Loud LM10. It gave me the exact sound I wanted. Easily malleable from big and sonorous, to giant chainsaw bass trombone.

I played on an LM10 for a couple years on F tuba. I can see them working for someone with a naturally dark sound on a 186, but they were too shallow for me to use on BBb or CC horns to great effect.

[Pauvog1]

186 C: (with standard depth rim) just the right balance of "zip" and "foundation" - particularly for those who ALSO own a larger contrabass tuba, and are looking for an even more noticeable difference between the two instruments

I love my 1964 Holton 345 for the sound I can coax out of that bell, despite all the putzing around with the machine that I have done over the years.

I love my 1971 186 CC precisely because it does not sound at all like my Holton 345.

The larger leadpipe and Symphony cup seem to make it more useful in the orchestra for me than, say, a stock, modern 186, as it has a slightly bigger sound (on the order of a 188) with more bite than the current 186 bell (or 188, for that matter) seems to want to produce without a whole lot of extra effort on my part. For my uses, it sings a song I prefer, but which others may not. However, it is not a great quintet tuba, much like my old Alexander 163. I am imaging a sound much like my Kurath (a proto-Willson 3200 FA-5) with a more solid low range with the ability to really produce a good walking bass line that is "fat". The F tubas I have used in quintet never offer me that without a lot of extra work. My Alexander 163 was my go-go horn for improved "traditional jazz" gigs because the low register walked like nobody's business with no work whatsoever, down low or high up. This 186 is like that for me.

The issue I have is that I have developed a love for underplaying in a quintet, so that the tuba is actually balanced with the others, not just "blended" and an F tuba like my Kurath is sort of overly large for modern works like the Michael Tilson Thomas, or Ewazen pieces, again, for my tastes. That means my only quintet horn needs to be able to play those mislabeled quintet tuba bass trombone parts with some sort of delicacy while being able to play walking basslines with a drum set when needed. (One of the quintets appears with a set drummer quite often.)

I need the Symphony cup's clean, clear product but need my 186 to on occasion play like a 185. I am guessing that your Imperial would be a very nice compromise to allow me to use the one horn in quintet. I detest carrying more than one horn. Many of our quintet services are three-a-day kiddie shows that require us to literally run to the cars after one to make it on time to the next. So that forms my habit and attitude that says "one horn only" in such a setting. tl;dr — I am lazy and want a magical do-it-all tuba for quintet that can still punch above its weight in the orchestra. This tuba is very close to that but is too big with the Symphony 'piece in a quintet setting.

Lots of words. I am hoping they make some sense to the point where you can give me a solid yes or no to whether the Imperial is what I may need. I am even more financially challenged right now than in the past 15 months as the wife's UI benefits just ran out and we are trying to not lose our utilities. I am selling off three or four horns ASAP to prevent this. So for the foreseeable future, I will have to pass on your kind trial offer. I will probably just buy one outright once things settle down here. I am imagining this will be in September or October when all my freelance starts back up.

Hi Wade,

I own an imperial and think it would fit perfectly in the role you described. Kind of a perfect medium between the symphony and the solo. It is my go to for smaller ensemble gigs.