Question about Sellmansberger Mouthpiece Shank

[PlayTheTuba]

I know on the Tuba Mouthpiece Spec shee PDF, it mentions the Sellmansberger shank taper for Solo(1) and Solo (2). But on the website it's Solo #0 and #1. Would the Solo #0 be the same as the Solo(1) on the source sheet and the Solo #1 as Solo(2)?

Also the Spec sheet says only the imperial is available with a "British" shank but the web page shows that the Solo can also utilize a "British" shank. I'm guessing that the spec sheet is perhaps slightly out of date?

Spec Sheet Link
https://housermouthpiece.net/wp-content ... heetv5.pdf

Houser Sellmansberger Shank Web Page
https://housermouthpiece.net/shop/sellm ... ew-shanks/

[arpthark]

0, 1 and 2 are different. 0 is the newest and smallest (??) edition in the Solo lineup, I think. The website actually lists all three. The Houser spec sheet isn't current with the recent offerings, I don't think. There's a @bloke around here who can clear all that up. I had been wondering about getting a new, updated spec sheet, too. Maybe if we bug Joe enough he'll do it.

Also... you should order directly from bloke (aka Joe Sellmansberger) so he gets some money for using his great mouthpieces. I don't think he gets anything from things ordered from the Houser site, and the prices are the same.
Not to speak for him or nuthin', just my opinion.

Blake

[bloke]

Solo 0 - smallest throat and medium-exit bore
Solo 1- large/medium-large REVERSE TAPER throat and medium-large exit bore
Solo 2- same as 1 EXCEPT large exit bore


I have all of them here in various shank sizes as well.

...sold through me (Mid-South Music, Inc.) rather than HMW.

I offer - once received - a week trial.

joesellmansberger@gmail.com

[LeMark]

I have a 0 and a 2. Greatly prefer the 2. I find I can't get enough air through a 0 to make the low register open up

[bloke]

I have a 0 and a 2. Greatly prefer the 2. I find I can't get enough air through a 0 to make the low register open up

Everyone has a preference.

I formerly only used Solo 2 backbores (F tuba), but moved to 1 and then to 0...
...I figured out how to get just as much sound with less work.

I now use (prototype going into production - discussed in businesses forum) a throat considerably smaller than the 0 throat on my F cimbasso - though it's bore size is not particularly small - .689"

[Pauvog1]

I have all 3. I used the #2 for years. After I got a set of MAW valves for my MRP F tuba, I found that I didn't need something quite as open on that horn after the upgrade, so I gradually stepped down to the #1 then the 0.

I'm pretty happy with the 0 with my set up, and that has been my go to for about 2-3 years now.

Trumpet players talk a lot about "efficient" approaches, and I think a lot of that applies to this discussion. All 3 backbores work great, it's just a matter of preference.

[russiantuba]

I have all 3. I used the #2 for years. After I got a set of MAW valves for my MRP F tuba, I found that I didn't need something quite as open on that horn after the upgrade, so I gradually stepped down to the #1 then the 0.

I'm pretty happy with the 0 with my set up, and that has been my go to for about 2-3 years now.

Trumpet players talk a lot about "efficient" approaches, and I think a lot of that applies to this discussion. All 3 backbores work great, it's just a matter of preference.

I use the Solo #0 on the backbore of my Gronitz PF 125, and used a C4 before. I had a #2 I was experimenting with my CC at one point, which I think works well for smaller CC tubas. I had an old "two piece" (guessing no. 1) I traded for with a good friend who wanted another of my mouthpieces and I didn't like the rim (I didn't know you could order different rims at the time ). I think the #0 works well for larger piston F tubas, giving a zip and clarity to the sound while maintaining a good depth to the sound, I think the #1 would work well on larger rotary tubas, and the no. 2 would work well on medium to smaller CC tubas and tighter/smaller F tubas.

For example, when I started playing the Eastman piston prototype F tuba, I mentioned the response and color was very similar to my Gronitz, but there was a "veiled" sound to the instrument. I think a major part of that was the throat of the #0 was too small and with the already small bore, it needed to have a bit more expansiveness to balance. Tommy Johnson once said to use smaller mouthpieces on larger tubas and larger mouthpieces on smaller tubas.

It might be the best case scenario to order all three and send two back if you are too far to visit Joe.

[PlayTheTuba]

I will most likely order the 3 styles and send 2 of them back. I'll most likely have time to do that around end of May or June. And I'll need to send him my Giddings MMVI to see what rim profile is similar to it. I'll probably get a smaller rim that MMVI but I like the way it feels with my face.

[bloke]

I think I probably have most everything here, and offer a week trial. I just ask that people not mar the shanks up when they're choosing one to keep.

[bloke]

Some people also tell me that they don't think their mouthpieces go in their receivers far enough, but our tapers are longer than those found on many traditional mouthpieces, so usually a good bit of shank taper goes unused.

[russiantuba]

I will most likely order the 3 styles and send 2 of them back. I'll most likely have time to do that around end of May or June. And I'll need to send him my Giddings MMVI to see what rim profile is similar to it. I'll probably get a smaller rim that MMVI but I like the way it feels with my face.

The MMVI uses a rim based on the Miraphone C4. Probably the C4LA would be closer to that one, but I really like the WM 32.6

[Pauvog1]

I will most likely order the 3 styles and send 2 of them back. I'll most likely have time to do that around end of May or June. And I'll need to send him my Giddings MMVI to see what rim profile is similar to it. I'll probably get a smaller rim that MMVI but I like the way it feels with my face.

The MMVI uses a rim based on the Miraphone C4. Probably the C4LA would be closer to that one, but I really like the WM 32.6

I always thought the original baer felt more C4 like, but the "updated" MMVI felt a little thinner and a little less "round". I have a MMVI that floats around as a spare MP in the vehicle, that feels kind of like more medium size hlb2 rims, but flatter.

Maybe shoot Joe an email. He has a lot of different options.

[PlayTheTuba]

I've sent an email to Mr. Sellmansberger. From the description the Giddings gives for the MMVI CC compared to the original CC, "a traditional flat rim with a sharper inner bite." Which to me I interprete as a helleburg type of rim. But I won't really know until I send it to him to analyze.