A Bit of STAINLESS STEEL Kellyberg Blather…

[the elephant]

CLARITY INJECTION: THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE STAINLESS STEEL KELLYBERG AND COMPARISONS TO THE LEXAN VERSION, NOT ABOUT THE LEXAN ONE NOR ANY OF THE MANY OTHER HELLEBERG VARIANTS AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET.

Okay, so I am just curious. I have been researching "other stuff" and reading the swiss cheese archives over at the "other place" and keep reading about the so-called stainless steel Kellyberg. There was a lot of excitement and hype up to the release, then almost zero follow-ups. It was as though everyone wanted to know about it but no one actually bought one, and the few who *did* buy one only posted very vague reviews like, "I like it," without any sort of information or observations.

Does it suck?

I remember reading that the Kelly copies were not mere castings of the originals. This was done initially, but none of them worked as well in plastic, so things were done to each to get the Lexan version to play more like the originals they copied.

Apparently, this "tweaking" (5¢ to bloke) of the design was done to all of them to get better results. The 18, 25, 24AW, 50, and Kellyberg all had things done to the cups and throats to make them more sellable.

When general questions were asked of the bygone TNFJ, no one seemed to know exactly what had been done to each design, but everyone was convinced that *something* had been done, primarily due to anecdotal evidence. Everyone had heard "from a guy who would know" but no one had hard information from Kelly.

So I ask again: Does anyone know what was done to these mouthpieces to get them to play well?

Then, taking a tumble down the rabbit hole, I would further ask…

The stainless steel Kellyberg is supposed to be a faithful reproduction of the Lexan model. So, did whatever Jim Kelly did to the Kellyberg to make it work turn out to make the metal version stink? I'm just curious, as there was SO MUCH FREAKING HYPE surrounding the release of this piece back in 2007, and then I can find almost no information about the metal version of the piece.

It sort of disappeared from our collective consciousness.

Firstly, did JK undo the things he did to the Lexan version so that it is essentially a direct copy of the 120? Or is it an actual repro of the plastic one?

And secondly, does the mouthpiece just not play very well, or was it just a matter of market saturation of Helleberg designs? (Remember that we had the Lasky 30H, the Sidey SSH, and several other stainless Helleberg versions out at that time, as well as all the others from before, like Schilke, Marcinkiewicz, etc.

Ready?

Discuss!

[arpthark]

Steve Lamb of the USCG Band has a couple silver-plated brass ones for sale on Facebook for $50 + shipping. I don't know if they are the same as the stainless.

I wonder if you reached out to Jim Kelly directly, whether he would have any info on the design that he'd be willing to divulge.

[Sousaswag]

I'm thinking this is due to Hellebergs being everywhere. The Kellyberg I have is a "fine" mouthpiece. Nothing particularly amazing other than it being great in the cold.

For ME, I'm thinking, why would I buy a stainless Helleberg over the numerous "other" stainless pieces that I can customize to my liking? OR, I'll use the Helleberg 120 that I bought online for $20 bucks rather than paying for a stainless version.

If you're a Helleberg lover, then I understand the want for stainless, I guess. No comments on the design from me; I have no idea

[bloke]

I don't know anything about this, but I agree with the previous post that marketing a new Helleberg is pretty challenging, as there are a zillion of them out there. Since I've never been thrilled with either of the two basic helleberg cup designs that are offered out there, I really dragged my feet as far as offering one. The one I'm currently about to offer is only improved with a considerably more comfortable rim - which is smaller width and without any "cookie-cutter" edges, and a little bit larger exit bore - which takes some of the gravel off the sound.
Candidly, I don't plan to use it myself.

[donn]

There are many mouthpiece models from various manufacturers that may use the name "Helleberg" in their advertising blurbs. They vary a lot, and in particular in my opinion almost always vary enough from the Conn mouthpieces that the distinction is nearly meaningless.

My Lexan glow in the dark Kellyberg is on the other side of the world from me right now, and I think I gave my blue one away with a tuba, but the way I remember it, the cup had an odd feeling profile. It was basically rounded/conical as all tuba mouthpieces are, but I could feel a slight inward tightening about half way down. I guess this could have been a production defect, mouthpiece removed from the mold before it had completely cooled or something. Sounded fine.

[Mary Ann]

I am wondering why people do not like "cookie-cutter edges."
Since I like the 7B on tuba and my Thompson T1 rim on my horn cup, both of which have (correct me if I'm wrong about the 7B) pretty sharp edges defining where the cup stops and the rim starts. My lips sort of get "lost" in a cup that is not well defined by an edge between it and the rim.

[WC8KCY]

I am wondering why people do not like "cookie-cutter edges."
Since I like the 7B on tuba and my Thompson T1 rim on my horn cup, both of which have (correct me if I'm wrong about the 7B) pretty sharp edges defining where the cup stops and the rim starts. My lips sort of get "lost" in a cup that is not well defined by an edge between it and the rim.

I think we're in the same camp on rims. I don't get clean attacks when playing softly on many tubas unless I use a rim with significant bite.

[the elephant]

I only use sharp-rimmed mouthpieces due to my dental structure. I switched from a rounded rim "thing" to the Miraphone Rose Orchestra in 10th grade, and from that to a Conn Helleberg about two years later, and have always used rims similar to that, but I have a limit as I press too hard, and *sharp* rims kill me if I have to play for three or four hours. You know the rims on the OLD Miraphone C4 and the Bach 24AW? I despise mouthpieces like those. I just hate having something like that on my face. It is like an impediment, and I have *never* understood why anyone would ever like mouthpiece rims shaped like either of those.

Yet they both sold by the thousands.

Everyone is different, and everyone has an opinion. That is mine, and it has zero intrinsic value.

[Mary Ann]

What's interesting and just now realized by me, is that the only cup I use that does NOT have a sharp rim is the kelly 5G I use on my euph, and it is the ONLY instrument where I end up with a "mouthpiece print" after an hour or so. Hmmm. I don't know where to find that size / shape cup with a sharper rim edge to try. It plays in tune etc but perhaps I'd be much happier with something very similar that has more of a cookie cutter rim on it.

[MikeS]

What's interesting and just now realized by me, is that the only cup I use that does NOT have a sharp rim is the kelly 5G I use on my euph, and it is the ONLY instrument where I end up with a "mouthpiece print" after an hour or so. Hmmm. I don't know where to find that size / shape cup with a sharper rim edge to try. It plays in tune etc but perhaps I'd be much happier with something very similar that has more of a cookie cutter rim on it.

The K&G line has the sharpest inner edge I have encountered in euphonium mouthpieces. One of their 5.5D models might be what you are looking for.

https://kandgmouthpieces.com/product/euphonium/

A Wick 5AL or 5ABL might be easier to find for a test ride. I am not sure the Wick inner edge is actually sharper than a Bach, but it feels that way to me since the Wick rim is flatter.

[WC8KCY]

What's interesting and just now realized by me, is that the only cup I use that does NOT have a sharp rim is the kelly 5G I use on my euph, and it is the ONLY instrument where I end up with a "mouthpiece print" after an hour or so. Hmmm. I don't know where to find that size / shape cup with a sharper rim edge to try. It plays in tune etc but perhaps I'd be much happier with something very similar that has more of a cookie cutter rim on it.

Conn now makes a 5E mouthpiece for euphonium. The inner rim profile looks similar to the Conn 3 trombone mouthpiece I have on hand, which offers plenty of bite on the inner rim.

[Mary Ann]

E would be narrower than G?

And the problem with the euph is that it is a Sterling and no mouthpiece I have tried has a shank that fits. I have blue painter's tape on the Kelly's shank.

[bloke]

As far as mouthpiece designations are concerned, you're not going to find any consistency in numbering systems, even though some makers claim to have that.

As far as your intermediate shank receiver is concerned, I can think of both a small shank (Yamaha 321) and a large shank receiver (King 2280) that would either cost only about 20 bucks full retail, and it seems to me that - unless you're being gouged - it's probably only about a 40 buck job (maybe $50, if someone charges $200 an hour) to swap out a receiver. Further, it doesn't require amazing talent. I have to believe there's at least one person in Phoenix who's at least one level above "hack first class".

Once you've converted it to one or the other, you would suddenly have a choice of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mouthpieces that would fit in your instrument.

When I converted my old Willson 2900 to large shank, it was the best thing I ever did. Admittedly, I spent a little bit more money and got their own model 2950 receiver, but I didn't have to do that.

[Mary Ann]

The problem is that the closest anything is Phoenix, and I am no longer young enough to have any desire to drive back and forth between here and there. The trip exhausts me.
Our local tuba guy who did work on them (well) has developed enough back problems that he has decided to use what back he has left to play and not work on them.

[Mary Ann]

I didn't know there was a term for it: "Bite"

Another factor to consider is rim bite, which denotes the sharpness of the rim’s inside corner. A sharp bite, or a steep curve, enables players to accurately sound notes, to hold a stable pitch, and to generate a rich, full-bodied tone. That said, some players may find that a rim with too sharp of a bite can limit their lip control, cause fatigue, and make it more difficult to play slurred notes and legato passages. Rims with a very soft bite can improve playability in terms of comfort but may negatively impact pitch definition and the ability to produce a crisp attack.

Rim Contour-----Characteristics

Wide--------------Increases endurance
Narrow-----------Improves flexibility and range
Round------------Improves comfort
Sharp-------------Increases brilliance and precision of attack

And --- I went rooting through my box 'o pieces and found a Perantucci 3C. Which I cannot find listed on Werden's site. It is a bit narrower and more cuppy than the Kelly, has a decent "bite," and is a bit brighter. But it has a way easier high Bb which may be useful. I'll try it out in quintet practice tomorrow and see what I think. Brighter isn't a problem when you are playing a tbone part. The Kelly may have passed its time.

[iiipopes]

I have the 18 instead of the Kellyberg, which works well for me if I have to play in inclement weather: too hot, too cold, precipitation, etc. Yes, as above, Kelly mouthpieces are not physical duplicates of their namesakes. They are engineered to approach the playing characteristics of their namesakes.

[Rick Denney]

The only general principle about Helleberg mouthpieces is that there is no general principle.

I've heard it argued by a professional performer that what makes a Helleberg comfortable is the flatness of the rim much more than the sharpness of its inner edge, based on the point that a flat surface spreads the load over a greater area than a round contour which touches a flat surface only on a hairline circle. This person complained that newer Helleberg versions from Conn had rounded the rim.

I've also heard the exact opposite argued by other professional performers.

I've heard it argued that the wideness of the rim on something like a 24AW requires the player to build embouchure strength to get results, given that pressure on that mouthpiece won't do it. But I provide a countering example in my own playing, which features too much pressure no matter what the shape of the rim despite having taught myself to play tuba on a 24AW for the first seven years of my playing. My playing took a turn for the better when I gave up the 24AW in favor of something (anything) else.

But a highly respected retired symphony pro whispered to me not long ago that a 24AW is magically beneficial for those of us suffering from essential tremor control issues in our old age. In spite of the long disregard I've had for that mouthpiece, I'm actually thinking of finding an old one to try again. I'm kinda stupid that way. (And, of course, legions of extraordinary performers in the UKoGBaNI have grown up with the 24AW in their Besson tubas.)

The conclusion I've come to is that rim comfort is a combination of what we are accustomed to and what we believe works for us.

Back to the Kellyberg. I guess I'll have to try and measure mine and compare it to the metal version, but I need to be in town a bit before doing that. The tricky part is which metal version from Conn? They've made about a million of them and it seems every time they changed cutters or worn-out templates on their big lathe machines, something changed in the resulting shape. I suspect they didn't even use templates except when grinding cutters, and just ground cutters in the full profile of the mouthpiece sides and (separately) the inside of the cup and (with a third cutter) the throat and backbore using plunge cuts on very large industrial lathes. I rather doubt they single-pointed them from edge-tracing templates because that would have been too slow. But I've never seen what machines they actually used or how they were set up. If they used specifically shaped cutters, shapes would vary from generation to generation and as a result of cutter wear and in-production touch-up sharpening. If one is going to talk about he exactness of copies, one has to first understand the exactness of the originals. I'm not talking about all the other copies that were sorta like Yorkophones--"Just like the original except for this one improvement we made to correct _____." My guess (without any shred of evidence) is that Jim Kelly changed the plastic version so that it would be thicker in section and therefore mechanically stronger in that much-weaker material.

I carry a Kellyberg and a flow constrictor thingie in my briefcase for chop practice when traveling. (Chop practice while traveling...hey, it could happen.) I continue to believe, so far without evidence judging from the times it has triggered a manual search, that the Kellyburg looks less threatening in airport X-ray machines.

Rick "the older I get, the less I know" Denney

[the elephant]

I have the 18 instead of the Kellyberg, which works well for me if I have to play in inclement weather: too hot, too cold, precipitation, etc. Yes, as above, Kelly mouthpieces are not physical duplicates of their namesakes. They are engineered to approach the playing characteristics of their namesakes.

Yeah, I put all of that above in the OP.

I was wondering about what (if anything) had been done to the STAINLESS Kellyberg to account for this. It seems like tooling up an altered plastic one to mimic the metal original, only to later tool up a metal copy of the altered plastic, one was a strange choice. So did they do a direct copy of the altered plastic KB or did they undo the alterations, now that they were working in metal again?

I decided after posting this question to buy one for myself to see.

It seems to be a faithful copy of the (altered Helleberg) Lexan Kellyberg, and it is not bad at all. I actually might use it for some things. It is comfortable on my face and plays <drumroll, please> like a metal version of the excellent Lexan Kellyberg, just not glow-in-the-dark green, swirly pink, or transparent blue.

You're welcome.

[cjk]

It seems to be a faithful copy of the (altered Helleberg) Lexan Kellyberg, and it is not bad at all. I actually might use it for some things. It is comfortable on my face and plays <drumroll, please> like a metal version of the excellent Lexan Kellyberg, just not glow-in-the-dark green, swirly pink, or transparent blue.

Jinkies Elephant! You've solved the mystery!

[bloke]

admittedly somewhat off topic:

We experimented very briefly with Lexan threaded cups and threaded shanks with steel rims that were threaded, but the threads from the shanks to the cups were too grabby.

Personally, the only part that I care about being made of a metal which doesn't scratch easily is the rim. It turns out that the difference in cost between bars of steel and bars of lexan isn't all that much, and turning down Lexan makes a horrible mess, so it just didn't make any sense anyway.