TubaForum.net

Recently I got a good deal on a Miraphone TU25 Rose Orchestra mouthpiece. Being down for the season, I have been experimenting with mix-and-match on mouthpieces on my Bessophone and my 183. Next, I will be dragging out the souzy from the back of the closet. Since I like mouthpieces with @ 1.28-9 inches / 32.5-7 mm i.d. cup diameter with moderate throats and backbores, I tried it. I am pleasantly surprised. With its extra deep cup, It has a really smooth tone with good response and ease of transition through slurs and registers. I feel it as part of the horn, not something to have to blow through to get to the horn, as is the case with so many mouthpieces. On my Bessophone, viewtopic.php?f=4&t=144 , with the cup so deep, the dreaded "flat fifth partials" are tending to make their appearance, unlike when playing with my shallower mouthpieces. But only mid-line D seems to need the alternate fingering, and then not all the time. Near pedals all the way down to true pedal BBb are smoother and speak better with the usual "riding throttle" on the first valve slide to keep intonation down where it needs to be. The TU25 has a very smooth tone, probably due to it having a similar depth cup to a Wick 1, but unlike the Wick 1, the TU25 retains core, where the Wick 1 can get diffuse on this tuba, although the Wick 1 is probably the best mouthpiece designed for the inherent stuffiness of a Besson BBb comp. The good thing is that the TU25 doesn't take a third lung to manage air on this tuba, as does the larger throat and backbore of the Wick 1.

Right now, except for the mid-line D, I don't notice anything awry or unmanageable with intonation otherwise; again, time will tell when we all get back up and running, supporting ensembles, tuning with a section.

I can see why it may have fallen out of favor: the cup is really deep. It lends a darker character to my Bessophone compared to shallower mouthpieces, including, for example, a Bach 18, which of course is a brighter mouthpiece, and my blokepiece Imperial with the 32.6 modified Helleberg rim and a half-thickness spacer. Right now, I don't have a Conn Helleberg 120S to compare it to, but again, from memory, the TU25 has a little more fundamental in the tone than the 120S, even though it feels like there is a little bit more curve at the bottom of the cup into the throat than the 120S. Doug Elliott's chart lists the TU25 as an "S" depth, deeper than a Wick 1, and deeper than any other mouthpieces on the chart or what he makes. I'm not sure it is that deep, although the depth does feel like it could be similar to the old King 26, although it has been so long since I played a King 26, The King 26 could be even deeper. The TU25 actually feels maybe only a hair deeper than a 24AW. That may be due to the difference in respective cup diameters. But even after all that, it is still surprising that as deep as the TU25 is, unlike a lot of other deep mouthpieces, it doesn't suck the air out of a player.

I see having both the TU25 and the blokepiece at the ready: the TU25 when there are others in section, and I want to provide a good foundational tone; the blokepiece when I need a little more definition and projection.

The rim is a little wider than I am used to, but very comfortable. I think I can get used to it very well. Centered on my embouchure, the edge of the rim is still below my nose as I prefer for comfort and flexibility. Deriving the math from the specs given, the rim is 8.35 mm, and it has a comfortable crown.

The shank on my example measures right at the "American" .520, seating very well in the old receiver of my Bessophone. The bore is the 8.2 mm / .323 inches / "P" drill bit, which is the same as what bloke prefers. The throat feels like it has a moderate taper to it, neither too tight nor too open barrel. I believe this contributes to a moderate slotting: not so tight I have to be riding slides all the time, but not so loose that centering articulation becomes an issue. The actual cup shape of the TU25 is reminiscent of, but again, probably a little deeper than, the Curry 128D I used to have, but sold when I changed the bell on my Bessophone from the detachable, as at the time I had nothing that I could optimize with it. I don't see the TU25 being quite as versatile as Curry describes his D cup, which from my experience it was very versatile indeed. I say this even though the 128D was my only mouthpiece for several years; it performed well in all settings with the former detachable bell.

I won't know how the TU25 will function in concert for quite some time, as the community bands I play in are both shut down for the duration of the virus. But one day we will all be back up and running with our respective ensembles. I will report back then. And in the meantime it also actually gives better fundamental to the tone of my old Eb 183, without any apparent warping of intonation. I will know more when I have a servicing done on the 183: rotor alignment, bumpers, receiver angle, check for leaks, etc. Even though I have not tried it on a souzy yet, I surmize that the TU25 may not be a good outdoor mouthpiece for a souzy, where projection means everything, but could tame a souzy for indoor use in a situation needing to get tuba support past really bad acoustics. For that, I use my Jim New custom 18 he made for me when he was still with Zig Kanstul, with a 1.28 cup diameter, deeper cup than a Bach 18, and a hair larger throat at .328.

Specs on the TU25 Rose Orchestra:
https://www.miraphone.de/accessories/mo ... 5-fur-tuba

All in all, for me the TU25 is a good mouthpiece to add to the arsenal. As usual, these are my observations. YMMV. Thanks.

The Rose Orchestra (pre-numbers, purchased in 1979) was my first real mouthpiece. I still have it, too.

In 1983 at the Texas State Solo and Ensemble Contest I entered my room and lo! the judge was none other than Bill Rose. He was one of my musical heroes!

Surprised and taken aback by his presence, I blurted out, "You're William Rose!" He beamed at being recognized and said, "Yes, I am!"

Then I announced, "I use your mouthpiece!"

Without missing a beat he said, "Hey, so do I!"

I like the old Rose Orchestra and Solo models. I am glad I still have them.

And I will always cherish that time when Bill Rose shot me down as though we were buddies. He was a nice man and a great player who tends to be forgotten these days.

the elephant wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:22 pm The Rose Orchestra (pre-numbers, purchased in 1979) was my first real mouthpiece. I still have it, too.

In 1983 at the Texas State Solo and Ensemble Contest I entered my room and lo! the judge was none other than Bill Rose. He was one of my musical heroes!

Surprised and taken aback by his presence, I blurted out, "You're William Rose!" He beamed at being recognized and said, "Yes, I am!"

Then I announced, "I use your mouthpiece!"

Without missing a beat he said, "Hey, so do I!"

I like the old Rose Orchestra and Solo models. I am glad I still have them.

And I will always cherish that time when Bill Rose shot me down as though we were buddies. He was a nice man and a great player who tends to be forgotten these days.

Great anecdote! Thanks for sharing.

He managed to totally make fun of me without making me feel foolish. He was one of our Good Guys that more of us should know about. When you retire and your replacement is Warren Deck you must have spent your career walking in some mighty large shoes.

I dug out my two 1979 Rose mouthpieces and discovered that the Solo is trashed. The Orchestra is still in nice shape, though. I will test it out on one of my 1971 186 tubas. Should be fun…

Good post. It's been years since I thought about the "Patient Zero" mouthpieces that fed my original tuba addiction.

For a while Warburton made a “Rose” mouthpiece for Tuba Exchange. The blank looked a lot like the Conn Helleberg 120S currently made.

I was able to pick on up very cheaply (can’t remember the details) and it was a solid design. I can’t speak to the fidelity of the copy, rather mentioning it as another good mouthpiece out there with Mr. Rose’s name on the side.

At the risk of sounding as if I'm advertising my line of mouthpieces...

I tend to reject most mouthpieces (that might otherwise be interesting to me) due to the fact that most all mouthpieces are "uni-mouthpieces", whereby "THIS" mouthpiece (ie. one-piece/fixed components combo) features "THIS" rim-shape with "THIS" *cup-opening at the top.

I know what rim-shape I like (which allows me the most flexibility), and - when a mouthpiece features another rim profile/width (as most mouthpieces do) - it isn't for me...

...so I guess what I'm saying is that - every time I've stuck a Miraphone "Orchestra" mouthpiece to my face - the rim contour/width has immediately proven to be an obstructive distraction, before I could actually settle down to listening to what type of sounds its cup would produce.

________________________________
*...and - just in the last couple of years, I've discovered that - as long as a mouthpiece features my favorite rim profile and rim width - different "cup openings" (rim inner circumferences) work better with different tuba-family instruments (for me)...and varying as much as a full millimeter.

Thanks for the positive reinforcement of my choice!!

Rim feels good, not too big, not too small.

Sounds good.

Three Valves wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:47 amRim feels good, not too big, not too small.

It is too narrow for me, but when I need a good "big horn" 'piece that needs to jump up above the staff a lot and does not need to be in the basement for extended periods of time I still like it a lot.

bloke wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:12 am...so I guess what I'm saying is that - every time I've stuck a Miraphone "Orchestra" mouthpiece to my face - the rim contour/width has immediately proven to be an obstructive distraction, before I could actually settle down to listening to what type of sounds its cup would produce.

I forgot to say that I did have the wide Curry rim turned down, at it was so wide it bumped my nose, destroying good placement on my embouchure. This is another reason I do not play a 24AW, in addition to the cup being a little narrow for me. So depending on what happens, it is not out of the question that I might have the TU25 rim turned down in width, but keeping the contour, as well.

Way back when (maybe '76?) Miraphone 186 tubas were supplied with Rose solo mouthpieces (at least mine was). The aperture fit my face perfectly, even if the cup was pretty shallow by modern standards. I even had Giardinelli (read: John Stork) make a copy once mine was too far gone. Still have it, although it's very different from what Tuba Exchange offers as their copy.

BTW: Bill Rose's wife was the harpist with the Houston Symphony. True confession: I come from (ugh) harp people.

If Schilke is still offering to alter different parts of their standard models for listed standard fees (and I have not kept up with them, nor what they offer, nor how they currently run their business) having them blow out the throat on a 69C4 comes pretty close to a Miraphone Rose Solo...but (again) the rim still is what it is.

The only time I've had a guest conductor stop a rehearsal and say he liked my sound was when I was using a Rose Solo with my Marzan slant rotor CC. Let me remark that even in that situation you don't want the conductor's attention because then the rest of the brass players get miffed at all the string foot shuffling you get following...

Bloke's comments about his rim preference brings up a larger issue: what does a player prefer out of a mouthpiece?

Bloke prefers a particular rim, and cup i.d. is secondary.
I prefer a particular cup i.d., and the rim is secondary, so long as it is not too wide.

Every player who contemplates going on safari should try several mouthpieces, note what the player likes and doesn't like about each mouthpiece, and then form a list of criteria that can narrow the universe of tuba mouthpieces to a few viable choices. That's what I did years ago, and Bloke made a business out of it.

Every mouthpiece fits someone, and every mouthpiece will be rejected by someone. That's why I tried to be detailed in my initial post, to help others compare and contrast both objective and subjective observations to their criteria.

I need to be able to move on a rim...
...When my lips are a quarter inch apart (or more) vibrating some fff "basement" pitch, (maybe others can...??, but...) I cannot position the mouthpiece in precisely the same place above my chin compared to where it is positioned when I'm playing pitches (as examples...) three octaves higher.

I need a cup to offer the type of resonance that any particular tuba "needs" to optimize the resonance of that tuba.

I need a back-bore and throat to offer the amount of resistance that optimizes my own ease-of-playing with any particular tuba.

→ If one or more of these are out of balance, I have to practice too damn much (which, often is "some")...and I do not like having to practice, simply to be able to "maintain", and to be able to play simple no-brainer gigs.

bloke wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:50 pm I need to be able to move on a rim....

Indeed. I sent the mouthpiece in to have the rim narrowed. It came back exactly as desired.

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.

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 am 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.

iiipopes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:27 am

KingTuba1241X wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:13 am 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 7.9mm throat. As always, YMMV.

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

I would not take for granted that a diameter measurement on the throat is enough to predict performance. They're all plenty wide to accept great volumes of air (if that were how we played them, which it is not.) Clearly something happens down there, but it's happening in the context of the whole rest of the mouthpiece interior. The 9mm throat on a radically deep Conn 1 funnel is not the 9mm throat on a Bach "Megatone" 18.

donn wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:50 am I would not take for granted that a diameter measurement on the throat is enough to predict performance. They're all plenty wide to accept great volumes of air (if that were how we played them, which it is not.) Clearly something happens down there, but it's happening in the context of the whole rest of the mouthpiece interior. The 9mm throat on a radically deep Conn 1 funnel is not the 9mm throat on a Bach "Megatone" 18.

With due respect, I disagree from personal experience. 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. I'm sure I played others in college that I didn't pay attention to at the time, and don't remember what they were. All these listed have been in the last 15 years. YMMV.