What's so great about Schilke 51D?

[quiethorn]

I see the Schilke 51D mentioned a lot. What's so special about it? Yes, I could just buy a used one and try it (maybe I will), but I'm tired of my wife shaking her head at me everytime I get a new mouthpiece and I'm excited about it for 3 days before it goes on the shelf.

I'm currently bouncing between a Wick 4AL and 6AL. I've heard the 51D has a deep cup. Is it as deep as the 4AL/6AL cup? What's different about Schilke mouthpieces in general?

[JohnL]

I don't think there's anything particularly special about the 51D; in fact, I consider it somewhat unbalanced as a trombone mouthpiece, with a cup that is too deep for the inner diameter. Good euph piece, though.

[Burgerbob]

IMO? Nothing. About a 6.5 rim on a very deep cup. Good way to cover up a bright sound on trombone.

[greenbean]

There is nothing special about a 51D. A terrible choice for trombone, IMO...

[quiethorn]

Hmm... interesting. For some reason I feel like I see them mentioned a lot. Maybe it's all in my head. Thanks, guys.

[Doug Elliott]

Very few people would use it or recommend it for trombone. Of course there are some and they will all come out now and tell me I'm wrong. And I hear there are some groups in Texas where the director makes everybody use one. But the fact is, it's both too small in diameter and too deep in the cup to be effective for most players. The rim is the size of a 6-1/2AL but much flatter, and the cup is almost a bass trombone depth. The proportions are like if you put your 6-1/2AL rim on the 4AL cup.

Its best use is on euphonium for players who do well on a smaller rim because it gives a sort of uniquely focused dark sound. But the rim is really too small for most players to have a decent low range without shifting a lot.

[ghmerrill]

Its best use is on euphonium for players who do well on a smaller rim because it gives a sort of uniquely focused dark sound. But the rim is really too small for most players to have a decent low range without shifting a lot.

And so what you'll see in the euphonium realm is a lot of people treating it as a kind of "beginner" mouthpiece and wanting to switch off it to something larger (like a Wick 4 or 3 size). A lot of people stick with them, but for those who want to continually improve their game and reach a certain level, it's generally not a stopping point. If you look on Dave Werden's forum, you'll see a lot of threads where the content is basically "What should I switch to from my 51D?".

[JohnL]

I hear there are some groups in Texas where the director makes everybody use one.

Not just Texas, my friend. Here in SoCal, too. Pretty much any place where "bright" is a dirty word.

Back when I was doing the drum corps thing (late 1970's), the 51D was the standard baritone bugle mouthpiece for a lot of groups. Given the limitations of the old two-valve G bugles, it was a very rare thing to play down into a register where one had to do a shift.

[harrisonreed]

Lol, groups where players are forced onto one mouthpiece....

Must be legit then, like those Blue Falcon mouthpieces. Blue Devils? Can't remember

[Doug Elliott]

Blue Chops
Blew Chops
Blown Chops

[elmsandr]

Agreed, the 51D is over-prescribed as a trombone mouthpiece. Doesn't really make sense there.

Now the 51... Aside from the fact that I HATED the rim, I think I probably sounded better on that piece because I used to practice a LOT more when that was all I had.

Cheers,
Andy

[quiethorn]

Very few people would use it or recommend it for trombone. Of course there are some and they will all come out now and tell me I'm wrong. And I hear there are some groups in Texas where the director makes everybody use one. But the fact is, it's both too small in diameter and too deep in the cup to be effective for most players. The rim is the size of a 6-1/2AL but much flatter, and the cup is almost a bass trombone depth. The proportions are like if you put your 6-1/2AL rim on the 4AL cup.

Its best use is on euphonium for players who do well on a smaller rim because it gives a sort of uniquely focused dark sound. But the rim is really too small for most players to have a decent low range without shifting a lot.

Isn't that more or less what my Wick 6AL is? It's a 6-1/2AL-ish rim on what feels like a cup as deep as the 4AL.

[Doug Elliott]

Maybe but I think if you looked at them side-by-side they would be very different designs. The 51D is a deep bowl and the 6AL is probably less bowl and more funnel, although I don't have one to compare.

[Bach5G]

I note that Faxx offers a “51D” along with its copies of popular Bach mpcs.

[hyperbolica]

Everybody has had a ride on a 51D at one time or another. It sounds like a good idea on paper, so a lot of teachers with no direct experience with the piece assign it to a student, or people may just buy them because they are in that sweet range.

After my 51d stint, I moved on to a 4g and then a 52e2, and then DE pieces. I have 5 cup sizes (C-G) for DE 104. I generally assign one piece to a horn, and stick with that combination. For example, my 79h gets the E cup, 88h gets the G with the 547 slide, and F with the 525 slide. 24h gets the C2.

[Posaunus]

Schilke 51 (and lots of other alternatives from other manufacturers) - much better option for a large-bore tenor trombone than the 51D euphonium mouthpiece.

What's different about Schilke mouthpieces? Probably the rims. You either like them or you don't. (I do.) But there are some Schilke pieces that I do not like so much - especially the 51B, which I've never been able to get to work well, small-shank or large shank - so clearly the cup, throat, and backbore are also strong influences.

[quiethorn]

You know looking on the forum again, maybe I just thought the 51D was more similar to the 51 than it is since I see the 51 mentioned fairly often.

[Posaunus]

You know looking on the forum again, maybe I just thought the 51D was more similar to the 51 than it is since I see the 51 mentioned fairly often.

That's because the Schilke 51 has long been a popular and useful large-bore trombone mouthpiece.
The Schilke 51D euphonium mouthpiece - not so much!

[Doug Elliott]

Despite the number 51 common between both of them, the 51 is typically larger than the factory specs and the 51D is smaller than the factory specs.

[Posaunus]

Despite the number 51 common between both of them, the 51 is typically larger than the factory specs and the 51D is smaller than the factory specs.

True enough. And the Schilke 51B bears no relation to either the 51 or the 51D!

Hard to decipher Schilke's numbering system - especially the 51 "family!"

[chromebone]

The 51B has more relation to the 51 than the 51D. It has the same rim as the 51, in theory anyway, but a shallower cup and smaller throat. The two 51’s have almost nothing in common with the 51D. And then there’s the 51C4, which is a 51 with a slightly shallower cup and flatter rim.
Most Schilke mouthpieces started as custom jobs that were then sold as stock models. There was no systematic approach to the design of the line; they took the mouthpieces that were closest to each other and assigned the numbers based on their similarities.
The Symphony series was designed to apply a more systematic approach to the basic Schilke design.

[conn88Hagmann]

I used one for a while, and I know some great pros who use them all the time here in the UK.

Is it “really” as small in the rim as a 6.5AL. I found it quite similar to the 5G, and the DE 101 rim.

I just found it too difficult for the extreme high register, I couldn’t pop and F,s and even Ebs became more difficult.

I went back to my LT 101 H but even found that too small. Which is strange as I used it for years and years.

I moved to an XT102 with H cup and haven’t come away from it for almost a year now. It’s awesome!

[CalgaryTbone]

Despite the number 51 common between both of them, the 51 is typically larger than the factory specs and the 51D is smaller than the factory specs.

True enough. And the Schilke 51B bears no relation to either the 51 or the 51D!

Hard to decipher Schilke's numbering system - especially the 51 "family!"

There was a thread on the old site that went into Schilke's numbering system. The gist of the info that came out of that was that the numbering system came after the mouthpieces were already being sold under the names of artists that they were designed for. They bunched mouthpieces with similar rim sizes together, designated by the same number. In the 51 series, they also have a 51C4 that I played for a while. That also seems to not be needed since in their system the 51 would have a "c" cup, but the 51 is definitely a deeper mouthpiece than the 51C4. There are lots of examples of other companies that have to be "inventive" to attach a model number to mouthpieces (or horns) when they add new products. The most sensible numbering system is Doug Elliott's, but his 3-piece design helps to make that the case.

At least Schilke managed to make fairly consistent examples of the same mouthpiece, vs. Bach, who until recently, had huge differences between multiple mouthpieces of the same model number.

More on topic to the original thread - the 51D is too deep for most players, although Eric Carlson of the Philadelphia Orchestra was playing one when we were both finalists for Baltimore (he won that job) many years ago. I remember asking him what he was playing when we were warming up in the same room - he sounded spectacular on it. Not sure what he plays these days, but he was getting results out of that piece back then. I still wouldn't recommend it to a young player.

Jim Scott

[drbucher]

The 51D increases the size of the sound production chamber, so to speak, without significantly increasing the diameter, relative to a Bach 5G, giving the player a richer darker tone. High and low range are quite acceptable with a properly formed embouchure.
Learning that Eric Carlson won an audition on it doesn't hurt.

[Pezza]

I think it's an awful mouthpiece for both trombone & euphonium. Might just be acceptable for 2nd baritone in a brass band.

[WilliamLang]

I personally loved playing a shilke 51D when i started on large bore tenor trombone. still play a deeper cup mouthpiece than most (currently a Laskey 57E.) they're not for everyone, sure, but also not worthless, or bad.

[NBischoff]

For me, they're unplayable.

[tbonesullivan]

If you look on Dave Werden's forum, you'll see a lot of threads where the content is basically "What should I switch to from my 51D?".

You'll also see a lot of other threads about whether it is "ok" to just stick with a Wick 4AL.

The only Schilke mouthpiece I have used was a 47, years ago when they had that weird long shank that didn't like fitting in my King 3B. I also remember people saying that the Schilke line of mouthpieces is more like a collection of custom pieces made for specific people, which is why the 51D is not just a deeper 51.

[modelerdc]

People for forget that the 51D was developed for Brian Bowman back when he was playing the older Besson Euphonium with the intermediate sized shank. The older Besson had a great sound but the F-E-E flat above the staff were very sharp. The 51D was developed to address this. The deep cup helps bring down the pitch of the sharp notes, but the original shank size provided by Schilke went into the receiver a little farther than normal, which helped keep the high B flat and C from going flat when the other notes were corrected. I used to have one of these older Bessons, and I had a Dennis wick 4AM, which played great, but the sharp notes were very sharp. I also have a Bach 4G with a Besson shank, and it corrected the sharp notes, but high C was so flat as to be almost unplayable. the 51D was the only mouthpiece i ever found that helped with both problems. Yes, it's designed for Euphonium and yes, it's not a very good trombone mouthpiece. Most fine players have moved on to newer horns and mouthpiece which suit them, but the music education system has many band directors who were told when they were in college years ago that the 51D is the one and only euphonium mouthpiece. Kind of like the 6 1/2 AL is the one and only trombone mouthpiece. Not necessarily the best choices, but Band directors can't be experts in everything and so they stick to a few standards.

[pjanda1]

The 51D was profoundly influential on me--specifically, it turned me off to all Schilke mouthpieces. It was the common one to come across for big trombones in my early playing years. It didn't work for me for all the reasons it just isn't a good trombone mouthpiece--terrible balance of cup diameter to depth. I played all sorts of things, from Wick to Back to DE to a Black and Hill 5G (that I should have never sold) to Laskey to Griego, with some other for short bits in between. I loathed the 51D so much I never tried another Schilke. The only guy I ever thought sounded o.k. on one was a euph player 95% of the time (as opposed to my being a euph player 1% of the time on a 4al or whatever was big and close at hand).

Now, very early in a "come back," I stumbled upon some regular 51s and 51C4s with the long shanks so I can go between my newly located Elky 8H and my Edwards ... and they are great! The 51 (both long and normal large shank) is a fantastic 2nd chair mouthpiece, and if I were in decent shape (I am not), I suspect it would be great all around. The 51C4 works pretty well for being pretty out of shape, with a very easy high register and a sound that would be well suited to solo and quintet playing, as well as many large ensembles that don't need a super big, super dark sound. I've got a 51B that sounds nice on my "small" Conn 32H, and on that, seems well suited for 3rd part in a big band or maybe even attempting to make the 32H sound "legit" for a quintet that isn't super loud.

I'm not a big fan of the other Schilke small shank mouthpieces I've tried. The 47B is o.k. for lead/second in big band, but I have a bunch of similarly-sized small mouthpieces that sound better to me. I hated the 50.

But as far as the big horns I spend most of my time with, I wonder if I would have been a Schilke adherent if the 51D hadn't scared me away!

Paul

[Ski001]

Does anyone have a feel for how the Symphony D5.1 relates to the 51 and the 51D? Is it 51-like with a slightly different rim? Or is it more a "D" cup?

[Bach5G]

It feels like a modern, improved 51. Less bite to the rim, maybe a smoother transition from cup to throat. Maybe a bit more colour to the sound. I preferred the 5.1 but have moved to something larger.

[Posaunus]

Does anyone have a feel for how the Symphony D5.1 relates to the 51 and the 51D? Is it 51-like with a slightly different rim? Or is it more a "D" cup?

Bach5G is right. The Schilke D5.1 is just a slight variation (improvement) on the 51. No resemblance at all to the 51D which I believe was never intended for (and should not be used on) a trombone. But apparently they work for some trombonists.

[tbonesullivan]

I believe the Symphony Series were developed by Karl Hammond when he was at Schilke. I thought about a 5.2 but just went right to Hammond.

[Model34]

For small shank players using small bore horns like an 897Z for instance, the 51D and/or the 51 do a superb job of making them into much larger sounding horns. And that makes them very suitable for 1st or 2nd in concert band. Much less expensive than buying another horn.

[Posaunus]

For small shank players using small bore horns ... the 51D and/or the 51 do a superb job of making them into much larger sounding horns.

To me there's a huge difference between a Schilke 51 (can do the job on a 0.508"-0.525" bore trombone) and a 51D (I can't use it effectively on any trombone!). Apparently I may be an outlier.

[mcphatty00]

I had a buddy in the same trombone studio at Penn State that swore by a 51D. We all thought he was crazy. That was 20 years ago, so I'm not sure if he still does. I thought it was too big, and I like large mouthpieces.

[MikeS]

People for forget that the 51D was developed for Brian Bowman back when he was playing the older Besson Euphonium with the intermediate sized shank.

I bought a 51d from Schilke’s shop in the Loop in 1969. Mr. Schilke told me he designed it when he was working with Yamaha on the YEP-321, which was introduced in 1967. He also mentioned that they had incorporated some tweaks suggested by James Gilbertsen, who had used a 321 in some CSO performances. Dr. Bowman would have been a freshman at Michigan in 1967. He could have certainly worked with Schilke on it at some point. I have no idea how much the design might have changed over 55 years.

[sterb225]

I rode the 51 roller coaster in college when my chops were immature and my sound could get bright and hard even on a pimped out BrassLab 42B (bell stem wrapped with gaffers tape even). There wasn’t a horn out there with volume limits I couldn’t find.
51C4 - was OK but the rim diameter was too small
51D - hated it
52D - lived by it for almost 20 years
I’m happy that my experience isn’t unique.

In retrospect, neither is appropriate for large tenor and robbed me of the ability to have a mailable and colorful sound. I wish I had spent more time listening to my own sound from the other side of the bell … I went far too long on that 52.

But, not everyone’s the same. It’s a system that starts below your lungs and runs all the way to the rim of the bell and I’m sure we could find more than a few cats making a glorious noise on a 51D.

[BrianJohnston]

Oh boy is this thread back to life?...

I think it's a solid mouthpiece. Very similar, but different color to THE Bach 5G. I never liked it, but I always needed something deeper than a Schilke 51/51D or a bach 5G or 5GD