Schilke Symphony Series (M5.3, D5.3) extended comments

[pjanda1]

Hi All,

I haven’t seen much solid information about the Schilke Symphony Series, so I thought I’d share my experiences. For those who dislike long posts, the short story is that for me, at least, they are not terribly shallow or deep; have rims that will appeal to most; and feature truly, shockingly gorgeous sounds at the expense of some efficiency.

I’ve been playing with a ton of different mouthpieces because trombone isn’t my job and I can. I’ve been intrigued by how few detailed descriptions of the Schilke Symphony Series I’ve seen, especially given the lack of detail in the marketing materials. Folks say just get a Hammond because he designed them, allegedly, but I wanted to know how similar they are. So, I picked up 4--2 M5.3s and 2 D5.3s. I don’t know for sure that the comments below will apply to a 5.1 or 5.2 series, but my guess is they will.

I was really curious about the “M” cups because I’m a big fan of 51s (not 51Ds) and 51C4s and I spend much time seeking something in the “middle.” I’ve also been curious about the D cups because as much as I love 51s, most sound a bit “tubby” or “hooty” to me. The Symphony Series delivered on both counts.

The “M” cup is awfully close to my 5GL in depth, which is to say, while it is between a 51 and 51C4, it is closer to a 51. Shallower than a typical 5G, but not by much. Deeper than a Schilke 52. Maybe an “F” in Doug Elliott terms? Quite similar in overall depth to my Hammond 12ML, but I think the Schilke Symphony shape is a bit more of a “bowl” at the bottom. (I know this isn’t apples to apples, and more about this below.) The result is a cup that, at least with this 1.03” rim size, sounds like nothing else I’ve played. Absolutely gorgeous. I’d never guess it for a slightly “shallow” cup from the sound or feel. It has a huge, rich, even, orchestral sound. Significantly less bright than my beloved “shallow” Bach 3G, and noticeably less bright that my 12ML. “Cleaner” sounding than most mouthpieces I’ve tried, in that it takes some “junk” out of my sound up close, but while still being full and complex. Even from bottom to top. I’ve hardly ever picked up a mouthpiece and been so wowed by the sound. And, it has stayed nice and dark as I’ve gotten used to it. (For me, some “efficient” cups start off really nice, but get brighter as I get used to them.)

The downside is that the high register is a bit more difficult than I’d expect for a cup of this depth. Certainly no easier than my 51 and maybe harder. Not nearly as easy as my “shallow” 3G. Honestly, the high register on the M5.3 is barely easier than the D5.3. It is plenty good enough for 99.9% of orchestral playing, but a recital … for my chops … I dunno. For solo work, I want to have not only some stamina, but the potential for loud Ebs, Fs, or more, and this won't be that for me. I expect this may have something to do with the throat and backbore, as it is more open than my 51 or 3G, but then, so is the 12ML, and it is easier up high.

The “D” cups are nearly identical in depth to a classic Schilke 51 or Bach 4G. A DE H, for sure. But critically, they sound better than a 51! As much as I love Schilke 51s--and I’ve had a few in both long and large shank--they are a bit hooty or tubby to my ears. These D5.3s sound lovely, and not too deep in any respect. I also compared the D cup to the a 52E2 on euph, and while the D5.3 sounded and played fine, it isn’t a deep enough cup for a characteristic euph sound. It is a straight up tenor trombone mouthpiece--just as it is marketed.

If I had to guess, I’d venture that these M and D cups are the same cutter based on a slightly refined 51, which is itself evidently one copy of an old MV 5G cu. The D cup is likey just a deeper version M. I suspect the rims, throats, and backbores are all Karl Hammonds refinements, and quite similar to his current mouthpieces. I acknowledge it is entirely possible that the M is actually just the same as a Hammond ML, but subject to some production variance, and critically, differences to my ear from comparing the different cup diameters. I really do need to pick up a 10ML to compare, and I wish I had a good way to measure cup shapes.

The rims are slightly disappointing to me because they are middle-of-the-road and I like flat and sharp. The inner edge is a bit more rounded and softer than my favorites (sharper 51s, softer 51C4s, and much like my “shallow” 3G). To my face and feel, the rim is in fact nearly identical in shape to my Hammond 12ML. The slightly softer bite means that they feel a bit bigger than they actually are, at least for me. I’m tempted to try a 5.2 to see if that helps with the very high register. Or, I might take one pair of these and send them off to have the rims flattened a touch. But don’t get me wrong, they aren’t a “round” rim, either. (Far from a 52E2 in this respect as well.) They still articulate well for me and don’t dig in too much. In fact, they might soften the articulations in a way that fits pretty well with the sound concept. A well-reasoned attempt to find a balance that works for most.

The combination of rims and cups at this price point is great. A bigger cup diameter can be nice, but in the classic series, Schilke gives you no real options beyond the 51. 52s and 53s are oddities with tiny throats. Here, you can have the good stuff from the 51 with a bit more room. Or, the horizontal room of a modern Bach 3G or 4G, but with a cup more in line with what some of us want. Basically, options like you get from other modern boutique makers at a more mainstream price.

The blanks are a bit disappointing. Schilke came up with a cool profile for the Reichenbach, and it isn’t that hard to identify shapes other folks aren’t using. Surely they could have done better than mimic GB, especially because these don’t sound like GB mouthpieces! The weight is really typical Schilke/Hammond, which is to say a bit heavier than my similarly-sized Bachs, but far from a “heavy” GB or Griego Deco. Probably a good “all around” weight for this sort of work. The Ms are only a couple of grams heavier than the Ds, and that doesn’t seem like enough for them to be made on identical outer blanks. Or maybe it is.

I bought two of each size in part because I was curious about consistency. The two M5.3s and two D5.3s are darn close to each other in my testing, but not identical. They are FAR more consistent than any two of my 51s or 51C4s, let alone my Bach 3Gs. The Ms and Ds, respectively, are within half a gram of each other. So, I’d still recommend getting a few to try. But if you don’t, it may not be the mistake that it would be to try only one older Bach or Schilke and expect it to be representative of other things with the same stamp. My guess is that of the Ms and Ds, I’d generally choose whichever I had warmed up on that day. (Compared to my older Schilkes, where I sometimes wonder what is wrong only to find that I’d been using the “wrong” one for a day or two.)

Ultimately, these have been very surprising and are an interesting twist on something I’ve been pondering--whether efficiency and sound are somewhat at odds with each other. Don’t get me wrong, they aren’t THAT hard to play. Not as difficult for me as some other very popular mouthpieces of the same size. And most importantly, the sound continues to shock me. For my purposes, screwing around on my own as a hobby balanced against difficult work and life schedules, these may not be the ultimate solution. I might ultimately compromise some sound for ease. (And regardless, I’ll remain prone to trying other things!) But for someone who does true orchestral work and can stay in stellar shape all the time, they are a must-try.

Paul

[pjanda1]

For those who are curious, which I know from above is probably nobody, so maybe for those who may become curious at some point, I picked up a M5.1 to compare to the Hammond 12ML.

The rims, cups, and throats of the M5.1 and 12ML are pretty similar, but the backbores are very much not. Maybe this is just an odd M5.1, but it is significantly tighter than not only the 12ML, but my old favorite Schilke 51, as measured by dropping various drills that are larger than the throat down and seeing how far they go. This M5.1 is also very different from the M5.3 and D5.3, which seem identical in backbore.

(My favorite old large shank Schilke 51, unlike my large shank 51C4 or long shank 51s, actually has a .281 throat despite the catalog saying .277. It is stock as far as I know. But, I didn't get it new, and the outer profile is a bit different from most I've seen, so maybe it has an atypical backbore, too.)

The large shank 12ML has a more open backbore than the M/D5.3 and my old 51, which are pretty darn close. And my 12ML small shank is a bit more open in the backbore than my Schilke 51 small shank.

Based on this, compared to the large shank Hammond 12ML, the Schilke Symphony M5.1 is unsurprisingly a bit more focused and easier up high, while also being a touch brighter.

So, takeaways from trying the M5.1: First, if these are representative samples (and it is possible this M5.1 isn't), the Schilke Symphony series differs in more ways that cup diameter across the size range. Secondly, I wonder if the "*" Schilke Symphony Series are more comparable--or possibly identical--to the standard Hammonds. Thirdly, the Symphony Series, especially the 5.1, might be a good choice if you want a more modern cup with a bit tighter backbore than a stock Hammond (and I know some do based on the GB, Brass Ark, and Griego Bousfield options).

Paul

[Posaunus]

My Schilke 51 and 51C4 both have 7.04mm (0.277") throats. I also have a Schilke D5.1 Symphony piece with a "Medium Deep 'Standard' Cup" (and a more rounded Rim). Its throat measures 7.14mm (0.281"). I believe the M5.1 has a shallow(er) Cup. I do not have a Hammond 12ML to compare.

[Meng]

I use Schilke Symphony D5.1 and Denis wick classic 4BL to play Shires TBCW and Conn 88H now. The sound of Schilke D5.1 fascinates me so much, but I feel that my current ability and endurance is not good at controlling it, especially in the high range.

Which cup is closed to the D5.1 in Hammond Design? 12L or 12XL?
Do you think that the Hammond Design 11ML is good choice to me now?
Or should I choose to try M5.1 first?

Thanks a lot.