In praise of the humble Bach 2G

[FOSSIL]

I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.

I know exactly what you mean Don.

Chris

[RustBeltBass]

I've spent time with both of Bill's mouthpieces in Zirconium. Both are terrific examples of the 1.5 and 2 sizes. I could play either one, but the 2G felt like it would take much more work to make it work. The 1.5 (for me) is a plug in and play. But there is a certain quality on the low end of a 2G size that seems compact and fat at the same time. Some may know what I mean and some may scratch their head.

Don, I am supposed to receive a Zc 1.5 tomorrow. How would you describe the differences between brass and Zirconium?

[DonH]

The Zr is a little grippier on the face as it isn't polished. Warms up faster than brass. Zr also seems to have more presence at lower volumes. If you've played a Bach Mt. Vernon 1&1/2, you will notice some familiar similarities. There was this thread a while back- https://www.trombonechat.com/search.php ... %5B0%5D=14

[FOSSIL]

If you polish the Zr rim it gets very slippery....some people may like that. Don is on the money....dark, rich and projecting. Perhaps not as complex as brass, but very cosy and no worries about plating.

Chris

[mrdeacon]

If you polish the Zr rim it gets very slippery....some people may like that. Don is on the money....dark, rich and projecting. Perhaps not as complex as brass, but very cosy and no worries about plating.

Chris

I was one of the ones who hated the polished ZR. It felt comfy on the face but the rim felt completely different from the non polished or silver plate.

The non polished rims are nice and flat which I dig.

[Bach5G]

So after a bit of a wait (and a “mis-delivery” by Canada Post), my 2G showed up this aft. I used the last couple of weeks to brush up on a 1 and 1/2G while I waited for it to arrive. My DE 114 set up sat on the shelf.

First impression: this is much more practicable than I would have expected. In the past, I completely bought into “the bigger the better” theory. This is a bit of an eye-opener/ear-opener.

Better high range, low range no worse (I have difficulties from low D down to the bottom Bb). Playable from the get-go.

I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.

[Posaunus]

... my 2G showed up this aft. I used the last couple of weeks to brush up on a 1 and 1/2G while I waited for it to arrive. My DE 114 set up sat on the shelf.

I may be converted to a 1 and 1/2G. I’m not yet sure whether a 2G might be a bridge too far.

As I understand Doug Elliott's system, a Bach 2G (if made to spec: 26.75mm cup I.D.) would be a DE size 105; a Bach 1½G (27.00mm I.D.) would be a DE 106. Both MUCH smaller than your Schilke 60 (toilet bowl)-size DE114 (29.0mm I.D.). That a substantial, non-subtle difference!

Chris Stearn / FOSSIL (a full-time bass trombonist) knows what he's talking about!

[Doug Elliott]

Bach 2G's and 1-1/2G's virtually always measure bigger than those spec numbers.

2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup

[Posaunus]

Bach 2G's and 1-1/2G's virtually always measure bigger than those spec numbers.

2G = my SB 106 and I cup
1-1/2G = my SB 108 or MB 108 and J cup

Also true in my (very limited) experience (one Bach mouthpiece of each size).
I measure my 2G at 1.06" I.D, and my 1½G at 1.07" I.D. (Of course I measure differently than Doug does.)

Still MUCH smaller than a 114 rim/corresponding cup