TromboneChat

A friend suggested I try a Shilke mouthpiece. What is the Shilke equivalent to a Bach 1 1/2G?
Thanks

58.

59 is more like a 1 1/4G

Thanks

My Schilke 58 is actually larger than my Bach 1½G. Cup is only a bit larger diameter (27.2mm Schilke vs 27.0mm Bach), but throat is appreciably larger (7.67mm Schilke vs 7.04mm Bach). Schilke 59 is of course larger yet (27.9mm cup I.D.).

May be some sample-to-sample variation – I only have one of each.

Even the specs Schilke provides for the 58 are notably larger than what Bach lists the 1 1/2G at. But the overall feel is similar due to how differently the rims are shaped (the Bach is more rounded, while the standard Schilke rim generally has a more defined inner bite) and i believe the depths are similar as well. (I didn't have my 58 on me the last time I looked at a 1 1/2G.) The 59 is significantly wider than either and a bit deeper.

Do get face time on both (all 3 if you want to throw a 59 in the mix) and see what you prefer.

I have both the 1.5 and the 58. I find them to be close in rim size, but very different in feel and sound. I seemed to get a brighter sound out of the Bach 1.5 and a darker sound out of the Schilke 58.

Schilke has a new mouthpiece that is in that size range... Bill Reichenbach signature series... it’s worth checking out.

I use both a 58 and a 59. If I`m playing strictly a real Bass trombone part (Orchestral or Big Band) I`ll use the 59.
The pedal range is definitely easier and bigger.
But one ensemble I play with I`m playing Bass trombone and Tuba and I have to Improvise.
The 58 works better for me because my upper range works better and is more reliable.
I feel like I can "Grab" the notes better.
I should also say that I`m a doubler not a full time Bass Trombone player

The Reichenbach mouthpiece is really nice. I use it on euphonium and something bigger on bass trombone but it is in the 1 1/2 size and plays well.

The Reichenbach specs says it's a 28.17 rim which I'm assuming is the ID not including rim....that's bigger than a standard 1.5 is it not?

Considerably bigger, about 1-1/4 size.

I have a Reichenbach. Definitely 1 and 1/4 size.

Don't get caught up in specs. The Schilke 58 is about the same size as a Bach 1 and 1/2G. The Reichenbach is a 1 and 1/4 sized piece, not 1 and 1/2.

bigbandbone wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:59 pm A friend suggested I try a Shilke mouthpiece. What is the Shilke equivalent to a Bach 1 1/2G?
Thanks

Why did your friend suggest a Shilke? Why do you think you need one? What do you currently play and what isn't it doing that you think a Shilke might?

Posaunus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:48 pm My Schilke 58 is actually larger than my Bach 1½G. Cup is only a bit larger diameter (27.2mm Schilke vs 27.0mm Bach), but throat is appreciably larger (7.67mm Schilke vs 7.04mm Bach). Schilke 59 is of course larger yet (27.9mm cup I.D.).

May be some sample-to-sample variation – I only have one of each.

I might be misunderstanding your post but Schilke lists their 58 with an inner rim ID of 27.68 and their 59 as 28.52. As a long time player of a 59 28.52 is far more accurate than 27.9. And FWIW that Bach measurement of 27.00 has always been in question.

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 12:12 pm

Posaunus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:48 pm My Schilke 58 is actually larger than my Bach 1½G. Cup is only a bit larger diameter (27.2mm Schilke vs 27.0mm Bach), but throat is appreciably larger (7.67mm Schilke vs 7.04mm Bach). Schilke 59 is of course larger yet (27.9mm cup I.D.).

May be some sample-to-sample variation – I only have one of each.

I might be misunderstanding your post but Schilke lists their 58 with an inner rim ID of 27.68 and their 59 as 28.52. As a long time player of a 59 28.52 is far more accurate than 27.9. And FWIW that Bach measurement of 27.00 has always been in question.

WGW,

Apparently my Schilke 59 is rather different than yours. Could be manufacturing variation?

As Doug Elliott repeatedly points out, we should not trust manufacturers' specifications for mouthpiece cup inner diameters – which, because of the curvature, are hard to measure in any case, and also a bit subjective (where do you measure?).

I'm sure that Doug has more accurate measurements than I do, but I decided to compare a bunch of mouthpieces (some mine and some borrowed) using a consistent method. I have a set of thin discs, the thickness of a quarter, of graduated diameters. I drop the discs into the cup. When the top of the disc is roughly even with the top of the rim, I declare the cup I.D. to be the disc diameter. The tolerance of this method is perhaps ±0.15mm.

This is what I measured using this consistent technique (only one mouthpiece of each size of course – we know there are manufacturing variations):

Mouthpiece | Cup I.D.
Bach 2G | 26.80mm
Bach 1½G | 27.25mm
Bach 1½GM | 27.25mm
Conn 1½G | 27.20mm
Courtois 1½G | 26.95mm
Schilke 58 | 27.20mm
Schilke 59 | 28.00mm
Shires 2MD | 27.25mm
Denis Wick 2AL | 26.95mm
Yamaha 58 | 26.80mm
Yamaha 59 | 27.25mm

Some of this explains to me the way they play. The rest is in the throats (Schilkes are larger, as is the Bach 1½GM), cup shape, rim shape, and backbore. Each seems to have its own personality.

In inches for those who are metrically challenged, and to line up with my sizes:

Mouthpiece | Cup I.D.
Bach 2G | 26.80mm 1.055
Bach 1½G | 27.25mm 1.073
Bach 1½GM | 27.25mm 1.073
Conn 1½G | 27.20mm 1.07
Courtois 1½G | 26.95mm 1.06
Schilke 58 | 27.20mm 1.07
Schilke 59 | 28.00mm 1.102
Shires 2MD | 27.25mm 1.073
Denis Wick 2AL | 26.95mm 1.06
Yamaha 58 | 26.80mm 1.055
Yamaha 59 | 27.25mm 1.073

Most of those I would measure a little bigger than those numbers. The rim shape determines where I measure; I try to go by where I think you would feel the size instead of a set distance down.

Doug Elliott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 6:03 pm Most of those I would measure a little bigger than those numbers. The rim shape determines where I measure; I try to go by where I think you would feel the size instead of a set distance down.

Thanks Doug. I make no claim to my measurements being "right" - but at least the method results in some consistency, making it sort of possible to compare sizes between brands.

How do you measure?

My method is derived from the old "drop a quarter in the mouthpiece cup" trick. But 25¢ is too small for bass trombone (and large tenor) pieces, so I had to scrounge some larger discs. I wish I had a lathe so I could make a full set of these "coin" gauges, graduated in diameter every 0.01" from 0.960" to 1.150" (or every 0.25 mm from 24.25mm to 29.25mm, since I think in metric). [Business opportunity? ]

Posaunus I'm not doubting your measurements at all and as I stated in a previous post I don't hold a lot of value in manufacturers specs. My only real point is that a Schilke 58 is incredibly close to a Bach 1 and 1/2G. A 59, by any measurements , is much bigger. BTW Yamaha confused the whole ballgame by calling their 1 and 1/2 size piece a Yamaha 59. LOL!

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:11 am Posaunus I'm not doubting your measurements at all and as I stated in a previous post I don't hold a lot of value in manufacturers specs. My only real point is that a Schilke 58 is incredibly close to a Bach 1 and 1/2G. A 59, by any measurements , is much bigger. BTW Yamaha confused the whole ballgame by calling their 1 and 1/2 size piece a Yamaha 59. LOL!

Yup, it's all confusing. So it's risky to infer anything from size numbers.

Wonder why the Shires 2MD is about the size of a Bach 1½G?

And why the Yamaha 58 is about the size of a Bach 2G, while the Schilke 58 is (as you note) close to a Bach 1½G?

I really prefer numbering systems like Doug Elliott's (or perhaps Josef Klier's) which make the size progressions more systematic and "transparent." Bach's system is inconsistent, and Schilke's is all over the map!

Most Yamaha mouthpieces are are a little smaller than a Schilke of the same model number. A friend of mine says it's the same with the trumpet mouthpieces.

Schilke did some consulting work for Yamaha back in the days. Yamaha adopted the numbering system but the sizes are smaller than Schilke’s.