TromboneChat

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:51 am**

Hi all.
What is deeper a Schilke 51 or Bach 4G?

Thank you

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:38 am**

The 4g is slightly deeper, at least the one I have to compare to my two 51’s. But this is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, the 51 is basically a 5g sized mouthpiece.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:44 pm**

There are lots of variations on the Schilke 51, the most popular being the 51C4 (for good reason) and the 51D (for reasons known only to the ghost of Ren Schilke).

The C4 is pretty shallow, the 51D is absurdly deep.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:50 pm**

paulyg wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:44 pm There are lots of variations on the Schilke 51, the most popular being the 51C4 (for good reason) and the 51D (for reasons known only to the ghost of Ren Schilke).

The C4 is pretty shallow, the 51D is absurdly deep.

The 51d is a euphonium mouthpiece, hence the depth. It’s not meant to be a trombone mouthpiece, although many inexperienced players seem to use them on trombone. It’s a great euphonium mouthpiece, though.

The 51, 51d and the 51c4 are pretty different from each other. Most classic line Schilke mouthpieces started as custom jobs that would later be assigned model numbers according to closeness in size to others.

I’m not sure of the origin of the 51d, but the 51 is a copy of a Bach 5g Ralph Sauer had that then became his main piece, and the 51C4 was a piece made for Byron Peebles.
There’s also the 51B, which is bit more closely related to the regular 51 than the other two; a 51 with a shallower B cup. That was a custom piece Schilke made for Jay Friedman.

I had Schilke make me a 51C4 with a regular 51 rim which makes it a much better piece and also makes it easier to use as a shallower alternative to the 51 when necessary.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:01 pm**

I'd even say that the 51 proper is actually deeper than a 5G, just not by a lot (about one cup letter depth according to Doug Elliot's charts). But a 4G should be a touch deeper still.

And the 51D is the most different from the other 51s, certainly too deep for trombone unless one was a very strong 2nd tenor in an orchestra.

chromebone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:50 pm I had Schilke make me a 51C4 with a regular 51 rim which makes it a much better piece and also makes it easier to use as a shallower alternative to the 51 when necessary.

I knew the rim shape of the 51C4 was different from the 51, but how else is the cup (besides shallower) and/or backbore different? Same diameter and throat size according to specs... Or are they?

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:13 am**

Might be a bit off topic at this point, but the 51D is also not the same rim or rim size as the 51. It's much smaller.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:49 am**

I knew the rim shape of the 51C4 was different from the 51, but how else is the cup (besides shallower) and/or backbore different? Same diameter and throat size according to specs... Or are they?

The throat and backbore are the same size, but the taper going into the throat is less gradual on the C4.

Schilke also bored out the throat one size on my custom C4. When I initially got it, it felt a little too resistant, their mouthpiece tech said that the shallower cup meant that the backbore was effectively longer, making it feel tighter; boring it out one size balanced that out so it blows the same way as my regular 51 now.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:29 am**

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:13 am Might be a bit off topic at this point, but the 51D is also not the same rim or rim size as the 51. It's much smaller.

For the cup diameter, it is 1.010 on the 51/51C4/51B, and 1.005 on the 51D.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:46 am**

I would say the regular 51 is quite a bit different from itself.

It's supposed to be 1.01 but most of them are far from that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:37 am**

Rim/ cupID measurements I've gotten on my brace of Shilkes. Note that in every case, they vary from the advertised specs (usually larger than published).

51: 26.2mm (1.03")

51C4: 25.9mm (1.02")

50: 25.5mm (1.004")

47: 25.2mm (.992")

45: 25.2mm (.992")

44E4: 23.5mm (.925")

42B: 24.1mm (.949")

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:49 am**

I think there was a thread on the old forum about the Schilke numbering system. I believe many of the mouthpieces already existed as models made for various artists, and they bunched them together with the same number for the rim in a sort of "close enough" move. Also I've been surprised to find out that different mouthpiece makers measure their products in a slightly different location on the mouthpiece, so that the dimensions that they publish that appear to be the same as another company's description of their mouthpiece really is quite different. Then, there are the companies that have mouthpieces that are inconsistent from one to another.

Jim Scott

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:52 am**

FEWeathers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:37 am Rim/ cup ID measurements I've gotten on my brace of Shilkes. Note that in every case, they vary from the advertised specs (usually larger than published).

Good information. Validates Doug Elliott's observations. I'll now check my collection as best as I can. How do you measure cup I.D.?

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:43 am**

Posaunus,

For the sake of consistency, I made marks on the tips of my calipers. From the bottom of the measuring points, to the top of the black lines is 3mm. When eyeballing the measurement, I look for the top of the black lines to be flush with the top of the rim.

Otherwise, I could torture any number I wanted out of the calipers.

Pics...

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:51 pm**

FEWeathers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:37 am Rim/ cupID measurements I've gotten on my brace of Shilkes. Note that in every case, they vary from the advertised specs (usually larger than published).

52: 26.8mm (105.5") *late edit*

51: 26.2mm (1.03")

51C4: 25.9mm (1.02")

50: 25.5mm (1.004")

47: 25.2mm (.992")

45: 25.2mm (.992")

44E4: 23.5mm (.925")

42B: 24.1mm (.949")

Posted: **Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:59 am**

Honestly, who knows. There's so much more to a mouthpiece than simply how wide the cup is and how deep it is. The specs are often off from listed, and particularly for the rim diameter, the shape of the rim plays a HUGE part in that. It's sort of like the weather, when they say "the temperature is this but FEELS like this".

Unfortunately they haven't got that type of system for the various rim shapes out there.

Posted: **Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:34 am**

FEWeathers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:51 pm
FEWeathers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:37 am Rim/ cupID measurements I've gotten on my brace of Shilkes. Note that in every case, they vary from the advertised specs (usually larger than published).

52: 26.8mm (105.5") *late edit*

51: 26.2mm (1.03")

51C4: 25.9mm (1.02")

The 52 is way big compared with the published spec of 25.78mm. I just measured my Bach 3G (3 years old) and Faxx 4g and they are both 26.0mm (using similar calipers and techniques to yours). The comparison charts I’ve seen suggest that it’s close to a 4g, but based on these measurements it seems likely to be more 3G-like.
Anyone know how a 52 plays compared to a 3G ?

Posted: **Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:11 am**

I played a newer, standard 52 recently and it's rim diameter measured AND 'felt' the same as the Hammond 10, or 26.16mm / 1.03 inches.
It has a shallow cup, and a .265 throat, which I did not like (somewhat of a nasal sound for my air flow habits).
I would say though that is a reliable first trombone piece for those who desire a big 4/ small 3 rim diameter.

PS I got the same 26.0mm measure on the Faxx 4G that davebb got.

Posted: **Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:20 am**

Why not work with Doug Elliott, his system can give you the rim size and cup depth you want

Posted: **Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:39 am**

Yep, that's where I validated those measurements on the standard Schilke 52...right on the mark for an estimate on rim diameter and cup depth. Doug notes that his chart contains estimates....they are Good estimates.

Posted: **Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:47 am**

Re: The 3G size.
IMO, Doug Elliott’s chart also has the approx. rim diameter and cup depth of the “current” Bach 3G right, also. 26.4 mm with an I (as in i) cup depth. It is going to feel like you got swallowed up compared to a Schilke 51, 52 or Bach 4G. A different animal entirely. That said, many fine Symphony 2nd trombonists play this cup-diameter size.

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:20 am**

jph wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:47 am Re: The 3G size.
IMO, Doug Elliott’s chart also has the approx. rim diameter and cup depth of the “current” Bach 3G right, also. 26.4 mm with an I (as in i) cup depth.

Thanks for that clarification. I guess my 26.0mm 3G is an “old” one then. I was wondering if a Schilke 52 or Greg Black 3.5 would be slightly smaller, but actually they are both slightly larger in rim diameter.
I don’t feel so bad now about not being able to control my playing very well on the 4G (which is sometimes described as being as big as anyone should need to go on a tenor). I guess I just need the extra depth or cup volume of the 3G to keep my sound stable, especially in the lower range.

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:27 am**

When I came back to playing after a 35 year hiatus, I stuggled with a Bach 4G. My first large-bore horn mouthpiece when I was 15 yrs old was a tulip-shaped Holton 2G, shallower cup but with an approximate 26.5mm rim diameter. It was a good combination for me at that time...developed my embochure,, and I had no problem with the upper register. I went significantly smaller by the time I reached 17, the 6.5AL and the Schilke 51.

Significant playing time, in a variety of situations (e.g. heavy articulation pieces, high/low register flexibility, ciritical intonation) is important before you center on a choice. It is frustrating. My symphony choices in my early 20’s...when there were limited choices...were a Schilke 51, Schilke 51 shallow (Crisafulli model), Bach 6.5AL, Bach 4G and a Bach 1 on Bass.

I play bigger tenor mouthpieces in my older age “come back” now, the Hammond 10 primarily, the 10ML (shallower cup) being my primary. More lip room in a wider cup allows for better vibration...a vital factor in consistent tone production, but more tiring. My teachers told me to be aware that the “tongue and air compete...along with the lips...for cup volume” in playing...there is only so much room. That is why, for example, you will not normally be able to play a rip of well-articulated successive 1/16th notes with a large FF bullet of “sustained” air. Letting the tongue do it’s thing as a priority in these situations, pulling back on the volume a tad, and letting the air “naturally” fill the cup works better. Articulation can also be challenging if you get a cup depth that is too deep for your needs (i.e. natural embouchure) also.

Chris Crisafulli (Mr. C / Frank Crisafulli) as his other students have repeated on this site, stated that a new mouthpiece solves a problem for about two weeks, and then you’ll be after another mouthpiece.

Posted: **Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:26 am**

davebb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:20 am
jph wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:47 am Re: The 3G size.
IMO, Doug Elliott’s chart also has the approx. rim diameter and cup depth of the “current” Bach 3G right, also. 26.4 mm with an I (as in i) cup depth.
Thanks for that clarification. I guess my 26.0mm 3G is an “old” one then. I was wondering if a Schilke 52 or Greg Black 3.5 would be slightly smaller, but actually they are both slightly larger in rim diameter.
I don’t feel so bad now about not being able to control my playing very well on the 4G (which is sometimes described as being as big as anyone should need to go on a tenor). I guess I just need the extra depth or cup volume of the 3G to keep my sound stable, especially in the lower range.

I have only played the Black 4 Deco style for a very short while, so I don’t have not a lot of experience with this line. However, I found the Black specs were very accurate in this instance. I suspect, for example, that the Hammond 10ML compares favorably with the Greg Black 4g-5g and the Griego 3.5
Pricey, but if you are physically near an official dealer, trying out a few in their studio by playing a few arpeggios might answer some “initial” questions for you. On the Hammond side, I deal directly with Karl or use Dillon, where a stock Hammond is discount priced around $122.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:02 am**

davebb wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:34 am
FEWeathers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:51 pm
The 52 is way big compared with the published spec of 25.78mm...Anyone know how a 52 plays compared to a 3G ?

Yeah, I was pretty surprised about how large the rim was when I received it. Waaaay too big a rim for me. I suppose I could fill it up with water, and use it as a wading pool?

Cup depth wise, I wouldn't call it "shallow," as it's about the same as the 51C4 cup. It's something like an E+/F- if trying to estimate it for one of Doug Elliot's cups.

Anyone want to take it off my hands? Send me a message. For the record, it's a small shank.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:28 am**

Yep, E+/F- is pretty much spot on, and like the Peebles c4...principal cup size. For me it is shallow, the approx. F+/G- on the Hammond 10ML is perfect for me on many assignments. The Hammonds pretty much go ML (F+), MXL (G+) and L (H+). Many folks seem to think Crisafulli used a 51C4, he didn’t. He used more of a full G cup (vs H) on the Schilke 51 with a slight cup mod...not a flatter rim. Still could produce a huge sound, with control, on a relatively (still) small piece on 2nd.
The balance on the 52 is pretty good with the smaller cup and modest (but not tiny) bore (.265), but I honestly think it is for folks with a larger lip structure.

TromboneChat

Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G

Re: Schilke 51 or Bach4G