Farkas style trombone mouthpiece

[Elow]

So holton has a line of mouthpieces (and horns?) called Farkas. I’m not a horn player but i do clean them, and for new horns we put new mouthpieces. So i went up and got a mouthpiece and it was a farkas and i thought nothing of it. Until i play tested it and something stuck out to me. The entire mouthpiece is a literal cone. There’s no small point that grows and expands, it’s just an upside down cone. So i was wondering if that idea could be transferred to trombone and still be usable. The shank was unusually thick and probably has to do with the cone shape. Has anyone played around with this idea?

[timothy42b]

And on that tiny little mouthpiece they play way down into the bass trombone range with power.

[LeTromboniste]

Per the specs, it does have a throat, but an incredibly large one. Also and extremely deep cup. Seems like a rather specialized mouthpiece, I wouldn't put that in the box with a new instrument unless the buyer specifically asks for that.

My guess is on trombone, a mouthpiece with that design would be a total air hog and be way too dark.

[Vegasbound]

The Neil sanders range of trombone mouthpieces are exactly that, Neil was a horn player comfortable rims, not made anymore but they do appear on eBay

[LeTromboniste]

The Neil sanders range of trombone mouthpieces are exactly that, Neil was a horn player comfortable rims, not made anymore but they do appear on eBay

I thought the particularity of the Neill Sanders design was about the rim, not the design of the cup and throat

[Doug Elliott]

Correct, the Sanders mouthpieces had a wide rim, and I think it was flat and slightly concave, with the high point toward the outside. He had a patent on that design.

[Posaunus]

Philip Farkas was the principal hornist for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for decades (until he retired to teach at Indiana University in 1960). He was a marvelous musician and renowned perfectionist, and was said (apocryphally, of course) to have never played a wrong note in a concert. He had a hand in designing well-respected horns and horn mouthpieces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Farkas

Neill Sanders was also a fine symphonic hornist (in the U.K.) who had strong ideas about mouthpieces, patented his mouthpiece rim shape, and started a company to make them. The Neill Sanders rims (made for trumpet, horn, and trombone) are slightly concave, so the "high point" is at the outer edge of the rim. I have a couple of Neill Sanders trombone mouthpieces (Contour, sizes 5 and 6, cf. Bach 6½AL and Bach 5G), and they play very nicely. Their cups are definitely not funnel-shaped, but have a nice cup contour. Though I don't play these regularly, I think Sanders may have had a good idea with the sloped rim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neill_Sanders

[heinzgries]

whats the smaller one Sanders 5 or 6 ?
Someone knows the spec. ?

[Gary]

Per the specs, it does have a throat, but an incredibly large one. Also and extremely deep cup. Seems like a rather specialized mouthpiece, I wouldn't put that in the box with a new instrument unless the buyer specifically asks for that.

My guess is on trombone, a mouthpiece with that design would be a total air hog and be way too dark.

Just for your future use, I had a different experience. A Schilke Farkas was my first mouthpiece and I played it in university and the military. I later played a Moosewood and one day, just for grins, I put the Farkas in my horn and it was a breath of fresh air. Very easy to play and stuck with it going forward. I'm not disagreeing with the above statement, but just suggesting that you shouldn't shy away from Farkas, at least for others to al least try.

[Posaunus]

whats the smaller one Sanders 5 or 6 ?
Someone knows the spec. ?

Neill Sanders Contour 6 | Cup I.D: 25.40mm/1.000" | Deep cup | Throat: 6.63mm/0.261" | cf. Bach 6½AL
Neill Sanders Contour 5 | Cup I.D: 26.00mm/1.023" | Deep cup | Throat: ~7.00mm/0.276"  | cf. Bach 5G/4G

[JohnL]

Holton makes several different Farkas mouthpieces; the DC (Deep Cup) and MDC (Medium Deep Cup) are the most common, but they make everything from an SC (Shallow Cup) to an XDC (eXtra Deep Cup). When Renold Schilke was first starting out, Phillip Farkas was his business partner; the Schilke 30 was the original "Farkas" mouthpiece (closest in specs to the modern DC).

There's a picture of several cutaway horn mouthpieces in Farkas' The Art of French Horn Playing; the one that is appears to lack any sort of venturi is the King H-2. As I understand it, the classic "Vienna" horn mouthpiece is pretty much venturi-less - the cup just sort of blends in to the backbore.

[heinzgries]

whats the smaller one Sanders 5 or 6 ?
Someone knows the spec. ?

Neill Sanders Contour 6 | Cup I.D: 25.40mm/1.000" | Deep cup | Throat: 6.63mm/0.261" | cf. Bach 6½AL
Neill Sanders Contour 5 | Cup I.D: 26.00mm/1.023" | Deep cup | Throat: ~7.00mm/0.276"  | cf. Bach 5G/4G

thanks much

[BGuttman]

Maybe you want something like this:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-OLD-FRENC ... SwNeVeiJgG

[octavposaune]

Hi All, I have owned several old French funnel cup mouthpieces. They are not giant horn mouthpieces and aren't air hogs because they have relatively small throats and the ID around the rims is on the tiny side for modern mouthpieces. True funnel cup trombone mouthpieces are rare and don't particularly sound good with modern tonal aesthetics in mind.

My personal experience playing old French trombone mouthpieces is that they do in fact work to tame down the rather bright tone of Bb tenors with .460" bore slides while preserving the the ease of the upper register. Remember an actual funnel can be fast or slow taper depending on the throat size and length of the cup. The width of modern bass trombone mouthpieces would compound this problem, as going from a typical rim ID to an acceptable throat size would produce an angle in towards the throat that would likely be faster than you would expect, unless you want a very long mouthpiece which will effect other things such are intonation. In this case a funnel shape will likely lower the total cup volume which will have an effect on timbre.

Bach unlettered trombone cups are more funnel shaped than the C and G cups and often have a smaller throat as well, but I wouldn't call them true funnel cups either. Many people seem to like 9s and 11s, I have even seen a number of 3s which work well on euphoniums.

I would love to try a bass trombone piece with a true funnel cup, but I doubt care enough to ever have one made.

[LeTromboniste]

Per the specs, it does have a throat, but an incredibly large one. Also and extremely deep cup. Seems like a rather specialized mouthpiece, I wouldn't put that in the box with a new instrument unless the buyer specifically asks for that.

My guess is on trombone, a mouthpiece with that design would be a total air hog and be way too dark.

Just for your future use, I had a different experience. A Schilke Farkas was my first mouthpiece and I played it in university and the military. I later played a Moosewood and one day, just for grins, I put the Farkas in my horn and it was a breath of fresh air. Very easy to play and stuck with it going forward. I'm not disagreeing with the above statement, but just suggesting that you shouldn't shy away from Farkas, at least for others to al least try.

That's not what I meant. I believe the mouthpiece pictured above is the Extra Deep Cup model specifically, which to me (I'm no horn player and could be wrong) would be like including a Alessi 1c in the box with a new trombone (not knowing who that trombone is going to, that would seem like a very extreme choice)

Hi All, I have owned several old French funnel cup mouthpieces. They are not giant horn mouthpieces and aren't air hogs because they have relatively small throats and the ID around the rims is on the tiny side for modern mouthpieces. True funnel cup trombone mouthpieces are rare and don't particularly sound good with modern tonal aesthetics in mind.

My personal experience playing old French trombone mouthpieces is that they do in fact work to tame down the rather bright tone of Bb tenors with .460" bore slides while preserving the the ease of the upper register. Remember an actual funnel can be fast or slow taper depending on the throat size and length of the cup. The width of modern bass trombone mouthpieces would compound this problem, as going from a typical rim ID to an acceptable throat size would produce an angle in towards the throat that would likely be faster than you would expect, unless you want a very long mouthpiece which will effect other things such are intonation. In this case a funnel shape will likely lower the total cup volume which will have an effect on timbre.

Bach unlettered trombone cups are more funnel shaped than the C and G cups and often have a smaller throat as well, but I wouldn't call them true funnel cups either. Many people seem to like 9s and 11s, I have even seen a number of 3s which work well on euphoniums.

I would love to try a bass trombone piece with a true funnel cup, but I doubt care enough to ever have one made.

Yes I have old French mouthpieces too, but I don't think their comparable to what the OP posted. Like you said, French mouthpieces were much smaller and had small throats. Applying the shape that the OP is seeing in this horn mouthpiece but on a modern sized trombone mouthpiece would give a gigantic throat.

[harrisonreed]

What does "on new horns we put new mouthpieces" mean in tech speak?

[Elow]

What does "on new horns we put new mouthpieces" mean in tech speak?

For the new horns that we get in, we put new mouthpieces in the case.

[BGuttman]

What does "on new horns we put new mouthpieces" mean in tech speak?

For the new horns that we get in, we put new mouthpieces in the case.

I would hope it would be a Bach 11 or equivalent. A Farkas is an oddball. I've also had good luck with a Schilke 31.

[Elow]

Good thing that horn is still next to my desk, i’ll replace it on tuesday

[Posaunus]

For the new horns that we get in, we put new mouthpieces in the case.

I thought new trombones were shipped from the factory with new trombone mouthpieces. Has that practice changed?

[harrisonreed]

That's what I'm saying. What happens to the other new mouthpiece that comes with the horn?

Maybe it's one of those deals where you get your choice of mouthpiece as a buyer through the shop, although it sounds like this Farkas pick was random? Not sure what that has to do with cleaning a horn. Also, good to know your new mouthpiece might be playtested during the cleaning process.

[Elow]

I put a new mouthpiece in any horn that looks new or practically new. Some new eastmans come without a mouthpiece when we get them, or at least when i get them. I didn’t have any french horn mouthpieces on me so i got two and made sure one worked because it was a mellophone and i didn’t know if it would fit/play in tune.

[heinzgries]

Correct, the Sanders mouthpieces had a wide rim, and I think it was flat and slightly concave, with the high point toward the outside. He had a patent on that design.

The newer one Jet tone mouthpiece Urbie Green D have also the high point toward the outside. Is the rim comparable?

[Doug Elliott]

No, not the same thing. Sanders has a flatter surface, but leaning in.

[heinzgries]

I have ordered a Neill Sanders Contour 6 Small Shank Trombone mouthpiece from Dillon music.
I'm curious how the rim is.