Doug Elliott Mouthpiece Comparison

[WilliamLang]

Hi all!

Doug Elliott was nice enough to send me one of his Mouthpieces with a few rim choices, and after a day on it, I gotta say I'm highly impressed. This is definitely a contender for my everyday mouthpiece, after checking out against my primary Laskey 59D and my more orchestral styled Laskey-Alessi 55 SYMPH.

Big thank you to Doug! You make an outstanding and aesthetic beautiful mouthpiece for sure.



Specs:
XT 104 rim (also came with a 102 and 103 option)
Cup: XT G *
Shank: G8

[hyperbolica]

Cool, that's exactly the combination I play on large bore, XT104G8. I agree with you that you sound best on the DE. Great stuff. And very comfortable, as you noted a couple of times.

Another aspect that you might check out later is that you can keep the rim the same while you change the underparts to get different sound or feel in various situations. I have this tendency to use different horns in different groups, so I'm always using different mouthpieces. I can't just make big rim changes, so I tend to keep the same 104 rim whatever else I'm playing (besides bass, which is a different story). You can fit the same rim to large or small shank pieces.

Anyway, thanks for doing these comparisons. Your playing sounds great.

[MTbassbone]

Full disclosure I play Doug's mouthpieces. I really like the combination of a wide rim and shallow cup and the lexan rims are very comfortable. Super efficient. In your playing examples I liked Doug's mouthpiece with the 104 rim on all of the excerpts, except for the Saint-Saëns. Sounded too diffuse. I would be curious what it would sound like with the 102 rim for that excerpt.

[harrisonreed]

If you like that, Doug's small bore and alto pieces are where his work really shines. The alto A cup and C+ cup (with proper shank) are absolutely genius.

The G cup is pretty deep.

[WilliamLang]

thanks for the thoughts all!

@hyberbolica - I'll probably check out the cups another time for sure, and thanks for the thoughts. I find that rim size for me matters less than the mouthpiece working as a whole - I've had some success with different mouthpieces of all sizes as long as they feel integrated towards the goal or style they are trying to achieve.

@MTbassbone - I think the 102 would sound better on a close mic video or microphone, but in an orchestral setting I'd give the phrase a little more air, and I think the 104 would end up being more appropriate as the bass in the clarinet/french horn/trombone trio solo.

@harrisonreed - I love a deep cup mouthpiece, they've always fit my sense of air use. I find the G cup to be maybe a little deeper than medium, but not as deep as some other mouthpieces (Laskey 59D, Laskey 57E, Greg Black 5G L, and Griego-Alessi F cups would all be slightly deeper going by the ever-so-scientific finger test.) Also cool to know about the alto pieces, and thanks

[JeffBone44]

No matter what I try, I keep returning to Doug's mouthpieces. Simply put, they are the most effortless and efficient to play, they are very comfortable on the chops, and are very even throughout the ranges of the horn.

I use a G+ cup, slightly deeper than the G, but I still get plenty of brilliance when I need it. When I got the new large bore shank, it was extremely open. I could get more volume out of it, but it felt a little bit unstable. Normally I use a #2 leadpipe on my Shires, but when I switched to the tighter #1.5 the mouthpiece felt great again.

[norbie2018]

You may also want to try the SYM series 104. Larger blank and I believe different specs that may be too your liking.

[harrisonreed]

Doug, will you ever make K or M size reamer backbores for the E thru G cups?

[JeffBone44]

You may also want to try the SYM series 104. Larger blank and I believe different specs that may be too your liking.

Is this something new? I just noticed it on the website.

[Doug Elliott]

Doug, will you ever make K or M size reamer backbores for the E thru G cups?

Absolutely not.

[harrisonreed]

[Macbone1]

"Big thank you to Doug! You make an outstanding and aesthetic beautiful mouthpiece for sure"

I have a couple, and they are also the "smartest" designed mouthpieces I know of. Why plate the shank? Insertion and removal will just scratch it off. The hex cut at the top means you can just grab a wrench if it gets stuck.

[ithinknot]

Doug, will you ever make K or M size reamer backbores for the E thru G cups?

Absolutely not.

I knew that was going to be the answer, but I still enjoyed seeing it

William - sounds great!

[Matt K]

Doug, will you ever make K or M size reamer backbores for the E thru G cups?

E”CL” shank?

[harrisonreed]

Doug, will you ever make K or M size reamer backbores for the E thru G cups?

E”CL” shank?

Not even. The 4CL is a .307" throat, which I don't think has a "letter" reamer associated with it. It's 7.8mm.

I think that throat works well on a medium cup, WITH a relatively tight backbore, but might be way too much for a deep G cup mouthpiece. The Alessi mouthpieces are almost that deep and have those K and M throat sizes though.

I'm not complaining, I love my DE stuff. Thought it was worth asking about.

[ZacharyThornton]

I have a “basic” DE set up that he fitted me for years ago. I have sold it and rebought at least 3 times. It is just the most efficient and easy to play bass mouthpiece I have ever played. My daily driver is something else but this mouthpiece is still just phenomenal! It is a LB112, K, K9.

[Matt K]

If you're on a dual-bore, you should try the 2022 or 2023 K10. Difference is subtle between the older K9, but still noticeably more efficient imo

[Posaunus]

The 4CL is a .307" throat, which I don't think has a "letter" reamer associated with it. It's 7.8mm.

It's true that the Christian Lindberg mouthpieces have "unusual" specifications (relative to industry "norms").
My 4CL (~25.60mm / 1.008" Cup I.D.) has a very wide throat (7.70mm / 0.303") - not quite as large as Harrison's.
But somehow it works well with a large-bore tenor. Such a throat is generally too open for me.

For reference, my 5CL (similar Cup I.D.: ~25.83mm / 1.017") has a modest throat (6.76mm / 0.266").
And it works too (especially for Christian!).

I've never seen a 2CL, but it has a similar size Cup I.D. (~25.55mm / 1.006") and apparently an even larger throat. (Has anyone ever measured a 2CL throat?)

It's all a mystery to me. I'm an ex-engineer, so I relate more closely to Doug Elliott's systematic approach to mouthpiece design. Both - somehow - are successful.

[harrisonreed]

(Yeah the 2CL is also .307. It just has a much larger throat entrance.)

[mcphatty00]

Man, I've been playing on Doug's products since 1997. I took lessons from Jim DeSano in high school and he was playing on a Lexan rim.

My current setup is a lexan XT104 with a Gc cup. I just spoke to Doug a bit the past couple of weeks and did some searching on here and realized his new shanks and backbores are way better.

I'm keeping the rim because it still feels right. But I'm definitely switching cup and shank. I'm leaning towards the G+. I had an LT H cup that I've been messing with, but I've fallen into the cup that's way too deep before. I'd gladly listen to opinions.

[Matt K]

You may want to try the SYM series too. Unfortunately, can't use the same rim as XT but the SYM series sounds just a bit broader than the XT series. You can possibly stay on the same cup with different series and get the benefits out of it.

[TomInME]

You may want to try the SYM series too. Unfortunately, can't use the same rim as XT but the SYM series sounds just a bit broader than the XT series. You can possibly stay on the same cup with different series and get the benefits out of it.

The same-letter cups in different series aren't necessarily the same. I have an LB L cup and an XB L cup and the XB is definitely bigger (probably the width moreso than depth) - the feel/response is noticeably but not drastically different. The broader sound of the SYM you describe is likely the result of that (the XB L is definitely darker than the LB L).

Also: +1 for the latest backbores, even though I haven't tried any of the older ones. Compared to several other brands on the market, they're just really really good (lousy description, but you have to play one to understand). I have the L8 and the L10 and they're both great in their own way, without being miles apart.

Another member (ghmerrill) mentioned the idea of how some sizes act as a "training aid" to the more optimal ones. At first, I loved the response of the XB over the LB (by a lot) but over time didn't like how dark it was and it felt a little too big once I tweaked the leadpipe a bit (B2 replaced a B2L). Switching back to the LB after a few months, the color is great and the time spent on the XB has somehow improved the response on the LB. I think the same thing is happening with the L10 vs L8 backbores, so I may eventually end up on the 8 in time. But the XB setup was so good I'll probably keep it anyway - might get some use on contra-ish stuff.

[mcphatty00]

From what Doug told me, the Gc cup wasn't very successful. It's from the XT line and I've probably had it for almost 10 years.

[hyperbolica]

Another member (ghmerrill) mentioned the idea of how some sizes act as a "training aid" to the more optimal ones. At first, I loved the response of the XB over the LB (by a lot) but over time didn't like how dark it was and it felt a little too big once I tweaked the leadpipe a bit (B2 replaced a B2L). Switching back to the LB after a few months, the color is great and the time spent on the XB has somehow improved the response on the LB. I think the same thing is happening with the L10 vs L8 backbores, so I may eventually end up on the 8 in time. But the XB setup was so good I'll probably keep it anyway - might get some use on contra-ish stuff.

I switched from lb112k8 to xb112k8. The heavier blank has a clearer more projecting sound, and automatically added a step to my lower range. It does contort my embouchure a little, and maybe tires me out more quickly but the performance benefits are worthwhile.

[TomInME]

I switched from lb112k8 to xb112k8. The heavier blank has a clearer more projecting sound, and automatically added a step to my lower range. It does contort my embouchure a little, and maybe tires me out more quickly but the performance benefits are worthwhile.

I'd be concerned about contortion - are you sure 112 is the right rim for you? I went from 114 to 113 on the XB and from 112 to 113 on the LB, and in both cases was surprised by the difference in feel even though the physical difference is freaking small. (another benefit of Doug's system)

[hyperbolica]

I'd be concerned about contortion - are you sure 112 is the right rim for you? I went from 114 to 113 on the XB and from 112 to 113 on the LB, and in both cases was surprised by the difference in feel even though the physical difference is freaking small. (another benefit of Doug's system)

I checked the XB yesterday, and it turns out to be a 114 instead of 112. That explains a lot. Maybe I'll try to back that off a size or two.

[ghmerrill]

I went from 114 to 113 on the XB and from 112 to 113 on the LB, and in both cases was surprised by the difference in feel even though the physical difference is freaking small. (another benefit of Doug's system)

And it's not just in feel, I think. I've been experimenting a LOT recently since I joined a local "jazz orchestra" playing bass (4th book -- which means the range is pretty broad, from above the staff to down into the contra range) -- sticking with my LB K bowl but switching among combinations of the K9 and K10 shanks and the (Lucite) 110, 112, and 114 rims. I originally was sure that the K10 and 114 combination would be what I wanted. It's what got me to a really good valve pedal range and I liked the deep resonant sound.

But as time (and rehearsals) have passed, and as I've spent more thought and effort in combining well with the other three horns in the section (and playing 3rd parts when necessary), and given the stuff we're playing, I'm now on the LB K/K9/110 combination -- because it gives me the sound I want in the section while also preserving that low range. But definitely a somewhat "zippier" sound than with the larger components. It also offers other benefits such as easier articulation and better efficiency. But it was something of a shock for me to "go smaller" after I'd spent so much time going bigger.

What I've been most surprised at is the difference (in feel and response) that changing just the rim makes when switching between the 112 and the 110, or the 114 and the 112. Those changes are 1/50-th of an inch in diameter, right? And I've had a similar experience with the euph in choosing among the 104/105/106 rims (in which case I'm on the largest of those).

[Matt K]

When I'm doubling I definitely prefer something on bass closer to 110. If I do a ton of bass playing, I start to want something bigger. I haven't really gone bigger than 114 iirc. But I don't really expect an opportunity where I'll be mostly playing bass. That came up for me because I was in SLC a few years ago and I subbed a ton for a bass trombonist who had double knee replacement and gave a ton of his gigs to me

[JeffBone44]

I was on an XB112mW.K.K8. I just got an LB113.L.L8 from someone on the forum a couple months ago, and I'm enjoying the LB a lot more. Livelier sound, the woofiness I was experiencing in the mid to upper registers is gone, and just easier for me to play in general. The XB is a heavy mouthpiece, and the LB feels just right to me.

[TomInME]

I'm now on the LB K/K9/110 combination -- because it gives me the sound I want in the section while also preserving that low range.

Same thing for me going from the XB L to the LB - the XB was really easy and consistent in the trigger register but just too dark on my instrument, especially for big band. The LB took a while to get the low end working properly but XB was good prep and the LB color is lots better for just about everything.

And I needed a 113 to really make it feel right, the 112 feels like I'm squeezing my face into the mouthpiece just a little. 1/4 of a millimeter shouldn't make that much difference, but it feels like it does.

[hyperbolica]

A couple of days ago Doug stopped by on his way back from a convention, and I got to try a bunch of mouthpiece parts. I got a XT D+ along with 3 and 4 shanks. I was surprised at how much the D+3 lit up my 8h w/525 slide. And how natural it felt on my Getzen 3508. Doug described it as opening up, but to me it felt brighter. Either way, really nice.

Plus, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I had him play my 83h bass bone. While he issued a disclaimer about his bass bone skills, they were I'm sure well out in front of mine. "Easy to play" was the verdict on the 83h. So it doesn't suck. Not that it matters in the context of this thread, but I thought I'd mention that there was actually some credible evidence I'm not crazy, since that seems to be in question around here from time to time.

Anyway, Doug's stuff has kind of refueled my comeback playing, both on tenor and bass. Comfort, sound, flexibility have all been key. In particular, the sound, especially on the new D+ stuff, is just way more interesting than other mouthpieces I've used.

[EriKon]

A couple of days ago Doug stopped by on his way back from a convention, and I got to try a bunch of mouthpiece parts. I got a XT D+ along with 3 and 4 shanks. I was surprised at how much the D+3 lit up my 8h w/525 slide. And how natural it felt on my Getzen 3508. Doug described it as opening up, but to me it felt brighter. Either way, really nice.

Plus, just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I had him play my 83h bass bone. While he issued a disclaimer about his bass bone skills, they were I'm sure well out in front of mine. "Easy to play" was the verdict on the 83h. So it doesn't suck. Not that it matters in the context of this thread, but I thought I'd mention that there was actually some credible evidence I'm not crazy, since that seems to be in question around here from time to time.

Anyway, Doug's stuff has kind of refueled my comeback playing, both on tenor and bass. Comfort, sound, flexibility have all been key. In particular, the sound, especially on the new D+ stuff, is just way more interesting than other mouthpieces I've used.

A 3 shank on a 525 bore?

[Burgerbob]

3 works in a .525, but I found the 4 to be better all around.

[hyperbolica]

A 3 shank on a 525 bore?

8/88 w525 goes brighter than you'd think. You don't always want that, obviously, but sometimes you do. And it's not just a black/white thing. Some people will like it while others may not.

The 3 shank was mostly for my 3508, which was probably the big winner in Doug's visit. It just plays so much better with the D+3 combo. It was a great playing horn before that, but with the new mouthpiece, it really is even better.

Plus, I just sold off the 3bf I had for a few months, so I needed something to fill that gap. Every time I get a 3B the story is always the same. At first I love it, but then after time, the sound just grates on me. The original attraction was that it blended with the trumpets really well. But then because it blends with trumpets, the sound - it reminded me of indigestion. It left that acid reflux taste in my ears. I don't know how many 3bs I've owned, but the story is always the same. Actually, same with 78hs. I just can't make peace with those horns, even though they seem like the kind of horns I'd really like.

I've used my XTC2 in the 79h. It gives a bit of an odd alto vibe. I've never gigged that combo, but I've messed with it at home. The 79h doesn't get bright, but it plays small. 78s can get very bright, and definitely play like small horns. The trigger on the 79 really changes the equation, but that small horn character is in there somewhere.

[Matt K]

The 3.5 shank works great on medium bores too. Especially big small horns vs. small big horns. But even on my Getzen 725 (525/547 with 8.5” bell, large chassis) the D+3.5 I have has been working great

[Doug Elliott]

"It left that acid reflux taste in my ears."

Now there's a great description I can relate to.

=======

The 3.5 Matt mentioned is really only for larger dual bores.