I have a Euph Series piece, and I've been thinking recently about trying out an XT series piece. I know there were a few comparison discussions when the EUPH series first came out, but I always tend to be a bit wary of first/early impressions--it sometimes takes a while to really have perspective on all the different subtle qualities of a mouthpiece.
My impression is that most folks feel XT with a deep cup was a good option back when Doug only made "trombone" mouthpieces, but now that there's a specific euphonium line, EUPH is the way to go. When I first talked to Doug and started experimenting with different parts a year or two ago, the XT series wasn't even part of the discussion, and I didn't even think to bring it up.
Is XT still a viable options? Why might someone choose XT over EUPH when playing a large-shank compensating horn? Anyone with significant experience on both care to give their impressions? Anyone revise their initial impressions of the EUPH series, or move away from it for one reason or another?
Here's my perspective: I'm generally quite happy with my EUPH 104/I/I8 on my Wessex Dolce. It's stable and accurate, it has a deep and full tone, an excellent dynamic range, and is very free blowing. In terms of playability it works great for me.
But the tone does lack a bit of the "shimmer" and the ability to color the sound that my previous favorite piece, the 3al, had. And I miss that. I began wondering whether XT might work for me when I saw a recent post in the trombone forums that compared different series with the same rims and cup depth. The thing is, although I'd love more flexibility and a touch of sheen/shimmer, I wouldn't want to lose the depth and fullness of tone I currently have. I felt I could have it both ways with the 3al (although there were other drawbacks with the 3al that make me prefer the DE piece overall).
I know there's always the option of threading a 3al for Doug's rims, and I may indeed do that at some point. But right now I'm more interested in folks' experiences with the two different series.
My impression is that most folks feel XT with a deep cup was a good option back when Doug only made "trombone" mouthpieces, but now that there's a specific euphonium line, EUPH is the way to go. When I first talked to Doug and started experimenting with different parts a year or two ago, the XT series wasn't even part of the discussion, and I didn't even think to bring it up.
Is XT still a viable options? Why might someone choose XT over EUPH when playing a large-shank compensating horn? Anyone with significant experience on both care to give their impressions? Anyone revise their initial impressions of the EUPH series, or move away from it for one reason or another?
Here's my perspective: I'm generally quite happy with my EUPH 104/I/I8 on my Wessex Dolce. It's stable and accurate, it has a deep and full tone, an excellent dynamic range, and is very free blowing. In terms of playability it works great for me.
But the tone does lack a bit of the "shimmer" and the ability to color the sound that my previous favorite piece, the 3al, had. And I miss that. I began wondering whether XT might work for me when I saw a recent post in the trombone forums that compared different series with the same rims and cup depth. The thing is, although I'd love more flexibility and a touch of sheen/shimmer, I wouldn't want to lose the depth and fullness of tone I currently have. I felt I could have it both ways with the 3al (although there were other drawbacks with the 3al that make me prefer the DE piece overall).
I know there's always the option of threading a 3al for Doug's rims, and I may indeed do that at some point. But right now I'm more interested in folks' experiences with the two different series.
Related Articles
This post first appeared on Euphonium-Tuba And General Music Forums - Recent B, please read the originial post: here
