TromboneChat

Hello everyone. I would like to know if someone has tested the hammond 12 M and what impressions it has of it. As well as the differences with the schilke51. Thank you

It is my main mouthpiece for medium-large trombones (.525 -bores) such as Bach 36, Conn 79h, Kanstul 760, Yamaha 356G and others of similar size. Gives a clear full sound and easy played. Very comfortable rim. It is in size close to a Bach 5.

/Tom

The M is quite shallow - sort of between an 'A' and 'C' Bach depth. The 12ML or 12MXL would be a better analog to the Schilke 51.

That said the 12ML has a super comfortable rim, and is a great alternative to a 5G or a 51. I found the Hammond pieces to have a very even, contemporary sound. The overtones seem more evenly weighted and the harmonics more even than a vintage design like the 5G. The tradeoff perhaps being that a Hammond may be perceived as not having as much 'color' as a Bach 5G.

I switched about a year ago to the 13ML as my main piece and haven't looked back, but I've played a number of Hammond pieces from the 11 down to the 13 size (and have a 14 on order!)

MalecHeermans wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:23 pm The 12ML or 12MXL would be a better analog to the Schilke 51.

+1

My main mouthpiece is a Schilke 51 and I recently bought a Hammond 12ML to try. They’re both pretty similar in size. I still kind of prefer the Schilke but that’s just me. I’m actually selling the Hammond on eBay right now if you are interested.


https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 2694118540

The tradeoff perhaps being that a Hammond may be perceived as not having as much 'color' as a Bach 5G.

Re: color. Actually, it has been my past experience that it is actually the other way around. ML and MXL

In a test a couple of months ago three of my friends (all are pro players) listened when I played my Bach 36BO and switched between 12M, 12ML and 12MXL. I played the same except on each mouthpiece. We named the mouthpieces 1,2,3 in random order. We repeated the experiment three times and the mouthpieces were played and numbered differently for each test. They voted for the 12M as the best. One friend choose the 12M each time. One friend choose the 12M two out of three and the 12MXL one out of three and one friend choose the 12MXL two out of three and the 12M one out of three. Nobody picked the 12ML.

To sum:
The comments was the 12M delivered a full and "present" sound that also was darker than the others. It was followed by the 12MXL that also gave a darker sound. The 12ML did not get any votes. The comment on the 12ML was it sounded a bit as I "stepped out of the room".

The third time I tested and played each mouthpiece I concentrated on producing the darkest sound possible on every mouthpiece. All heard that change.

What I learned is the smallest mouthpiece can give the best sound as it has most colors and if you think dark it can darken the sound of any mouthpiece.

I also learned there are problems to execute tests like this. If you just pick up any mouthpiece and blow four or five notes and then change to a deeper or a more shallow mouthpiece it is hard not to be affected by the change. Even thought I'm used to switch, the first notes on the second mouthpiece is always a reminder. "Aha, this is where the airstream goes in this mouthpiece". That first note is then used as a reminder and can therefore be a little unfocused. A bad start is enough to dilute everybody. It is hard not to be affected by that both as a listener and a player and it interferes with the test.

/Tom

The observations about the ML cup being a bit shallow are very accurate. Using the Doug Elliott system, I'd estimate a F+ cup. The M cup depth is pretty much the same size as the Schilke 52, Schilke 51C4 or Bach 6 1/2, around an E cup via Elliott.

The large backbore Karl has put on the shallower M-cup, .265 bore, really appears to work. He states on his site that he did this to reduce the edge and produce a fuller, and a bit darker sound. Not an easy objective to accomplish with an E cup Elliott type size when it comes to balancing the mouthpiece.
Schilke 52, Bach 6 1/2AL, etc. stock models employ small bores, too, but with proportionally tigher backbores..and in my experience can choke the sound. Not so with the 11M I am experimenting with at the moment.

Says Hammond:

Thank you for the email. 12ML all day long.


Question:

I liked the rim and response of a Schilke 51 but found a little dark and the high range tended to thin out. What Hammond mpc might be more suitable? Large shank.

Use the 51 and do some rangebuilding exercises. That will help for the thinniing upper range.

Note that there is no free lunch. You have to work on something.

Well, mystery solved on the 11M...at least for ME. After the trial:
I thought it had a familiar feel and sound to it. Reason: I used a Schilke 52 on a Principal part way back when. Shallow cup, .2656 bore with plenty of rim diameter flexibility. IMO, Karl's 11M is an improved...via a Bigger backbore, rounder rim and better cup shaping version of the Schilke 52. Useful for sustained higher passages in lower dynamics, p or mp, situations. I'd like to have it around just in case for exactly those type of situations. I'm keeping it.
I think the 12M would NOT be too comparable to a Schilke 50 because it's rim is a bit bigger, the 50 is in the 25.4 range, but it too has a shallow cup.