Home › Flugelhorn › Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E vs GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida

Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E vs GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida

The GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida has a wider cup diameter, the GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida features a deeper cup.

Overall Comparison Cup Diameter Cup Depth Rim Width Throat Diameter Backbore Finish Material
Mouthpiece A
    Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E
    • Flugelhorn
    Catalog
    Cup diameter16.50 mm / 0.6496 in
    Cup depthShallow
    Rim width—
    Throat diameter3.50 mm / 0.1378 in
    Backbore—
    Finish—
    Material—
    Best suited for
    ⚡Screamer / high notes — tight throat with shallow cup
    vs
    Mouthpiece B
      GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida
      • Flugelhorn
      Cup diameter16.89 mm / 0.6650 in
      Cup depthMedium
      Rim width—
      Throat diameter—
      Backbore—
      Finish—
      Material—

      Cup Diameter

      The GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida has a cup diameter of 16.89 mm / 0.6650 in compared to 16.50 mm / 0.6496 in on the Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E — a difference of 0.39 mm / 0.0154 in. A wider cup generally produces a fuller, darker tone but requires more air support.

      Cup Depth

      The GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida has a medium cup while the Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E has a shallow cup. Deeper cups favor a darker, richer sound; shallower cups provide more brightness and easier upper register.

      Which is better?

      Neither mouthpiece clearly dominates the other — the right choice depends on your embouchure, playing style, and the sound you're after. Try both if possible.

      Open in interactive tool + Add third mouthpiece Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E details GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida details Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E equivalents GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida equivalents

      Compare Bruno Tilz 210-S 4 E with others

      Compare GR Technologies 66.5FL Almeida with others

      Popular Flugelhorn comparisons

      Bruno Tilz vs GR Technologies

      Browse by specification