Bruno Tilz 310-M 11 vs Denis Wick 2.5CC

the Denis Wick 2.5CC features a deeper cup, the Denis Wick 2.5CC has a larger throat opening.

Overall Comparison Cup Diameter Cup Depth Rim Width Throat Diameter Backbore Finish Material
Mouthpiece A
    Bruno Tilz 310-M 11
    • Tuba
    Catalog
    Cup diameter32.00 mm / 1.2598 in
    Cup depthShallow
    Rim width
    Throat diameter7.40 mm / 0.2913 in
    Backbore
    Finish
    Material
    Best suited for
    📣High-volume projection — open throat for power
    vs
    Mouthpiece B
      Denis Wick 2.5CC
      • Tuba
      Cup diameter32.00 mm / 1.2598 in
      Cup depthDeep
      Rim width7.20 mm / 0.2835 in
      Throat diameter8.60 mm / 0.3386 in
      BackboreV-type
      Finish
      Material
      Best suited for
      🎻Orchestral playing — large cup for full, dark tone
      📣High-volume projection — open throat for power

      Cup Diameter

      Both mouthpieces have virtually identical cup diameters at 32.00 mm / 1.2598 in.

      Cup Depth

      The Denis Wick 2.5CC has a deep cup while the Bruno Tilz 310-M 11 has a shallow cup. Deeper cups favor a darker, richer sound; shallower cups provide more brightness and easier upper register.

      Throat Diameter

      The Denis Wick 2.5CC has a wider throat (8.60 mm / 0.3386 in vs 7.40 mm / 0.2913 in). A wider throat allows more air through, increasing volume and projection but reducing resistance.

      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 310-M 11 details Denis Wick 2.5CC details Bruno Tilz 310-M 11 equivalents Denis Wick 2.5CC equivalents