 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jez
Date: 2003-05-21 13:07
Mouthpieces have been made from wood, metal, rubber, glass, plastic and who knows what else.
How much difference do you think the material makes to the sound, compared to the shaping of the facing and tone chamber?
I've just had a plastic mp refaced and the chamber made to what I'm familiar with and I don't think I can detect any difference from the ebonite I'm more used to. Surely the shaping is more important than the material.
What do you think?
jez
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: javier garcia m
Date: 2003-05-21 13:19
The most important is the shaping, internal dimensions, internal bore, the chamber, opening, etc. Material count for the less.
Some differences between materials count for their sensibility to atmospheric changes (temperature, humidity), but the mp is quickly stabilized due to its proximity to mouth and the air flow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-05-21 14:00
My experience coincides with javier's comments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-05-21 14:28
And the same goes for saxophone mpcs made of hard rubber vs metal. It is the shape of the chamber and heigth of the baffle that are responsible for the mellow or bright sound, not the material used for manufacture. I have a metal Selmer "Jazz" C* alto mpc that is much more mellow in sound than my "Hollywood" Gregory, which is either mellow or bright, depending on how I choose to play it. My metal Berg Larson tenor mpcs are much "smoother" in sound than my Gardala "Studio" model, which has just enough "edge" for rock but is also very nice for jazz. Both are metal and produce much different sounds--the difference being in the chamber demensions, but most influencial, the heigth of each respective mpcs baffle. But not, the material.
Also, a contributing factor to the "sound" of every mouthpiece is your own mental concept--based upon years of lisening experiance--of what constitues the sound you want to produce. Two players will often sound much different even though playing the same model mouthpiece--even reed, lig, instrument and playing the same music. It's really (pretty much) "all in your head" and not on your lips.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Benni
Date: 2003-05-21 16:44
I agree w/ Javier as well. Just as a side note, I think the only audible benefit of crystal is that it warms up more quickly than hard rubber (therefore making your tuning stabilize faster), but still not a huge difference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2003-05-22 04:51
Most plastics are able to absorb moisture from the atmosphere, causing swelling. This is design problem for polymer bearings, which can jam after moisture absorption.
The precise shape (especially the rails) of a mouthpiece is critical. I presume that the shape of some plastic mouthpieces is rather unstable. My guess is that hard rubber is commonly used ahead of other plastics because of a property relating to dimensional stability.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2003-05-22 08:13
It is worth going to Ed Pillinger's web site where he gives a view on this topic (point 6 under the section on choosing a mouthpiece). The gist is that material can make a difference. The more compliant the material is (e.g. plastics of certain types) the more "colourful" the sound. The harder the material, the more smooth the sound.
However I think it must be very doubtful that material selection is as important as the design of the tone chamber/facing etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-05-22 14:01
Regarding hard rubber it has been my feeling that it was used early-on because it was one of the early "plastics" , having been used mostly for its electrical insulating properties. For electrical purposes it was superceded by "Bakelite"(and its cousins) which was even better......for electrical insulation. These were(are) thermoset plastics and were formed by the slow molding process. When thermoplastics were invented(i.e. "ABS") they allowed faster molding which spurred the invention of the injection molding process. Thermoplastics and injection molding allowed for much faster production cycles......an advantage for electrical insulator parts and many others.......but not necessarily an advantage for clarinet mouthpieces. The decision to invest in an expensive injection mold for clarinet mouthpieces made from a thermoplastic material entails(entailed?) much risk since no one really knew if mouthpieces made from such material would be accepted by players. I have no idea how many different molders are making thermoplastic mouthpieces today and which plastics they are being made from. One can imagine that the thermal conductivity of the mouthpiece material would influence condensation but whether the material influences the sound is debatable.......I guess.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
