 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: CuriousClarinet
Date: 2013-01-09 05:40
Are mouthpieces that are made from hard rubber rods really inherently superior to their molded counterparts? Does the process in which the mouthpiece is initially created really have much to do with how it plays or is it mostly dependent on the facing and craftsmanship that takes place after the blank has been created?
My main reason for asking is I have a clarinet instructor that is rather insistent on how mouthpieces made from hard rubber rods and then milled are better than today’s more common molded version. He is a big fan of antique mouthpieces and doesn't seem to think anything that is molded can ever stack up to the traditional milled version. For his students, he really likes the Rico Reserve mouthpieces. I believe his main reason for liking the Rico mouthpieces is because they are a fairly inexpensive option that is milled and not molded like many mouthpieces are today. It seems he’s is slowly converting the entire university's clarinet section to them. Not that I really have anything against the new Rico mouthpieces in general, but I have tried them more than once and like various other mouthpieces better.
I’m currently searching for a mouthpiece that will work a bit better for me than my current Vandoren, and I’m wondering if I should be taking this hard rubber rod concept seriously, in turn being willing to fork over a more money for this kind of mouthpiece, or if I shouldn’t bother hunting for one because molded mouthpieces will perform just as well.
Oh, and on a similar topic, when I bring up mouthpiece makers that use Zinner (or other popular blanks), the same instructor often suggests I would be better off contacting a proficient local mouthpiece maker to sit down with and just make a mouthpiece out of the same kind of blank, telling him the measurements I want. He claims it would be cheaper and would probably give me the same (if not better) results. What do you think about this? Is this true? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that just because a mouthpiece has the same measurements and is from the same blank it would play the same, would it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2013-01-09 11:30
This is a hot topic in the single reed world. I'm not convinced that mouthpieces made from hard rubber rods are really superior, but I'm not an expert.
Clark Fobes has been in the business for a long time, and he's a very credible source. Here's what he has to say: http://clarkwfobes.wordpress.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2013-01-09 11:57
Ebonite is moulded into both rods or blanks to start with, then they're machined and hand finished to form a mouthpiece, so I doubt there's much in it.
Plastic mouthpieces are generally moulded as they're mass produced, but I assume some machining or hand finishing goes into some plastic mouthpieces to ensure the facing is good.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2013-01-09 12:37
As with metals, every forming/molding/machining process induces stresses or preloads into the product. What matters most to the strength and stability of the final product is how those stresses are relieved (or allowed to relieve) with time or by some sort of post-processing such as heat treatment, post-machining, etc.
There's no easy answer, you have to look at the complete process. The key is whether the material is near its final dimensions and has been allowed to fully stabilize dimensionally before the facing is applied; and that the application of that facing has not been done in such a way as to destabilize the material (which is pretty unlikely).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2013-01-09 12:40
There are successful clarinetists using both types. Logically, molded mouthpieces should have more variability, although they finished on a CNC lathe after molding. I was in JJ Babbit many years ago which is the source of many different brands. As I remember, the blank is made by curing rubber in a mold. Compressed air is used to blow the soft rubber blank off of the piece that forms the interior portion. Then the blanks are put on a tray and placed in an oven to harden. Afterwards they are faced, and the interior may be worked. Lots of places for variability to occur. But is variability bad?
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-01-09 12:44
I found Clark's whole piece interesting, but I was struck by his suggestion that, because of the time-intensive complexity of machining mouthpieces from rod rubber before the advent of CNC machinery, he is "not convinced that as many of the old legendary mouthpieces were made from rod stock as many players believe. Compression molding has been around for more than 100 years and is much more conducive to large runs than machining from rod rubber would have been."
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone really knowledgeable about this how it's determined whether a mouthpiece was machined from rod stock or molded. The Chedeville and Lelandais factories turned out a lot of blanks which were sold under either their own names or those of other companies. What evidence is there, either from production accounts or in the old Ched (and Kaspar?) mouthpieces themselves, that they were exclusively or even predominantly machined from rod rubber? Can you tell by looking closely at the mouthpieces themselves?
Karl
Post Edited (2013-01-09 12:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2013-01-09 12:51
Count me in as far as believing that material makes a difference to sound.
Count me out as far as believing one is inherently "better" than the other. It's all a matter of what works for you, and what you're looking for.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pastor Rob
Date: 2013-01-09 12:57
I found two old Selmer mpcs (a B* and an HS**, both marked in ovals on the table) for really cheap on the auction site. I sent one to Vytas Krass and the other to Scott Kurtzwell. They are now amazing mpcs! Scott also tweaked a lousy playing B45 so that it is a respectable mpc. Working with a mpc artist certainly worked out for me. I also use a Pomarico mpc that has a fat jazzy sound that really lends itself to church orchestra, but not so much for ensemble situations.
Pastor Rob Oetman
Leblanc LL (today)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2013-01-09 14:41
(Disclaimer - I sell Chedeville (R) mouthpieces and barrels CNC machined from proprietary rod rubber)
Good questions. There are significant differences in the starting composition of the materials for molded versus making hard rubber rod stock and the processes are different. The molded mouthpieces are vulcanized under high pressure and heat in a one step process. Acoustical rubber rod stock has different accelerants and later tempering steps in the vulcanization process. Molded mouthpieces may warp and deform in the cooling process where certain thin areas cool more readily than thicker areas while rod stock has a more uniform crosslinking and cooling process. Characteristics of rod stock can vary in hardness, flexibility, and acoustic properties for the intended purpose. A more in depth discussion of making rod stock for mouthpieces can be found on Brad Behn's website and the Chedeville MP website.
CNC machining can be more reproducible than molding and with cooling and proper milling steps it can be less stressful to the material. CNC machining too has certain drawbacks. Most of the better known mouthpieces pre-WWII were machined from rod stock and in my research the Chedevile, early LeLandais and Rafault mouthpieces were made from rod stock. They did not make their own rubber rod stock however and research indicates that all the rod rubber stock used was not always of the same quality. All vulcanized rubber begins to decay, loosing cross links between the latex and sulfur molecules, immediately after manufacture so what we are seeing, playing and hearing today in the older mouthpieces is a snapshot in a never ending decay curve of vulcanized rubber. It so happens that many like the sound of the older mouthpieces in todays playing environment. Different batches of the original old rod rubber also decay at different rates. Todays recreations of the old Chedeville rubber or any rod rubber used for acoustical purposes is indeed the best that we can do to imitate the old rubber with today's techniques and materials. The materials are different, the vulcanization conditions and machinery are different, and our final testing techniques are not perfect.
I believe that architecture trumps material in a good playing mouthpiece but also that there is a synergy between the material, manufacturing technique, and architecture. My feeling is also that a one on one exchange between a player and a custom mouthpiece maker can produce a better playing mouthpiece for the customer than an off the shelf mouthpiece. However, many professional players use off the shelf, although probably after auditioning many of the same type, mouthpieces to excellent advantage. Custom mouthpiece makers also have different approaches to produce a good playing mouthpiece by manipulating the many interacting variables of mouthpiece architecture. Every player will need to find the best mouthpiece for them by trial and error and I think that suggesting that one mouthpiece is good for every player is folly.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorprod.com
www.chedevillemp.com
www.selectareed.com (coming soon)
www.kasparmp.com (in process)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2013-01-09 18:14
You've been given some good advice- here's what I will add, the two best mouthpieces i've owned and played...
- one was a Zinner blank refaced by a well respected refacer (friend of the man nearest you). Instead of doing it "by mail" I was there to play the mouthpiece and interact with the refacer, who also watched and listened to me play to get an idea of how my embouchure was interacting with mouthpiece and change the curve slightly etc.
- one was a Vandoren mouthpiece with a tip opening similar to my favourite mouthpiece, so that the curve of the facing could be matched to my other mouthpiece without requiring too many adjustments.
Another option would be to get the Rico mouthpiece and see if XXXXX would reface it to make it more similar to your Vandoren (though this depends on which model Vandoren you use). My experience with Zinner blanks is that most makers (and suppliers) don't have the wider tip openings at hand, so that if you would like something more open, this can require a great deal of time spent adjusting the side rails/baffle etc (and not all refacers are equally good at doing this task).
My experience has been- Zinner blanks sound best in smaller room/smaller group, Rico blank very good in "the hall". I'm sure many will disagree with this opinion, of course.
dn
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2013-01-09 18:47
I would cut to the chase and call Lee Livengood. Play for him, play some of his mouthpieces and either have him adjust your mouthpieces to what you will like or perhaps get something different from him.
There is no substitute for sitting and working with a good mouthpiece craftsman and Lee is unquestionably one of the best out there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2013-01-09 22:15
I agree with Ed. I've made a number of long trips to see Lee. If he were within easy driving distance . . . I can't imagine why you haven't been there already.
For what it's worth, Lee told me that Rico's decision to go with CNC machining versus molding was made because it was possible to more closely control the tolerances with modern CNC machines than with molding, not because rod stock is an inherently better material. In short, it was the most economical route to the desired quality.
Post Edited (2013-01-10 01:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-10 01:15
I personally think this difference is vastly overblown.
To help dispel any of the mystical qualities of milled I put forth the OTHER options not yet mentioned: wood and plexiglass.
Wurlitzer is still pretty committed to the superiority of their plexiglass line and there are now a good percentage of very good wooden mouthpieces (to name a few) from the likes of Pomarico and Zinner (available from Greg Smith).
Personally my answer to the posited question is .......... wood is superior.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2013-01-10 05:41
Is the pitch of the Rico mouthpieces higher than Vandorens?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
