The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: Milled v.s. Molded

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 | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics