 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2001-04-30 17:05
While on the chat forum yesterday I mentioned a study on mouthpiece materials and the analytical data from research done by Don McCathren and the University of Indiana physics department. This experiment was done in the 60's and documented in the Instrumentalist Company's Woodwind Anthology Vol. 2 on page 70. Although the article was written several years ago, I feel like the data obtained to be valuable. Eight clarinet players used the same clarinet, same reed (sanitized hopefully), and mouthpieces which had identical dimensions. The only variant was the material in which the mouthpiece was made. An air pressure guage was used to ensure that all players were using similar air pressure to produce the tone. All played and open G. The results, in short, were that hard rubber mouthpieces displayed harmonics to the 49th partial (#'s 35 thru 41 were non existant), with the 7th partial displaying the highest amplitude. The plastic mouthpiece came in second with harmonics to the 31st partial, but not registering as much amplitude in the harmonic series as the hard rubber. Third was the crystal, registering harmonics to the 26th partial, with the lower partials having a little higher (amplitude) than the plastic, but not as high as the hard rubber. Lastly, was the wood mouthpiece. Amplitude was a lot lower than the previous mouthpieces and showing partials to the 33rd partial. I'm sure you scientists out there can find faults with the study. As I am not a scientist I can not validate or disprove the data given. There was some interest that I post this on the BB and that is all I am doing. I am not trying to generate argument for or against wood, crystal, plastic or hard rubber mouthpieces. I just mentioned the article in response to a question about wood mouthpieces.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jerry
Date: 2001-04-30 17:19
It is not my intention to provoke discussion for or against any of the MP material discussed but what if anything do these #'s mean to a novice? Can anyone explain in lay terms?
~ jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-04-30 17:27
Very interesting - thanks John. I'd like to see how the frequency spectrum for the Kaspar/Chedeville mouthpieces compares with other mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-04-30 17:31
Very interesting indeed! I've decided to hold off a bit before buying the wood mouthpiece I was wanting.
I think the Chedevilles are hard rubber. Does anyone know for sure?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joevacc
Date: 2001-04-30 18:22
That is a good argument <i>for</i> different materials causing instruments to sound different. I am not sure who mentioned having a hard rubber bass that was the same as a plastic one that he did some experiments with. Maybe someone can refer us to that experiment again.
jv
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-04-30 19:28
I think joevacc might be referring to my hard rubber Kohlert bass clarinet whose sound I preferred to the otherwise (apparently) identical wood Kohlert bass.
As for Brenda's questions, the Chedeville blanks were hard rubber, as are the vast majority of professional clarinet mouthpieces.
Re: the study mentioned by John Butler, it sounds like a fascinating experiment and was probably controlled as carefully as possible, within budgetary constraints. However, I would point out that, despite the best efforts of mouthpiece makers, it is impossible to make two mouthpieces that are truly identical in every dimension, especially when making them out of different materials which have different machining and temperature characteristics. And, as all mouthpiece makers/refacers know, it takes only a tiny, imperceptible change to a facing to alter the playing qualities significantly. I don't believe anyone currently has a machine to produce two totally identical mouthpieces (not identical as far as the coarse 'feeler gauge' measurement method can discern, but truly identical everywhere on the facing to within thousandths of a millimeter). This is still a Holy Grail being sought by mouthpiece makers.
Finally, I certainly wouldn't base a mouthpiece purchase decision simply on how one note (the open G) sounded on one set of mouthpieces. Perhaps the results would have differed had they tried other notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-04-30 19:53
Many great players have used hard rubber mouthpieces.
Other great players have used crystal mouthpieces. Robert Marcellus used one on the famous record with Capriccio Italienne, Capriccio Espagnol, Polovtsian Dances and Kovanshchina Prelude. Gino Cioffi in Boston sounded wonderful on crystal. So did Alexander Williams in the NBC Symphony.
Up to 100 years ago, everyone played on wood. My best mouthpiece is made of grenadilla. I don't notice any difference in overtones between it and hard rubber mouthpieces from the same maker.
Judge a mouthpiece by how it plays, not what it's made of.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-04-30 20:35
Many TKS, J B, I'll try to pursue this a bit, however I [and most of us I guess] are not-at-all acoustic engineer-scientists. My off-the-top-of-the-head , hasty conclusion would be that one would obtain more dark-mellow [as opposed to bright-piercing?] sounds from the reverse of your "partials-presence-amplitude" order with the wood mp being the best for dark. Will look for your ref. and do a bit of study. I posted a question to you,and others, re: Selmer's R I clarinets under the Full Boehm thread. Will appreciate any responses. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stephen Froehlich
Date: 2001-04-30 20:52
I don't know about you guyz (and galz), but I'd like to see the actual spectra from that study.
A good FFT can detect peaks that the human ear cannot hear. I believe that the estimations I've seen of the difference between different materials put the difference at somewhere near 5 orders of magnitude (50 dB). If most of the difference is happening below the 20-30 dB line from the amplitude of the fundamental, I'd have to question whether the difference is audible or not.
In other words, I believe we can all agree that material makes a measurable difference in the sound of an instrument, the question is whether it makes an audible one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Anji
Date: 2001-04-30 20:54
I would be very interested to know the AMPLITUDE of these partials, in proportion to the overall Amplitude of the fundamental tone produced.
It would seem to me that you can deaden the sound with more highly damped materials, but is is counterintuitive that a ceramic would be less excitable than hard rubber!
There certainly isn't any elastic behaviour in most glass, particularly in tempered glass.
I would love to see this spec become more widely available. Loudspeakers have similar test specs for Efficiency and tonal balance, the same measurements should be readily adaptable.
I'm with Dave on this one, I think the most important aspect is the fit and finish of the lay/bore/baffle, materials are a distant second.
anji
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2001-04-30 22:12
Stephen Froehlich wrote:
>
> ... In other words, I believe we can all agree that material
> makes a measurable difference in the sound of an instrument,
> the question is whether it makes an audible one.
No we don't all agree. Several people have raised the point that there's a good chance that there is enough variation in dimensions even when you try to match them that this could be a cause of the difference. And no one has yet mentioned surface finish/texture. You need to match that also to see if the material itself makes a difference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-04-30 22:17
I don't care if my mouthpiece is made of cement--if it lets me sound like Larry Combs, I'll play it. Wonder what material Anker Bilk uses? Good (sounding) clarineting everyone!!!! :>)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler
Date: 2001-04-30 22:21
All,
A graph of the data for each mouthpiece is pictured in the article. I will not photocopy and mail out without the publisher's permission either by mail or email, so please do not send any more email asking. I think everyone can get to a library and find a copy of the book. Check with your local school band director. Most of them have these in their libraries. I make no inference about the data.....I just was asked to post it. 'Nuf said.
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-04-30 23:02
WOW, what an interesting bunch of posts, one might think we had invented the wheel, whereas just an improvement to the spokes!! Will follow, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joevacc
Date: 2001-05-01 02:51
Very interesting! Dave and Dee's points are very important indeed.
As Dee notes the surfaces of each would have to be the same and that would be very hard (impossible?) to do.
I would think that playing just an open G would help to eliminate some of the different characteristics of the clarinets used.
If you eliminate the clarinet and the eight different players from the experiment I wonder what the outcome would be. If the results turned out to be proportionately same in relation to the new fundamental frequency would that be any more conclusive?
Is it possible to have different materials in the same exact form?
Anecdotal evidence has to have some worth...
Just some thoughts.
jv
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-05-01 14:06
Regarding scientific tone testing the following may be of considerable interest:
http://www.selmer.com/saxophone/discus/index.html
Click on "Saxophone Discussion", then go down to "Saxophone Science", April 30, Time 1:21
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-05-01 14:06
Measuring what cannot be heard by the human ear has some merit for helping us to decide the degree of improvement in sound quality---but since we play for human listeners it seems more important what the human instruments measure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-05-02 12:55
Surely, Brenda, the science instruments pick up information that includes ALL of what the human instrument picks up. But what your human instrument picks up and what my human instrument picks up may be very different for the same sound. What we pick up, or even selectively CHOOSE to pick up is extremely subjective. So for valid comparisons peprhaps the science instruments have a worthy place?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-05-02 13:58
Oh, no doubt they have a valid place, but my point is that we shouldn't use their results to determine our decision over what we hear with our own ears. My poor ears don't hear so well after 40 years of playing in bands and orchestras--but, I can tell the difference between a good clarinet tone and a bad one. I can also "discern" the difference between mouthpieces. I use the scientific data to determine whether or not I should give time and effort to certain materials for mouthpieces. I only mean to bring balance to the discussion and remind us of the point of making music--for the human soul. I love science and appreciate all the data, as I said earlier--but my final decision about a mouthpiece is always based upon how it sounds to my ear.
After selecting some mouthpieces to try, I usually record myself on them and then listen back to the difference. I also ask the opinion of my husband or anyone else who happens into my studio (God help them) while I'm making a decision about a mouthpiece. But, the scientific stuff is great to know!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-05-03 08:58
One day you will be able to present to a polymer molecular design engineer and mouthpiece design acoustic scientist a range of mouthpieces with qualities you really like, and they will be able to create a NEW polymer and shape it so it has these qualities enhanced to be even better than your wildest dreams.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-05-03 18:05
Agreed, Brenda, but just think of the immense "jungle" of choices of mps that would be available in the [reasonable?] future, we have a lot now ! Giving no consideration to interior dimensions-shapes etc and lay configurations, but just concentrating on material density, vibrancy and gloss-shine, we could run through a multitude of natural materials, polymers [I include hard rubber here] with many weight-additions and "post-processing", various glasses and metals and their alloys, Might take a research project to select a good one, let alone THE BEST. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2001-05-03 18:54
Hope someone will pick up on that. I'm too old.:) It takes all my time to practice and keep in shape! But, I love the Kaspar Cicero 13 that I use all the time and the hard rubber mouthpieces much more than the hard plastics and crystals I've tried. I'm still hoping to try a good wood one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
