 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-14 05:23
Copy infringement laws notwithstanding, I would love someone, ideally a research institution with the money for such "toys," to scan, say, an R13 clarinet's pieces, (with Buffet's permission: not!) in and out, at 1000s of points, and print it on a 3D printer.
The ability for the 3D plastic to hold the posts also notwithstanding, I'd like a capable tech to transfer the keys over to it from a working model, and I'd like to play it to see if it sounds similar to the original.
I know that some are trying this with mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2017-05-14 19:33
Burt: precisely,
...to hope demonstrate that plastic can be a wonderful material to make clarinets out of. From cost, to dimensionally stability, to--when crafted correctly, acoustics, plastic and rubber can be great materials to make clarinets out of.
The goal here is not to simply see if such a copy is doable, but to put to test the idea that it's the wood that makes the sound--which I submit to you that it's not, and that plastic clarinets play poorly because:
* the market has a false sense that such a material isn't worth much,
* and isn't willing to pay much for one, so as a result
* costs in production are kept low to maximize profit (read poor craftsmanship)..
...not because the body, in and of itself, is made of plastic.
(Those who claim that Buffet's limited production run of Lucite clarinets to celebrate an anniversary, years gone by, aren't as good as R13s, are people I'd who heartedly agree with, but in part because they were based on the B-12 model I think.)
Post Edited (2017-05-14 19:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pereira3D
Date: 2017-05-14 19:33
Please feel free to send me an email. There is a lot that goes into the print settings, etc. that makes the pieces sound and feel significantly better. It's rather easy to make a printed part for the instrument that's unplayable (and I've seen promo videos of people abusing the power of what printing can do). Also, you really are not limited to plastic anymore. I use wooden materials with great success and even have other very unique filaments such as carbon fiber, metal, clay, granite and stone.
For keywork, you can use your R13's keys if you'd like, but you might want to make your own posts (I also wouldn't recommend printing these) and create a hexagon insert into the body of the instrument instead of a screw. Printing a screw thread can work well, but when it's that small, you'll almost surely run into issues.
Ryan Pereira
Pereira 3D Clarinet Services
www.Pereira3D.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2017-05-15 04:26
Dave, plastic is not dense (heavy) enough. Hard rubber is a different animal. Steel, even concrete if it could be made smooth enough, would be good materials.
I suspect that the problem with low-density materials is that the sound couples too well from the air column to the body.
BTW, I play on a hard rubber (Libertas) clarinet.
Burt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2017-05-15 05:05
Even with the most recent innovations in 3D printing, it is impossible to accurately 3D print a copy of anything. 3d printing works by depositing layers of plastic. This process creates a linear texture that is rough and bumpy. Standard manufacturing techniques (CNC machining, turning, etc..) are already far superior to 3D printing with regards to accuracy.
That being said, I'm surprised no company has tried to make a plastic copy of an R13 considering how many companies already make wood copies of them.
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pereira3D
Date: 2017-05-15 12:17
I respectfully disagree that printing is far from CNC in regards to accuracy. Many printers in the lower price end can create parts accurate within 20 microns. That is about a 0.0005" difference from even the high-end CNC milling machines. Then, the higher-end printers can easily match the accuracy of CNC. In addition, since printing is an additive process (less unused material) and materials are rather inexpensive, production costs are notably lower.
Furthermore, you are only taking into account the FDM (fused deposition modeling) 3D printers. While this is the more common type, there are also SLA (Stereolithography) and SLS (selective laser sintering) printers, among others. Take SLA for example: These printers most commonly use resins to build each model, where each layer is built through a process called photopolymerization, and the end product has a smooth surface that can be cured with UV light. These resins are not like standard plastics by any means. For FDM prints with a textured surface, the parts take reamers and sanding very well for various materials I use.
Again, feel free to contact me about any questions. For a technology that is relatively in its infancy, I find that 3D printing has a place in manufacturing and will grow into an even more significant role through time.
Ryan Pereira
Pereira 3D Clarinet Services
www.Pereira3D.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jdbassplayer
Date: 2017-05-15 15:44
It is still important to note the difference between accuracy and resolution. Resolution is highly limited by the layer height of the print. Sure, you could set layer height to something aroind 0.01mm (roughly 0.0005") and get very good resolution. But then your print would take days, possibly even weeks for a clarinet joint. And during that time you have to hope that your printer is operating perfectly with no errors or gaps in the print that could cause a weak point. After all this is finished, you would still end up with something you need to machine down the surface on. At this point, would it not be more cost effective to just turn down a piece of wood or plastic on a lathe?
-Jdbassplayer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cearnsh
Date: 2017-05-15 19:02
Surely we already know the answer to the original question - a plastic clarinet sounds very similar to a wooden clarinet.
I have a very carefully set up Vito which I sometimes use when the arthritis is being troublesome, because it's noticeably lighter*. It doesn't sound quite so 'full' as my Leblanc LL especially in the lower register (from my end) but no-one has ever commented adversely when I've used it. The difference between me playing either of these clarinets is (I suspect) little greater than two different individuals playing the same instrument.
* The lightness is due to ABS being a little less dense then grenadilla or hard-rubber. As regards the sound, that's only part of the story. Probably of more significance for the resonance of an instrument is the elasticity of the material; in this regard wood is very different as it's non-isotropic.
In a bit more detail, 3D scanning & printing is not a good way to attempt to create a plastic clarinet. Fused filament fabrication - the 'normal' kind of domestic 3D printing - really doesn't have the resolution to do the job at present and can't produce 100% solid prints. In fact it has trouble even producing airtight prints without additional processing steps. There are other higher resolution methods of course, using liquid resin cured by light or solid filler/resin composites which might be up to the job.
Overall, the best way to make a plastic clarinet is probably the way its already done - by injection moulding. So if we wanted to try to answer the original question someone would have to mould the relevant blanks and then finish them to the same spec as the 'target' instrument. But even then, we already know that two nominally identical high-end instruments will probably be slightly different from each other...
Having said that FFF 3D printing is probably not a good way to make a clarinet, it can still be a really useful tool for prototyping components. Here's a link to pictures of a couple of my experiments - https://goo.gl/photos/tAmStyMWWFE8ufvx7. There's a printed barrel with a threaded hole for a pickup, and (only just completed) a 'clip-on' low Eb extension for an F.A.Uebel alto clarinet. The latter would have been impossible for me to make without a 3D printer, but both needed a significant amount of manual finishing.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pereira3D
Date: 2017-05-15 21:13
In response to the original question, it is an experiment that can be done. If printed with proper settings and good materials, you could potentially make a pretty decent instrument. However, don't expect it to feel like a copy of your current R13.
I'd feel comfortable making joints with the wood and synthetic I've used, since they almost never have failed prints. The wood is especially interesting because the PLA blend makes it is resistant to cracking and it offers a very pleasant sound. I also second Chris's finding that the elasticity of the material makes a large impact on the instrument's resonance. A large portion of my R&D was balancing density (from material to material as well as infill patterns) with each material's elasticity properties. I found that printing nylon and glass-filled filaments have potential to offer very unique sound qualities.
I made a quick model to get a rough estimate the print time and material usage for an upper joint. Using 50 micron resolution will be plenty good considering the post-processing involved. The print time would be about 18 hours and it would use roughly 100g of material. This comes in at $5-6 in materials per upper joint. The materials for a proper experiment would be wood and liquid soluble support material. The post processing could be done solely with hand tools such as reamers, metal files, and sandpaper. So, in the end of things, yes, it can actually be quite cost-effective but not a solution whatsoever if you're looking to mass-produce. That being said, the post-processing would be extensive and not an ideal way to produce the instrument's joints.
Ryan Pereira
Pereira 3D Clarinet Services
www.Pereira3D.com
Post Edited (2017-05-15 21:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2017-05-18 02:10
Shape can not be protected......... (I was told this by a manufacturer President)
It IS an absurd notion, but a true one. So if you copied the external and internal shape of xxxx barrel, there would be no recourse even if you sold it for profit.
There are brands out there that count on that deeply.
But use the name of the xxxx that you copied, and that is where you get the legal hammer to squish.
Ryan - very interesting! Thanks for posting.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2017-05-18 10:11
3D printing materials is pretty interesting and it is not new to the world. The major problem I've experienced playing with it at Caltech is the actual material. the material can shrink a lot. Sometimes up to 40 percent. So finding the right compounds is not easy if you have very tight tolerances. The material gets hot, melts, then cools. You have to use a lot of math and patience to work with plastics, which are often toxic when hot and even toxic when cool, if placed in your mouth. Plastic reeds scare me. The plastic coated reeds at Rico were toxic.
I've played with dental materials to hard rubber. I have a pink mouthpiece made from denture material. Didn't work at all, but it looks cool! Even denture material is toxic until it is cured/baked in an oven for 8 or so hours.
If you play around with any plastics and rubber, epoxies, almost always you should use a respirator of some sort. Caltech had very strict rules for a reason.
Always check with the vender selling the material. Ask for a data safety sheet. Most of the time they won't say it is 100 percent safe.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2017-05-18 18:22
MSDS sheets usually report the dangers of handling a material during manufacturing. I have not seen many that report the end use of a material can be safe. Like you said, dental epoxy components are toxic until thoroughly mixed and cured. Same with most other epoxies and resins.
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
