 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-02-04 14:59
I have reviewed the "search" files regarding the materials that mouthpieces are made from and I still don't find adequate information. I would like to know from a technical stanpoint just what the identities of "crystal" and "hard rubber" are.
For example, is "hard rubber" a variety of thermosetting phenolic filled with some elastomer? I assume that by now the "formula" is pretty well standardized. And, for example, is "crystal" a type of polystyrene? Appreciate some technical input.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-02-04 18:53
Bob -
I'm not sure the exact composition of hard rubber, mouthpieces made of it have been around for probably 100 years. I assume it's what rubber was until Goodyear invented stuff soft enough to be used for tires.
Crystal is glass, though you shouldn't say so in polite company.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim
Date: 2002-02-05 02:51
For what it's worth, I've been told by several former teachers that what makes mouthpieces made from a hard rubber ( such as old Kaspar's, Chedevilles, or newer mouthpieces made with a Zinner blank) better (as in more depth to the sound, not necessarily better playability) than many other brands of mouthpieces (such as Vandoren) is a higher sulfur content.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2002-02-05 13:07
Kim, I think the only thing that makes one mouthpiece sound differently than another is its shape - in particular, the shape of the sound chamber and the shape and opening of the surface the reed is placed on. Of course, the outside shape may also affect how it is held in your mouth and how the ligature holds the reed on. The material, in my opinion, is irrelevant to sound production.
Of course, the material is important for other properties - durability, strength, resistance to moisture, low thermal expansion, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2002-02-05 13:13
Thanks Kim. I've heard many opinions expressed on the subject. From a technical standpoint I would be very surprised if the sulfur content per se had anything to do with it. I could see the possibility the the particular composition that was superior contained a different sulfur content than some others but that the sulfur content was adjusted for processing purposes only.....which improved machinability...which yielded superior surface finish....which improved playability. But that's just an example.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim
Date: 2002-02-05 14:29
Don,
I'm not sure that I follow your logic. If the materials truely didn't make a difference, then wouldn't the next logical conclusion be that the materials that a clarinet is made of (different types of wood or wood vs. plastic) make no difference as well, as long as the cut was the same? Not too many people would argue that plastic sounds the same as wood, or that Rosewood sounds the same as Grenadilla wood.
When so many seemingly miniscule things make a difference in sound and response (different ligatures, silver vs. nickel keys, etc.), why wouldn't the composition of the material of the mouthpiece make a difference? I've always felt that this issue was what has always kept Vandoren from completely dominating the mouthpiece market. They make a variety of mouthpieces that have excellent cuts (playability, response, etc.), but I've never found that they've made a mouthpiece that has rivaled the depth of sound that the old Kaspar's, Chedevilles, or Zinner blanks produces. (And for the record, I've tried some LOUSY Chedevilles and Kaspars in terms of playability, but the one constant factor seems to be more depth of sound.) I do agree that the shape of the mouthpiece is the primary factor in producing different sounds, but I'm not sold on it being the only factor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Blake
Date: 2002-02-05 17:15
Wouldnt different materials have different densities and therefore provide different resonance affecting the ability of the reed to vibrate against it or (IMHO) the "feel" in your mouth? I do agree that the material may not be as big of a contributing factor as the facing/bore/length particularly given the variation in sound production from a specific brand/model. I suspect further complicating the properties a material possesses would be the difficulty in conducting a "blind trial"... cutting a mouthpiece to identical dimensions in different matierials...crystal/plastic/rubber/old high sulfur rubber. Even if you used the same reed on all the models.. a different reed might work better than the other.. It probably boils down to.. what do you like and what works for you and try as many different ones you can. Blake Arlington, VA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-02-05 21:30
I believe that both Rendall and Brymer [likely many others] devote pages to the discussion of mps, their material pros and cons etc. All of the mentioned materials, and wood also, are "generic" terms, each type having many-many members with sometimes widely differing properties. Even glasses [our crystal] have differing compositions, I think that my mps are of the "high lead" variety, not of the soda-lime plate type, but dont know without chemical analysis. The poly-chemical crosslinking of an enormous variety of "rubbery" [synthetic and natural] polymers with differing oxidant [sulfur] compounds can give many differing "hard rubbers", with some quite similar to plastics [of the thermo-set] type. I feel I've "lost focus", on what I want to say, except that perhaps comparisons of materials should include such "mechanical" factors as density, hardness[machinability] , softening/decomposition temperatures and resonance/vibration characteristics to be meaningful. WOW, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Doug R.
Date: 2002-02-09 01:14
I know this "do materials affect sound quality, or not" question has been explored on this site pretty exhaustively as far as clarinet bodies are concerned--with no definitive resolution beyond "maybe and maybe not," as far as I remember anyway.
Possibly the mouthpiece materials issue is a little different though--mainly because of all the resonance cavities in the human head (as anyone who's ever had your basic Weber or Rinne tests during their annual physical will know). Bone is conductive, water (tissue) is conductive--well, sort of--and I'm wondering how much the conductive qualities of mouthpieces, teeth, ear and sinus cavities, and bone contribute to our subjective impressions of what we sound like?
(Incidentally, what does everyone think of all these microscopic dissections of what we like to call "our sound"--when we're almost always evaluating our sound from the wrong end of the horn, i.e., the BACK. One could make the claim, though I'm not brave enough to in this company, that NOBODY really knows what they sound like--unless they've heard themselves recorded, and recorded well.)
Is it possible, given the above, to be at ALL objective -- or accurate -- about how we really sound? I wonder.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
