 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-04 02:57
This will probably open a big can of worms as to whether material matters at all... Manufacturers make big claims about the material they use. Some use glass (very hard), Vandoren have their standard and HD lines, more boutique makers try to imitate the material used in the past (which from many accounts is a fair bit softer). Which do you prefer? Are the harder materials longer lasting? Is there some benefit to softer mouthpieces conforming to the reed over time? Is there a difference to how the player perceives the sound (which then influences how they play)? Or does it make no difference at all?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2026-02-04 03:42
I think you hit the nail on the head! What a player perceives influences how he/she plays (play confidently and happy…..or not).
As for our perception, there is little difference in the material per se. The Vandoren high density (Zinner had an orange, heavy hard rubber much the same many years ago) is a bit different. The dense material does lend itself to a punchier sound much like a fat boy barrel (if you like that sort of thing). But the ESM and Wurlitzer mouthpieces are made of a very light acrylic and they sound wonderful.
………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2026-02-04 04:19
There are also various grades of hard rubber. I never really thought much about that until I got the Homage mouthpiece. Within just a few months I already had visible teeth marks on it—something I’ve never had happen on any of my Vandoren mouthpieces.
The Homage plays wonderfully (especially with the expanded window Tom did for me), but it did make me more aware that it may be more malleable and potentially more subject to change over time than the Vandoren pieces I used to have.
To help manage that (and add a bit of resistance), I use a 0.8 mm mouthpiece patch and haven’t seen any changes since. I’m also very careful with how I swab the mouthpiece. I’m planning on getting a second one as a backup.
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Ridenour Homage mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum Silver ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren Traditional #5 reeds
ATG System and Cordier Reed Trimmer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2026-02-04 15:31
My preference would be solid stainless steel, like the Berg Larsen metal saxophone mouthpieces. Durable and no risk of toxic compounds. Brass mouthpieces are suspect in this regard. However, you would have to be careful when putting the mouthpiece into your mouth not to chip your teeth.
It's a controversial topic, but there is evidence that the mouthpiece material has no effect on sound quality. Same for the body. You could make a perfectly good clarinet out of stainless steel, but you would have to make changes in order to account for the change in intonation.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2026-02-04 17:07
One for the mouthpiece makers to speak to. But FWIW I have several ebonite and several hard plastic mouthpieces (the latter made by a custom maker) and one of my warmest sounding mouthpieces is hard plastic, and one of my brightest is old ebonite. I doubt the material has much to do with the sound, but quick wearing certainly does.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2026-02-04 20:25
Vandoren also offer solid titanium mouthpieces, so those will be both relatively lightweight and hard wearing at the same time.
The shape and dimensions of the tonechamber, the back bore and also the tip opening and length of lay also have a profound effect on the tone quality. I've tried some older ebonite mouthpieces that were very soft and they were far too bright for my liking, when some crystal mouthpieces were relatively dull.
Similar with plastic, ebonite and metal sax mouthpieces - some metal mouthpieces are dull as anything when some ebonite or plastic ones can cut glass because of the interior shapes, dimensions and the overall internal volume.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
Independent Woodwind Repairer
Single and Double Reed Specialist
Oboes, Clarinets and Saxes
NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.M.I.R.
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2026-02-04 21:06
I've refaced/modified hundreds of mouthpieces over the last 40 years, from just about every commercially available material, past or present. These include hard rubber, plastic, glass/crystal, early Bakelite, wood, brass, stainless steel, and whatever crappy pot metal was used in the old Dukoff sax mouthpieces.
My conclusion: All else being equal (a huge assumption, I'll clarify in a second), the density and surface smoothness of the material have NO inherent effect on the playing qualities of the mouthpiece. THAT SAID: The internal shape and volume, shape and curvature of the baffle, window dimensions, and most importantly the exact shape of the facing curve, are the factors that DO affect how a mouthpiece performs.
So where does material selection enter the equation? It's been alluded to in some of the previous posts - it's the mouthpiece maker/refacer's ability to reliably and consistently fabricate the mouthpiece to the extremely precise dimensions I have listed - especially the facing curve which is unbelievably sensitive to miniscule variations. It's all about the material's ability to be molded/machined/filed/sanded to the exact dimensions desired, repeatedly. And for the material to hold all those dimensions in the range of temperatures and humidity encountered by the players, and over time (say, up to a hundred years).
This is where material selection becomes a very personal choice of the mouthpiece maker/refacer, in that his/her skills, available tools, and experience will determine those materials with which he/she can apply the required dimensions to the mouthpiece. And from the owner's perspective, how stable those dimensions will remain over time, normal wear, and environmental conditions.
Simple, right?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2026-02-06 07:07
One other important consideration on hardness would be how easily one can reface or modify the mouthpiece. Some refacers won’t even touch a crystal mouthpiece. So if the facing is great….. you win. It will stay that way for life. If you need to change the facing it may be difficult to find someone (you like) to do it.
…………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2026-02-06 19:48
Crystals are not that much more difficult to reface, once you've figured out the right tools (sandpaper and files) to use. I suspect there are quite a few refacers besides myself that work on crystals regularly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2026-02-06 21:47
And crystal isn't as hard as many think as my front teeth (one's a crown and the other's got a veneer on it) can scratch up crystal mouthpieces like anything.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
Independent Woodwind Repairer
Single and Double Reed Specialist
Oboes, Clarinets and Saxes
NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.M.I.R.
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2026-02-06 22:40
".....my front teeth (one's a crown and the other's got a veneer on it) can scratch up crystal mouthpieces like anything."
Precisely why refacers rent Chris P to use his teeth as tools.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2026-02-06 23:08
I merely pass along what mouthpiece makers have said to me over the years. Yes, different tools; trickier; you may be less likely to appreciate the results after the work than results one would get with a hard rubber mouthpiece.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2026-02-07 00:29
Over the years, I’ve worked on roughly 1,500 mouthpieces and encountered most materials that are considered suitable (or not).
It’s extremely difficult to run a true “all other factors being equal” comparison when it comes to material. Still, looking back, many of the very best mouthpieces I’ve been fortunate to work on were made from rod rubber. Were they always better sculpted than the rest? Sometimes, but not necessarily. That leaves me with the unavoidable conclusion that material does play a role.
I’ve measured a wide range of mouthpieces using sound spectrum analysis—rod rubber, molded rubber, plastic, crystal, wood, and more. Time and again, rod rubber showed the most favorable intensity and distribution of those partials that are critical for producing a characteristic, well-projecting sound. I deliberately avoid aesthetic labels like “beautiful,” as this is about function rather than taste.
If material truly didn’t matter and only internal design did, then by now someone should have produced a 3D-printed mouthpiece that vastly outperforms golden-era Chedeville, Lelandais, Leroy, Kaspar, Robert, and the like. The fact that this hasn’t happened yet is very telling, too.
Mark Szavin
🎵mouthpiece specialist🎵
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
