Mouthpieces types of hard rubber mouthpieces

[Dr G]

Vandoren made some noise recently about “high density ebonite”. Not sure how they achieve that, or how it differs from regular hard rubber, but they do make a mouthpiece from it - clarinet only. And charge more…

That may be cured under high compression and, if that is the case, then high density may correlate to higher sound speeds because the molecules are more closely packed.

 

[LostCircuits]

Ralph Morgan? The Excaliber has a very thin shell at the beak. I heard the sound as “harsh”.


Is sound speed the critical property in this? I say yes. I suggest you include the topics of ultrasonic testing and shock physics in tomorrow’s buffet of knowledge. +1 to being a lifelong learner.

Yes, now that you mention Ralph, it was him.

Now, if I could learn to use my smartphone half as proficiently as my grand daughter ...
😎

 

[Pete Thomas]

And I can clearly feel the beak resonating when I play. I forgot who it was who originally described this and I wasn't even aware of it but I found it very interesting or reassuring that somebody else had beaten me to it.

I mentioned it in 2012:

https://www.saxontheweb.net/threads/mouthpiece-material.184822/?post_id=1931047#post-1931047

Vandoren made some noise recently about “high density ebonite”.

As discussed here:

Mouthpieces - High Density: Imitation is the sincerest from of flattery

Just saw this: https://vandoren.fr/en/new-high-density-ebonite/ (Sorry Jean Paul only kidding 😉)) We were there first though with the high density - based on Ed Pillinger's research. Fair enough the PPT is high density hard rubber+ bronze composite. Maybe they will all follow suit. Or maybe...

cafesaxophone.com

Why density and not sound speed?

I know nothing about sound speed. Density was mentioned to me by Ed Pillinger, ie that less dense materials may cause a mouthpiece of the same dimensions to sound different but only due to vibrations at the tip. Like a double reed effect.

Why do you believe material would matter for low baffle MPs and not for high baffle MPs?

Because the above would not really apply if the tip is thick hence any experiments using high baffle (as in Barone experiment) may not be valid as the beaks are too thick to demonstrate any differences due to vibration.

 

[LostCircuits]

Because the above would not really apply if the tip is thick hence any experiments using high baffle (as in Barone experiment) may not be valid as the beaks are too thick to demonstrate any differences due to vibration.

To be fair, the "Barone" experiment was not geared towards tip vibration but solely towards the inner geometry of the MPC (and it was not he who did the testing but it was done at some university - he did supply the mouthpieces, though. Unfortunately his site is no longer up and I did not download a copy of the paper but it has to be there somewhere in the archives.

Tip vibration is a corner case, and probably the only scenario where material does matter. It is density and more importantly, mechanical stability of the material that allows to shave down the beak to a thickness that allows vibration. An interesting experiment would be to shave different beaks to the same "knocking" or "pinging" frequency and then do a play test to see if the different materials still sound different. Of course, that would mean different EXTERNAL dimensions (thickness) but it would be a really interesting subject where you could correlate density / sound speed, mass and other material properties against the tone.

I mean, just in case somebody is looking for a subject for a PhD thesis or so..

 

[Phil]

Vandoren uses as good of hard rubber as JJ.
The difference in HR is just about zero.
ITs all pretty much been said.

 

[Dr G]

To be fair, the "Barone" experiment was not geared towards tip vibration but solely towards the inner geometry of the MPC (and it was not he who did the testing but it was done at some university - he did supply the mouthpieces, though. Unfortunately his site is no longer up and I did not download a copy of the paper but it has to be there somewhere in the archives.

Tip vibration is a corner case, and probably the only scenario where material does matter. It is density and more importantly, mechanical stability of the material that allows to shave down the beak to a thickness that allows vibration. An interesting experiment would be to shave different beaks to the same "knocking" or "pinging" frequency and then do a play test to see if the different materials still sound different. Of course, that would mean different EXTERNAL dimensions (thickness) but it would be a really interesting subject where you could correlate density / sound speed, mass and other material properties against the tone.

I mean, just in case somebody is looking for a subject for a PhD thesis or so..

If someone does take it on, please ask them to contact me so we can discuss how to best make a relevant experiment of it. I've seen too many bad experiments. Laser doppler vibrometry might be a good candidate to characterize the shift in vibrational modes that occurs concurrent to your observation with a change in the ping during machining.

Regarding Pete's experiments in adjusting density: This may be where you get the desired response for the wrong (unexpected) reason. When you make a composite of metal particles in polymer, you do indeed change overall density (mass/volume), but you also change the propagation of vibrations through the material - the sound speed of metal is substantially greater than than of the polymer matrix. You could measure the total effective outcome on sound speed by analyzing with ultrasound - measure the time it takes for a given frequency to travel though a material, bounce off the back, then return to the transducer. See how it changes with the size and spacing of particle distribution. Notice that you can have the same mass with a substantial difference in the number of particles and their size.

 

[LostCircuits]

If someone does take it on, please ask them to contact me so we can discuss how to best make a relevant experiment of it. I've seen too many bad experiments. Laser doppler vibrometry might be a good candidate to characterize the shift in vibrational modes that occurs concurrent to your observation with a change in the ping during machining.

Regarding Pete's experiments in adjusting density: This may be where you get the desired response for the wrong (unexpected) reason. When you make a composite of metal particles in polymer, you do indeed change overall density (mass/volume), but you also change the propagation of vibrations through the material - the sound speed of metal is substantially greater than than of the polymer matrix. You could measure the total effective outcome on sound speed by analyzing with ultrasound - measure the time it takes for a given frequency to travel though a material, bounce off the back, then return to the transducer. See how it changes with the size and spacing of particle distribution. Notice that you can have the same mass with a substantial difference in the number of particles and their size.

I personally wouldn't know anyone who might work on this project, however, anyone who considers it will probably fall with their nose right onto this thread if they do even a modicum of research.

Now we are talking hardcore science. But, how does elasticity or more specifically, vibrational properties of the material factor in here? I am asking because I have absolutely no idea about this but wood vs. composite vs. metal vs. granite (in the extreme case) should make a difference. 45 years ago I experimented with a "rock-pick" on guitar and aside from being able to play some licks at Al diMeola speed, the main effect was that they made the guitar sound like a**.

Wood density makes a difference in sustain on guitars, would a higher density also cause a similar sustain on an MPC?

 

[skeller047]

That may be cured under high compression and, if that is the case, then high density may correlate to higher sound speeds because the molecules are more closely packed.

Is the material thus cured actually higher in density? I know very little about chemistry and materials science, but a fair amount about mouthpieces. I am quite skeptical about whether this would have a noticeable effect on the mouthpiece performance. The “normal” Vandoren pieces I have played (I own two, but have tried many others) have generally very good to excellent material and construction properties, and middle of the road playing characteristics (though I like my Vandoren bass clarinet mouthpiece quite a bit).

@Pete Thomas I have read about Dr. Pillinger’s research, and the conclusion I made (for myself) was that it didn’t matter to me because I dislike mouthpieces with a thin beak.

 

[Dr G]

I personally wouldn't know anyone who might work on this project, however, anyone who considers it will probably fall with their nose right onto this thread if they do even a modicum of research.

Now we are talking hardcore science. But, how does elasticity or more specifically, vibrational properties of the material factor in here? I am asking because I have absolutely no idea about this but wood vs. composite vs. metal vs. granite (in the extreme case) should make a difference. 45 years ago I experimented with a "rock-pick" on guitar and aside from being able to play some licks at Al diMeola speed, the main effect was that they made the guitar sound like a**.

Wood density makes a difference in sustain on guitars, would a higher density also cause a similar sustain on an MPC?

I'm gonna go with "No" regarding the comparison between guitars and mouthpieces. Or are you talking ring tones of a piece of wood in free vibration? Even there, one has to separate the physical properties of sound speed and density. There will be dense materials with high internal damping and low sound speed that just make a thud when struck in free vibration.

I used to think high mass was the end all and be all of getting sustain in electric guitars, and made a Tele body of white oak back in the '80s. Now I seek out guitars with good tone and sustain that happen to be light. My 335 has a wonderful ring to it - they did that one right (I'll overlook the orange peel in the lacquer on the treble-side horn).

 

[LostCircuits]

I'm gonna go with "No" regarding the comparison between guitars and mouthpieces. Or are you talking ring tones of a piece of wood in free vibration? Even there, one has to separate the physical properties of sound speed and density. There will be dense materials with high internal damping and low sound speed that just make a thud when struck in free vibration.

I used to think high mass was the end all and be all of getting sustain in electric guitars, and made a Tele body of white oak back in the '80s. Now I seek out guitars with good tone and sustain that happen to be light. My 335 has a wonderful ring to it - they did that one right (I'll overlook the orange peel in the lacquer on the treble-side horn).

Yes, I was only thinking about ring tones in free vibration in this context but threw in the sustain just as another example how materials properties can influence the overall "sonic" characteristic of any given piece. And no, that would not really apply to MPCs but that's why we are having discussions.

 

[thomsax]

ok so I ended up buying a Jody Jazz HR* usually play a metal link. I tried a vandoren HR V16 t6 which is made from the shiney almost plastic composite. The piece was really resonant. The JJhr* is made of the duller hard rubber and has a sound to match, not dull but much less resonant. Do you think this is the effects of the material or some other sinister reason. Well happy with the JJ and legere reed.

If you're happy with your current mouthpiece and reeds I think you should make halt in your searching.

I became a metal mouthpiece player (tenor) back in 1973. I was/is good for me and the music I play. Since 1973 I've been playing Amati (Classic), B&S, BergLarsen, Dukoff and Rovner metal mouthpieces. The last 50 years I've been playing high baffle mouthpieces (since 1975, the first one was a 110/0 Berg Larsen M straight beak/bill). I was lucky I found a shop with a good sax and mouthpiece employee in Copenhagen. He explained and help me to get a mouthpiece to fit my needs. I played Berg Larsen untill I bought a Dukoff D chamber. No better than Berg Larsen mouthpieces, it was less money and I could buy more mouthpieces to compare. I bought the first Rovner Deep-V (d40) after I've been at a Boogie Woogie Burlessque Show. I liked the sax player Bo "Mighty" Gustafssons tone sound. After the show I talked to Mighty Bo and he explain what the Rovner did to him (played a Conn Artist 10M). John Laughter was playing Rovners as well, but I have never heard and talked to Mr Laughter IRL, "promoting" Rovners amd Rock & Roll Saxophone in a good way. I bought a Rovner Deep-V but it was a scoop beak/bill. IMO more closed tone compare to a straight beak mouthpiece. I later on bought Rovners with straight beaks. Still honking Rovners, even if was hard when I began to play again after a 4 years long break.

So keep and stay with your current mouthpiece and reed. Maybe I took the joy out a the thread?

View: https://youtu.be/9G6PEliLc6k?si=zI8yKwJRg2j8Hv-e

 

[turf3]

I personally wouldn't know anyone who might work on this project, however, anyone who considers it will probably fall with their nose right onto this thread if they do even a modicum of research.

Now we are talking hardcore science. But, how does elasticity or more specifically, vibrational properties of the material factor in here? I am asking because I have absolutely no idea about this but wood vs. composite vs. metal vs. granite (in the extreme case) should make a difference. 45 years ago I experimented with a "rock-pick" on guitar and aside from being able to play some licks at Al diMeola speed, the main effect was that they made the guitar sound like a**.

Wood density makes a difference in sustain on guitars, would a higher density also cause a similar sustain on an MPC?

The way a guitar works relies in a basic and fundamental way on the vibration of the guitar body. This is not the case in woodwinds. The mechanism of sound production is totally different.

IF there are any effects of material (as distinct from dimensions) on tone production in a saxophone, they are always going to be at best theoretical, and of magnitude so small that day to day variation in player condition, or reed to reed variation, or variations in atmospheric pressure, or any number of other variations will smother any effect of material differences.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Vandoren uses as good of hard rubber as JJ.
The difference in HR is just about zero.
ITs all pretty much been said.

And yet some companies may say theirs is better.

 

[LostCircuits]

The way a guitar works relies in a basic and fundamental way on the vibration of the guitar body. This is not the case in woodwinds. The mechanism of sound production is totally different.

IF there are any effects of material (as distinct from dimensions) on tone production in a saxophone, they are always going to be at best theoretical, and of magnitude so small that day to day variation in player condition, or reed to reed variation, or variations in atmospheric pressure, or any number of other variations will smother any effect of material differences.

Yes, but we are talking about something different here.

 

[eb424]

Well, you led the thread with this post:



Please let us know which is which. It remains difficult to tell when you are making serious comments vs “tongue in cheek”.

Is hard rubber not a composite...What I mean by tongue in cheek is that it was kind of based on the hard rubber vs metal scenario. The observation wasn't based on facts it was just something Inoticed whilst playing. The shiny mouthpiece seemed to resonate more in tone. Of course facing length, baffle, chamber and even reed placement / type/ make, would make a difference.

 

[eb424]

"Oh, I was just kidding" - time-honored response of someone who's gotten caught out on the facts.

yep caught out in the cafe court again...British humour huh...can see the newspaper headlines now, off the cuff comment exposed as non scientific experiment...good seller

 

[eb424]

I play a JJ HR* on my alto, and I have a big, bright tone. Hmm, wonder why we have different sounds? Maybe because we're two different people.

of course, also different size mouthpieces, different reed strength, dare I say different ligs, different instruments. TBF the thread was about differences "I" found and last time I checked "I" was the same person. Also not about whether the JJ was a bright or dark ( Pleeeeease no) mouthpiece but whether a shiny rubber piece plays different than a dull rubber piece...in a light hearted way...😉

 

[eb424]

If you're happy with your current mouthpiece and reeds I think you should make halt in your searching.

I became a metal mouthpiece player (tenor) back in 1973. I was/is good for me and the music I play. Since 1973 I've been playing Amati (Classic), B&S, BergLarsen, Dukoff and Rovner metal mouthpieces. The last 50 years I've been playing high baffle mouthpieces (since 1975, the first one was a 110/0 Berg Larsen M straight beak/bill). I was lucky I found a shop with a good sax and mouthpiece employee in Copenhagen. He explained and help me to get a mouthpiece to fit my needs. I played Berg Larsen untill I bought a Dukoff D chamber. No better than Berg Larsen mouthpieces, it was less money and I could buy more mouthpieces to compare. I bought the first Rovner Deep-V (d40) after I've been at a Boogie Woogie Burlessque Show. I liked the sax player Bo "Mighty" Gustafssons tone sound. After the show I talked to Mighty Bo and he explain what the Rovner did to him (played a Conn Artist 10M). John Laughter was playing Rovners as well, but I have never heard and talked to Mr Laughter IRL, "promoting" Rovners amd Rock & Roll Saxophone in a good way. I bought a Rovner Deep-V but it was a scoop beak/bill. IMO more closed tone compare to a straight beak mouthpiece. I later on bought Rovners with straight beaks. Still honking Rovners, even if was hard when I began to play again after a 4 years long break.

So keep and stay with your current mouthpiece and reed. Maybe I took the joy out a the thread?

View: https://youtu.be/9G6PEliLc6k?si=zI8yKwJRg2j8Hv-e

Hey think that was done a while ago 😉..I don't mind It has moved on to a different plane now.....realms of which I have know knowledge..lol..I am going to stick with my current set up i like it re middle of the road. Think I would like a HR piece as back up tho in case metal gets to hard to play re dental issues....I only have 2 metal links 1 NY, and 1 HR old Kanee high baffle cost £75...

 

[eb424]

I play a JJ HR* on my alto, and I have a big, bright tone. Hmm, wonder why we have different sounds? Maybe because we're two different people.

On a serious ( yet unsubstantiated/ proven note). Playing the JJ HR* I noticed that it kind of has a shut off point. I used a range of reeds up to 3s but could not project enough to cressendo on CBs youre my world. Would could that be chamber or tip size. It is a 6* with green Javas no 3.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Would could that be chamber or tip size.

It's either tip size, facing length or embouchure/breath support. You'd need a good teacher to diagnose that. It's not a generic fault with the mouthpiece