All things with regard to interior dimensions being equal, it is my  
observation that hard rubber mouthpieces are generally manufactured  
significantly larger
  than a corresponding metal mouthpiece. I can't find a good  
explanation for this based on necessity or science. Any ideas?

This has always intrigued me.  I had a couple of identical Dukoff 
mouthpieces.  One metal and one ebonite.  I'm really sad that he ceased 
making the ebonite, because it turned out being my favorite based on 
"feel" and I gave the metal to a friend.  Many of the very dense hard 
rubbers I've seen have been marketed as "legit" pieces.  Perhaps the 
extra mass is to compensate for the "ring" that your trials have shown 
Steve.   Personally I prefer slimline hard rubbers for most of my 
horns.  Perhaps my ears like the ring.



On 12/12/2010 3:32 PM, STEVE GOODSON wrote:
>
> All things with regard to interior dimensions being equal, it is my 
> observation that hard rubber mouthpieces are generally manufactured 
> significantly larger
>
>  than a corresponding metal mouthpiece. I can't find a good 
> explanation for this based on necessity or science. Any ideas?
> 

I would assume it is a matter of the relative strength of the materials, as well as their weight.  The thick shank of a rubber muthpiece is required for strength -- they sometimes crack as is!  A metal mouthpiece made in the same thickness would be impractically heavy, and unnecessarily so, since sufficient strength can be obtained with much thinner material.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

--- On Sun, 12/12/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:


From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] why are hard rubber mouthpieces thicker?
To: mouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2010, 4:32 PM








All things with regard to interior dimensions being equal, it is my observation that hard rubber mouthpieces are generally manufactured significantly larger
 than a corresponding metal mouthpiece. I can't find a good explanation for this based on necessity or science. Any ideas?





      

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Robert W. Smith" <rwpsmith@...> wrote:
>
> This has always intrigued me.  I had a couple of identical Dukoff 
> mouthpieces.  One metal and one ebonite.  I'm really sad that he ceased 
> making the ebonite, because it turned out being my favorite based on 
> "feel" and I gave the metal to a friend.  Many of the very dense hard 
> rubbers I've seen have been marketed as "legit" pieces.  Perhaps the 
> extra mass is to compensate for the "ring" that your trials have shown 
> Steve.   Personally I prefer slimline hard rubbers for most of my 
> horns.  Perhaps my ears like the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/12/2010 3:32 PM, STEVE GOODSON wrote:
> >
> > All things with regard to interior dimensions being equal, it is my 
> > observation that hard rubber mouthpieces are generally manufactured 
> > significantly larger
> >
> >  than a corresponding metal mouthpiece. I can't find a good 
> > explanation for this based on necessity or science. Any ideas?
> >
>
>   I did not feel happy with post 9681 which said that density gives better transfer of sound. Perhaps I am confusing density with thickness of material. To my mind, this deadens the vibration we have just generated with the reed.
    I have a much re-layed rubber Larsen which 'rings' and it STARTED off slimline.
    I seem to remember Otto Link stating that their Tone Edge was 'fat' to improve the tone. This was probably more to do with the chamber size increasing the dimensions though.

I think Bill's post on this seems the most likely.

Historically, what were the early saxophone mouthpieces made of? Wood?
Ivory? Something else?  Whatever the material, it would have dictated
certain dimensions for stability and strength. Maybe these dimensions
became "standard."

The discovery of curing rubber by vulcanization with sulfur only occurs
about the same time as the invention of the saxophone, so it's unlikely
that the stable form of hardened rubber used in mouthpieces was available.

What slender profile hard rubber mouthpieces are on the market? The former
Ponzol Custom, a hard-rubber version of the M2, had a slender profile.
Others?

Barry

> I would assume it is a matter of the relative strength of the materials,
> as well as their weight.� The thick shank of a rubber muthpiece is
> required for strength -- they�sometimes crack as is!� A metal mouthpiece
> made in the same thickness would be impractically heavy, and unnecessarily
> so, since sufficient strength can be obtained with much thinner material.
>
> Bill Hausmann
>
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>
> --- On Sun, 12/12/10, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] why are hard rubber mouthpieces thicker?
> To: mouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, December 12, 2010, 4:32 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All things with regard to interior dimensions being equal, it is my
> observation that hard rubber mouthpieces are generally manufactured
> significantly larger
> �than a corresponding metal mouthpiece. I can't find a good explanation
> for this based on necessity or science. Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thin shelled hard rubber mouthpieces are not a new item.  The Gregory Master and Morgan Excaliber are a few examples. With regard to a peashooter designed hard rubber piece see the Ponzol Custom.

As most of us who have excavated too much material from a chamber know, there comes a point of diminishing returns.  A mouthpiece that is too thin is also a dead sounding mouthpiece.

According to my research, Charles Goodyear accidently discovered the vulcanization process in 1838.  It is difficult to determine when hard rubber became commonly used. Wood saxophone mouthpieces carried over from the early clarinet mouthpiece. But rubber was found to be a more stable material.

 

The process was discovered pretty well simultaneously by Charles Goodyear in
USA and Thomas Hancock in England at around the same time, 1839. Both
discovered the use of white lead and sulphur as a vulcanization system for
Natural Rubber.

Tony F.

 

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of gregwier
Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 1:12 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: why are hard rubber mouthpieces thicker?

 

  

Thin shelled hard rubber mouthpieces are not a new item. The Gregory Master
and Morgan Excaliber are a few examples. With regard to a peashooter
designed hard rubber piece see the Ponzol Custom.

As most of us who have excavated too much material from a chamber know,
there comes a point of diminishing returns. A mouthpiece that is too thin is
also a dead sounding mouthpiece.

According to my research, Charles Goodyear accidently discovered the
vulcanization process in 1838. It is difficult to determine when hard rubber
became commonly used. Wood saxophone mouthpieces carried over from the early
clarinet mouthpiece. But rubber was found to be a more stable material.




  _____  

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
.
SPAMfighter has removed 719 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? <http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen>
Try free scan!