Analyzing the existing extant historical mouthpieces is a very interesting approach, which helped me draw some connections between the mouthpiece geometry and shape with the reed position and national styles. Nowadays, technology offers us the opportunity to recreate mouthpieces from the past and experiment with them in an easier way than making them in wood from scratch.
3D-printing technologies allow the possibility to personalize mouthpiece designs without the need for specialized tooling for each design. This flexibility is a great feature when trying multiple designs that differ only slightly from each other. 3D printing has already been successfully used on wind instruments for various purposes, like the recreation of historical fagottini1 or the study of an original saxophone mouthpiece by Adolph Sax.2
In this part of my research, I try to answer two main questions:
- How can 3D printing technology help us understand historical clarinet mouthpieces?
- How to create a 3D-printed functional historical mouthpiece?
To answer these questions, work was done in three different areas:
1) Create a functional 3D-printed historical clarinet mouthpiece.
2) 3D-printing historical mouthpieces based on significant historical models
3) Change the geometry of the mouthpieces to investigate its effects on the sound response of the mouthpiece.
In order to answer the questions posed above, I first had to gather a theoretical framework that would allow me to understand the relations between the sound and the shape of the mouthpieces, and what actions to take if I wanted to modify a given design. This information was gathered from written material and conversations with experts in the field like Eric Hoeprich, Soren Green, Peter van der Poel, and Agnès Gueroult.
The Lay
The lay, or facing length, is “the length between the mouthpiece's tip and the point of contact with the reed”.
The relation between the lay and the sound performance3 of the mouthpiece can be seen this way:
The Chamber
The Chamber is the linking cave between window and bore.
The relation between the chamber and the sound performance4 of the mouthpiece can be seen this way:
Tip Opening
Tip opening: The tip opening “is the vertical distance between the tip of the mouthpiece and the tip of the reed, in rest position and without lip force”.
As we change the tip opening5, we get the following changes:
The measuring process for the historical mouthpieces involved the use an electronic vernier caliper to take three measurements of each parameter, both on the exterior and interior, of the mouthpiece. The measurements of the exterior parameters included the dimensions of the window, rails, height, width, tip size, etc. On the other hand, the interior measurements focused on parameters such as the bore width, bore length, chamber height, and baffle insertion.
The use of the median result from each three measurements reduces the human error. These measurements were then used in the computer modeling process to create the 3D designs.
The mouthpieces which were measured to be printed are:
- My own mouthpiece for my historical clarinet, built by Agnès Gueroult (Paris, France, 2021)
- Prudent (Paris, France, 1765 to 1786)
- Bühner & Keller (Strasbourg, France, ca. 1800)
- Mouthpiece by Grenser (Dresden, Germany, before 1813)
- Mouthpiece by Lefevre (Paris, France, ca. 1825)
- Hess (Munich, Germany, ca. 1830)
The mouthpieces were created using the open source 3D creation suite Blender 2.93.1. During the design process, a workflow based on Boolean modifiers was used. This means starting with a large 3D cylinder and gradually removing parts of it to create the final model. This methodology is similar to the process of creating a mouthpiece in the real world, starting with a wood block and progressively removing material. This approach was chosen because it adds an element of authenticity to the process, due to the similarity with the way of physically making the mouthpieces.
To 3D print the models, two different printers were used: a Plastic 3D Printer, and a Resin 3D Printer. They work in different ways, which provides distinctive and interesting features to the final models.
The Plastic 3D printer used is the Creality Ender 3, employing the filament Winkle Filamento PLA 1.75mm. this printer works by depositing a layer of melted plastic on top of another, therefore creating the object. The Resin 3D Printer used is the Elegoo Mars Pro, employing the resin Anycubic Basic Grey. It works by solidifying the liquid resin with a laser which, again, creates the model layer by layer. Once the object is finished, it requires an UV curing process to completely harden the resin and make it chemically inert. The curing process was done by depositing the mouthpieces in a closed box, fill with Leds providing UV light. The density of both materials, which is important to the acoustic performance of the mouthpiece, are quite similar, being the resin a little denser.
Once the design is printed, it needs to undergo a process of sanding, to reduce the imperfections of the printing. This process is especially important in the models printed in plastic, which have rougher surfaces. The main sanding needs to be done in the interior of the mouthpiece (bore, chamber, and baffle) and the table and lay of the mouthpiece.
For each of the areas to investigate described at the beginning of the chapter, a different testing and iteration procedure is needed.
1) Create a functional 3D-printed historical clarinet mouthpiece.
In order to achieve this, I used as a model my own mouthpiece for my historical clarinet, a design made by Agnés Gueroult in October 2021. The purpose was to replicate its performance as closely as possible in the 3D-printed samples, to be able to establish further comparisons in the research.
The testing process consisted in playing on a mouthpiece sample, once it was 3d printed and sanded. On the first try, the theoretical background described above would be used to understand why that mouthpiece has its particular sound characteristics.
Whether the mouthpiece does not play, or to improve its playing qualities, changes will be made either on the mouthpiece itself – mainly by using sand papers- or by creating a new design in the computer, with certain modifications.
The new design would be tested or printed again, and the test process would start from the beginning.
A good, functional mouthpiece was obtained.
2) 3D-printing historical mouthpieces based on significant historical models
Mouthpieces from museums or private collections were measured and 3D printed. After that, they were tested by playing on them. If it was not possible to make them sound, careful changes would be introduced in the 3D model to try them again.
Unfortunately, no single 3D-printed historical model was functional: none of them was playable.
3) Change the geometry of the mouthpieces to investigate how this affects the sound response of the mouthpiece.
This was done on the only playable model obtained, the model based on the Agnés Gueroult design.
The process consisted in modifying one variable of the mouthpiece (chamber size, window dimensions, tip opening, etc) and leaving the rest of the mouthpiece unchanged. This aspect was generally modified in two or three degrees, so two or three different models would be created, all of them with the same variation but in different degrees.
Finally, the models would be checked and it would be analyzed what was changing in the sound due to the changes in the geometry.