1) Create a functional 3D-printed historical clarinet mouthpiece
I achieved a functional design of a 3D mouthpiece, based on the design of Agnés Gueroult. This mouthpiece is functional and plays well: good intonation, good sound over all the registers, and good articulation, among other characteristics.
In the video below: the beginning of the 1st movement of the Danzi Clarinet sonata, Op. 47, played with the last design of 3d mouthpiece obtained (Resin, chamber medium size, sanded).
2) 3D-printing historical mouthpieces based on significant historical models
No functional replicas of the historical models measured were achieved: they didn’t work on my clarinet.
Several reed types and design changes were tried, but it was not possible to achieve a functional model which would not change the model too far to be close to the historical reality.
3) Change the geometry of the mouthpieces to investigate how this affects the sound response of the mouthpiece.
Functional designs of replicas of my own mouthpiece were used as a testing bench for experimenting with how changes in the mouthpiece’s geometry affect the sound and mouthpiece response. Thanks to these experiments, the following conclusions were observed:
- The flatness of the table has a great effect on the sound performance of the mouthpiece. With rought or not perfectly flat tables, the sound degrades very fast, and it losses quality, intonation, and control. As the table gets flatter, the sound quickly improves. A similar effect happens when the bore and the baffle are rough and not smooth enough, although with a smaller degree of importance than the table.1
The video belows shows the same music excerpt, but played this time in a mouthpiece without a flat table and without a sanded bore. (Plastic, chamber medium size, not sanded)
- Chamber size has great importance: it is one of the parameters with a bigger influence on the performance of the mouthpiece.
With a bigger chamber, more sound volume is obtained, but at the same time, less control is warranted over sound quality and tuning. As the chamber gets smaller, more control of the sound is obtained. Nevertheless, at some point, the chamber is too small and the sound feels constrained and difficult to change. The best results are in a middle point regarding chamber size. The change in chamber size was obtained by modifying the profile of the throat, from a more rectangular one to different degrees of V-shape.
In the next two videos, it is shown the beginning of the 2st movement of Danzi Clarinet sonata, Op. 47. The first one employs a mouthpiece with a chamber medium size (Resin, chamber medium size, sanded), and the second one, a mouthpiece with a small chamber (Resin, small chamber, sanded). It was more uncomfortable to play the mouthpiece with the small chamber; also, there is an appreciable difference in timbre.
- Tip opening and lay length: they are very important parameters since very small changes in the tip opening cause great effects on the mouthpiece response. If the tip opening is too small, the mouthpiece will just not play: the reed hasn´t enough room to vibrate and generate sound. If the tip opening is too wide, the sound is very difficult to control, and great resistance to blow is to be faced. They were modified mainly by sanding the tip of the mouthpiece with sandpaper.
- The material: Resin vs Plastic (PLA). I found it more satisfactory the results with resin rather than plastic. The outcomes obtained with resin were slightly superior to those obtained in plastic, especially due to their much smoother surfaces: the resin samples almost didn’t require a sanding process for the table and bore. The resin mouthpieces are also a little denser, which may be good for the mouthpiece performance.2
The next videos show the difference between employing resin or plastic. The music is the beginning of the 1st movement of Grand Duo Concertant by Weber. The first video feature the last design of 3d mouthpiece obtained, made in resin (Resin, chamber medium size, sanded). The second video uses the same design, but in plastic (plastic, chamber medium size, sanded).
I managed to create a functional 3D-printed mouthpiece, therefore, proving that 3D-printing technologies can produce a playable historical clarinet mouthpiece.
On the other hand, none of the models aiming to be a replica of historical models was a success. I distinguish two groups here: the first three mouthpieces that I measured (Prudent, Grenser, and Lefèvre), and the last two (Hess and Bühner & Keller). The last two had a shape very different from the kind of mouthpieces that usually works in my clarinet, and I think that is the reason I couldn't play on them,: they would need to be tested in another clarinet, or maybe with a completely different type of reeds. The first three seem to me more likely to work on my clarinet. I think the reason they didn’t is that they were the first that I measured, and I was still not precise enough to later model and transform them into a playable sample.
Further work can be done in the area of replicating historical models: 3D X-ray tomography is a technology which provides a precise scanning of an object3, both from the interior and the exterior of it. It was out of the scope of this research, but it is worth noting its potential for future investigations.
3D printing proved to be a great means to generate different models slightly different from one another and try how the differences in shape affect the sound. Different parameters were studied, and I observed a special influence on the performance of the mouthpiece in the tip opening, the chamber size, and the material. This information could help historical clarinet players to understand better their mouthpieces and how they work.