Does Sax Mouthpiece Material Matter?

I've always found that article to be very interesting. In general my real world experiences coincide with his conclusions. The listener would be hard pressed to differentiate between mouthpieces of identical designs even when they are executed in different materials.

What does matter to the player is that each material resonates differently and this can generally be felt by the player. A good examples of this is with metal mouthpieces. They seem to transfer more vibrations through my teeth than plastic or hard rubber pieces. This really comes down to a comfort factor. Some players like feeling these vibrations and others (like myself) don't.

One minor critique of the article would be that I would have utilized sound pressure levels readings as well as a static position for the microphone (say attached to the bell in a consistent fashion) in order to derive test results across a wider range of dynamic levels.
 
I've done no tests whatsoever.

There is a school of though that some classical players should use metal mouthpieces. Sal Andolina, who used to play soprano for the Amherst Sax Quartet, used one (C*, I think) all the time and he sounded fairly OK.

I can say that I don't like metal mouthpieces and I was far better able to control the Berg Larsen 110/0 bari 'piece in hard rubber than in metal and I think it sounded better, too. I think that dynamic contrast is a bit harder for metal, too.

Hey, Jim Schmidt makes metal 'pieces for his "new design" horns ....
 
I've found the differences in mouthpiece material, for what are otherwise identical designs, is far more discernible (in terms of sound) by the player than the audience.
 
The same might be said of stuff like pads, keywork noise, and other "low level" elements of the saxophone sound. All of that that is all too apparent up close and personal, but is way below the threshold of those listening in the audience.

The "A clarinet mellow/Bb clarinet normal/C clarinet "shrill"" belief rapidly falls apart when the listeners are behind a screen (so as not to see which is being played) and the parts are transcribed (so as to avoid sloppy transposition on the part of the player). At that distance (during the time that I participated in a test of same), they all sound the same when playing the same pitches.

There is a caveat here, however. The passion that some audiophiles have for "true fidelity" can cause problems. An "100% accurate, highest fidelity recording of a bassoon concerto will pick up all of that clacking stuff for which the bassoon is known, and thus a "live performance" will sound better than the "highest fidelity recording" of same. Sometimes, too good is - well - "too good" for your own good.
 
One could argue, quite easily, that the reason why the audiophile likes his tube amp so much is because it introduces a degree of distortion into the sound. It seriously could be that the Selman Tube Amp sounds better than the Cone Tube amp: they have different analog circuitry that change the "base" sound input differently.

Using another example, the reason why the sounds patches on the Korg M1 sounded so great wasn't because it was a great synth, it was because it had exceptional filters, EQ settings and other enhancements: the un-fiddled-around-with sounds really didn't sound all that great.

However, the point I make is that while there *might* not be that great of a difference in sound quality, there is a definite difference in level of control -- at least for me. As I said, I had an identical HR and metal mouthpiece to compare and the metal one lost.

I do wonder, though, if anyone could play "Giant Steps", say, in the style of John Coltrane on a Sigurd Rascher mouthpiece. That might be an interesting test.
 
At the NASA conference in April, I went to a lecture by Peter Ponzol. His opinion was basically the same as what's being said here: mouthpiece material doesn't directly affect sound, but may affect feel, etc.

I gave a lecture at the conference, too, based on this paper I wrote last year. It doesn't address mouthpieces specifically, but I would think that the same principles apply.
 
Bret,

I agree with your paper nearly 100 percent. I've been making many of the same points to my musical friends with varying degrees of success.
 
From what I've seen of clarinets, saxophones and bassoons, I would agree with the paper. However, as a pathetic flute player, I have experienced (upon many different occasions) just how much difference a sterling head joint can make.

Taken up as a head joint only, with my eyes closed, in groups of several such beasts, the solid silver one always (without exception, over many, many trials) sounds quickly and more vibrantly over the silver plated ones or the (shudder) nickel plated ones. When mounted on my cheap-o horn - er - tin stick, it actually makes me sound like a flute player.

As Nora Jones says all too often, "Don't Know Why". But, at least for me, it makes a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom