Sax on the Web Forum banner

How much would you pay for a really/full customized mouthpiece?

How much would you pay for ...?

5K views 53 replies 14 participants last post by  luispa 
#1 ·
Hi SOTW fellows,
I'm working in a new project which goal is to go beyond of what is currently called "customization". I developed a software which "calculates" and creates a mouthpiece (3D solid) based less than 30 parameters (many of them are boolean). This software creates a wide range of mouthpiece styles, from Meyer to Guardala style chambers.

I also developed a web interface which allows to "draw" the chamber shape, you can also use one of the more than 200 templates as a starting point. Available tip openings range goes from 1.0mm (0.039) to 4.0mm (0.157) with 0.1mm steps and facing lengths range goes from 10mm to 35mm with 1.0mm steps. The web application also offers automatic facing length calculation based on tip opening and 4 facing length options (short, medium, long, long+). This application allows the user to save and open files with his/her designs. Based on the user design this application generates the input parameters for the solid generating software.

This is an example of a design in the web interface:
Rectangle Slope Font Plot Parallel


And this is a cut of the mouthpiece generated from that design:
Slope Font Parallel Rectangle Elbow


This is how it looks if comparing them:
Rectangle Slope Font Parallel Plot


This is another example with a different chamber style:
Rectangle Slope Font Plot Parallel


Mouthpiece cut:
Slope Parallel Font Rectangle Automotive exterior


Comparison:
Rectangle Product Slope Font Screenshot


I originally developed this software for offering fully customized CNC machined mouthpieces. But later I found 3D printing is also a reliable alternative so begun to consider to sell the .STL file in the highest resolution available (0.01mm) instead the mouthpiece itself and to give the customer a detailed specification about the resolution, materials and precautions should be considered by the 3D printing service provider or even to recommend a reliable provider in the customer area for reducing shipping time and cost. Or even to deal with the 3d printing provider for a small extra fee.

I already printed a couple of prototypes, this is one of them:
Rectangle Slope Plot Line Font


And this is how it looks:
View attachment 268270 Food Cone Ice pop Gesture Finger


And this is how it sounds:


Would you consider to purchase a STL file or an already printed mouthpiece? How much would you pay for that?
 
See less See more
1 8
#3 · (Edited)
Brilliant engineering!

An economist would probably think that the market price point for non-hand finished / non-begginer MPs is pretty well set (just go through Amazon or the big box music store web listings) but you could add a dividend for value add* like customisation of design etc.
For .STL files:
- be aware of design IP pirating!
- or ... You sell one file to someone who works in a place with a 3D printer and they use "working late" time to churn out as many pieces as they can flog on eBay - to no extra value to you.
- Also, giving an amateur the files you loose any control of QC - and they could skrew-up and blame the design.
- But maybe there's a B2B business model? Selling licences...

* There are some left-field ideas you could think of to increase Value Add and uniqueness. From SOTW posts, even:
- customise shank length / diameter to match odd-ball horns?
- mix and match; baritone rails/tip but tenor shank? Etc
- Personalised engraving? "Your bands name on the MP"
 
#7 ·
Brilliant engineering!
Thank you for your words, I really appreciate that.

An economist would probably think that the market price point for non-hand finished / non-begginer MPs is pretty well set (just go through Amazon or the big box music store web listings) but you could add a dividend for value add* like customisation of design etc.
For .STL files:
- be aware of design IP pirating!
- or ... You sell one file to someone who works in a place with a 3D printer and they use "working late" time to churn out as many pieces as they can flog on eBay - to no extra value to you.
- Also, giving an amateur the files you loose any control of QC - and they could skrew-up and blame the design.
- But maybe there's a B2B business model? Selling licences...
I'm still making definitions about the business model and I'm considering these alternatives:
  • To sell the mouthpiece already printed by one or more providers carefully selected and controlled by me. The mouthpiece would be printed in Argentina and after all QC instances it would be shipped worldwide. The customer never have access to the STL file. In this case price would be around what you suggested: market price point for non hand finished mouthpieces with a plus for customization. The pros: I have the total control over the product during the entire process including final QC, bigger profit per piece. The cons: Shipping costs could be considerable, requires to design and produce packaging material, lot of people prefers to buy locally.
  • To sell the mouthpiece already printed by a provider which is in the customer area for avoiding custom taxes and reducing shipping costs/time. For this alternative I should make a list of reliable providers worldwide and make non disclosure and license agreements for keeping sure the files will be used only once. In this case I guess the price could be the result of design price + 3d printing cost + fee for dealing with the printing service provider. The pros: lower price (the customer knows exactly the price of each concept), scalability, access to a bigger market, still a considerable control over the STL files. The cons: I should trust in providers reliability without knowing them, despite providing instructions about specs and controls I'd be unable to do the final QC but I still would be responsible for that (customers could blame me for quality issues), despite the agreements there's still a risk of files disclosing or license violations. To make a list of providers worldwide could be a huge work.
  • To sell only the file and to give all the needed information for printing the mouthpiece with a "Personal use only" license agreement. Every file has a unique serial number which is associated with the customer who purchased it, this would make a bit more difficult to sell printed models or to distribute the file on the internet. The pros: Even bigger target, 3D printing decisions are make by the customer (I'd no responsible for printing quality issues), probably more sales volume. The cons: The piracy risk would exist despite the serial engraving (it's relatively easy to work and modify STL files), less profit per sale, it's hard to know how many potential customers would deal with printing service providers instead having the product already printed.
  • To sell only the file and to give all the needed information for printing the mouthpiece. In this case I'd only sell a service which consists in translate the design the customer created in the web application into a STL file. The customer is the design owner and can do what he/she wants with the file. The pros: Price would be slightly higher than in the previous option, as I'm not the design owner I wouldn't care about piracy issues, as in the previous option I'd not involved in the printing process. The cons: A higher price tag could be a deal breaker, this option could be more interesting for mouthpiece makers/designers than final customers which reduces the market target.

* There are some left-field ideas you could think of to increase Value Add and uniqueness. From SOTW posts, even:
- customise shank length / diameter to match odd-ball horns?
- mix and match; baritone rails/tip but tenor shank? Etc
- Personalised engraving? "Your bands name on the MP"
All of that can be done by the solid creating software, also there's 3 window size options. I would be great to include all these options in the web interface.

Thank you very much for your comments and ideas.
 
#4 ·
Respectfully, I would be reluctant to let my original design files out. It seems too easy for someone to market them on their own, perhaps even using your name if not trademarked.

I had a similar concern for pirating when I was doing MidiOpera. I let a few scores out to keep interest in the work. Most were MP3 recordings bounced from my software.

Good luck.
 
#10 ·
Great work! I would never sell the STL file unless you wanted to get out of the business altogether. In addition to piracy, you would be faced with customers using poor printing and/or finishing techniques and have to deal with potential criticism that the STL files might harbor flaws. It is easy to 3D print but altogether a different matter to print to high standards. If you don't want to deal with long distance transactions, I would consider it much more advantageous to make partnerships in the US, Europe and Asia and have the printing done per license. I am not well versed in the legal matters that this would entail, but it does not appear to represent an uncommon business model.
 
#12 ·
If you don't want to deal with long distance transactions, I would consider it much more advantageous to make partnerships in the US, Europe and Asia and have the printing done per license. I am not well versed in the legal matters that this would entail, but it does not appear to represent an uncommon business model.
That seems to be the way to go. Thank you very much for your comments!
 
#16 ·
Work with reputable printing partners around the world under a tight subcontract agreement and control the sales yourself.
That would be great! At this time I'm still working on the printing parameters, I should create specifications / instructions for ensuring these partners will get the same product.
 
#17 ·
After doing some search I found a thread about SYOS mouthpieces on which a couple fellows complain about a "Not so flat tables" those mouthpieces. My concern is about how difficult could be to get reliable 3D printed mouthpieces if an established company which sells its product at about €250 is unable to offer flat table mouthpieces. Also, it makes difficult to offer that kind of product without a strict QC. I guess the CNC has more than an edge over 3D printing for mouthpieces making. Initially, I developed the software with CNC in mind, the way the solid is created is compatible with the machining steps so I will consider CNC again. I changed the poll for including this option.
 
#19 ·
If you are ready to go with CNC instead of 3D printing then go for it. Your cost will be much higher and you will have to source the base material but you will end up with a far superior product. On the other hand your margin will also be much lower. It really depends on what your objectives are with this project.
 
#18 ·
And yet SYOS still seem to be a going concern and there are good reviews here... as well as negative (not to mention complaints of quality consistency for mainstream MPs brands).
Either way, if you sell MPs, you are responsible for the Quality. Same as most products. If you don't have the experience either you have to develop it ($¥€) yourself or collaborate / partner with someone who does...
 
#23 ·
I think you are going to find that one off items on a cnc are prohibitively expensive.
It would depend on how much of the work I would do, If I send the solid file to a top flight CNC company and ask them "Please, make 10 of these" it will be surely impossible to have a producing cost below the current street prices. But... If I develop the making process, steps and instructions, the tools definitions, the holding devices, the machining strategies and the G-CODE I would be paying something near to the machine hour value which is fairly reasonable.

Different designs will take different machine setups $$$
This is completely true but different facing lengths / tip openings will not require different setups, just different programs (G-CODE) which I can create. In the early begining I would offer only one mouthpiece profile so only one fixing device would be needed for each instrument mouthpiece. The most complex part is the mouthpiece inside but the software which generates the end solid also automatically generates intermediate solids which should be machined with different tools (i.e. ball or flat endmills), my goal is to automatize everything which doesn't need human decisions. As far as I know the complete machining process would require only 2 endmills if the machining steps were correctly defined.

As for 3d, there is good reason those makers at the top of the heap do not use it.
That's true, I'd love to see a 3D printed Phil-Tone, Morgan Fry, Drake, Phil Barone or even a Jody Jazz but I guess it will not gonna happen :mrgreen:
 
#25 ·
Just thinking out loud...Reflecting on the above discussion...

Wouldn't a possible, initial, business model be; 3D printing but as a product for MP hand finishers / adjusters to refine rather then the general, playing, public?
Such folks are more likely to be expert users of your software, for a start; much more clued in to how the parameters work together etc. Would finalise the quality control, might appreciate custom "templates", maybe being able to produce a piece like X but with excess material they could shave down / polish to where they want.
 
#27 ·
I bet you could gather a number of customers who want custom blanks to hand finish. Im not aware of what materials could be used but I can say that, while I prefer hard rubber, I would entertain and potentially enjoy the freedom to design blanks and have them printed and then face and finish them. Making casting molds is very costly. I would be a potential customer if i liked the material.

Im pretty confident I would not want hot pink or bright green :)
 
#29 ·
Material matters: It certainly needs to be stable with time, and that will usually also be a material with high(er) elastic modulus and hardness.

I need to learn more about the materials that can be printed with the various 3D techniques. I would love to see their properties compared to the currently preferred and accepted materials (ex. Hard rubber and Ultem).
 
#31 ·
As far as I know one of the most popular 3d printing materials would do the job nicely, I'm talking about ABS. Also, there's a wide range of filaments which could do it even better but then it's necessary to be sure about how safe these materials are. ABS is OK, AFAIK Yamaha uses it for their recorders.
 
#32 ·
Frankly the few samples i played of 3d pieces felt like junk. Granted they were functional but reeked of cheapness. They also were no fun to face. Perhaps its only perception but to ke they felt like compressed milk jugs. My only interest would be in a material that works well with files and sandpaper...it needs to not tear with abrasives. It has to be able to attain a reasonable finish and not feel like a dogs chew toy. If this is possible I am interested. If it is not then 3d printing is just not up to snuff for a precision quality musical instrument. Im always open to ideas but Im not so fascinated by technology that I am willing to sacrifice what craft can achieve.
 
#33 ·
Results vary depending on the material used. For example PLA which is the most used material for 3D printing has a glossy look finish which tends to look horrible after sanding it. ABS has a matte finish which remains the same after sanding work. It would be nice to experiment with other less common filaments.
 
#34 ·
Luis - How sensitive are material properties of the product to the controlled variables such as feed rate, temperature, and cooling?

I wonder also about the presence and variability of porosity (as it affects density).

I do see potential in 3D printing for making rapid prototypes to test effects of chamber and baffle geometry. Once proven, the design could be translated to CAD to make blanks of more highly desired materials.
 
#40 ·
Luis - How sensitive are material properties of the product to the controlled variables such as feed rate, temperature, and cooling?
Each material has it own melting point and this affects, feed rate and temperature. Also the cooling process is different as there are materials which require a more slow cooling process.

I wonder also about the presence and variability of porosity (as it affects density).
Porosity will affect the way the reed interacts with the mouthpiece, porosity makes the reed not to seal properly. Density is more relative to the infill parameter, 3D prototypes are more or less hollow but rarely completely solid, the piece inside is filled with a pattern (there are multiple available choices). Density is also is related to the density of the material itself.

I do see potential in 3D printing for making rapid prototypes to test effects of chamber and baffle geometry. Once proven, the design could be translated to CAD to make blanks of more highly desired materials.
That's a possible use for 3D printing. The CAD solid is already done when printing the prototype, so if the 3D printed prototype works OK the only additional step is to create the G-CODE for CNC machining process.
 
#35 ·
The Getasax mpc looks very exciting to me. When a 3D piece if half the cost or less of some other makers HR pieces I would be willing to take the chance on the material. It all comes down to if it plays. I always thought that the old Brilhardt white pieces looked cheap. However they played good.
 
#42 ·
Delrin is an excellent replacement for traditional hard rubber, it's safe, non toxic, easy to machine, it feels nice, weight is similar to HR and it sounds similar if not equal, not cheap fell at all. One of my preferred mouthpieces is a Saxscape SL, I have 7 Saxscape mouthpieces and I like them all, these mouthpieces are made of Delrin, I also have a Delrin Runyon Quantum which is very nice.
 
#43 ·
I think the challenge for the OP is to do a real exploration of materials as there are a number of possibilites far better than some of the offerings Ive seen on the 3d market.
Yes, but the exploration should not be limited to the materials, the producing method/technology should also considered (FDM, SLA, SLS, CNC, with/without hand finishing). The key point is that I have a software which allows me to graphically design a mouthpiece chamber and to translate to a solid and if needed also the intermediate process steps (for CNC machining). I'm planning to include the automatic G-CODE generation to the software. This has the ability to create mouthpieces based on customers own designs. But on the other hand I still not satisfied with the results achieved with FDM 3D printing, I'd not feel fully comfortable using a FDM 3D mouthpiece, not even a € 350 SYOS, my philosophy is "I'd not sell a product which I would not use in a daily basis. I would not sell a product if I'm not proud of it.".
 
#48 ·
Finally, I'm leaning towards the idea of SLA/DLP 3D printing using biocompatible resins, same material as Getasax mouthpieces. The material is expensive but this technology ensures far more accuracy than the usual FDM 3D printing (SYOS, Sugal). I'm still testing this technology but I hope it requires little to none hand finishing work.

I'm planning to do a pass around with 5 or 6 mouthpieces here in the SOTW forum. I was thinking about to test the entire process instead just the mouthpieces performance, it means to use the web application for designing these mouthpieces. I don't know how to decide who should participate in the design process, maybe it could be a good idea to allow everybody to create his/her own design and after a predefined time make a survey (choosing between already created solids) to define which mouthpieces to produce. What do you think about it?

After the end of the pass around I would do a give away, I don't know if this give away should only consider the pass around testers or it should be open to all SOTW fellows. What do you think about it? What should be the most fair decision?

Thank you in advance for your replies.
 
#50 ·
It might be complicated but if you are going to solicit the group for design preferences perhaps have the giveaway for each respective design open to those that submitted the request for that particular design rather than limiting it to those that actually participated in the pass around.

This is assuming there will be more submissions than folks chosen for the pass around. :)
 
#52 ·
It might be complicated but if you are going to solicit the group for design preferences perhaps have the giveaway for each respective design open to those that submitted the request for that particular design rather than limiting it to those that actually participated in the pass around.
I guess it's even more complicated. What I'm proposing is to allow everybody to submit their designs. I developed a web application which allows to design the mouthpiece inside space and to define other parameters (i.e. tip opening, facing length), this application allows to export a simple txt file with the information about the created design. I offer to receive the files from everybody who wants to participate, to create the corresponding solid files and to share cuts and different views of those solids, and finally to make a survey for choosing 5 or 6 of those solids. Once the designs be defined I'd 3D print them using a biocompatible resin and hand finish them if it were necessary. After having the designs printed and finished I'd test them and if they perform fine I'd do the pass around.

This is assuming there will be more submissions than folks chosen for the pass around. :)
This would be my first pass around so I don't have experience on this, I was thinking about to give everybody the chance to participate in the pass around instead limiting that to a reduced group but I don't know what's the usual.
 
#51 · (Edited)
Depends on what stage you are at. Has anyone ever been through the process apart from you and yours?
If not, alpha testing, with a small number of reasonably sympathetic users with NDAs... Because things can and will go wrong that you don't want to taint your reputation... let alone copy ideas.
If you have a robust process, but need to find corner cases etc. Sure, beta test more widely.
But remember, I'm sure you know, "tests" by the community, YouTubers, bloggers etc. are not engineering tests. They are sales and marketing.
I've seen folks developing a product, get some interest from a potential client organisation who go "great, can we test it", get sent something that's 50% ready thinking they're talking to a development partner... Kiss of death.
 
#53 ·
Completely true! Thank you very much for your advice. "Kiss of death" is a good metaphor for describing that situation. I will not do any pass around if I'm not 100% sure about the prototypes perform well. Since the designs will be submitted by the participants my goal is to produce exactly what they created but I also have an eye on those factors which are out of their control which could make the mouthpieces to not perform as expected. I'm a bit of a mouthpiece freak, I have a 30+ mouthpieces collection which includes vintage, boutique, and more common/standard mouthpieces. I also was buying/selling/trading/refacing mouthpieces during the last 15 years and I'm very picky about mouthpieces, I'll not put my name on a product which I would not use in regular basis, not even a prototype.
 
#54 ·
Hi,
The web based interactive design tool is already online for testing purposes. This is the link:
G-MOUTHPIECES Design Tool
There's also a user manual which covers all the features and includes examples:
User Manual
Your feedback will be really appreciated.

Also, if you want you may share the files generated by the tool and I could send images of the mouthpiece created with that file.

Thank you very much in advance,
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top