Metal vs. Hard Rubber
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
I prefer Hard Rubber for 2 reasons:
1) I was having teeth issues - buzzy pain from the vibrations of a metal mouthpiece. Even with mouthpiece patches it was unbearable. The only HR mouthpiece that created this same problem was an RPC - otherwise the HR tends to insolate the vibration from my teeth.
2) I like a larger profile (more round) mouthpieces - most of the metals are extremely thin which started to be uncomfortable. Some tables on the modern Meral pieces are actually thinner than the reeds. I find this extremely uncomfortable. Last metal I played was a Guardala Crescent almost 15 years ago. I said goodbye to metal FOREVER.
Teeth Pain aside for a moment:
I really think one should find a mouthpiece that works. Being made of metal or hard rubber (or plastic, wood, bamboo etc....) is really unimportant.
1) I was having teeth issues - buzzy pain from the vibrations of a metal mouthpiece. Even with mouthpiece patches it was unbearable. The only HR mouthpiece that created this same problem was an RPC - otherwise the HR tends to insolate the vibration from my teeth.
2) I like a larger profile (more round) mouthpieces - most of the metals are extremely thin which started to be uncomfortable. Some tables on the modern Meral pieces are actually thinner than the reeds. I find this extremely uncomfortable. Last metal I played was a Guardala Crescent almost 15 years ago. I said goodbye to metal FOREVER.
Teeth Pain aside for a moment:
I really think one should find a mouthpiece that works. Being made of metal or hard rubber (or plastic, wood, bamboo etc....) is really unimportant.
I disagree. You can play a metal piece and rubber piece side-by-side, and the metal piece almost always has a metallic ring to it. I understand that the baffle/chamber/facing affect the tone to the greatest extent, but a metal piece usually has a bit of a metallic ring to the sound.
hmmm
A lot of that depends on your embouchure. I play naturally bright and can hear a metallic tone/rubber or ebonite tone difference on my recordings. I think if someone plays naturally dark and tends to muffle the tone a lot, it won't matter what material you're playing on.
A lot of that depends on your embouchure. I play naturally bright and can hear a metallic tone/rubber or ebonite tone difference on my recordings. I think if someone plays naturally dark and tends to muffle the tone a lot, it won't matter what material you're playing on.
Joined
·
728 Posts
Are you saying Dex sounds "metallic"?
Joined
·
14,225 Posts
Any "perceived" metallic ring that might exist is only going to heard, or more accurately felt, by the player himself. I can guarantee that comparable pieces dimension and design wise, in both metal and rubber, will sound about the same to the listener.
You are likely getting a different "feedback" through your teeth/jaw and inner ear.
You are likely getting a different "feedback" through your teeth/jaw and inner ear.
Well, actually, yes, I think he does, but probably not because his mouthpieces were metal. He has a beautiful sound, one of the best ever, IMO, and part of what makes his tone so expressive is that hard, metallic quality that rang through his sound almost parallel to the warm, dark center that, I think, helped give definition to his sound, which otherwise might have almost been so big as to be unwieldy.maestroelite said:
Compare his tone to Ellery Eskelin's, for example. Both have thick, dark, warm, beautiful sounds, but there's a brassiness to Dex's tone, where I would describe Ellery's as woody.
I definitely, definitely do not mean this as a knock on Dex's tone. I think the metallic hardness added layers of complexity and expressiveness that allowed him to say more with one single note than most of us could say in a single solo. It's unfortunate that these words have such negative connotations.
Joined
·
728 Posts
I should rephrase that. He does have that.. "metallic" ring, but when he chooses to he can take it back to the dark side for ballads and such.
rubber mouthpieces absorb more of the sound energy creating greater thermal losses than metal mouthpieces at the creation point of the wave. Also these thermal losses are greater for certain frequencies coresponding to the absorptive characteristics of the substance itself. since this is happenng so close to the reed the sound energy then transmitted and colored by the horns thermal and viscous losses starts off different and therefore ends up sounding quite different. I can hear it and everyone i know can hear it both up close and miles away. some of the finer rubber mouthpieces actually vibrate and add resonance to the sound which is something metal mouthpieces rarely do and that also effects the sound. Of course we control the sound as well as baffles and such shape the wave but materials shape the sound alot. There are many people knowlegeable about mouthpieces who say the same. some notable names in the materials matter camp are Ralph Morgan and Jon van Wie.SAXISMYAXE said:
Joined
·
14,225 Posts
Cheers Mojo, of course I agree.MojoBari said:
Or to put it more bluntly in response to this debate, what utter rubbish.
A blind sound sampling of rubber vs. metal among those without a preconceived idea of the core sound derived from classic mouthpiece designs, and thus the corresponding material those models were/are made from typically, will reveal an inability to discern whether it is metal, rubber, crystal, plastic, wood. The player will be sensitive to the subtle differences for entirely different reasons than the audience, as I mentioned previously.
The various blind, side by side sound comparisons between entirely different makes and designs of Saxophones doesn't even solicit accurate identification and classification on the whole from willing listeners, let alone the MP by itself.
Like the "does the finish on the horn effect my tone", this is definitely a case of obsessing (and obsessive compulsion) over the ridiculous, and not spending that time woodshedding.
if i do a blind test of people from the street oboe vs soprano sax they might well say its the same instrument. or even ask people without "preconceived ideas" if a low note on a clarinet and a high note on the same clarinet is the same instrument or a different one they will likely say is two different instruments. uneducated responses from untrained ears show nothing. "preconcieved ideas" could be a definition of ear training.SAXISMYAXE said:
try spinning a dime on the table while listening to a jazz record. when the dime falls name the interval the soloist is on in relation to the chord being played at the time. if you can do this well then you can hear clearly the difference between a silver saxophone mouthpiece and a rubber one.
if you can't do this well then untrained ears is the reason we are having this discussion.
if you can't hear chords and intervals you are not "hearing" music at all but rather just a casual observer of music like any person off the street.
the sawtooth wave that is the tonal spectrum produced by the saxophone is in fact a complex chord and the differences we are talking about here are often nothing more than volume differences to some of the chords components.
it should came as no suprise at all that casual observers of music cannot hear these things and well trained ears can hear these thing quite clearly and easily.
Joined
·
14,225 Posts
I, like many, have had more than my share of jam session G.A.S. discussions, both on this site, and among many working pro associates. The results were the same.
Without knowing what MP was being sampled, the fact is the material of the MP was never reliably nailed by anything approaching a predictable pattern.
Mind you, this is provided it was a truly blind test, which is why I mentioned the perquisite of no preconceived notion of the models being played. And these stage and studio musicians didn't just fall off of the musical "turnip truck" either.
The overwhelming difference, besides the player themselves, is the design and proportions, not the material.
Again, the player's perception of the way a MP sounds to him/her, as well as the feel, playing charactoristics etc. between MP's and the materials they are made of, can impact the player's sound ultimately. But any major differences the listener hears is not a result of the material itself, isolated, making a significant impact above and beyond the core design distinctions.
On a similar note:
This G.A.S. obsessive search for "chops in a box" came into question regarding model/make Saxophone identification in several recent blind sound tests that were conducted on this very forum board.
Given this, the seemingly condescending "Princess and the pea" position regarding a special talent or sensitivity for discerning mouthpiece materials by sound doesn't hold too much water in the real world, spectrum wave analysis or no. A role of the dice gives about the same likelihood of nailing the results accurately with any consistency.
If anyone feels they are getting more jollies for their money by picking a MP based on material and perceived effect on tone alone, more power to you. You pay your money and take your choice.
Anyone hear (pun intended) willing to put their money where their mouth is, and be tested themselves?
Without knowing what MP was being sampled, the fact is the material of the MP was never reliably nailed by anything approaching a predictable pattern.
Mind you, this is provided it was a truly blind test, which is why I mentioned the perquisite of no preconceived notion of the models being played. And these stage and studio musicians didn't just fall off of the musical "turnip truck" either.
The overwhelming difference, besides the player themselves, is the design and proportions, not the material.
Again, the player's perception of the way a MP sounds to him/her, as well as the feel, playing charactoristics etc. between MP's and the materials they are made of, can impact the player's sound ultimately. But any major differences the listener hears is not a result of the material itself, isolated, making a significant impact above and beyond the core design distinctions.
On a similar note:
This G.A.S. obsessive search for "chops in a box" came into question regarding model/make Saxophone identification in several recent blind sound tests that were conducted on this very forum board.
Given this, the seemingly condescending "Princess and the pea" position regarding a special talent or sensitivity for discerning mouthpiece materials by sound doesn't hold too much water in the real world, spectrum wave analysis or no. A role of the dice gives about the same likelihood of nailing the results accurately with any consistency.
If anyone feels they are getting more jollies for their money by picking a MP based on material and perceived effect on tone alone, more power to you. You pay your money and take your choice.
Anyone hear (pun intended) willing to put their money where their mouth is, and be tested themselves?
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
