A study on Manufacturing and 3D

Printing of a Mouthpiece for a

Classical Alto Saxophone

Despina Spanou - 511/2008067

University of the Aegean

Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering

!1
!2
 Ermoupolis, Syros, February 2019

A study on Manufacturing and 3D Printing

of a Mouthpiece for a Classical Alto
Saxophone

Despina Spanou - 511/2008067

Supervisor:
Paraskeuas Papanikos
Supervisor Committee:
Paraskeuas Papanikos
Nikolaos Zaharopoulos
Vasileios Moulianitis

This thesis was written as part of the undergraduate program of the department of Products and Systems Design
Engineering at University of the Aegean

!3
!4
 Ερμούπολη, Σύρος, Φεβρουάριος 2019

Μελέτη, Κατασκευή και Τρισδιάστατη

Εκτύπωση Επιστομίου Κλασικού Άλτο
Σαξοφώνου

Δέσποινα Σπανού - Α.Μ. 511/2008067

Επιβλέπων καθηγητής:
Παρασκευάς Παπανίκος

Τριμελής επιτροπή:
Παρασκευάς Παπανίκος
Νικόλαος Ζαχαρόπουλος
Βασίλειος Μουλιανίτης

!5
!6
 Δηλώνω υπεύθυνα ότι η διπλωματική εργασία είναι εξ’ ολοκλήρου δικό μου έργο και κανένα μέρος
της δεν είναι αντιγραμμένο από έντυπες ή ηλεκτρονικές πηγές, μετάφραση από ξενόγλωσσες πηγές
και αναπαραγωγή από εργασίες άλλων ερευνητών ή φοιτητών. Όπου έχω βασιστεί σε ιδέες ή
κείμενα άλλων, έχω προσπαθήσει, όσο είναι δυνατόν, να το προσδιορίσω σαφώς μέσα από την
χρήση αναφορών, ακολουθώντας την ακαδημαϊκή δεοντολογία.

!7
!8
 Ευχαριστίες

Στις αδερφές και τους γονείς μου.

Στον επιβλέποντα καθηγητή μου κ. Παρασκευά Παπανίκο.
Στα μέλη της τριμελούς επιτροπής.

!9
!10
[ CONTENTS ]

[ ABBREVIATIONS ] 13
[ ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ ] 15
Part 1 18
CHAPTER 1 - [ APPROACH ] 19
INTRODUCTION 19
PURPOSE 20
APPROACH 21
DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING 23
SOUND & ACOUSTICS 24
SUSTAINABILITY 26
CHAPTER 2 - [ THE SAXOPHONE ] 28
INTRODUCTION 28
THE SAXOPHONE 29
THE MOUTHPIECE 30
RELEVANT PROJECTS 33
CHAPTER 3 - [ THE MOUTHPIECE ] 35
INTRODUCTION 35
ANATOMY OF A MOUTHPIECE 35
PROJECT’S BRIEF 38
PARAMETERS FOR CUSTOMISATION 40
CHAPTER 4 - [ ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ] 42
INTRODUCTION 42
TERMINOLOGY 43
THE PROCESS 45
AM TECHNOLOGIES 46
POST MANUFACTURING 50
HOME 3D PRINTING 51
MATERIAL’S MECHANICAL PROPERTIES 52
OTHER ASPECTS 55
Part 2 57
CHAPTER 5 - [ THE PROCESS ] 58
INTRODUCTION 58
REVERSE ENGINEERING (RE) 59
MODELLING THE MOUTHPIECE 61
CHAPTER 6 - [ EVALUATION ] 65

!11
INTRODUCTION 65
FINAL MODEL 66
PRINTING TRIALS 67
EVALUATING THE SOUND 71
TESTING & FEEDBACK 73
CHAPTER 7 - [ CONCLUSIONS ] 76
INTRODUCTION 76
CONCLUSIONS 76
FURTHER & FUTURE RESEARCH 77
SUMMARY 78
[ REFERENCES ] 80
[ FIGURES ] 82
[ APPENDIX ] 84

!12
[ ABBREVIATIONS ]

3D Printing (3DP)
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS)
Additive Manufacturing (AM)
Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM)
Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE)
Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
Computer Numerical Control (CNC)
Design For Assembly (DFA)
Design For Inspection (DFI)
Design For Manufacturing (DFM)
Design For Additive Manufacturing (DFAM)
Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)
Do It Yourself (DIY)
Food and Drug Administration, in the US (FDA)
Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)
Laser Powder Forming (LPF)
Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM)
PolyEthylene Terephthalate,glyco (PETg)
PolyLactic Acid (PLA)
Rapid Manufacturing (RM)
Rapid Prototyping (RP)
Rapid Tooling (RT)
Reverse Engineering (RE)
Selective Layer Sintering (SLS)
Stereolithography (SLA)
ThermoPlastic Polyurethane (TPU)
Time Compression Technologies (TCTs)

!13
!14
[ ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ ]

Η παρούσα διπλωματική μελετά την παραγωγή ενός 3Δ εκτυπωμένου επιστομίου άλτο

σαξοφώνου, και εξετάζεται η επιτυχημένη χρήση του ως αντικαταστάτη του αντίστοιχου
εργοστασιακού επιστομίου. Το σαξόφωνο είναι πνευστό όργανο, της οικογένειας των ξύλινων,
δεδομένου ότι ο ήχος παράγεται από ταλαντώσεις που προκαλούνται στο ξύλινο καλάμι, όταν ο
μουσικός φυσάει στο επιστόμιο του οργάνου. Το επιστόμιο τοποθετείται στο πάνω άκρο του
μεταλλικού του σωλήνα του σώματος και εισέρχεται τμηματικά στο στόμα του μουσικού. Η τζαζ
απόδοση, ερμηνεία και τεχνική διαχωρίζεται από την κλασική και σε κάποια σημεία αντιτίθενται.
Η μελέτη επικεντρώνεται στο επιστόμιο κλασικού σαξοφώνου.
Γενικά, η μελέτη της παραγωγής ενός επιστομίου σχετίζεται με αρκετά και διαφορετικά
πεδία και αποτελείται από διακριτά στάδια έως την εκτύπωση και αξιολόγηση του. Αρχικά,
επιλέγοντας ως μέθοδο παραγωγής προϊόντων την 3Δ εκτύπωση ανοίγει το πεδίο που έχει να
κάνει με τη σχεδίαση προϊόντων σχεδιασμένων ειδικά για αυτή τη μέθοδο παραγωγής (Design For
Manufacturing). Ακόμη, σχετικά πεδία στη μελέτη των επιστομίων αποτελούν η ακουστική και ο
ήχος. Κάθε υλικό έχει διαφορετικές ακουστικές ιδιότητες και ο ήχος μελετάται υπό το πρίσμα
της φυσικής των δονήσεων και κυμάτων αλλά και του πως αντιλαμβάνεται διαφορετικά ο
εκάστοτε άνθρωπος έναν ήχο (Psychoacoustics). Επιπλέον, η 3Δ εκτύπωση ως μέθοδος
παραγωγής είναι αρκετά πιο αειφόρος, δεδομένων των υλικών που χρησιμοποιεί, των
υπολειμμάτων της διαδικασίας, και το γενικό αντίκτυπο ως προς το περιβάλλον της.
Το επιστόμιο αποτελείται από τον κύλινδρο όπου εισέρχεται ο λαιμός του σαξοφώνου,
τον θάλαμο που το μέγεθος του επηρεάζει σημαντικά το ηχόχρωμα, το άνοιγμα της μύτης, την
κυρτή πρόσοψη και το μήκος της. Παράμετροι που αν αλλάξουν παράγουν έναν τελείως
διαφορετικό ποιοτικά, ήχο. Κατά βάσει τα επιστόμια για κλασική μουσική κινούνται εντός ενός
συγκεκριμένου φάσματος διαστάσεων αυτών των παραμέτρων. Το μοντέλο που επιλέχθηκε για
μελέτη είναι το S80-C* από την Selmer, Paris ως ένα επαγγελματικό και ευρέως προτιμώμενο
κλασικό επιστόμιο.
Επίσημα, ο ακαδημαϊκός όρος που αντιπροσωπεύει τις μεθόδους 3Δ εκτύπωσης είναι
αυτός της Προσθετικής Κατασκευής, ΠΚ (Additive Manufacturing). Η 3Δ εκτύπωση είναι πιο
εμπορικός όρος και καλύτερα κατανοητός στο ευρύ κοινό γι' αυτό και χρησιμοποιείται. Οι
μέθοδοι που ανήκουν σε αυτή την κατηγορία κατασκευάζουν μοντέλα προσθέτοντας υλικό σε
πολύ λεπτές επάλληλες στρώσεις ώσπου να κατασκευαστεί το τελικό αντικείμενο. Δεν
συμπεριλαμβάνονται τεχνικές αφαίρεσης υλικού, οι οποίες όμως μαζί με τις ΠΚ διαδικασίες
ονομάζονται Ταχεία Πρωτοτυποποίηση. Το υλικό μπορεί να είναι σε υγρή μορφή, σε φύλλα, σε
κόκκους ή σκόνη, και σε στερεή μορφή νήματος.
Η διαδικασία περιλαμβάνει την ψηφιακή μοντελοποίηση του αντικείμενου (μέτρηση με
διάφορες μεθόδους) και τη σχεδίαση του στο Creo Parametric. Δεδομένης της πολύπλοκης

!15
φόρμας του επιστομίου, χρησιμοποιήθηκαν τεχνολογίες Αντίστροφης Μηχανικής (Reverse
Engineering) βοηθητικά με το τυπικό μέτρημα. Έπειτα, εξάχθηκε σε μορφή υποστηριζόμενη από
τον εκτυπωτή, και αφού τυπώθηκε, ακολούθησαν διαδικασίες αφαίρεσης της υποστηρικτικής
δομής, φινιρίσματος και βελτίωσης της όψης.
Εμπορικά διαθέσιμοι, και εύκολα προσβάσιμοι για οικιακή χρήση είναι αρκετοί εκτυπωτές
όπως π.χ. των εταιριών FormLabs (βάσει της στερεολιθογραφίας-Stereolithography) και MakerBot
(βάσει της τεχνολογίας εναπόθεσης υλικού -Fused Deposition Modelling), με κόστος να ξεκινάει
από 2.000 ε και να μπορεί να φτάσει τα 12.000 παρέχοντας όμως υψηλή ποιότητα λεπτομέρειας
σε σχέση με πιο οικονομικές εταιρίες. Αφού ακολουθήθηκαν τα προαναφερθέντα βήματα, η
εκτύπωση έγινε με τα εξής υλικά: ABS, PLA, PETg, και ρητίνη χρησιμοποιώντας εκτυπωτές των
παραπάνω εταιριών.
Όταν ολοκληρώθηκαν τα στάδια μελέτης, μοντελοποίησης και παραγωγής των
επιστομίων, δόθηκαν σε επαγγελματία μουσικό ώστε να τα αξιολογήσει, έχοντας και την εμπειρία
του ίδιου μοντέλου επιστομίου παραγμένο συμβατικά από την εταιρία. Η αξιολόγηση των
μουσικών ιδιοτήτων του ήχου είναι κομμάτι αρκετά ακαθόριστο μιας και βιβλιογραφικά δεν έχει
μελετηθεί αρκετά ή σε βάθος. Σύμφωνα με τον Teal, ο ήχος κατηγοριοποιείται και αξιολογείται
πάνω σε έξι παραμέτρους οι οποίες θα χρησιμοποιηθούν και από τη μουσικό για τις συγκρίσεις
και αξιολογήσεις των δοκιμαστικών επιστομίων.
Έπειτα από την κριτική της μουσικού, φάνηκε πως το επιστόμιο ρητίνης ήταν πιο κοντά
σε αυτό της εταιρίας και το ποιοτικότερο από άποψη ηχοχρώματος και υποστήριξης του
μουσικού. Επίσης, το συγκεκριμένο υλικό ήταν πολύ φιλικό στην αίσθηση για τον χρήστη και δεν
αλλοίωνε καθόλου τις χαρακτηριστικές παραμέτρους του μοντέλου, και έτσι σύμφωνα με την
αξιολόγηση και άλλων παραγόντων εκτός της μεθόδου παραγωγής, φάνηκε πως μπορεί να
χρησιμοποιηθεί έναντι του εργοστασιακού σε αρκετές περιπτώσεις. Παραμετροποίηση αυτού
του μοντέλου στις διαστασιολογήσεις των επιμέρους τμημάτων του μπορεί να τυπωθεί
αντίστοιχα. Συμπερασματικά, η παραμετροποίηση του μοντέλου που βασίζεται στις ανάγκες, τα
χαρακτηριστικά και τις προτιμήσεις του χρήστη μπορούν να οδηγήσουν σε άλλες εφαρμογές που
βασίζονται σε αυτού του είδους τη μέθοδο παραγωγής.
Μελλοντικά, αντίστοιχη μελέτη μπορεί να συμπεριλάβει τα καλάμια του σαξοφώνου
καθώς και άλλα αντίστοιχα τμήματα οργάνων όπως πχ. το επιστόμιο του κλαρινέτου ή η
σχεδίαση υπηρεσιών δοκιμής μοντέλων επιστομίων για ενδιαφερόμενους χρήστες. Όσο πιο πολύ
διαδίδονται οι οικιακοί εκτυπωτές τόσο πιο πολύ μεγαλώνει το κοινό και οι δυνατότητες τέτοιων
εφαρμογών.

!16
[ ABSTRACT ]

This project studies the manufacturing of a 3D printed alto saxophone mouthpiece and
examines its success, and the possibility of replacing the factory made pieces. Fields that are
inherently related to this project are, Design For Manufacturing (DFM), Sound Acoustics,
Psychoacoustics, and Sustainability of 3D printing as a production method. Customisation of a
mouthpiece is possible when altering some shape parameters and dimensions. Combining these
subjects along with the process of Reverse Engineering (RE) for a Selmer S80 C* mouthpiece will
lead to 3D printing trials. Sound quality cannot be measured, and relevant research is few.
Evaluation and feedback given by professional musicians on these trials will determine the quality
and benefits of such a mouthpiece to beginner students. In addition, this study will aim to seek
other applications emerging from current progress in the field, as well as assess the performance
of such a manufacturing process.

[ key words ]

Saxophone | Mouthpiece | FDM | Prototyping | Model | Selmer | Classic

!17
PART 1

!18
CHAPTER 1 - [ APPROACH ]

1.1

Introduction

The saxophone is a musical instrument that has been appreciated for its warm tone, deep
sound, and versatility, by both classical and jazz music lovers. It has an illustrious past and its
transition from musical styles was influenced strongly by both history and great musicians.
Although classical and jazz music have different roots and different music styles, they can be
played on the same instrument. The mouthpiece is, undoubtedly, the most important part of the
instrument, as it produces the sound and controls its quality. In the market, there are numerous
mouthpiece options available, varying in shape, material and dimensional properties. Musicians
looking for their signature sound and beginner saxophonists could be potentially interested in
assessing the mouthpiece for a longer period than it is possible in stores and switching between
different types regularly. However, this is not possible as mouthpieces are quite expensive, cannot
be rented, and especially for beginners, whose perception of a perfectly fitted mouthpiece, can
change entirely as their technical expertise evolves. Similarly, aspiring saxophonists’ needs are
different depending on the type of the performance, the genre, the acoustics and the ensemble.

Figure 1.1.1 Brainstorming in research of the topics related to the saxophone’s mouthpiece

!19
 Today, another technological progress in the manufacturing process is revolutionising the
field. The fast-growing field of 3D printing can now offer printers available for home use and is
accessible for wide audience. Commercially available systems and new 3D printing processes and
materials have opened new paths in product manufacturing, and relevant applications. Some of
the benefits 3D printing has to offer nowadays in comparison to its early stages are newer printers,
expanded processing technologies, CAM improvements, new materials, significantly lower
commercial prices, a wide selection of sites providing 3D models for free, and more.
Striving to combine these two fields could be challenging, in order to explore what they
fully have to offer. Great new ideas and projects can arise, as well as improvements; concerning
testing, choosing, customising and purchasing a mouthpiece. Consequently, this is the space area
of interest that will be researched in this project and hopefully lead to some useful conclusions
outcomes and ideas.

1.2

Purpose

In this chapter, the subject, the structure of the project, as well as the proposed
methodology will be discussed. Moreover, the relation of the 3D printing of a mouthpiece is linked
to many other different fields including Design For Manufacturing (DFM), Sound Acoustics and
Sustainability. These subjects will be evaluated and discussed throughout this project, while their
integration, in a holistic way, will be attempted. All of the different aspects concerning the
mouthpiece, have to be combined in order to showcase possible future features and benefits of
the 3D printed production of the mouthpiece.
Professional musicians have their personal preference regarding the model of the
mouthpiece and tend to use different types of mouthpieces depending on the occasion. Beginner
saxophonists are faced with the challenge of selecting the appropriate mouthpiece in order to
produce a good sound. Also, improving the sound is dependent on the quality of the mouthpiece
as well as its suitability for the user. This means that there are two aspects concerning their choice;
finding a mouthpiece that enhances somebody’s sound, and helping them build a greater sound
on the specific mouthpiece.
Therefore, the aim of this project is to assess whether a 3D printed mouthpiece would fit
the needs of the user, as well as inspire future work on the subject. Selecting a premium model
and studying its qualities is the first step. The potential of a 3D manufactured mouthpiece will later
have to be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative analysis for the acoustical properties and
mechanical part respectively. A comparison between the factory produced hand-finished
mouthpiece and the 3D printed one will be made and weigh the importance and success of this

!20
trial. In order to accomplish this, a factory-made model, and a 3D produced version of the same
mouthpiece will be compared.

1.3

Approach

The project consists of two parts; the first part, the analytical - where the relative research
will be shown, and the second, the practical - where all the processed data will be discussed.
There are several stages between the finished blueprint of a mouthpiece until the final distribution
of the product to the end user, in this case the musician. Some of these stages are similar when
3D Printing is the chosen manufacturing process. Aspects that need to be considered during the
3D printing process include the acoustical properties of the sound produced by a mouthpiece with
altered geometry, and its impact. The evaluation of the sound, the mechanical properties of the
materials, as well as safety and availability issues will be discussed using tangible, well-defined
criteria. In addition, the sustainability of the production method, the environmental impact, the
possibilities of user customisation, the connection to service design, the legal aspects of the 3D
databases have to also be considered. Finally, the model will have to be assessed by a
professional musician with established performance style and experience. Theoretically, the aim is
to fully integrate all of the above aspects using the background research.
Mass production of commercially available mouthpieces provide the user with a high-end
product. The user can choose the preferred mouthpiece through a collection of different models
offering variation in parameters such as chamber1 size and shape, tipping opening, among others.
Despite the variety, companies share many common traits on the product design including;
technical aspects, materials, distribution and services. The target group for this product ranges
vastly. Beginner players can be children aged 5 years old, to adults aged 80 (depending on the
switch from deciduous to adult teeth and their presence), while professional users usually are aged
over 15 years old. However, it is highly possible that they will choose to play on the same model of
mouthpiece. The life cycle of a mouthpiece can be over 10 years, but due to its quite brittle
material, it could break instantly, for example during an accidental fall. Its cost ranges from 80 -180
€ depending on the model, manufacturer and material.
Concerning the above, the mouthpiece is mostly available to the end user in the typical
way; through the appropriate stores, leaving no room for any type of further customisation or
general adaptation to the user’s needs or for much experimenting before the purchase. Young
users, newly introduced to the saxophone, those in a musically transitional stage, or even users
with medical conditions are not fully supported. More specifically, the beginner saxophonist or a

1Τhe bore of a wind instrument as its interior hole through which the air flows. The shape of the bore has a strong influence
on the instrument's sound.

!21
young aged player will have to consider the cost, the uncertainty of continuing their musical
studies, the constant strengthening of their embouchure 2 muscles and their personal music taste
before purchasing an expensive mouthpiece. Furthermore, the shape of the mouthpiece has not
been altered radically throughout the years, but the smallest change can impact the sound greatly.
The combination of 3D printing technology for music equipment manufacturing will solve
part of the problem of customisation. A mouthpiece for the entry-level user is expensive whereas
for a professional it is more affordable, although they can both be referring to the exact same
product. In addition, the references for the project’s research derive from scientific and conference
papers, digital and physical books, magazines and professional saxophonists’ and tutors’
expertise.
3D Printing - as a manufacturing technology - has only been available since the consumer
level printing machines were built. Moreover, 3D Printing is related to Additive Manufacturing (AM),
Rapid Prototyping (RP) and other fields. As a technology, it is used for creating and testing concept
models, as well as for the manufacturing of fully functional finished products, parts or tools. 3D
Printing is highly valued as a manufacturing process for the following reasons; it is characterised by
the speed of a manufacturing process (which is less than the equivalent time needed for a man-
made model, requiring minimum or no post-processing), a lower manufacturing cost, and the
variety of printers and materials in the market start from 200 €. Additionally, precision on complex
forms, and the autonomy of the manufacturing process have evolved rapidly, as well as 3D model
blueprints are now available online, making it easy for the user to print any type of object instantly.
Thus, 3D Printing is chosen for this project.
The 3D Printing technology is also favoured as a manufacturing method for its technical
characteristics too. Initially, the process of making a model follows a sequence of layers consisting
of thin raw material. The final object is made by treating the layers one by one, until the whole
product is formed. This comes in comparison to the man-made way of prototype manufacturing,
where material is subtracted. Furthermore, there is material and energy conservation, especially for
curved objects. For example, a saxophone’s mouthpiece surface would be generated from a solid
rectangle piece by subtracting material following the typical construction way, resulting in a lot of
material waste compared to the 3D printed one as described. Moreover, all the special tools
needed for the craftsmanship of a model, as well as the experience that a craftsman has, cannot
be compared to a single machine, the 3D printer.
Lately, 3D Printing has been used in a variety of applications, inherently connected to
Design For Manufacturing, for manufacturing the final products. This has created ways for
innovative and customised products that would not be possible to be produced in any other way,
as the cost of individual crafting would be enormous (for example in some cases of jewellery

2 The system of the lips, facial muscles, tongue, and teeth in playing a wind instrument. They transform their shape in order
to play the mouthpiece of a woodwind instrument. The word is of French origin. Embouchure is important for playing an
instrument at its full range with a full, clear tone and without strain or damage to their muscles.

!22
making). Objects which are complex in geometry, consist of assemblies or have internal support
systems, can be produced in a single operation by the 3D printer.
So, the delivered element of the 3D printer needs zero or minimal post-processing by the
user or lab technicians. Due to this, 3D printing can now be classified as an autonomous
production method. In other words, 3D Printing is aimed at limited or low production and
customised products. As a relatively new field, the goal is to place the 3D printer in the product
development and production process, filling present’s demands, reorganising the production line
and changing the overall process.

1.4

Design for Manufacturing

The field that takes advantage of the evolution on machinery and 3D Printing processes, is
called Design for Manufacturing (DFM). More specifically, Design For Manufacturing is the
engineering approach that designs a product in a way that facilitates manufacturing using non
typical and 3D printing technologies, instead of traditional methods. It is applied to all the 3D
printing processes, but the implementation differs according to the technology each one utilises.
The method of designing and engineering a product for DFM functions in such a way that the
manufacturing cost is minimised. Fabrication and engineering problems will have to be solved
sooner - during the product development stage, and technical factors will have to be determined
earlier in the process too.
Specifically, in the case of choosing an 3D Printing technology for the fabricating process,
DFM is applied in the same way, and sometimes referred to as Design for Additive Manufacturing
(DFAM). Likewise, the aim of DFAM is the facilitation of the designing and engineering process of a
product as well as the optimisation of the model for 3D Printing. DFAM suggests specific
processes, tools and methods for its successful application.
Advantages of DFAM are the unique product development processes, the product
manufacturing and distribution. More specifically, these include the enhancing of functional
performance, product life cycle phases such as reliability, production and cost. Options that can be
more easily demonstrated are product customisation, multiple material design, parts consolidation,
product distribution and others. Furthermore, as in 3D Printing, the delivered product of the 3D
printer needs zero or minimal post-processing. Apart from its application in research, DFM is a field
that concern companies, secondary (manufacturing), and tertiary production sector.
Implementation of DFM can lead to strategies for competitive advantages in companies
when it is applied successfully. During the product development, DFM can be part of many stages
and in different ways influence quality, cost and process planning in the product’s development and
design. Excellent design for DFM means changes in how the design teams work, the integration of

!23
CAD/CAM, and new design methodologies. Therefore, it requires adaptation time, mainly for the
companies.
Technological, environmental, and cultural aspects are guiding companies and production
teams into the path of product development, and more specifically a DFM-oriented path. In more
detail, reasons towards choosing DFM, include the reduction of development cost, better quality
as manufacturing and development are combined, time efficiency, and faster delivery rates
between the stages of conception of the product and the product reaching the user. Furthermore,
for a project, the advantages of a DFM approach include, but are not limited to, easier
manufacturing process and production of necessary components, improved quality of production
and processing, better production design that successfully meets the requirements of the market,
and faster problem-solving in the production phase. The most relevant fields sharing highly similar
features with DFM, are Design for Assembly (DFA) and Design for Inspection (DFI).
Design for customisation is possible in DFAM and can be achieved as AM fabricates
directly from a digital file whilst meeting the client’s preferences. The finished product is of equal
quality to any other manufacturing process. Mass customisation, as it is called, when referring to a
wider public is the use of flexible parametrised CAD software system models that can be modified
according to the customer’s needs before fabricating the product. Therefore, through the
manufacturing and marketing lens the production process can be adapted to the best version of
the model according to each individual tailored product.
According to B. Joseph Pine II, there are four types of customisation; adaptive,
transparent, cosmetic, and collaborative. The customisation of a mouthpiece follows the latter
approach. They can choose among discrete options, and the customisation is fully dependent on
the individual’s needs - supported by a parametrised model. The musician’s needs and preferences
are taken into account in order to determine the appropriate product adaptation that is required.
The choice of discrete options to choose from and the preferences, work as the ‘code’ needed for
the parametrised model. Applying DFM provides a variety of choices for the manufacturing of a
tailored product that can satisfy every customer. This, in turn, results in a system or product with
their distinct production process.
DFM can be considered as a systemic approach to the design development and
manufacturing processes; the research along with the decision making occur simultaneously for
both stages. The aim is to minimise the overall product cost, required time, and fulfil the given
design brief and guidelines. This way DFAM meets all the requirements for the production of
innovative customised products for each individual, supporting partial and small batch production,
and faster production especially of complex products.

1.5

Sound & Acoustics

!24
 Another essentially related field to the mouthpiece’s nature is sound and acoustics. Sound
is the mechanical wave with frequency ranging from 20 to 28.000 Hz, that propagates causing
vibration. Frequencies can only be heard as distinct pitches and if not included in this range cannot
be perceived by humans. Hertz of a sound are characterised as notes in music. The lowest note
on a piano is 28 Hz, while the higher note is 4186 Hz. Sound is also characterised by its (audible)
pressure and measured in Pascals or Db (logarithmic scale). The hearing sense in humans includes
the ears and the eardrum - which vibrates according to the wave’s frequency, the temporal lobe
and cerebral cortex. Relative fields and terms to sound, are vibration, acoustics and
psychoacoustics.
When a sound circulates, it causes vibration detectable by humans. Sound can also cause
vibration to an object. Acoustics are an interdisciplinary field that is associated with the study of
mechanical waves (including infrasound and ultrasound - ranges not detectable by humans), the
way they are generated and how they travel through materials, including vibration and sound
attributes. Application of acoustics is found in musical acoustics and psychoacoustics.
Psychoacoustics is the field that studies how a sound is perceived by the human brain and its
interpretation (how it makes them feel), and includes audiology and the corresponding terminology.
Music acoustics are researching the relative physics of music.
Acoustic properties differ for every material on how sound transmits, reflects and gets
absorbed as sound waves. In order to evaluate a material for its sound properties, such material
has to be analysed based on the feel, and more specifically on the subcategory of hearing [21].
The choice of the mouthpiece material should enhance the signature tone of an instrument and a
musician. For example, trumpets would not be made out of wood or violins out of brass. Stiffness,
density, loss coefficient (or damping3 factor) are some of the important characteristics. Properties
such as density and elastic modulus (Young’s modulus) are related to the sound frequency (pitch),
while damping factor and sound frequency are both related to acoustic response. Therefore, a
material with high damping factor propagates a sound characterised as dull instead of bright, and
edgy.
Inconsistency arises, for example, in the case of thermoplastics such as ABS, where the
stiffness changes are noticeable with varying temperature more than in other materials.
Thermoplastics’ density is much lower than other materials, and are generally lighter, which means
they produce vibrations in higher frequencies (pop, click, etc). Such materials have some wave
absorption properties and they have been used for applications requiring alteration of the sound,
for example the metals. Thermoplastics’ properties change, when glass fibres or other substances
are incorporated.
Qualifying and sorting all the available materials and their combinations is impossible,
hence material selection can be made based on recommendations from professional users -

3In physics: a reduction in the amplitude of an oscillation or vibration as a result of energy being dissipated as heat, i.e. fully
sound absorbing material

!25
musicians in this case, or the previous materials used in equivalent applications, or by trial and
error [21]. Last but not least, the quality of sound in music is also highly affected by factors such as
structure, room acoustics, the user’s particular technique, and the quality of manufacturing.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is an organisation that defines international
standards for materials and relevant manufacturing procedures, including 3D Printing.
In general, sound can be characterised by different qualities. It is possible to analyse and
describe properties of musical sound using these terms. Sound is distinguished by its pitch,
otherwise known as frequency (Hz), which is the definition of a sound as high or low note. When an
object is struck relates to the modulus (e) and density (ρ). Duration is the time interval while a
sound is detectable by humans. The longer the duration, the lower its level should be. Loudness is
defined by how soft or loud a sound is, and it is connected to the auditory nerves that are
stimulated, and measured in decibel (dB). Timbre identifies the colour of sound as one of its a
quality characteristics (resembling a waterfall, or a brass instrument), which aids the brain to
identify and categorise the different sound signals (such as notes, voices or musical instruments) to
vocal characters using sound patterns and memorised identities closely linked to psychoacoustics.
[21]. Materials can also be characterised by their brightness, as in sound attenuation (i.e. damping
material) and depends on the loss coefficient (η).
Two of the most important material characteristics that impact the sound a material
produces and are important on a mouthpiece are the following: Resistance to abrasion, which
depends on many properties, with the most important being the hardness (H); and stiffness which
is related to the elastic modulus.
Generally, in product design the goal is to absorb sound using porous or flexible materials
like ceramic foam, low density polymer and woven polymers. For this project, the aim is to absorb
less sound by surface unit, meaning low sound-absorption coefficient (i.e. 0.8, therefore 20%
sound reflection).

1.6

Sustainability

Sustainability is nowadays an interdisciplinary field and a crucial aspect of product and

service design. It aims to maintain a balance in a system or environment in terms of the usage of
resources, and technological impact, in order to promote and fulfil current and future human
needs. Sustainability deals with environmental, economical, technological and social issues and its
core is based on the principles of Systems Thinking. In theory, the use of 3D Printing processes
can have a huge significance on this field, minimising the scrap material produced, the required
energy and the assembly times, and complex forms can be produced faster in merely one process
rather than partial manufacturing. The advantage of zero tooling in 3D Printing is also a sustainable

!26
advantage, in comparison to the typical processes of injection moulding and subtraction methods
that require tooling.
Working towards a more sustainable company changes the typical development and
production course and will require adaptation time. It concerns both companies and the
customers, creating an equilibrium between them. Sustainability will consequently require
companies to adjust their processes to meet the set criteria in the near future, entailing transition
time. Small companies and specialised or customised production lines will be favoured more as
their flexibility will be embraced using a flexible manufacturing method, like 3D Printing.
Several environmentally conscious companies have already adopted 3D Printing as it is a
more sustainable and cost effective option. Another sustainable aspect is the zero consumption
for when distributing and transporting the products, as they are fabricated instantly. This results in
another advantage of reduced fuel emissions as products can now be printed at a local store or
one’s living room, instead of being shipped around the globe, making 3D Printing a top cost-
effective option.
Moreover, printing technologies guarantee zero waste - which is in accordance with the
idea of sustainability - as the exact amount required will be used to construct a product without
any scrap material or waste left at the end, compared with traditional manufacturing, including the
material used for the support structures. In case a trial fails, and the final product does not satisfy
the criteria, all the material used can be easily recycled with a filament recycler. This is one of the
most important benefits of 3D Printing technologies in general. The filament recycler shreds the
piece into small parts before melting it to a new printer filament; this a feature of some companies.
There are also companies that manufacture and sell filament solely made from common waste
plastics.
Despite these advantages that truly promote and suggest a more sustainable production
scheme, there are certain areas that require improvement. For example, ABS filaments and some
other thermoplastics used in printing are not bio-degradable, in comparison to PLA which is also
made from renewable resources, Furthermore, ABS emits harmful vapours to the environment
during its melting process in the printer. However, the development of new materials to tackle
these issues is already underway and hopefully will lead to more sustainable material options.

Figure 1.6.1 Recycling process of filament material to be used in a 3D printing lab in Thessaloniki (GR)

!27
CHAPTER 2 - [ THE SAXOPHONE ]

2.1

Introduction

In this chapter, the background of saxophone as a musical instrument will be discussed,

along with its structure, and components. Although it does not have a long history as a classical
instrument - when compared to the majority of musical instruments - it plays a vital role in jazz
music. The choice of the mouthpiece is challenging for both beginners and more advanced
musicians and corresponds to the type of music, level of the artist as well as personal preference.
The saxophone was invented by Adolphe Sax, a Belgian instrument maker, inventor, a
clarinetist and flutist. It was invented in 1840, but developed and patented in 1846 and was
available in many variations of forms and pitch ranges. Originally, Adolphe Sax’s vision was to

Figure 2.1.1 (left) Saxophone range used in classical music (from left to right: soprano, alto, tenor, barytone)
2.1.2 (right) Saxophone’s components - missing the neck strap

create an instrument as powerful and vocal as no other instrument, with the projection of a brass,
and with the agility of a woodwind. The saxophone was also intended to fill the musical vocal
ground between the two sections (of higher pitch woodwinds and the barytone-section) while
playing in mixed ensembles or orchestras.
The patent expired in 1856, when many instrument makers and saxophonists
manufactured their own versions of the instrument, adding improvements on the design (for
example widening the bell opening) and keywork (used to be according to the oboe on the one

!28
side and clarinet on the other). During the 1930s and 40s, Selmer - later established one of the
leading companies in saxophone, clarinet and mouthpiece manufacturing - made many important
adjustments on the instrument, that are in use even today. The alto saxophone has undergone
minor changes in shape and function, since its invention by Sax.
Historically, the saxophone, soon after its invention, was involved in military bands and
underground jazz circles and only much later in classical music, which explains why each music
genre is associated with a whole different technique. Professional saxophone studies are divided
into sections depending on the genre. In the majority of the conservatories, a prerequisite for
musicians aspiring to follow jazz studies is to first acquire a classical music degree. In other words,
all professional musicians nowadays are required to have had classical music training as their base.
Learning to play the saxophone is possible either from private tutors, music schools,
conservatories, online lessons, or in some cases universities. The level and quality of training vary,
but self-taught musicians, amateurs and professionals have access to all types of training.

2.2

The Saxophone

The saxophone is a conical bore musical instrument, which means it starts with a small
diameter and widens until the bottom end of the instrument. It is included in the woodwind
instrument family - concerning the classical orchestral setup; and more specifically, it belongs to
the single reed woodwind instrument group, same as the clarinets. The reason is because the
production of sound is based on the turbulence of the wooden reed attached to the saxophone’s
mouthpiece. The sound is produced by the vibration of the reed although it is tightened on the
mouthpiece. The reed is a thin strip of material, usually made of arundo donax (cane), rarely
fiberglass and synthetic polymers. Conical instruments are known to have warmer and mellow-like
timbre qualities in comparison to the cylindrical types. The saxophone is a monophonic instrument,
though in experimental music there are pieces and techniques of producing chords of up to three
notes (multiphonics).
Although the saxophone is made of metal, in classical music it is classified as a woodwind
instrument, including concert bands, chamber music, solo repertoire and orchestras. The
instrument is also used for military bands, marching bands and in Jazz music for big bands and
jazz ensembles where in the later sections it is considered a brass instrument.
Adolph Sax originally patented fourteen different sizes for the saxophone, but only five are
used today. These are the alto, tenor, soprano, baritone and bass saxophones. Most common
saxophones in classical music can also be classified into categories based on their tonal range,

!29
from the highest to the lowest pitch as follows; B♭ soprano, E♭ alto, B♭ tenor
and E♭ baritone4. Although other sizes are also available, such as bass,
contrabass, sopranino, soprillo, they are rarely used nowadays. Alto
saxophone is the most commonly used saxophone to teach beginners as
Figure 2.2.1 Collection of
it has an easier key layout (smaller distances), needs a relatively small different mouthpieces
amount of air in comparison to the baritone, and is ideal to develop
classical timbre and embouchure techniques. The alto’s vocal range is
from Si♭ to Fa# (as shown in the picture 2.2.1) which as a Mi♭ instrument, is transposed to Re♭ -
La. Last but not least, the majority of classical works including the saxophone are intended for the
alto.
The saxophone’s set up includes the mouthpiece with the reed and the ligature, the metal
tube - body and the strap or harness to hold it. Commercially, the body is most commonly made of
brass and recently of polycarbonate (PC) for special purposes (such as the extreme weight it had
for the kids), and rarely silver and gold. The body of the instrument is a tube that has holes covered
by pads, which correspond to specific notes. The more holes are open, the lower the note
produced. The holes function based on a system of key mechanism and have different sizes. The
pressing of keys and subsequently the covering or uncovering of these holes is not serial and thus,
the combination of the sound they produce leads to non-sequential notes and pitch variations.
The saxophone was invented a few decades before the First World War, and as a result its
classical repertoire did not grow as fast as other instruments’ at the time and its use was limited in
military bands for the french army. For the same reason, it is not considered a principal member of
the classical orchestra, and saxophonists are not permanent members of them.

2.3

The Mouthpiece

The mouthpiece is one of the most important components of a saxophone. It is placed

partially in the player’s mouth, while the reed is settled on the player's bottom lip. The mouthpiece
consists of the reed and the ligature. It is placed on top of the tube and narrates the air inside the
instrument while it produces the sound when the user blows inside causing reed vibration. There
are several types of mouthpieces and can be classified by the type of saxophone they are intended
to fit, musical genre, their properties - for example “open” or “closed” type, the material they are
made of, and the manufacturing company.
As mentioned earlier, the saxophones can be divided into types based on their tonal
range, but each tonal range requires a different mouthpiece. This project will study and evaluate

4 Otherwise, B is Si, while E is Mi notes

!30
trials of mouthpieces only
fitting the alto saxophone,
being the most important
one, associated with many
classical orchestral works,
as explained above.
Mouthpieces can
be separated into two
categories based on the
music genre - jazz or
classical. The inventor had
designed a mouthpiece that
would produce a wooden
and loud sound for a
classical player, and the
original shape influences
the mouthpieces still used Figure 2.3.1 (left) Novel saxophone mouthpiece blueprint
today. In the late 1930s, Figure 2.3.2 (top right) Ready to play mouthpiece set up
Figure 2.3.3 (bottom right) Selmer’s Soloist model nowadays
jazz and big bands set off
and acquired a completely
different and edgier sound, requiring different designs of mouthpieces. As a result, classical
mouthpieces are not preferred by jazz players as a metal mouthpiece is more suitable, and vice
versa.
Mouthpiece design has a profound
impact on the saxophone’s timbre and colour
tone. A classical mouthpiece will produce a warm
and round sound. However, it is common
practice for saxophonists to have a mouthpiece
suited for each style they perform. In order to
play classical music, it is more common to
choose closed type ebonite mouthpieces
designed with a narrower chamber 5. In contrast,
jazz sound is bright with big projection and,
mouthpieces have a bigger chamber [27].
The materials used for classical
mouthpieces were initially metal and wood and
offered remarkable properties, while nowadays
Figure 2.3.4 Collection of different mouthpieces

5 Μouthpiece’s internal shape

!31
wood has been replaced by ebonite. The wood was ebony, a stiff, hard and dark-coloured, which
was also light and stable and gave its name to ebonite. Also, ebony comes from a renewable
source, which is easily machined as a material, aesthetically pleasing, with warm colour and feel
[21].
Ebonite, is a branded material name and was invented around 1841 by heavily vulcanising
natural rubber for prolonged periods. Vulcanisation of rubber was catalysed by the addition of
sulphur, S (contributing to the strong cross-linking and thus to its high hardness) which can turn
the soft rubber into solid hard ebonite (it contains 25–80% sulphur and linseed oil). Once ebonite is
shaped, it cannot be reshaped. Ebonite mimics the mechanical properties and the nature of ebony
for its toughness and stiffness, dark colour and high hardness. Ebonite is still the current material
used for mouthpiece manufacturing, and it is made by curving it using machinery and details are
hand-finished. Depending on the sulphur percentage, hard rubber has a thermoplastic transition
temperature of 70 to 80°C and it is characterised as a brittle material. Ebonite is humidity stable,
chemically resistant and electrically insulating and therefore it meets the requirements for safety in
the EU and the USA.
Technical specifications of commercial ebonite are as follows:

Density: 1.20-1.40 g/cm3 Shore hardness: 80-85 D

Flexural strength: 70-110 MPa Tensile strength: 40-70 MPa

Ball pressure hardness: 130-180 N/mm2

The lifecycle of a mouthpiece can be over 10 years for moderate to professional use and
can be more if used less frequently. The only corrosion
caused by use and time is material’s slight
discolouration and possible limited abrasion on top of
the surface, where the teeth are placed stabilising the
mouthpiece. Nevertheless, as ebonite is a brittle
material with high hardness and rigidity it breaks easily
in pieces, and it cannot stand tensile strength. In other
words, in case the mouthpiece is dropped even from a
short height, it can fail instantaneously. There is no
capacity for repairing it or any kind of service support.
Cleaning and pad replacement is necessary once in a
while, to maintain a good condition. The pad is
optional, and is a self-adhesive cushion that protects
the beak of the mouthpiece, reduces the vibration on
the contact point and protects the teeth.
Figure 2.3.5 Material corrosion on an ebonite
Despite the fact that there is some debate over mouthpiece

!32
whether the material affects the instrument’s timbre, research tends towards the fact that it does,
especially for beginners with poor control over their embouchure [28]. As mentioned in subsection
1.5, acoustic properties vary from material to material due to their as stiffness, density, elastic
modulus, and loss coefficient. In addition, Liebman agrees that material indeed affects the
saxophone’s timbre [27]. Sound properties are different for each material and they can be classified
experimentally through testing and experience [27]. For example, in general, the metal
mouthpieces have a more outgoing, and transparent tone.
However, internal dimensions, shape and geometry of a mouthpiece have a greater effect
on the instrument’s timbre. The structure and shape of the mouthpiece are related exclusively to
acoustical engineering, which study thoroughly vibration and sound in music; whilst the material is
linked with mechanical engineering fields.
Mouthpiece manufacturers today offer a wide range of qualities and types of mouthpieces
to choose from, and can be classified by the attributes described before (material, genre, and more
etc). Teaching professors and classically trained musicians prefer acclaimed brands such as
Selmer (Paris) and Vandoren which are both French. Apart from these companies, there are many
more in the market with different competitive attributes, available for all the qualitative demands,
including experimental and handmade mouthpieces.
The cost of a medium to high quality mouthpiece, for classical music as described before,
ranges from 80 to 200 €. Specifically, a Selmer Paris mouthpiece is around 160 €, while
Vandoren’s around 100 €. Both companies have claimed patents for all their mouthpieces and they
are still active. A great majority of classically trained professionals use the Selmer S80 mouthpiece
[28].
In conclusion, an ideal mouthpiece intended for the beginner’s classical training as well as
sufficient for professional use, is a closed type saxophone made of ebonite, following the shape
and features displayed by the finest companies and most importantly in favour of the alto
saxophone.

2.4

Relevant Projects

Classical alto saxophone’s mouthpiece designing is not a widely researched topic,

however, some simulations and experimenting have taken place. It is a long-awaited area of
research since the original design of the mouthpiece has not much been altered since its invention
by Sax. Currently, the leading mouthpiece companies are the same as when the saxophone
became commercially available. Today, notable progress on the mouthpiece design came from
Selmer (Paris) with the presentation of their last model, named “the concept”. They introduced a

!33
mouthpiece shape, presenting a unified shaped body, possibly built on a single revolve feature and
with slightly bigger chamber.
Another French company, Syos, established by two researchers, one in acoustics and the
other in cognitive science and two product designers, have created an algorithm that connects
sound properties to mathematical forms that are, in turn, translated into parametric values. These
parameters if used on their fixed mouthpiece blueprint, can alter the dimensional properties
resulting in a new shape each time. They created a thoroughly detailed parametrised model that is
used to print on demand offering ligature designs too.
Additionally, there are other projects that can lead to more experimenting in the future in
relation to the mouthpiece design and manufacturing. Vibrato, a Thai company, has made and
offers in the market, a polycarbonate (PC) saxophone accompanied by a mouthpiece, which is
awaited to become more widely used as it fulfils special requirements in the musical community
achieving top instrument timbre. It can also open the paths for mouthpieces and saxophones
designed for special purposes, with new materials or processes.

Figure 2.4.1 (left) Vibrato polycarbonate saxophone

Figure 2.4.2 (middle) New mouthpiece model, named concept, the last addition in the family, made by Selmer, Paris
Figure 2.4.3 (right) Syos 3D printed model mouthpiece

!34
CHAPTER 3 - [ THE MOUTHPIECE ]

3.1

Introduction

Although saxophone’s mouthpiece has

changed throughout the years, the fundamental
shape has remained the same. Certain parts have
undergone slight modifications, whilst their
functionality has not been affected. The body of the
mouthpiece essentially consists of three visually
separate units. The top part that is where the sound is
produced and is placed inside the mouth; the middle,
whose unique inner geometry shapes the sound; and
the bottom, in which the saxophone’s neck, is
inserted, and also controls the tuning (by lengthening
or shortening the bore, thus the saxophone).
Figure 3.1.1 Mouthpiece set up
Important components of the structure are the
chamber, tip opening, facing length and others, that
will be fully presented below.
Apart from the mouthpiece anatomy, the evaluation of the sound and its properties, and
the selected mouthpiece for the trials will be discussed thoroughly. A more qualitative approach is
required in order to be used by both the users giving feedback and the project’s final review.
Furthermore, the brief and the guidelines of the project will be outlined, as they will guide the
process to a more measurable criticism and appraisal.

3.2

Anatomy of a mouthpiece

The reed, the mouthpiece’s shape, as well as the material they are made of, can have a
great impact on the instrument’s timbre. Regarding the mouthpiece and most importantly, the
produced sound can be influenced by factors, including the bore; chamber; tip opening; baffle
dimension; facing length and curve. Commercially available mouthpieces are offered in a variety of

!35
shapes and sizes of the previously mentioned features, with Vandoren, Selmer and Yamaha being
the most well known companies. Every manufacturer has designed a collection of mouthpieces,
where each line offers a variation in the dimensions of chamber shape, and tip opening. For
example, Selmer’s soloist mouthpiece has a U-shaped bore and it is available as C* with 1.70 mm
tip opening and as C** with 1.80 mm while having the same facing properties. Selmer’s S80
mouthpiece has a special square chamber and is available in C* version with a tip opening of 1.70
mm, and 1.50 mm on the C version (every 0.005 inches the model is classified differently). The
most essential parts of the mouthpiece are presented below.
The bore of a saxophone mouthpiece, is the inner hole, where the air flows and is used to
insert the neck of the saxophone - whereas the instrument’s neck position, settles the tuning. It
can vary slightly in diameter, but it is the chamber that has a greater impact on the sound.
Chamber of a mouthpiece is called the upper part on top of the bore, which leads to the
tip. It is defined as the interior space starting after the bore and follows the baffle’s incline. The
chamber has a considerable effect on the timbre quality, and the ease of playing. It is available in
several different shapes, such as round, square or U-shaped and varies in size. The bigger
chambers are mainly preferred in jazz music. The musician has the ability to control the sound
better by selecting a smaller chamber. However, by choosing a bigger chamber, the sound is
flatter, resembling less the sound of a wooden instrument; as a result, it becomes very challenging
for the musician to produce and control the sound. In other words, the professional musicians can
choose bigger chambers though not as big as in jazz music, compared to beginners who will

Figure 3.2.1 Anatomy of a typical saxophone mouthpiece

!36
benefit more from a mouthpiece that has a smaller chamber. Hence, the mainstream models fitting
the beginner’s needs and the classical music genre are the relatively closed mouthpieces. The
chamber size along with the baffle controls the tone colour of the mouthpiece (Roach 1998).
The tip opening is the vertical distance between the highest point of the mouthpiece tip
and reed. It plays a vital part in the design of the mouthpiece as well as the ease of playing - as the
bigger it is, the more difficult it is to blow the mouthpiece. It has no effect on the timbre. The tip
opening as well as the curved part of the facing length increases from classical to jazz
mouthpieces. The facing curve is essentially defined as the region whereas the reed is able to
move freely while vibrating, as the rest of the part is attached on the flat facing's surface. The
longer the curved part of the facing, the softer the reed that is required and usually preferred in jazz
(lower notes are more difficult to be produced). Embouchure strength also plays a role for the
musician’s preferred tip opening. Tip openings generally increase from classical to jazz
mouthpieces, as well as the curved length of the facing and increases the length that the reed is
able to move, and requires a softer reed (Roach 1998).
The break point is located on the facing table and is where the reed is separated from the
flat surface, following a curve. It also defines the beginning of the facing curve. It can be high,
medium or low. In classical music, it is usually high as it gives the player the option to have a
flexible embouchure while having a stable sound.
The baffle is defined as the last higher part of the beak, being the chamber’s top cover and
ending on the tip’s edge. It can vary in shape and incline affecting the sound noticeably, but most
frequently it follows the chamber’s form. Baffle inner height affects the brightness or darkness of
the tone [27].
The facing is called the entire mouthpiece surface that starts from the flat table and
extends until the tip of the mouthpiece, and is usually hand-curved. It defines the plane where the
reed is attached, apart from its top curved point which lets the air go through. The facing length is
the whole distance from the tip of the mouthpiece to the point where the surface is cut. The facing

Figure 3.2.2 Visual explanation on baffle types

Figure 3.2.3 Visual explanation on different chambers

!37
curve is the top part of the facing that is entirely rounded - creating the tip opening. The facing
length and curve differ among brands and are both important in the response each mouthpiece
has. It is possible for saxophones to have the same tip opening, but different facing lengths.
The mouthpiece of the saxophone, despite its small size and presumably simple shape, is
a very complicated piece as it is based on complex curves. Straight edges are few, as the design
is a result of years of craftsmanship, experience and trial and error evolving. Apart from
dimensional properties, this curvature is also crucial when choosing the right mouthpiece. Reed
selection (depends on its thickness, material, musical genre) plays an important role too, but will
not be researched for this project.
An example of a possible limitation arising during the design process of the mouthpieces is
the beak’s curve that cannot be extended perpetually, due to the mechanical properties of the
object. Also, the side rails can be an area of research as they are dependent on the chamber’s
size, shape and incline. In theory, any combination of the mentioned mouthpiece features could
potentially produce a plethora of models with different acoustic results. These features, i.e.
chamber, baffle, bore, facing length and tip opening, are closely associated to acoustical
properties, and therefore any minor variation will lead to a new mouthpiece design. For example,
the response offered by two randomly selected mouthpieces with the same tip opening can vary
substantially as the rest of the parameters will be different, and the tip opening is merely one
parameter of this system.
Mouthpiece evaluation can be determined by acoustical and musical characteristics, such
as tone sonority, accuracy of pitch (as well as mouthpiece’s own pitch), tone quality, support in
volume and stability, response offered to the user and ease of blowing [29]. Secondary qualities
that may be important to classify the mouthpiece is the ease of harmonics, reed friendliness, the
ability to amplify the sound, comfort of playing and displayed resistance [8]. Most importantly, a
good mouthpiece can noticeably improve any instrument’s sound.
In conclusion, there is no gold standard for the manufacturing of an ideal mouthpiece
rather than making multiple combinations. Choosing a mouthpiece is as important as
understanding its power on the sound. The choice is dictated by personal objectives too, such as
mouth muscles, teeth and lip shape, style of music and experience. Considering that the
mouthpiece designing process is evolving and musicians will always be searching for their
signature sound, it is widely accepted that there are certain universal parameters in order to
describe the sound.

3.3

Project’s Brief

!38
 Taking into account all of the above information on how a mouthpiece’s sound is
influenced, it will be easier to prioritise the features that will be selected for user customisation.
Later, their dimensional properties can be altered based on a parametrised model, according to the
musician’s desired values. A mouthpiece model, offering partial parametrisation will solve the
problem of infinite design possibilities, and the values will be editable to an extent that the model
can adapt efficiently. To assure this, discrete values are preferred in comparison to a full
arithmetical spectrum, so a parametrised model will be altered based on two or three important
features.
Regarding the blueprint to that will be created for the project’s trials and evaluation, it is
better to choose an already existing mouthpiece, in order to be more precise on the comparison
between the factory made and the 3D printed models. This way, evaluation between the different
printers and materials will be more correct as the factory made mouthpiece will define the quality
standard of the process. Designing a new mouthpiece for this project would be impossible as it
includes acoustical engineering research, which is a completely different subject, and will not fully
determine if 3D printing is a viable option, or if materials behave as expected. Chamber and tip
opening variations would affect the sound much more than the material itself leading to false
research data.
Even though the foremost goal of the project is to research the customisation possibilities
of a mouthpiece and the 3D printing’s potential, it is reasonable to separate the procedure in two
stages. First, the trial will experiment with aspects such as the material, the process, and the
different printers, and carefully establish a common ground understanding the musical variables
and their interpretation. For this step, the material is the first variable to be tested, while the others
follow, according to what is available. It is important to remark that the model is maintained the
same for every mouthpiece trial. Completion of the first step, would lead to the next phase of
experimenting. Since some of the printed mouthpieces are expected to pass the quality evaluation,
it is appropriate to continue attempting evaluation on customised prints. Qualitative and
quantitative feedback is discussed later on. It is sound to presume there is a high possibility that
such customisation is achievable if the first step is successful.
Selmer (Paris) is a world known company for its high quality classical mouthpieces, a top
choice of professors, musicians and beginners. Standard model S80 is one of the highly
suggested mouthpieces offering classical warm sound, ease of playability, and deep tone quality as
it has a characteristic square, medium sized chamber. The Selmer S80 C* and Selmer S90
represent two commonly used classical saxophone mouthpieces [28]. A great majority of
classically trained professionals use this Selmer mouthpiece and therefore it is selected as the
model for the experiment of this project. The S80 has a tip opening of 1.5mm and corresponds to
the C* version, being an excellent choice for classical music.
Thus, the project’s goal is to manufacture mouthpieces based on the S80 model, at first
using different materials, and then evaluate whether they can compete or not on the quality of the
original one. Furthermore, the chances of using such manufacturing techniques instead of the

!39
 Figure 3.3.1 (left) A collection of Selmer’s alto saxophone mouthpieces
Figure 3.3.2 (right) Classical S80 mouthpiece

typical factory procedures, is examined. In conclusion, following the proposed methodology would
contribute towards the ultimate goal of a parametrised mouthpiece model designed specifically for
3D printing techniques, agreeing with the DFM approach.
To conclude, the methodology being proposed to support this project is an amalgam of
arisen constraints discussed in the context of each paragraph. Via deductive reasoning, the key
points are that

3.4

Parameters for Customisation

As discussed before, the second part of the trial will be the parametrisation of the model.
Components of the mouthpiece that can be parametrised are either geometrical shapes or
dimensional attributes. Variation in geometrical characteristics of the chamber and the outer shell
can define distinct models of mouthpieces. Therefore, they define a slightly different project as in
model customisation instead of parametrical customisation. Selection of the properties for
parametrisation based on the influence they have on the quality of the sound are the chamber’s
size, the tip opening and facing length. Parameters that are not controlled by values, as they are
dependent on their geometrical forms are less not as easy to manipulate and thus to be, in turn,
coded into parametrised values. Such parameters are the outer shape, the chamber’s shape, and
others. The only type of customisation already offered by companies like Selmer, Vandoren,
Yamaha and some others are the tip opening variation for five or six types.
Tip opening variation in Selmer ranges from 1.48 mm to 2.10 and there is a difference of
1.5mm between two consecutive types (i.e. C to C*). S80 has a tip opening of 1.70 mm. In

!40
Vandoren, it is 1.52 mm to 1.68 mm, while in Yamaha the custom series range between 1.40 to
1.80 mm and the standard from 1.50 to 1.90 mm (step is defined as 0.10 mm). Tip opening
variations for other companies manufacturing alto saxophone mouthpieces can be found in
appendix 1. In Selmer, the chamber can be square, round or u-shaped. Sizing depends on the
shape as round chambers have more variation flexibility than the squared types, which should be
contained in the cylindrical bore. Variation in chamber size starts from a small sized chamber (i.e. it
is smaller than the bore), while the medium sized has more or less the same size with the bore. A
large chamber is bigger than the bore and gives a full sound. Regarding the Selmer’s squared
chamber, the S80 model is considered to have a small bore. Facing length is classified as short,
medium and long. Companies using a short facing include Selmer, while medium and large is
preferred by the jazz-oriented brands. Selmer ranges between 22.00 (S80 model) to 24.00 mm,
while Yamaha’s custom series have a facing length of 22.00 mm while the standard series 23.00
mm.

!41
CHAPTER 4 - [ ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ]

4.1

Introduction

In this chapter, the primary methods and techniques relevant to the 3D Printing will be
presented along with an evaluation of its aspects, processes, the market, and other related fields.
Apart from the prototyping processes, the methods of post processing will be discussed alongside
the mechanical properties of the available printing materials. The aim is to choose the most
appropriate method considering carefully the advantages and disadvantages. Finally, previous
similar projects will be taken into consideration, and ways to further improve this project will be
outlined.
Prototype production and manufacturing have been researched and studied in labs,
however, their applications have not spread widely yet. Home 3D printers have become more
common, while the cost has significantly dropped since the first commercially available machines.
Since the rise of 3D Printing, numerous machines and technologies have been tested, used,
patented and evolved for the fabrication of models. Initially, the development of new technologies
to create a real-time prototype has been
improved due to evolution of numerical
control technology. Then it resulted in the
technology of rapid manufacturing
technology, which nowadays is more
accurately referred to as, additive
manufacturing (AM).
There is certain ambiguity around the
terminology used to describe Additive
Manufacturing (AM), Rapid Prototyping (RP),
and 3D Printing. RP is the oldest term used,
while AM is the most descriptive of the
process, and 3D Printing is the most
commercially spread. An attempt to define
these terms and the technologies they are
associated with will follow. Terms, and
Figure 4.1.1 Additive manufacturing process in progress
classification of the technologies will be

!42
presented and grouped by the raw material’s state. In this thesis, the term AM will be preferred,
and the reason why is analysed below.
It all started in 1980, when the first lab trials took place for the Stereolithography machine
system, later known as the SLA technology. It has been the first and for many years the only AM
technique. A prototype was made by continuous layer by layer polymer disposition. Complex items
were created in a small amount of time and at a considerable cost, in comparison to all the
conventional methods available at the time. The technique was patented in 1987 (Hull, 1986) and
the commercial machine was ready the following year, but with a substantial cost. By 1992, there
were at least four more AM technologies including; SLS, FDM, LOM, which were patented and
commercially available soon after.
These technologies were researched and built for the ease of creating a physical
prototype, even though they are now used in a wide range of applications, as well as delivering
what we consider to be a final product. Due to new research technologies have vastly improved in
terms of quality and precision. The AM can be part of many design stages in a company,
depending on their aim, management and purpose. Many companies present as the core of their
entrepreneurship, a product that is solely manufactured by a 3D printer aimed to the end user.
Therefore, in such cases, finished products should not be defines as “prototypes”, but rather as
models or products. Such products could be jewellery, clothes, machine parts, human body parts
and fully finished houses. In addition, DFM offers new possibilities for the future. All the relevant
terms are inevitably affected, due to the continuous progress on this field. This could potentially
mean that the information recorded here may not be relevant in the future.

4.2

Terminology

Terms such as AM, 3D Printing, and RP have various uses and definitions. The most
accurate term is AM and the reason will be explained below. Also, the ISO/ASTM 52900 standard,
which was created in 2015, aims to establish all the terminology relevant to the AM processes and
classify each of the technologies and different types of AM.
The term Rapid Prototyping was adopted as an umbrella term for all the technologies
aiming to rapidly manufacture physical prototypes and models for products using three-
dimensional Computer Aided Design data (CAD). The goal is to fabricate quickly prototypes that
represent a part or a whole product before the final mass production. The prototype can be tested,
and therefore provide valuable insight at an early stage and comprise the foundation of the final
model as well as enhance the development design process and the product itself. The final
product is evidently dependent on the prototype. RP models can offer valuable design information

!43
that is easy to be shared among members of the design teams, external collaborators, and
customers.
Older bibliography uses the term Rapid Prototyping too. RP represents all the 3D
fabrication processes. In a wider approach, RP also includes material subtraction prototyping
technologies, which were the first to be programmed and controlled by the Computer Numerical
Control (CNC) machines. Such technologies are laser cutting, water-jet cutting as well as CNC
machining. CAD systems and progress in the field of computer engineering have built a software
connection between CAD and CAM.
However, RP should not be confused with the term Rapid Manufacturing (RM). This term
is not widely used, but in periods it was used to refer to processes and applications serving a final
product. Also, in the literature it is used for the manufacturing of products using AM technologies
resulting in readymade objects, parts or equipment of a finished product. On the other hand, Rapid
Tooling (RT) is another sub-field of the RP family, that specialises in the fabrication of tooling
equipment through these technologies. The RP technology and machines evolved while the need
for complex form of low production tools, grew. RT also focuses on the manufacturing of molds
and casts utilised in mass production of products.
An important point to consider is that by the manufacturing point of view, techniques
based on layer by layer material addition are opposed to the technical definition of RP. Therefore,
the term Additive Manufacturing has been proposed by the Technical Committee within ASTM
International.
Additive Manufacturing (AM), or sometimes referred to as Layer Manufacturing, was the
dominant name for this new category of manufacturing methods and technologies characterised
by additive construction and developed at the end of the 20th century. All technologies are based
on the fundamental disposition or curing of controlled amount of raw material in layers. Unlike
machining, which starts with a block and removes material until the desired shape is reached; AM
starts from scratch and the material is added in layers and agglomerated little by little until the
object is fully complete. For example, the Industrial machining of a saxophone mouthpiece, would
initially subtract material from a cuboid until forming the desired shape; while AM would build the
model by adding material based on referenced cross-sections. AM includes technologies
fabricating a model or a prototype rapidly; also, due to the fabrication style, it is the scientifically
preferred term when RP is inefficient.
AM is classified as a shaping technique too because of the way the model is created. The
material used in printers, can be either in solid form - techniques in this category use grains,
filaments and sheets - or liquid. Forming a model happens in repetitive stages that - usually take
seconds to solidify, are developed in thin layers, and built sequentially in steps based on the CAD
model. AM uses the STL file prototype6 and some of the most common processes are the FDM
and SLA. Most of the AM technologies were based on the SLA methodology for the first

6 File format native to the CAD software, created by 3D Systems. It is a raw triangulated surface representation using a
three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system.

!44
commercial systems. Variation in technologies is relevant to programming and functionality of the
equipment and can have a great impact on the quality as well as the cost of the finished product.
AM can be applied in several fields, including RT, RM and the medical field. United States and
global technical standards use the official term AM for its broader sense, since the final goal of it, is
achieving mass-production, which greatly differs from 3D printing or RP.
3 Dimensional Printing (3D Printing) has been used for over 30 years, but it is not the ideal
term in the scientific community. It does not fully represent the technologies and processes that fall
into the category of AM. The term is used to describe processes that generally achieve building 3D
objects using plastic as the main material, through a digital design. 3D Printing was established as
a synonymous term to the AM, aimed to the wider public as a more appealing and easier to
understand term. Also, in this category processes that use a smaller scale can also be included,
such as photolithography.

4.3

The Process

All the processes of fabricating a model include four discrete steps. Firstly, it is required to
create the digital CAD file of the model’s blueprint. This can be achieved either by designing the 3D
model directly in a CAD system, or by scanning a preexisting object for the same scope. The 3D
object should be designed as a solid model in order to be used for the AM technologies. In other
words, the model’s volume should be only and fully defined by its envelope surfaces, which should
be unambiguously and utterly closed. In such a model, the topology of the surfaces is clearly
defined, therefore it states, which planes and which edges are connected mutually. No free edges
or points are allowed in the model.
During the second stage, preparatory tasks take place, and printer programming
modifications. The 3D model should be exported in the stl file type (it uses the STL standard
coding) in order to transfer the geometrical data of the 3D model. It was developed by the 3D
Systems, the first company that produced the commercial STL machine. Essentially, it is a facet
format prototype whereas the surfaces of the 3D model are translated into a multi edge version, in
their simplest form. The approach is called tessellated modelling. The file only contains information
about the surface of the model, excluding colours, materials and stress distribution features. Using
this model, orientation of the prototype for the manufacturing process is defined using the
machine’s coordinate system - primarily, the Z axis; it defines the direction towards the addition of
the consecutive layers.
Depending on the chosen AM process, the parts of the model that need support are
specified automatically and the compatible support structure is built. The structure is necessary
and required in many technologies, to make sure that the fabricating process is stabilised and

!45
secure, and the final prototype precise. It is also required for any hanging or protruding parts in
order to protect them from being defected by their weight or the machine’s moving parts. In
addition, the support material also protects the model and its surfaces from touching the platform
or bed, as well as having an easier detachment when the procedure is completed.
After choosing the process orientation and creating any support structures needed, the
process of slicing down the model follows. Both the support structure and the model are being
crossed by consecutive planes, parallel to the XY plane (platform surface). The important factor
that needs to be specified, is the layer thickness - defined as the spacing between two horizontal
layers of printing, called slicing step. The slicing step affects greatly the quality and precision of the
finished object. The sliced file is created, containing the 2D sections the machine’s software
required for the process.
For the third stage, the stl and sliced files are imported in the machine, and the setup of
the printer options follows (i.e. needle speed, printing accuracy/required time). Sometimes this step
is fully automated. After the process is completed, the post-processing follows. The process
duration depends on the precision of the technology chosen, the printer’s accuracy, the slicing
step, the size and the complexity of the object. It could be typically between 6 and 12 hours to
print, depending on the pre-mentioned factors. The thicker the construction layers are, the quicker
the printing is, but the lower the quality, showcasing visible construction lines.

4.4

AM Technologies

All the AM processes have certain features in common, but certain methods are more
advantageous than others depending on the application. The advantages can be related to the
accuracy on complex geometries, the material used, the post-processing stage, the manufacturing
speed, and the construction’s maximum size. Common and distinctive feature of the AM
technologies, is the independent geometry of the objects. Free-form geometry and small sized
objects are also encouraged. AM shaped the way for more inclusive, customised products, along
with small batch production, and completed products. The SLA, SLS, FDM technologies are used
for medium sized objects, but for larger items the cost is extremely high and the performance is still
moderate [14].
The various AM technologies can be grouped into separate categories based on their
technical characteristics, the form of the raw material or their release date. For example, raw
material classification includes solid (filament, sheets, powder/grain) or liquid type. Another way of
classification can be based on the process, i.e. laser, inkjet, material extrusion. The current
presentation is based upon the state of the selected raw material for the process, resulting in the
following four groups.

!46
 Liquid raw material: usually processes that work with photopolymers. Polymers of that
kind, solidify - get polymerised under specific light wave length conditions. Typical processes are
the SLA, Polyjet 3DP.
1. Stereolithography (SLA) is the first ever technology
available and one of the three most well-known 3D
printing technologies. The SLA is the best for functional
prototyping, moulding and tooling. It is a versatile
technology with high accuracy 7 and surface quality. As
mentioned before, the first system was designed by 3D
Systems company in 1987. The term was used for the
first time in 1986. The fabrication takes place inside a
resin tank where the objects are created after sequential Figure 4.4.1 The SLA process
layer by layer solidification. Solidifying of the resin is
possible by using a laser. The laser is essentially a ray of
focused UV radiation, which scans the surface of the tank according to the stl file. The
process commences from the bottom layer of the object to the top. The liquid resin is
cured by laser into hardened plastic, thus the procedure is called photopolymerisation.
Support mesh construction is required to stabilise the object on the manufacturing panel
and protect it from parts of the machine that are moving. The support structure is built
automatically during the preparation of the printer and must be removed with great
caution. Some of the advantages of SLA include the fine detail on complex geometries,
and the outstanding quality of surface finish, which has been shown to be the smoothest
when compared to the rest of the technologies. The versatility of the SLA technology has
equipped manufacturers with the ability to create resin products with great mechanical,
optical and thermal properties to match all types of engineering needs. Many companies
use SLA for product development and testing, as well as manufacturing finished products.
2. Polyjet 3D Printing is the technology that uses a spraying technique, similar to the typical
inkjet printers, in order to create an ultra-thin layer of photopolymer material on the
platform. UV light is used to solidify the jetted layers, and thus, producing the final model.
Material is sprayed and small drops of polymer are attached on the plane, soon to be
treated.
Raw material in grains or powder is used by some technologies, two of the most commonly used,
are SLS and 3DP.
1. Selective Layer Sintering8 (SLS) is widely used as the SLA and FDM processes and was
developed at the end of 1980 by DTM Corp in the USA. It is preferred for functional

7 The minimum feature size of the XY plane related to printing quality and measured via microscopic imaging. It is defined by
the smallest movement that a printer’s laser or extruder can make within a single layer.

8 The process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat or pressure without melting it to the point of
liquefaction

!47
 prototyping and custom
manufacturing. It is a power bed
fusion technique, which uses a
high-powered UV laser, which
sinters the grained or powdered
material - most commonly it is a
polymer - building the model layer
by layer. In other words, the
polymer powder is fused, while the
Figure 4.4.2 SLS Process in progress
uncured material works as a
support structure for the model
(offered by the previous layers of unprocessed grain). The building process occurs through
the repetitive deposition of grained material and its selective heating causes the layers to
solder together. Depending on the material, the required power of the laser is different. In
some cases, the model needs further hardening treatment to enhance its mechanical
properties. A wide range of materials are available for this technology, including nylon,
glass, elastomers (TPU), synthetic materials (such as carbon fibre reinforced nylon, glass
fibre reinforced nylon), ceramics, as well as some metal alloys. Nylon (Polyamide 11 or 12)
is the common choice of raw material as it is strong, lightweight, chemically stable, and
has very good mechanical properties. A common variation of the material is metal grains
coated in thermoplastic. The manufacturing is accomplished by indirect sintering. Some of
the advantages of SLS are the excellent mechanical properties of the produced model,
resembling the features of one produced by injection molding. Furthermore, the low cost
per unit, as well as the variety of available materials are benefits of this technology.
2. 3D Printing (3DP) was developed by researchers on the MIT labs in the USA. It is
performed through jetting a connective material topped with grained raw material. The
process takes place on a printing bed. The connective material is a type of glue or binder.
The built process is possible by the repetitive placing of powder, along with selective glue
jetting, and soldering the raw material. In its most widely known form, the raw material is
ceramic, plaster, or starch based powder, while the connective material is water-based
glue. The finished object is considered slightly porous and fragile, as the bonds between
the grains are loose. The fragility of the material can be decreased by impregnating9 the
finished object in a substance to reinforce it by filling the pores between the grains and
make a more compact body. It can also be cured by heat treatment. This technology can
be ideal for the manufacturing of colourful objects, as the glue can be coloured as in the
inkjet printer. If the raw material is ceramic, casts can be manufactured for use in mass
production. 3DP was named after the inkjet printing due to their resemblance.

9 Object infusion or permeated in a substance; to fill interstices

!48
 3. Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) is the technology based on the evolving of machines
processing metal powder without any coating. It is based in the SLS technology although it
uses a higher powered laser. It was developed in 1994, by the collaboration between two
companies. The beam of laser scans the desired cross section surface, and sinters the top
grains directly. A benefit of the technology, is that the grains have no coating, resulting in
the creation of a solid metal object. The model can achieve ~95% density, whilst the SLS
offers around ~75%. High precision can also be accomplished, especially if choosing a
thinner slicing step, or finer-grained powder. Materials available are steel alloys, cobalt-
chromium, aluminum, titanium, and others. For processing a wider range of materials, a
different type of machine’s head is used, able to move freely for deposing the material.
4. Laser Powder Forming (LPF) is a family of similar processes that has started gaining fame.
It includes the technology invented by Sandia National Labs, where a high energy laser is
used to melt the metal grains that they are disposed in a coaxial way, along with the laser.
Disposition happens through a proper material head. Usually the head is on a fixed
position, whereas the bed (platform) is following the process’s movement for every single
cross-section. The grains reach the head either by their gravity force or by a propellant.
Solid raw material: Such technologies are characterised by heating of the raw material to their
melting point. The material, then, flows through a disposition system. The most representative
technology is the FDM.
1. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) is the most commonly used technology to create
models on the consumer level. It is used for evaluation purposes from complex prototyping
to basic model creation. It was developed by Stratasys company, in 1990. The process
includes the construction of both the object and its support structure. Firstly, the raw
material is heated and flows through a moving nozzle and is deposed carefully on the
platform. The nozzle is free to move on the X and Y axis. The process is based on the
repetitive deposition of fluid
material, as in most of the AM
technologies. The polymer
comes in a filament form and
gets heated to slightly higher
temperature than its melting
point. The whole system is
enclosed in a heated structure,
so that the raw material is
placed smoothly, and the
effects of strain are minimised.
This way, sudden cooling is
avoided, and the nozzle
Figure 4.4.3 Visible layers on the surface of an FDM print
requires less energy to heat the

!49
 filament. Sometimes, two nozzles are used, one for each material of the support and
model’s construction. Variation in these two materials facilitates the removal and cleaning
of the finished model. Printers can utilise ABS, PLA, polycarbonate, composite materials,
and low melting point metals. The latter is expected to maximise material performance and
strength features. Thermoplastic filaments, such as ABS, PLA and their blends have a low
price, but in contrary the accuracy and resolution are lower, SLA and SLS are associated
with the lowest resolution. However, model making with FDM is a good option to evaluate
a basic concept, considering the low overall cost of the machine and filaments. Materials
are chosen for their durability and mechanical strength (defined as σy). The support
structure can be made of nylon, polymers or waxes. An advantage of FDM is the ease of
removing the support structure if a water-soluble material is used, as well as the
continuously expanding material range. Post processing includes chemical polishing in
order to enhance the surface quality.
Raw material in sheets:
1. Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) in its most known form, uses a laser to cut a piece
of paper which is later laminated using glue coating. The paper is coated with
thermoplastic material causing it to stick together. The paper comes through a roll placed
on the one side of the machine while on the other is the residue. The profile of one slice is
cut by the laser; a heated roller presses the slice onto the stack of previously cut papers.
This process continues until all the papers are in place forming the model. The process is
faster than others because the laser only cuts the outline of the cross-section. It is best for
large components in need of thick-wall sections. The finished material resembles wood.

4.5

Post Manufacturing

Some of the AM processes require a final step, following the manufacturing of the model
that is the finishing of the product. Every prototyping technique requires a different post-
manufacturing process, also called post-curing, which improves the texture and the mechanical
properties of the finished product. Also, inevitable manufacturing flaws can be corrected. More
specifically, post manufacturing can consist of the support structure removal, improvement of the
outer shell’s finish, fixing mistakes or improving dimensional accuracy, aesthetic improvements
(such as colouring). Furthermore, it can prepare the object to use it as a casting/moulding
prototype and treat it to improve the material’s mechanical properties. These procedures usually
require a professional person specialised to combine craftsmanship and expertise. It is possible to
be referred to a special AM service bureau for the post manufacturing, which would explain the
high cost on model printing.

!50
 As soon as the procedure is completed, the model is removed either by hand or by tools
in order to be cleaned and follow any of the post manufacturing processes. Also, according to the
AM technology used, there may be a need to repair the finish of the model’s surface or the
materials mechanical properties.
The removal of support structure is the most common post manufacturing process. The
structure is adapted to the model built, limits and holds it in place during the process, to avoid
failures in accuracy or the cascading of layers. Primarily, the support structure is made of a different
material (mainly polymers) in order to be easily removed, be affordable, and have properties that fit
its utilisation. Typically, it can be a thin net, so it will be removed easier by breaking (break-away
support). The structure is either built artificially by the user, or created automatically, as in
photopolymer and deposition processes. The first type is removed by hand, washing (in the case
of water-soluble materials), or heating. A downside is that the model may be rough or have
leftovers from the support structure.
Systems that process grain or material in sheets, support the model on the raw untreated
material. In the case of sintering powder system, the support material is removed after a cool-
down process in order to minimise strain caused by unbalanced temperature changes. Waiting
time is different based on the model’s size and material. Unnecessary powder is removed with the
help of compressed air and hand-held tools. The processes that use laser require zero waiting time
although the model is much more fragile and brittle. With regards to the laminating technologies, in
case of non-water-soluble materials, the support structure is usually made of wax, and can be
removed easily once heated.

4.6

Home 3D Printing

3D Home printers have recently been available and have a small variety of options. 3D
home printing has its own limitations, meaning it cannot print everything. 3D printers are prominent
for objects that cannot be made by other processes, or crafted by hand. For example, for objects
that need support structure, SLS is suitable.
3D home printing is a slightly different from the professional 3D printer on the quality, cost,
precision, and every aspect that is relevant to technological characteristics. A 3D home printer can
be either purchased as a Do It Yourself (DIY) kit or as a fully functioning printer. Nowadays, kits are
popular and come in 3 types. There is a type that only contains the necessary ready-to-use
mechanic parts mixed without any indications; a type that contains everything in small labeled
bags with specifications and some instructions as well; and the most complete type that includes
all the tools needed to assemble and built a printer (like allen keys etc). After the kit is selected,
there are some specific steps in order to fully build the printer. Mainly, plastics are selected in order

!51
to build some parts required for the
printer, then wiring the electronics
as well as the motion and sensing
machines [13]. The most well-
known kit project is the RepRap.
RepRap is based on the technology
that was released after the
expiration of the SLA patent. It is an
open source project, aimed for
individuals willing to build the printer
on their own instead of buying a
factory-made model.
Figure 4.6.1 3D home printer

4.7

Material’s Mechanical Properties

Materials used for the AM processes range from a wide variety of thermoplastic polymers,
composites, metals, paper and ceramics. Depending on the application, the material is selected
based on its mechanical properties, and the corresponding process. Factors that can be limiting
are mechanical strength, yield strength, safety factor, hardness and acoustical absorption. Most
machines are compatible with thermoplastics a common choice for 3D manufacturing as their
melting point and the toxicity are low.

Figure 4.7.1 The four methods of material selection

Material selection can be made upon four methods [21]. First of all, the design
requirements have to be defined, depending on the technical limitations, economical subjects,
sustainability, aesthetic goals, and perceptions or intentions, as Ashby indicates [21]. Following the
selection of the material, the preferred method must be chosen. A material can be selected by

!52
analysis, synthesis, similarity and inspiration [21]. Most commonly, the material is selected by
analysis, because its method incorporates studying the mechanical properties of the material that
qualifies to overcome the constraints of the design brief.
The most commonly used materials are polylactic acid (PLA), acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and co-polyesters such as PETg, PETT, and PET.
The mechanical properties of some hard materials will be studied as well as their suitability and
safety for use in constructing a mouthpiece. Materials that were used for the creation of
mouthpieces for the four trials were the following: ABS, PETg, PLA and resin. Therefore, the
mechanical properties of these specific materials will be displayed below.
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) is a common engineering thermoplastic polymer
alloy. At first, polystyrene begins as styrene-ethylene. It can be modified as a thermoplastic or
elastomer, foamed or blended; and, by chemical modifications, it is transformed into ABS and its
derivatives. ABS’s glass transition temperature is around approximately 105°C. This engineering
material demonstrates better mechanical properties than common plastics and has a more
predictable behaviour. ABS is amorphous and therefore has no true melting point. It is stable to
decomposition under normal use and polymer processing conditions. The material’s exposure to
carcinogens is well below workplace exposure limits. It is also a common material used for
products designed for children as they are strong, tough, corrosion resistant, non-toxic and FDA
approved (some grades of it) as well as a good choice for structural applications. The fact that it is
a thermoplastic enables it to be easily moulded and coloured, a perfect choice for printing as well.
The only downside as it was already mentioned, is that during its processing it emits harmful
vapours on the environment. Recycling ABS or using recycled ABS is possible.
Technical specifications of commercial ABS are as follows:

Density: 1.01-1.21 mg/m³ Hardness: 6-15 HV

Yield strength: 18.5-51 MPa Elastic modulus: 1.1-2.9 GPa

Fr. toughness: 1.2-4.2 MPa·√m

Polylactic Acid (PLA) is a thermoplastic polyester with its profound characteristic being
biodegradability. It is derived fully from renewable resources, mainly vegetative such as corn starch,
or maize. It has good aesthetic properties (such as gloss and clarity - it resembles the clear
polystyrene) and if processed like most thermoplastics, it can be made into films, thermoformed or
injection molded. PLA fibers can be used as common fibers. It is FDA approved for food packaging
and is also used for medical applications as it is biodegradable and can decompose in the body
between 6 months to 2 years.Its sheets and films can be printed and laminated. It is fully recyclable
as it comes from natural sources, although all biopolymers are expensive in comparison to other
plastics. RepRap and MakerBot commercial printers use PLA filament material.
Technical specifications of commercial PLA are as follows:

!53
 Density: 1.21-1.24 mg/m³ Hardness: 14-18 HV

Yield strength: 48-69 MPa Elastic modulus: 3.45-3.8 GPa

Fr. toughness: 0.7-1.1 MPa·√m Rec. molding temp: 165-170 °C

In general, a resin is a solid and viscous material that when cured, results in a polymer. A
polymer is a large molecule consisting of many repeating subunits. Resins can be synthetic or
natural and generally are mixtures of organic compounds. After polymerisation or curing, resins
form polymers. Most cases of commercial resins consist of at least two parts - the resin and a
hardener. When both parts are mixed, polymerisation starts, the resin gets cured and the final
product is a polymer. So, resin could be described as an uncured polymer. For AM technologies, a
resin is a photosensitive material, for example the ones used in SLA. This means that the resin
changes properties when exposed to a specific type of light, for example UV, resulting in cross-
linking in the material’s structure. Photopolymers used in AM processes aim to have a low volume
shrinkage upon polymerisation as distortion of the solid object is not favoured. There are many
types and groups of resins such as phenolics, epoxy resins and others but not all of them are
suitable for printing. Resins come from plant or synthetic origin and can usually be converted to
polymers. Every type of resin is associated with entirely different properties, thus there is no
standardised table of properties. Mechanical properties such as density, elastic modulus, hardness
and yield strength are dependent upon the origin of the resin, its treatment, and the kind of
chemical addition in their form. The special SLA resins that will be used will be presented below
(chapter 6).
PolyEthylene Terephthalate,glycol modified, (PETg) is a common thermoplastic polyester
with good mechanical properties even at temperatures of up to 160°C. PETg is the outcome of
ethylene glycol addition to PET resulting in a copolymer with modified properties. It is a clear
amorphous thermoplastic and it can be injection molded, extruded, thermoformed or used as a
filament. In addition, it can be coloured during post processing of AM technologies. It can be
recycled into fibers.
Technical specifications of commercial PETg are as follows:

Density: 1.19-1.81 mg/m³ Hardness: 11-40 HV

Yield strength: 30-40 MPa Elastic modulus: 1.6-4.4 GPa

Fr. toughness: 1.05-9.16 MPa·√m Rec. molding temp: 250-260°C

!54
 4.8

Other Aspects

AM is considered an emerging field in technology, and has opened new paths in terms of
copyrights legislation. In general, digital models, and (mass)produced objects are protected under
copyright laws. Additionally, cases of Reverse Engineering (RE) are also connected with products
under the same copyright legislation. For example, the manufacturing of any type of model whose
CAD model was a result of RE is under the same strict protection such as intellectual property.
Protection law can range from fully protected work to shared only under special circumstances or
completely free for personal, or more seldom, commercial use.
A mouthpiece model intended for a beginner musician as an end user should be able to
reach them despite the copyright issues. Most of the time, such 3D models free from strict
copyright laws are distributed and are available in digital libraries. These libraries are model
databases hosted on the cloud10 and are generally accessible to everyone with access to internet.
Offering a model through a site and under open-source protection can achieve a great distribution.
From the legal rights’ viewpoint, there is a part of 3D Printing that is not currently
discussed even though issues arise frequently. The subject is the intellectual property and
ownership wherever it applies. For example, one’s own model can be shared freely through a site if
the owner has agreed upon open source or creative commons licensing. However, if a model of
Asterix is distributed in such a way, it would be treated differently as it is a trademark. A typical
example is the “chess with moustaches” which was a chess-set printed by the artists S. Kildal and
B. Cera. It was based on a photograph of the chess that no longer existed, designed by M.
Duchamp, and received a legal threat.
Online websites with 3D stl
models, which also offer download
options, are shown on the table
below sorted by their blueprints’
quality. The most known sites are the
cults3d.com along with
thingiverse.com. The models are
either available for free or paid.
The use of 3D printing to
make musical instruments has
increased in the past few years,
mostly for woodwinds and less for
Figure 4.8.1 Sites offering free stl models
strings or percussion. Similar projects

10The cloud is defined as the place where online data are stored, while they are accessible from multiple distributed and
connected resources that comprise a cloud.

!55
have used 3D printing for 3Dvarius by Laurent Bernadac, an electric violin made by SLA. Also, the
3D printed trumpet, was made by Luthier Jérôme Wiss. The trumpets aimed to avoid natural
tuning flaws and were printed in metal.
Today, desktop machines for 3D home printing can be purchased as low as 200 € for the
XYZ Da Vinci Nano, using PLA for the FDM process. Models can cost up to 4.000 € offering bigger
build volume, different handling on materials and processes as well as better layer resolutions. This
technological evolution has brought this technology of prototyping closer to the average user for
personal use.

!56
PART 2

!57
CHAPTER 5 - [ THE PROCESS ]

5.1

Introduction

The second part of the project, concerns the printed mouthpiece trials, and the respective
application of all the information discussed during the first part. Model selection, materials, purpose
of the project and the proposed methodology are the most important topics, leading on the actual
printing. The 5th chapter provides an insight on how the blueprint of the mouthpiece was made
and the specifications required for the print. Having a more precise approach on the CAD model
will lead to a better and more accurate evaluation. Problems and challenges encountered will be
mentioned along with the possible solutions. Definition and information, such as the process, and
the tools of reverse engineering, will be analysed. Reverse engineering is an important part of
model making while having no technical information concerning an already existing model of the
product.
User testing and the parameters of the quality evaluation, concerning the sound in
classical music, will have to be determined. The user’s feedback regarding the trials will use the
same code. Also, the legal aspects in
relation to modelling and reverse
engineering as well as the spectrum of
the abilities and issues of the 3D print
today, are discussed. It is reasonable
that not every case of reverse
engineering will be legal upon its
physical reproduction.
As mentioned before, the 3D
model will be based on the S80 C*
mouthpiece, designed, patented and
distributed by Selmer Paris. Stages of
production include the mouthpiece’s
typical measuring, experimenting
methods, reverse engineering and digital
processing for the completion of the
blueprint. Figure 5.1.1 Process of measuring the model
In conclusion, the methodology

!58
being proposed - to follow through this project - is an amalgam of the arisen constraints
(discussed already in the context of each paragraph) and then, facing them, one by one. Via
deductive reasoning, the key points are the combination of fields, such as; 3D printing, and
personalised customisation, willing to explore new perspectives on the mouthpiece construction
and distribution practise. Issues possibly to be solved, are the testing before purchasing of a
mouthpiece, the user-tailored mouthpiece, and the expense and lack of knowledge of the
beginner, in choosing an appropriate mouthpiece. In search of this, the first step is to select a top
mouthpiece and through reverse engineering attempt to 3D print it in a variety of materials, and
then evaluate its appraisal. Evaluation is based on the comparison between the trials and the
original model. If the first step succeeds, the second involves the testing on a parametrised model
for the customisation. Mandatory step for both cases, including their combination, is the first one;
thus the one that will be practically examined in this project. In case of a fruitful trial, the
applications emerging could probably be relevant to service design, marketing campaigns and the
pre-mentioned existent issues.

5.2

Reverse Engineering (RE)

Reverse Engineering (RE), or reversing, is an established method and process for

gathering physical data of a model, and transferring them on a digital form. Data extraction
happens from an already produced man-made object. Physical data can be properties such as the
geometrical shape, dimensions, and structure of an object. The aim is to produce a realistic digital
representation of the studied object, obtaining information for further research and analysis. It is
used effectively, for the digitisation of all geometrical characteristics, shapes and assembly parts
that can be captured and represented digitally. All this extracted information is able to be edited in
order to create a valid design blueprint. The goal is, from a physical prototype to derive its own
digital model or technical drawing.
During the designing phase, and before the final manufacturing, technologies such as;
measuring, scanning and model making, are important for both stages, and for the quality
evaluation and data digitisation. The main measuring technologies are separated in non-contact
and contact. The basic principles and equipment varies for each one, and supportive software is
required. Technologies within this category are, the Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) and
the 3D Scanning. A glimpse into applying these technologies in the field of RE will be analysed.
Technologies that can be used for this purpose, have their own advantages and
disadvantages each. The main disadvantage can be the dimensional accuracy and precision hardly
to be achieved. In general, such processes are classified as Time Compression Technologies
(TCTs). RE, as an approach to scientific research and analysis, has been known since before it was

!59
made possible as a process, due to the lack of technology we now own. For instance, the reverse
engineered blueprint likens the “blueprint” of a neuron system, and such approached have been
developed. The difference between these two, is that the first is a human artefact, while the
second is natural structured.
RE, in most cases, aims to release the type of knowledge, design philosophy, information
or ideas, that they are unknown, or their owner has not sharing them publicly. Cases requiring the
implementation of RE, are when the necessary model has been lost, or technical documentation
does not exist (i.e. drawings, 3D models, manufacturing and construction guides). Additionally, it
works for objects that they were formed and crafted solely by hand, embodying expert’s
craftsmanship and experience, or happens to be artist’s work [14]. Other applications, have been
when in need of customisation of a product (such as shoe soles), it became possible, by utilising
digital anthropometric data of the client, taken through RE. However, a patented item could still be
constituted by other undisclosed technologies that may not have a patent. Hence, RE could be an
extremely useful tool to identify patent or copyright infringements from competitor products.
Apparently, the field of RE application is quite wide and does not only concern product design.
Regarding the legal boundaries of RE, there is a debate that has been discussed a long
time. The main issue is about the impact of the process in the society and original creation.
Though, the intention behind the use of RE remains more important. Furthermore, every country
has its own legal legislation concerning cases and intellectual property’s protecting laws. For this
project, the purpose of RE is exclusively academic researching, and has no commercial intentions.
However, an item under one or more patents could also include other technology that is not
patented and not disclosed. Indeed, one common motivation of reverse engineering is to
determine whether a competitor's product contains patent infringements or copyright
infringements [10].

Figures 5.2.1 Reverse engineering in progress, scanning the saxophone mouthpiece

!60
 For applying RE, computer support is taken for granted, as the produced model is digital.
The procedure follows three main steps. The first, concerns the primary data, the second its
processing. The collection of primary data takes place. In order to create a first impression of the
object, any measuring or inspection technique can be used. The export of this process, is s form of
a point cloud (fig. 5.2.2), whilst the aim is to have an imprint of the objects outer shell. Practically,
the goal of RE is the imprint of the exterior of an object, therefore the point cloud is all that is
needed. For creating the point cloud, it is necessary to use some type of scanning equipment to
gather and “translate” the info from points to product’s surface. This can be achieved either by
contact either non-contact technology like CMM, visual machines or other measuring technique.
Usually the term 3D scanner is the preferred equipment and the process is named 3D
scanning.The most widely spread optical technique uses laser as the medium of “reading” and
scanning the surfaces. Thus, a reflected ray is generated and monitored by a sensor, creating the
data retrieved from the targeted point. A processor receives the information and calculates
instantly the point’s coordinates. Most scanning machines, use light for taking measurements and
inspecting.

Figure 5.2.2 (left) Data retrieved from the process of RE

Figure 5.2.3 (right) The RE mouthpiece model

5.3

Modelling the Mouthpiece

!61
 Figures 5.3.1 Experimental measuring of the chamber’s shape and its connection to the bore

Modelling the mouthpiece in Creo Parametric 4.0 followed a series of steps. The base and
middle of the mouthpiece used the revolve feature. The facing was made by removing material
made on a single extrusion. The top part was modelled as a surface, guided by two curves; the tip
and the beak’s base. Rounded fillet was used for the chamber to bore connection, and the
mouthpiece base, too. Lastly, the chamber was built as a swept blend towards the incline of the
beak, and used two different sized squares, that “ran” on a guide. Dimensions for the model were
taken from the reverse engineered model and typical measuring.

Figure 5.3.2 Experimental processes to determine the facing tip

The surface consisting of all the points scanned, was imported in Creo and specific parts
were measured. Verified dimensions were used to model the mouthpiece. Additional images were
used on the background to guide the process evolve faster. All the measurements were based on
an actual mouthpiece. Typical measurements included the use of a digital calliper. Despite the
accuracy that this instrument can offer, there was slight imprecision noticed through repetitive

!62
 Figure 5.3.3 Experimental processes to measure difficult parts of the mouthpiece

measurements. For instance, the top part of the mouthpiece consisting of two different angles; one
on the facing curve, and one on the beak, was not measured easily. Therefore, implementation of
RE technology helped define the actual curved. Combining RE with experimenting and typical
measuring techniques and photos was crucial for modelling a mouthpiece as close to the original.
Repetitive measuring validated values for the final blueprint.
For the facing curve the mouthpiece was painted, by placing it on a coloured flat surface,
and letting the facing’s flat surface, to get coloured. This way, only flat part of the facing was
coloured and the separation lines between the facing curve were determined. Verification was
achieved through the opposite technique. The curved part was painted in a different colour and
while being attached on a flat surface, it was supposed to leave no paint. Full dimensions of the
facing length and the outer surface of the mouthpiece, were taken through the same way.
Colouring each part, and printing them on paper, was successful for taking the measurements
from their imprint left. Approaching a dimension by two different, minimised relevant fails.
A difficult process was making the chamber. The round bore switching to a square
chamber without an edgy transition was difficult to model. Also, the chamber has different
dimensions on its bottom and the top part. The chamber’s incline versus the mouthpiece’s
standing position was defined approximately. The imprint of the chamber’s inner geometry was
achieved by measuring its play dough imprint.
Using real photos, the incline of the beak was defined. Based on mouthpiece photos the
chamber’s incline was redetermined and thus the beak’s thickness dimensions were modelled
correctly. All the photos were taken with 50 mm lens, supposed to have the same angle as the
human’s vision.

!63
 Such limitations took time to be resolved and their possible impact was studied through.
Overcoming modelling difficulties was a big step towards the making of the mouthpiece’s blueprint.
A 3D model was designed, as identical as it could be to the Selmer’s S80. At this moment, material
properties, the quality of the produced sound, and thus the success of the project was possible to
be determined. Differentiations between the CAD model and the factory made model were
unavoidable, as transferring complex geometries into digital data is dependent on many factors
(such as printer’s precision, measuring tools precision, and experimental ways validity). Therefore,
the evaluation is proposed to leave some room for acceptable dimensional fails, in the extent that
they do not effect the sound or there is no other way to be modelled. The fact that the S80 is a
high quality mouthpiece, with fine detailing, guarantees that the printing trials will show at least
basic sound qualities.

Figure 5.4.1 Variation between the RE model (red) and traditionally measured one (grey)

!64
CHAPTER 6 - [ EVALUATION ]

6.1

Introduction

At this point, all the preparatory stages have been completed and the models is ready to
be printed and evaluated. This is the most important step as it will clarify if it is meaningful to
manufacture 3D printed saxophone mouthpieces and their application, apart from being only
experimental subjects. In this chapter the printing trials of the final model will be shown, and the
necessary details of the testing and feedback will be discussed.

Figure 6.1.1 Final Render of a transparent mouthpiece, back and right view

The mouthpieces were manufactured at a fab lab11 in Athens and made from four different
materials using different printers. Afterwards, they were given to professional musicians to try them
for a short period of time and give feedback on them. Feedback will be based on the sound
qualification attributes, in order to use an integrated language for both the qualitative analysis and
the comparison to the factory-made mouthpieces. Thus a common sound quality definition

11 Fab lab is the short form for fabrication laboratory. It refers to a small-scale workshop offering (personal) digital
fabrication.

!65
grounding12 will be used throughout this project. The musician’s profile will be included, as their
musical background plays a significant role in their perceiving of classical music’s timbre.

Figure 6.1.2 Final Render of a transparent mouthpiece, left and bottom view

6.2

Final Model

As mentioned before, the model was designed in Creo Parametric 4.0 and exported in .stl
file type for the AM process. Each printer does not utilise the whole range of materials, therefore
two types of printers and AM processes were used. The printed model is supposed to be identical
to the studied one, but as the form is quite complex, and printer’s precision is not 100%
achievable, there shall be room for ±0.5 mm variance. Project’s self-evaluation will be the last thing
to be discussed, and surely affected by the quality of the produced mouthpiece for its future
viability. Another point is that the evaluation of AM as the selected manufacturing process, on a
well-designed object, cannot fail completely, as the initial data were of high quality (i.e. choosing
the S80 instead of another). Furthermore, possibly, a 10 cm object, could have tolerance ±0.5 mm
in its dimensions.
The model was rendered in glass, so the inner geometry of the chamber and bore is
visible. In the technical drawing inner geometry is not clearly understandable. The dimensions are
shown on the blueprint, while the ones not presented have resulted in relation to the rest, during
the modelling process. Degree of details on the stl file were kept on the same level for all the

12 Grounding as in basic knowledge of, or training on a subject

!66
printing sessions, adjusted to fine. Extra fine was an option too, but it required more time, and it
was more pricey, as well as the detail on the first fine print was perfect.

Figure 6.3.1 The 3D printed mouthpieces. The original model made by Selmer is the top right one (having
a round sticker on its side)

6.3

Printing Trials

!67
 The mouthpiece was manufactured in ABS, Resin, PETg and PLA. Some of them were
post-processed in order to make the surface smoother. Surface finishing requires suitability for oral
use, ductile and overall sense [21]. The cost of each 3D print was around 17 € depending mainly
on the material and the infill (precision and model were by default the same). Issues faced are
presented further down. The first printing trial took place in Decode FabLab (Athens), where all 4
different mouthpieces were printed. The first session included three ABS trials, one resin, one PETg
and one PLA. The models that were printed, were the following:

Figure 6.3.2 Three failed attempts using ABS, and its printing support

An ABS model was printed in black colour. Accuracy was at ±0.15 mm. The printing
temperature was 230°C, and the heated bed’s temperature was 80°C. The printer was the
MakerBot Replicator 2, belonging in the category of Fused Filament Fabrication (in other words,
FDM). This model failed to complete, having splinted in 4 or more parts between layers, as they did
not sint correctly to each other to become an entity. Possibly this has happened due to the room’s
temperature, which was around 19°C (considered low by the lab’s technicians), causing the cool

!68
down to be sudden. Thus, the layers did not manage to merge together. Finished models require a
smooth cool down and when this is forced, temperature changes are wider for same period of
time, than it is recommended, resulting in layers separation.

Figure 6.3.4 Views of the resin model, and its support structure

Resin on the other hand, was printed in a matte grey material. It was printed on a Form 2
model, by Formlabs, with precision at ±0.01 mm. The process is the SLA and the model had a
matte and smooth finish. Model’s feel was perceived as warm rather than cold [21] and had the
best finish of all four trials. It was the one out of the four that was printed as a solid. Post-
processing included abrasive paper to smooth out tiny protrusions around the base. The surface
quality was not impacted by the abrasive paper.

!69
 Figure 6.3.5 PETg mouthpiece views

PETg was printed in black colour too. Manufacturing’s temperature was 240°C and the
heated bed was on 80°C. The MakerBot Replicator 2 machine was used, based on the FFF
technology as mentioned before. The precision of the process was around ±0.15 mm. The infill for
this model was 30%.

Figure 6.3.6 PLA model views

The semi-translucent mouthpiece was made from PLA material. Process temperature was
at 210°C. Printer was the MakerBot Replicator 2, and precision at ±0.15 mm, too. The infill13 was
30% as in the PETg model.

13 The infill density, defines the amount of plastic used for the solid parts of the 3D model

!70
 Figure 6.3.7 The printers shown, are the MakerBot Replicator 2 and the Form 2, by Formlabs

6.4

Evaluating the Sound

Classical saxophone is inherently different from jazz, in terms such as; performance,
sound, and their musical genre aspects [4]. Generally, these aspects include notation, articulation
and improvisation, but are not limited. These establish the difference between classical and jazz
tone quality, with the latter considered as dim and slightly fuzzier in sound. This has been frequently
the point of discussion, between many teaching professors, as the spectrum of acceptable tone
qualities is quite broad, and not deeply determined.
Despite the aforementioned facts, classical tone quality is narrower, with less accepting
variations [28]. Terms used to describe a classical tone quality include focused, consistent, round
and warm. Although jazz saxophone tone quality may share some of the characteristics of classical
music, the spectrum of jazz is generally defined by richer musical sound. The jazz sound can be
edgy, outspoken, more colourful, and louder [4].
In terms of evaluating the quality of sound, no specific objectives or quantitative
parameters are to be considered. As Teal mentioned, the problem is that: “Beauty in any art is
much easier to recognise than to describe, and this is doubly true of a musical tone” (Teal, 1963).
Therefore, there is a need to specify the vocabulary the musicians use and try to define the

!71
qualities, which are often praised during performance. Afterwards it will be possible to use this
language as a background in order to actualise peer evaluation and feedback for the trials and
finally conclude the self-evaluating step for the project.
Following that, the vocabulary suggested by the musicians will be used as a tool in order
to accurately carry out an in-depth peer evaluation and feedback session on the mouthpieces
tested, thus concluding the self-evaluating step of this project. The tone quality of classical music,
in the context of sound, is the sound profile of an instrument or musician and may be described as
a of high quality, followed by terms such as round, full, warm, or wooden. A round sound in
classical music is interpreted as sweet, colourful and compact sound resembling the sound of a
solid, round, wooden ball. Most importantly, the sound does not coincide with the metal nature of
the instrument saxophone in the ears of an average audience. In other words, what some might
consider an acceptable classical tone quality may be dismissed as a jazz tone quality, and vice
versa.
Tone also refers to the actual sound the saxophone produces. The tone is influenced by
several factors such as the pressure and speed of the air flow, the position of the player's trachea,
throat and embouchure, the mouthpiece and reed’s properties, the materials and the lacquer finish,
even as well as the instrument’s design. The signature sound of each musician defines their tonal
concept. It is crucial to acknowledge that every individual note played is perceived differently. This
means that there is a slight variation of how a sound is perceived by different people, as it has
been proven that no single sound is heard the same between different people and is highly
influenced by the aesthetic senses and preconscious categorisation of the listener and the
performer [4]. Furthermore, the relation of psychoacoustics to the musical sound properties has to
be taken into account.
The tonal concept is related and characterised by the terms that Teal introduced in great
detail for the musical sound. Terms such as mellow, edgy, cool, warm, refined, raw, are translated
into classified corresponding values in order to describe every type of possible musical sound,
creating a universal vocabulary for al musicians. Accordingly, Teal defines the most common
properties that can qualify, describe, evaluate and classify the tone quality of an instrument,
musician or voice as the following:

Intensity - The energy of the sound produced. It depends on the degree of efficiency with
which the available air stream is used, and is directly proportional to the amount of breath
support.
Resonance - The degree of utilisation of the breath support by the generating mechanism
(mouthpiece and reed). The point at which this mechanism goes into its most efficient air
stream-vibration relationship is known as the point of resonance. This point gives the tone
projection without the necessity of great volume, and may be identified by a ringing quality
in the tone. Support of the air column and embouchure position are vital factors in
controlling the degree of resonance.

!72
 Core - A term often used to refer to a tonal centre. Core is an ingredient of resonance, and
is necessary to contribute stability of intonation and solidity to the tone.
Edge - The prominence of higher partials in the tone, which produces projection but
introduces a buzzy quality. A certain amount of edge is desirable, and the proportion is a
matter of musical judgment. Edge in a tone is influenced by the mouthpiece-reed
relationship.
Color - A term used to describe the tone as dark or bright, and which includes all the
colors of the spectrum. A bright sound emphasises the higher partials, while a dark sound
dampens them. Total elimination of the upper partials is unmusical to the human ear (e.g.
the electronically-produced radio time signal).
Timbre - The general relationship of the various overtones. It is this characteristic which
allows us to distinguish between tones of musical instruments, or different types of tones
on the same instrument.

According to the nature and utilisation of the mouthpiece it was necessary to have another
set of elements to describe parameters of interaction. These will characterise the experience of the
user regardless of the sound. Differentiations between mouthpieces have been noticed in the
response, ease of play, control. As in subsection 3.2 Mouthpiece properties are defined as the
acoustical and musical characteristics like such as tone sonority, accuracy of pitch (as well as
mouthpiece’s own pitch), tone quality, support in volume and stability, response to the user and
ease of blowing [29]. Consequently, the musician will be asked to give feedback on the 3D printed
mouthpieces with regards to the above qualitative terms.

6.5

Testing & Feedback

Musicians’ contribution is of vital importance as they are the best fit for narrating the review
of the project and its further exploration. Although it is intended to help beginners to a greater
extent than the professional musicians, it would not have been possible to form a useful evaluation
and analysis as they lack the knowledge/expertise background. Thus, the evaluation was directed
towards classical saxophone players even though our target group was mainly beginners and
people still experimenting with their style. The non-experienced user would not be qualified enough
and make correct use of the evaluating aspects. The evaluation was made by a renowned
professional musician, that they are also teaching in profession. Differences that may have been
sensed between the mouthpieces will be discussed. Evaluation of the mouthpieces is also slightly
dependent on the person’s way of perceiving a quality saxophone sound.

!73
 The evaluation took place in the user’s familiar place. This included both home of the
participant and a sound insulated music school’s classroom. They had a relatively long time to
alternate between the mouthpieces, and conduct their evaluation. Mouthpieces were tested for at
least one hour each, during different sessions, on the course of two weeks. Feedback resulted by
what would be called as a thorough thinking, than an instant reaction. The musician gave an
extensive review on the mouthpieces based on the terms explained on the paragraph 6.4.
If more than one musician, would evaluate the mouthpieces, they would have been asked
to play on the same saxophone using the exact same four 3D printed mouthpieces. This would
guarantee consistency on their feedback, as well as the project’s final review. For the testing trials
the mouthpieces were disinfected, and reeds were upon responsibility of the musician.
The professional saxophonist selected for the evaluation, works and studied in Athens.
Her name is Stella Arabatzoglou and her profession related details are displayed on the following
table. She is a classical trained musician and has already preowned and played on a Selmer S80
mouthpiece. Her feedback is transcribed as in the way she expressed it.

Persona 1: Stella Arabatzoglou (Professional Saxophonist)

General A professor at Kodály School of Music, with a long-standing professional

Information career.

Studies- Studies the saxophone at the Athenaeum Conservatory under N. Gkinos

Background and Th. Kerkezos - graduating the class of the latter with excellence and
1st prize.
Attended masterclasses with J. Y. Fourmeau, D. Campbell and G.
McChrystal.
Collaborated with the Orchestre d’ Harmonie des Jeunes (E.U.), the
Symphony Orchestra of the Municipality of Athens and as a soloist with the
Rundfunk-Blasorchester (Leipzig, Germany).

Plays with Vandoren AL5

Stella A. tested the three out of four mouthpieces, as the ABS one was not functionable.
These were the translucent PLA (30%), black PETg (30%) and grey Resin (solid) models. None of
them were post processed chemically, and treated only with abrasive paper.
First of all, the acoustics in the music school she teaches are totally different from her
apartment. As for the most favoured mouthpiece, she selected the resin one. This happened
because as a material she perceived it as more “teeth friendly, and with familiar sense for the lips”.
The resin model proved to be more stable as in its response when blowed, and high notes

!74
accuracy. She mentioned, that “in all three mouthpieces, the resin one was suitable for the whole
pitch range of the alto saxophone, although its overall sense slightly resembled a jazz mouthpiece”.
In general, she “would give the resin mouthpiece another chance for using it on different contexts
and for a longer period of time”. This way, she “would be sure of its suitability and potential to be
used in classical music, and therefore teaching purposes”.
The PETg mouthpiece was the next one Stella continued using. This model was lighter
and had a shinny, slippery finish, because of the material used. Despite its surface finish and its low
weight, she said that “it was nearly as good as the resin one”. Although it was made with 30% infill,
it did not produce a bad sound it terms of timbre. The PETg and the resin mouthpiece showed
similar intensity and resonance properties, something that was expected as both models were
based on the same blueprint. Regarding the colour of the sound, she mentioned, “the resin model
was slightly warmer, though both mouthpieces were not as warm and wooden as the original by
Selmer”. Music dynamics were handled METRIA, more specifically “both models showed medium
support when I tried to experiment with their intensity range, and see how loud and how silent they
can be in terms of a good sound. I expected this feature to be easier to achieve, and I came into
surprise”. As for core the mouthpieces displayed, it was quite good, as Stella said; “it managed the
sound in a way that it showcased a compact, and guided path, without many things to worry
about.”
As for the PLA mouthpiece the results were not equally good. Stella tested it at first, and
then she continued only with the rest two for her sessions. She said “the PLA model, despite its
nice appearance, lacked the core it should have, and the sound was flat, and kind of its compact
body. Therefore, its colour was not satisfying, and could not present an interesting timbre, at least
for the classical saxophone. I would say, that it would be no good for the jazz musician as well. It
would not be the mouthpiece of my choice in any case”. Judging by her sayings, PLA would not
be able to be evaluated on its intensity and edge, as it did not qualify for important features as its
colour and in general ease of playability.
In conclusion, based on Stella’s precious and helpful feedback, it was possible to see
though the value of the 3D printed trials. It was interesting to see what a professional would have
to say, despite the aesthetic sense the mouthpiece may give. Surely, her evaluation was not as
expected and came a little as a surprise. This was a good thing, in terms of expanding the
understanding of the musician, and their vision of how a mouthpiece should interact and cooperate
with the required flexibility. As Stella concluded “the mouthpieces were a bit of a surprise, as I have
never expected to play on such manufactured mouthpieces. There is much potential for sure,
judging by my experience playing with them. I would definitely use one of them, after few changes
and improvements. The two I was focused on were the PETg and resin, as i said, and i would say
they are equally good. I would not replace my current mouthpiece, but for sure Im in for testing
their new versions, and give them a try instead of my typical one”. A great insight was taken into
account, thanks to the musician’s evaluation, as it will lead now on some conclusions about the
form and the materials concerning their possibilities.

!75
CHAPTER 7 - [ CONCLUSIONS ]

7.1

Introduction

The customisation of products - in this case of a mouthpiece, introduces a new era of

product and service design tailored to the customer’s needs and preferences. This can lead to
more successful products, including; emphasis on each individual’s special attributes, the general
life cycle characteristics and the manufacturing and distribution details. As the first step, regarding
that the evaluation went well, precious insight offered, and the quality of the mouthpiece was
determined. This can lead towards improvements and the final answer to the query set on the start
of this project.

7.2

Conclusions

Customised but hand-finished mouthpieces could take better post manufacturing,

concerning their finish, but that would require excessive amount of time and would not be as
accurate as a 3D printed model. In hand-finished mouthpieces, with the use of experience of a
craftsman, the object is made by extrusion of material while in rapid prototyping element is being
added to form the final shape. The most effective and commonly used technique is FDM.
For example, parts of the mouthpiece such as the baffle, the chamber, the tip opening and others
have a noticeable effect on sound, even when the shape is altered by 0.1 mm. Customisation
based on these parameters can add value to the offered product. 3D technology is known for its
ease to fabricate final customised products. A parametrised 3D printed model will be able to cover
a diverse set of needs for all the musicians, styles, and embouchure structure variations.
3D printing allows models with different geometrical properties and unique pieces to be
produced, while machining or moulding the same design of mouthpieces lowers the cost, it is only
possible for identical ones. Some advantages of the 3D printing is the creation of shapes that they
wouldn't be feasible otherwise, as well as aesthetical features including engraved signatures or
differentiations on the outer shape.
Although the saxophone’s mouthpiece has quite a long story, there is still room for design
improvement, evolving of its production process, distribution plan and flexibility towards a more

!76
open approach of the individual customer. Opening up and increasing the will to adapt to the
person’s needs is an addition to any company. For sure 3D printing can support mouthpiece
construction and trials with ceramic or metal materials will give more insight on the adequacy of the
process for the whole variety of mouthpiece types. The feedback given on the mouthpieces was
focused on the ease of playability. All mouthpieces could be played as easy as every other
mouthpiece meaning that the material did not act as a preventing issue.
In conclusion, the whole evaluation had a really positive outcome regarding the project,
although the results themselves were far from perfect. They really did open new ways to
experiment more and gave the "passport" to continue researching this topic. It is possible that
relative factors interfered with the result, and such factors can be technical parameters that can
easily be altered. Another important aspect, is the musician, that was not taken into consideration
as an individual being influenced by their own points of personal references. Thus, it is critical to
encompass their impact on this project's evolving and growth. As discussed before, the musician-
oriented 3D print would result in better models for the evaluation. In another aspect, it should be
considered during the model making, and printing process in order to manufacture more suitable
mouthpieces for the specific musician and therefore conclude a less-interfered evaluation. For
example, trials considering the musicians mouthpiece preference would perhaps achieve a higher
score and be more fruitful as they would have been APALAXTHIKE apo external factors, and
evaluate the specialised details, deeper. Last but not least, there is the need of more research
being done on this topic, as it will lead to more promising results judging by the ROH of this
present project. Concluding, it is really hopeful that this project followed the progress it did, and it is
believed that it would have great potential if all the pre-mentioned references are taken into
account.

7.3

Further & Future Research

The mouthpiece could be considered as the most crucial piece of the musical instrument
since it can enhance the timbre and general sound quality and provide the musician with a unique
sound. Beginners, as well as professionals and soloists aim to acquire their personal tone, by
experimenting with mouthpieces and techniques. This can be a lifelong process for a successful
musician.
Upon completion of the relevant research and thorough examination of the printing trials, it
is needless to say that this idea could be potentially applied to other woodwinds. Not only is it
possible to adapt the project for the other types of saxophone (soprano, tenor and baritone) but it
is also feasible to master a 3D printed clarinet mouthpiece. The clarinet uses a slightly smaller

!77
mouthpiece than the saxophone, is made of ebonite, and uses a single reed too as part of the
same group of musical instruments.
Nowadays, with the precision and fine quality that 3D printing technology has to offer, it is
possible to meet the arising demands. Parametrisation of a saxophone’s model mouthpiece can
offer the musician the experience of building a fully tailored mouthpiece experience according to
their wishes. Then, the 3D printed copy can be obtained from as far as their living room or the
nearest 3D printing lab. The musician has the opportunity to make alterations - based on their
preferences and model’s attributes – as even the smallest change will impact their sound. Thus,
they will safely attempt to make their ideal mouthpiece that will be guaranteed of its functionality,
considering the values chosen by the user fall within the appropriate limits. Lower cost, faster
distribution time and also aesthetic customisation are a few of the advantages this application has
to propose. So, this way of manufacturing process will attract and satisfy even the most
challenging and demanding musicians
A further application and utilisation of this project could lead to companies to “rent” printed
models the company produces or give trial access to musicians. This way the customer can print
and try out multiple mouthpieces before purchasing one that fits them the most, or experiment with
mouthpieces for special purposes or with highly altered proportions.
The future of AM cannot be predicted as it evolves rapidly. One thing that will influence this
field for sure, are the current patents on the AM technologies. As mentioned before, when the FDM
patent expired, there was an explosion on the self-replicating 3D printers, utilising akin processes .
This means that as soon as the other 3D printing patents expire, a breakthrough towards new
directions is possible, and its future, unknown.

7.4

Summary

In conclusion, this project ended up with some interesting findings regarding the
saxophone’s mouthpiece production method. Since in 2019 3D printing challenges have been
faced, and machines are more accessible than ever soon it will be possible for every household to
own a machine. Demands of everyday life and more complex items will be manufactured on the
spot, as far as the living room is and they could be used directly. Materials vary, costs are dropping
and the know-how-to is simplified so more people can favour a 3D printing system.
In a market that already offers a high-quality product it will be an evolution to encompass
new technological updates. Essentially, 3D printing indeed is a new manufacturing process, the
opposite of the respective subtraction ones. Apart from the sustainable, technical and
customisation benefits, 3D printing can lead to the designing of completely new products or
services such as the testing before purchasing idea. Who knows what 2020 will bring?

!78
!79
[ REFERENCES ]

1st Chapter
[1] Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019, January 23). Saxophone. In Britannica.com. Retrieved February
1, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/art/saxophone
[2] Susman, G. (1992). Integrating Design and Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage. New York: Oxford
University Books.
[3] Larson, E. R. (2015). Thermoplastic material selection: a practical guide. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
[4] Teal, L., (1963). The Art of Saxophone Playing. USA: Summy-Bichard Music.
2nd Chapter
[5] Gäbel, D. & Villmow M. (2012). Saxophone for Dummies. Mississauga, ON (Canada): John Willey & Sons.
[6] Cottrell, S. (1962). The Saxophone. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press Publications.
[7] DeJesus D. (n.d.). About the Saxophone. Retrieved from: http://www.bsmny.org/
[8] General Saxophone Mouthpiece Information. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://
www.sax.co.uk/general-mouthpiece-information.irs
3rd Chapter
[9] Choosing a Saxophone: How to choose a reed and mouthpiece. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://
www.yamaha.com/en/musical_instrument_guide/saxophone/selection/selection002.html
4th Chapter
[10] Lipson, H., & Kurman, M. (2013). Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Indianapolis: John Wiley &
Sons.
[11] All 10 Types of 3D Printing Technology in 2018. (2018, November 29). Retrieved June 21, 2018, from
https://all3dp.com/1/types-of-3d-printers-3d-printing-technology/
[12] Carron, M. (n.d.). 3D printing: Future of the music instrument making. Retrieved from https://
www.syos.co/en/blog/lab/3-d-printing-musical-instruments
[13] Horne, R., & Hausman, K. K. (2017). 3D printing for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[14] Γιαννατσής, Ι, Δεδούσης, Β, & Κανελλίδης, Β. (2015). Σύγχρονες τεχνολογίες κατασκευής με τη βοήθεια
Η/Υ [ηλεκτρ. βιβλίο] Διαθέσιμο January 14, 2019, στο repository.kallipos.gr/handle/11419/4521
[15] 3D Printing Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://www.materialise.com/en/
manufacturing/3d-printing-technology
[16] Gilmore, J. H., & Pine II, J. B. (1997, January/February). The four faces of mass customisation. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 91-101.
[17] Evans, B. (2012). Practical 3D Printers, The Science and Art of 3D Printing. New York, NY 10013: Apress.
[18] How to Choose the Right 3D Printing Material. Retrieved from: https://formlabs.com/blog/how-to-
choose-the-right-3D-printing-material/

!80
[19] Eilam, E. (2005). Reversing: Secrets of reverse engineering. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Incorporated.
[20] J. Unwin, M. R. Coldwell, C. Keen & J. J. McAlinden. (2012). Airborne Emissions of Carcinogens and
Respiratory Sensitizers during Thermal Processing of Plastics, The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Volume
57, Issue 3. Retrieved on January 4, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mes078
[21] Ashby, M. & Johnson, C. (2006). Υλικά και σχεδιασμός: Η τέχνη και επιστήμη επιλογής υλικών στο
σχεδιασμό προϊόντων (Materials and Design: The art and science of material selection in product design)
(Ζουμπουρτικούδης, Ι. Μεταφ.) England: Elsevier Science Ltd. (Original work published 2002)
[22] Ashby, M. (2012). Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice. Elsevier. Retrieved
December 20, 2018, from https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y2qghvWIj1YC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA15
[23] Koslow, T. (2018, Dec 2). SLS 3D Printer Guide – All You Need to Know. Retrieved from: https://
all3dp.com/1/best-sls-3d-printer-desktop-industrial
[24] Mouthpiece Anatomy. Retrieved from: https://morganfrymouthpieces.com/blog/content/mouthpiece-
anatomy
[25] Δημαρόγκωνας, Α. (2005). Σχεδιασμός μηχανών με τη βοήθεια υπολογιστή (1η εκδ.). Αθήνα: Ίων.
Machine design, a cad approach (original title)
[26] Biron, M. (2015). Material selection for thermoplastic parts : practical and advanced information.
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
5th Chapter
[27] Liebman, D. (2006). Developing A Personal Saxophone Sound (3rd ed.). Medfield, Massachusetts: Dorn
Publications.
6th Chapter
[28] Hasbrook, V. R. (2005). ALTO SAXOPHONE MOUTHPIECE PITCH AND ITS RELATION TO JAZZ AND
CLASSICAL TONE QUALITIES (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Urbana,
Illinois.
[29] Select your saxophone & clarinet mouthpieces. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://
www.selmer.fr/instruinfo.php?page=GEN&groupe=comp
[30] Knowledge. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2018, from https://theowanne.com/knowledge/

!81
[ FIGURES ]

1st Chapter
Fig. 1.6.1: The new raw (n.d.). N.D. [Photographs]. Retrieved from: https://thenewraw.org/Material-processing
2nd Chapter
Fig. 2.1.1 & 2.1.2: Barnard Instrument Repair (Unknown). Unknown [Photograph]. Retrieved from: http://
www.barnardrepair.com/the-adolphe-sax-family/
Fig. 2.3.3: Selmer Alto Sax Soloist C** [Photograph]. Retrieved from: https://www.thomann.de/gr/
selmer_soloist_c_altosax.htm
Fig. 2.3.2: Shonamcq (2014). Unknown [Photograph]. Retrieved from: https://pixabay.com/en/saxophone-
reed-mouthpiece-music-1479740/
Fig. 2.3.4: Various mouthpieces [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.preloved.co.uk/adverts/
show/117310769/various-mouthpieces.html?link=/classifieds/making-music/saxophones/all/uk/saxophone
mouthpieces
Fig. 2.4.1: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.vibratosax.com/index.php
Fig. 2.4.2: E-FLAT ALTO SAXOPHONE CONCEPT MOUTHPIECE [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.selmer.fr/compdetail.php?
groupe=comp&instru=SAX&tonalite=ALTO&type=BECS&modele=CONCEPT
Fig. 2.4.3: [Digital image]. (n.d.). from https://www.syos.co/en/concept
3rd Chapter
Fig. 3.1.1: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.francois-louis.com/mouthpieces
Fig. 3.2.1: Vandoren Magazine 4. (2004), (p. 8). [Image]. Vandoren: Paris.
Fig. 3.2.2: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://new.theowanne.com/knowledge/baffle-shapes
Fig. 3.2.3: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://theowanne.com/knowledge/chamber-sizes
Fig. 3.3.1: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.selmer.fr/index.php
Fig. 3.3.2: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.selmer.fr/compdetail.php?
groupe=comp&instru=SAX&tonalite=TENOR&type=BECS&modele=S80
4th Chapter
Fig. 4.1.1: Alexandrea, P. (2017, September 28). [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.3dnatives.com/en/
arizton-additive-manufacturing-280920174
Fig. 4.4.1: Ashby, M., Johnson K. (2013). [Image]. In M. Ashby, K. Johnson, Materials and Design: The art and
Science of Material Selection in Product Design (3rd edition) (p. 328). UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014.
Fig. 4.4.2: Koslow, T. (2018). [Photograph]. Retrieved from: https://all3dp.com/1/best-sls-3d-printer-desktop-
industrial

!82
Fig. 4.4.3: FDM parts tend to have visible layer lines and might show inaccuracies around complex features.
This example was printed on a Stratasys uPrint industrial FDM 3D printer with soluble supports [Photograph].
Retrieved from formlabs.com
Fig. 4.6.1: [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://3dmagine.com
Fig. 4.7.1: Ashby, M., Johnson K. (2013). Methods of Selection [Image]. In M. Ashby, K. Johnson, Materials
and Design: The art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design (3rd edition) (p. 134). UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014.
Fig. 4.8.1: All3DP. (2019, February). 33 BEST SITES FOR FREE STL FILES & 3D PRINTER MODELS IN 2019
[Table]. Retrieved February 9, 2019, from https://all3dp.com/1/free-stl-files-3d-printer-models-3d-print-files-
stl-download/
Appendix
Fig. 1: Alto sax mouthpiece facing chart [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://
jodyjazz.com/facing-page/alto-sax-mouthpiece-facing-chart/
Fig. 2: Ashby, M., Johnson K. (2013). Pitch and Brightness [Image]. In M. Ashby, K. Johnson, Materials and
Design: The art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design (3rd edition) (p. 89). UK: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2014.

!83
 [ APPENDIX ]

!84
Figure 1. Tip opening classification chart for alto saxophone mouthpieces
Figure 2. Acoustic Brightness and Acoustic Pitch map of materials

!85
!86