The 1mm Drum Shell.

[Phil Brodermann]

Are there any other supporters of the 'thinner the better' theory?

If so, what are your opinions/ideas on the subject?

What knowledge do you have of what's on offer today about extremely thin drum shells?

How far do you think it will go in the future?

I think the thinnest shell on the market today is a Sonor SQ2 'Vintage' shell; at 4mm.

It is also my opinion that this is the best sounding kit in terms of quality and tone, and also the most versatile.

Your posts are appreciated, Phil

[Artstar]

When you get too thin you just start to choke out VERY quickly. IMO, there is a "threshold"... You'll notice.. the real drum companies who have been building their own shells for many decades stick to a range.. and they don't deviate too much... Who has tested more sounds than these guys ??

[keep it simple]

You get to a point where using the shell to hold lugs, tension, etc becomes a problem. As for choking out, not so sure about that. Anyhow, I'll be in a position to tell you all about it soon. I've designed a concept kit that is being built by Dean at Guru Drumworks. It involves very thin tom shells, amongst many other innovations/experiments. Thin shells are quite easy with ply, but uber difficult with other methods of construction. Of course, we're going the difficult route, lol. Most very thin shells also require rerings for stability, but that raises the fundamental tone and does cause a degree of premature choke IMO. Of course, we won't be using those either. You'll have to wait for the real detail. I'm travelling to spend a day at Guru tomorrow to nail down the fine details. I'll be sure to post the results of his project in the fullness of time.

Answer to the OP, essentially yes, I do believe ultra thin shells offer great advantages, but only if delivered in the right way, & only in some applications.

[flurbs]

Hi Phil,

Are there any other supporters of the 'thinner the better' theory?
If so, what are your opinions/ideas on the subject?

I love the thin-shell sound, but it's not just down to thickness (thinness?) - the shells have to have some tension in them to really sing.


What knowledge do you have of what's on offer today about extremely thin drum shells?

How far do you think it will go in the future?

I think the thinnest shell on the market today is a Sonor SQ2 'Vintage' shell; at 4mm.

It is also my opinion that this is the best sounding kit in terms of quality and tone, and also the most versatile.

Your posts are appreciated, Phil

How far it goes really depends on what moves the acceptance of synthetic shells goes. If you're dealing with wood, there's a certain requirement of mass just to be able to take the strain of the fittings and head tension. As far as I'm aware, the thinnest wood shells ever marketed were the Peavey Radial Pro 1000's at 3mm, but the thin part of the shell wasn't taking any of the construction strain (that was all held together at the monster top and bottom wooden frames). You can already get thinner shells than that outside of timber - metal of course, but also a variety of 'set' shells, fibreglass, carbonfibre, kevlar etc.

The Delites toms/snares are 4mm, but they also have 2mm rerings. In the mainstream companies, the Mapex Saturn shells are very thin if you're looking for unsupported - toms are just a fraction over 5mm. HighWood in the UK offer birch at 4.5mm and maple at 4.0mm, either with or without rerings. They also offer a vintage-style shell which is only 3.5mm, maple core with mahogany inner and outer, but as it's vintage-style it does have rerings too. That's the thinnest wood shell I'm currently aware of.

Simon

[larryace]

I started a thread previously that dealt w/ choking. The thread just kinda laid there and I never got a satisfying answer.

So, when a drum chokes, is it the head or the shell or both?

From what I can tell, the thinner the shell, the easier it chokes. I could be wrong, and would like others obs.

[Deathmetalconga]

What exactly does that mean, when the drum "chokes"?

If you want really thin non-metal shells, I'd say go with carbon fiber, which is basically synthetic wood. Wood is basically fibers of carbon-based cells pressed together - the original "carbon fiber." I've heard carbon fiber drums and they sound terrific.

[zambizzi]

I started a thread previously that dealt w/ choking. The thread just kinda laid there and I never got a satisfying answer.

So, when a drum chokes, is it the head or the shell or both?

From what I can tell, the thinner the shell, the easier it chokes. I could be wrong, and would like others obs.

I agree with really thin shells sounding relatively choked, when played hard. I stood the DW Collector's kit that I had, up next to a Ludwig Classic Maple. When I would really lay into (and I don't mean *play* into) a thin shell, it doesn't seem to give back when I'm putting in. The residual resonance, sustain, etc. seems to disappear, leaving a hard, cold "DONK". All of the "fatness" of the drum seems lost, to my ears. In a thicker shell, like the CM, the drum gives back with a roar that is very satisfying to my ears (and my gut.)

Likewise, when played softly, the thinner shells seem to give back a little more warmth and have a really sweet sound. I just feel like they lose the beef when played with a heavier hand.

Also, thin shells seem much harder to tune. The overtones are harder to hear and control. I also had a hard time getting some heads to sound good at all, on my DW kit...where as thicker shells seem more versatile.

Just my opinion. This is why I favor the Classic Maple shell...it has the best of everything at 6mm and no re-rings.

[caddywumpus]

Here's the physics behind it:

Thicker shells are more rigid, and so more of the air/energy from the head is allowed to bounce back and forth from head to head, without being "absorbed" by the shell. When you have a thinner shell, some of the energy of the attack is absorbed down the side of the shell (as it is thinner, and more capable of vibrating, which essentially is taking some of the energy away...), and also the sudden expansion and contraction of the shell is more "allowed", due to the more flexible chamber that the thinner shell is, but at the cost of using up some of that energy in the vibration of the shell itself. A thicker shell doesn't vibrate or resonate as freely, so the energy stays within the air column in the shell, and the result is more frequencies represented (particularly the higher, brighter ones), and longer sustain of the heads, since the energy isn't being "spent" on the movement of the shell.

It's like when you put different heads on a drum. "This one sounds warmer" or "this one sounds more focused"...these are what we perceive, but what's actually going on with different heads is different frequencies (essentially "notes" and overtones/harmonics) are being muffled or more allowed to come through. Pinstripes sound "focused" because the dampening ring takes out certain mid-frequencies, Coated heads sound "warmer" because the coating muffles much of the high frequencies, etc. etc. etc. With drum shells, when you have a thinner shell, it essentially "muffles" certain frequencies by absorbing the energy/vibrations into the shell. Different woods absorb different frequencies more than others.

Super thin drum shells wouldn't sound so good, because if they were to actually survive the expansion/contraction of the shell from the air pressure increase/decrease of the impact, they would absorb so much of the vibration/sound, that it would probably sound really awful. I wonder if anyone has actually experimented with this...???

[Phil Brodermann]

Thanks for all your posts, always interesting to hear other opinions and share knowledge.

There have been a few mentions of mounting hardware i.e. Lugs and so forth, but my interest was just in shell possibilities, not practcality.

Thanks anyway, Phil.

P.S. I'm not after a lesson, I understand the science of the drum and have researched and written a 13 page essay on the subject.

[larryace]

Thank you Caddy. I can always count on you for the good info. I was always of the mindset that thinner = better, and now I'm not so sure. I also agree w/ Zambizzi's take on it, that is my experience too. So I think that because I mostly play unmiced toms, I should go w/ a thicker shell. Again Zam's 6mm sounds like a nice compromise.
Sorry for the hijack, but it is relevant to the thread.

[drumhammerer]

DW's shells are thin, but they do have re-rings, which changes the mechanics of the sound a bit. I do have vintage Ludwigs with the re-rings, and they definitely play differently than the straight shells, although the shells are a little thicker at just under a quarter inch. I've never played DW's, so I don't really know how they play, but my straight shell 6 ply (4 MM) Keller shell toms don't choke when I lay into them. And, those are as thin as I would go on tom shells without re-rings, or even with.

[keep it simple]

. I'm not after a lesson, I understand the science of the drum and have researched and written a 13 page essay on the subject.Would you care to post it, or provide a link? I'm sure that would be of great interest to many here.

I wonder if anyone has actually experimented with this...???Yes, I have, & so did Peavey in the 90's with their version of Steven Volpp's radial bridge design marketed as Peavey Radial Pro. Through spectral analysis, they concluded that the ideal ply shell thickness for maximum resonance without lugs or shell mountings was 3mm (just under 1/8"). My tests have been carried out with stave shells. Partially independantly, & partially with Dean @ Guru Drumworks. I've come to the same thickness conclusion with stave construction as Peavey did on ply construction. Any thinner than this and there simply isn't enough mass in the shell for it to contribute anything worthwhile.

When you have a thinner shell, some of the energy of the attack is absorbed down the side of the shell (as it is thinner, and more capable of vibrating, which essentially is taking some of the energy away...), and also the sudden expansion and contraction of the shell is more "allowed", due to the more flexible chamber that the thinner shell is, but at the cost of using up some of that energy in the vibration of the shell itself. As far as my testing can tell, that's correct, but with a missing element. At 3mm thick, the shell does "absorb" some of the sound waves & translates them into vibrations of the shell, but, given the shell is allowed to resonate freely, gives back in the form of sound from the shell. Put simply, the wood offers a greater portion of the overall sound, it's more "involved".

Another aspect to consider is the difference between resonance generated by direct contact, & sympathetic resonance generated by soundwaves being transferred from one element to another. This is a complexed area, but, depending on the nature of the bearing edges, & assuming a quite thin shell, much of the resonance of the shell is returned to the heads by means of direct contact. These frequencies are typically modified by the shell, thus return to the heads and emerge as overtones (as distinct from the fundamental tone). It's these overtones that are often sighted from thinner shelled drums. Rerings make matters much more complicated because they vibrate at a different frequency to the shell, thus introduce higher overtones. That's one of the reasons you get the impression of a raised tone from rerings.

Just my opinion. This is why I favor the Classic Maple shell...it has the best of everything at 6mm and no re-rings.Agreed, rerings really ruin the party on thinner shelled drums.

BTW, everything I've said here applies to toms.

[zambizzi]

Rerings make matters much more complicated because they vibrate at a different frequency to the shell, thus introduce higher overtones. That's one of the reasons you get the impression of a raised tone from rerings.

Agreed, rerings really ruin the party on thinner shelled drums.

BTW, everything I've said here applies to toms.

That's how I understand it as well, which is why re-ringed shells seem to have less sustain and overall "beef", to my ears.

Agree on toms, also. DW kick drums are frickin' phenomenal. I loved mine...big, fat, kick-you-in-the-nards punch and warmth. I just hated how thin and weak the toms sounded, to me. I'm guessing slightly (or even fully) rounded edges would have helped, especially on the bigger drums (14"+).

I'm referring to the Collector's Series...haven't played any of the others.

Again Zam's 6mm sounds like a nice compromise.

Gretsch Renown shells are really nice too, at 6.2mm (7.4mm bass.) Right around that 6mm mark seems to be optimal - at least to me. Pearl Masters MCX was *too* thick for me, at 7mm.

I'd really like the opportunity to play a GMS kit. Every one of them that I've heard a recording of just sounds amazing. They use 8-ply, 5.4mm (no re-rings) Keller shells. My understanding is; they round the edges more as the diameter of the shell increases. Pearl seems to have tapped into the same concept w/ the Reference series...which sound great, but are still too thick for me. I guess the new Reference Pure series answers that complaint.

Anyhow...just some random shell/edge thoughts.

[Phil Brodermann]

Would you care to post it, or provide a link? I'm sure that would be of great interest to many here.

Are you sure? I don't really know how to get it on here.

By the way; It's great to see people sharing their knowlage and experience with out bickering over opinions like children, thanks for contributing and making this thread useful and informative, Phil.

[braincramp]

I often wondered the difference in say a 1mm and 3mm or 2mm metal shell ...is thicker with brass or aluminum better? I would think thicker based on the popularity of the bell brass..dont mean to hijack this thread but I love the sound of my 1mm sonor phil rudd snare.. it is the best sounding snare at any price I have ever played. I often wondered if I would like a thicker brass shell better?

[GRUNTERSDAD]

I wonder how much different drums would sound if the plies were thicker and there were fewer of them...therefore less glue. For instance the 6.2 mm, 6 ply Gretsch. If it were to be made from 3, 2 mm plies. Would it be closer to a steambent shell?

[Drumalltheway]

This is when we need an answer from Chris Brady ha.hha

[Phil Brodermann]

I wonder how much different drums would sound if the plies were thicker and there were fewer of them...therefore less glue. For instance the 6.2 mm, 6 ply Gretsch. If it were to be made from 3, 2 mm plies. Would it be closer to a steambent shell?

That would be interesting, or an even thinner shell made out of just one ply; I guess the equivilent of an extremely thin solid shell.