PDA

View Full Version : Free floating vs lugged drums


larryace
01-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Andy Alert:

Initially, I thought a free floating, lugless, drum tensioning system, capable of independently tensioning both heads separately, with no drillings at all in the shell except for a vent, and suspension mounted, would be the purest drum tone.

Now I'm not so sure. Don't the lugs, by virtue of being under tension and somewhat connected to the head, transfer a lot of energy to the shell, which then excites the shell more and add more of it's flavor to the mix? Isn't that majorly desirable? Is it fair to say that a true free floating design has the least shell involvement? On paper, I would think that to be the case. For tone and character, the more shell involvement the better, right?

tard
01-04-2012, 01:42 AM
I cant seem to find the article but if I do I will post it. It was related to the peavey radial bridge design vs conventional lugged drums and I remember some of the oscilloscope findings and that depending where the head was struck and the lugs that were the closest to that strike would cause the drum to resonate more or less depending on the differences between each of the lugs as well as the vibrations were distorted and uneven due to the inconsistenciess between each of the metal lugs which was also why the rate of the vibration and decay varied as well, where as the all wood non lugged shell had the same amount of resonance and decay each time no matter where it was struck and the vibrations were clean, even and undistorted due to the lack of metal lugs.

caddywumpus
01-04-2012, 02:32 AM
As I understand it, the argument FOR free-floating drums is that there's no hardware to muffle/inhibit the shell's natural resonance.

The head transfers its energy directly to the shell via the contact with the bearing edge. That's why you get more "shell" sound with a rounded edge (more contact) and more "head" sound with a sharper edge (finer point of contact). It's an interesting point you bring up, the energy transferring from the head --> hoop ---> tension rod --> lug --> lug casing --> lug casing screws --> lug casing screw washer --> shell. I'd imagine after so many levels of separation, the energy transferred would be absorbed little by little at each point of contact, and make little to no addition of resonance to the shell. Even if it did, the amount that the hardware muffles the shell would vastly overpower any resonance added...

larryace
01-04-2012, 03:30 AM
As I understand it, the argument FOR free-floating drums is that there's no hardware to muffle/inhibit the shell's natural resonance.

The head transfers its energy directly to the shell via the contact with the bearing edge. That's why you get more "shell" sound with a rounded edge (more contact) and more "head" sound with a sharper edge (finer point of contact). It's an interesting point you bring up, the energy transferring from the head --> hoop ---> tension rod --> lug --> lug casing --> lug casing screws --> lug casing screw washer --> shell. I'd imagine after so many levels of separation, the energy transferred would be absorbed little by little at each point of contact, and make little to no addition of resonance to the shell. Even if it did, the amount that the hardware muffles the shell would vastly overpower any resonance added...

I'm not so sure that much energy is lost in the transfer, Everything is under tension so it all acts as one, more or less...

Pocket-full-of-gold
01-04-2012, 03:43 AM
Andy Alert:


You called it.

I'm not even gonna take a stab at this mate. I'm waiting for someone with far more of a clue than I.

Over to you Andy.........

caddywumpus
01-04-2012, 03:45 AM
I'm not so sure that much energy is lost in the transfer, Everything is under tension so it all acts as one, more or less...

That's a logical thought. I don't know if it works out, though, especially since there are so many contact points. You could take the same train of thought and say that the glue that holds the plies of a shell together is under pressure/tension, so it shouldn't inhibit resonance at all, either. I'm still under the impression that any small amount of vibration given back to the shell through the hardware is more than counteracted by how much the shell's natural resonance is inhibited by the same hardware. It makes me think of people who use drums with suspension mounts, but then slap Moongel and Zero-Rings on their drums.

I dunno, I'm waiting for Andy to chime in as well...

tard
01-04-2012, 04:05 AM
I think the actual problem is that no 2 lugs are exactly the same and each one changes the rate and intensity of the vibrations just a bit resulting in some unwanted overtones and some canceling each other out changing the tone and reducing resonance. Similar to sending a powered music signal through different length and different gauge speaker wires over a long distance resulting in the signal reaching the speakers at slightly different times and volume.

larryace
01-04-2012, 05:47 AM
I know Andy will say that everything vibrates as a whole, the wood, the glue, lugs, heads etc. etc., so with a free floater, I think we can all agree that there is less mass on the shell, and I think we can all agree that more mass vibrates longer than less mass...so the benefits gained from free floating are negated by loss of mass? Hmmmm. I am just not sure. With a free floater, any energy imposed on the tensioning system is lost...siphoned off because the tensioning system is separate from the shell and heads and really shouldn't contribute hardly at all to the net tone....where with a lugged drum....all the energy imparted to the drum goes to making tone because the tensioning system is not separate from the shell. Am I making a good argument for lugged drums? I didn't plan on thinking like this, but the logic is worth exploring.

ANDY!

Dre25
01-04-2012, 06:32 AM
No idea but if lugs and hardware 'help' play such a big role in resonance you might think you would get more of a note from a drum when you play on the rims.

larryace
01-04-2012, 07:44 AM
No idea but if lugs and hardware 'help' play such a big role in resonance you might think you would get more of a note from a drum when you play on the rims.

Wow great idea. Play on the rim of a free floater and play on the rims of a lugged drum. Any loss of shell tone should show up there, right? But then again the head is not directly involved. I'd say that toms do not get rim shots the majority of the time, the head is the first thing vibrating in the chain, so for apples to apples, you'd have to measure vibrations from the head being lost to the framework on a free floater. How you do that is beyond me.

Bo Eder
01-04-2012, 08:06 AM
Come on Larry, who's gonna notice any of that when you're breaking 250 bpm on the double bass drums? It's all about the sleight-of-hand. Throw in some flurries and nobody will notice your snare not ringing as long as it should ;)

Andy?

keep it simple
01-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Well, that's an interesting read to date. Some well thought out points & counterpoints. So here's my take based on a lot of A - B testing & experimentation, but, of course, it's not straight forward, & there's numerous caveats, so belt up for the ride :)

Background stuff

Head resonance is distinct & separate to shell resonance, although their functions are always linked together. The heads produce almost all of the drum's sound, but the shell shapes that sound. Think of a drum as a speaker cabinet: the heads are the speaker cone, & the shell is the cabinet material, dimensions, design (baffles, etc).

Ok, that's the concept layout, let's look at functions. The shell shapes sound via two mechanisms. 1/via sympathetic resonance (the same way your ear works), and 2/via acting as a conduit for vibrations through direct contact (think of a violin bridge). Both mechanisms contribute to the resultant sound, & transmit their sound augmentation through the heads (our speaker cones). Once you understand this, it's pretty easy to work out what constructional changes will do to the sound.

I was going to cut to the chase here, but I think it would be useful if I sight 2 extremes of construction to highlight the above;

1/ Ford drums produce a very thick shell ply drum series and coat those shells in a hard rubber based finish. They claim that the shell makes no contribution to the sound, & that their thick shell increases tuning range & produces a focussed tone. Applied to this specific construction, they're correct, but why? a/ the heavy ply construction is a poor conduit of vibrations from the batter bearing edge to the reso bearing edge. b/ the heavy shell isn't excited sympathetically by the sound pressure waves within the shell. c/ the coating adds further mass & introduces an element that resonates very little, & at a different frequency to the shell body. Why they then fit suspension mounts is beyond me, but hey? A benign shell offers no significant tone shaping, therefore the sound is almost exclusively generated by the heads. The sound profile of the heads is therefore only shaped by interaction with the bearing edge, head selection, tuning, drum diameter, depth, & hoop mass choice. in other words, there is no sweet spot, so the drum performs in a uniform manner across the tuning range, & is limited only by the vibration/tension characteristics of the head material. This is a very valid all purpose gigging construction, and produces a generic drum tone.

2/ My prototype kit. Very thin stave shells. This is the polar opposite of the Ford design. The unmolested vertical grain structure of the shell efficiently transfers vibrations from the batter bearing edge to the reso head. The thin shell is easily excited sympathetically via the sound pressure waves in the drum. Every substantial resonating part of the construction is made from the same material. The shell is able to vibrate freely because there's nothing acting as a resonance sink by way of solid contact or differential mass. The result is a drum that opens up with the smallest input, & who's resultant tone is massively shaped by the timber species. This produces a very pure representation of the timber's tone. Such a construction is far less flexible than the Ford construction. It has a very defined sweet spot. It's peerless at doing what it does, but it's a specialist instrument.

Detail stuff;

Ok, background out of the way, Larry's first question related to purity of tone. With reference to the above examples, both produce a pure tone. The Ford produces a pure benign tone, & the Guru produces a pure timber species tone. You take your choice, both are valid approaches. In terms of the affect of lugs, & again, with reference to the first section of this post, their contribution is pretty much their mass, & the introduction of materials that resonate at a different frequency to the shell. In the Ford drums example, it really doesn't matter what lugs you bolt to the shell, in the Guru example, it's critical to the concept & outcome. Where I'm coming to here, is that the benefits of free floating constructions relate very much to the shell construction.

As Larry pointed out, all contact elements of a drum's construction vibrate, & therefore contribute to the sound. This also includes free floating mechanisms, but there's a caveat here. The contribution of the component to the resultant sound depends on how isolated it is from the primary resonating element. For example, the hoop is directly connected to the drum head, therefore it's influence on the vibration behaviour of the drum head is significant, but it's influence on the resonant behaviour of the shell is minimal. Lugs are directly connected to the shell, therefore their affect on the shell resonant behaviour is significant, but their affect on the vibration behaviour of the head is minimal. There's an umbrella element to this too, no matter how remote from source, the total mass of the drum construction will affect the overall character proportionally to it's size, so this is a complicated compound net affect.

Specific questions;

Don't the lugs, by virtue of being under tension and somewhat connected to the head, transfer a lot of energy to the shell, which then excites the shell more and add more of it's flavor to the mix?
Not really, the contribution is minimal, & also, undesirable, as any resonance has been coloured by the metal structures = additional overtones, usually high ones. The mass of the lugs detracts greatly from the shell's ability to resonate. On a thick & heavy shell, it's not an issue, but on a thinner shell that's advertised as being resonant, to add huge lug mass is just counter productive, unless you want a thumpy focussed sound.

Is it fair to say that a true free floating design has the least shell involvement?
Quite the reverse. If the free floating design is well isolated & of comparatively low overall mass, it delivers the most shell involvement, as the primary shell excitement mechanism is via direct contact through the bearing edges. Of course, the whole idea becomes pointless if the shell doesn't resonate freely. i.e. the more resonant the shell, the bigger the benefit, that's why free floating systems work best on thin solid shells, & especially steam bent, where some of the transfer is presented radially due to grain orientation.

For tone and character, the more shell involvement the better, right?
Absolutely, if that's what you're after.

Phew, that was a post marathon! Hope it actually gets read after taking forever to compose/type it.

tard
01-04-2012, 05:20 PM
Holy, marathon I guess, hows your fingers...lol, All I know is the warm tone and clean resonance I get from my lug free thin shelled radials is incredible and are so easy to tune with no unwanted odd harmonic overtones to deal with. If I bought a new acoustic kit tomorrow it would either be another set of radials or the new prototype Gurus. Eventually I believe you will see more companies adding a lug free line to their production.

Boom
01-04-2012, 05:47 PM
I read it all Andy! Very informative post. Thanks OP for starting this. Drums aren't just fun to play, they are awesome to learn about :)

Mad About Drums
01-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Yes Andy, that is a great lesson, so well explained too, I'm always impressed with that knowledge of yours in drums design, manufacturing and the "how it works" explanation, so thanks for the enlightenment on this thread and thanks to you Larry for bringing this up, that's indeed one the reason why I like this forum so much, you learn something everyday, big or small, but it's there. ;-))

mediocrefunkybeat
01-04-2012, 07:53 PM
Ford's insistence on isolation mounts really is an exercise in hilarity, it's true.

Unix
01-04-2012, 08:50 PM
Dear Andy,

That has been very informative. Please allow me to add some builder non scientific infos to that.

I've tried very thin shell, and this is what I discover. With very thin shell, what I was hearing was not tonal wood sound more than a fragile structure ready to vibrate to anything that hit it. What also happen is that when hitting the snare hard, I was hearing the tom and bass drum humming. To my interpretation, it was a lack of isolation structure between the shells due to their soft resistence to vibration. Also, when the shell were lathed very thin (3/16" and under) when hitting the bare shell, no tone was produce, just an uneven vibration flow, tone is very important to sound and just for fun I've comparde 2 shells 12" x 8", one was 3/8" and the other 1/8" thick , I found that the 3/8" was far more nervous than the 1/8". If you take a violon, or an acoustic guitar, no matter how thin it is, it has a tone and a safe structure. That should also be applied to drum to what I understand now.

Ford drum using isolation mount has lot of sense and is not related totally to shell tickness.The most important would be to avoid the cymbal stand to vibrate with the tom installed on them and make everything vibrate togheter.

Now to the reel question: free floating vs lugged drums. There's a difference for sure, but even with free floating all the metal will vibrate in par with the shell and heads because all these parts are linked and connected togheter somehow, thinner the shell is, stronger the vibration will be.

I may be wrong here as I mention, it's no scientific fact just observation made by a passion builder. so much factors can be importants, heads, drums stick, room, music type, the player...

sticks4drums
01-04-2012, 08:58 PM
I could be wrong but I think the biggest reason a floating shell has not taken off yet is because it does not look like the drums we know. It is like a suit without buttons on it. I like the look of a drum with lugs, and especially when contrast is involved. The lugs play a huge part for me in how a drum is supposed to look. When KIS had pics of his kit up for the first time, I had trouble coming up with positive things to say about it. It did not look like the way I thought a drum should look. I would buy a Guru with lugs before I would buy a free floating one.

mediocrefunkybeat
01-04-2012, 09:03 PM
I could be wrong but I think the biggest reason a floating shell has not taken off yet is because it does not look like the drums we know. It is like a suit without buttons on it. I like the look of a drum with lugs, and especially when contrast is involved. The lugs play a huge part for me in how a drum is supposed to look. When KIS had pics of his kit up for the first time, I had trouble coming up with positive things to say about it. It did not look like the way I thought a drum should look. I would buy a Guru with lugs before I would buy a free floating one.

The fundamental difference here is that you haven't played it. I'm glad to say I have!

sticks4drums
01-04-2012, 09:29 PM
The fundamental difference here is that you haven't played it. I'm glad to say I have!
Well quit talking about them and buy one. :)

keep it simple
01-04-2012, 09:31 PM
Dear Andy,

That has been very informative. Please allow me to add some builder non scientific infos to that.

I've tried very thin shell, and this is what I discover. With very thin shell, what I was hearing was not tonal wood sound more than a fragile structure ready to vibrate to anything that hit it. What also happen is that when hitting the snare hard, I was hearing the tom and bass drum humming. To my interpretation, it was a lack of isolation structure between the shells due to their soft resistence to vibration. Also, when the shell were lathed very thin (3/16" and under) when hitting the bare shell, no tone was produce, just an uneven vibration flow, tone is very important to sound and just for fun I've comparde 2 shells 12" x 8", one was 3/8" and the other 1/8" thick , I found that the 3/8" was far more nervous than the 1/8". If you take a violon, or an acoustic guitar, no matter how thin it is, it has a tone and a safe structure. That should also be applied to drum to what I understand now.

Ford drum using isolation mount has lot of sense and is not related totally to shell tickness.The most important would be to avoid the cymbal stand to vibrate with the tom installed on them and make everything vibrate togheter.

Now to the reel question: free floating vs lugged drums. There's a difference for sure, but even with free floating all the metal will vibrate in par with the shell and heads because all these parts are linked and connected togheter somehow, thinner the shell is, stronger the vibration will be.

I may be wrong here as I mention, it's no scientific fact just observation made by a passion builder. so much factors can be importants, heads, drums stick, room, music type, the player...All very good & valid points gained from years of building superb quality drums. I love your drums, & I know Dean thinks very highly of you. My post was in reply to Larry's specific question, & I'm referring more to toms than snare drums. I notice the biggest difference on toms.

On the subject of very thin shells, yes, I agree, on their own, they have little tone to them when struck. However, when mounted into a more substantial bearing edge structure, they add a great deal to the tone. I can't explain why, but they do. In general however, I do agree that an ultra thin shell is very restricting in terms of delivering a wide tuning range & projection, that's why the new project I'm currently working on with Dean, uses both steam bent & stave shells around 6mm (1/4" thick) for toms, & around 9mm (3/8" thick) for floor toms 16" and bigger + bass drums.

motleyh
01-04-2012, 09:34 PM
It's so nice to have Andy around here to do the heavy lifting on these questions. :) So I can just add a couple of thoughts.

Free floating systems are not all alike, and the resonance to be gained/lost/sustained depends on construction. For example, I keep a Pearl Free Floater around because it's fun to play with different shells, and I change the depth by using different tension rods with it. But a lot of people describe the character of that drum as "boxy," and the reason they say that is that the system is built around an aluminum chassis. Now, if you're you're using the drum at a 3.5" depth, the reality is that about 40% of the total "shell" is made of aluminum (the frame being about 1.5" high). So what you've got is a hybrid shell, and aluminum can dry out just about anything, soundwise. That's why the wood selection for a shallow Pearl (or Gretsch) free floater almost doesn't make much difference, because there's not much resonance in the first place. Most often, I keep a brass shell in mine in a 5.5" depth configuration, and the aluminum dries out the ring of the brass a good bit. Drummers who like this drum usually are those who want to minimize ring in their snares -- not a practice I recommend, because it sounds pretty good from where the drummer sits but fairly horrible ten feet away.

And, as Andy has pointed out, a lot depends on the nature of the shell. I've seen people put 1" thick shells into Pearl FF frames, which is pretty much a guarantee of a dead-sounding snare.

Remember that the vibration of the head as it's being struck is transmitted to the shell through the bearing edges (not the lugs) -- and then realize that on several free floater designs, there is a frame that sits in contact with one or more bearing edges. So that frame has a lot to do in determining whether the sound of the shell is a greater or smaller factor in the overall sound of the drum. Pearl's design has a heavy aluminum ledge pressed tight in full contact with the bottom edge of the insert shell. Not a particularly resonant arrangement.

keep it simple
01-04-2012, 09:34 PM
I could be wrong but I think the biggest reason a floating shell has not taken off yet is because it does not look like the drums we know.
I completely agree with this. We drummers have an inbuilt vision of beauty that's as ingrained as our interpretation of beauty in the opposite sex. Certain features are expected, & only slight variations on the theme are acceptable.

That said, my reply was towards Larry's very specific questions, hence my very specific answer.

keep it simple
01-04-2012, 09:48 PM
It's so nice to have Andy around here to do the heavy lifting on these questions. :) So I can just add a couple of thoughts.

Free floating systems are not all alike, and the resonance to be gained/lost/sustained depends on construction. For example, I keep a Pearl Free Floater around because it's fun to play with different shells, and I change the depth by using different tension rods with it. But a lot of people describe the character of that drum as "boxy," and the reason they say that is that the system is built around an aluminum chassis. Now, if you're you're using the drum at a 3.5" depth, the reality is that about 40% of the total "shell" is made of aluminum (the frame being about 1.5" high). So what you've got is a hybrid shell, and aluminum can dry out just about anything, soundwise. That's why the wood selection for a shallow Pearl (or Gretsch) free floater almost doesn't make much difference, because there's not much resonance in the first place. Most often, I keep a brass shell in mine in a 5.5" depth configuration, and the aluminum dries out the ring of the brass a good bit. Drummers who like this drum usually are those who want to minimize ring in their snares -- not a practice I recommend, because it sounds pretty good from where the drummer sits but fairly horrible ten feet away.

And, as Andy has pointed out, a lot depends on the nature of the shell. I've seen people put 1" thick shells into Pearl FF frames, which is pretty much a guarantee of a dead-sounding snare.

Remember that the vibration of the head as it's being struck is transmitted to the shell through the bearing edges (not the lugs) -- and then realize that on several free floater designs, there is a frame that sits in contact with one or more bearing edges. So that frame has a lot to do in determining whether the sound of the shell is a greater or smaller factor in the overall sound of the drum. Pearl's design has a heavy aluminum ledge pressed tight in full contact with the bottom edge of the insert shell. Not a particularly resonant arrangement.Haha, we posted at the same time. Yes, totally agree. I do believe that the benefits of a free floating design are best realised on toms. Frankly, I've never really recognised much difference with snare drums. There is a difference, but it's minute in the big scheme of things. Toms are a different matter, especially for those who want long sustain & maximum shell tone.

I'll let you into a little secret :) I'm travelling to spend a couple of days with Dean, hopefully next week. We're testing two identical 12" walnut stave shells side by side. One is a standard lugged Guru Drumworks construction, the other is the prototype for our new production series drums. This test will prove or dispel many theories. I can't let you guys in on the design yet, as it still may be the subject of a patent, but it's pretty radical, yet unbelievably simple. It combines the advantages of free floating systems, yet it uses (very special) lugs & looks pretty much like a standard drum. It's also very light weight. Initial results are promising, & much has been taken from the lessons learn't on the prototype kit, but next week will be crunch time. I'm crossing my fingers :) :) :)

sticks4drums
01-04-2012, 10:03 PM
Haha, we posted at the same time. Yes, totally agree. I do believe that the benefits of a free floating design are best realised on toms. Frankly, I've never really recognised much difference with snare drums. There is a difference, but it's minute in the big scheme of things. Toms are a different matter, especially for those who want long sustain & maximum shell tone.

I'll let you into a little secret :) I'm travelling to spend a couple of days with Dean, hopefully next week. We're testing two identical 12" walnut stave shells side by side. One is a standard lugged Guru Drumworks construction, the other is the prototype for our new production series drums. This test will prove or dispel many theories. I can't let you guys in on the design yet, as it still may be the subject of a patent, but it's pretty radical, yet unbelievably simple. It combines the advantages of free floating systems, yet it uses (very special) lugs & looks pretty much like a standard drum. It's also very light weight. Initial results are promising, & much has been taken from the lessons learn't on the prototype kit, but next week will be crunch time. I'm crossing my fingers :) :) :)
Please tell me you lost the bird cage. :) I might want to buy one of these kits in the near future, not just talk about them like some guys on here. MFB. :P

mediocrefunkybeat
01-04-2012, 10:05 PM
Some of us don't have wealthy wives.

sticks4drums
01-04-2012, 10:07 PM
Some of us don't have wealthy wives.

You can fix that fast enough. :)

mediocrefunkybeat
01-04-2012, 10:11 PM
You can fix that fast enough. :)

Not with my other's job. Or mine when I finish qualifying AND there would be wedding costs.

sticks4drums
01-04-2012, 10:24 PM
Not with my other's job. Or mine when I finish qualifying AND there would be wedding costs. I am just messing with you. You are much younger than me. You have lots of time. Don't be like me and piss all your money away on stuff. All in good time. .

mediocrefunkybeat
01-04-2012, 10:31 PM
I am just messing with you. You are much younger than me. You have lots of time. Don't be like me and piss all your money away on stuff. All in good time. .

I have time but I piss it away watching cricket. Jacques Kallis has been fantastic today and I'm not even South African.

caddywumpus
01-05-2012, 02:53 AM
I'm not even South African.

You learn something new every day...

mediocrefunkybeat
01-05-2012, 09:59 AM
You learn something new every day...

Ah, the snobbery gave it away?

In other news, AB DeVilliers was fantastic. His acceleration after his century was terrifying! Shame smith called them in, really...

mandrew
01-05-2012, 11:57 AM
Maybe we need to reconsider the original lugless drums . . . rope drums! Great sound and resonance, and no lugs, just a suspended tensioning system not resting on the shell. . . Hmmmmm. . .

keep it simple
01-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Maybe we need to reconsider the original lugless drums . . . rope drums! Great sound and resonance, and no lugs, just a suspended tensioning system not resting on the shell. . . Hmmmmm. . .Indeed, my inspiration for the prototype kit (just don't tell Sticks I posted these, they'll spoil his dinner). ;0

larryace
01-05-2012, 07:54 PM
Those drums continue to be the baddest set of drums within our solar system. Someday Andy I will see them. I really want to take a head off and see what's under the hood. I still don't understand what you did with them.

keep it simple
01-05-2012, 07:55 PM
Those drums continue to be the baddest set of drums within our solar system. Someday Andy I will see them. I really want to take a head off and see what's under the hood. I still don't understand what you did with them.Nor do I ;)


P,S. did you get the main points of my explanation post?

larryace
01-05-2012, 08:03 PM
Oh yes Andy, most definitely. I'm still processing the info. You really are an expert with this stuff. Free floaters are best with thin shells, assuming a lot of stuff. My ideas about the lugs and the free floaters were backwards it seems. Very interesting stuff. Thank you for that 2 hour post. Your work has gone a long way to furthering knowledge of drum building. I don't know of anyone whose ideas are more cutting edge than yours and Deans. I am champing at the bit in anticipation of your next round of experiments. I so want to see something with this new concept on the market so I can buy it.

sticks4drums
01-05-2012, 08:14 PM
What kind of birds do you breed in those KIS. :)

larryace
01-05-2012, 08:22 PM
Let me take this.

They are Canadian buttstrap killers. He trains them to zero in on Canadian buttstraps and poop on their heads. If one of these buttstraps has Mapexes, the birds are trained to peck holes in them for XLR jacks. He feeds them shredded up Saturn drums. Arctic White ones are their FAVORITE flavor.

:)

keep it simple
01-05-2012, 08:24 PM
What kind of birds do you breed in those KIS. :)Mocking birds!


-----------------------

sticks4drums
01-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Mocking birds!


-----------------------
Good one. :)
-------------------

sticks4drums
01-05-2012, 08:34 PM
Let me take this.

They are Canadian buttstrap killers. He trains them to zero in on Canadian buttstraps and poop on their heads. If one of these buttstraps has Mapexes, the birds are trained to peck holes in them for XLR jacks. He feeds them shredded up Saturn drums. Arctic White ones are their FAVORITE flavor.

:)
So glad to see you in a better mood my friend. :)

keep it simple
01-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Let me take this.

They are Canadian buttstrap killers. He trains them to zero in on Canadian buttstraps and poop on their heads. If one of these buttstraps has Mapexes, the birds are trained to peck holes in them for XLR jacks. He feeds them shredded up Saturn drums. Arctic White ones are their FAVORITE flavor.

:)Nice one Larry! :) We posted almost at the same time. The "buttstrap" returns!!

Glad you found my post informative Larry. Of course, it's only one opinion based on testing. I'm sure others could get different results.

I'm doing some A - B testing with Dean next week. Standard (awesome) Guru walnut stave tom vs. new (unknown quantity) Guru tom. Identical in every way except the lug/tensioning system. Should be either an eye opener, or a huge fail. There's no half measures in what we do. "Shoot for the stars" I say, then if you fail, you've still passed planets that others can only dream of! (not Saturn, obviously).

tard
01-06-2012, 04:59 AM
After 12+ years of gigging, me still loves my lugless drums...lol
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285626_10150876319710001_829835000_19839534_222731 0_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/285697_10150876332005001_829835000_19839848_828402 0_n.jpg
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/263940_10150867240980001_829835000_19740231_439369 6_n.jpg

8Mile
01-06-2012, 07:20 AM
larry, you start the best threads.

Loved KIS' post. I find this stuff fascinating, and often counterintuitive. It's great that we have someone who has spent so much hands-on time experimenting with this stuff.

larryace
01-06-2012, 07:58 AM
Ha ha thanks 8Mile...No one has really followed up on any of Tards stuff, I always thought that the Peavey Radial design was sound...and I'm not usually conserned that much about looks...but the Radials just look so goofy...It's the AMC Pacer of drums lol. Sorry Tard, I bet they sound great though.

keep it simple
01-06-2012, 09:20 AM
I find this stuff fascinating, and often counterintuitive.
And that's very true, in fact, it's when you decide to test stuff that theoretically shouldn't work well, that the real surprises pop up out of nowhere. Equally, there's some big surprises when you really test out some very established theories, only to find they're either application specific, or just plain wrong.


Tard, I bet they sound great though.They do indeed sound good Larry, in fact, better than almost any current production ply shell kit you can name, at any price point. That's if you value extreme dynamic range & sustain, especially in the quieter registers. They're not for everyone of course, but they are a most valid design with unique sonic benefits. I really do believe that these drums, above all others, totally prove that most players are brand biased & buy with their eyes before their ears. Nothing wrong with that, but surprisingly few will actually admit it's the truth.

Chaos_Inferno
01-06-2012, 09:49 AM
Reading this thread gets my hopes up that once I have my engineering degree I'll be able to eventually jump into the world of drum construction, provided I find the right "teachers" to "study" under...

Oh, pipe dreams...

mikek
01-07-2012, 02:50 AM
Are there any lugged drums that come close to the dynamic range that these luggless one's have?

tard
01-07-2012, 06:19 AM
Ha ha thanks 8Mile...No one has really followed up on any of Tards stuff, I always thought that the Peavey Radial design was sound...and I'm not usually conserned that much about looks...but the Radials just look so goofy...It's the AMC Pacer of drums lol. Sorry Tard, I bet they sound great though.

No apology necessary as I think lugs are goofy, so were even...lol, JK... And yes they do sound great. I had sold my tama rockstars to buy them and eventually sold my pearl masters and my yamaha maple custom absolutes due to the fact that I basically stopped playing them after buying the radials.

BTW Whitney drums have a similar design except the "bridge" (or whatever their term is for it) is internal allowing the shell to be larger than the head size. Plus the ends come off to allow them to be nested for transport although I would imagine it would be quite heavy once there all stacked together. One thing puzzles me though, why build a lugless drum and then drill hole in it for the mounting bracket.

http://whitneydrums.com/wp/
http://whitneydrums.com/otherimages/nest_3.gif
http://whitneydrums.com/otherimages/penguin_large.gif

keep it simple
01-07-2012, 10:59 AM
Are there any lugged drums that come close to the dynamic range that these luggless one's have?Yes. In terms of dynamic range, high quality steam bent shells with low mass lugs & triple flange hoops get close.