Proper way to list drum sizes

S

Skydog6653

Junior Member
I've always gone by H x D. Lately, I've seen sellers listing D x H. This can cause problems! Is there a "correct" way?
 
I've always go by WxH or D (height or depth, in this case). Since, you measure area by LxWxH. That's how I see it.
 
When I was a young drummer, 40+ years ago, I ALWAYS saw depth x diameter. Now, we didn't have the internet, and the only places I saw sizes listed were the occasional drum company catalogs, but that's how I remember it.

I didn't see diameter listed first until years later. So, I always thought the standard was depth x diameter, but I don't know if that's right.
 
I have always done it with the width first then the depth. The width is always bigger and we buy heads by the width. There is a part of me that likes the look of the larger number first. I know that isn't scientific, but I've always listed them that way. Also the widths are more standard than depths. Snares can be 5.5, 6.5 deep etc, toms 7 deep 8 deep 9 deep, but widths will always be standard like the head sizes.
 
The standard is depth then diameter.

I think the standard is backwards. I don't use the standard because it confuses me and I refuse to participate. A drums diameter....is the most important measurement by a long shot.

If it were up to me, I would change the standard to what makes the most sense, diameter then depth. Who was put in charge of THAT decision? Someone with little common sense IMO.
 
Gruntersdad gave a good argument for listing the width first. In Europe, as far as I can tell, everybody lists diameter first, depth second. For as long as I can remember...
 
I just went to Gretsch, Tama, and Yamaha web sites. Gretsch does D x W, Tama and Yamaha list W xD. I'm guessing there is no standard based on those three. I would only suggest that if you are buying or ordering to make sure how the company lists theirs. DW Drums does D xW, and Pearl does W x D. So with all of that info I'm guessing there is no standard. Just be careful buying those 6.5 drum heads.
 
Yeah, this is a mess. When you see an ad without pictures, you can't tell if a 8x10 is an 8" tom, 10" deep from the 80s, or a 10" tom 8" deep from today. At least one thing good about the more fashionable shallower toms of late is regardless of the combination, a 10x7 or 7x10 and 9x12 or 12x9 are without a doubt 10 and 12" toms respectively.

Maybe that's why Dave Weckl prefers square sizes! LOL!
 
Add Mapex, Ludwig and Sonor to the W x D group according to their website.
 
DepthXdiameter more a convention of manufactures and then the diameterXdepth the common man convention. I note Amazon uses the common man convention. So we need to start a #hashtag to change it lol. Oh, this is hilarious, look what I found-someone felt so strongly they wrote an essay on Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Describing_drum_sizes
Ok fess up-who on here did it? You forgot peer-reviewed references hee,hee.
 
Armor of Light said:
I prefer Diameter x Depth. I just wish people would use a Ø symbol!! That would clear up confusion.

(Alt+0216)
Click to expand...

That symbol is the phi symbol right? (phi = the golden ratio) I'm not understanding how it relates to drum sizes.

Edit: I found out that your symbol means diameter. It really resembles the symbol for phi, sorry.
 
Didn't really discover this difference until I started drumming.

My initial perception was that diameter x depth was our European way and Americans did it the other way around. Obviously people bring their habits with them wherever they move and magazines print adds they way they are told so it's a bit confusing now.

Happily, these days most of us don't go past square on the depth, so you mostly know.
 
Odd-Arne Oseberg said:
My initial perception was that diameter x depth was our European way and Americans did it the other way around.
Click to expand...

This is how I always thought it came about.
It also seems more appropriate to use the diameter first.

If I mention a 12" tom I shouldn't have to use verbose descriptions to differentiate it from a 12" deep tom.
 
In Britain it was always Dia x Depth. I think the US is different. Dia x Depth makes more sense to me as its the size of the head, so you say it first. If someone asks you what size BD you play you dont quote the depth. I play a 20", I also play a 14" snare. The depth is another issue, unless you say I play a 6.5" snare.
 
Regardless of who does what...and in the best accent of Arthur Spooner I can muster:

I WANT DIAMETER OF SHELL BY DEPTH OF SHELL!!!

Stop this insanity of depth x diameter NOW!

I believe I have some nomenclature somewhere from Rogers listing dia. X depth in the 60s... I will try and dig it out.

NOPE...strike that... Rogers used h x d (depth x dia.) too.

I swear I don't recall snare drums listed other than dia. X depth though. But being wrong has become pretty regular for me.
 
Mongrel said:
Regardless of who does what...and in the best accent of Arthur Spooner I can muster:

I WANT DIAMETER OF SHELL BY DEPTH OF SHELL!!!

Stop this insanity of depth x diameter NOW!

I believe I have some nomenclature somewhere from Rogers listing dia. X depth in the 60s... I will try and dig it out.

NOPE...strike that... Rogers used h x d (depth x dia.) too.

I swear I don't recall snare drums listed other than dia. X depth though. But being wrong has become pretty regular for me.
Click to expand...

http://www.ludwig-drums.com/en-us/ludwig/products/snare-drums/black-beauty

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DW-Drum-Wor...060291?hash=item3612b49c03:g:Sb4AAOSwo4pYeTK3
 
Last edited:
Skydog6653 said:
Neither way makes more or less sense. It would be nice to have a standard convention.
Click to expand...

Yes, one makes more sense in application. If I'm describing my kit's sizes in one number I'm going to say it's a 24, 13, 16, 18, not a 16, 8, 14, 14. A standard would be nice, and there's no argument for going with depth first as it tells you far less about the immediate, practical implementation of the drum than using the diameter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top