Yamaha Oak Custom 2.3 or 1.6 tom rims?

[drum1960]

I bought a Yamaha Oak Custom kit in 2007 and have always thought it had 1.6 triple flange rims on the toms. I now read that they come with 2.3 triple flange rims. I have a Pearl Omar Hakim snare also with 2.3 rims and they seem much more rigid and heavy. Does anyone know for certain which thickness of tom rims were on the Oak kits in 06-07, or have they always had the 2.3? Thanks!

[The Edge]

As far as I know, they've always been 2.3

[uniin]

they've always been 2.3mm.... is that an issue? it really shouldnt be... in my opinion 2.3mm is superior to 1.6mm hoops.

[drum1960]

Originally Posted by uniin

they've always been 2.3mm.... is that an issue? it really shouldnt be... in my opinion 2.3mm is superior to 1.6mm hoops.

Thanks. It's not an issue now that I know they are 2.3mm. They just seemed thinner than the Pearl 2.3's on the other snare that I have. The OC's really sing with them on there. The Steve Jordan snare I have has 1.6's and I think they are too thin. I bought some Stellar wood hoops for that one and it sounds much better.

[eamesuser]

I have experimented a little bit with different rim combos,with spares and the rims that came on different kits,and some that I bought used.I have some 1.6,2.3,a couple of die cast,a Rogers Tall hoop,and a few I am not sure of,maybe they are 2.0 or it may be possible that there is a difference in the material,just like there is with cast lug casings,and there are different brands mixed in because I can see some differences in the collars,eye holes etc.Some seem to be close to the same weight,but seem a little stiffer. As a side note the pearl super hoops seem to be really heavy and stiff,don't know if they are thicker.

I think the weight and the rigidness of a hoop influences the sound,how drastic that is IMO is on a drum by drum basis,but in general here is what I found.
The heavier the and more rigid the hoop the more focused and pointed the sound,and the attack is more accentuated,or appears to be.The resonance seems to be more controlled,and for the most part a little bit shorter decay. Thinner hoops promote more spread,or openness and the resonance appears to be longer,decay wise,and I think has more partials in it,so the volume of the resonation is greater.

Case in point,I bought an Eames snare and put Die casts top and bottom on it to start with.then changed it out with every combo I had between snare side and batter heads,1.6 2.3 and die cast, and found my favorite combo was either 2.3 top and bottom,or a die cast top with a 1.6 bottom.I also experimented with my toms on the Eames toms,I use rims on the mounted toms and found because the shells were thick and heavy that the weight was tapping off or choking the drums with 1.6 on the batter side,2.3 on the batter fixed the problem.I tried 2.3 and 1.6 on the toms and did not notice an appreciable difference,but found that 2.3 top on bottom on the floor toms worked best.

I do think there can be a difference between different 2.3 hoops between weight and rigidity.