Difference in resonance of a drum with various lug styles/locations/amounts?

caddywumpus

Archnemesis of Larryace
I've had this question for a while, and it's been touched on before, in many various forms, but never as thoroughly as I'd like...

There are several variables to consider about lug casings, such as where/how many/what type. Spaun uses a solid brass lug casing with the lug infused into it, with a single screw to mount it to the shell (this makes the lug casing resonate "with" the shell). Noble and Cooley insist that their design is superior as their lug casings are mounted at the "nodal point" of a shell (where it would interfere least with the shell resonating). Other companies suggest that a single lug casing, located in the center of the shell, will interfere least with the resonance, due to the least amount of mass muffling the shell.....What are we to believe? How much do these following factors influence the resonance (in YOUR experience--I'm not looking for hearsay from websites and advertisements/reviews)?:

solid vs. hollow lug casing
material used for the lug casing
number of them around the shell (how many tension rods per head)
single casing in the middle vs. split lug design
location of the lug casings (how close to the bearing edge or middle of the shell)
number of screws used to mount each casing to the shell
the use of washers or not, in mounting the casing to the shell

Fire away!
 
I'll start off with my explorations of this...

Vintage Ludwig Club Dates vs. Downbeats. Clubdates have a center-mounted lug casing, while the Downbeats have the split lug design. Same shells otherwise. The arguments for one side would say that the Club Date has less hardware on the shell, so it should resonate more. The other side would argue that the Club Date has its hardware mounted dead-center on the shell, where it vibrates the most, so the Club Date would actually be muffled more. My experience: they sound pretty close to exactly the same.

I've had a chance to compare a Spaun kit side-by-side with my DW kit. Spaun's lug casings are solid brass and incorporate the lug into the casing itself. It has a single screw that mounts it to the shell, and it's said that all of these factors will allow the casing to resonate "with" the shell, instead of muffle it. DW's lug casings are described by some as "large pieces of real estate", they are hollow, have 2 screws that mount them to the shell, and also have a rubber grommet that isolates the casing from the shell (and some argue that it muffles the shell even more). My experience: they sound different, but both have about the same amount of sustain, and both sound somewhat "woody". It's more a difference in timbre, which I think has more to do with the bearing edges, re-rings, and number of plies than it does the hardware. I'd like to hear a DW shell with Spaun hardware mounted on it.

I wonder how much of this is just marketing hype, and how much of it actually impacts the way that the soundwaves and vibrations interact with the shells...
 
You know Caddy I've thought about this long and hard, and I have no hard facts to back it up, but I'm pretty sure that the lug location, size, construction, material, has such little sonic consequence, that it's neglible. Which would concur with your side by side. That said, I still want lugless drums someday, just so I know I have the most resonance possible.
 
Larryace,

I've thought about this for a long time. Maybe you could weld some tension rods back to back, and use them as a "floating" mounting system. Or, you could get a threaded piece of coupling and glue one of the tension rods into it and add lug locks so you could actually tune it as a floating single-tension system. I don't know how it would possibly sound. I have yet to purchase a shell to try it out, but that might just be my next project, thanks to your comment. If I do it, I'll start a thread...
 
You know Caddy I've thought about this long and hard, and I have no hard facts to back it up, but I'm pretty sure that the lug location, size, construction, material, has such little sonic consequence, that it's negligible.
As like I said in the other thread I agree with this 100%. It's a good topic to talk about, but I don't really understand your idea (well, process) of constructing floating tension rods.

I wouldn't have thought the exterior, wether it be a hollow or solid lug casing or the vertical position of the lugs, would affect the sound to distinguish a change from before? Even the most basic beginner kits have washers, these and screws I doubt would change the sonics.

Even if so, a very small turn with the drum key would have a greater affect so who's to know?
 
I don't know much about lugs what there made of and what the differences are. my experiences in this department are limited by my location in the world/age. that's why i try to check this forum every day so i can learn.

But wouldn't the amount of lugs have a greater affect on the sound than what there made of?
and if im right. I'd like to know how does having more vs less lugs on a shell effect the skin/sound of the drum. does more lugs = a more Evin tension over the drum head? (assuming its tuned correctly)

also another thing to think about it the gasket (i think u would call it? i will call them for now until im told other wise) between the lug casing and the shell. how do these affect the sound? do you need them? wouldn't this affect the sound more than the lug casing itself? and affect how much the lug casing actually affects the sound of the drum?
the gaskets on my kit are made of rubber. wont this dampen the sound of the drums. absorb the vibrations?

any one want to touch base with me on these topics. I'd love to know?
 
Caddy,

I've come up with a lugless suspension system in my mind, but this company beat me to it. Mine would look a little different, but the concept is the same. here's the link:
http://www.sleishman.com/

A truly seperately tensioned lugless drum
FYI They don't sell the suspension system seperately, you have to buy their shells, I already checked it out. I was going to build a Vaughncraft set later this year but I may reconsider now...
 
I have owned many drum sets over the past thirty years: Slingerland (3 ply Maple w/ reinforcement rings, mounts directly on shells), Sonor Phonic Plus (9 ply Beechwood w/ mounts through shells), Tama Granstar Custom (Birch w/ mounts on shells), Premier Signia (Maple w/ mounts on Lugs) and Noble and Cooley Star Series (Single ply steam bent Maple w/ RIMs mounts) and a Homemade Keller Shell Special (Maple w/RIMs mounts). I currently own 3 kits: Gretsch USA Custom (Maple w/ RIMs mounts), DW Collector’s Series (Maple w/ STM mounts), DW Collector’s Series (Maple X-Shells w/STM Mounts. All of these have had different types of shell construction, lugs and bearing edges. After years of experimentation with different drums, heads and mounting methods, I have concluded that the biggest factors in a drums sound are the shell construction and the head selection. I believe most of the chatter about resonance to be over-stated . In 2003, I set out to build the most resonant set I could. I choose Maple Keller shells with a double 45 degree bearing edge and mini lugs with a single screw (similar to Spaun) mounted on Gauger Rims. I was terribly disappointed with the results and wound up selling the kit six months later. To my ears they sounded no better or worse than the Gretsch or DW sets I had at the time. For comparisons sake I tested three toms with the same head combination (Clear Ambs over Clear Ambs). A Gretsch 10 x 14 tom mounted on RIMs, a DW 10 x 14 tom w/legs and the Keller 10 x 14 on a RIMs floor tom mount. I personally could discern no significant difference between the three and have since discontinued my quest for the most resonant drums on earth. All of the drums I have owned have sounded good using quality heads and with some care given to their tuning. I honestly don’t think my new super-duper DW, X-shells sound any better or more resonant than my Slingerlands from 1980 or my Tama’s from the 90’s. Thoughts?
 
Thank you for your insight, ChrisCirino. That's pretty much the conclusion I'm starting to arrive at myself.

Larryace, I've seen those kits before. Even got to play on one. I didn't notice much difference to tell the truth. I was thinking of a truly suspended system where the "ring" part of the suspension was done away with altogether. I'll be checking around town, looking for a small shell to experiment on with my concept, and I'll start a thread when I do...

Bol-D, the idea is that more lug casings = greater tuning control and greater muting of the shell. Also, the rubber grommets underneath the casings have been advertised as "good for the finish" and "isolating of the shell from the casings". My thought is that it would actually absorb more vibration than the casing mounted directly on the shell.
 
I guess the real question is how resonant does a drum need to be to sound “good”. Of course, the answer lies in the ear of the beholder, but how long do you want/need the drum to ring for? If you could build the world’s most resonant drum, I believe the increased resonance would muddy the attack thus negating any real benefit. Another factor to consider is how do the drums sound playing in a band setting. I have spent countless hours laboring over solo drum sounds only to find that they didn’t sit well in the mix. Much of that sought after resonance just gets gobbled up by the other instruments. Almost any drum can sound good with the right heads and good tuning. Clear Ambassador’s ,G-1’s or any medium weight single-ply head would be great choices to maximize your drums sonic performance. I always find it curious when I read about a drummer professing the ultimate in kit resonance and then see that his drums have Pinstripes or EC2s. Any kind of pre-damped head will negate most of the increased resonance garnered from iso mounts. And that’s cool if that’s the sound you’re after. I guess everything is a give and take, I personally sacrifice a little resonance by playing double-ply batter heads but gain some increased durability and punch.
 
I agree with everything you've said, Chris. I'm curious for the sake of it. In theory, the more resonant a drum shell is, the more frequencies will be added to the sound. The more frequencies that are added (or, rather, uninhibited), the more of the sound spectrum the instrument takes up, and the easier it is for it to cut through an ensemble or a track in the studio. I'm curious to see just how resonant a drum can actually get. What I would do with that information, I don't have the slightest clue. I just want to find out.

I already get more than enough resonance and sustain from my DW kit. My Ludwig kit could use some more sustain, but the character that the shells contribute to the sound makes up for the lack of it that they exhibit. And, yes, I consider "sustain" and "resonance" two different things.

Hopefully, curiosity won't kill the cadd... that was SOOOO lame, I know!
 
Yeah, I've been down that road many times and I figure sometimes you don't know what you're looking for until you find it. I've been chasing that illusive drum sound for thirty years now and I'm always willing to try the next big thing, but always seem to wind up where I started. My new DW X-Shell kit for example, all of the stuff that DW puts out about shell construction seems to make perfect sense, but in reality not a whole lot of difference in the drums sound. I've done many side by side comparisons with my older standard DW kit, in similar sizes and I honestly can't tell the difference. They both sound pretty good and give me what I'm looking for but no drastic improvement from the vaunted X-shells. Good luck in your quest for super resonance and please let me in on the secret if you find it.
 
Last edited:
Larryace, I've seen those kits before. Even got to play on one. I didn't notice much difference to tell the truth. I was thinking of a truly suspended system where the "ring" part of the suspension was done away with altogether.

Interesting. I don't understand what makes this not a truly suspended system. If you didn't notice much difference, then that proves it to me that lugs or lack thereof, are sonicly negligible.

If the drums have no lugs, and the only shell contact is from the rim of the head, and you can tension the heads seperately, what is not truly suspended? I'm surprised that they didn't do anything for you, to me, in theory anyway, this should be "it" as far as resonance goes. Could it have been explained by bad tuning, bad heads, or a bad sounding room for drums? How thick were the Sleishman shells?

Now when they came out with isolation mounts, I definitely noticed a big improvement in resonance. Maybe that's as good as it gets?
 
Interesting. I don't understand what makes this not a truly suspended system.

The "ring" had a rubber part that was in contact with the shell, isolating the metal from the shell. It was basically similar to a Pearl Free Floating system. I was interested in what it would sound like it the heads were the only thing in contact with the shell.

I just realized that the actual hoops of the heads might also muffle the shell. I'll have to mount a 13" head on a 12" drum or something like that...
 
So a lugless drum with oversized heads held in mid air by a tractor beam magnetically tensioned...
 
I wonder how much of this is just marketing hype, and how much of it actually impacts the way that the soundwaves and vibrations interact with the shells...


An awful lot of it, I believe.

Signal to noise ratio kind of impact as I see it. All the different ways of mounting lugs have an impact (noise). That impact or noise is going to be somewhat lost in the overall signal or total sound the drum produces. Thats not to say that it isn't there, just not going to be all that significant or noticeable, particularly on a really full or complicated soundstage.

Even the floating systems are going to have an impact. Nothing touching the shell so it is free to ring... bah, they hold the overall shell in compression. Some force vector has to be in place to conteract what ultimately becomes the head tension. Mounted lugs are going to have both tension and compression effects on the shell depending on the point of reference in the shell.

Meh.

The differences are going to become more significant as the differences tend towards the extreme. ( very, very light lugs vs. very dense lugs; very large surface mounts vs. very small, etc. )
 
... I still want lugless drums someday, just so I know I have the most resonance possible.


"A musical drum which utilizes a principle of physics to achieve an unequal tensioning of the upper head and the lower head without the need of physical attachments or piercing of the drum shell The shell of the drum remains suspended by shell's bearing edge, in contact only with the upper and lower heads and respectively. This allows the shell of the drum to resonate freely and unencumbered by any attachments of hardware."

http://www.mymidrum.com/design.htm

http://www.mymidrum.com/showroom.htm
 

Attachments

  • Picture 5.png
    Picture 5.png
    61.9 KB · Views: 1,613
The more frequencies that are added (or, rather, uninhibited), the more of the sound spectrum the instrument takes up, and the easier it is for it to cut through an ensemble or a track in the studio.

Actually, the other way around. The more spectrum an instrument takes up, the less "cut" and the more blurry or muddy it gets. I also do live sound and on of the things you have to do in a cluttered mix (or with a band that doesn't arrange well and clutters up the midrange with a bunch of things happening at the same time) is to use the channel strip eq to cut out some overtones. When you have someone with a wet snare, trashy ride, and there are two Strat guitars on pickup position 4 and an piano sample going, all at the same time, nothing "cuts" though. It all blends together into a midrange mush. So, you go though the various instruments trying to decide what you can cut that won't really affect the sound too badly, and cut different frequencies on each, maybe boost a little bit on one or two. The holes you leave gives room for something else to poke though. Each instrument gets a smaller portion of the spectrum to dominate.

It is when you have a narrow spectrum sound that isn't being occupied by something else that you "cut" through. I'm thinking of going to clear heads instead of the warmer coated heads I prefer the sound of. Just to be able to use the increased attack tones to make parts cut though the mix better.
 
Actually, the other way around. The more spectrum an instrument takes up, the less "cut" and the more blurry or muddy it gets. I also do live sound and on of the things you have to do in a cluttered mix (or with a band that doesn't arrange well and clutters up the midrange with a bunch of things happening at the same time) is to use the channel strip eq to cut out some overtones. When you have someone with a wet snare, trashy ride, and there are two Strat guitars on pickup position 4 and an piano sample going, all at the same time, nothing "cuts" though. It all blends together into a midrange mush. So, you go though the various instruments trying to decide what you can cut that won't really affect the sound too badly, and cut different frequencies on each, maybe boost a little bit on one or two. The holes you leave gives room for something else to poke though. Each instrument gets a smaller portion of the spectrum to dominate.

It is when you have a narrow spectrum sound that isn't being occupied by something else that you "cut" through. I'm thinking of going to clear heads instead of the warmer coated heads I prefer the sound of. Just to be able to use the increased attack tones to make parts cut though the mix better.

In the studio, the more frequencies you have, the more you have to play with, as far as EQing for specific bandwidth dominations. Live, the same thing holds true. If you have drums that "cut through" at certain frequencies, what do you do when the guitars cut mostly at those frequencies as well? If you have no other options, you're screwed. Of course, when running the board for a loud live gig, you mostly want to capture the attack of the drums, but in the case of quieter live gigs where you're trying to create a beautifully interwoven mix that guarantees that the drums are heard as more than just ticks cutting through a mid-rangey wall of guitars, it's a different game altogether. Sure, you can use entry-level kits for club gigs, but for casuals, there's a reason they don't fly...
 
I've wondered about resonance differences between high-tension (all the way across the shell) lugs vs split lugs though I've never tested out the differences. The simple equation: Less Mass = More Resonance, would dictate high-tension lugs hinder resonance. Though Andy wrote, "One piece lugs (that's lugs that take a tension screw at both ends) place less strain on the shell mounting screws/holes. They allow greater head tension as the load presented is the difference between the tension of the two heads. It's typical to find one piece lugs on snare drums for this reason." So shell tension becomes a variable too. How that affects resonance or any other characteristic of the drum I am not sure but it would be interesting to know.
I just love the name "high tension" - like, who the hell is out there tuning there drums so high you need a piece of metal to stop the lugs being ripped from the shells. Ridiculous marketing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJK
Back
Top