OK, big post alert
Something that has been bugging me about the "Origin" drums is the lugs. Are they attached to the re-ring in some manner or are they loose? I just cannot tell from any of the photos, so yes I'm bugged. The reason I ask is because I tend to keep my batter head pretty loose and find that they can go looser than finger tight after a gig. (Grrrr!)
That's an easy one, & already answered by Larry. Two 4mm stainless steel pins are located on the underside of the external rering at each lug position. The lugs have matching receiving holes in the "claw" form of the lug. The pins serve only to keep the lug orientation correct, & have negligible - no strain placed upon them. The pins locate to about 5mm depth in the lug body, so as you undo the tension screw, after 5mm of travel, the lug can swivel, allowing you to take the hoop/head off for rapid head changes.
You'll be pleased to know that Origin lugs are specifically designed to maintain tension. We use stainless steel M5 tension rods (equivalent to about 30TPI), & have at least 20mm (more than 3/4") of thread engagement in the lug. The threads are roll formed into the aluminium too (as opposed to cut with a tap). This gives a better thread finish & more than doubles the thread strength. All this gives very accurate tuning function & strong retention, even at very low head tension. Although those lugs look simple enough, there's a ton of engineering thought gone into them.
The other thing I have been wondering is about your snares. Have you contemplated or attempted the "Origin" style lugs on your snares? I imagine the logistics would be a bit different due to the thinner width of a snare, and I suppose the mass of the re-rings might do certain unwanted things to the sound.
Have we thought about it? - hell yes, we've tried it, but we found something better (more about that later). Put simply, the lack of shell depth largely negates the benefit of the Origin construction. Additionally, even though those aluminium lugs are strong, & the roll formed threads are stronger than tap cut brass lugs, they're still not ideal for super high tensions. We have to engineer our snares assuming that someone will want to crank the crap out of a heavy batter head, & the Origin lugs simply don't offer enough headroom for us to be happy. Mass of the rerings was not an issue, but the lack of free resonating shell depth was. Prototypes sounded as good as any high end snare out there, & that's not good enough to justify the additional expenditure the Origin build dictates. If it's going to cost more money, there better be a damn good reason for it
Also, the idea of not drilling the shell is not necessarily new, yet Guru has taken to the idea...but the mass added to the shell with the re-rings on the outside must be as great as some of the smaller lugs on top-end drums. What benefit is it to not drill a shell?
Adding mass is an important consideration, but it's far & away not the only reason for having lugs off the resonant portion of the shell. For the record, the external rerings on Origin drums have, on average, the same additional mass equivalent of adding less than 1mm to the shell thickness. It's important to point out that adding a different mass (i.e. cast lugs) is very different from adding mass of the same material as the shell. It's also important
where you add that mass. As for comparisons with other high end drum's lugs, anyone who's ever picked up an Origin drum will tell you there is no comparison at all. Depending on wood species, they're incredibly light.
Not drilling the most resonant portion of the shell, in itself, isn't a big deal, but having a totally clean shell internal surface is. That's not to say a drilled shell delivers a bad sound, they sound great, but Origin sounds different, partially because it's not drilled with nuts protruding internally. Like all good drum features, their benefit should not be taken in isolation, but as part of an overall concept/direction. Origin's concept is the production of the purest fundamental voice, the most faithful reproduction of the distinctive tones of the wood species, without unwanted overtones. Not mounting lugs directly to the most resonant part of the shell is just one aspect of that concept.
I know Sleishman has the whole free-floating thing, but I've found that I like different tensions on each respective head. How relevant is the free-floating idea to over-all tone? And would Guru move towards that direction with their drums being the patent is about to expire?
First up, Sleishman make great drums. I like what they do, & how they do it. Our direction is different, not just to be different, but because we prefer the results we get, & our drums offer something very different to Sleishman drums. The free floating concept is most valid in itself, & carries many advantages. Of course, to those that wish to tune batter & reso heads differently, a true free floating design can present some challenges. Equally, it relies to some extent on the accuracy of the heads, as small adjustments around the head are not viable. We also found that mass, even mass away from the shell but still remotely connected, makes a difference. Of course, our shell constructions are very different to those Sleishman offer too.
I've played a couple of Sleishman kits, & I like them very much. I also like Peavey's radial bridge drums. Each to their own. We have no interest in Sleishman's patent, or anyone else's for that matter. We A-B'd free floating designs against the Origin design, & using exactly the same shell specifications too. We're satisfied we encapsulated the best of both world, & some!
I guess that I ask these questions with the understanding that I very much respect Guru for the sounds that I have heard from their videos, and am curious as to the path that has been taken to get where they are, perhaps a glimpse of the future as they see it.
I think our path to get where we are now is well documented on this forum. Perhaps we haven't talked about the 1,000's of hours work, the financial pains, & all the other crap we've had to deal with, but I'll park that for another day.
The future, well, that get's interesting. I might as well take this opportunity to let the cat out of the bag
In a few months time, we'll be formerly releasing our new series of snares. Even before that, next week in fact, we'll be showing the first examples publicly, although not fitted with the new strainer. The new range is called "In-Tense", & the new snare range will be followed shortly after by a new range of kits too. They feature a more standard "attached to the shell" lug construction, but of course, there's nothing standard about the new lugs. Most importantly, we've developed a steam bent shell technology the equates to the most resonant portion of the shell being in constant tension. & by that, I mean no compressed wood whatsoever. So how do you bend something without compressing the inside? You'll have to wait for the answer to that one
It's the total opposite to DW's "Super Solid" principal, & oh man, can you tell
vThe new strainer's cool too. It has a mechanism that automatically evens wire tensions across the wire bundle, even if the ribbons/strings aren't set correctly. That means less wire pressure is needed on the reso head, & a reduction in snare buzz too. We're proud of our developments. Something like a high end ground up strainer development isn't something you'd expect from a company of our size.
We've really been working hard on creating the ultimate wood snare range. You can probably tell I'm excited by this. Why? 'Cos I've played 'em!!!!!!
Anyhow, I hope this marathon post has answered some of your questions, & you squeezed a "scoop" out of me too