Is maple considered a better sounding wood material for mid to high priced snares?

striker

Silver Member
I have done some research about 6.5 deep wood snares. I understand that the phrase "better sounding" is very subjective. However, my observation is not about any personal taste, but it is by looking at the manufacturers and dealers. It looks to me that some of the better quality snare drums in middle to high price points are made of maple (Ludwig classic maple, TAMA Peter Erskine signature).

The second question that I have is about the shell wood material that delivers more crack and pop sound better than other woods. Looking at the Pearl Piccolo snares, the most expensive one is made of maple. So, I am assuming that the maple shell alone can deliver better crack and pop compared to other woods. I do understand that perhaps by modifying other parts of the snare like using a controlled sound head, cranking up the batter and resonant heads, rim shots, compression in recording, etc. one can get the crack and pop sound from any wood snare. However, my question is about the wood shell material itself. Thanks.
 
I believe you can make any snare crack and pop if you tune it up high enough and hit it hard enough with rim shots. I used to have a basswood snare that could do it…it just didn’t sound very good overall. Rather tubby and not high quality like my maple Ludwig and Ludwig. I don’t think it’s the only one that’s acceptable by any means, but I tend to prefer maple on pretty much everything.
 
Also chosen for it's stiffness inner and outer and the middle were poplar or gum..
Also chosen as an outer ply to handle various lacquer finishes.
Sometimes a shell composition is just from practical reasons and causes.
Overall, stiffness, cost, ability to accept a finish
Companies had to (and have to) decide
Balance cost beauty tone and durability
 
When I started playing, wood drums were...wood. I don't recall all the consternation about wood species. I've got snares of all kinds and really find it hard to attribute a definite quality to one wood type versus the other. I'd like to think I can, but if somebody had a maple, birch, beech, etc of the same size, tuned the same, I doubt I could pick out a particular wood type. Maybe all the hoopla is more a marketing ploy than what we want to believe?
 
Also chosen for it's stiffness inner and outer and the middle were poplar or gum..
Also chosen as an outer ply to handle various lacquer finishes.
Sometimes a shell composition is just from practical reasons and causes.
Overall, stiffness, cost, ability to accept a finish
Companies had to (and have to) decide
Balance cost beauty tone and durability

Thanks jda. You mentioned very good points. Maple is perhaps not a "better sounding" wood, but it possibly is the better wood for the "marketing sweet spot". So perhaps some companies have settled on maple because among bulk purchase price, durability, other factors, and of course sound quality, it has the best overall qualities.
 
When I started playing, wood drums were...wood. I don't recall all the consternation about wood species. I've got snares of all kinds and really find it hard to attribute a definite quality to one wood type versus the other. I'd like to think I can, but if somebody had a maple, birch, beech, etc of the same size, tuned the same, I doubt I could pick out a particular wood type. Maybe all the hoopla is more a marketing ploy than what we want to believe?

Very good points. Sitting in a room listening to snare drums is a different story than listening to an EQ'ed sound sample. I will definitely listen to a maple snare up close before deciding on anything.

I have a less expensive Mahogany snare that came with my kit, and to me it sounds ok. However when I hear the samples of the sounds from maple snares, the sound immediately jumps out at me, and I hear the traces of that crack and pop that I mentioned. This is the latest maple sound sample that I came across. Beautiful sound from this Gretsch snare.

 
Thanks jda. You mentioned very good points. Maple is perhaps not a "better sounding" wood, but it possibly is the better wood for the "marketing sweet spot".
Also I have read lacquer finishes "adhere" (maybe not right word) are "smoother" on a maple ply (verses some other woods like...
Think of the Black oak 8x14 Ludwig offered (almost bought one they were $199) a few years back in Guitar Centers.
Very "grainy" whereas without a lot of work maple (and others) will paint smooth

Mahogany also not the usual surface for lacquer little bumpy and grainy.
that why back in the day a pearl Ludwig snare could have a covered mahogany outer but if it was to be exposed fancy lacquer it'd be maple out.

moreso than marketing it's practical woodwork building
not everything is marketing
marketing is after you produce a product
and if it cost you a lot to produce you will charge a lot to sell it as a builder/maker manufacturer..

tamp down thinking it's "all marketing"
there's practical build reasons for most everything
there's price point builds yes

overwhelmed with marketing was less so in years past (like long ago.
now, Overwhelmed yes maybe

crack & pop is your relation between the stick rim and the head
Use brass then transfer technique to your wood snare- use same technique on both

Also narrow down the 1000 choices today to what was around in 1965-1970-72.... that will focus you on what was good then is still good today.... and search out the snares that have some of that old tyme and rhyme in them..

don't allow "today's marketing" to cause "overthinking"
a wood shell Leedy a wood shell WFL in good condition is still a good drum as it was in 1948-52
I know I have two of them and a 61 and 65 wood and 66 and 67 brass
they all make still great music

😁
 
Last edited:
Unlike toms, the shell material's affect on snare sound quality and performance almost seems random to me.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't matter, I'm saying the various manufacturers manage to get excellent and mediocre results from the same type of shell.
 
Last edited:
Unlike toms, the shell material's affect on snare sound quality and performance almost seems random to me.

I'm not suggesting it doesn't matter, I'm saying the various manufacturers manage to get excellent and mediocre results from the same type of shell.

Thanks. I noted the snare drum in the signature as one of the mid-range priced maple snares. I will watch the sound samples.
 
Also I have read lacquer finishes "adhere" (maybe not right word) are "smoother" on a maple ply (verses some other woods like...
Think of the Black oak 8x14 Ludwig offered (almost bought one they were $199) a few years back in Guitar Centers.
Very "grainy" whereas without a lot of work maple (and others) will paint smooth

Mahogany also not the usual surface for lacquer little bumpy and grainy.
that why back in the day a pearl Ludwig snare could have a covered mahogany outer but if it was to be exposed fancy lacquer it'd be maple out.

moreso than marketing it's practical woodwork building
not everything is marketing
marketing is after you produce a product
and if it cost you a lot to produce you will charge a lot to sell it as a builder/maker manufacturer..

tamp down thinking it's "all marketing"
there's practical build reasons for most everything
there's price point builds yes

overwhelmed with marketing was less so in years past (like long ago.
now, Overwhelmed yes maybe

crack & pop is your relation between the stick rim and the head
Use brass then transfer technique to your wood snare- use same technique on both

Also narrow down the 1000 choices today to what was around in 1965-1970-72.... that will focus you on what was good then is still good today.... and search out the snares that have some of that old tyme and rhyme in them..

don't allow "today's marketing" to cause "overthinking"
a wood shell Leedy a wood shell WFL in good condition is still a good drum as it was in 1948-52
I know I have two of them and a 61 and 65 wood and 66 and 67 brass
they all make still great music

😁

Do you have any modern day suggestions for a maple snare that are as good as the Leedy or WFL?
I have read one suggestion in another thread to one of my posts and that is the Ludwig Classic Maple.
Before the G word gets uttered, I have noted the Gretsch Brooklyn Maple as an option on my list already.
 
Do you have any modern day suggestions for a maple snare
not really because even with a modern set be it the 1997 Tama's I had or my 2003 Gretsch I'm happy with a vintage snare. I kinda like how that all goes together. I've been around (and so has my snare!) a 1948 refurbished WFL 6.5 wood or a bone-stock 1965 Gretsch 4103 WMP
for the woods.

I like and recommend it
there's some beautiful (sounding) 6.5 and 7" deep WFL's still lingering out there on the used market fair priced; get one I still see them before they're gone
they become heirlooms treasures loved.... and oh so cool

if you want maple/poplar/mahogany with rings handcrafted in a slower conscientious method *WFL)
or a maple and gum (4105 or 4103 G) they're out there

you'll have a modern dry and tidy set but your snare will have echoes of the greats past..
they're very warm resonant old growth-wood

in addition to your brass (snares) when appropriate

I tried a new Pearl Session Studio Select. Birch mahogany? Luckily it made a good trade when I found my Aqua G's at Guitar Center
very well built but cold soulless
 
Last edited:
most of the vintage greats were 8 lug 14s..
that's a factor; may have something to do with it; new were or are now mostly 10 lug 14s
10 lugs on a 14 seem's overly tense and confining to me
you can probably find 8 lug 14s new but the old growth-wood is gone
afaIk
 
Last edited:
I did say that other than maple , other veneer were chosen back in the day for cosmetic finish reasons too
some outer ply were easier to work with, some were regulated to the inner ply, etc
 
Maple is a great wood for drums and has become the most popular wood recently. But don't overlook a drum based on the wood type. Birch is the wood of choice for the Yamaha Recording Custom snare and sounds fantastic. I have a 14" X 6" T.L. Custom Snare (10 ply Cherry) that sounds fantastic. I think, like others have said that tuning, hardware, drum head selection, and the bearing edge all make a bigger difference in the sound than the type of wood.
 
Maple is a great wood for drums and has become the most popular wood recently. But don't overlook a drum based on the wood type. Birch is the wood of choice for the Yamaha Recording Custom snare and sounds fantastic. I have a 14" X 6" T.L. Custom Snare (10 ply Cherry) that sounds fantastic. I think, like others have said that tuning, hardware, drum head selection, and the bearing edge all make a bigger difference in the sound than the type of wood.

Owner of Yamaha Recording Custom Aluminum 5.5 snare here. Do you feel that the Birch wood has the same natural out of the box crack and pop sound quality as maple? I am saying this because Pearl's most expensive Piccolo snare is made of Maple and my understanding is that the crack and pop sound is very important for funk drummers.
 
Owner of Yamaha Recording Custom Aluminum 5.5 snare here. Do you feel that the Birch wood has the same natural out of the box crack and pop sound quality as maple? I am saying this because Pearl's most expensive Piccolo snare is made of Maple and my understanding is that the crack and pop sound is very important for funk drummers.
So I am definitely not an expert, but I have owned a Ludwig Accent CS Custom (Birch) set and the snare drum definitely had a good crack to it. So did my Yamaha Loud Series snare that was made of oak. My 13" X 6.5" T.L. Custom Snare (10 Ply Maple) also sounds great but I think it is slightly warmer than either the Yamaha Loud Series or the CS Custom. However, I no longer own the birch or oak snare drums, so I can't do a side by side comparison. I don't think the shell is the biggest factor and my understanding of maple is it gives a "warmer tone" compared to the "bright cutting sound" of birch.

There are a few sites that talk about how the quality of the different wood types affect the sound. My understanding is it is a subtle influence, but here are two sites on the wood type and drums:


 
most of the vintage greats were 8 lug 14s..
that's a factor; may have something to do with it; new were or are mostly 10 lug 14s
10 lugs on a 14 seem's overly tense and confining to me
you can probably find 8 lug 14s new but the old growth-wood is gone
afaIk
Good point. I can't say that prefer 8 lug drums over 10 or even 12 lug snares although I do notice a difference in odd harmonics relating to amount of lugs. As of late I'd say I'm getting tired of the 8 lug jobbers I own. Lots of odd harmonics in comparison to the 10 luggers
I have or the Slingerland 12 lug thing I own. Seems to me that what's old will be new again. Lots of designs as of late are singing the praises of 8 lugs per older snares because that's how they did it in the old days. Not sure 8 lugs are "better". Give it a couple of years and we'll probably start singing the praises of 12 lug drums. Didn't Tama or somebody have an 11 lug design that was supposedly steeped in scientific research as the best for tuning? I haven't even brought up 6 lug snares which were/are pretty much relegated to budget status, but some people who like low tunings love them.
Wish I could make a definitive statement here about best wood, depth, diameter, hoops, etc. but my favorite snare tends to change based on how I'm feeling on a particular day, what I've had to eat, what I need it to sound like in relation to song, etc. Interesting thread though.
 
Back
Top