That's Not What I've Been Told! Drum Sound Physics

jda said:
index.php


Got it/ still a little confusing/ what is the Vintage shell make up and is it the only one with rings?
Click to expand...
Dynamic edge = rerings; called vintage shell; can be any wood

The Vintage Series would be a maple thin SQ2 shell; then wrapped. I believe the bearing edge is also unique to the VS

Talk about confusing…
 
  • Like
Reactions: jda
Interesting-I agree with thinner shell, given same wood, has less fundamental note presence relative to overtones. But I think the forces transmitted through heads and bearing edges traveling down shell ,faster than sound waves traveling down the cylinder , will also impact stiffness/viscoelasticity of shell and heads so also sound waves travels/pushes/bounces against these structures-while it bounces around.

Because when you strike head some energy transmitted faster through bearing edge and shell that sound wave travel down it, that will preactivate reso head before sound wave strikes it and I'd argue stiffen reso to resist tundamental note as well as mass effects as video states. Wood is visoealstic and anisotropic-so it's properties vary per dimension, and mylar is also. It's porosity also impacts sound properties. But yes the idea is for the two membranes to move in phase to propagate/amplify the sound for longest fundamental note and its inherit overtones that produce the timber we distinguish as a maple drum my example.

I think a thin shell maple shell ,with less mass , will easily activate and absorb some of energy of fundamental note-but I think it's possible the shells can conserve some of that energy with a viscoelastic resonate phase that hums along to give impressions of longer note - I'd predict a "warmer" sound. I'd expect the overtones to be the same , thin or thick maple , because the overtones are the higher frequency note (1-2k Hz range most sensitive in humans )that produce timber we distinguish as maple drums. However thicker has smaller radius/less volume of air in column so pitch difference possible between thin and thick of same wood. A thicker shell has more mass to resist motion (and the inner wall radius is smaller which also resists forces more because law of Laplace) )so will act like a stiffer collar - so less sound wave energy lost in wall (more projection/attack of fundamental note and similar overtones. But I hypotheize/think the thinner shell could be biphasic-a fast stiff phase that resists fundamental initially and loses energy in shell motion (and a stiffened reso head), but then some of energy is conserved in viscoelastic motion of shell/head motion that phase locks and hums along to give impression of longer note in sound/air column. Though I admit stiffness and mass work fine-I'm just winging it with this hypothesis. It's more than talking heads-because I believe the shell obviously contributes something- dammit. LOL.
 

Attachments

  • wood.png
    wood.png
    160.4 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Projection is greater with thick shells.

I take issue with this. Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. Would they have me believe that sound travels faster than 1100 feet a second with a thick shell? I hope not.

Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. So where does the term projection come from? Could it be possible that a thick shell produces more midrange that sounds more prominent? In my mind, it isn't projecting any different, but the thick shells tend to accentuate the midrange more. This makes more sense to me. The more mass the higher the pitch. So it's an EQ thing in my mind. Not projection. If I turn the midrange up on my EQ, does that means my EQ projects better? I don't think so. Maybe. It's a perception/frequency thing.

A thick shell accentuates the midrange more, making it easier to hear. Is that projection? To me it's EQ. Gray area.

Me I don't want my drums to be mostly midrange thank you very much. That's why I prefer the tone of thin shells...a more balanced frequency profile to my ear. Especially the lows. Not something I want to sacrifice.

I am not claiming to be right about this. It is my own personal anecdotal evidence that makes sense to me.
 
Remember the YouTube video of Ford drum company owner with two others showing how all those shell types sound alike?. Like 8 toms?. He did go on to say that a Sonor drum will however sound different (which they didn't have) due to its thickness. I'm trying like he'll to back up my thoughts on phonics recorded sound because we'll?..I've spent 30 years trying to convince people that Sonor is thee drum. 😃. Forget physics...its just magic I tell ya.
 
larryace said:
Projection is greater with thick shells.

I take issue with this. Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. Would they have me believe that sound travels faster than 1100 feet a second with a thick shell? I hope not.

Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. So where does the term projection come from? Could it be possible that a thick shell produces more midrange that sounds more prominent? In my mind, it isn't projecting any different, but the thick shells tend to accentuate the midrange more. This makes more sense to me. The more mass the higher the pitch. So it's an EQ thing in my mind. Not projection. If I turn the midrange up on my EQ, does that means my EQ projects better? I don't think so. Maybe. It's a perception/frequency thing.

A thick shell accentuates the midrange more, making it easier to hear. Is that projection? To me it's EQ. Gray area.

Me I don't want my drums to be mostly midrange thank you very much. That's why I prefer the tone of thin shells...a more balanced frequency profile to my ear. Especially the lows. Not something I want to sacrifice.

I am not claiming to be right about this. It is my own personal anecdotal evidence that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

I think projection refers to the distance a sound will travel - a different thing from the constant speed of sound.

There's also absorption - higher frequencies are more easily absorbed and diffused than lower frequencies,
so lower frequencies tend to travel further if both are at the same volume:

www.constructionspecifier.com

Absorption and diffusion: Creating optimal acoustic spaces

Acoustic issues as to the richness and functionality of sound in a space manifest themselves in many ways, and from many different causes.
www.constructionspecifier.com www.constructionspecifier.com
 
larryace said:
Projection is greater with thick shells.

I take issue with this. Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. Would they have me believe that sound travels faster than 1100 feet a second with a thick shell? I hope not.

Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. So where does the term projection come from? Could it be possible that a thick shell produces more midrange that sounds more prominent? In my mind, it isn't projecting any different, but the thick shells tend to accentuate the midrange more. This makes more sense to me. The more mass the higher the pitch. So it's an EQ thing in my mind. Not projection. If I turn the midrange up on my EQ, does that means my EQ projects better? I don't think so. Maybe. It's a perception/frequency thing.

A thick shell accentuates the midrange more, making it easier to hear. Is that projection? To me it's EQ. Gray area.

Me I don't want my drums to be mostly midrange thank you very much. That's why I prefer the tone of thin shells...a more balanced frequency profile to my ear. Especially the lows. Not something I want to sacrifice.

I am not claiming to be right about this. It is my own personal anecdotal evidence that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Check out his take at the 11:00 minute mark in the part two video
 
In a situation where your miking the kit, thin shells would be superior in that the “projection” of thicker shells would be irrelevant, besides, it’s been my personal experience that all things being equal with the exception of shell thickness it’s easier to get a thinner shell drum to “sing”, or, resonate…
 
Drumology said:
In a situation where your miking the kit, thin shells would be superior in that the “projection” of thicker shells would be irrelevant, besides, it’s been my personal experience that all things being equal with the exception of shell thickness it’s easier to get a thinner shell drum to “sing”, or, resonate…
Click to expand...
Mics, boards, eq's, fx, all totally change the picture. IMO, the projection thing is only relevant for un-mic'd drums.
 
In my experience, head choice, stick size and player technique affect the drum sound FAR more than shell thickness or wood species.

Not even close.
 
Yep, I still like to get my science from some dude on YT.
I don't need some actual physicist injecting scientific truth into my day, I'll stick with interweb randos.
 
larryace said:
Projection is greater with thick shells.

I take issue with this. Sound travels at 1100 feet/sec. Would they have me believe that sound travels faster than 1100 feet a second with a thick shell? I hope not.
Click to expand...
Likely they infer that the amount of energy projected through the shell and outward.

A quick home test: whisper something to a friend when standing 5-feet away. Then try and whisper that same thing to them when you are standing 25-feet away.
 
vxla said:
Likely they infer that the amount of energy projected through the shell and outward.

A quick home test: whisper something to a friend when standing 5-feet away. Then try and whisper that same thing to them when you are standing 25-feet away.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what they are inferring. I think it's all EQ. A thinner shell produces more low end frequencies than a thick shell. I think the thick shells raise the fundamental timbre and lose some lows. This may not be factual, it's just what I've concluded in my life. Thick shells...I'll pass.
 
Hoops will give Projection Die cast hoop will throw that sucker (any sucker thick or thin) across the road.

Hoops are a Projection factor Or I'm just projecting that GrETSCH USa

You can't factor in without factoring in; Hoops; all the same or what.
Most people catch part of the hoops even on toms; whether acknowledged/or not
So, can or can't talk shells without the hoop Factor

hoops are like kind of, the Harmonic..to the shell..
oR it's just Gretsch USac 6P Dc
the Harmonic Bridge;
 
Interesting video. Not sure what I think of it yet. On the one hand, the difference between the PDP MC shells and my Gretsch Brooklyn’s are night and day. The PDP felt absolutely paper weight when you took all the heavy hardware off of them. I was actually quite impressed by how little the weighed. Each oval lug….absolute tanks. My Gretsch shells are slightly thicker, but with all the hardware stripped off the shells are beastly heavy. By contrast, the lugs weigh almost nothing compared to the PDP lugs. Pretty much what he said in the video is spot on with my experience between the two.

The same didn’t seem to hold true with my Starphonic Bubinga. Hard and very heavy shell, light hardware and 1.6mm hoops. That snare should have been a beast, but it was very low volume and almost no sustain or overtones. Almost impossible to get that one to accidentally “shwang” like most snares I had. It didn’t need an Evans Dry head. It was just dry. According to the video it should have been the opposite. My 3mm Aluminum shelled snare can’t possibly resonate more than 1mm bronze, but it’s noticeably shorter in note than the bronze. The bronze is still heavier, but with heads removed, it’s a flexy shell.

I have to agree with him a 100% on those old Ludwigs. They were and are beasts. Would love a set of those. Don’t know much about the Sonors. Not enough of them around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top