How come kits with Reinforcement hoops sound so good?

N

nhzoso

Guest
Just wondering why this is, all of the best kits I have ever heard all have reinforcement hoops, and all seem to be at the top or near top of that brands price range.

What makes them sound so good? Thin shells, the reinforcement hoop itself?

Can you add hoops to any drum after market?

is it expensive to add hoops to drums? if not how come more company's do not offer them in more models? How thick is too thick for a reinforcement hoop?

Alot of questions I know, I was listening to a Sonor pro lite the other day in the store and man it was sounding soooo nice but $5000 is a lil ridiculous for me, than the owner takes down a Mapex Black Panther Blaster and wow it blows away my Saturn and is basically the same shell except for the hoop.

I remember listening to a DW performance series last year when they came out and the owner had a Collectors on the other side of the room, the performance sounded good till he went over and hit the collectors. He pretty much lost a sale right there and he knew it and agreed 100%.
 
You like thin shelled drums. That's the long and short of it. It's not the rings, it's the thin shell you go for. I like ringed drums too, meaning I like a thin shell.
 
3 ply = classic tone. Shell is too thin not to have hoops and that method is too expensive to manufacture nowadays, it seems.

Plenty of '60s drums - brands not necessarily associated with name drummers - that are sleepers. A few years ago I bought a '60s, 3-ply snare that has excellent tone. Only £50 on ebay and in excellent condition. Hell of a lot cheaper than $5000!
 
The reinforcement ring gives strength/stability to thin shells. Without them, the shell might/will go out of round. Not all makers cut bearing edges the same, but the basic generalization would be vintage drums have thicker and more rounded edges. More surface contact with the head. Less of an angle.​
Thicker shells are made for projection. Louder drums. Stadium shells. Ludwig went to the 6 ply shell, in 1976. Rogers went to the 8 ply shell, in 1978. All the other manufactures followed suit. Drummers, more and more, were losing the war with amps, and the amps were getting bigger.​
Adding rings to existing to thick shells, I'd say not the way to go. By drums made/designed that way.​
 
Figures if I like it than it's gonna be friggin expensive. Maybe if I wait long enough a Black Panther Blaster will drop in price, some of the old ludwigs I have heard would be nice too but they are usually wayyyy over priced too.
 
You like thin shelled drums. That's the long and short of it. It's not the rings, it's the thin shell you go for. I like ringed drums too, meaning I like a thin shell.

I think DW uses re-enforcement hoops on some of their 8-ply shells though.

at that point I think it's just a side-effect of the quality of the shell.

If it is a 3-ply shell it's just because daaauuuummmmm 3 ply drums sound good.
 
Figures if I like it than it's gonna be friggin expensive .... some of the old ludwigs I have heard would be nice too but they are usually wayyyy over priced too.
A new Ludwig Legacy (Bonham sizes) runs about $3800. There's one on eBay, right now. So far, I've got $1320 into my thermogloss 13, 16, 18 (harry sizes) Luddie 3 plys. Even if I have to pop $1K for a 26, that's still a lot cheaper than a new Legacy. And selling off my 6 ply's will help defray the cost.​
Right now is the time to buy vintage. Sure, lots of cats are asking too much, but, they're gonna be keeping their drums, too. I bud of mine just scored a red sparkle Luddie 3 ply 22, 13, 16 for under a grand.​
 
There are many factors. Reinforcing rings disrupt the overtones that would normally occur with a straight-sided drum, kind of like hammering does to a cymbal. The thin-shelled argument for vintage drums is out the door--Ludwig and Slingerland shells were 1/4" thick before the reinforcing rings were added, whereas most modern kits have thinner shells than that.
 
The thin-shelled argument for vintage drums is out the door--Ludwig and Slingerland shells were 1/4" thick before the reinforcing rings were added, whereas most modern kits have thinner shells than that.

I should think that a greater number of plies equates to greater stability? That's the basic principle behind laminates...so perhaps the same applies here?
 
There are many factors. Reinforcing rings disrupt the overtones that would normally occur with a straight-sided drum, kind of like hammering does to a cymbal. The thin-shelled argument for vintage drums is out the door--Ludwig and Slingerland shells were 1/4" thick before the reinforcing rings were added, whereas most modern kits have thinner shells than that.

I was going to mention this as well, My old instructor had a early 70's I believe it was ludwig with reinforcement hoops and the shells were pretty damn thick. I dont know how many plies but those shells were definetly thicker than my Saturns. hmmmmm
 
My personal belief is that the re-rings help the transfer of energy into the shell by their mass contacting both the head and the shell.
 
-Ludwig and Slingerland shells were 1/4" thick before the reinforcing rings were added, whereas most modern kits have thinner shells than that.

Most modern drums are straight shelled, on that we should agree. That being the case, then are you saying that most modern shells are less than 1/4"?

I was used to a THICK ring on Luds. When I got my DW's...my first thought was, wow that ring is thin.
 
Trying to isolate the rering as the reason for a drum sounding "good" is a subjective minefield. Rerings contribute or detract, depending on your personal preference. The bottom line is, every aspect of the instrument's build contributes to it's overall sound. The rering's primary function is to add rigidity to the shell. In most constructions, but not all, the rering gives the "impression" of raising pitch slightly, as they typically encourage the generation of high overtones.

My guess is, if the OP prefers the sound of drums with rerings, it's probably because he's associating such a construction with quality, & that quality usually manifests itself in the form of a more resonant shell.

A few notes of clarification; The observation about the number of plies is true. All other aspects being equal, a shell constructed of thinner plies, (thus more of them for a given thickness) will be more rigid. That increased rigidity will typically equate to a less resonant shell for a given thickness than an equal thickness shell with less plies. This goes some way towards explaining how an early thicker shell with less plies can sound "better" than a later thinner shell with more plies. Take that to the extreme, & it certainly explains why a single ply shell performs so well. Also, with fewer plies/single ply drums, ageing plays a part too. The older the wood, the more the lignum has crystallised, & this sets up beneficial resonant channels/chambers within the wood structure. The greater the number of plies, the less the material behaves & matures like a natural wood, & the less affect ageing will have.

The flip side to that is, greater rigidity afforded by more & thinner plies, allows the construction of even thinner shells. That feature, it part of the overall instrument design, has it's own contribution to make.
 
Back
Top