Bad Drums

Larry

"Uncle Larry"
I wonder if there are any drumkits out there that are universally "looked down on". These days with the tighter tolerances, computer controlled manufacturing techniques, I think drums built today, even the el cheapo kits, are ALL capable of getting a great sound.
I bet I could grab a set of First Act drums, head em up right and tune em sweet and do a blindfolded "Pepsi Challenge" test and make a pretty good argument for them. So, are there any bad drums?
 
sound wise it doesnt really matter, the price mostly is in materials. If you like the sound of a pearl forum, go and buy it if you like a DW more buy it.

But I think the DW will last longer than a Pearl ;p The pearl will do fine tho if you can handle them well :)
 
I agree with this, it's similar to the guitar as well, you put a cheap guitar through an expensive amp and some high end recording equipment, no-one would ever know the difference. However it's pretty easy to tell a cheap guitar from a nice one just from looking at it and feeling how it's played (and how well it stays in tune!). It's really the same with the drums. However having said that i can really tell the difference in sound between my new snare and the old one but that's because the old one really was dire.
 
I think one significant difference would be in the hardware. My first kit was a cheapo kit, and I was often having problems with hardware failing or breaking in some way. I would be interested to see a blind sound test as you proposed though.
 
Most cheap drums are cheap because they are made of inferior parts and materials, and often their workmanship leaves a lot to be desired. Soundwise, however, "bad" is a relative and a subjective word. I've played some decent sounding cheap kits, but no cheap kit has ever sounded as good to my ear as my Kumus...
 
Most cheap drums are cheap because they are made of inferior parts and materials, and often their workmanship leaves a lot to be desired. Soundwise, however, "bad" is a relative and a subjective word. I've played some decent sounding cheap kits, but no cheap kit has ever sounded as good to my ear as my Kumus...

I bet there are a lot of kits who are more expensive than your kumu's, but sound worse (for you) :)
 
Before anyone looks down their nose at a CB700 or First Act, they have much more in common with DW or Keller customizers than you might think.

Their shells are basically made in the same manner and the only difference is in the quality of the wood. The technique used for making 95 percent of mass market sets was chosen (and has endured for 150 years) because it's very efficient and cost effective to make shells in this way and they sound pretty good to boot. Traditional (pre-1850s) ways of making shells cost too much and take too much time.

So, the similarities between a First Act and DW are much greater than the similarities between a DW and Unix, for example.

Personally, I think CB700s are fine drums for the money and I'd have no problems recommending them to a beginner or even intermediate player. I don't look down my nose at anything. 80 percent of your sound is in heads and tuning, 15 percent in shell composition, and 5 percent in hardware (suspension, quality, weight, etc.).
 
I don't look down my nose at anything. 80 percent of your sound is in heads and tuning, 15 percent in shell composition, and 5 percent in hardware (suspension, quality, weight, etc.).

There is some validity here. I used to gig on a 60's Japanese kit. I have no idea what wood was used in there, but it was NASTY. I got great sounds on it, though, by tweaking the heads and tuning. I did have to resupply it with higher-end hardware, though.

Although hardware doesn't necessarily contribute to your SOUND, it certainly contributes to your playing experience. I don't care how well you've tuned your Ludwig Accent floor tom, it still won't sound good if it's laying on the ground because the tom leg failed. There are also lots of arguments about 6 and 8 lug drums and how well they do or do not tune compared to a 10 or 12 lug drum...

Ultimately, I usually try to get my students to stay away from "bargain basement" sets like CB and its ilk. The Forum is about the lowest I like to go, but used Exports can be had in the same price range, with good quality hardware to boot. In my opinion, hardware is the one thing that cannot be skimped on. Heck, I quit playing drums for two years simply because my tom mount broke and I had no way to repair it.

So yes, if you throw some RIMS mounts, EMAD heads, Trick snare system, DW 9000 hardware and Istanbul Agops on your Verve kit, it will probably work pretty well. Doing it with the stock hardware, though, probably won't last. Technically, hardware may not be a part of the "drums" as you and I see them, but hardware is certainly essential to the idea that the general public has.
 
I wonder if there are any drumkits out there that are universally "looked down on". These days with the tighter tolerances, computer controlled manufacturing techniques, I think drums built today, even the el cheapo kits, are ALL capable of getting a great sound.
I bet I could grab a set of First Act drums, head em up right and tune em sweet and do a blindfolded "Pepsi Challenge" test and make a pretty good argument for them. So, are there any bad drums?

As long as the shell is not warped, hoops bent and edges ok. I have on many occasions put new heads on old school vintage kits in a few churches and they tuned up great. The kids that played them didn't think they could get that sound out of them and wanted to replace them with a new kit. My next goal is doing the same for a neighbor's kit. He has the bottom heads off and original batter heads on with countless dents on them...He's going to be surprised when I'm done, I guarantee.
 
Their shells are basically made in the same manner and the only difference is in the quality of the wood. The technique used for making 95 percent of mass market sets was chosen (and has endured for 150 years) because it's very efficient and cost effective to make shells in this way and they sound pretty good to boot. Traditional (pre-1850s) ways of making shells cost too much and take too much time.

Yep, Natives hacking drums out of tress, or folks putting heads on a bunch of old whiskey barrels is a thing of the past.

What ply construction brings to the table is a the ability to mix woods and cross lamiante to alter the sound of the shell. VLT, X, et.al. Can't do that with solids and staves. It also affords superior strength and durability.

I had a stave snare, A Brady. Sold it. Really didn't like the sound. Kinda harsh. Congas are still made using staves, and you can buy a set of Congas cheaper that a high end ply floor tom.

Strange huh? Considering the amount of wood in a set of congas. If those types of drums were really superior everyone would be making them and probably cheaper than ply drums.

I'd take steam bent over stave any day. One glue joint as opposed to many.

But, to each his own I suppose.

OK, I'm over it. Carry on........................
 
I'd take steam bent over stave any day. One glue joint as opposed to many.

There are a lot of reasons that stave are considered superior. Here are a few:

1. The wood has not been moistened and then had its fibers stretched unnaturally. It retains its natural shape (and sound)

2. The grain of the wood runs vertically allowing for much better and stronger edges. The sound also carries through the wood fibers on a natural path, conducting sound more efficiently.

3. No big, clunky re-rings are required to hold the shell into shape and alter the sound of the shell (positively or negatively is entirely subjective...personally I don't like re-rings).

That's just my understanding. I had a Craviotto steam-bent snare and I thought it sounded really flat and lifeless, regardless of how I tuned it. I don't have my stave snare(s) yet but I'll be able to give a review once I do. I can tell you that I *never* imagined my stave drums would sound as nice as they do...the difference between my ply shells and these is night and day.
 
Yep, Natives hacking drums out of tress, or folks putting heads on a bunch of old whiskey barrels is a thing of the past.

What ply construction brings to the table is a the ability to mix woods and cross lamiante to alter the sound of the shell. VLT, X, et.al. Can't do that with solids and staves. It also affords superior strength and durability.

I had a stave snare, A Brady. Sold it. Really didn't like the sound. Kinda harsh. Congas are still made using staves, and you can buy a set of Congas cheaper that a high end ply floor tom.

Strange huh? Considering the amount of wood in a set of congas. If those types of drums were really superior everyone would be making them and probably cheaper than ply drums.

I'd take steam bent over stave any day. One glue joint as opposed to many.

But, to each his own I suppose.

OK, I'm over it. Carry on........................

Stave drums have like 1 percent of the glue of traditional plywood drums and yes, you can indeed mix wood types with stave drums.

You are right, drums made of processed wood composites, like ply, have superior strength and durability compared to staves and solid shells. Solid shells especially are vulnerable to splitting and cracking and they will tend to weigh more than ply shells of equivalent performance. You can also get shells much thinner than stave drums, another way in which ply is superior, thus explaining its 150-year dominance in drum building. In fact, these are the same reasons why plywood and other wood composites are preferred in construction: high strength-to-weight ratio, low cost, easy to work with.

Natural whole wood construction (solid shell, steambent and staves) has some special properties that many drummer prize greatly. With solid and stave, you have the wood grain running parallel to the depth, in effect making each grain of wood a natural micro-resonator and giving incredible warmth and projection. Sound is conducted directly from the bearing edge and into the sound chamber. In ply drums, cross-lamination muffles this phenomenon, although that is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd compare it to the difference between standard TV and HDTV. You hear all sorts of sounds across all spectra coming out of the drums.

This pheomenon doesn't occur in a steam bent shell, although the absence of glue still gives them the very woody and lively character of their stave and solid cousins.
 
Yep, Natives hacking drums out of tress, or folks putting heads on a bunch of old whiskey barrels is a thing of the past.

Say what?

db_Cask_Side2.jpg
 
I wonder if there are any drumkits out there that are universally "looked down on".
Yeah, you mentioned one. First Act. Also Groove Percussion. Common sense . Any drum selling for $299-$399 brand new...you get what you pay for.
cheapo kits, are ALL capable of getting a great sound.
And most are all capable of a lifespan of about 2 years, before hardware starts to bend, break, and self destruct........"great sound"......in a very one dimensional sort of way. How many threads are posted "every week" because cats can't get their drums to sound good. Pro level kits can, and will, support almost any number of drum head combinations.
I bet I could grab a set of First Act drums, head em up right and tune em sweet and do a blindfolded "Pepsi Challenge" test and make a pretty good argument for them. So, are there any bad drums?
Yeah, if you choose the 1 head combo that makes the First Act kit sound good. But I doubt you'll be able to use Ambassador, Controlled Sound, Emperor, Powerstroke 3 and Pinstripe heads (batter) equally well on that First Act kit. That's where a kit like the Yamaha Maple Custom, Pearl Master, Tama Starclassic, Ludwig Classic Maple, etc. will take the ball and run.....
 
Actually there is (at least) a bad drum kit: Pearl Target.

Target and Forum series that are available today are the new versions that were introduced just lately. I don't know about the new Target, but I know the new Forum that's made of poplar, it's much better than the old one, equal to Export soundwise but the hoops are very poorly flanged.

I play an old Target at a Christian Fellowship every Wednesday evening. I guess it's 5-6 years old. Wanna know the old version of the Target series?

First let's talk about the hardware. The 13" tom holder has gone loose and I don't use the 13" tom anymore. The snare stand have totally broken since 1.5 years ago and now we're using a new stand. The cymbal stand (3-piece) has now become 2-pc because one of the screws is loose, so the crash keeps moving around when being played. The connection between the hihat stand and its pedal is also loose so I have to pull the stand back to its place several times while playing. 4 of the 8 lugs on the snare cracked and fell off. And these all happen not because of the continuous installing/uninstalling of the kit for gigging hence hardware reliability degradation, but these all happen BY ITSELF as a result of "aging". The question is, can we say it aging while it's only 5-6 years old?

Now about the sound quality, of course with the original stock head made by Pearl. Have you ever hit the bottom of a can container with sticks? That's how the old Target sounds.

Simply put, the old Target is the worst kit I've ever seen.

As for cymbals, there is also (at least) a bad one: Sabian Solar. No crashing sound, no sustain whatsoever ......... For those who never knew its sound, it's like "tanggg ...." Are you not disgusted with that sound?

Pearl Target and Sabian Solar ........... the perfect combination from hell ....!!! Can anybody mention something worse than these ......?
 
First: I am really digging that barrel kick! It would be a hoot to have an all oak-barrel kit!

Bad Kits:
I define bad kit in the same way Harry outlined. If the kit of any name falls apart in 2 years, it's simply a bad kit. Potmetal hardware, Asian mysterywood and generally poor workmanship. I have tried some entry level kits, and the dynamic range is horrible. They make a muted "thud" and little else.

Hardware:
On the same shells, I have used large lugs and small single-point lugs. The smaller lugs do contribute to letting a drum resonate. Big lugs (like DW) dampen the shell not just from weight, but surface area they consume. Hardware does make a bit of a difference. Perhaps 5-10%, but it's noticeable, much like taking toms off a kick drum. It's not always a bad thing, but there is a difference.

In the 70's/80's when almost everything was set up to "thud," CB700 could thud right along with them.
 
Back
Top