Tama Star Bubinga vs Walnut?

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
BTW my experience comparing the Star and Starphonic bubingas has me more convinced than ever about the impact of design elements (bearing edges, vents, etc.) over shell materials.
While I agree with this, those is fighting words in some circles.
 

s1212z

Well-known member
Indeed. It points to density, which is where one can begin to consider the physics of energy transfer from the head to the shell, and how that entire system (shell, heads, hardware) emanates acoustic energy.

Wood density affects the tone of a drum shell, but how? If you read Tama’s description, would you agree?

Also consider: is a harder wood more difficult to work with?
Yeah, they talking about both hardness and weight (and with weight, you can translate to density in a volume)...Bubinga has both so kinda hard to isolate those two factors alone. You have a bubinga (I'm using the wallpaper now!), is the weight factor obvious as described compared to something similar? Mother nature is tricky though, janka hardness and density are not always directly proportional as seen w/ maple and walnut, there is that host of grain strength and probably a bunch of other properties within the wood that I'm sure builders or woodworkers here could comment on much better. I can't confirm this but if we are saying the mass of the hardware on the shell has an impact, one would think the less dense shells would have more influence w/ hardware differences (lug weight, lug size, # of lugs, hoop type, etc.), just the percent differential is going to be more impactful ratio-wise. Good question on whether hardness alone translates to workability, I imagine there are many factors.
 

cbphoto

Gold Member
You have a bubinga (I'm using the wallpaper now!), is the weight factor obvious as described compared to something similar?
In one of my previous posts, I include a graphic with the density spec.

Bubinga: 890 kg/m3
Walnut: 640 kg/m3

I don’t know if the weight difference of bass drums would be noticeable, but 250 kg/m3 difference is considerable.

Here’s the photo setup for the bubinga wallpaper. Glad you like it!

A95C9E7C-C742-4C90-97B8-0578DF52A4D0.jpeg
 

MrInsanePolack

Platinum Member
Here’s the photo setup for the bubinga wallpaper.
Wow! That is quite the setup. The lift (? What do you call this?) is impressive in itself. That small sun looks like something to behold also.

But what I really wanna know is...

...do you still have to stick your hand in there and push the button?
 

cbphoto

Gold Member
Wow! That is quite the setup. The lift (? What do you call this?) is impressive in itself. That small sun looks like something to behold also.

But what I really wanna know is...

...do you still have to stick your hand in there and push the button?
It’s called a “camera stand” and I can push a shutter button or set a timed shutter release (2 or 10 seconds) or a cable release or use a phone/tablet app* or via USB cable to computer.

*The camera-tablet app is an ad hoc WiFi connection and one of its functions is receiving & displaying what the camera sensor “sees”. This allowed me to position and center the camera on the wood grain of the shell, and focus on it. Because—as you may have surmised by now— @Supergrobi prefers precision. There’s a 99.999% probability his bearing edges are perfect. 🤡
 

wildbill

Platinum Member
The camera stand looks way over engineered - like it's got a 10,000 percent safety factor.
Must be from Sonor, right? :ROFLMAO:

You'd probably get a kick out of my spindly little camera tripod, but it usually gets the job done.
I'd have to rig something up to get a head-on shot of the inside of a drum though.
 

GetAgrippa

Platinum Member
More informative is the elastic modulus divided by density ( the square of it I think) tell you about velocity of sound traveling through wood. There is a site that has varying elastic modulii for various woods in all three dimensions- which varies with each wood. The porosity of wood and grain also impact sound. It has beautiful scanning electron micrograph of various woods structural features- pores vary in small ze snd distribution. I vomited a whole bunch of crap 💩 on some thread about shells. I think the sound travels through shell wood faster than shell air column so preactivates the reso head. Which can put it in and out of phase with air column displacement of reso head.
 

cbphoto

Gold Member
I think the sound travels through shell wood than shell air column so preactivates the reso head. Which can put it in and out of phase with air column displacement of reso head.
Mos def.
 

bongoman

Junior Member
Setting aside the bearing edge and other manufactured differences for the moment, different woods may have similar hardness or density while also having completely different grain structure. I have owned a couple of wenge basses where the grain was so intense you basically couldn’t sand it flat. Spalting and other deformities change the structure too.
 

cbphoto

Gold Member
the grain was so intense you basically couldn’t sand it flat
Meaning, there was a big difference between the soft and hard areas of the same piece of wood?
 

bongoman

Junior Member
Meaning, there was a big difference between the soft and hard areas of the same piece of wood?
I suppose yes. I meant that the texture was highly 3D, and sandpaper wore away the material between grains rather than wearing the grain strands flat.
 

Quai34

Junior Member
I was all about Bubinga for a while. Loved the look of it. Played a Star Bubinga next to a Mapex Walnut and though in the same room with similar heads, the walnut seemed warmer to my ears. Being that I was still all into Bubinga, I managed to find a Starphonic Bubinga snare. The excitement wore off fairly quick. I just couldn't get into the snare. Head change after head change and none of the heads gave it the body I was looking for. It was always muted. If you love your Bubinga snare, then you'll likely love the Star Bubinga the same. Beautiful kit.

If I was still playing smaller venues I would have kept my Bibinga snare. It was definitely more "polite" for that application. The Star kit was the same. It was just a bit too subdued for my liking. Walnut definitely had more presence. My current kit is Maple/Poplar, so way softer than Bubinga as a reference. I'd likely be all over the Bubinga kit if I had a studio. They seem far easier to tame. My snare sure was.
I listened a lot to any Star kit as it's for me the summum to what you could make with a wood, accessories etc, the research put into it is crazy. But walnut was definitely too low for me. The bubinga was really appealing at first but anytime I hear the Map!e, I come back at it, it's like an old grandma who had always been in your life, you have experienced some other trying in life but it's what has been imprinted in your would for a long time.
 
Last edited:

PaisteGuy

Well-known member

Having owned a Starclassic Bubinga set and now a Star Walnut, for my ears and tastes, I prefer the Walnut. The Bubinga’s have a ‘brightness’ over top of the low end frequencies that the Walnut doesn’t. Maple sits nicely in the middle.
 
Top