thicker shells vs thinner shells

[Larry]

To be sure, there are great sounding drums using both thicker shells and thinner shells, but for me, the thinner shells (with re rings) are my most coveted sound. I think the thinner shells age better soundwise, because as the drums age, the wood dries out more, allowing easier transferance of resonance. I think the thin shells, because there is less mass to dry out, would do so sooner. I have a set of Pearls, straight shelled maple shells, that aren't considered thin or thick, and although they sound great, they just don't have the personality of my DW's. So it's thin shells for me, the thinner the better. You?

 

[MadJazz]

Depends on the application:

Thin rack toms, mid floor toms and thick kick and snare.

 

[zambizzi]

Having owned both now, I like slightly thicker shells without re-rings. Ludwig's Classic Maple shells are 7-ply, 6mm thick...and to me those are just right. Pearl makes great shells too but they're a bit too thick at 7mm and don't tune down quite as low as I like.

Re-rings are said to inhibit the efficient transfer of energy from one head to the other, when a drum is struck. Technically (as I understand it), a "straight" shell is the most efficient, therefore provides the truest sound in a drum.

I owned 2 DW kits and while they sound nice, the shells are way too thin for my tastes. When really laid into, they sound weak to my ears and do not project as well as slightly thicker shells.

 

[Crazy+Hands]

Thinner shells shine in the studio while thicker shells can project a little more through loud amps on stage.

Mapex 5plys/7plys are all I know, and they have great low end tone and respond equally well at all dynamics.

I think Pearl has it right with the reference series, each drum getting its own unique shell.

 

[MadJazz]

I think Pearl has it right with the reference series, each drum getting its own unique shell.

Yes, but they charge a ridiculous price for something as simple as gradual thickness increase.

 

[Larry]

You know I never understood the projection thing...Sound travels at roughly 1100 feet a second...from a thick or thin shell. Am I missing something? In my mind, each respective drum should "project" equally. Is projection defined by the volume of the drum in the audience? Would a thicker shell would sound louder from a fixed point in the audience? I can't speak intelligently about that. Should the word projection be substituted with the word volume? It does raise the question, which is more desireable, volume or percieved quality of tone? I'll take the latter and mic if the thinner shells lacked volume. As far as re rings inhibiting resonance, in theory I can see that but if the human ear cannot discern then it's a non issue for me. My DW floor tom rings for longer than I need it to, even outside. In my opinion tuning plays a bigger part in how well the drums carry unmiced. If a drum is tuned low, the tone gets lost in the audience (unmiced) whereas if the drum is tensioned medium tight the head vibrations are transferred to the shells more and the personality of the toms is actually heard in the audience.

 

[zambizzi]

You know I never understood the projection thing...Sound travels at roughly 1100 feet a second...from a thick or thin shell. Am I missing something? In my mind, each respective drum should "project" equally. Is projection defined by the volume of the drum in the audience? Would a thicker shell would sound louder from a fixed point in the audience? I can't speak intelligently about that. Should the word projection be substituted with the word volume? It does raise the question, which is more desireable, volume or percieved quality of tone? I'll take the latter and mic if the thinner shells lacked volume. As far as re rings inhibiting resonance, in theory I can see that but if the human ear cannot discern then it's a non issue for me. My DW floor tom rings for longer than I need it to, even outside. In my opinion tuning plays a bigger part in how well the drums carry unmiced. If a drum is tuned low, the tone gets lost in the audience (unmiced) whereas if the drum is tensioned medium tight the head vibrations are transferred to the shells more and the personality of the toms is actually heard in the audience.

This is only from what I've read and gathered in mags and here on the forums...but:

Thicker shells are going to be louder and project further out (that's the difference I perceive in the terms, projection meaning the sound carries further and is generally more full). The reason is that the shell isn't absorbing as much of the energy once the drum is struck and the air & energy begins to travel through the drum. Thinner shells will absorb more of this energy and the shell will vibrate more....therefore less of the energy reaches the resonant head and travels back through the drum. When mic'd up, none of this should make much difference.

As far as re-rings, it's not just that they (theoretically) inhibit energy from traveling from one head to the other, it's also that they change the sound of the shell by getting in the way of the energy moving through the drum. I don't know how much (if any) is perceived by the naked ear...it probably isn't tangible. Personally, when trying both side by side, I prefer thicker, non-ringed shells...for whatever reason they just sound better to me.

On my DW drums, the smaller toms (10" and 12") seemed to choke if they were really laid into. They had a limited volume...but they sounded very sweet when struck lightly. The thicker shells that I've played seem to handle the louder strokes much better and sound every bit as good to me when struck lightly.

In the end it's all personal taste.

 

[audiotech]

You know I never understood the projection thing...Sound travels at roughly 1100 feet a second...from a thick or thin shell. Am I missing something? In my mind, each respective drum should "project" equally. Is projection defined by the volume of the drum in the audience? Would a thicker shell would sound louder from a fixed point in the audience? I can't speak intelligently about that. Should the word projection be substituted with the word volume? It does raise the question, which is more desireable, volume or percieved quality of tone? I'll take the latter and mic if the thinner shells lacked volume. As far as re rings inhibiting resonance, in theory I can see that but if the human ear cannot discern then it's a non issue for me. My DW floor tom rings for longer than I need it to, even outside. In my opinion tuning plays a bigger part in how well the drums carry unmiced. If a drum is tuned low, the tone gets lost in the audience (unmiced) whereas if the drum is tensioned medium tight the head vibrations are transferred to the shells more and the personality of the toms is actually heard in the audience.

Is you DW kit the Collectors series and what is the ply count and shell thickness of the toms?

My take on projection is, even though sound travels at a certain speed through free air, it's how the sound originates if it is going to be heard with more level at the receiving end. The crack sound from a firearm traveling at the speed of sound will sound very loud compared to that of a whisper received at the very same distance from the source. I always remember the saying "project from your diaphragm" as the voice teacher proclaimed.

Dennis

 

[Larry]

Yea, they're Collector Series, shells about 1/4" thick. I have plenty of recordings with both straight thicker shells (Pearl Maple Customs) and DW Collectors w/ re rings. They both have the same loudness to my ear. (talking unmiced drumset) I need to do a scientific experiment with decibel readings across 2 different sets. I contend that any volume difference is negligible. I may be wrong, but I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise. Also the choking thing...How can it be said that the shells are choking and not the heads? Obviously there is only so much volume available on any drum and when that limit is breached, it has to be because of the limitations of every component, not just the shell. At least that's what my logic tells me. I would like to see a volume/projection drum experiment on that TV show Mythbusters. IDK to me thin shells sound bigger.

 

[tracer]

I remember some of the older Sonor Beech kits had thicker shells and they had a very "woody" sound,somewhat "Hard" like Oak Custom Yamahas,but not as bright.
They sounded very "muscular" and penetrated well. The Zickos,Fibes and Vistalites became the objects of desire shortly after that when Bonham,Cobham and others arrived on the scene.
tracer

 

[caddywumpus]

Thinner shells will absorb more of this energy and the shell will vibrate more....therefore less of the energy reaches the resonant head and travels back through the drum. When mic'd up, none of this should make much difference.

This is true. The shell absorbs the vibrations and allows the shell to color the sound. Of course, it takes away from the overall volume, but you can't have everything, right? And, miked up in a live setting, none of this matters at all: the mic is picking up the sound of the head anyways!

As far as re-rings, it's not just that they (theoretically) inhibit energy from traveling from one head to the other, it's also that they change the sound of the shell by getting in the way of the energy moving through the drum.

I figure that re-rings are like large hammer marks on a cymbal. They are going to interrupt the energy transfer, but not stop it, making it more "complex". I liken the sound of a kit with re-rings to an over-driven tube guitar amp: a clean sound with a little bit of dirt thrown in for edge and attitude. A little bit of overdrive for color. Some people just prefer a smooth, clean, pure sound like a straight-sided shell offers. That's great that we all have preferences--it means we are passionate about what we do and care enough to, well, care!

On my DW drums, the smaller toms (10" and 12") seemed to choke if they were really laid into. They had a limited volume...

Hmm...my 10" doesn't choke, but my 12" does barely when I *really* smack it. (I don't ever play it at that volume for a gig or recording session anyways...) But, it doesn't choke with a clear Emperor or G2. Who knows?...Could be a tuning issue in both of our cases.

Personally, when trying both side by side, I prefer thicker, non-ringed shells...for whatever reason they just sound better to me.

In the end it's all personal taste.

BINGO!!! One isn't better than the other. It's ALL personal taste!

 

[Andy]

I play a Spaun custom maple kit. 8", 10", 12", 14" toms, 20" kick. The shells are incredibly thin at only 5.5mm and no re rings either. All shells are the same. I've played a lot of kits of different shell designs (DW, Sonor, Yamaha, Pearl, Slingerland, Ludwig) and this is what I've come up with when comparing kits played acoustically.

Thick shells with no re rings; plenty of attack & volume. Shell contributes little to the sound.
Thin shells with re rings; slightly less attack & volume. Shell contributes more to the sound.
Thin shells with no re rings; Same attack & volume as with re rings but shell contributes even more to the sound.

There's a lot of caveats applicable here though.

Mic'd up live there's almost no difference. It's mostly down to tuning, the PA, the engineer, the room, etc.

Makes some difference in the studio but that depends on the level of ambient mic useage.

The whole topic becomes mostly irrelevant when you bolt heavy hardwear onto the shell (That goes for heavy lugs with two bolt mountings as well).

In conclusion, the shell thickness, material, re rings / no re rings does make a difference but only if the shell is allowed to resonate freely. Most players won't appreciate the difference unless they're recording a lot or playing accoustically with lightly amplified instruments. Head selection, tuning, good bearing edges on the shell, etc are all far more important than shell thickness. As soon as the guitarist turns up to volume 11, we're all screwed anyway!!

 

[Larry]

Thinner shells will absorb more of this energy and the shell will vibrate more....therefore less of the energy reaches the resonant head and travels back through the drum.

See this doesn't add up to me. If I may make an analogy...
Would a thinner paper towel absorb more water than a thicker paper towel? No. In my mind, a thicker shell would absorb more energy, because there is more mass to absorb it. I know it's a jump to compare water to air, but the concept applies, I think What law of nature makes this opposite for drums? I question everything and this doesn't make sense to me, but if someone could give me a fact based reason why this is so, then I will happily discard my flawed logic.

 

[zambizzi]

See this doesn't add up to me. If I may make an analogy...
Would a thinner paper towel absorb more water than a thicker paper towel? No. In my mind, a thicker shell would absorb more energy, because there is more mass to absorb it. I know it's a jump to compare water to air, but the concept applies, I think What law of nature makes this opposite for drums? I question everything and this doesn't make sense to me, but if someone could give me a fact based reason why this is so, then I will happily discard my flawed logic.

The air moves through the drum. If the drum is thinner and vibrates more, it doesn't allow that air to move entirely from one end to the other. If the shell is thicker and more rigid, the energy doesn't have anywhere to escape and will transfer to the other end of the drum.

It seems like common sense to me. Sure there's more mass but it is more rigid and doesn't absorb as much of the energy on its way through the shell. It's simple science - energy seeks the path of least resistance.

Another analogy - electrical wiring. Heavily coated wire transfers energy more efficiently than naked, or thinly coated wire. This is why older homes build with more thinly-coated wiring are less energy efficient, the electricity "leaks" through and isn't transferred along the lines as well as modern wiring, which has a thicker, heavier coating.

 

[Larry]

Zam,

I am reading conflicting statements about the volume thing. Here's a copy/paste:

A thinner drum on the other hand will act like a type of membrane, vibrating and resonating in greater harmony with the heads, in this scenario, because it is absorbing vibration, it starts to vibrate itself and imparts its own vibrations and therefore sound into the overall tone of the drum. At higher tunings, they are very clear in pitch and cut well through the music, they deliver greater volume than thicker shelled drums and lower tunings this may be considered a more 'woody' and warmer sound, overall a thinner shell will deliver a more pure tone than a thicker drum. In general a thinner shelled drum will accept all head types and thicknesses and will deliver the optimum tone for that head type.

I've read other stuff supporting the thicker = louder POV
This guy says thinner = louder
I just don't know which is really correct.

 

[bobdadruma]

I think that generally speaking thinner shells vibrate at a higher frequency thus producing a higher pitch sound. Thicker shells will be at a lower frequency. Of course wood type and density of the wood plays a role. Drum head type is also a factor. I think that you have to take each type of drum and the Head/Tuning configuration at face value. There are too many variables. Humidity and temperature as well as the venue that the drum is being played at is also a factor.
It is an endless science of infinite variations.
It's a wonderful thing that there are so many different thicknesses, wood types and head types applied to drums. It adds spice to our world. I find something that I like about every drum that I play as well as something that I dislike. I have never found a "Perfect Drum"!

 

[eddiehimself]

I think that generally speaking thinner shells vibrate at a higher frequency thus producing a higher pitch sound. Thicker shells will be at a lower frequency. Of course wood type and density of the wood plays a role. Drum head type is also a factor. I think that you have to take each type of drum and the Head/Tuning configuration at face value. There are too many variables. Humidity and temperature as well as the venue that the drum is being played at is also a factor.
It is an endless science of infinite variations.
It's a wonderful thing that there are so many different thicknesses, wood types and head types applied to drums. It adds spice to our world. I find something that I like about every drum that I play as well as something that I dislike. I have never found a "Perfect Drum"!

Interesting, i always find that thicker shells sound better when they're tuned higher? Well anyway that's not the point. I like having thicker shells because i think they do sound a bit less "flimsy" than thinner ones. A bit more power to it, y'know?

 

[bobdadruma]

Interesting, i always find that thicker shells sound better when they're tuned higher?

I believe that is true. The shell on a thicker drum produces a lower frequency so you can tune the drum head tighter. I think that that backs up what I was saying. Does that mean that the drum sounds better, or just different? Every drum has its own range depending on preference and all of the other variables. Some drummers like a thick shell drum tuned loose. Two drummers could tune the same kit to their preference. They would probably each tune the kit differently. Is one of them wrong? I don't think so. Some drummers like thin shells tuned tight. Are they making a mistake? I've never been able to sort this out. I like both thick and thin shelled drums tuned medium.

 

[DrumEatDrum]

You know I never understood the projection thing...Sound travels at roughly 1100 feet a second...from a thick or thin shell. Am I missing something? In my mind, each respective drum should "project" equally. .

I can't say I know about the science of it, but I if you stand in front of a 80's Sonar kit with those thick shells, you will hear how much more it projects over a thinner shell kit.

But with modern microphones and PAs, I don't think the extra projection is as big of a deal as it might have been.

I do like the resonance of a thnner shell, but that said, I think it's possible to have shells that are too thin.

Peavy made some drums that were super thin, to the point they had to have thick rings to hold the lugs on, but for the most part, they sounded awful.

 

[caddywumpus]

The shell on a thicker drum produces a lower frequency so you can tune the drum head tighter

Thicker shells actually produce a higher note. The less wood you have, the less material there is inhibiting the vibration of the shell, which enables it to vibrate with much more freedom and range, and the lower the note (vibrations of the air) will be, due to the bigger, slower movement.