Wood Quality

I was talking with my dad a few months ago about different woods used in drums and how the quality has changed. For example he was saying that 50 years ago an all maple kit had better quality wood in it than an all maple kit of today. He was saying its because now a lot of wood is grown specifically to be cut down and used for products rather than wood that has been aging for years and years. I was wondering if you guys could expand on that a little more in detail on the differences in wood qualities for the various types of wood used in drumsets and also explain a little about bubinga and how it holds up to the woods used today and why it was not used before.

I think your dad is selling something I'm not necessarily buying.

MAYBE, with a capital PERHAPS, his theory holds true when talking about guitar or bass bodies, but I don't buy it when talking about ply drums...

I'd be interested in how he came to that conclusion beyond just having a feeling or gut instinct about it.

Where's the analysis on the sonic charcteristics of maple from the 60's as compared to that of today, etc.?

And even if that's the case as far as raw wood is concerned...I'm skeptical that would be something you, your dad, I or anybody else could tell by listening in even the most ideal circumstances...

Ive heard, in person, a kit of those DW drums made out of thousands of years old logs dredged from the bottom of the Great Lakes.

You know what they sound like?

Good drums; nothing more, nothing less.

From what I've noticed is that the grain on older drums is tighter than modern drums. Theoretically, that would make the wood less dense, which could affect the tone. I think it would be more based on looks than on sound.

I think it really comes down to comparing older wood of a particular quality with wood of today of the same quality.

The world has been around for a couple million years, and it takes a while to grow trees. I'm sure the wood of today isn't less of a quality than the wood of a hundred years ago.

It's likely that today that the shells are more consistent due to more modern methods of constructing them. Its just that now there's more lines of maple kits out there, and they're being made with varying degrees of wood quality, ultimately to suit anyones budget.

There is no doubt that old growth wood is very different than farmed wood. Just look at the grain. But does that have an effect on tone? I really don't have a clue.

From what Ive learned of wood, the age isnt whats important so much as the climate the tree grows in. This info was from a documentary on Straovarian instruments, given the period of the climate shift in the region the woods were collected. Something about the moisture and mini-ice age of the time giving the wood from that era its distinct tonal qualities.

Im not wood expert, maybe thats all theoretical balogna. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius#Theories_and_reproduction_attempts

yep..I think its one of those questions that is impossible to get equal comparisons, thus no way to answer. Many people believe older is better no matter what....kind of depends on what the product is.

Honestly, Maple, Birch, Oak, Basswood, Cardboard: if you have quality heads, and good tuning its all good. Would I trade my Accent shells in for some new Maple Luds? Sure, but they have served me well on recordings and stages since 2003 without anyone screaming at me about the low quality wood.

That said, the grain is ugly, and a black stain was all that fit her outside the wrap.

We were just "pondering" some things.Drums,being multi-ply instruments would by their construction be exempt from this "theory",but the question that comes to mind,is why they can't make a better sounding violin than an antique Stratovarious? It almost certainly has to be the quality of the wood as all other things(size,construction,etc...) are the same as 250-300 years ago.On the other end of the spectrum,the old oak 2x4s(that actualy measure 2" x 4"),are so hard that you can't even drive a screw into them without drilling pilot holes,and modern nails don't stand much of a chance going through them either.As I said ,this whole conversation was just pondering things that probably can't be proven(and even if they could,it won't be by me!!! Lol),and my general stand is that as we move through the time we have,quality of everything will suffer as raw materials get more,and more scarce, just an opinion in an almost forgotten conversation my brothers from other mothers!!!.

I disagree with this about as much as one could.

Methinks perhaps you're overlooking the most important difference there could be.

In your example...the guy building that funny wooden box with the strings on it.

There may be many Stradivarius instruments, but there was only ONE Stradivari (the instrument maker).

There was only one Les Paul, one Leo Fender, one William F. Ludwig. Ok, technically there are three..., but I think you get my drift.

The days of the genius craftsman working with wood, metal, etc. to create incredibly high quality pieces are what's changed...or at least, the media and materials have.

Now those kind of minds work in largely digital spaces.

Bingo. Stradivari knew what to do with the piece of wood he happened to have in his hand. Modern craftsmen are just as good; their fiddles sound different. Could be 300 years of ageing makes a difference.

I've heard a carbon fiber viola that sounds stunning, too.

Meanwhile, wood is maybe 15-20% of the sound of drums, so it's all very interesting but . . .

Tighter grain wood produces a higher pitch,maple

looser grain ,bigger pores,have lower tones,mahogany

Only part of the matter though;as already said tuning ,heads ,and bearing edges make up alot of the tone.Also dia. and depth.Also having worked in a guitar factory,Robin, wood can greatly vary within the same tree.Was the wood from the bottom close to the stump,tighter grain,or takin from the upper sections,somewhat looser.

Thanks guys. I was just tryin to add some knowledge on a topic dad and I were pondering one day. It makes sense to me that wood of the same type that is aged would be better quality than wood that was grown to size then immediately cut. It seems there are a lot more factors than I realized though. Regardless, I now know more about it as a whole than before. I agree with what you're saying too dad.

Actually there is a (PBS I think) radio show somewhere where they got all these violin "experts" to listen to various violins in a blind study. They could distinguish crappy ones from nice ones...but they couldn't distinguish BETWEEN the good ones. Some modern..some old and including stradivarius. In other words, they couldn't pick the strad...and it didn't "win".

"old wood is better" is bull{censored}. It's quality OF the wood...of any era...that makes the difference.

It's the same in the guitar world. People think there is something special about a 59 Les Paul or a 54 strat, and many do live up to the hype. But there are {censored}ty examples of each of those that would be put to shame by a well built modern high end strat or Paul.

This is a really cool thread. Nice to see some true deep drum discussion!

I think Kmart's onto it about the craftsman behind the product, but the original post may hold some light. As our natural resources get used up, "old wood" will become more scarce. Is old wood better? I don't know, but I would expect it to sound different than new wood, though I don't know my ears could tell the difference.

100% agreement

Interesting point kmart,and one that I obviously didn't consider.So Stradvari could make the same quality of instrument with modern raw materials? I suppose thats probably true.I've owned several instuments through the years,and while many would be antique today(had I held on to them),I'm a real fan of what I play bass on nowdays. Active Music Man Stingray 5s.While some of the tone is in the wood,the majority of it comes from the electronics.To relate it back to drums,how much of the "sound" of a drum is really the wood,and how much of it is head,type of head,and tension on head? Lots of interesting points in this thread.

There is also something to be said about the "origin" of the wood. (Granted, this relates to Merlyn's comment).

Sometimes we use a generic term of "maple" that doesn't define the wood itself. There are different types of wood, often related to the region it's grown in. Most maple shells today are made with "American Hard Maple." That being said, some companies (ddrum was one for a while) that was using "Canadian Maple" which in very similar to the American, but actually a bit softer, thereby producing a similar, but different tone.

This applies to ALL types of wood. It's very region based. It could be (for drums) that the "old" wood was always from a single source area and not as varied in definition.

DB

Also a point to consider is the player.How many times have you seen a great player play drums of a lesser quality and make them sound great,and yet a child sounds like banging.I think the type of wood gives you an area of sound to work with.Then the edges focus that area of sound further,then choice of heads,then tuning,then player,are all factors in the sound

Considering drums are made of plywood, the glues used probably have more impact than old growth wood vs new growth wood, and I'm sure the glues have changed since the 50's/60's/70's with EPA regulations stepping in.

Different manufacturing techniques also would apply...obviously those have changed over the years.

Personally speaking, using glue from the 60's, using techniques from the 60's, using "new growth" wood vs the same with "old growth" wood, likely won't yield a bit of tonal differences outside of the standard tonal differences between drums.

That said, and it's been said here and everywhere else that tuning and head choices impact a drums sound moreso than the wood. But, I can assure you all that there is a difference between my maple mapex kit (Pro-M), and my maple-walnut kit (saturn) - that said, I'm not making a case for wood being a major player, but it does have an impact and shows some tendencies.

6 layer maple + slightly thicker shells make my Pro-M kit louder. The 4 layers Maple + 2 layers Walnut, with thinner shells, makes my Saturn kit quieter...and also weighs more by comparison - same sized drum with same heads...Saturn weighs a good amount more even though the shells are thinner. Walnut, is apparently heavy.

My 22x18 Saturn bass drum weighs more than my 24x18 Pro-M bass drum...by a LOT.

Yeah...I don't buy the "any drums will sound great with good heads and tuning". Any drums will be "playable" with good heads and tuning...but sound great? I don't think so.

My first kit...pearl export....when they still used what was basically particle board ply's or whatever it was....did NOT ever sound like a nice kit of "real" wood. And since I was the one tuning it...and using the same heads I always use...I know it was consistent. They just simply did not project and were lifeless and dull sounding drums.

Quality wood makes a difference.

You weren't using the right heads. "Same heads I always use" - that's a mistake right there - different drums like different heads. If I put the same heads on my Saturn kit as my Maple kit, one of them will sound worse than the other. Neither kit is of bad quality...

Listen to the stuff on my site. Tell me which songs are on a 79 Ludwig Maple, which are on a 2003 Accent, a $4500 Roland, and a $1000 Alesis. Then we can talk about how much cost/quality over tuning matters.

I admit, the samples I have up are not the optimal selections to make this point, but I am sure anyone with a variety of kits can record and offer the same "Pepsi challenege".

IMO: Great tuning and technique, coupled with the quality of modern recording and live sound equipment has really made up for a lot of the subtle differences one might have claimed in instruments of yesteryear.

I see your point Merlin but this isn't about the sounds generated with electronics. Today's technology allows for even the {censored}tiest of equipment to sound at least decent. What I'm talking about is acoustic only. You can mask a lot of sounds in a drum with live sound equipment and recording equipment but when you play acoustic you are hearing the drum itself with all of its perfections and imperfections.

A drum that sounds like one of those big red rubber balls from grade school being bounced, can sound deep and resonant when a mic on it...it's hilarious to me at times how badly tuned drums can sound AWESOME on tape...but horrible live or to the drummer.

That said, if it's horribly tuned, there's nothing one can do, it'll sound horrible...lol