Tommy,

Of course I was told correct... it was Joe Montineri who told me! I had the pleasure of talking with him at last year's drum show here in CT. He was a wealth of information and just a plain, nice guy. And I'm not saying this just because he sold me a mint 6.5" COB script Dyna. Hope he's back this year.

Mike C.

Finally! i have gotten a hold of MR. CRAIG WINSTON! he is now constructing one 6.5X14, 8 ply maple shell with 8 ply re-rings, double 45 degree bearing edge on the snare side, proper .004 snare beds, full round radius "baseball bat" bearing edge on the batter side, and what else but SILVER GLASS GLITTER BABY! i am going to finish the interior myself, and i have asked him to leave the drilling of the shell up to me as well. can't let him have all the fun. i'm thinking about a post i probably read on this forum somewhere, anyhow.. basically saying that Buddy Rich used to order his Rogers snares with double (extra) lacquered interior, and that this improved the tone of the drum, in his opinion. i may be doing this as well.

any thoughts or experience on this lacquer theory?

ludwigdan!

It's not a theory... it's a fact! You most certainly read one of my posts having to do with Buddy and his drums/endorsements as I have been a BR freak for over four decades now! I have researched/studied Buddy's drums/endorsements for years.. plus .. I always felt his Rogers period was just incredible with regard to how those drums sounded. Buddy is ALWAYS Buddy of course!... but one can easily hear the differences in the drums he was playing throughout all his endorsements as none of them really sounded the same. That said though, and to answer your query:

Buddy did indeed request extra coats of lacquer on his Rogers Dynasonic wood snare drums. I had the opportunity to purchase one of Buddy's actual WMP Dynasonic's, and was able to thoroughly examine the drum. It did indeed have extra lacquer, and that was very easy to see. The fact that I have two wood WMP Dynasonics.. ( 1967 and 1968 ) .. enabled me to instantly see the difference. As to just how much that changed the actual sound of the drum I can't say. Buddy felt there was a difference though, and he was always going for that real articulate/high end response out of his snare drums. The Dynasonic delivers in that regard with the standard lacquer application anyway! Most certainly the drum would have a taste more "cut" with extra coats back in the day. As an aside... Buddy also requested that ALL the drum interiors be cleared with lacquer on his Rogers, and not painted with the flay grey. Can't say how much of a difference that made as I have the standard flay grey interiors on my 1965 Rogers Buddy Rich Celebrity's and those drums sound just gorgeous. The fact that they are now 48 years old might have something to do with that though! Anyway...

... with today's very hard rock maple/new growth wood shells, I think you may have plenty of reflectivity in that shell without going the EXTRA coats of clear route. Regardless, whatever you choose will sound great I'm sure!

Tommyp

Thanks for the info TommyP.

i had no doubt about the fact that Buddy actually did this on his personal drums. my question was if anyone could say for certain that this made any discernible difference in sound characteristics of the snare. i know that changing anything, related to the construction of the drum itself, will alter its sound. has anyone had an experience that could answer this?

ludwigdan!

Ah!... you meant LITERALLY! My reply was of a duple nature actually. The opening "It's not theory... it's fact" has two meanings here. I thought you were mostly interested in the "story" behind Buddy's extra lacquer, not whether it actually makes a difference aurally/sonically... but it does... make a difference that is. Here's my experience with it:

Buddy's request of EXTRA lacquer made sense back in the day I suspect as he was coming out of just about every wood snare drum being either solid shell or 3 ply/rings. The Rogers wood Dynasonic he played most was the 5 ply/rings with lacquer on the inside that we know so well today, but perhaps THAT wasn't even "crisp" enough for him, especially coming out of his WFL endorsement, and that snare drum was again, 3 ply/rings, giving a very low fundamental. Anyway...

The thought behind it was to make the Dynasonic sound BRIGHTER, and the way to do it was extra lacquer, as that would SEAL the interior and make the "sound" extremely reflective. I realize that you may know all this already, but maybe some guys reading this do not. So!... did it, does it, work? I can honestly tell you that it does, as I have done it... but not on a wood Dynasonic. The drum I tried this on was a 1997 Ludwig 10 lug WMP with a 10 ply maple shell, no rings... and the interior was left NATURAL, as in nothing on it. No stain, clear, nothing. The drum as it was sounded "good", but I thought it could possibly benefit with some clear coats on the inside, and for the very same reasons that Buddy had it done when he was with Rogers. I was also very curious about the same thing you are here, and wanted to try it! So...

I used a HIGH GLOSS polyurethane as I thought that would replicate the clear lacquer of the day as those tended to be glossy. I lightly sanded between coats, and ended up putting on 5 coats, which very nicely SEALED the interior of that drum. The interior looked and felt like a sheet of glass! After reassembling the drum I was very curious as to HOW it would sound. Would there be a discernible difference? There was!... and most especially at low to medium volume. The drum became more "crystaline" if you will. Extremely "high endy" for lack of a better term. I thought the drum originally sounded nondescript... but now had more presence. For me, it was mostly experimental, and to improve on the aesthetics overall.

With the way drum making has gone today though, there are so many choices for different woods.. plies.. rings.. shell design.. etc., that it probably doesn't have the same result or even reason for doing it that it used to. Your drum, what with 8 and 8, will be approx. what the old Rogers 5 and 5 was back when.. but .. your shell is most certainly going to be much harder with most probably a tighter grain too. You may have the sound you're looking for without doing anything other than a perfunctory coat or two of clear. Personally...

... I might clear the interior with a couple coats/sanded, and play the drum for a bit and see if that's what you like! If so... you're done! If not... start adding coats of clear until the drum is where you want it with regard to reflectivity and treble. I will say again though... EXTRA coats of clear does indeed change the aural signature of the drum, but in your situation, it may not be warranted... but that is entirely your call!

Tommyp

I believe Tommy's advice is sage indeed. A modern shell will generally be brighter and, most likely louder by it's inherit nature.

Well guys I hate to admit this but I am making a drum for my KOA Rogers set and have to say I have done everything wrong so far. First of all let me say that the originol plan was to get a shell/ hardware and wrap with KOA veneer, not to replicate a Dynasonic. It is very true that the shells are thinner ply, they are much thinner now. This will be a good lesson for me, next time I think it would be fun to build the drum as close to the same specs as the Dyna as possible. But for now,, here is what I did. Go ahead and laugh.

Ordered a 8 ply keller maple shell because that what my Xp8's are.

Drilled for ten Dynasonic lugs that I bought from you know who.

Drilled for Dyna clock face style strainer and butt.

Cut double 45 degree edges on both sides leaving about a 1/16th flat surface.

Since the lug spacing was around 4.5" on center, I made a snare bed 4.5" long by 1/8" deep. Made a template using this formula,r = (w2 + 4h2) / (8h) .

I dont plan to have the bridge setup like the Dyna, more like the Powertone.

So, with all these weird specs Il let you know how it come out, if anyone cares.

Thanks for starting this thread, it is a real fgood one!

Jeff C

How have you done everything wrong? There is nothing wrong with a double 45 bearing edge and that is pretty standard these days. If you don't like it you always turn the batter into a round-over pretty quickly

I would have to disagree with you on that statement. Your attention to detail is going to make that drum sing and like tnsquint said, you can easily make the batter a round-over bearing edge. The parts you've chosen are perfect. Finish the drum and play it for a while. The 6.5 tall shell should give you a nice deep sound, but if you want more high-end you could put a couple coats of clear on the inside at a later time. It's "your" drum and it's going to sound like "your" drum. I bet you're going to love it. Others will hear it and want one.

I can't wait to see it and I hope we get to actually hear it when it's done.

-Tim

I appologize to Ludwigdan (cool name by the way) for intruding on your thread, I thought my input could be a "dont do this" sorta thing. But its true every drum is different. I thought a 6.5" deep shell would be awsome plus I have room to redo edges if I want. Heck could even take the shell down 1/8 and get rid of the bed.

And as for the interior, after reading what Tommy said about the lacquer build up, Im going with two coats.

Ludwigdan, lets see some pics!

Jeff C