Yes, I know - sounds like a stupid question - destined to garner a response like 'one is coated, one is clear'.
I am re-heading a 16in FT - surely will go with a Remo coated Ambassador for the top, but not sure what to use on the bottom. I surely want to go with a Remo Ambassador - but not sure if I should use the coated (like the top) or go with a clear.
What difference in sound should I expect/will it make that much difference?
Thanks,
John
BTW - this is on a post-1967 Star made FT, 16x16. No re-rings.
My opinion is that a coated resonant head creates just a little warmer and less ringy of a tone. I love coated top and bottom.
First - thanks for contributing Randy.
Another bit of info -
Some of you might think I am crazy - but.....
I used to run clear Ambassadors all the way (top and bottom) and use the studio rings (several different names of these). I really like how they EQ the tom. Well, when I acquired a pre-67 Pearl made kit (with the re-rings) it had coated on top and clears on the bottom. I decided to play them a while like that (with my studio rings) and eventually I grew to like the sound, despite the redundancy of the coated and the studio rings.
So, I have decided to run coated on the tops all the way, but wonder how coated on bottom would sound - WITH the studio rings along for the ride as well.
John
I think coated Ambassadors on top and bottom will give you that 60`s warm and slightly ringy sound that so many super recordings were made by.Can`t vouch for the studio rings on top of that but that`s just pure experimentation.
wayne
I used coated ambassadors top and bottom on my 12x8 and 16x16 premier kit, sounds great, there's no loss of volume and I think its as close a vintage sound you can get to without using calfskin heads. worked out great for me as well as my drums are pre international and these heads were easy to get hold of :), personally I don't use studio rings as my drums have built in dampeners. its a personal preference though.
Rob
