Hello,
I have a question about drone tuning slides.
I am making a set of drones and I was toying with the idea of using just the the brass tubing as the contact area on the slide (female end). I usualy do it in the traditional way, wood with brass. It seems that the brass tube alone would have a lot of advantages.
It seems to be that most have wood in the slide, so I am wondering what the draw back would be.
Any feedback would be great.
I imagine the step from the brass to the, out of necessity (assuming the wood is the male connector there too), narrower bore in the wooden end bit would be a source of turbulence and instability.
Thanks for the reply,
Yes, the male section is wood.
I taper from the slide bore to the drone bore to reduce turbulance, I would do the same if I were to use brass only.
I wonder if anyone has set made the way I described?
Not sure I agree. The “step” is determined by the difference between the ID of the slide (female) section and the OD of the male connector (plus a few wraps of binding). Whether the female connector has wood or brass on the inside, the dimensions will have to be the same, if the slide section is to fit properly.
I had Dave Williams drones that were made that way , the whole bottom section of the bass drone was made of tubing.
RORY
That’s how my Dixon bass drone is too, the entire lower section is all brass tube (with some external wood ornaments) of the same ID. It sounds nice and has never given me problems.
Rowsome.
If I’m reading the message correctly, its:
wooden standing part + metal tube extension ↔ wooden sliding part
The Rowsome D set I owned had the baritone and bass done this way.
I’m sure I’ve seen at least one other set of his like this. Probably the low-end models.
M
My Dave Williams set was made this way - still is, in fact. I’ve not noticed any real difference in tonal quality or stability compared with other sets I’ve run into. I would not call the set ‘low end’ though I believe these drones were made to DW’s “un-mounted” design - the others being “half-mounted” and “fully-mounted” (as I recall), but I don’t know that these other options got wood lined drone sleeves either.
I’m not sure what advantage having a wood lined drone sleeve would be, if all else is the same…but I have no complaints about these drones.
And I would imagine that the wood lined drone sleeves were simply a function of production at a time when drawn tubing was not available - as today. It would seem less likely that a maker would roll a long ferrule that is straight/parallel sided while a wooded drone bore would be.
Thanks for all the great feedback,
Pudinka, I was wondering why the old time makes did not make them this way, your idea makes alot of sense.
The use of metal slides is not uncommon.
There are three main issues: one as Mr. G. suggests, the diameter of the cavity which is opened when the slide is extended tends to be much larger than in the case of a timber slide - unless the visual proportions of the slide are dramatically altered. The big discontinuity negatively impacts stability and perhaps tone.
The second issue is that even the best modern glues have a hard time permanently bonding a metal outer tube to an inner wood tenon, especially a short one. These drones have a way of coming unglued. Perhaps not a huge concern as they are easily reattached. This, and the lack of readily available drawn tubing, may be the primary reason the old makers never used this method.
Lastly, timber socket and timber tenon actually move together (despite the presence of an outer ferrule) so the timber construction may actually be more stable through seasonal changes.
Cillian O’Briain uses metal slides, but they are much smaller in diameter than the metal ferrules on a timber-socketed set, to reduce the first issue; he also glues to a longish, combed tenon and scratches the inside of the metal tube for better glue adhesion.
The metal surface may have a subtle impact on tone but it’s really hard to say.
Perhaps Geoff will have some more comments on the subject…
Well, Perhaps… Bill.
I cannot see this point about a metal tube drone slide giving any great difference in the internal volume and causing larger steps in the bore profile, the bore of tube chosen should usually be similar to a wooden drone slide bore.
I’m sure we have all seen bass drones that are made almost entirely of metal tubes… the tone quality is dépendant more on the diameters of the bores and the shape and type of Puck.
Using a metal tube for the slider is a sensible, work saving, solution however, covering the metal tubes with wooden sections is fraut with problems. Metal over the wood calls for WELL seasoned timber , but wood over metal is asking for trouble because wood always moves and the vast majority of current pipemakers have not been at the game long enough to ‘cure’ their stock of wood sufficiently to expect that it will not dry out further and shrink down against the metal tube and crack.
My drones are made the old fashioned way . 
Good luck,
Geoff.
My Eugene Lambe drones that I no longer own were made with brass tubing slides. They sounded nice. He didn’t glue the tubing to the wood, but used cotton binding on all joints- slides, ferrules and the end caps which also fitted into the end ferrules. In fact I don’t think he used any glue at all. I used to be able to completely disassemble the tenor and baritone drones and if in dry weather the bits came loose it was a simple matter to add a bit more cotton.
Really great info, that you all. I feel honored that the great Geoff Wooff chimed in, thank you !
I feel better about trying this method now, although I do feel like it is a bit of a shortcut…
FWIW. The set I had (mentioned above) was copied - and - the copy used the standard, fully wooden, sliding piece.
No appreciable difference in sound or tone i.e. the dimensions overall were matched.
One advantage that the tubing slider joint offers is the ability to completely control the face of the timber part that
starts the last bore section.
People might say “what balls” to the idea that changing that has any effect, but you could alter it easily and see (well, hear).
Things like a lead in taper to that bore would be able to be changed, etc,etc.
M
Since posting the question almost a year ago, I have built 3 sets of drones, one in B one in C and the other is D based on a Rowsome set.
The B and C (Kenna design) have the traditional wood sleeve. The Rowsome D set has the sleeves in brass as I described in my question. There may be other factors but I definitely see a difference in stability between the two styles. The B & C drones seem to tune well through the whole length on the slide were I noticed that the D drones seem to be a bit more finicky and have less tuning ability. I think it has something to do with the bigger chamber that is in the design.
All the sets play very well and are very stable. I would say the D being the most stable when overblowing, but this can be from the reeds and all.
For my future projects, I will be sticking to wood sleeves. I think its worth the extra effort.