Yamaha DTXpress/DTXplorer/DTXtreme

Ed,

You're a gentleman and a scholar.

I agree with everything you've said. I will admit, I use my DTXpress 
III on about 99% of my live gigs now, which range from straight-
ahead jazz to top-40 to electronica. I receive compliments just 
about every night on how "real" my kit sounds. For the most part my 
e-drums do serve as an acoustic drum set substitute (and my back 
loves me for it...my chiropractor, not so much...he doesn't see me 
quite as often as he used to). 

Once I figured out how to play my e-drums properly, how to downplay 
its limitations, and make good use of its strengths, I was able to 
convince many of my purist jazz friends that the e-drums would work 
on the gig.

Would you agree then that it's the musician and not the gear that 
ultimately makes the difference?

Cheers,
JAM

--- In DTXpress@yahoogroups.com, "emf" <liberatusvirus@...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> These are good points. Many people regard e-drums as more sui 
generis 
> than as substitutes for acoustic drums. Nonetheless, e-drums are 
> often used as substitutes for acoustic drums, and they have both 
> advantages and liabilities in that regard. After all, standard e-
kits 
> are configured in the image of acoustic drums, and most of their 
> samples derive from acoustic drums/cymbals/percussion. The fact 
that 
> e-drums often require a different technique from their acoustic 
> cousins hardly means that they can't substitute for them when need 
or 
> convenience so dictate. The extent to which they fulfill this 
> difficult mission, however, is dependent on how believable the 
sounds 
> are, how authentic the response is, and how extensive the dynamic 
> range is--usually not too good in the case of the typical rubber 
kits 
> and their modules. 
> 
> I agree with you about the quality of the DTXtreme rubber pads. 
But 
> not all mesh heads are too forgiving, even if they don't respond 
> exactly like mylar or calfskin. I mentioned a couple of examples 
> earlier. But electronic modules also have a range of accuracy in 
> sound and sensitivity. The ddrum module, made by Clavia, though no 
> longer young, or terribly efficient in current computing terms, 
has a 
> dynamic range that easily approximates what "real" drums can do, 
> mainly because the trigger section is analog, and its samples are 
> pure, complex, and undigitized. In fact, its original purpose was 
to 
> mimic acoustic drumkits/percussion; it has few pretenses to acting 
> like a synth. On snares, it permits everthing from well-
articulated 
> soft press rolls, with no machine-gun effect, to mammmoth 
individual 
> hits, according to the force exerted. Cymbal rolls and dynamics 
can 
> also sound and feel much like those on acoustics. People only 
> familiar wih the Yamaha and Roland modules, which in many other 
> respects exceed the capabilities of the ddrum system, are often 
> amazed at how well the ddrum4 and ddrum3 can approximate acoustic 
> settings. Ddrum was sold to an American company that promises to 
> create a more up to date ddrum5 module, but so far dedicated 
> ddrummers are left with the 4th generation, which suffers from 
memory 
> and kit-size limitations. 
> 
> I won't go into any more detail about the ddrum system, but I 
offer 
> it only to make the case for electronics sometimes being able to 
> occupy the same space as acoustics. Ddrum has always had its pro 
> supporters--and for good reason.  
> 
> Ed
>