Yamaha DTXpress/DTXplorer/DTXtreme

I have to remark that I too am having the same experiences when 
comparing both modules. The DTXtreme IIs just sounds more organic in 
the acoustic sounds, and overall less processed than the TD20, which 
has some nice features (cymbal modeling), but overall I think pales in 
comparison to the DTXtreme IIs, which costs half as much. As I, and 
others have said here, Yamaha has the advantage of being able to sample 
their own acoustic drums, and they've captured the essence of their 
drum series, there's not that much processing involved with these 
sounds, which makes them much more flexible. With Roland, you're kind 
of forced into the direction their COSM patch is going, and, while 
having a lot of features and pretty icons, there aren't that many 
parameters, and the editing is fairly limited, if you look closely.
Playability, no question, DTXtreme IIs wins again, the pads feel better 
than mesh heads, and I thought the cymbal pads felt better than the 
Roland equivalents, too. In my eyes, the DTXtreme IIs is the overall 
winner, let's hope the buying public sees it the same way and isn't 
steered towards the TD20 by the commission-hungry sales dopes at GC.

Stuart McConaghy

On Wednesday, August 11, 2004, at 09:39  AM, emf wrote:

> Well, that's the knock on the Roland "sound." The samples themselves
> are beaufiful, and well recorded, but the COSM overlays degrade them
> beyond recognition. When Jude compared the quality of the pristine
> Roland TD-10 samples with ddrum's, he found them to be a lot less
> noisy, but the ddrum's lack of processing (any room "effects" are
> already included in the original sample) tends to warm the heart of
> edrummers looking for acoustic-like sounds. Ddrum's compression
> scheme may be old and laden with artifacts, but its sampling method
> still pays obvious dividends. Clavia's intentions are different from
> Roland's, and Yamaha's. The analog triggering section is a profound
> difference.
>
> My short experience with the TD-20 does not change my mind. It sounds
> processed to me; in fact,it is by design. However, I wouldn't be
> surprised to find many sounds on it that knocked me out, if I were
> willing to do the work. But I'm not at this point. If someone dropped
> it on my doorstep, I certainly wouldn't refuse it, but I don't know
> how much it would be able to cut into time spent with my ddrum module
> over time, or make me less interested in the Yamaha DTXT2U.
>
> One person's comparison of sounds from one module to another is
> always to be taken with a grain of salt. The ability to articulate
> sound characteristics may be an art in itself, but little beyond
> subjective enthusiasm or disdain ultimately gets transmitted, which
> still has some value in terms of confirmation or reassurance. But in
> the absence of a neutral standard, such comparisons tend to come up
> short as opinion. Let's say that that all modules had a voice
> called "Ludwig 1970s' chrome shell snare." Then a definite comparison
> would be at least feasible. But modules have other fish to fry,
> forcing individuals into vaguer impressions based on loyalty, bells
> and whistles, marketing, etc. I, for one, lean distinctly toward the
> Yamaha on every score (they actually make acoustic drums), but I
> wouldn't presume to call it better in some absolute sense, though to
> me its price, its sounds, its ergonomics, and its features make it a
> good buy--to say the least--vis a vis the Roland. I also think that
> Yamaha's e-drum section is more responsive toward consumers like us.
> We actually get to talk to the principals involved (check out
> DTXperience as a case in point), and they come across when we notice
> problems. What price can you place on that?
>
> Ed