Yamaha DTXpress/DTXplorer/DTXtreme

--- In DTXpress@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <tombrook11232@y...> wrote:

Tom, I was replying to this post earlier today when my cable modem 
suddenly died. I'm not doing justice to it now, but some of these 
questions are interesting. 

> I wonder why they don't do [24 bit, 96 khz]?   Would it cost much 
more? 

I don't think that cost is the reason; the chips are common enough to 
be included without too much expense.  E-drum designs, and their 
production platforms, however, tend to lag.  By the time they appear 
in public, they are outdated in significant respects.  One thing to 
remember is that even though many of us have seen the use of 
electronic drum equipment escalate over the years, the e-drum niche 
is still small, attracting far less time, research, money, and sales 
than keyboards and guitars—-not to mention computers.  E-drum modules 
cannot keep pace with the rapid development in the general digital 
domain. What we have is a perfect example of the chicken/egg 
syndrome: E-drums won't seriously advance until more people show 
interest, and people won't start showing interest until e-drums 
advance to the point at which they don't fail to measure up 
superficially to acoustic drums, regardless of the other things that 
they can do.

> Is it possible they don't feel the sound would improve that much 
> over current models?    With digital sound, there are some 
> improvements that have been tested to be virtually 
indistinguishable 
> to blindfolded listeners, but that hasn't detered some audiophiles 
> and "purist" types from insisting they can hear the difference in 
> super high end digital products.    Those are the people who buy 
> $200. audio cables for instance. 

I'm happy to stand up for audio purists.  But mainstream companies 
are not going to load their products with expensive audiophile-grade 
parts and twiddles if only a few people will appreciate the degree of 
difference in sample quality that they would make--much less pay for 
them.  If given the choice between offering the best possible audio 
quality or offering a mass of features (like a sequencer, songs, 
groove check, etc.) at a price point, Yamaha, like any other company, 
would certainly opt for the bells and whistles. However, as I said, I 
doubt that the cost of 24/96 chips falls heavily into that category; 
they wouldn't make that much difference in price. Even $100 CD 
players have them now. Also, a higher resolution wouldn't guarantee 
good sounds. You can have better resolution of flawed or dull sound. 
What do you guys think?
 
 
> The Xtreme came out this year, right?  I suppose if it did, it's 
not 
> likely that Yamaha will be updating it soon, or is it?   How often 
> does Yamaha typically wait between drum module updates/upgrades?  

When the IIS first came out, it had already been in the works for 
some time.  OGD has alluded to various clues about its age in its 
documentation and specs.  Yamaha claimed that it might be willing to 
produce a more professionally finished module, depending on how well 
the IIS sold.  The logic of this plan escapes me. Maybe Yamaha was 
hoping that sales of the IIS would be good enough to finance a more 
elaborate module.  But if the brisk sales of the DTXpress, and 
Yamaha's many other lucrative ventures, couldn't do it, why should 
the IIS be expected to do it--in the short run, anyway--especially if 
the people who bought the IIS were satisfied with it? Why exactly 
would the success of the IIS imply that people would spend more on 
something else? The IIS could be the limit of what most people would 
want and buy. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case (and this 
board shows evidence to the contrary), but the success of IIS is not, 
in itself, evidence of a market for a higher end--no more than the 
success of the DTXpress is evidence of a market for the IIS. (The 
popularity of the Roland TD-8, vis a vis the TD-20, may be better 
evidence.) Please feel free to disagree.
 
> What is a velocity stage? 

By velocity stage, I mean the capacity of a module to detect and 
reflect variations in how hard/soft a pad is played.  Acoustic drums 
and cymbals are the benchmark.  Compared to them, digital modules are 
seriously constrained, at least at this stage of the game.  To those 
who believe that "digital" is always synonymous with "superior," 
consider the ten-year-old ddrum4, whose analog triggering permits a 
dynamic range much wider than that of its digital counterparts.  
Clavia could easily have opted for a digital stage, but chose analog 
for its better response, despite the higher cost. 

Ed