I’ve tried a big powered speaker, still very disappointed . Until someone can definitely gaurentee headphone type quality I’m not going down that route again! I mean an unprocessed video demonstration of the ekit through the speaker.I recommend you get a 15 inch powered speaker instead of a dedicated drum speaker (which are going to be pretty much the same thing but maybe more expensive:
JBL EON715 1300-watt 15-inch Powered PA Speaker
1300-watt, 15" 2-way Multipurpose Powered PA Speaker with JBL Waveguide Technology and Bluetooth Integration (each)www.sweetwater.com
what are some future predictions you think will happen to future e drums
- Thread starter SkullDrummer
- Start date
doggyd69b
Platinum Member
was it a 15 inch? you can pair it with an 18 inch powered bass speaker and you will have better than headphone quality, if you don't, you didn't dial it correctly. The only caveat in order to justify having that pair (the 15 top with the 18 bottom) you need to be able to use it at a decently loud volume, not ear splitting loud but loud enough that your neighbors may complain if they can hear it. My neighbors are too far away so if they can hear it I probably have it at loud gig levels and that is just too much...
Yes I think that may be my problem as i need it to be room volume only yet still headphone quality.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
This is why I said you weren't following the conversation.
Someone likened digital photography to e-drums and then called acoustic drums 'the old way'.
So I first pointed out they were as different as electric and acoustic piano. Then I pointed out that the main advantage of e-drums and drum software over acoustic drums was that you can record amazing sounds without having to invest big bucks in a commercial studio, or building a nice sound proofed studio at home, with mics and mic-pres.
Again, not following along. Someone said they wished e-drum makers would just give up on their own sounds and install 3rd part drum software instead. So I said there was no incentive for people like Toontrack to let their software be used in a Roland or Yamaha module. Further to that, a company like Roland do not want to farm their sounds out to a 3rd party - they have to license the sounds at a cost, and Roland are actually very proud of their sounds.
Roland also feel one of their strengths is that the modules hardly ever glitch or crash, and that they are pretty bomb proof. That's why they haven't installed mini computers with samples loaded into the modules.
So to sum up. I wasn't the first to mention drum software (like Toontrack). And I only compared the pros and cons of e-drums and drum software over acoustic drums when someone proposed acoustic drums could be completely replaced by e-drums, like digital cameras have more or less completely replaced film.
It's fun to debate, it's totally fine to disagree. It's frustrating when you keep misunderstanding me or misquoting me, then use that as a launch pad for more contradiction.
Last edited:
doggyd69b
Platinum Member
Maybe try the Alesis drum monitor or this Roland. Those are more geared for drums so they handle the lower frequencies better, I tried one of them at GC and they actually do a good job.
if you can go to GC test these:
Simmons DA2112 12" Advanced Drum Amp | Guitar Center
Shop for the Simmons DA2112 12" Advanced Drum Amp in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
www.guitarcenter.com
Roland PM-200 V-Drum Speaker System | Guitar Center
Shop for the Roland PM-200 V-Drum Speaker System in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
www.guitarcenter.com
Simmons DA12S 12" Powered Drum Subwoofer | Guitar Center
Shop for the Simmons DA12S 12" Powered Drum Subwoofer in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
www.guitarcenter.com
I tried the Simmons and it sounded decent and it had OK volume, not sure if it would be appropriate for a small venue if used alone but definitely more than adequate for a rehearsal room. I figure the Roland probably blows it out of the water...
charliedrummer
Senior Member
Yes, I realize this is not going to happen. I prefaced my initial response to the OP by stating that "the improvements they will add and the improvements they should add are not one in the same." Maybe I should've used the word "wish" instead of "should." I was simply commenting what I would personally like to see in an ideal world which is a stand-alone module (not a module connected to a laptop) that has samples commensurate with those found in popular VSTs. Pearl attempted to do this with the mimic by teaming up with Steven Slate Drums. I don't know the ins and outs of Roland or Toontrack, so I realize that the likelihood of the two teaming up on such a venture is probably nil. Still, based on years playing a TD-12 kit and reading numerous posts over at vdrums.com, it seems that many have been dissatisfied with the internal sounds on modules ranging from the TD-20 to the TD-50, at least for recording purposes, and have opted to use the module to trigger sounds from various VSTs. The bottom line is that I hope that sounds in dedicated e-drum modules continue to improve.
dcrigger
PRO DRUMMER
Subjective? Is it really?That's pretty dam subjective.
There are lots of disadvantages to them, like size, weight, noise, fragility, price, the studio equipment and space requirements, just to name a few.
Acoustic drums and cymbals have been pretty stable, mature technology for more than 50 years. They continue to be the number one choice for touring ensembles and tons of recordings. And often, players aren't even using current drums and cymbals but ones that can 20, 30, 50, even 90 years old. The disadvantages you list are merely part of their nature.
Just as being relatively soft, expensive to make and hard to play are characteristics of the oboe. That's the nature of the drums - if we desire the sound and range of expression acoustic drums are capable of - dealing with those "disadvantage" are the buy-in price.
I don't think any one is pursuing "improving on" the basic functioning of acoustic drums.
While e-drums continue to pursue being a viable replacement for acoustic drums - after 40+ years, their successes in that goal have been fairly modest. Limited to practice sets - and as an alternative to dealing with the significant expense involved with recording acoustic drums. And while there have been great strides and successes on that front - I don't know that all that much of it is really about drummers at all.
I would venture that of all of the recordings we hear using the various drum sample libraries (Superior, etc.) only a fraction have drummers involved in those productions at all. It is more than possible to create great drum tracks with those products without every touching a stick to a pad. Sure, top end projects are more likely to call in an actual drummer to help create those electronic tracks, but that's certainly not a given. And for middle and low end work, it is even less likely.
I just don't know that the thrust of the market is even focused on getting e-kits to supplant acoustic kits across the board. Maybe - but if so, they have a long way to go to get things even close to truly imitating the real time flexibility, dynamic and sonic range of an acoustic drum kit.
cbphoto
Diamond Member
If I had unlimited funds and time, I'd dive head-first into The Evans Hybrid Sensory Percussion Sound System. I'm very intrigued by it.
Sensory Percussion Sound System | Percussion Accessories | D'Addario
The EVANS Hybrid Sensory Percussion Sound System opens up a new universe of sonic possibilities for drummers. Incorporating powerful Sunhouse™ software, a purpose-built Portal Audio Interface and remarkably accurate Drum Sensors, the Sensory Percussion Sound System can transform any acoustic...
www.daddario.com
I’m in the UK so there’s nowhere to try before you buy nearby, but thanks for the suggestions.Maybe try the Alesis drum monitor or this Roland. Those are more geared for drums so they handle the lower frequencies better, I tried one of them at GC and they actually do a good job.
if you can go to GC test these:
Simmons DA2112 12" Advanced Drum Amp | Guitar Center
Shop for the Simmons DA2112 12" Advanced Drum Amp in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
Roland PM-200 V-Drum Speaker System | Guitar Center
Shop for the Roland PM-200 V-Drum Speaker System in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
Simmons DA12S 12" Powered Drum Subwoofer | Guitar Center
Shop for the Simmons DA12S 12" Powered Drum Subwoofer in and receive free shipping and guaranteed lowest price.
I tried the Simmons and it sounded decent and it had OK volume, not sure if it would be appropriate for a small venue if used alone but definitely more than adequate for a rehearsal room. I figure the Roland probably blows it out of the water...
JimmyM
Diamond Member
I can’t complain…I don’t go out of my way to be loud, but I like itAs previously mentioned, there is plenty of room for e-drums to improve.
Acoustic drums and cymbals.....Pretty darn good right now.
Doraemon
Silver Member
You wrote basically that edrums need improvement and adrums are just perfect, which I disagree with. If you just meant that you're satisfied with acoustics and not with edrums, that's your preference, someone else (lke some commenters before) might feel the opposite way.
Not sure what you mean by the product "acoustic drums" without their specific usage taken into account..
Doraemon
Silver Member
I have no beef with acoustic drums, what I'm trying to point out is if one day the differences in sound and feel (and look if that matters) will become relatively small, more people (especially youngsters) will choose the more convenient, more flexible or cheaper option. I just see how fast the world can change. We have internet, VR, AI, electric cars, space tourism etc. I don't think stuffing a bunch more sensors and a few terabytes of samples into edrums to make them a lot more capable is so far away, looking at the speed of computer development.
doggyd69b
Platinum Member
Maybe then YouTube reviews is you best bet at knowing if anything will do the job for you...
Yes I’ll look there but I’m wary they’re mostly processed for marketing reasons rather than actual sounds I’d hear at home.
dcrigger
PRO DRUMMER
I get what you are saying. And have lived through 50+ years of dramatic and often surprising changes. Surprising in that so often where we see technology heading isn't where it ends up at all.
When I was a kid, magazines totally predicted that using computers for music notation would be one of the first things to come.... Turned out it has been of the last and most challenging - coming after a whole bunch other stuff that wasn't on the list. Digital audio wasn't even on the radar. And yet, has been the biggest game changer.
When digital sampling drum machines came after the Simmons drums, the future of drum recording seemed so clear. These totally realistic sounds that we could program into such perfect performances, relatively easily, and with such reliability and low cost seemed so clearly to be the path.... Sure it was clunky early on - but certainly it would get better. For a while there, the world of music became so enamored with it (drum machines) that many of that had been regularly doing sessions, just simply weren't. For a number of years, the lion's share of the work was in programming drum machines.... particularly down in the trenches. And the ability to do this got better and better....
But... so did other stuff... example.... in 1987, my lowly home studio's bump up to 16 track with a new board cost about $8000 (this was the most budget "prosumer" set-up available). To do that at an actual pro level - would've been about 50k (minimum). Plus mics, compressors, reverb, delays, and cabling, and patch bays, etc. etc. etc. And the fact is - without that real pro recorder and desk, it was near impossible to record consistently professional sounding drum tracks.
But by 10-15 years later - there was no need for that $25,000 tape recorder... With decent mic pre-amps I could capture drums that would sonically stand up to pro standards - and on a home desktop computer with a $1000 audio interface. And it's done nothing but get better. Back in the day, I'd buy a $500 stereo compressor and that's what I would get - one stereo compressor. Now I can buy a digitally modeled version of that same piece of gear as a plug-in for $100 - and can use it 4, 10, 20 times - simultaneously in a mix. That's one way the big studios would just kill you - with their racks and racks of outboard gear. That's just no longer the case.
The point is - while electronic drums have been steadily progressing - traditional audio recording has progressed in leaps and bounds and in ways no one could have imagine.
There was a time where if I needed quirky drum sounds, I'd reach for samples.
If I needed something that sounded programmed, quantized, something like the most of the dance records of the time - I'd again turn to samples - maybe pull out the drumkat or just bang stuff out on the keyboard.
But now? Sure I still do some stuff that way. But progress in digital audio recording has never made it easier to reshape and mold acoustic performances.... I can change timings, I can change tempos (after the fact), I can re-pitch, I can reshape transients, make drums sound drier and tighter - or more ringy - all after the fact, if desired.
My point is the whole equation of convenient, flexible or expense is as cut and dried in favor of electronic drums as it might seem.
Live - they're convenient - if we're dealing with a capable stage monitoring environment in place. Because they make no noise by themselves - so amplification is always an added expense, and anything above, way way soft is going to be a quite the additional schlep.
Live flexible - depends on what we need. A concert tour trying to recreate a lot specific and really varied sounds within the same same performance - excellent. A typical wedding gig? Moving from cocktail hour to Mack The Knife to disco classics - to current radio hits in quick succession? Yikes - really not nearly as flexible or rewarding.
But yes - maybe the will all get better - because for sure, anything is possible. And certainly throwing a boat load of sensors with lightening fast processing to sort them out. But always remember we are constantly fighting physics here - processing takes time and what we're trying to emulate is an instrument that has ZERO lag. So to be able to process more gestures - maybe use cameras to track things like brush sweeping, whatever - we can probably do way more than we're doing right now. But can we get it fast enough. Because for us to be able to perform like drummers, to use our skills and timing to shape a performance response time from hitting the pad to the sound coming out of the speaker has to be wicked fast.
Maybe we'll get there.... but I fear there is way more to it than just adding sensors and a bunch of sample memory. And I'm just not sure there is enough of a market to pay for taking it there. Not when what we have - and have had for 10+ years - meets the needs of the largest parts of the market. But we'll see....
... and I'm sure it will be surprising.... and probably not at all as we imagined it would be.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
I wasn't pitting one against the other. Someone asked why drum companies weren't putting a lot of energy into innovation in acoustic drums and cymbals. In short for me it's because they are a mature technology. There is not much you can do to radically innovate in drums and cymbals. Modern drums and cymbals are well designed, very well made and can sound very, very good in most circumstances.
I was replying to a specific point someone made, which had zero to do with comparing traditional drums with e-drums. OK?
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
^^ This ^^
I have had to do research in order to work with some of these companies.
The majority of drum software users aren't (main instrument) drummers, they are a variety of people making music. They might be a producer, a keyboard player, someone who can play a basic groove, but not much more. That's why the drum software companies include hundreds of midi drum parts in their product.
The number one customer for e-drums is the hobbyist, playing at home for fun. Second after that is the church drummer, who is also often part time. Most hobbyists are happy with the onboard sounds in drum modules. It is a means to an end. They aren't comparing their drum sounds to top albums, they are just playing for fun, and don't want to pay more for drum modules with premium sounds, or pay 3rd parties for better sounds after the fact.
At the moment, the e-drum market is like the midi-piano or electric piano market. Two separate entities, with a somewhat separate customer.
Arguably the best sounding e-drum set is the Pearl Mimic, which by all accounts seems to have been a poor seller, certainly not enough for either Pearl or Steven Slate to develop it further. Roland pretty much rules the e-drum scene.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
Companies are motivated by demand. The Pearl Mimic hasn't sold particularly well. The Roland TD17 is probably the biggest selling e-drum package on the market. It's affordable and delivers acceptable sounds.
I have spoken at length with the Roland drum division. They are very proud of their (developing) drum library and are wary of changing course to a sample/mini computer based system.
Chris Whitten
Platinum Member
It looks amazing and I'd like to try it.
The downside - it is a lot more expensive than the equivalent Roland hybrid drums (TM-6 Pro) and requires a laptop whereas the Roland is self contained.
doggyd69b
Platinum Member
That is true when it is paid advertisement from the company but sometimes a regular joe blow bought one with his own money and are really using it regularly, those are sometimes the best reviews because they will be honest and they don't really have the know-how to process it to sound better in most cases.