Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    While "better" is certainly subjective, I can't imagine a machine
    from the pliestocene (pre-MIDI) era actually sounding more realistic
    than the machine that was state-of-the-art 2 years ago.
    
    Perhaps, though, it does sound more like what *you* expect a drum
    machine to sound like, hence 'better'.
    
    Edd
    
                                        

    You'd be suprised Edd, the DX has a much broader, richer sound on
    all drums (especially the snare). I realize this is all just a
    matter of opinion, but I look for the most realistic sound. When
    I record a song, I don't just program the drums to play one basic,
    repetitious beat. I spend a great deal of time programming what
    I would play if I sat down at a set. Unfortunately, the DX does
    not offer the dynamics that the HR16 does. If I could acheive the
    same sound on the HR16 that the DX offers, I would sell the DX
    and be happy to have a few bucks in my pocket for something else.
    
    Ross  

    I've owned/used several drum machines in the past (including the DX - I
    now own the HR) and think that this is simply a matter of 'operation'. 

    The DX has a 'grittier' sound (viz, midrange honk) due to the nature of
    the sample format ... one way to fatten up the snares on the HR16 is to
    double them (I think Alesis calls it 'voice-stacking' or some such
    marketing nonsense). 

    (Assuming you're programming from a keyboard in this example.  If not,
    you can still employ a similar technique using loop-record.) 

    For example, assign 'Ambient Wood Snare' to the SNARE pad, tuned to -5.
    Now assign the same voice to PERC 3 pad, tuned up +3.  (If you want
    more bite, assign '13" Brass Piccolo' to PERC 4.  Tune to -3 to -6.) 

    Then go into the MIDI page and assign pads SNARE, PERC 3 and PERC 4 to
    the same MIDI note number.  Each time you hit the 'snare' key, you'll be
    getting all three samples played at once.

    I always redirect the snare pads to a separate out (usually output 2,
    panned hard left) and run that line thru a separate channel.  That way
    I can EQ and process it to my heart's desire.  Hope this helps.

-b

	Get an R-8.

--mikie--

    I know this will sound like heresy coming from me, but to my ears
    the HR-16's sounds are on a par with the R-8's.
    
    I too share Edd's incredulity that the old Oberheim technology
    (admittedly superior for analog synthesis) can measure up to 16
    bit, 44.1KHz samples (i.e., *CD* quality recordings of *real* drums).
    
    I'm a drummer too, incidentally.
    
    len.
    

    Believe me Len, I wish it weren't so. I'll have to discuss the 
    technique mentioned in .3, and hope that it helps. 
    
    I do not mean this to sound argumentative, but I do not have any
    reason to be partial to any piece of equipment because of its spec,
    or the way in which its sounds were created. The fact is, I'm not
    an engineer, and specs go right over my head. I base my opinions
    strictly on the sound, that is all that matters to me. 
    
    Before I purchased the HR16, I spent a great deal of time working
    with the DX in order to acheive the best and most realistic sound
    that I could. I have yet to be able to match that sound with the
    HR16. I know this sounds hard to believe, but I haven't even been
    able to come close. I am extremely happy with the DX's sound. I
    just wish it was MIDI and could give me ride cymbal, rimshot snare,
    congas, etc., as well as the dynamics of the HR16. 
    
    I currently have my drum machines piped through a Ramsa 8112 board,
    reverbed with a Lexicon PCM60 digital reverb, and I record on a
    Tascam 48. I create stereo imaging by panning the dry drum sounds
    to the left, and then put the same signal through a Delta Lab 1024
    (apr.10ms?) and panning that to the right. I have found this to
    give a very full and realistic sound. 
    
    Ross