Vision VS.....

[OzZ316]

Ok, so alot of people are talking about the differences between the Vision and the new Exports, but I have a question on these new drums and as far as I can see the Tama comparison Superstars. I have always been a Pearl fan but until I start getting a check from a company my dollar has to go to the best value for the money. I had never heard a Birch/Basswood kit until I went to the opening at the new Musicians Friend here locally and played a Superstar. I was impressed with the sound of the birch/basswood shells actually liked them better than the SBX that was there, but I am pretty sure it was the crappy tuning job they did. Anyway from looking at the 2 lines it looks like the Tama are a better value. Especially when it comes to the rims, I, like many others cannot believe that the Visions only have 1.6 mm hoops to the Diecast hoops on the Tama equivalent. So why do you think after all the upgrades Pearl decided to go cheap on such a vital part of the kit????

[Got_Milk]

I'm as dumbfounded as you are, but I'd just buy superhoops if I get a kit (which I most likely will). I'm pretty sick of the p.o.s. hoops on my kit rights now, so I wouldn't settle for that again. But I'm willing to pay a little extra to get the superhoops, although that's kind b.s. that they did that to us...

[MattKeaton]

It's just for the marketing...
So that the Export Custom is differentiated enough from the 'lower level' kits. I'm assuming that the Export Custom does have better hoops here... And cant be bothered checking. But without looking into it I guess that the Export Custom is the new Session (in terms of value for money) - which you can't seem to get in birch. Therefore, I've come to realise that the new lineup, although it has some kick *** kits, could be a lot better in order to provide consumers with what they are looking for.

[Got_Milk]

Nah, I'm pretty sure export customs have 1.6 mm hoops too.

[The Dorian]

I wish the Visions had 2.3mm hoops so bad...I was actually surprised when I heard about them being 1.6mm. At least it's not that hard to upgrade them ourselves.

[OzZ316]

Yea the Exports only have 1.6 also, that is another baffler to me. It seems they just took the sessions, downgraded the hoops and rebadged it. I am just absolutely floored about this decision. I would be all over either line if they would upgraded the hoops. I looked at the price of new hoops and it is about $30 per drum for 2.3 trip flanged. That adds up to another $90 added on to the set. Going to Die Cast is another ~$75 per drum which is another $225 added on. My understanding is that the diff. between die and flanged is a personal sound prefferece not that one is actually better than the other, just costs more to produce the diecast. I would have rather just paid another 50 bucks or so onto the price for the difference between the 1.6 and 2.3 and just made everyone happy. I can't figure out how they expect to compete with such a big part downgraded. I'm not trying to slam on Pearl, they are a great company, I just hope that someone is reading and taking notes on what their customers thoughts are.

[The Dorian]

You have to realise what these drums are intended to be. You really shouldn't compare them to the Session series because the Sessions (were) more expensive than the Visions, they also don't come with hardware, and in some cases don't come with a snare drum. Right now on Ebay, (after Sessions' price has dropped) Sessions cost about the same as Visions. But with the Visions, you're getting a whole set of the new very high quality 900 series hardware, AND a Vision Sensitone snare.

If you ask me, you're getting MUCH more bang for your buck, and you can easily upgrade the hoops and mounts while still paying less than what you'd pay for a Session AND hardware, AND a snare.

[skywalker2]

Ok, so alot of people are talking about the differences between the Vision and the new Exports, but I have a question on these new drums and as far as I can see the Tama comparison Superstars. I have always been a Pearl fan but until I start getting a check from a company my dollar has to go to the best value for the money. I had never heard a Birch/Basswood kit until I went to the opening at the new Musicians Friend here locally and played a Superstar. I was impressed with the sound of the birch/basswood shells actually liked them better than the SBX that was there, but I am pretty sure it was the crappy tuning job they did. Anyway from looking at the 2 lines it looks like the Tama are a better value. Especially when it comes to the rims, I, like many others cannot believe that the Visions only have 1.6 mm hoops to the Diecast hoops on the Tama equivalent. So why do you think after all the upgrades Pearl decided to go cheap on such a vital part of the kit????




ozz i totally understand your dilema. My choices right now are right between the visions and superstars.

Before i get into anything, here is some food for thought: there was a time when even after the new superstars came out, people were STILL buying exports. Why? I dunno, but i'm sure pearls bulletproff reliability had something to do with it, as did the exports rep as a good, cheap drumset. Visions is upgraded in every way...minus the hoops.


Anyway, there is no doubt that the superstars die casts are better than 1.6 mm hoops, but if they were being compared to 2.3's, it would be a matter of preference. Triple flanged =more resonance, tone, diecast=more focus, less sustain.

In all honesty, i think its just a number that is bothering us...what is the percentage of drummers that could REALLY discern the difference between the thinner hoops? Probably not very many. The main differences would be that your drums would be slightly easier to tune, and would hold their tuning longer. Not only that, but the rims themselves would hold up longer and resist denting and warping over the 1.6's. I know that there is a forum member (teej) who has a pimped up export with 2.3 superhoops, and aside from nicer tuning, has only noticed a slight difference in sound with his 16 inch floor tom.


Would i have liked 2.3 mm hoops on the visions? Of course, any drummer with brains would. But at what expense?

The issue is not 'Pearl is so dumb for not including 2.3's' as much as it is why. For those of you who want the answer well,...its simple.

Do you want to pay any more for visions than you have to? I know this can be open to 'well, if you buy a visions, you'll end up spending the money on new hoops ANYWAY', but that isn't neccesarily true; al has mentioned that the chrome plating on these hoops is superior to that even of the exports, thus making the immediate need to upgrade not so immediate. And besides, when comparing drumset prices, its the inital price we are comparing, not what you would 'have' to buy afterward.

Think about how much those extra hoops will cost and add them in to the base price of the drums..ok problem solved, and maybe some would be ok with paying that much more INITIALLY for a vision...

but oh whats this? We suddenly have something else to complain about; NO OPTIMOUNTS. See how it will never end? Pearl had to draw the line somewhere. Do you want a visions that costs almost as much as an old sbx, even despite the fact that is comes with hardware? I can hear the throes of '...well, you can get an all MAPLE kit for what a visions costs!'. See? it just has no solution.

Ok ok, so if you opt for visions, you get the cheesier hoops, especially when compared to the likes of the superstar...but the superstar doesn't have all new lugs does it? Its just the same old high tension lug on the rockstar, but raised up off the drumshell. The superstar also does not come with two ply heads, and for those virgin bass drum lovers, there is NO tama version of the bb-1 masking plate. (i know it can be argued, though, that pearl does not offer a 4 piece kit, but they do one better, and offer a 5 piece fusion floor for the same price, which is basically a four piece with an extra 10 inch tom.)

Then there is the brass inserts, very nice (did the sessions even have that?)

Probably the most important difference between the supers and visions has to do with if you agree with pearls take on drum shell composition, as they have displayed with the reference series; tama has birch sandwiched between basswood, with visions its just a small ply of basswood sandwiched between mostly birch, and its the inner (visible) ply that is composed of it as well. Not to mention that no other intermediate kit offers floor toms and bass drums of the same thickness, including (but not limited to) the superstar; yes the toms and snares are different than the bass, but that included the floors, whereas on visions, they share the same thickness as the bass. Defintely an important detail that is audibly noticeable.

I think that the superstars are great drums, and from what i have read, tamas finishing touches on their lacquers is a bit nicer...but i prefer the colors pearl uses on both wraps and painted finishes. They have nicer hoops, but that is easily remedied for the visions. Superstar has some un-fixable things, like a non virgin bass (unless you get a hyperdrive kit, or live in a country other than the u.s. and get a 4 piece shell pack with a 24 inch bass.), and those lovely long lugs most despise.

All in all, i think that both are great kits, but the visions is by NO means at a disadvantage.

[skywalker2]

Yea the Exports only have 1.6 also, that is another baffler to me. It seems they just took the sessions, downgraded the hoops and rebadged it. I am just absolutely floored about this decision. I would be all over either line if they would upgraded the hoops. I looked at the price of new hoops and it is about $30 per drum for 2.3 trip flanged. That adds up to another $90 added on to the set. Going to Die Cast is another ~$75 per drum which is another $225 added on. My understanding is that the diff. between die and flanged is a personal sound prefferece not that one is actually better than the other, just costs more to produce the diecast. I would have rather just paid another 50 bucks or so onto the price for the difference between the 1.6 and 2.3 and just made everyone happy. I can't figure out how they expect to compete with such a big part downgraded. I'm not trying to slam on Pearl, they are a great company, I just hope that someone is reading and taking notes on what their customers thoughts are.


i think the deal here is that pearl was going to offer the mcx line no matter what; and that makes the session line obsolete, since its not THAT much more. The ecx's are kinda like debadged sessions, but they have iss, 1.6 hoops, plainer finishes, export bass spurs, and, unlike visions or bass exports, don't have the convinence of hardware. Add the 2.3's in and you have a drumset that is pretty much the same price as an old sbx, while not having some of the nice extras.

[MattKeaton]

Argh I dont have time to read all the posts but I was talking about EXPORT CUSTOMS (which are not Exports...). They are 100% maple... I presume THESE have the SuperHoop II's - and again I dont have time to check muhahaha. Sorry.
MD

[The Dorian]

They ARE Exports...

And they have 1.6mm triple flanged hoops on them

[24K gold]

What I don't understand is... Tama sells superstars @ $599.00 and that includes die cast.

I don't even undetstand why Pearl feel that they will have to increase the price if they offer Vision kits a better hoop (s-hoop). It's not like we are all asking if them to throw die cast hoops on a Vision kit. We're only asking them to give us a hoop that is a step above what 1.6mm.

If Tama can put superstars on their kit and keep the drums affordable, I'm sure Pearl can put Superhoops on thier kits and keep in affordable.

Oh boy, I hope slip1 comes in here an clear things up. ( TO ME )Pearl is getting stranger with their decisions every year but I like the company enough to put up with it.

[Mike Farriss]

Compare shell composition,hardware quality, and service. I think if you look a little deeper you may find the answers. Vision has a 6/8 ply shell composition. The inner and outter plies are high quality Birch on the Vision kits. If you compare the two side by side you should be able to see the difference in other specs.

[The Dorian]

I may be wrong, but I think the birch in the Visions is much higher quality than that of the Superstars. And let's not forget the 2-ply heads, new lugs, brass inserts, Sensitone steel snare, super high gloss lacquer finishes, and that new stuff they like to call the 900 series hardware :cool:

[skywalker2]

Argh I dont have time to read all the posts but I was talking about EXPORT CUSTOMS (which are not Exports...). They are 100% maple... I presume THESE have the SuperHoop II's - and again I dont have time to check muhahaha. Sorry.
MD

i was talking about the export customs too; and they (imo) are worse off than the vision in this regard; at least the visions have all new lugs, bass spurs, hardware etc... ecx's still have iss, 1.6 hoops, AND the same bass spurs as any other export. The only thing that is different is that they now have t1k tom arms.

[skywalker2]

I may be wrong, but I think the birch in the Visions is much higher quality than that of the Superstars. And let's not forget the 2-ply heads, new lugs, brass inserts, Sensitone steel snare, and that new stuff they like to call the 900 series hardware.

i think the quality of the kits are the same, i just agree with pearl on that the INNER ply of the drum determines the fundamental sound more so than the inner ply's, which in the case of the vision, the inner ply is birch, not basswood, like it is on the superstar.

But the visions lugs are superior. As is the snare.
900 series hardware is great, but is probably right on par with roadpro, which i have always felt is superior to the 800 series on exports now.

[skywalker2]

What I don't understand is... Tama sells superstars @ $599.00 and that includes die cast.

I don't even undetstand why Pearl feel that they will have to increase the price if they offer Vision kits a better hoop (s-hoop). It's not like we are all asking if them to throw die cast hoops on a Vision kit. We're only asking them to give us a hoop that is a step above what 1.6mm.

If Tama can put superstars on their kit and keep the drums affordable, I'm sure Pearl can put Superhoops on thier kits and keep in affordable.

Oh boy, I hope slip1 comes in here an clear things up. ( TO ME )Pearl is getting stranger with their decisions every year but I like the company enough to put up with it.


again, read my novel that i already posted. Adding 2.3's will increase the cost of the drums, tama can put on die casts, but it does so at the expense of brand new lugs and brand new hardware.


Yes, tama sells the superstars for 599...but that is WITHOUT hardware. And its going to be a either a sk or a efx, not a laqcured custom. The last visions i saw at guitar center was a shell pack too and it was a vsx (wrapped) and guess how much it was? 599.

Visions are no cheaper or expensive than superstars and they have better features at the expense of nice hoops, whereas the tamas have nice hoops at the expense of older hardware/lugs.

[The Dorian]

again, read my novel that i already posted. Adding 2.3's will increase the cost of the drums, tama can put on die casts, but it does so at the expense of brand new lugs and brand new hardware.


Yes, tama sells the superstars for 599...but that is WITHOUT hardware. And its going to be a either a sk or a efx, not a laqcured custom. The last visions i saw at guitar center was a shell pack too and it was a vsx (wrapped) and guess how much it was? 599. Visions are no cheaper or expensive that superstars and they have better features at the expense of nice hoops, whereas the tamas have nice hoops at the expense of older hardware/lugs.

Word. Good post

[skywalker2]

thanks man! :) visions ftw!

[skywalker2]

Compare shell composition,hardware quality, and service. I think if you look a little deeper you may find the answers. Vision has a 6/8 ply shell composition. The inner and outter plies are high quality Birch on the Vision kits. If you compare the two side by side you should be able to see the difference in other specs.

agreed, i have heard of tamas less than stellar customer service...didn't they not have anyone at namm to talk to unless you wanted to place an order? :rolleyes:

I still like their drums a lot tho, and would have taken a starclassic performer over an sbx, but the visions have won this battle.

[eyewtkas]

Visions are no cheaper or expensive than superstars and they have better features at the expense of nice hoops, whereas the tamas have nice hoops at the expense of older hardware/lugs.

How so? The Superstars have virtually the same shells, the hardware is just as good, they have better hoops, a better mounting system, more color options, and more size options. The only real advantage I see the Vision having is the lugs.

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

What exactly is the advantage of brass swivel nuts?

[The Dorian]

How so? The Superstars have virtually the same shells, the hardware is just as good, they have better hoops, a better mounting system, more color options, and more size options. The only real advantage I see the Vision having is the lugs.


They don't have the same shells, Vision floor toms and bass drums have 8 ply shells. Superstars bass drums have 7 ply shells, and floor toms just have 6 plys like the rack toms. Visions' shells are birch surrounding basswood, Superstars' are birch sandwiched between basswood. I'd agree with the hardware being fairly equal. The Superstars do have better hoops, and better mounting system. I don't know much about the finishes, but I do think the Superstars offer MORE colors, but that doesn't mean better. And remember, the Visions are still brand new, more finishes may come later. As for the sizes, I don't see how the Superstar has more options. You can order both drums in sizes from 8" to 22" I think.

But after all that semi-small stuff being compared, it all comes down to the sound. I played both these kits at a local shop, and I WAS impressed with the Superstar (which is what I played first). But they really can't match the Visions. The toms sounded similar, but the Visions were much easier to tune and easier to find the tones that I was looking for. As for the floor toms and kicks...Superstars don't compare. The Vison kick drum was a little punchier, and that floor tom was just absolutely amazing. I guarantee you won't find a better sounding floor tom on any kit under $1,000 and probably won't on some OVER $1,000. I also compared the Visions to the old Sessions (which are considered much better drums), and even those (maple nor birch) floor toms didn't sound as good as the Vision's.

[OzZ316]

This is good discusion about two competing companies. I agree with Skywalker's earlier statement about the diff. between the 2.3 and Diecast, one is not deffinately better than the other, one is just more to manufacture. Kind of like the the difference between birch and maple. The maple wood is just more because it is more rare than birch. On that note, is basswood that terrible of the wood? I haven't had a chance to sit down and listen to a Vision yet but I can say I did like the sound of Superstar. Sounded a bit warmer than the SBX that they had sitting next to it. I haven't looked in depth, but I am not seeing any Pearl kit with the 2.3 hoops on them now. Could be wrong though. I imagine part of the decision was to cut down on the tooling cost and go with 2 hoops, but for me the few dollar difference would make a big difference between the 2.3 and 1.6. Looking on some drum hardware websites there is only 3-4 dollar difference between the 2. I would think from a marketing standpoint upgrading something so visible would only make sense. I also personally don't think that comparing heads makes sense. Most people are unhappy with stock heads anyway. And like anything else, one head is not necessarily better but just different. Like I said earlier though, maybe if this issue doesn't die, Pearl will hear what their customer base is saying and make a change.

[OzZ316]

I thought I would add this from Prof. Sounds Drum Tuning Bible v3 about basswood. "Basswood:

Basswood is a great less expensive hardwood that mimics the sound of Maple to some, mahogany to others. Yet it is more plentiful and gives the manufacturer a price advantage. It in many ways is an upgrade to luaan, or ramin and is often used as a core wood with a bit more of the lower register tone to it than realized out of maple. For this reason I tend to think of it more like mahogany than maple.



Lauan, Luaan or Luan:

By any spelling is a less expensive alternative to woods like basswood and “true” mahogany. To my ear it does not sound like true mahogany, but more like that of birch. "

He seems, from my understanding that basswood, though inexpensive is a fairly good wood that adds warmth to a drum. This could be why the bass drum and floor toms sound so good, warm deep sound from the basswood with the punch of the birch. He also goes on to say that the inner plys, not just the first ply define the sound while the last ply is more for the finish.

[The Dorian]

On that note, is basswood that terrible of the wood? I haven't had a chance to sit down and listen to a Vision yet but I can say I did like the sound of Superstar. Sounded a bit warmer than the SBX that they had sitting next to it. I also personally don't think that comparing heads makes sense. Most people are unhappy with stock heads anyway. And like anything else, one head is not necessarily better but just different. Like I said earlier though, maybe if this issue doesn't die, Pearl will hear what their customer base is saying and make a change.

Basswood isn't "terrible" it's just not as good as birch or maple. I'm not really experienced with it, but I've actually read that it gives some tonal charactaristics that can't be found in birch or maple, which may be why Pearl and Tama use it in the Visions and Superstars.

Comparing heads makes some sense. I won't have $100 to go spend on a whole new set of heads, and I'm happy that the Protone 2-plys won't be that bad for the short while that I'll use them.

Maybe you shouldn't really compare 2 kits when you've only heard one of them though? The different wood ply configuration does make a big difference as does the 8 ply floor toms and kicks.

It's not just a case of "The drums are the same, but the Superstar has better hoops and mounting hardware".

The Visions and Superstars are different kits.

[MattKeaton]

They ARE Exports...

And they have 1.6mm triple flanged hoops on them


omg you are right. im really sorry... it's just that the Export and the Export customs are 'separated' in terms of quality (according to Al Percival and the Pearl website) by the Vision... so i suspected...
Man that's lame... If im not mistaken this would mean that Pearl don't make standard shell packs with SuperHoops anymore, at all... Which is crasy imo. Is that right?

[skywalker2]

omg you are right. im really sorry... it's just that the Export and the Export customs are 'separated' in terms of quality (according to Al Percival and the Pearl website) by the Vision... so i suspected...
Man that's lame... If im not mistaken this would mean that Pearl don't make standard shell packs with SuperHoops anymore, at all... Which is crasy imo. Is that right?

pretty much, but granted superhoops are not ultra expensive, at least not compared to die casts.

[skywalker2]

How so? The Superstars have virtually the same shells, the hardware is just as good, they have better hoops, a better mounting system, more color options, and more size options. The only real advantage I see the Vision having is the lugs.


the hardware may be just as 'good' as the visions (i'm a big roadpro fan), but its still an older design; long lugs goes way back on tama's entry level lines, and re-using this design (with a slight update), defintely was to save costs, and to counteract the cost to include die cast hoops.

Better mounting system? To each his own, and even though i do like star casts, pearls tom arms are more adjustable, and again, this can be argued back and forth, so again, preference. Some people hate iss, others are not to fond of starcasts.

Yes they do have more color options, but they SHOULD shouldn't they? They have been out on the market for almost 2 years! :rolleyes: .

More size options? Hmm...any proof of that? aside from LIMITED edition hyperdrive kits that don't really count?

[skywalker2]

I thought I would add this from Prof. Sounds Drum Tuning Bible v3 about basswood. "Basswood:

Basswood is a great less expensive hardwood that mimics the sound of Maple to some, mahogany to others. Yet it is more plentiful and gives the manufacturer a price advantage. It in many ways is an upgrade to luaan, or ramin and is often used as a core wood with a bit more of the lower register tone to it than realized out of maple. For this reason I tend to think of it more like mahogany than maple.



Lauan, Luaan or Luan:

By any spelling is a less expensive alternative to woods like basswood and “true” mahogany. To my ear it does not sound like true mahogany, but more like that of birch. "

He seems, from my understanding that basswood, though inexpensive is a fairly good wood that adds warmth to a drum. This could be why the bass drum and floor toms sound so good, warm deep sound from the basswood with the punch of the birch. He also goes on to say that the inner plys, not just the first ply define the sound while the last ply is more for the finish.


ofcourse inner plys help determine sound...no one is arguing that. Whats left is if you think that the inner plys are more important that the inner ones. Even without 'pearls 60 years of acoustic research', I would assume that yes, the inner plys have more to do with it than the inner ones.

Basswood is not a horrible wood, it has some nice qualities...but there is a reason its no longer being used on very many high end kits...and why you usually see it on midrange kits such as the ones we are discussing here.

[skywalker2]

What exactly is the advantage of brass swivel nuts?


they ease tuning, and hold it much better. Masters and masterworks are equiped with these. Very nice detail imo.

[OzZ316]

Basswood isn't "terrible" it's just not as good as birch or maple. I'm not really experienced with it, but I've actually read that it gives some tonal charactaristics that can't be found in birch or maple, which may be why Pearl and Tama use it in the Visions and Superstars.

Comparing heads makes some sense. I won't have $100 to go spend on a whole new set of heads, and I'm happy that the Protone 2-plys won't be that bad for the short while that I'll use them.

Maybe you shouldn't really compare 2 kits when you've only heard one of them though? The different wood ply configuration does make a big difference as does the 8 ply floor toms and kicks.

It's not just a case of "The drums are the same, but the Superstar has better hoops and mounting hardware".

The Visions and Superstars are different kits.

The only comparison I am making is the price point and market that these 2 are competing in for my money. And guess what, until I have a whole day for tuning and head changes to truly compare drums in person I will have to ask questions and make educated decisions. I don't trust drum shops because after sitting down at too many of them and playing drums that are supposed to sound incredible but sound like out of tune cardboard boxes I have to ask questions.

As to the wood ply configurations, I am not arguing that the difference in plys and makeup of wood make a difference. But the question to you is it a bad difference or just a difference????

As for the heads, the only reason I asked the question about the heads is that someone made a statement that sounded like the 2 ply protone heads were better than the 1 ply Tama heads. Once again, are they better or only different.

Many people will agree to the fact that 2.3 tripple flanged hoops are much better at tuning, keeping a tune, and just plain sound better than 1.6 hoops... That to me means that the cheaper is not better, unlike some of the other comparisons.

[skywalker2]

They don't have the same shells, Vision floor toms and bass drums have 8 ply shells. Superstars bass drums have 7 ply shells, and floor toms just have 6 plys like the rack toms. Visions' shells are birch surrounding basswood, Superstars' are birch sandwiched between basswood. I'd agree with the hardware being fairly equal. The Superstars do have better hoops, and better mounting system. I don't know much about the finishes, but I do think the Superstars offer MORE colors, but that doesn't mean better. And remember, the Visions are still brand new, more finishes may come later. As for the sizes, I don't see how the Superstar has more options. You can order both drums in sizes from 8" to 22" I think.

But after all that semi-small stuff being compared, it all comes down to the sound. I played both these kits at a local shop, and I WAS impressed with the Superstar (which is what I played first). But they really can't match the Visions. The toms sounded similar, but the Visions were much easier to tune and easier to find the tones that I was looking for. As for the floor toms and kicks...Superstars don't compare. The Vison kick drum was a little punchier, and that floor tom was just absolutely amazing. I guarantee you won't find a better sounding floor tom on any kit under $1,000 and probably won't on some OVER $1,000. I also compared the Visions to the old Sessions (which are considered much better drums), and even those (maple nor birch) floor toms didn't sound as good as the Vision's.


yes, the drum shells are not 'pretty much the same'. Visions uses the same concept as reference, in that the bass and bigger toms are thicker than the smaller toms...superstars have thicker bass drums, but the toms and snares are the same.

I've played a few superstars and as good as they sound, the bass on the visions simply owns.

[OzZ316]

Basswood is not a horrible wood, it has some nice qualities...but there is a reason its no longer being used on very many high end kits...and why you usually see it on midrange kits such as the ones we are discussing here.


I think one of the reason is that it is percieved to be a cheap lower quality wood and from a marketing perspective who would buy a high end kit with a wood that is considered to be inferior, even if it is not. I was reading some information on a guitar forum about basswood and many of the same discussions are going on there. One point of interest was that one of the posters mentioned a group of very high end custom guitar builders that regularly use basswood in their guitars, and one of them builds for Eddie Van Halen. Just some more food for thought.

[MattKeaton]

pretty much, but granted superhoops are not ultra expensive, at least not compared to die casts.


Pardon? Everything is expensive here.

[OzZ316]

the hardware may be just as 'good' as the visions (i'm a big roadpro fan), but its still an older design; long lugs goes way back on tama's entry level lines, and re-using this design (with a slight update), defintely was to save costs, and to counteract the cost to include die cast hoops.

Better mounting system? To each his own, and even though i do like star casts, pearls tom arms are more adjustable, and again, this can be argued back and forth, so again, preference. Some people hate iss, others are not to fond of starcasts.




Do you think that the updated lugs on the Vision help makeup for the tuning differences of the 1.6 to the diecast?

That is good to hear about the bass drum being much better than the Superstar. Is it punchier, deeper??? I liked the way the Superstar was much cleaner sounding, more like a bass drum to me than my Export. Much more sensitive also. Guess this is what you get with the better woods than my "mahagony" export.

[MattKeaton]

Do you think that the updated lugs on the Vision help makeup for the tuning differences of the 1.6 to the diecast?

That is good to hear about the bass drum being much better than the Superstar. Is it punchier, deeper??? I liked the way the Superstar was much cleaner sounding, more like a bass drum to me than my Export. Much more sensitive also. Guess this is what you get with the better woods than my "mahagony" export.

What was wrong with your old Export? I loved my 22" ... Great drum indeed. Was the easiest thing to tune on the planet.

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

they ease tuning, and hold it much better. Masters and masterworks are equiped with these. Very nice detail imo.

How does the fact that they are made from brass ease tuning, or prevent detuning?

[MattKeaton]

How does the fact that they are made from brass ease tuning, or prevent detuning?

I personally have NO idea. However, it is a fact that they are more resistant to rust etc. than the other (FX, EX,...) ones. I also like the look of them more ;)
About the sound and tuning... im pretty sure they would serve an identical function? :o

[The Dorian]

How does the fact that they are made from brass ease tuning, or prevent detuning?

I believe it's a whole new piece added into the lug...not just the same thing made of a different material. I may be wrong though.

[The Dorian]

As to the wood ply configurations, I am not arguing that the difference in plys and makeup of wood make a difference. But the question to you is it a bad difference or just a difference????

It's a very good difference between the Vision's configuration and the Superstar. At least in my opinion. Like I said before, the Visions just flat out sound better to me.


As for the heads, the only reason I asked the question about the heads is that someone made a statement that sounded like the 2 ply protone heads were better than the 1 ply Tama heads. Once again, are they better or only different.

The heads aren't really a huge difference. But I'm not saying that they are. 2-ply cheap heads isn't what's getting me buying a Vision instead of Superstar. The sound is.


Many people will agree to the fact that 2.3 tripple flanged hoops are much better at tuning, keeping a tune, and just plain sound better than 1.6 hoops... That to me means that the cheaper is not better, unlike some of the other comparisons

2.3 triple flanged are just flat out better than 1.6. I really do with the Visions had them, but as I said before...the Visions are still better (sound wise, not hoops).

[skywalker2]

The only comparison I am making is the price point and market that these 2 are competing in for my money. And guess what, until I have a whole day for tuning and head changes to truly compare drums in person I will have to ask questions and make educated decisions. I don't trust drum shops because after sitting down at too many of them and playing drums that are supposed to sound incredible but sound like out of tune cardboard boxes I have to ask questions.

As to the wood ply configurations, I am not arguing that the difference in plys and makeup of wood make a difference. But the question to you is it a bad difference or just a difference????

As for the heads, the only reason I asked the question about the heads is that someone made a statement that sounded like the 2 ply protone heads were better than the 1 ply Tama heads. Once again, are they better or only different.

Many people will agree to the fact that 2.3 tripple flanged hoops are much better at tuning, keeping a tune, and just plain sound better than 1.6 hoops... That to me means that the cheaper is not better, unlike some of the other comparisons.

with regards to wood ply configurations, its not so much that it is a bad difference as it is a difference in general...depending on what you are looking at in your drums.

For example, the visions floor tom sounded a bit more powerful than the superstars, no doubt to the combo of plys that it used, especially considering its seems to be hounded with the lesser hoops of the two. I still think the superstar is an AWESOME sounding kit,...but the snare, floor toms and esp bass drum on the visions was astounding. (snare was good, but the bass was what merits the astounding.)

as far as head choices go, this does not matter to some, as new heads are usually a requirement unless you get a kit that comes stock with good, name brand heads...in light of that fact, it woud be safe to assume that stock heads are not that amazing, (which they are not, maybe not bad sounding,but def. not something to write home about.), and durability has a lot to do with that, hence, why a stock 2 ply head is more attractive. It may not be the 'sound' people go for, but thats what buying new, quality single ply heads is for. So yes, in that sense i would say that the stock visions heads are leaning more towards 'better' as oppossed to 'different' when compared to the superstars.

and yes i agree about the hoops concept, i just think that the visions offers more to me in the way of hardware, looks and sound than the superstar, and buying 2.3's isn't a big deal.

[skywalker2]

I think one of the reason is that it is percieved to be a cheap lower quality wood and from a marketing perspective who would buy a high end kit with a wood that is considered to be inferior, even if it is not. I was reading some information on a guitar forum about basswood and many of the same discussions are going on there. One point of interest was that one of the posters mentioned a group of very high end custom guitar builders that regularly use basswood in their guitars, and one of them builds for Eddie Van Halen. Just some more food for thought.



yeah i do think some of it is a marketing ploy...there was a time when starclassic performers were originally made from basswood!

But all marketing aside, the term 'cheap wood' doesn't neccesarily mean that it sounds bad...but if it DOES make the drumset cheaper to sell (a full on birch or visions, while it would still cost less than an old sbx or or starclassic, would def. still cost more than their current versions.), then yes it can be called a 'cheaper' wood. And maybe it was all of us drummers who helped basswood get pushed to the bottom of the desireable drum woods ladder, but if companies like pearl, tama, pdp etc., can get it put into their intermediate kits because it sounds decent, saves costs and is cheap to buy, then, like i said, its safe to assume that it is persay a 'cheaper' wood.

(not to mention the fact that if price was not an issue, not very many here would opt for a all basswood or basswood combo kit, if they could get an all maple or all birch etc.)

as much as i understand your point about the guitars, i think that the applications to drums is a little different.

[skywalker2]

Do you think that the updated lugs on the Vision help makeup for the tuning differences of the 1.6 to the diecast?

That is good to hear about the bass drum being much better than the Superstar. Is it punchier, deeper??? I liked the way the Superstar was much cleaner sounding, more like a bass drum to me than my Export. Much more sensitive also. Guess this is what you get with the better woods than my "mahagony" export.


well, they may to a certain extent, like i said, the inclusion of brand new lugs and hardware is probably what made pearl avoid yet another price raising feature such as 2.3s, but in all honesty, it IS the hoops that determine tuning the most. And even though 2.3's are better, there is going to be a difference in sound between a flanged hoop and a die cast hoop no matter what.

Its interesting that we are talking about this; i know a few people who were UPSET when tama decided to go with diecasts; they felt an intermediate kit needs to not have such a hamper on resonance, since it wont be the most incredible sounding thing to begin with anyway. And there are those who will die by their die cast hoops on toms as well.

Just remember;

die cast=don't worry about hoops bending ever, less resonance, ease of tuning

triple flanged=more open sounding, still holds tuning well (depending on thickness), a slight increase of you having the ability to bend/dent your hoops with heavy rimshots.(more of an issue on 1.6's than 2.3s obviously, but there a few peeps on this forum who have NEVER had a 1.6 hoop messed up.)

I think the superstars bass is very nice...but the visions was so great, and usually you don't really notice that big of difference on these kits, because of their price point, the only thing really determining the sound is how they may be tuned up.

But this was not the case with the visions. It was very powerful...not ultra boomy with too much resonance, but just the perfect middle point...which is great because it allows you to tailor your bass to how YOU want it (boomy, open, thudsy, and focused.) It was just a tremendous difference that i simply couldn't ignore it. It felt like superstar guys will have their nice sturdy hoops, and visions guys will have their amazing basses.

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

I believe it's a whole new piece added into the lug...not just the same thing made of a different material. I may be wrong though.

Well, I know that the swivel nut is made out of brass, and the lug itself contains a gasket to prevent detuning. The only advantage of a brass swivel nut that I can see is it's resistance to rust. That's cool and all, but I've never heard of swivel nuts rusting, so it doesn't seem like a real big deal to me.

In the "Export Questions" sticky thread, someone mentioned that the EX snare tends to detune due to the lack of brass swivel nuts and 2.3 mm hoops. It seems like some people aren't clear on what actually prevents the detuning in the new Vision lugs, which is the gasket, as far as I know. I don't see how the brass insert can contribute at all to holding the tuning longer.

[skywalker2]

i thought it had something to do with the brass nuts...if not, they are still a nice addition that no other kit in this price range offers.

but if someone posted such a comment in the export section, maybe there is some truth to the matter, maybe one that none of us can see, i know the idea that it holds tuning was previously mentioned, so it it wasn't pulled out of anyones ***.

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

I'll believe it when someone explains to me exactly what a brass swivel nut does to prevent detuning. There's lots of people on this forum that don't know what they're talking about.

[OzZ316]

The sub $1000 market is getting so hard to decipher now adays, I'm glad there are forums like this to discuss these issues. I could easily bring in the Sonor 2007 kit into this discusion, but I won't ;) . I do like the setup and the way the wood is layed out in the Pearl kits. I wasn't aware of this before. Though I know it is hard for me to say without actually playing them , the extra money that one would spend to upgrade the hoops later would almost put you into another brands all Birch kit. Heck, I hate paying full price for anything like this. It is like going to a car dealer and wanting to upgrade something and they take the original and then put on the upgrade for full price... I know it is the way it is, but it still chaps me. I wouldn't mind it if drum companies would drop the price and just ship kits without heads and let the end user pick the ones that they want. To me that would be the catsass :D . I would like someone like Mike Farriss to hop back on here and give a because X has changed that makes the thicker hoops not as important, or something to the sort. I imagine part of the answer is going to be that this is an upgraded Export price level kit and that with so many other things upgraded, they couldn't do everything. My only problem with that is unless someone wants to jump way up in price levels the Vision is the only affordable Birch kit that Pearl offers. Then to top it off they took a great kit, the Session, and lowered some of the quality and rebadged it. I just don't quite get the new lineup :confused:

[MattKeaton]

Well, I know that the swivel nut is made out of brass, and the lug itself contains a gasket to prevent detuning. The only advantage of a brass swivel nut that I can see is it's resistance to rust. That's cool and all, but I've never heard of swivel nuts rusting, so it doesn't seem like a real big deal to me.

In the "Export Questions" sticky thread, someone mentioned that the EX snare tends to detune due to the lack of brass swivel nuts and 2.3 mm hoops. It seems like some people aren't clear on what actually prevents the detuning in the new Vision lugs, which is the gasket, as far as I know. I don't see how the brass insert can contribute at all to holding the tuning longer.

I've seen them rust... on Pearl drums too (FX). Granted, these werent looked after by the owner.

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

I've seen them rust... on Pearl drums too (FX). Granted, these werent looked after by the owner.

That's what I'm getting at. If you don't want your lugs to rust, then keep them dry. It'd be like if Pearl introduced a new drum set with a new coating on the drums to make them flame resistant. If you don't want your drums to be reduced to ashes....then take care to prevent them from catching on fire. ;)

[twister12]

there is also basic kit configurations that the superstar i think has an advantage in. the supe has a 1 up 2 down, three different 5 piece conf, and a 4 piece with a 24" kick. what configs do the visions come in? that is an actual question by the way.

[eyewtkas]

...

It felt like superstar guys will have their nice sturdy hoops, and visions guys will have their amazing basses.

I bet if you took both basses home, put the same heads on them, tuned them properly and got someone else to play each of them while you turned your back you probably wouldn't even notice the difference.

[jeremiah]

there is also basic kit configurations that the superstar i think has an advantage in. the supe has a 1 up 2 down, three different 5 piece conf, and a 4 piece with a 24" kick. what configs do the visions come in? that is an actual question by the way.


The VSX($840) and VLX($900) are both available in these configs including a 900 hw pack. The VSX is also offered as a shell pack ($600). I haven't found anywhere that has VLX shell packs yet.

VS925H/C: 22x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 14x11 tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS925/C: 22x18 bass, 12x9 tom, 13x10 tom, 16x16 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS925S/C: 22x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 16x16 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS905/C: 20x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 14x14 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare

[The Dorian]

I've seen some VLX shell packs on Ebay. And they were actually around $540.

[The Dorian]

I bet if you took both basses home, put the same heads on them, tuned them properly and got someone else to play each of them while you turned your back you probably wouldn't even notice the difference.

I think some people would. I'm not sure if I would. But I'll tell you this...I'll notice the difference on the floor toms any day. I think there's a bigger difference between the 2 kits from the floor toms than the bass drums.

[skywalker2]

The VSX($840) and VLX($900) are both available in these configs including a 900 hw pack. The VSX is also offered as a shell pack ($600). I haven't found anywhere that has VLX shell packs yet.

VS925H/C: 22x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 14x11 tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS925/C: 22x18 bass, 12x9 tom, 13x10 tom, 16x16 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS925S/C: 22x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 16x16 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare
VS905/C: 20x18 bass, 10x8 tom, 12x9 tom, 14x14 floor tom, 14x5.5 snare

just go to guitar center, and if they have a vlx, it will probably be in a shell pack.

[skywalker2]

there is also basic kit configurations that the superstar i think has an advantage in. the supe has a 1 up 2 down, three different 5 piece conf, and a 4 piece with a 24" kick. what configs do the visions come in? that is an actual question by the way.


yes the superstars do have a one up two down config...again i'll bring up the fact that this was NOT a shell pack that was initially offered, but one that they just recently added to their line up. So yes, if thats the set up you are looking for, then the superstar does have the advantage...but it also is not as cheap as a visions either.

here in the states, the only superstar you are going to get with a 24 inch kick is a special ordered one...the four piece comes with a 22. I've been to tamas website for other countries and they do offer a four piece with a 24 inch kick and its virgin, but they deemed us unworthy! :(

as far as configurations go, i don't really think they make one kit "better" overall, but maybe better for certain individuals.

I.E.: i'm a big four piece player, but after trying a 5 piece with a smaller tom (mounted on a stand not over the bass) i found i could get a bigger pallete of sounds and still have the same transition from tom tom's to floor tom. The visions shell pack offers this for me right out of the box; 22 10 12 16 14. Perfect. There is NO superstar that offers this at all despite their 3 different five piece configurations, and i can very easily turn my visions bass into a clean looking virgin; tama unfortunately still does not offer a solution to a pre drilled bass.

Even if i did decide on a superstar in the end, i don't think this fact would kill me, but as of right now, its another point for the visions.

[skywalker2]

I bet if you took both basses home, put the same heads on them, tuned them properly and got someone else to play each of them while you turned your back you probably wouldn't even notice the difference.

hmm...i bet that you are saying this because if it was you, that would be the outcome? :rolleyes:

even though the two examples of each kit that i played were not the poster children of proper tuning, there was a significant difference between the two to where one of them stood out. (perhaps this is the phyisical evidence of the importance of the inner ply? :confused: )

Both are GREAT sounding kits...but the visions bass simply had more punch.

if we have to get into where we are standing and who is playing it and what heads are being used and the hundreds of other variables that can be thrown into it to justify one kits bass sounding better than the other...how much better can it really sound?

I'm not saying that the visions is the best bass drum ever built, but there are some fundamental qualities about it that make it stand out in a very competative segment.

[jbrandt]

INSERTS
--------
Brass inserts eliminate a potential problem called "galling". Galling occurs when two metals move relative to each other and start to seize up. Surfaces can actually transfer metal to each other. It is especially common in unlubricated metal contact, and in like-metal contact (for example stainless steel on stainless steel galls quite easily).

If anyone has experienced a tension rod snapping off in a lug or getting excessivly tight compared to others, and there was no visible thread problem in assembly, they are probably experiencing galling.

One way to eliminate galling is to keep the metal surfaces clean and lubricated. Since some drum owners fail to do these things, Pearl has provided another way to minimize galling by using two different metals. Brass has a fair amount of copper in it that makes for smooth machining and thread engagement. It still makes sense to keep the contact clean and lubricated.

Brass by itself will not have any inherent tendency to resist detuning. In fact, the coefficient of friction between steel and brass is lower than that of steel and steel. However, if the brass inserts are more finely machined to provide a better thread form, they could be more resistant to de-tuning. I don't know if that is the case with these inserts or not.

HOOPS
-------
2.3 mm thick steel is more rigid than 1.6 mm steel. Therefore is will resist bending from tension rod and ISS mounting forces better. Is 2.3 mm necessary to resist these forces? Obviously Pearl engineers didn't think so, and thousands of Export/ISS owners don't seem to have big problems with 1.6 mm hoops.

In my opinion, a more important factor for hoops is flatness after forming. I've seen some cheep 2.3 mm hoops that were not flat by .020-.030 inches out of the box - that's a 1/32" variation in a sometimes very localized area.

A 2.3 mm hoop that is that far off of flat will still give tuning problems as it unevenly stretches the mylar film. In fact, the extra stiffness of a non-flat 2.3 mm hoop might make it harder to get tuning sorted than a somewhat more flexible 1.6 mm non-flat hoop.

Based on the quality of SuperHoops, I would trust Pearl's tooling to produce a high quality and very flat 1.6 mm hoop. I have no Vision hoops on hand to measure and prove that, but Pearl quality has always been top notch in my experience.

Jeff

[The Dorian]

INSERTS
--------
Brass inserts eliminate a potential problem called "galling". Galling occurs when two metals move relative to each other and start to seize up. Surfaces can actually transfer metal to each other. It is especially common in unlubricated metal contact, and in like-metal contact (for example stainless steel on stainless steel galls quite easily).

If anyone has experienced a tension rod snapping off in a lug or getting excessivly tight compared to others, and there was no visible thread problem in assembly, they are probably experiencing galling.

One way to eliminate galling is to keep the metal surfaces clean and lubricated. Since some drum owners fail to do these things, Pearl has provided another way to minimize galling by using two different metals. Brass has a fair amount of copper in it that makes for smooth machining and thread engagement. It still makes sense to keep the contact clean and lubricated.

Brass by itself will not have any inherent tendency to resist detuning. In fact, the coefficient of friction between steel and brass is lower than that of steel and steel. However, if the brass inserts are more finely machined to provide a better thread form, they could be more resistant to de-tuning. I don't know if that is the case with these inserts or not.

HOOPS
-------
2.3 mm thick steel is more rigid than 1.6 mm steel. Therefore is will resist bending from tension rod and ISS mounting forces better. Is 2.3 mm necessary to resist these forces? Obviously Pearl engineers didn't think so, and thousands of Export/ISS owners don't seem to have big problems with 1.6 mm hoops.

In my opinion, a more important factor for hoops is flatness after forming. I've seen some cheep 2.3 mm hoops that were not flat by .020-.030 inches out of the box - that's a 1/32" variation in a sometimes very localized area.

A 2.3 mm hoop that is that far off of flat will still give tuning problems as it unevenly stretches the mylar film. In fact, the extra stiffness of a non-flat 2.3 mm hoop might make it harder to get tuning sorted than a somewhat more flexible 1.6 mm non-flat hoop.

Based on the quality of SuperHoops, I would trust Pearl's tooling to produce a high quality and very flat 1.6 mm hoop. I have no Vision hoops on hand to measure and prove that, but Pearl quality has always been top notch in my experience.

Jeff

Good post. Thanks for clearing that up.

[skywalker2]

great post jbrandt

[Son of Shub-Niggurath]

great post jbrandt

Word.

[eyewtkas]

even though the two examples of each kit that i played were not the poster children of proper tuning, there was a significant difference between the two to where one of them stood out. (perhaps this is the phyisical evidence of the importance of the inner ply? :confused: )


What heads did both the bass drums have?

[skywalker2]

both were stock heads, with built in muffle rings.

[OzZ316]

After having my basement fill with 5ft of water a couple of years ago with my drums in there, I still haven't experienced any rusting on my drums. I cleaned them up after words and haven't had a problem. This is probably one of the reason I want to talk myself into staying with Pearl, but I want a good upgrade from my Exports but don't need Masters kit.

[MattKeaton]

INSERTS
--------
Brass inserts eliminate a potential problem called "galling". Galling occurs when two metals move relative to each other and start to seize up. Surfaces can actually transfer metal to each other. It is especially common in unlubricated metal contact, and in like-metal contact (for example stainless steel on stainless steel galls quite easily).

If anyone has experienced a tension rod snapping off in a lug or getting excessivly tight compared to others, and there was no visible thread problem in assembly, they are probably experiencing galling.

One way to eliminate galling is to keep the metal surfaces clean and lubricated. Since some drum owners fail to do these things, Pearl has provided another way to minimize galling by using two different metals. Brass has a fair amount of copper in it that makes for smooth machining and thread engagement. It still makes sense to keep the contact clean and lubricated.

Brass by itself will not have any inherent tendency to resist detuning. In fact, the coefficient of friction between steel and brass is lower than that of steel and steel. However, if the brass inserts are more finely machined to provide a better thread form, they could be more resistant to de-tuning. I don't know if that is the case with these inserts or not.

HOOPS
-------
2.3 mm thick steel is more rigid than 1.6 mm steel. Therefore is will resist bending from tension rod and ISS mounting forces better. Is 2.3 mm necessary to resist these forces? Obviously Pearl engineers didn't think so, and thousands of Export/ISS owners don't seem to have big problems with 1.6 mm hoops.

In my opinion, a more important factor for hoops is flatness after forming. I've seen some cheep 2.3 mm hoops that were not flat by .020-.030 inches out of the box - that's a 1/32" variation in a sometimes very localized area.

A 2.3 mm hoop that is that far off of flat will still give tuning problems as it unevenly stretches the mylar film. In fact, the extra stiffness of a non-flat 2.3 mm hoop might make it harder to get tuning sorted than a somewhat more flexible 1.6 mm non-flat hoop.

Based on the quality of SuperHoops, I would trust Pearl's tooling to produce a high quality and very flat 1.6 mm hoop. I have no Vision hoops on hand to measure and prove that, but Pearl quality has always been top notch in my experience.

Jeff

From what I can tell the chrome on the 1.6mm hoops is inferior to the coating on the SUperHoops - so regardless of the tuning capabilities the SuperHoops will always be my preferred option.
MD

[MattKeaton]

That's what I'm getting at. If you don't want your lugs to rust, then keep them dry. It'd be like if Pearl introduced a new drum set with a new coating on the drums to make them flame resistant. If you don't want your drums to be reduced to ashes....then take care to prevent them from catching on fire. ;)

Der :p
It wasn't me that let them rust - it was the previous typical Australian drum owner. :) But good tip, even if completely obvious! :D

[skywalker2]

From what I can tell the chrome on the 1.6mm hoops is inferior to the coating on the SUperHoops - so regardless of the tuning capabilities th(e SuperHoops will always be my preferred option.
MD


personally, i compared the two, and while its not a huge difference, i think that a more appopriate comparison is the chrome on these vs the exports, in which it does look better.

[hazer911]

I don't see the huge deal with the 1.6mm hoops. Yamaha uses them on super high-end drums because they're light and keep the drum open and warm. If you're worried about warping, buy some WorldMax DSS mounts instead of the ISS's. I had a set of cheap *** timbales that had 1.6 hoops on them and they never gave me trouble, and helped warm up the tinny *** thin shells.

[MattKeaton]

personally, i compared the two, and while its not a huge difference, i think that a more appopriate comparison is the chrome on these vs the exports, in which it does look better.

Yup that's what I was comparing. The hoops on Exports vs SuperHoops... indeed.

[skywalker2]

ah ok! i thought you were comparing the visions to superhoops!

[OzZ316]

I don't see the huge deal with the 1.6mm hoops. Yamaha uses them on super high-end drums because they're light and keep the drum open and warm. If you're worried about warping, buy some WorldMax DSS mounts instead of the ISS's. I had a set of cheap *** timbales that had 1.6 hoops on them and they never gave me trouble, and helped warm up the tinny *** thin shells.

I hate to say it, but there is another one, the mounts. I'm not saying that ISS is bad, but there again Tama is putting on their high end mounts. Most of the time after tooling and designing is done the actual production costs on these kind of items is generally compariable. I work part time in the archery manf. industry and alot of the companies lower level bows have many machined parts from earlier higher-end bows. I think this is another feature that could have been looked at.

[MattKeaton]

ah ok! i thought you were comparing the visions to superhoops!

I was, inadvertantly ;) How do the hoops on Visions differ to those on the older Exports?
MD

[skywalker2]

al has mentioned that the chrome plating is superior...other than that its the same 1.6 hoop, hence all the talk we have had about their inclusion in the visions!

[MattKeaton]

al has mentioned that the chrome plating is superior...other than that its the same 1.6 hoop, hence all the talk we have had about their inclusion in the visions!

Hm. I hate Pearl chroming. It's good that they improved it. I did not know it was improved on the Visions till now!? Thank you :o

[skywalker2]

no prob man...apparently they are doing it at an outside private detailer.

[HHXplorer]

Why do people whine about Tama's long lugs on the Supe's?
They say that the finish doesn't matter, but the look of the lugs is a problem? :confused:

[CatBoy75]

I think the long lugs look cool in an "early 80's speed metal" way...Why do people whine about Tama's long lugs on the Supe's?
They say that the finish doesn't matter, but the look of the lugs is a problem? :confused:

[skywalker2]

I think the long lugs look cool in an "early 80's speed metal" way...

exaclty; and that is off putting for some people; it isnt the deal breaker, but i do prefer the visions lugs. (having said that, the starclassic lug is probably my favorite out of all the companies out there.)