Rediculous!!!

[wylderdrummer]

Sup everyone? I bought my Pearl Vision VLX in ruby red fade about a month ago. I have the fusion sizes....All I can tell anyone trying to compare this kit to an export is nuts! Ive owned exports, sonor, tama, and ludwig and this kit BLOWS them all away. From the finish, to the hardware, and oh yeah, that little thing called SOUND!!!

I used these for the first time live last week at a gig and the sound guy and all the members of my band were blown away at the sound. I did upgrade the snare drum to the Pearl Joey Jordison 13" snare (UNREAL SOUND!) I use an ambassador on the snare, pinstripes on the toms and the new self-muffled pinstripe head on the kick, with an aquarian resonator on the front of the kick.

For the money, this is ABSOLUTELY without a doubt, the best sounding kit i've ever played on. The hardware cant be touched for quality and the finish is rediculous (beautiful that is!). Please don't concern yourself with the few plys of basswood....it makes NO difference (it just keeps the price down a bit). The main shell material is birch and to be honest, i cant ever see spending another 2000 on reference or masters drums when my drums sound so great.

Just one last thing, my ear isnt the greatest for tuning, so i bought a drumdial and it works flawlessly....BUY THESE DRUMS...YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT!!!

[RUSSH]

Congrats...sounds awesome. I would have gone for a VLX if a virgin bass was available or I hadn't bought my SMX.

[PureRockFury]

I would never buy them. Can't get past the ISS mounts and 1.6mm triple flanged light weight hoops. Also the finish isn't as high quality as the Masters or any high end finish from any manufacturer.

I think I'll stick with my high end kits thanks, but I'm glad your happy with your purchase, because that's all that matters.

[The Dorian]

Grats dude. Visions are awesome drums. It's funny how much the ISS and 1.6 hoops get criticized because 1. they're easily replacable and 2. there's really absolutely nothing wrong with them.

[The Dorian]

I would never buy them. Can't get past the ISS mounts and 1.6mm triple flanged light weight hoops. Also the finish isn't as high quality as the Masters or any high end finish from any manufacturer.

I think I'll stick with my high end kits thanks, but I'm glad your happy with your purchase, because that's all that matters.


And you'd be surprised about the finish. Not to be rude, but you sound like one of those people that judge things from what you see on paper (basswood, 1.6 hoops, ISS) before you use them in person. Although the finishes are limited (because they're brand new), they're absolutely stunning. In fact there's a thread in the "Show Us Your Kits" forum and everyone's saying it looks like the References Twighlight Fade. Check it: http://pearldrummersforum.com/showthread.php?t=179144&page=1&pp=12

[FunkyMonk]

And you'd be surprised about the finish. Not to be rude, but you sound like one of those people that judge things from what you see on paper (basswood, 1.6 hoops, ISS) before you use them in person. Although the finishes are limited (because they're brand new), they're absolutely stunning. In fact there's a thread in the General forum and everyone's saying it looks like the References Twighlight Fade.

I mainly cringe at 1.6 hoops, for the way kids these days play, and how hard they hit, 2.3mm hoops are a need. Couldnt really care about ISS vs OPTI's, a semi-pro kit cant have everything that the pro kit has can it?

[The Dorian]

I mainly cringe at 1.6 hoops, for the way kids these days play, and how hard they hit, 2.3mm hoops are a need. Couldnt really care about ISS vs OPTI's, a semi-pro kit cant have everything that the pro kit has can it?

Yeah exactly. Everyone's complaining about the things that keeps this kit an intermediate, cost-effective kit. The basswood, the hoops, the ISS. If it was 100% birch, had 2.3 hoops and Optimounts, what would it be? A Session with hardware which would blow the cost through the roof.

[skywalker2]

I would never buy them. Can't get past the ISS mounts and 1.6mm triple flanged light weight hoops. Also the finish isn't as high quality as the Masters or any high end finish from any manufacturer.

I think I'll stick with my high end kits thanks, but I'm glad your happy with your purchase, because that's all that matters.



actually, why would anyone with a high end kit, regardless of make, want a lower end kit anyway? This isn't something thats limited to the visions, and we don't expect you to downgrade. :rolleyes:

Why WOULD the finish be as high end as a masters? is it a masters? no. Do you think people shelling out dough for masters kits would do so if the finishes were done the same? Do you think the visions would be as cheap as they are if the finishes were applied in the same way? No again.



ac, i dunno why you hate on lower end kits so much, or suggest to so many people to 'just get a masters'. Thats just not doable for some people. It simply is not. Regardless if you are 15, or 55. The visions is a great kit, with an iss mount that can be easily replaced, and different hoops added on later. The shells themselves are pretty much unmatched for the price, and its a killer kit with great looks, and it actually sounds just as good as an SBX.




To the thread starter: congrats on your kit man; enjoy, its a great set that will last you a long time. I will say that i DO understand the export comparisions; the way pearl released this kit made a lot of people think that the exports were being done with all together, and even though that didn't happen, they still replaced at least one VERY popular line, the elx. The export is now positioned in a way that competes with wrapped entry level midrange kits, with the vlx/vsx competing with the likes of the m birch, superstar etc. And even though you can't really compare the export to those kits either, its the reason why pearl made the vision. But even so, the exports rep still holds its own against these kits, even if the features/shell leave something to be desired.


At any rate, your kit is great, you made an awesome purchase and once again congrats and enjoy!!! ;)

[skywalker2]

I mainly cringe at 1.6 hoops, for the way kids these days play, and how hard they hit, 2.3mm hoops are a need. Couldnt really care about ISS vs OPTI's, a semi-pro kit cant have everything that the pro kit has can it?



i play pretty hard, and have never bent a 1.6 hoop, that probably has more to do with technique more than anything. But you are right in saying that semi pro kits cant have everything; thats why they exist in the first place! I'm sure we would all love a visions with optis and 2.3' standard, but that would make just a shell pack awfully close to an old sbx...and then add in the hardware and suddenly visions is not as affordable as we'd like anymore huh? There will always be a downside to having EVERYTHING we want.

[skywalker2]

Yeah exactly. Everyone's complaining about the things that keeps this kit an intermediate, cost-effective kit. The basswood, the hoops, the ISS. If it was 100% birch, had 2.3 hoops and Optimounts, what would it be? A Session with hardware which would blow the cost through the roof.


hit the nail on the head drummerman! it takes me such long posts to do it! :D

[The Dorian]

actually, why would anyone with a high end kit, regardless of make, want a lower end kit anyway? This isn't something thats limited to the visions, and we don't expect you to downgrade. :rolleyes:

Why WOULD the finish be as high end as a masters? is it a masters? no. Do you think people shelling out dough for masters kits would do so if the finishes were done the same? Do you think the visions would be as cheap as they are if the finishes were applied in the same way? No again.

ac, i dunno why you hate on lower end kits so much, or suggest to so many people to 'just get a masters'. Thats just not doable for some people. It simply is not. Regardless if you are 15, or 55.



Good post once again from Skywalker. :)

[skywalker2]

Good post once again from Skywalker. :)


gracias man. :)

[weldrum]

How about a little competition then. I've owned and played several kits too, And these stand with any of them. I bet my Visions sound just as good as yours. I'll get the video up this weekend, (I'm getting my throne today!) and you post one. Nothing fancy just a general sound of the drums, And we'll let the PDF decide?

I would never buy them. Can't get past the ISS mounts and 1.6mm triple flanged light weight hoops. Also the finish isn't as high quality as the Masters or any high end finish from any manufacturer.

I think I'll stick with my high end kits thanks, but I'm glad your happy with your purchase, because that's all that matters.

[skywalker2]

How about a little competition then. I've owned and played several kits too, And these stand with any of them. I bet my Visions sound just as good as yours. I'll get the video up this weekend, (I'm getting my throne today!) and you post one. Nothing fancy just a general sound of the drums, And we'll let the PDF decide?


woo hoo bring it!


although lots of variable will be brought into this; quality of the sound, and general preference of maple over birch and vice versa.

[Strat-Master]

I mainly cringe at 1.6 hoops, for the way kids these days play, and how hard they hit, 2.3mm hoops are a need. Couldnt really care about ISS vs OPTI's, a semi-pro kit cant have everything that the pro kit has can it?
I agree i use die cast though and i occassionally rim shot but not often.

[PureRockFury]

How about a little competition then. I've owned and played several kits too, And these stand with any of them. I bet my Visions sound just as good as yours. I'll get the video up this weekend, (I'm getting my throne today!) and you post one. Nothing fancy just a general sound of the drums, And we'll let the PDF decide?

I've been here since 2002 and have never posted a video. You know why? Because I don't have a video camera. I still stand by my comment. 1.6mm hoops, ISS mounts, and birch/basswood shells don't stand a chance against a high end kit.

You have birch and basswood which is a FINE combination of wood, if the shells were of the highest quality woods, which they aren't because they simply can't ship a kit for that cost with the highest quality woods.

[The Dorian]

Umm...I wouldn't compare my Vision to a Reference or Masters. Like I said earlier, all of those "downgrades" is what keeps the Vision an intermediate kit. It's not better than high end gets. It's not supposed to be. It's cheaper. It sounds great and has great features for it's price, but it's not a Masters. It's not SUPPOSED to be for Christ's sake. Look at the price. What the hell do you expect? You're not gonna get a fully upgraded 100% birch/maple kit WITH awesome hardware for 800 bucks. It's just not possible. I don't see why anyone would even compare the two. Stop acting so surprised about the oh so horrible things about the Vision (sarcasm) and start comparing it to kits in it's class.

[MattKeaton]

I've been here since 2002 and have never posted a video. You know why? Because I don't have a video camera. I still stand by my comment. 1.6mm hoops, ISS mounts, and birch/basswood shells don't stand a chance against a high end kit.

You have birch and basswood which is a FINE combination of wood, if the shells were of the highest quality woods, which they aren't because they simply can't ship a kit for that cost with the highest quality woods.

Pfft. If you can tell the difference between "high quality" birch and bass wood 'vs' other, all other factors remaining equal... you are God. And that's saying a lot, because I don't even believe in God. For starters, wtf is "high quality" supposed to mean? Have you extensive experience in the field of drum manufacturing to determine the difference beyond doubt?

Visions pwn for the price, I reckon.

Cheers,
MD

[Strat-Master]

I believe high quality simply refers to a higher grade of wood, probably subjected to a higher stanbdard of quality before passed as a suable piece of wood. In anycase i love my superstar and its the same wood as the vision.

[The Dorian]

Pfft. If you can tell the difference between "high quality" birch and bass wood 'vs' other, all other factors remaining equal... you are God. And that's saying a lot, because I don't even believe in God. For starters, wtf is "high quality" supposed to mean? Have you extensive experience in the field of drum manufacturing to determine the difference beyond doubt?

Visions pwn for the price, I reckon.

Cheers,
MD

I'm sure more people than God can tell the difference. I know I probably can't. But I'm sure a bit more people than God can.

What I don't appreciate is his "assuming" that it's all low quality. Like I said earlier, he's probably one of those guys that judges products from what they see on paper. He's probably never even seen a Vision in real life.

[PureRockFury]

Pfft. If you can tell the difference between "high quality" birch and bass wood 'vs' other, all other factors remaining equal... you are God. And that's saying a lot, because I don't even believe in God. For starters, wtf is "high quality" supposed to mean? Have you extensive experience in the field of drum manufacturing to determine the difference beyond doubt?

Visions pwn for the price, I reckon.

Cheers,
MD

With all things being equal anyone can tell the difference between a low quality maple such as Asian maple and high quality Canadian Rock Maple. Anyone can. It's not that hard and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. They all have special characteristics that stand out from each other.

Also, in fact I do have extensive drum manufacturing experience. I have built quite a few of my own drums including my stave which you can find around here, just search.

[PureRockFury]

I'm sure more people than God can tell the difference. I know I probably can't. But I'm sure a bit more people than God can.

What I don't appreciate is his "assuming" that it's all low quality. Like I said earlier, he's probably one of those guys that judges products from what they see on paper. He's probably never even seen a Vision in real life.

I got to play a Vision and an Export Maple last week actually. I put the Vision with birch/basswood shells against the Tama Superstar and Taye TourPro and both kits blew the Pearl out of the water. This was after I got to put brand new Coated Ambassadors over Clear Ambassadors on the toms and a Coated Ambassador over Diplomat Snare Side on the respective snares.

The one thing I will say and it holds true. I did enjoy the extreme punch I got out of the Vision bass drum. There was a TON of punch, but it did lack the warm bottom end that I enjoy.

For your information, I read specs and ads, but I don't fall for marketing. So many young kids on the PDF fall for marketing. I see past marketing. I had to take marketing classes in college, which allowed me to open my eyes and see past marketing. It all comes down to trying kits out for yourself. Which company offers the best features in a nice price point, upgrade options, finish options. You must look past a name or what your favourite artist plays.

One of my favourite drummers plays a GMS Grand Master drums, but you don't see me running out and getting a GMS Grand Master kit.

I'm a gear head. I try everything I can get my hands on and form my own opinions. Not what some company white sheets say.

[ntime]

Another innocent thread turned into a pissin` contest!!

[The Dorian]

I put the Vision with birch/basswood shells against the Tama Superstar and Taye TourPro and both kits blew the Pearl out of the water. This was after I got to put brand new Coated Ambassadors over Clear Ambassadors on the toms and a Coated Ambassador over Diplomat Snare Side on the respective snares.


I guess that's just personal prefference. I can't say that I've played a TourPro, but I have compared a Vision and Superstar side by side.

The Vision "won".

It simply sounds better than the Superstar. Everyone can say everything they want about the Vision's hoops and mounts and what not, but the Vision's sound was superior. The Vision's toms were a little more articulated and pure sounding. The floor toms and kicks blew the Superstar out of the water. Remember, they're not the same shell configuration. The Vision is birch surrounding basswood. The Superstar is birch "sandwiched" between the basswood. I think this is the main reason that the Visions sound better.

[MattKeaton]

The one thing I will say and it holds true. I did enjoy the extreme punch I got out of the Vision bass drum. There was a TON of punch, but it did lack the warm bottom end that I enjoy.

For your information, I read specs and ads, but I don't fall for marketing. So many young kids on the PDF fall for marketing. I see past marketing. I had to take marketing classes in college, which allowed me to open my eyes and see past marketing.

I'm looking forward to testing the bass drum to see how it compares with other kits I've played, for sure.

:rolleyes: Pretty sick of people being influenced by marketing unnecessarily. Such is life, I guess :o

[MattKeaton]

With all things being equal anyone can tell the difference between a low quality maple such as Asian maple and high quality Canadian Rock Maple. Anyone can. It's not that hard and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. They all have special characteristics that stand out from each other.

Also, in fact I do have extensive drum manufacturing experience. I have built quite a few of my own drums including my stave which you can find around here, just search.


That being said, we weren't talking about maple ;)

Thanks for your response.
MD

[weldrum]

Sounds to me like your making excuse for paying more for a kit than I did. If you know how to tune them, A tom could be hanging from a string and sound well.

I've been here since 2002 and have never posted a video. You know why? Because I don't have a video camera. I still stand by my comment. 1.6mm hoops, ISS mounts, and birch/basswood shells don't stand a chance against a high end kit.

You have birch and basswood which is a FINE combination of wood, if the shells were of the highest quality woods, which they aren't because they simply can't ship a kit for that cost with the highest quality woods.

[PureRockFury]

Sounds to me like your making excuse for paying more for a kit than I did. If you know how to tune them, A tom could be hanging from a string and sound well.

I have no excuses or regrets. I pay top dollar and expect top quality. If I want a kit of lesser value for rehearsals, gigging, touring...whatever it might be, I would still probably look elsewhere. I have no problem with mid-level gear, none whatsoever, but I just prefer to shop wise. Get as high as pro features as I can for half the money or more.

[skywalker2]

I got to play a Vision and an Export Maple last week actually. I put the Vision with birch/basswood shells against the Tama Superstar and Taye TourPro and both kits blew the Pearl out of the water. This was after I got to put brand new Coated Ambassadors over Clear Ambassadors on the toms and a Coated Ambassador over Diplomat Snare Side on the respective snares.

The one thing I will say and it holds true. I did enjoy the extreme punch I got out of the Vision bass drum. There was a TON of punch, but it did lack the warm bottom end that I enjoy.

For your information, I read specs and ads, but I don't fall for marketing. So many young kids on the PDF fall for marketing. I see past marketing. I had to take marketing classes in college, which allowed me to open my eyes and see past marketing. It all comes down to trying kits out for yourself. Which company offers the best features in a nice price point, upgrade options, finish options. You must look past a name or what your favourite artist plays.

One of my favourite drummers plays a GMS Grand Master drums, but you don't see me running out and getting a GMS Grand Master kit.

I'm a gear head. I try everything I can get my hands on and form my own opinions. Not what some company white sheets say.



you see, this is what i don't understand. You seem to not be too impressed with kits in this price range in general...so how can a superstar or rockpro be that much better than the vision? playing high end kits, you can't really expect the visions to have 'warm bottom'....heck, just going by birch's nature as a wood, you can't really expect a ton of warmth to begin with.


I don't think those buying visions kits fit the bill of buying into marketing hype...even if you play a super high end kit, a lot of the reasons why you do IS because of marketing...believing what you want to belive probably has a tremendous amount of influence on how well your drumkit sounds. Price premiums get you a lot of options...but not neccessarily 'better' wood, because what good sounding wood/drums is to each respective drummer can be totally different.


if this is the case, return your high end kit ac, and get an ecx; its made of the same rock maple that is used in masters premium and custom lines, just not as nice of a grain quality (which has little or nothing to do with sound, and more with looks, which i guess is, like i've said before, why people pay more for drums.)


I think superstars sound great; the die cast hoops give them a very nice punch and fullness to the toms. I have not played the taye kit, but again, doubt its any more than just 'very competative' in this segment with regards to sound. The visions has a very nice tone to the toms, and is very close to sound to the sbx's of old. And the kick is the next rockstar kick: the definitive punch of kits in this price range. Throw in great hardware and quality craftsmanship and you have a very nice kit that holds its own against other kits, even outside of its price range.


A drumtec i knew a while back once told me something i will never forget...he had a set of rockstars...and he told me he could play the pepsi challenge, just because he could tune properly. and that is the defining factor. You can make a great kit sound great or crappy, it depends on the drummer. And THAT is something NO ONE can dispute, or counteract by spending thousands on a high end kit.


Visions is a standout amongst its class, and def a finalist in the best bang for buck in this price range.

Enjoy your kits guys, you have chosen wisely.

[weldrum]

I have no excuses or regrets. I pay top dollar and expect top quality. If I want a kit of lesser value for rehearsals, gigging, touring...whatever it might be, I would still probably look elsewhere. I have no problem with mid-level gear, none whatsoever, but I just prefer to shop wise. Get as high as pro features as I can for half the money or more.


I'm sure Your kit sounds as nice as It looks.

[Tabla_Man]

Yeah exactly. Everyone's complaining about the things that keeps this kit an intermediate, cost-effective kit. The basswood, the hoops, the ISS. If it was 100% birch, had 2.3 hoops and Optimounts, what would it be? A Session with hardware which would blow the cost through the roof.

True, but I think most people would have gone for the ratchet style tom arms infavor of 2.3mm hoops. The ISS mounts are fine, but I would say compared to what Tama is doing by offering die-cast hoops, Pearl should have taken a step up here.

Sure yamaha uses the 1.6 hoops, but their mounting system doesn't clamp onto the hoop either, as Tama and Pearl do.

[skywalker2]

True, but I think most people would have gone for the ratchet style tom arms infavor of 2.3mm hoops. The ISS mounts are fine, but I would say compared to what Tama is doing by offering die-cast hoops, Pearl should have taken a step up here.

Sure yamaha uses the 1.6 hoops, but their mounting system doesn't clamp onto the hoop either, as Tama and Pearl do.


what do you mean people would have gone for ratchet style tom arms for 2.3 mm hoops? you can still use the tom arms the visions comes with if you add 2.3's...you just either have to upgrade to opti's or get 2.3 mm hoop compatibale iss mounts. The tom arms is not the problem. While i do like yammies; i don't like yes mounts, i'll take a rim mount over one that touches the shell anyday.

Tama may use die cast hoops, which is great, but they also don't have the thicker floortom/bass combo, or a snare as nice as the visions. And unlike the visions, there is less birch in there than basswood...

[Tabla_Man]

what do you mean people would have gone for ratchet style tom arms for 2.3 mm hoops? you can still use the tom arms the visions comes with if you add 2.3's...you just either have to upgrade to opti's or get 2.3 mm hoop compatibale iss mounts. The tom arms is not the problem. While i do like yammies; i don't like yes mounts, i'll take a rim mount over one that touches the shell anyday.

Tama may use die cast hoops, which is great, but they also don't have the thicker floortom/bass combo, or a snare as nice as the visions. And unlike the visions, there is less birch in there than basswood...

I mean the omnilock tom arms aren't as important as having 2.3 mm hoops. If you had to choose one over the other, you take the 2.3 mm hoops.

I'm not a big Yamaha fan, but the mounts are drilled into a nodal point, IOW they do not effect the vibration of the drum.

As for Tama, they use an inner ply for the birch. the inner plies of a drum effect the characteristics of the sound more than the outer. The Vision uses an inner and outer ply of birch, the outer ply is for the finish. The Vision does have better grain patterns, because of the birch, but I think both kits have great finishes.

[skywalker2]

I mean the omnilock tom arms aren't as important as having 2.3 mm hoops. If you had to choose one over the other, you take the 2.3 mm hoops.

I'm not a big Yamaha fan, but the mounts are drilled into a nodal point, IOW they do not effect the vibration of the drum.

As for Tama, they use an inner ply for the birch. the inner plies of a drum effect the characteristics of the sound more than the outer. The Vision uses an inner and outer ply of birch, the outer ply is for the finish. The Vision does have better grain patterns, because of the birch, but I think both kits have great finishes.


actually no...this is the reason why many feel, that despite the iss and 1.6 hoops, why visions is superior; superstars DO NOT have an inner ply of birch, its a few plys of birch sandwiched between INNER and OUTER plys of basswood. Between the two, the visions is the only set that has this birc inner ply.

[trickg]

Yeah exactly. Everyone's complaining about the things that keeps this kit an intermediate, cost-effective kit. The basswood, the hoops, the ISS. If it was 100% birch, had 2.3 hoops and Optimounts, what would it be? A Session with hardware which would blow the cost through the roof.
The only thing that really keeps the kit "intermediate" is the marketing. Do you really think it costs Pearl that much more for a 2.3 mm hoop than it does for a 1.6 mm hoop? Have you ever compared the consumer costs for ISS Mounts and Optimounts? When you consider that Pearl has both produced in bulk, the cost to Pearl to put 2.3 mm hoops and Optimounts rather than 1.6 mm hoops and ISS mounts is negligible. All things being equal, I simply don't understand why Pearl insists on putting 1.6 mm hoops on any drum. I would GLADLY pay the price difference to have a stiffer hoop that offers better intonation characteristics.

Regarding the wood itself, do you realize that from a production standpoint, there is very little difference in the cost between birch and basswood? Don't believe me? Go check around the net and compare prices. There are some furniture makers who lump both basswood and birch into the same price category so it doesn't matter which wood you choose between the two, the cost of the product will be the same. In any case, from purely a cost perspective, the difference in cost to Pearl to make a kit from 100% birch as opposed to a blend of basswood and birch is probably not that much.

The point is, much of what these kits "are" or what we perceive them to be is a matter of marketing and hype and once you get past a certain quality point, most drums are far more similar than different.

[skywalker2]

in that case, why is an sbx so much more expensive than a visions w/hardware? is it the 100% birch shell? or the shell hardware or finishes that the sbx provides? in any case one of those things is driving up the cost...how much it would cost pearl to do something means nothing if it results in having to pay more on our end.

[jess7]

Umm...I wouldn't compare my Vision to a Reference or Masters. Like I said earlier, all of those "downgrades" is what keeps the Vision an intermediate kit. It's not better than high end gets. It's not supposed to be. It's cheaper. It sounds great and has great features for it's price, but it's not a Masters. It's not SUPPOSED to be for Christ's sake. Look at the price. What the hell do you expect? You're not gonna get a fully upgraded 100% birch/maple kit WITH awesome hardware for 800 bucks. It's just not possible. I don't see why anyone would even compare the two. Stop acting so surprised about the oh so horrible things about the Vision (sarcasm) and start comparing it to kits in it's class.


you got that right!!!

[The Dorian]

The only thing that really keeps the kit "intermediate" is the marketing. Do you really think it costs Pearl that much more for a 2.3 mm hoop than it does for a 1.6 mm hoop? Have you ever compared the consumer costs for ISS Mounts and Optimounts? When you consider that Pearl has both produced in bulk, the cost to Pearl to put 2.3 mm hoops and Optimounts rather than 1.6 mm hoops and ISS mounts is negligible. All things being equal, I simply don't understand why Pearl insists on putting 1.6 mm hoops on any drum. I would GLADLY pay the price difference to have a stiffer hoop that offers better intonation characteristics.

Regarding the wood itself, do you realize that from a production standpoint, there is very little difference in the cost between birch and basswood? Don't believe me? Go check around the net and compare prices. There are some furniture makers who lump both basswood and birch into the same price category so it doesn't matter which wood you choose between the two, the cost of the product will be the same. In any case, from purely a cost perspective, the difference in cost to Pearl to make a kit from 100% birch as opposed to a blend of basswood and birch is probably not that much.

The point is, much of what these kits "are" or what we perceive them to be is a matter of marketing and hype and once you get past a certain quality point, most drums are far more similar than different.

If this is the case, why are Sessions...and hell even Masters so much more expensive than Visions? I believe the Sessions used to be like $1200+ for just a shell pack (now the price has free fallen to like $800 or so?). A Vision shellpack is around $500. It obviously costs something for all those upgrades, right?

[trickg]

in that case, why is an sbx so much more expensive than a visions w/hardware? is it the 100% birch shell? or the shell hardware or finishes that the sbx provides? in any case one of those things is driving up the cost...how much it would cost pearl to do something means nothing if it results in having to pay more on our end.
There is a difference in the cost of production for an SBX than a Vision, but the difference in production costs are not reflected on a doller per dollar basis. That's where marketing and hype comes in. Let me give you an example. Let's look at shoes and look at several different brands.

Sketchers
Bass
Cole Hahn
Johston & Murphy

The Sketchers are going to run you about $50, give or take
The Bass are going to run $75-$100, give or take
The Cole Hahn are going to run $100-$150, give or take
The Johston & Murphy's will run $150-$300+, give or take, depending on the shoes.

Do you really think that there is a $250 difference in production or quality between the Johnston & Murphy's and the Sketcher or do you think that much of what goes into the cost of the shoes is more marketing and reputation?

I had a $140 pair of Cole Hahn kiltie buckle loafers that eventually wore out, and not wanting to spend that kind of money at the time, I replaced them with a pair of $50 Nunn Bush kiltie tassled loafers that I'm currently wearing. All things considered, the Nunn Bush are giving me more bang for the buck than the Cole Hahns ever did. They might not be quite as stylish and I do have to admit that the antiqued burgundy finish on the Cole Hahns looked nicer than the standard gloss black of the Nunn Bush's, but functionally they are the same and the Nunn Bush's seem to be holding up better than the Cole Hahsn did.

Anyway, why should that sort of thing be any different for drums? Is it really a matter of being a difference between cost and quality? Maybe a little, but it's much more about marketing in my opinion.

If you look at my signature you will see that I play an SMX. I could have afforded a Masters. I wanted an all-maple Pearl kit and when I looked at the price difference between the two and weighed that against the actual differences between the two, the SMX was the clear winner in my opinion. Why spend $1000 more when functionally I can get virtually the same thing for $1000 less? Marketing and hype.

[skywalker2]

If this is the case, why are Sessions...and hell even Masters so much more expensive than Visions? I believe the Sessions used to be like $1200+ for just a shell pack (now the price has free fallen to like $800 or so?). A Vision shellpack is around $500. It obviously costs something for all those upgrades, right?


this is exactly what i was thinking...at any rate, it does not matter how much it costs pearl to put add those features to the kit...they would charge US more for it regardless. imagine a visions with 2.3's and optimounts...now we can attack it for its lack of 100 % shell, and if we give it that, you now have a sessions with awesome hardware. Yeah, not 1200 otd. (and what would that make the poor ecx?)

i would like them to be included, but i can make do with optimounts afterward if i bought them.

[skywalker2]

There is a difference in the cost of production for an SBX than a Vision, but the difference in production costs are not reflected on a doller per dollar basis. That's where marketing and hype comes in. Let me give you an example. Let's look at shoes and look at several different brands.

Sketchers
Bass
Cole Hahn
Johston & Murphy

The Sketchers are going to run you about $50, give or take
The Bass are going to run $75-$100, give or take
The Cole Hahn are going to run $100-$150, give or take
The Johston & Murphy's will run $150-$300+, give or take, depending on the shoes.

Do you really think that there is a $250 difference in production or quality between the Johnston & Murphy's and the Sketcher or do you think that much of what goes into the cost of the shoes is more marketing and reputation?

I had a $140 pair of Cole Hahn kiltie buckle loafers that eventually wore out, and not wanting to spend that kind of money at the time, I replaced them with a pair of $50 Nunn Bush kilie tassled loafers that I'm currently wearing. All things considered, the Nunn Bush are giving me more bang for the buck than the Cole Hahns ever did. They might not be quite as stylish and I do have to admit that the antiqued burgundy finish on the Cole Hahns looked nicer than the standard gloss black of the Nunn Bush's, but functionally they are the same and the Nunn Bush's seem to be holding up better than the Cole Hahsn did.

Anyway, why should that sort of thing be any different for drums? Is it really a matter of being a difference between cost and quality? Maybe a little, but it's much more about marketing in my opinion.


marketing or not, that still wouldn't change the fact that regardless of how much it costs to add these features, the consumer still has to pay for it in the end.(just like your post above has proven.) Me? i'll grab some opti's after my inital purchase, and maybe latter on get some mastercasts since i prefer die cast hoops.

[The Dorian]

There is a difference in the cost of production for an SBX than a Vision, but the difference in production costs are not reflected on a doller per dollar basis. That's where marketing and hype comes in. Let me give you an example. Let's look at shoes and look at several different brands.

Sketchers
Bass
Cole Hahn
Johston & Murphy

The Sketchers are going to run you about $50, give or take
The Bass are going to run $75-$100, give or take
The Cole Hahn are going to run $100-$150, give or take
The Johston & Murphy's will run $150-$300+, give or take, depending on the shoes.

Do you really think that there is a $250 difference in production or quality between the Johnston & Murphy's and the Sketcher or do you think that much of what goes into the cost of the shoes is more marketing and reputation?

I had a $140 pair of Cole Hahn kiltie buckle loafers that eventually wore out, and not wanting to spend that kind of money at the time, I replaced them with a pair of $50 Nunn Bush kilie tassled loafers that I'm currently wearing. All things considered, the Nunn Bush are giving me more bang for the buck than the Cole Hahns ever did. They might not be quite as stylish and I do have to admit that the antiqued burgundy finish on the Cole Hahns looked nicer than the standard gloss black of the Nunn Bush's, but functionally they are the same and the Nunn Bush's seem to be holding up better than the Cole Hahsn did.

Anyway, why should that sort of thing be any different for drums? Is it really a matter of being a difference between cost and quality? Maybe a little, but it's much more about marketing in my opinion.

Well if what you're saying about the cost is true, we're practically getting a Masters when we buy our Vision?

I just don't see how it could be that simple...there's gotta be a hell of alot more in making a Masters than making an Export.

[skywalker2]

i totally understand what pat is saying...its just that i will never change what a company charges for their products.


having said that, the point still remains; if they were included standard, they would not cost what they do.

[trickg]

Well if what you're saying about the cost is true, we're practically getting a Masters when we buy our Vision?

I just don't see how it could be that simple...there's gotta be a hell of alot more in making a Masters than making an Export.
Well, ask yourself what exactly is the difference between a Masters and an Export?

1.) Wood/material used
2.) Finishes (This one is actually a BIG difference in terms of man-hours/dollars)
3.) Hoops
4.) Mounting
5.) Lugs/# of lugs
6.) Options

Let's examine these.

#1 - there is a sound difference between the woods, but when you look at it from a construction standpoint, even though they are different woods, they are made the same way, on the same machines and the bearing edges are virtually identical

#2 - The finishes are considerably less costly on an Export - they are either wrapped or they have the simple lacquer which is less time consuming and easier to finish than the more durable polyurethane. However, from a functional standpoint there is virtually no difference.

#3 - The cost differences between 1.6 mm hoops and 2.3 mm hoops is negligible, but there is a difference between triple flanged and die cast. Some would argue that from a sound standpoint the die cast hoops are actually inferior although most would agree they are better for tuning.

#4 - All things considered there is a negligible cost difference between ISS and Optimounts. I don't particularly care for ISS mounting from a functional standpoint

#5 - Mostly cosmetic unless you are using ginourmous lugs like DW, but the differences between Pearl's various bridge style lugs is probably not an audible difference. Nuff said.

#6 - Options. Here is another major cost difference. In order to have more options for the Masters, you have to set your tooling up for those options and you have to change your number of runs that you make on each additional option. Any time you have to change tooling it costs money in production downtime.

So really the biggest differences from a sound standpoint are the wood and the hoops. The rest of it is mostly cosmetic and the ability for the consumer to customize. Or at least that's the way I see it.

[trickg]

having said that, the point still remains; if they were included standard, they would not cost what they do.
I agree with this statement fully. You also have to consider Pearl's target demographic. Where do you think they make their money? They make it on their kit's marketed as intermediate. Their target demographic is someone who might wish for a better kit but can only afford a Vision/Export and is willing to compromise on certain details for the savings that it represents. Then, when Pearl has an aspiring player hooked and they finally have the money to upgrade, they make even more money by charging you even more for the small things such as finish and size options, "superior" woods, mounting and hoops. If they made all of their kits the same, there would never be a "need" to upgrade. ;)

Marketing.

[The Dorian]

Hmm...it makes sense. But what do you have to say about the price difference from a Vision to a Session? Session = alot less upgrades than masters, but still a fairly large price jump. The difference in cost should be minimal, correct? But it's several hundreds of dollars more.

[skywalker2]

your right drummerman, but what pat is saying is that the reason it costs more has little to do with how much it would cost pearl to add it on, and why they would charge more.


I think the sessions simply cost more because, like pat said, its marketing. People belive that 100% birch HAS to sound better and HAS to be more expensive. And that optimounts and 2.3's are nothing less than what you SHOULD expect in the sessions price range.

[skywalker2]

I agree with this statement fully. You also have to consider Pearl's target demographic. Where do you think they make their money? They make it on their kit's marketed as intermediate. Their target demographic is someone who might wish for a better kit but can only afford a Vision/Export and is willing to compromise on certain details for the savings that it represents. Then, when Pearl has an aspiring player hooked and they finally have the money to upgrade, they make even more money by charging you even more for the small things such as finish and size options, "superior" woods, mounting and hoops. If they made all of their kits the same, there would never be a "need" to upgrade. ;)

Marketing.


true, i guess we are all subject to marketing, but thats not a bad thing. (ronnin and i got into it in another thread, because even though i offered a balanced view between to competative kits, my reasons for choosing the latter were no doubt, according to him ofcourse, the subject of 'marketing'. funny thing is that i have yet to see pearl downplay the visions weakpoints to make a strong case for itself. But whatever we can decide for oursleves.)

i guess that would mean that your maple smx could have probably cost a little less huh pat? ;)

[Tabla_Man]

Well if what you're saying about the cost is true, we're practically getting a Masters when we buy our Vision?

I just don't see how it could be that simple...there's gotta be a hell of alot more in making a Masters than making an Export.

The labor costs on a Masters is significantly more than on an Export/Vision, etc.

This is why Masterworks is so dang expensive, there are no stock shells to select from, which results in alot more hours of labor, which results in higher cost.

But comparing Vision to Masters, they can probably pump out about 3 or 4 more Vision stock shells for every 1 Masters shell of the same size/dimentions, that means higher cost.

[skywalker2]

i do agree that the masters probably has more expensive labor costs, but throwing masterworks in the mix is a little different, even they are a different animal than the regular masters series and the same concept applies to even comparing those two.

[trickg]

But comparing Vision to Masters, they can probably pump out about 3 or 4 more Vision stock shells for every 1 Masters shell of the same size/dimentions, that means higher cost.
Are you talking about that from a an unfinished shell construction standpoint or a finished shell? If you are talking about it as being unfinished, the amount of time it takes to make the shell is virtually the same for all shells. They simply feed the veneer plies into the machines and the machines take care of the rest.

The biggest difference in labor costs is for the finish of the Masters/Masterworks. It's my understanding that the poly finish they use on those takes considerably more steps and more time to complete which is one of the biggest factors in the cost difference.

[Tabla_Man]

Are you talking about that from a an unfinished shell construction standpoint or a finished shell? If you are talking about it as being unfinished, the amount of time it takes to make the shell is virtually the same for all shells. They simply feed the veneer plies into the machines and the machines take care of the rest.

The biggest difference in labor costs is for the finish of the Masters/Masterworks. It's my understanding that the poly finish they use on those takes considerably more steps and more time to complete which is one of the biggest factors in the cost difference.

Start to finish the manufacturing process is much cheaper for the Vision/Export. While the quality is great for drums in that price range, they don't go through near the riggorus inspection process that a Masters kit does. They could not produce the amount of drums to feed the market in that price range if they did.

I don't have all the exact details, but it is simply less total hours of labor for those kits. Lower production cost, lower markup. Pearl makes their profit in these lines by volume, not by markup.

[trickg]

While the quality is great for drums in that price range, they don't go through near the riggorus inspection process that a Masters kit does. They could not produce the amount of drums to feed the market in that price range if they did.

I don't have all the exact details, but it is simply less total hours of labor for those kits. Lower production cost, lower markup. Pearl makes their profit in these lines by volume, not by markup.
What exactly is the inspection process for the drums? In terms of production costs, aside from certain materials being more expensive than others, what exactly is the difference between a Vision and a Masters other than the finish? They all have hoops, they all have lugs, they all have heads (Masters uses name brand heads whereas lesser drums use ProTones - still the cost is negligible) they all need to be assembled....where is the difference in production costs other than the finish and difference in cost of raw materials? Even if you look at the difference in cost between brass swivel nuts and stainless T-rods as opposed to standard swivel nuts and T-Rods, Pearl buys those materials in such bulk that again, the difference in actual costs is negligible and none of those things translates to better sound when comparing a Masters to a Session.

While the production costs may in fact be somewhat lower for say a Vision or Export as opposed to a Masters, I agree with you that Pearl makes their profits on those lines by volume because the markup is indeed lower - MUCH lower, which is the point I have been trying to make all along. Again, those kits are the bread and butter for Pearl - that's where they make their real money.

[skywalker2]

word trick!

[trickg]

Hey guys - sorry I got off on such a tangent with the whole production comparisons thing.

Getting back to the subject of the sound and value of the Vision, other than the 1.6 mm hoops (which is really only a personal complaint of mine) I think that Pearl really hit the mark with the Vision kit design and although I know they have been a staple of the Pearl line for quite some time, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Export phased out and replaced by the Vision - sort of like how the SMX was replaced by the MCX and ECX - two kits that are virtually the same except for the hoops and mounting hardware.

I have yet to hear a Vision but most reports seem to say that they are indeed some nice sounding drums. I can't wait to give them a shot.

[skywalker2]

they do sound very nice actually, probably the closest thing you can get to an sbx now, without actually getting an sbx.

Don't worry about going off man, the information was good and i enjoyed all the posts.