Thanks To : International Connection Beleuchtung.Fernstudiumde.Com Adverseremortgage

Since the 1970s I have never bought anything but Hohner. Of the Hohner chromatics, I’ve owned several Super Chromonicas (270), a few Super 64 Chromonicas, and recently tried out the Super Chromonica Deluxe. This is my very first Suzuki.

I think it is important to compare these Hohners with the Suzuki, since you are likely considering the Super Chromonica, which is by and large the most purchased Chromonica given its long history and relatively inexpensive price (also assuming 12 holes are a must, and pretty much, 12 holes is the choice most players will make). And because, to my surprise and delight, the Suzuki is pretty much a dead-ringer for a 12 hole version of the Super 64.

Structurally, and price-wise, the Hohner 270 is at the low end out of the above Hohner models. The body is made of wood, and the reed plates are nailed to the comb (chance for introducing leaks, impossible to take off the reed plates and tweek windsavers, maybe something you can’t imagine doing but for some, important). The covers are screwed into the harmonica, and I would say that while I have never found the 270 to be particularly leaky, my belief is that of the three I own, if there were to be a leaky one, this would be it based on these characteristics. And compared to the other two Hohners, it does require a bit more work to play (leaks “steal” air channeled to vibrate reeds, making harmonicas less efficient and requiring more breath from the player). The playing holes are square, and less comfortable. However, the 270 has a wonderful slider, tone, and is generally robust (I have one that is 15 or so years old in playable condition), and has a nearly 100 year proven design. I’ve played this machine at shows recently, so it’s not like I avoid it. At the time of this writing, expect to pay around $125 to $130 for the 270.

At the other end of the spectrum of what I own is the Hohner Super 64. The Super 64 has a much more solid feel to it compared to the Super Chromonica. The reedplates are screwed in, not nailed. The reedplates are also thicker, and generally the construction is much closer to a fully professional, high end harmonica. The covers are screwed in like the 270, but the covers are much more a solid part of the harmonica than on the 270, it’s almost like the Super 64 was carved out of one big solid piece of metal — they extend all the way to the end of the comb, and are curved — a joy to hold. It’s gorgeous to play, easy to get reeds vibrating, no evidence of leaks, and the slider is not bad (but I like the 270 a bit better, actually). The holes are round, not square, and the harmonica is more comfortable to the mouth because of this and a more substantial area to plant your lips. It is about $100 more than the 270 (though it has 4 more holes, that alone would not account for the price difference, you are also paying for quality). If I were playing a classical piece that required even tone across the entire harmonica (from high notes to low), I’d turn to the Super 64 versus the 270.

Somewhere in the middle between the 270 and the Super 64 is the 12 hole Super Chromonica Deluxe, which has screwed in, thicker plates, and a round holed mouthpiece comparable to the Super 64, and better than the 270. The same covers are used as on the 270, which makes it feel less “solid” overall than the Super 64, but also identical to hold as the 270. But the sound is higher quality than the 270 I feel, more comparable to the Super 64. It’s just a better 270, in a nutshell, and a joy to play. Price is $50 to $60 more than the 270.

So now comes this Suzuki 12 hole. It came in a solid plastic carrying case, just like all the Hohners do. They added a cleaning cloth, which only the Super 64 comes with, and was a nice touch. When I picked it up and put it to my mouth, I immediately felt that this was a Super 64 (but with only 12 holes, not 16 of course), and a much higher quality instrument than the 270 in terms of construction. But with a better mouthpiece (round holes like the Super 64, but a bigger area to plant the lips). In short, this has to be the most comfortable mouthpiece I have ever played.

The slider was of an extremely high quality, and I issued rapid trills with it that were highly accurate and just delightful to play. This harp has the best slider I have ever experienced. The tone was very nice, and I could play 11th and 12th hole without any difficulty. I have owned 270s which were very difficult to play holes 11 and 12 on (though good technique is and important factor here, so you can’t always blame the harmonica). The Super 64 and the Super Chromonica deluxe also respond well in holes 11 or 12, and I would say the quality of sound is comparable to these two.

So, my first impression is “I just bought a Super 64/Super Chromonica Deluxe quality harp with 12 holes, for the much less expensive price of a Super Chromonica 270.” Wow!

So, I hate to say it Hohner, but Suzuki, at first impression, offers a better product compared to 270, at about the same price. It’s also competitive with, and less expensive than, the Super Chromonica Deluxe, plus it feels more solid and has a more comfortable mouthpiece. It feels like a 12 hole Super 64, and has attributes of its construction that make it more solid, probably more airtight, and more comfortable to play than the Super Chromonica Deluxe, but about $50 dollars less expensive.

I’d hands down pick this over a Hohner 270, no question. If you love the Super 64, you’ll want to buy one of these if you are looking for a harp that is smaller and easier to hold, but has similar construction and quality. If you are thinking of Super 64 quality but only need 12 holes, try out this harp. $100 less is a good thing. However, if you love the Super Chromonica and swear on Hohners but want more quality, then check out the Super Chromonica Deluxe, but do know it will cost you more to own one.

Advice:

– First time Chromonica buyer: Buy what you can afford, as any of these harps would be good.

– Looking to upgrade from Super Chromonica: Super Chromonica Deluxe or this Suzuki, with the Suzuki being less expensive and quite possible more comfortable to play. Super Chromonica Deluxe has the same shape, covers, and slider as a 270 so if you really feel comfortable with the 270, the deluxe may be a great upgrade and worth the extra cost.

– Need one octave below middle C: Super 64, or the 16 hole version of the Suzuki (also sold by Amazon) might be an option.

– Love the Super 64 but want a smaller and/or far less expensive harp with 3 octaves: definitely check out the Suzuki models.

In short, I’m awfully impressed by the construction, quality, and overall value so far.

If a harmonica can be described as luxurious, the new Suzuki Chromatix Series surely qualify. These 12, 14 and 16 hole harmonicas are gorgeous to look at, substantial to hold and a pleasure to play. Comfortable and completely air tight, the Chromatix Series is specially designed for professionals and hand constructed by skilled workers . . . one at a time. Features include ergonomically designed mouthpiece, precise and smooth slide mechanism, ABS comb, Phosphor Bronze reed plates and chrome plated covers. Exquisite attention to detail make these harps the most airtight chromatics ever produced by a major manufacturer. Play one once to hear and feel the difference. Their smooth tone production and quick response will allow you to advance you. more.

Oxygen 61 gives even the most serious players a 5-octave keyboard they can love, complete with a built-in USB MIDI interface and tons of controls. A total of 35 controllers–including 9 sliders, 8 knobs and 15 buttons–can easily map to any MIDI-assignable parameters in your hardware and software rig. While easy to program, the Oxygen 61’s complete MIDI implementation will also allow you to go as deep as you want to go. Store 10 different setups in on-board non-volatile memory, plus manage an infinite number with our free Enigma software for Mac and PC. Bus-powered operation and a weight of just 7 lbs. means that you can use the Oxygen 61 anywhere your computer goes.. more.

6-ft. mini stereo dubbing cord commonly used with speakers and other audio devices. 3.5mm stereo male to male.. more.

Stereo Audio 200i Advanced Performance Audio Cable – 2 m. pair – 6.56 ft.. more.

Closed-Type High-Definition DJ Headphones (sold only in sets of 5 pcs). more.

I had to return it. It was not large enough for my 17″ laptop–Toshiba Sattelite P-25. Check the dimensions of your laptop before you buy, not all 17″ laptops will fit based on my experience.

Other than that I think I would have loved this bag.

The M-Audio Mobile Laptop Studio Bag is a multipurpose carrying case for your laptop and studio essentials. Designed for musicians on the go, the Studio Bag is the safe way to transport portable music gear. Its amply padded compartments accommodate laptops (up to 17″), 12″ vinyl records, audio interfaces, MIDI controllers like the Trigger Finger and all of your cables. With numerous pockets, roadworthy construction and an adjustable strap, the Mobile Laptop Studio Bag makes it easy to bring your studio wherever life takes you.. more.

Many audiophiles and home theater enthusiasts argue that DTS surround sound formats can deliver higher quality audio in comparison to their corresponding Dolby formats, with improved dynamic range, better representation of subtle detail in audio content, and improved signal-to-noise ratio.

Partly, this reasoning arises because DTS surround sound is usually encoded at a higher data rate than Dolby Digital and its lineup of associated formats.

This is more than understandable. We are dealing with lossy compression techniques. A higher bit-rate for the same format should normally implies superior sound during playback, as less compression in the encoding process should result in a better representation of the original sound source.

In this Dolby vs DTS debate, DTS people argue that they are after ’sonic perfection, not space consumption’ – hence the higher bit rate and lower compression.

Dolby would counteract that their codec is more efficient and therefore, it can run at a lower bit rate.

In other words, one cannot simply draw conclusion on sound quality based on raw bit rates and compression figures alone; it also depends on how well designed are the encoding and decoding algorithms. And this makes sense too, but then…

There are relatively big differences in raw bit rates and compression levels when comparing Dolby vs DTS sound formats, implying a too wide a difference in codec efficiency – about 3 times as much – in favor of Dolby. Is it possible that Dolby sound formats achieve this level of codec efficiency?

The truth is that when dealing with different sound formats, the whole equation starts to get extremely complicated; it is not that easy to define what makes better sound.

This Dolby vs DTS is a much debated issue, but in reality is it true that one is better than the other?

To understand why this Dolby vs DTS surround sound controversy, it is necessary to have an understanding of the main differences between these formats. In particular, there are significant differences in bit-rate and compression levels as applicable to Dolby Digital and DTS Digital Surround. There are also important differences in the way these formats are implemented in movie house applications and in home entertainment.

It is not the scope of this write-up to go into these details; for the relevant information on the differences between Dolby and DTS, please read the full article appearing on Practical Home Theater Guide at http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/dolby-vs-dts.html.

At the same time, it is important to realize that these same differences between these two formats have actually given rise to this Dolby vs DTS controversy.

So where does this Dolby vs DTS debate leads? Sound quality is an extremely subjective issue and therefore it is not easy to define what constitutes better sound. Opinions vary when comparing Dolby vs DTS and range from ‘DTS is better’ to ‘Dolby Digital and DTS Surround Sound are pretty much the same’.

…and what do we say about this Dolby vs DTS debate?

Both Dolby Digital and DTS Surround are capable of achieving similar results in delivering surround sound, even though the lower compression and higher bit-rate of DTS Digital Surround should theoretically yield apparent benefits in sound quality.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact that these two formats make use of different coding schemes and syntax to perceptually compress audio.

This means that efficiency in terms of data utilization between these two formats is different. Therefore, direct comparison of the respective Dolby and DTS sound formats based solely on their raw bit rates, cannot be taken as an objective measure of sound quality.

Thus, while it is objectively possible to compare the resultant sound quality for the same audio format encoded at different bit rates, say in a movie house application and in home entertainment, yet it is not so straightforward when dealing with different formats.

Rather, for identically sourced audio content, it would be much easier for the listener during Dolby vs DTS ‘blind’ listening tests to notice a change in sound quality when changing the playback equipment between different brands, than when changing from Dolby to DTS. In other words, you need a thoroughly refined audio playback setup to bring out that subtle difference in sound quality between these two formats.

(c) 2004/2007 http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com. All rights reserved

Recommend : Auto Parts Garmingps Calidabekleidung

Recommend : Esqbymovado Landscapes.Estudiantis.Com

Great cable and got it at a really good price.

Connectivity: Connector HDDB15 15-pin (M/M) Connector 3.5 mm stereo audio (M/M). more.