Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Chromatic Comparo

["G. E. Popenoe" <gpopenoe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks,

I've used the Super 64 professionally going back to the eighties with  
pretty good success . The last one, however, didn't have the sound  
quality of the previous ones so I thought I might look into the X.

I don't care how cool it looks as long as it plays well. So far, I  
have not heard a lot of compeling reasons to spend the extra bucks.

BTW, some one gave me a Chrometta. While the tone is not great, I love  
the action. Playing the Super 64 for me is like playing a Martin  
guitar. The Chrometta is slick like a Stratocaster.

I've not tried the CX harps but heard mostly positive comments. I just  
wish they came with 12 holes.

Gary Popenoe

On Feb 23, 2008, at 5:15 PM, EGS1217@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Gary:
>
> I don't know a lot of people who play the Super 64X, though I'm sure  
> there are quite a few who attend the Conventions..but I know many  
> more for whom the Super 64 is their axe of choice, including me.   
> (At least it was until I discovered the CX-12's which are just plain  
> fun to play).  It still is my main instrument, especially when I  
> want the 4 octaves. Very few people are unhappy with their Super  
> 64's that I know of.  I've been curious about the 64x, but not at  
> such a big difference in cost.  Since I really do like the  
> silverplating of the Super 64 mouthpiece...which for me does make  
> the playing a lot smoother and easier, it would make no sense to  
> switch to a more expensive instrument without the features I love. I  
> now have three of them.
>
> However ONE vote from a player of the quality/level of a Slim  
> Heilpern far outweighs my amateur status. When it comes to  
> chromatics, you really should take this particular question to a  
> chromatic site...where you'll have a wider range of responses.
>
> Just my .02 cents.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> "Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:19:31 -0800
> From: "G. E. Popenoe" <gpopenoe@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Chromatic Comparo
> To: "Slim Heilpern" <slim@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID:
>     <e5860a7a0802231319j45b6e11dhcae8c1cc68c4033f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> That's right. I remember you holding an X  in your website photo.  
> The tracks
> sounded good. So now the vote is three to  one against. Any other  
> votes out
> there please chime in. I'm coming up on bonus time and I may be able  
> to
> splurge.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Slim Heilpern <slim@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
>
> > I would put a slightly different spin on this. I own both and I  
> think
> > there is a real difference -- whether it is worth the price  
> difference
> > would depend on how much money you have lying around and which one  
> you
> > happen to like best. I know there are folks who actually prefer  
> the 64
> > over the 64x (regardless of price).
> >
> > I really like the aesthetics of the 64x, not just the way it  
> looks, but
> > the way it feels and sounds when I'm playing it. I think the bottom
> > octave is stronger on the 64x. It is also more buzzy down there (I
> > happen to like that). The mouth piece is more rounded (which I  
> prefer),
> > and the instrument is more photogenic to my eye. So, it would  
> depend on
> > individual taste as well as how important  the extra $100 or so is  
> to you.
> >
> > - Slim.
> >
> > www.slidemanslim.com
> >
> > Joe and Cass Leone wrote:
> > > The X isn't worth the extra tariff.
> > > smo-joe
> > >
> > > On Feb 23, 2008, at 2:49 AM, G. E. Popenoe wrote:
> > >
> >  >> Any A/B comparison experience between the Super 64 and the  
> Super64 X
> > >> would be appreciated.  Is the X worth the extra coin?
> > >>
> > >> I've always played the Super 64.
> > >>
> > >> Gary Popenoe"
> > >> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters.