DATE: Sun, 09 Jan 1994 19:32:22 CST From: Winslow Yerxa <76450.32~ompuServe.COM> Subject: Chrometta 255 vs 270
John Pritchard writes:
Can some one tell me the difference between the Super Chromonica No 270 and the Chrometta No 255.
The Chrometta is less expensive, and will wear out much sooner (that's been my experience, anyway).
Aside from that, they have a nice, mellow tone that women especially seem to comment on - women have much better high frequency hearing than men, and sometimes find the 270 - and harmonicas in general - a little shrill.
This might have something to do with the unique mouthpiece construction on the Chrometta. On a 270 - and most other chromatics - the mouthpiece is metal, and a separate part. Two screws hold the mouthpiece, a two-part slide trought, and the slide itself, fastened to the comb in a four-layer metal sandwich.
With the Chrometta, the mouthpiece is part of the plastic comb, and the slide is inserted into a slit in this one-piece combination. This is mechanically much simpler, and eliminates the problem of screwing on the assembly nice and tight to eliminate air leaks, only to find that the slide won't move. It may also contribute to the sweet tone. (On the down side, you can't adjust the tightness at all, and some find the Chrometta too leaky for their liking.)
I have a couple of old Chrometta 8's that I used to use as pocket chromatics, back when they were cheap. Now I just carry a 270, as I got frustrated with only 2 octaves, and find the Chrometta 12's not worth the small price difference.
Recently I saw William Clarke play, and he had a Bb 270 that he played in C, and a C Chrometta that he played in D. Both sounded great, and he expressed satisfaction with them.
