Hello all 
Been a while since I posted here.
I had a question…if you could pick between just a Dixon Low D and a Susato Low D, which would you pick, and why? I tried a Susato at a Celtic Festival here in town, and was amazed by it’s tone and responsiveness, but I have a Dixon High D and wondered if I’d like the Dixon Low better. Any suggestions? Or are there any other Low D’s in that price range that might be even better? Thanks for the help!
Jim
The Dixon is a softer / quiter instrument in the Low D with a bit more “chiff”. The Susato is more robust and has a stronger low D note (bell note) and is more “pure” sounding. Both are excellent choices… People swear by both. You have more of a chance of being heard in a session with a Susato - but most people who want to play a tenor instrument in a session learn the flute…
I have to say I really love my Dixon low D. It has a great tone, and just sounds beautiful.
I’ve never touched a Susato, tho. So I can’t really compare, just offer my praise for the Dixon.
I can’t compare to the Dixon, but I find that the Susato low D has a very difficult reach and the holes for the lower hand are tricky to cover.
I bought both and gave away the Susato.
Go for the DIXON!! I like them so much better than Susatos. They’re sweeter, easier to play, softer tone wich is a hundred times nicer to listen to than that recorderish hnnnnnngggggg (or was it hhhhhrrrrrrng Bloomie??). The Dixon’s the way to go. But as it’s a little bit quiet you probably would’nt take it to a session, but then there are few low’s you’d ever play sessions with. It’s just not a session instrument.
maybe this will help aswell, difference in hole spacing http://www.songsea.com/lowwhisfingchart.html the dixon isn’t on here, but she has the smallest spacing of the lot.
See?!? Somebody understands what that hrrrng is in the sound of Susato. Good man, Henke.
I get a hrrrrngg on my Susato C.
Also Akuma12, you could check Bloomfield’s “Low D” comparison post and hear the magic.
Hrrrrng is something bad right???
It is for me anyway. Absolutely can’t stand the Susato sound.
It’s a matter of taste, of course… but I agree.
Susatos sound too much like recorders. If you want to sound like a whistle player, get the Dixon. Then save up for a Copeland or an Overton.
dont know about the susato… but u will not regret getting a dixon.
beautiful sound, fun and easy to play…
Overton
OK, so I know that wasn’t one of the choices, so Dixon, even if it is on the quieter side. Unless you’ve got Godzilla’s own reach - then it won’t matter. But from my POV the S***** has truly horrendous finger reach issues.
Ok, so I’ve nixed the idea of the Susato, but after hearing Bloomfield’s demonstration of the Kerry Low D, how would you compare the Dixon and the Kerry? I know the Kerry isn’t tuneable, but I loved the sound. Any more opinions?
Jim
The good thing about the Kerry is that it’s cheap. Also the reach is easy compared to many other low Ds (particularly the Susato). On the other hand, the holes are quite large. As for the sound, that varies. Tyghress got one that isn’t nearly as nice sounding as mine (in fact, she is trying to bribe my Kerry out of me). Ultimately, though, you are compromising with the Kerry. If you just want to try a low D and aren’t sure whether you are going to pursue it, the Kerry is a good choice (or if you’ll play it twice a year). If you are serious about learning the low D, do yourself a favor and don’t mess around: Get an Overton right away. You’ll save some money, too, because you’ll get the Overton eventually anyway.
If there is a way to borrow a low D or two first to try, that’s best.
I wish I knew some whistlers in my area The only whistles I’ve seen even sold around here are original Clarke’s and Generations. I’m not a professional player by any means…don’t even play outside my apartment for fear of embarrasment, so I think I may take your word for it and go with the Kerry. My only reason for not going Dixon is that, while I do like my High D Dixon, it’s almost got too much whine to it. Can’t really think of any other way to describe it Thanks for the advice.
Jim