Samick Pianos

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Daniel Pelletier wrote:

> I have heard repeatedly on this and the rec.music-makers.piano list that
> smaller Korean pianos ( Samick has been mentioned ) are inferior and may
> not last past a generation.  Well, of course, there is a Samick upright
> sitting in my living room.  I have no idea how it got there, but there
> it is.  My questions are:
>
> What is inferior about the piano?
> What is likely to deteriorate over time?
> What should I look out for (both by physical inspection and change in
> sound)?
> Is there anything that I can do from a maintenance standpoint that will
> delay the deterioration of the piano?
>
> Dan

---------------------------------------------------------

Dan,

Interesting question.

Without going into any specifics as to particular brands -- Since I am no longer involved in field service, I'm not up on
late model brand and model materials and assembly details. --  there are some general things that separate a so-called
"low-end" piano from a so-called "high-end" piano.

Assuming that a certain amount of fixed costs are a given, there are really only three ways a manufacturer can reduce the
cost of a piano:

Design:  Design can influence the cost of a piano in several ways. There are a number of ways that a philosophy of "Design
for Manufacturing" can lower the cost of an instrument. Pianos like Steinway and Baldwin press their rim assemblies as a
single unit. That is, the inner and outer rims are pressed together on a single press in one operation. This means that all
belly work, soundboard and plate installation, stringing, etc., must be done with the outer rim in place. Many assembly
tasks, like belly rail and belly brace installation, soundboard fitting, plate installation, stringing, etc., are made
somewhat difficult as a result. Most, if not all, Asian pianos use a different style of assembly. The inner and outer rims
are pressed separately. This way the entire acoustical structure can be assembled without the interference of the outer rim.
The labor savings extend through the whole piano building process, even down to finishing. Almost all finishing work can be
done before final assembly. With the former process much of the assembly work must be done around and already finished rim.

One system is not inherently superior to the other. It's simply a question of design. The proponents of the unitized rim
assembly claim that their rims are superior because they are made as a single unit and therefore somehow form a more solid
and rigid structure. Nice sounding argument until you remember that the individual rim laminations are simply held together
by glue. When the two rim sections are made separately and later joined, they are still held together by glue.

Manufacturing Labor Costs:  More difficult assembly tasks require not just more time, but a more highly trained, hence more
costly, work force as well. Manufacturers of low-cost pianos have usually invested millions of dollars (yen, won, what have
you) in manufacturing machinery to reduce the level of skill required by the workers as well as to reduce the number of labor
hours invested in each instrument.

At first blush, it might seem that low-cost pianos would be built with looser machining tolerances, but this is not the case.
Fast assembly demands higher precision components. There is no time in the process for hand fitting anything. High-end pianos
generally depend on a certain amount of hand work to be certain everything fits and works well. A worker assembling a certain
part knows what to do if that part doesn’t fit. With low-cost manufacturing processes, if something doesn't fit, then it
doesn't fit and the line goes on.

In theory, with a high-end piano it would seem that more effort would be expended on things like action fitting, regulating,
etc. Sadly, this is often not the case. Most high-end pianos need quite a lot of "pre-sale" servicing. In theory, at least,
there should be enough gross profit built into the sale to allow the dealer to have this type of work done. Sometimes this
process works, sometimes not. It depends on the philosophy of the dealer and the quality of service available in his/her
area. With a low-end piano, it's unlikely that much of any of this work will be done.

Parts and Materials Costs:  All pianos (of a given style) contain basically the same components. They all have cast iron
plates. They all have wood rims (speaking of grand pianos, now). They all have actions. It is less costly (per unit) to make
20,000 cast plates of identical design than it is to make 1,000 of them. These per-unit cost savings come at no sacrifice in
piano quality. Rims are another matter. Steinway presses its rims from sawn, hard-maple veneers. An exacting and expensive
process. Most Asian pianos use what is euphemistically referred to as “select hardwood.” There are a variety of woods that
fall into this category. They are distinguished by their low cost and by their ease of bending. There are several reasons for
this. Where Steinway has to leave their hard maple rim in the press for a day or so, and then let it “season” for months, the
Asian builder can take their rims out of the RF heated press after a few minutes and be building the piano not long after
that.

Builders like Steinway and Baldwin tend to use solid hardwoods where a low-cost builder might use a veneered, or simply
stained, piece. The high-end builder will probably use a lumber-core lid panel where the low-cost builder would use mdf or
particleboard. Builders like Steinway air dry the lumber that goes into their pianos, sometimes for several years. Low-cost
piano builders make extensive use of high-speed drying kilns.

So, these are just a few of the areas where your Samick is going to be different from its more costly brothers. I’d like to
say that much more acoustic design work had gone into the more expensive pianos, but this is not necessarily the case. The
basic acoustic design of most of the high-end pianos being built today dates back decades, if not a century or so. And the
basic acoustic design of most of the low-end pianos being built today can be traced back to pianos built during the early
part of this century. There may not be much difference.

In a nutshell, the Samick will have been assembled using less inexpensive woods that may or may not have been adequately
dried, materials that may have been chosen on a cost basis rather than a performance basis, and assembled very rapidly and
with a minimum amount of skilled hand labor. Some companies, like Yamaha and Kauai have become masters at this process.
Others, like Samick, are still learning.

Samick pianos have come a long way in the past 15 years. Your piano may need somewhat more servicing early on than you would
like to give it, but it can probably be made to give you decent performance for the length of its expected life span. Which
brings up my last point. When the day comes that it has finally given its all, it is unlikely that it will be worth
rebuilding. For two reasons. The first is economic. It will probably cost more to rebuild it than to replace it. Second,
remember those materials I was talking about? They may not be up to the rigors of rebuilding.

And, again, I ramble. Hope this didn’t raise more questions than it answered.

Regards,

Del