<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16711" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
SPAN.emailstyle19 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
SPAN.EmailStyle190 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=white>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=davidlovepianos@comcast.net href="">David Love</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org
href="">'College and University Technicians'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CAUT] uprights</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Well, I didn’t say
that exactly, although I think the U5 is a better made piano with higher
manufacturing standards than the K52 at present. Easier to service in an
institutional setting where techs are often pressed for time and working for
discounted rates is a consideration, in my view. I would not want to be
tuning pianos 4-5 times a year that render poorly for ½ my normal rate—call me
selfish. Poor rendering, btw, is one aspect of quality. Steinway
uprights (and Bostons for that matter) have that problem. Moreover, I
don’t see a Steinway K52 outlasting a U5 and when time comes for replacing
parts, they are easier, faster and less expensive to replace on a U5 as
manufacturing is more consistent and service support is better.
When you put that along side the price differential I think that choice
would be fairly easy.
</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have to admit being completely unfamiliar with
the U5. In fact, I was unaware until today that it existed. I've
only seen the U1s, U3s, P-whatevers and T-series Yamahas. However, when I
see 50 and 60 and 100 year old Yamahas that have held up as well as the 50, 60
and 100 year old Steinway verticals I've cared for over the years,
I'll be convinced. But I've seen too many Yamaha smiling keybeds, and real
problems with 30 year old pianos to allow me to think it
possible. Whatever that material is the Yamaha cabinet is
made of seems to start "failing" after a while. Rendering with
30 year old Yamahas is much worse in my experience than rendering with 50 year
old Steinway verticals. I really struggle with tuning older Yamaha
P verticals, and fear breaking a bass string with every nudge of the tuning
hammer. That's just when the Steinways are getting broken in good.
I've rarely needed to replace a string on a 45/1098.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You have to approach the Steinway
tuning differently than you do the Yamaha. You put what amounts
to a time limit on yourself, get the tuning close, and close it up.
You don't expect the Steinway to sound like the muffled, clinically pure Yamaha,
and as long as your octaves and unisons are stable, its fine. It has
a lot more forgiveness for dirty tuning than does the Yamaha, which will sound
perfectly horrid when it starts coming out of tune. In my opinion, the
Yamaha requires a finer tuning to sound good than does the
Steinway.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When I was new to this craft, I really wanted to
like the Yamaha/Kawai (or Boston, for that matter) products. I am
from a frugal family, which switched to Japanese autos in the
1980s and wanted to believe that the Japanese could build something
equally valuable for less than 1/2 the money. But what I've seen happen in
university practice rooms, churches and homes alike have sold me on the life
expectancy of the Steinway product. Later, I learned
that genuinely comparable Japanese pianos actually cost prohibitively more
than the Steinway. That's a tough sale here. Likewise, we've switched back
to American autos for similar reasons (when I had to pay $1200 to replace a
headgasket, and later nearly $500 for a starter plus nearly $200
for installation for a Japanese vehicle, that got my attention. I used
to pay $40 for the starter and install it myself in 30 minutes on American
cars.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With all due respect, "Easier to service in an
institutional setting where techs are often pressed for time and working for
discounted rates is a consideration" should not be a consideration in my
view. The value the institution gets for its invested dollars over the
long term is the primary goal, and a skilled technician should be capable
of tuning pianos that require more than a beginner's skill. The
discounted rate should reflect little more than the difference in the
number of tunings that can be achieved without having to drive from one to the
next in my view. That shouldn't mean 1/2 a normal rate. If it is,
let the price-beater tooner have it, thinks me, and see if he can tune the
Steinways. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It isn't our responsibility to compensate for an
institution's chronic underfunding of maintenance. Else we become
enablers to chronic mismanagement. It is our responsibility to build a
repertoire of skills, make them available to the institution, and if they don't
want to pay a higher price for a higher repertoire of skills, let them
get what they are willing to pay for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And, with respect to replacing parts on the Yamaha
as being easier and less expensive, I have little experience, except hearsay -
posts to this list - with replacing parts on Yamahas. And that hearsay is
that Yamaha hammers are 150% of the cost of Steinway hammers. I don't know
for myself, but that is my recollection of posts from some time back. I
can only assume that is not uncommon with Yamaha pricing? And we don't
know whether Yamaha parts in 100 years will be available for the pianos made
today. And neither do we know if a Yamaha made today will be worth
spending any money on parts when it comes that time. The more commonly
sold instruments are not the S4, S6, or CFIIIS(is that the current model?), so
it is impossible to compare apples to apples.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Respectfully,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jeff</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>