<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> ASU has been purchasing U1s for quite some time now (over 30) years. We have been happy with them. The cabinets put up with abuse and clean up very well. The actions are workhorses that go just keep going. They tune up rather quickly, with is a big deal when you are in a hurry – aren’t we all.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My biggest complaint has been with the tuning stability across the break. It doesn’t take much of a seasonal change to make that F2-F3 octave really ugly. I have also notice, the 15 we bought about 10 years ago do not tune up as easily (string rendering/pin movement) as the earlier versions. I also would prefer a little richer tone.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We purchased 3 Schimmel 120s over a year ago and I can’t believe how well they have done. The tunings and regulation stay rock solid and the movement from season to season is very minimal. Not even close to the Yamaha issues at the break. Add that to the improvement in tone I think we have a winner here. We bought another one this year as well as a 130. It is too early for me to say what the long term wear will be, but I have seen a number of 20 year old schimmels (upright and grand) that are still performing very well. I was in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> this summer and was able to see a number of older Schimmels. I didn’t notice any long term concerns.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I plan on purchasing a few more of these over the next few years. They are more expensive than the Yamahas, but less than the Steinways. They come out of the box in great shape, tune up and regulate quickly, hold a regulation and tuning, and have a polyester finish for that needed durability. I have received nothing but compliments from the students and faculty. They want more.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> No, I am not a Schimmel dealer J<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> ____________________<o:p></o:p> Rick Florence<o:p></o:p> Senior Piano Technician<o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Arizona</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">State</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place><o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">School</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Music</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 2:06 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] uprights<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <div> ----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p> </div> <div style='font-color:black'> From: David Love <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> To: 'College and University Technicians' <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:45 PM<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Subject: Re: [CAUT] uprights<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> 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.    <o:p></o:p> </blockquote> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> When I was new to this craft, I really wanted to like the Yamaha/Kawai (or <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Boston</st1:place></st1:City>, 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.)<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Respectfully,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Jeff<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>