Sohmer

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Rosenberg" <Lynn@eznet.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: October 17, 2000 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Sohmer


> Well, I maintained a Sohmer on a regular basis, and it became much more
> stable when a climate control was installed.  I think the most frustrating
> pianos are the Steinway 1098 because the string spacing can't be
maintained,
> because of pressure bar and plate designed. I don't know why Steinway
never
> corrected the problem.  My big complaint about most new pianos is that
> scales could be made better, and they're using to light, to heavy wire or
to
> many wound strings.  Yes I agree that the tone in the low tenor section is
> somewhat thin on the Sohmer.  They should in my opinion have made the
> section longer.  The tenor section should have ended at e flat, or lower.

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

Funny you should mention this....

I remember when the staff at the dealership I worked for at the time was
introduced to this model -- the 45" scale -- and what a great deal of hoopla
and pumped-up excitement there was about this great new piano.  They were
presented as All New Scales.  Completely New Designs, etc.

My own view differed somewhat from that of the factory rep.  I did think the
pianos were well built -- the construction quality of the pianos I worked on
was excellent.  However, I didn't think they sounded all that great.
Indeed, I didn't think they sounded, or played, much better than the smaller
consoles.  In fact, I could not hear much difference at all in the scaling,
so I measured them and, guess what, folks, they were identical.  To me this
did not represent All New Design.  The taller scale did not take any
advantage whatsoever of the taller back, hence the disappointing performance
for its size.  (If memory serves, this was the same scale used in the Sohmer
Model 50 grand, another less than stellar design.)

The Sohmer 45" plate was simply an extension of the shorter (42" ?) console
plate.  The only substantive difference between the two was the relocation
of the hitch pin panel and a corresponding increase in the length of the
backscale (in the bass section only, however).  Elsewhere the plate was
simply extended down so that it reached to the bottom of the extended back.
And yes, the soundboard was somewhat larger.  But, so what?  By itself this
was of only marginal benefit.  The speaking lengths of both scales was
exactly the same, top to bottom.

This example of piano design was not original to Sohmer, by the way.  At
least one other piano maker has used this expedient to come up with two
models where only one existed before.  To me, this type of 'product
development' is an indication of the degree of contempt a manufacturer has
for the consumer.  Pretty pictures in a beautiful, four-color glossy
brochure, a glib sales presentation and a good close will win out over the
requirement for performance.

As may be, Sohmer closed its doors just a few years after that.  I still
wonder just what Sohmer -- along with a couple of other now-out-of-business
pianomakers -- could be if these had, indeed, been truly new designs.  Along
with the enhanced performance that could have been realized through a
well-researched new design.  The development costs would not have been
appreciably higher and the production costs would have been identical, but
the rewards of performance -- read that, market competitiveness -- would
have been much higher.

U.S. manufacturers have long considered the vertical piano to be the poor
step-cousin to the real piano -- the grand.  Very little effort has been
made to achieve the limits of performance that can be achieved in these
smaller packages.

Regards,

Del