<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" = http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2>Both Steinway and Bosendorfer GRANDS deserve top = honours for their consistency in quality and excellent product image. However, = I have to say that Yamaha has never attained the level of = Germany made piano. Thus,I am somehow puzzled as to why Yamaha and Kawai = are perceived as equivalents to Steinway and Bose. in the States. = Because here in Asia, they are, generally speaking, treated as beginner-class = pianos. This might be due to the way Yamaha and Kawai exports its products; as the = Asian market receives Yamahas with parts gathered from Indonesia and later = assembled elsewhere. This caused the general public over here to discount Yamaha a = little.  Only the 100% made in Japan Yamahas deserve top scores for = their quality, though they still are far behind the Germany made ones, in = terms of 'perceived quality' and brand image.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I would however, rank Yamaha(100% Japan made) = together with Schimmel and place it above the other Eastern European mades = without hesitation. I'm kinda surprised as to the inclusion of August = Forester into your third class. Most techs and non-techs alike have praised Forester = for its unique tone and strong construction. Even Larry Fine in his book refers = to it as a high quality piano. Personally, I would rate it in the same = category as Steingraeber & Sohns, Feurich and one level above Seiler and Sauter.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The pianos that I am refering to above are all = grands. For uprights, I am really impressed with Sauter and maybe Bluthner. The = reason why I do not endorse Bechstein, Bosendorfer and Steinway uprights, is because = of the way they themselves advertise their pianos. By strongly promoting = on their grands, they are in fact telling the consumers that,' We make 1st class = grands, buy our uprights if you don't have the money' I mean they are in = fact degrading their uprights, which is why all of the techs. here say = to buy a Steinway( or Bechstein or Bose) upright is one's greatest = folly. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Richard, have you encountered any problem with the = regulation and maintainance of the R2 mechanism as some of our friends on this list = have? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Any comments on the quality of the various = germany made uprights is greatly appreciated?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>..Zeng</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B> <A href="mailto:richardb@c2i.net" title=richardb@c2i.net>Richard = Brekne</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org" title=pianotech@ptg.org>PTG</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 04, 2000 = 4:49 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Quality in = Pianos</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>List <P>Ok.. the recent two threads on advice about buying a piano has left = me a big paffed about the seeming equality in how many techs range pianos = in terms of quality, sound, and durability. <P>I personally operate with 4 "classes" of pianos. I arrive at this = from an admitedly somewhat subjective evaluation process, yet I strive to = include as much objectivity as my humanity allows for. Evaluation of sound is of course  tough, at least above a certain level of quality. Things = like tuning stability and action quality are much easier to observe, as is = basic construction. How a piano holds up over time (both with and without = proper sevice) is also something rather easy to observe over time. <P>In that light I find that I would place three pianos without any = further consideration in the top class. Both Steinways, and the Bosendorfer. I = would be tempted to place Bechstein in this class as well, but something = holds me back just a bit. <P>The second class I place pianos like Bechstein, Yamaha, Bluther, = Boston, Grotrian, Sauter, Schimmel, Seiler, Baldwins and a few others. Pretty = much in that order as well. These are all good pianos, well made in most = regards and will hold up well over time. But all lack something or another (some = more then others) to allow me to put them in the same class as the three = mentioned above. The Bechstein, Yamaha and Bluthner come closest tho.. = especially the Bechstein. <P>In the third class, which is where I personally draw the line for = minimal quality that should be allowed, I place pianos like Samick, Young = Chang, Petrof, August Forster, some of the cheaper Yamahas and Kawaiis (I see = some CX5's over here) and  several others. Typical for all of these = are that they have lots of assorted problems that irritate the patooties out of = me. They all have their ways of cutting corners or choosing where to do = shoddy work and they all have their strengths. Petrof is perhaps my favorite = amoung these because of a rather pleasing general sound picture, and because = of the fact that one can really accomplish alot by ripping apart the action = and putting it back together. (Almost any competent tech can make a bit improvement on Petrofs by doing this) I dont like the bass strings on = Petrofs, but those can be changed. Worse is all the false beats in the treble = and the all to often lousey pinblock work found in these instruments. Samicks = are also a piano I recomend often in this class. Pretty solid, really clean = sound, nice scale and good bass strings. Pretty stable. In fact I would be tempted = to place them lowest in class two had it not been for an observation = about what happens to these over time. I find time and time again 12 - 15 year = old Samicks that have just gone dead sound wise. I am not sure why this = happens as it probably has to do with soundboard concerns that are outside my = scope of knowledge. They just develop this "thuddy" quality over the whole = piano. Not all of them mind you.. just enough of them that I cant get myself to = range them better then class 3. <P>Then there are the non piano pianos. Class 4 I do not recommend to = anyone, advise against, and personally would like to see forbidden. These are = pianos that come out of the factory with so many serious flaws that I cant = for the life of me understand how anyone who knows anything about pianos can = in good concious accept them as viable instruments in any sense of the word. = These are pianos that come with really loose tuning pins, actions that are = falling apart, soundboards that crack and pull away from ribs and rims before = they get to the store, pinblocks that delaminate or have horrible workmanship = with regard to installation, etc., etc., etc., ad absurdum. You know the = lot and I wont mention any of them. These kinds of "pianos" are clearly = substandard and represent pretty blatant fraud to my mind of thinking. <P>I would be interested in hearing how other techs roughly classify = pianos. I was, mildly said, supprised to see the assistant director of the PTG = annual convention seemingly throw Steinways and Young Changs in the same = "box" as being... "acceptable". <P>    "<I>All of the brands that have been mentioned = are quite</I> <BR><I>    reputable as are such names as = Seiler, Schimmel, Baldwin, Young Chang, etc."</I><I></I> <P>I am reasonably sure he didnt mean to say the Young Chang is just = as fine an instrument as Steinway, tho it could easily be misread to that affect.<I></I> <P>-- <BR>Richard Brekne <BR>Associate PTG, N.P.T.F. <BR>Bergen, = Norway <BR>  </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>