Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum FAQ - Tuner-Technicians Forum Myth of the best piano

Design, materials and workmanship -- objective? Surely you jest!

Piano design is a very subjective art. What type of sound do you want? Loud and linear? No problem, I can design a piano that can give you that. Or do you want it to be warm and melodic, with more of an emphasis on pianissimo? I can also design a piano that will give you that. In fact, I can design each of these tonal extremes so that they will fit into essentially the same rim shape and size. Now, which one will objectively be the best, undisputed design?

And materials. I happen to be of the school that likes hard maple (or some such) rims in grand pianos. Bosendorfer, however, would disagree. Which of us is right? For my purposes, I am. For their purposes, they are. Undisputed use of materials? I don’t think so.

Even workmanship is not all that clear cut. One company will do some task by the old, traditional ways of doing things, do it quite well, and swear it is the only way. Another may do the same task by machine or robot and also do it well and be quite certain machines are the only way to go. Yet a third may design the piano to eliminate the task altogether and still end up with a great piano. Again, undisputed? Surely not.


You may not be catching my point. For example, you mention the hard maple rim as opposed to Bosendorfer's spruce rim. This is not an issue of one being quality and the other not being quality. It is a difference in design. Both are excellent designs, and both are quality. The subjective issue here isn't whether one or the other is bad, it is which one gives you the tone you're looking for. It is *still* an objective issue regarding the materials - both Steinway (hard maple) and Bosendorfer (spruce) are using high quality materials. That *isn't* a subjective issue. The *result* of their design and material choices however, result in a difference in tonal characteristics, and that *is* subjective.

Piano design - yes, there are lots of choices made in designing a piano that are subjective. But I'm talking about the finished product the customer sees. A German piano, a Steinway, etc. take your pick, has an excellent design. The fact that they could make changes to it that are subjective as far as how it might affect the piano, this doesn't mean the finished product being offered to the public and therefore not open to further design changes yet (until someone rebuilds it) is now subjective - it isn't... the piano is built, the designing is over. Now - is it a good one, or is it a bad one? A Steinway D is a good design. That is, objectively, a fact. A Kimball Whitney spinet is a bad design. That is objectively a fact. Can we tweak either of them? Sure, and we can make changes that are subjective in nature as to how they affect either piano. But the changes will only alter tone quality, a subjective issue. Nothing we do will change the objective fact that a Sway D is an excellent design as it exists before we change it, or that a Whitney spinet is a poor design.

So I stand by what I said, even though you are correct in what you say. You're just not addressing it from the same direction I am.

There are few areas in the piano that cannot now be done effectively by machine. With that in mind I don't care how an operation was accomplished.

However, in their drive to reduce hand labor, some manufacturers have compromised design. Just one example of this is in bridge pinning. It is easier to set a machine to install just one size of bridge pins so many modern pianos use just one size throughout. Hand practice starts with a smaller pin at the top of the tenor bridge and works to larger pins on down the scale.
On the other hand that same bridge might be drilled and notched with much greater precision by machine.

I look for a balance. I want to see accurate cutting and fitting — down under the piano as well as out on top — and I want to see appropriate choices of construction and materials used. (What, exactly, does Select Hardwood mean?) I want to see this coupled with good design.

Del

Del,

Thank you for your response. I never noticed different sizes in bridge pins but I certainly will take a look. Are there some makes which regularly use different sizes?

I saw that term "select hardwoods" on a Korean manufacturer's website. It's up there with "high strenghth steel" in a car.

Manitou,

I see what you mean. A trained expert can judge a piano and rank them on a "best to worst" scale, yet whatever judgement or ranking he makes, there is sense and reason behind it. I concede some of the expert's reasons are not apparent to the lay people. You stress the validity of ranking, I emphasize understanding the reasons behind the ranking.

Take a Rolls Royce vs. Yugo example, I concede most people will say a Rolls is better than a Yugo -- yet behind that ranking are various reasons left unsaid. I would rather see those reasons articulated. I think I can get better fuel efficiency from a Yuga than a Rolls, so I can legitimately claim that a Yugo is better if my yard stick is fuel efficiency. One's desire for a Rolls cannot negate the fact that a Yugo is more fuel efficient.

Same thing with piano. Take a 6' Bosendorfer vs. a 6' Pearl River. I fugure it quite safe to expect 99% of pianists and techs to rank a 6' Bosie higher than a 6' Pearl River. Hack, I will rank a Bosie higher than a Pearl River. Then again, behind the rankings are rhymes and reasons that I would like to see articulated. Past the down weight, for the same amount of force I feed from my fingers into the piano, I think I can get more decibels out of a Pearl River than I can from a Bosie. Though unrefined it may be, the Pearl River would have a bigger sound. If "big sound" is my yard stick, a Pearl River would rank ahead of a Bosie. My lust for a Bosie does not negate the Pearl River as being capable of producing a bigger sound than a Bosie. (Of course, virtaully no "trained" person would use "big sound" as the only yard stick to rank pianos.)

Other thoughts on piano ranking in general:

Taking a "holistic view" on piano ranking, price is the most comprehensive indicator of ranking for it aggregates EVERY ONE's ranking based on EVERY CRITERION, trained and untrained, musical and otherwise. From this perspective, it's silly to rank a new Steinway B and new M&H BB on the same level for, having aggregated EVERY ONE's value judgement based on EVERY CRITERION, the market has awarded the Steinway B a $15k~$20k spread over the M&H BB.

If we don't like the market-based holistic ranking, we want to filter out the average Joe's ranking, then we can take a sub-group, say, Concert Pianists, and see how they rank pianos on aggregate (this is Steinway's game). Or, we can take another sub-group, say, Piano Technicians, and see what a bunch of RPT's can come up with. Or, we can restrict the group to Piano Designers and see how Del and his piano designer pals rank pianos. Or, we can restrict the group to one person such as Larry Fine, buy the Piano Book and read it as Gospel (to his credit, Fine explains how he arrived at his tier rankings).

I think it fairly safe to expect all these different groups will come up with different rankings. Each group, differently trained, would appreciate different aspects of the pianos and "see" things that other groups would not. Yet all their rankings will be valid according to their respective criteria.

It is easy for an unsuspecting shopper to arbitrarily weigh each group's ranking differently depending on how much faith he has in each group's expertise. Yet, I don't see any of the ranking useful to a piano shopper without the shopper knowing something about the criteria used for the ranking. I guess that's part of "educating the buyers" beyond telling new shoppers to go play every piano they can get their hands on for the next few months.

Axtremus said:
Well if Big Sound is your yard stick, then you should compare "Big Sound" pianos. And I think if you did this, you'd still find Pearl River at the bottom. I'm not saying the Pearl River is a horrible piano, I'm just saying that it isn't a very good one. Certainly if you were comparing a Grotrian 7', a Sauter 7' and a Pearl River for "big sound" the Pearl River would still not be as "good" as the other two. That's not a subjective thing, and there are no hidden reasons behind the blatant logic.

Well, at this point they are both as much me as S&S or M&H. The M&H definitely fits together with tighter tolerances than the S&S, but that probably only matters to one who has taken them apart.

The first time a concert pianist friend came over, he liked the Steinway better. The last time he came over he liked the M&H better. I think it mostly had something to do with how well the pianos were tuned, shoemaker's children that spend too much time unshod. But I thought his most interesting comment was: "How come all the other pianos I've tried don't play as well as these do?"

That's probably the crux of the Myth of the Best Piano. It's really hard to compare when so many of the pianos out there aren't working right. If you have read my other posts, you have probably noted that I don't subscribe to a lot of the theories about what makes one piano better than another, and most especially, I don't subscribe to the theories about what makes a piano bad, especially what wears out in a piano. Too many pianos seem worse than they really are, just because they aren't set up right. If it's not worn so much, or someone hasn't screwed the piano up so badly that parts need replacing, I can usually find a fine piano in it in a few hours. If parts need replacing, it might take two or three weeks, if I can find that much contiguous time. But after that, there's a lot less difference between pianos than one might think.

Bingo! Good point. That is the biggest variable. And what makes it so hard to pick out a piano.

Which makes me wonder about the philosophy of playing a few models of the same piano. If you're seeing big differences, it seems more likely due to prep than anything. Combine with that the thought that final voicing should be done in the home, to the conditions in the room, and I'm beginning to wonder about the value of putting a lot of work into a piano before it's sold.

Dan

The problem is that most people can't tell much about a poorly prepped piano. Even those who have a lot of experience can go two ways. Since most people may not have a lot of control over what can be done to an action, they just may adapt to poorly working ones, and grow less sensitive to the problems with them. For someone like me, I've grown very sensitive to what's wrong with a piano, and cognizant of what can be done with them, so I have a good idea of what a piano will be like, even if it isn't in the best condition. But the kicker is, I don't make a big distinction between makes. I just want a piano to play and sound as well as it can. To me, there's not that much difference between a Whitney spinet and a Boesendorfer Imperial. When they are working well, they are decent pianos for what they are. Maybe the Whitney would be better for me, since the result is closer to what I would expect it to be for the price!

When I bought the M&H, I looked at it, played all the notes chromatically and knew that's what I wanted. The owner was disappointed that I didn't play any music, so I think I played a little to make him happy. The S&S is my mother-in-law's, so I didn't have any choice with that. It doesn't matter. They are both adequate representatives of the makes, which is all I need. Oh, and I am aware of the limitations of each of these pianos. I suppose I could wish for a piano that didn't have these limitations, but there comes a point where you realize that it isn't going to make enough of a difference to worry about. After all, the whole point of having a piano is sitting down and playing! To that end, I think I have spent more money on sheet music than I've spent on either of those pianos, maybe both. That's an investment strategy I have absolutely no regrets about!

BDB: Here, here! This post gets my vote as the most sensible post of the year so far.

This reminds me of Tolstoy's observation in Anna Karenina that all good marriages are the same, but each failed marriage is unique. Translated from Russian into Piano, that means that a truly great piano has to be so in all ways. All you need for a fall-from-grace is for just one thing to be wrong, and of course there are many ways this could happen - from poor scale design to poor materials to ... yada yada yada

1. No, they are not.

2. Behind that statement is an assumption that there is a universal mould of an ideal marriage -- far from the truth, IMHO.

3. It also assumes that "marriage" is desired and "failed marriage" is "bad." It does not allow that "separation" from even a "good marriage" might lead to even "better" lives for the individuals involved. Polygamy, serial-monogamy, and other living arrangements are not even considered.

It's just a statement with lots of hidden assumptions and unarticulated value judgements. It reeks influence of centuries of Western Judeo-Christian thinking and it "sounds good" only to those also influenced by the same thinking (which, admittedly, might be 90%+ of modern civilized societies). (E.g., rephrase that statement to "all good polygamous relationships are the same ..." and see how well that goes.)

Now apply the above to pianos.

(Should probably bring this to the Coffee Room depending on where the responses go. )

Whoa, Nelly! That's between you & Leo - & the best venue is the Coffee Room, or Russian Tea Room.

I'm talking pianos here.

Wow so many people in agreement.....Yay... Every person in individual person like piano. I like a clear treble a fundementally some what thin bass and a light touch. I don't like an over powering piano unless on a stage. My ears which are shaped differently than yours likes tone and comfort of the sound. My finger with my one of a kind print on each tip move quick and controled over a well balanced smooth light touch.

You may hate compeletly what I like and you are compelety entitled to be an individual to do so..rock on....

The best piano for you is a piano that does what you ask it to do. Generally those are the higher grand brands. I live in an apartment with two others. I have a Baldwin Acrosonic Console from 1952. It plays well, evenly, Stays in tune well, not over powering- it does everything I need.

We hear differently, see different, touch different, look different just as the people in the factories of the piano makers. Some pianos are meant to be cheap pieces of furniture to fill that big open space in the corner. Some were build with pride to make music for generations.

Simply- to each his or her own.

Where did you dig this out??
This thread has been dormant for over five years.
I suggest you start your own thread, instead of replying to people who possibly have not been around PW for years...

Oh I'm soooo Sorry. May the grand mighty piano gods forgive me.

Is this like asking what is the best candy bar? Let's first ask who is eating it and what taste are they looking for? Sorry to keep picking at the scab of this aged post.