Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Steinway & Sons - are they doing any product development?

Steinway & Sons - are they doing any product development?

I went to their homepage,
http://www.steinway.com/
and looked, and I took a quick look through their news section.

I couldn't find any information about product news or new patents etc.

Some alternatives:
a) Is this a natural effect of the fact that the (Steinway) grand piano is a "finished product", already developed until perfection?

b) Steinway and sons do have product development, but I couldn't find info about it / they don't write about it.

c) Steinway and sons doesn't develop their product and they risk having a subpar product in the long run.


As a total piano novice I'm leaning towards c). But what do I know? Well, their homepage and the selling points presented looks like another respected company, Montblanc fountain pens.

http://www.montblanc.com/en-US/Flas...s/writing-instruments/unisex/meisterstck

I'm met with a message of prestige, famous people using the product and a lot of limited editions.

So, to reiterate my question:
Is Steinway doing any product development? If not, should they?


Well, as a startingpoint for a discussion lets look at patent applications (I hope I got the correct company and that they don't file under several different names)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=pts&tbm=pts&q=inassignee:%22Steinway+Musical+Instruments,+Inc.%22


and lets look at Yamaha and restrict searches to "grand piano"

http://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#q=inassignee:%22Yamaha+Corporation%22+%22grand+piano%22&hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=pts

I did a quick look at number of patents since 2008, and I looked at how many different persons that did apply for the patents - giving me a hint at how big their R&D operation is.

Yamaha seems fo file 4 times as many patents, employing circa 4 times as many people.

Looking back further, since 2003 Steinway has only had very few different persons file for a patent.

Please note that in these results both companies have "electronic" and acoustic innovations.

Here's a nice Yamaha example, the patent text seems to be good and could teach you how Yamaha sees the physics of the piano.

http://www.google.com/patents/EP2226791A1

And a patent from Steinway
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090277318


Kawai seems to fall in-between the two mentioned above
www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&hl=en&q=kawai&btnG=#q=inassignee:"Kabushiki+Kaisha+Kawai+Gakki+Seisakusho"&hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=sbd:1&tbm=pts&psj=1

I couldn't find any patents for Fazioli.

So, to reiterate my question:
Is Steinway doing any product development? If not, should they?

Of course Steinway has done and is doing product development. Many of the standard features on an acoustic piano have stemmed from their development over the past 150 years.

They have also brought out two new models here in the United States in the past decade or so. They have a staff of engineers.

One thing to remember, Steinway has had a line up of models that have been incredibly successful for many many years. They are at the "top of the heap" and their R&D focuses on process, materials, and tweaking those successful models - at least in NY.

Also, more patents does not always equal more R&D. It sometimes equals more attempt at differentiation. These are not the same thing.

My 2 cents,

The violin has not changes all that much since the age of Strativari.

Steinway is a traditional instrument. One whose designs, when well executed produce an very fine instrument with a characteristic "Steinway tone".

Why change?

I doubt you would find many violin makers or knowledgeable violinists who would agree with that statement!

Every Strad used in today's music has been extensively modified to contemporary standards. There is a lot of violin music that could not be played on an original Strad.

Almost none(or maybe none)of the piano maker webites have much(or any) news about product development. Unless it's some big change or new model(relatively rare)it wouldn't be of much interest to most readers and it wouldn't be understood by most readers.

Really? Have you explored Bechstein, Bluthner, Kawai/Shigeru, Yamaha and Mason & Hamlin websites and paid attention to Del's posts about his consultancy activities?

Neither the lack of patent activity nor the lack of announcements and/or technical analysis on a company’s website is an accurate indicator of development activity.

I just completed one of the most extensive redesign projects undertaken by any pianomaker in recent decades. Every piano in the product line has a new stringing scale (along with what were often extensive changes to the frame castings), new soundboard and rib designs, new bridges, changes to the actions; even new methods of hammer pressing. Through all of this there were no new patents applied for. And, even though some of the new models have been in production for a year or so the company’s websites do not yet say much of anything about the features of the new designs.

Patents are not always an indicator of real and substantive progress. Ideas that look really good on paper do not always translate into significant—or even noticeable—improvements in performance. As well, concepts that do make real improvements in performance may not be patentable; they may be too close to undeveloped prior art or they may be classified as “obvious to one skilled in the art.” Even though, after some three centuries of evolution it wasn’t obvious to anyone else.

I have, in my computer, several fresh, new designs for pianos that may or may not ever be built. Even though these designs are somewhat different than the basic, century-old designs common today there is little about them that is actually patentable. I am exploring the possibility of patenting several things included in their designs but I’ve not yet convinced myself that it will be worth the financial investment. While it might be worth it for a company that would gain the marketing attraction of patented features they are unlikely to be of significant financial benefit to me; at least not enough to offset the high cost of obtaining the patents.

While I lament the lack of innovative new design work—as opposed to the evolutionary refinement of the century-old core technologies the “modern piano” is based on—the lack of patent activity is not a good indicator of the problem. It is more a lack of courage it takes to be the first one to do something really new and innovative. Another way of putting that, of course, is to label it “prudent caution;” an unwillingness to open oneself up to a firestorm of criticism. Think back, for example, on the mostly misleading and inaccurate barrage of misinformation about the so-called “plastic” actions introduced by Kawai some 40+ years back. Thankfully they stayed the course and toughed out that firestorm of criticism and today the Kawai composite actions are recognized as being precise and reliable.

As may be, there is a great deal of innovative development that can be done without developing any new, patentable ideas or technologies. It remains to be seen whether or not it will be done.

ddf

FWIW, Stephen Paulello has been a busy man, lately: http://stephenpaulello.com/

Wow....thanks for the link. Amazing what people are working on....

I'm pretty familiar with those sites. I know that Yamaha has the new CF series and that Mason Hamlin added the B and AA models ( but quite a few years ago) and introduced the WNG action. But I think those changes were included in my comment about new models which is relatively rare in my view.

My point was that except in the case of major new models most of the minor changes are not usually mentioned on the websites for the reasons I mentioned. Steinway, for example, has made many improvements in the production in their NY factory, but I don't think any of those are mentioned on their website(perhaps because they would be seen as indications that things were not ideal before those changes).

Thanks, Beethoven986, for the link o Stephen Paulello's website.

I downloaded and listened to three of the samples there. The piano sounded, to my ears, like... a VERY GOOD Steinway! Had I not known what type of piano was being played, Steinway, and I mean a very well prepped Steinway "D", would have been my guess.

I didn't take out the sheet music to follow along with the Bach-Liszt, so I don't know if there were octave doublings to take advantage of the extended bass on the SP piano. Again - the bass was evocative of the best bass I've heard on the big Steinways.

What's interesting to me, having read a bit on the SP website about his many innovations, is that at the end of it, the sound is, again to my ears, at least for those recordings, as GOOD as Steinway at its best. And Steinway has been making pianos that sound that GOOD for... generations now.

One man's opinion... on the StephenPaulello piano as it relates to the OP's question and Steinway pianos.

Now as to whether or not Steinway should be improving - I guess the Devil is in the details. The "B" and "D" are industry standards in the classical music business. I'm in favor of incremental refinements - things that improve on the greatness of what is already there, be it tone, or touch, or frequency of required maintenance. As for the manufacturing process, as long as the workers are paid and treated well enough, and the factories aren't horribly profligate in how they treat and dispose of their hazardous wastes, that we're not killing animals for their ivory for the keys any more, cutting the very last of a particular breed of tree to the ground for its wood, etc., it doesn't matter to me as a player how the thing is made. What I care about is how a piano feels and sounds (and looks), and Steinway has been doing a good job at those things for generations.

The violin has not changes all that much since the age of Strativari.

Nice link--an interesting perusal.

Yes, the "B" and "D" are almost perfect pianos, but the "A" and "C" models really aren't that good and could benefit of many improvements.

It's obvious that due to its dominant position, Steinway has less impetus to do research than, say, Fazioli, Yamaha and Steingraeber, that concede huge efforts just to take a small piece of Steinway's pie. While nobodoy would say, for instance that the Fazioli F212 is a better piano than the Hamburg Steinway B — even though it has some technical improvements, is more even and more powerful — I think it is undisputable that the Fazioli F183 is a much better piano than the 188cm Steinway A.

Although the Hamburg Steinway B is a fine instrument, there ARE musicians who do prefer the Fazioli F212 to it.

Someone I know did some high-speed slow-motion video for Steinway on something to do with hammers about ten years ago. Due to a confidentiality agreement he was unable to talk about it.

I played a Steingraeber 212 Phoenix W/(Carbon fiber sound board)and instead of the traditional bridge pins it uses bridge agraffes. It sound quite nice.

Belsha,

What are the main improvements would you make to the "C"? I am interested to know how you would compare it to other semi-concert grands.

Many years ago I was confessing my love of the C scale pianos and a quite high-powered RPT, a graduate of the North Bennett outfit insisted that it had a fundamental design defect, although I don't remember just now what it was.

Does anyone have knowledge of this ?

Karl Watson,
Staten Island, NY

With respect, I'm sure there's somebody, some good pianist somewhere, who will dispute the "undisputable". Our likes, and dislikes, are rather subjective, wouldn't you agree?

I named the "B" and the "D", because they really are wonderful instruments. I'm not fond of the 188cm "A"; but I have absolutely LOVED a number of restored "long A's" which, as I understand things, Steinway stopped making, because they were taking potential customers away from their "B" sales.

As to the "C", I think you're right. As I recall, and I can't recall the details now since it's been a while since I've played a "C", the scale has some odd transitions in it, and it probably would benefit from some redesign work.

Perhaps for another thread - can somebody explain to me the rationale for having the "C" in the line up? I get that the "D" can be played louder, project more, than the "B" - has extended bass. Was the "C" for smaller halls? bigger than what a "B" could work in, but smaller than where a "D" would be required? I really don't know, and it would be interesting to learn about this.

Probably said too much already. Steinway doesn't need me to defend them, and they certainly aren't paying me to do it. Good night to all.

The C has the same action as the D, with the heavier hammers. So you get a similar feel in a smaller package. But Steinway has not seen fit to produce them in the US for many years.