Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum It is Hard to Overcome Physics

During the early years of my career the difference between what we now call “entry-level” pianos and high-end pianos was dramatic. To be sure, a lot could be done with good dealer prep work but there was still going to be a significant gap. While a 6’ 7” Brand K grand could be made to sound quite presentable, especially for its price, it was never—at least not without some modifying—going to perform on a level with a really good, high-end American or European grand. Even one four to eight inches shorter. To be sure, it might have an advantage in the very low bass but it takes more than a few low bass notes to make a great sounding piano.

This price- and size-to-performance ratio has changed dramatically over the past few years as the better high-production manufacturers have gradually gotten their act together. I know an increasing number of decent pianists who are buying longer, low-cost instruments in favor of shorter, more expensive instruments. Some of the money they saved by not going high-end is going into careful prep work that should be—but isn’t always—part of the package with a so-called “performance” piano. The potential tone quality and action performance of some of these pianos is hidden just beneath the veneer of high production.

With larger pianos the gap has been narrowing because high-production manufacturers have learned to better integrate modern manufacturing machinery into the piano making process. Design makes less difference here; the fundamental design of high-end pianos is not significantly different from that of their lower cost competition. Certainly there are differences in detail but a good technician can make up for at least some of those differences with careful action, hammer and string work.




With smaller pianos things get more complicated. It is not possible to overcome physics but it is possible to learn to work with it better than we have in the past and a willingness to take a fresh approach to working with the laws of physics can pay off handsomely with smaller pianos.

When we’re working with short scales in small physical packages we have to make clear-cut choices when we define the goals of the pianos we’re designing (or redesigning). All piano design and construction is based on compromise; anyone claiming otherwise understands neither. Until fairly recently—as piano history is measured—it seems the primary goal for the manufacturer of small pianos was to make them as loud as possible. Horsepower sells cars and sound power sells pianos. At least that seems to have been the operative theory. But, just like overpowered cars are not always pleasant to drive, overpowered pianos are not always pleasant to play.

Nothing I have done, either in new design (the Walter grands, for example) or in redesign (most recently the Young Chang/Weber product line) violates any laws of physics; I have simply used some of them in ways that are unusual to what we euphemistically call “modern” piano technology.

I started with a different musical goal; musicality as opposed to power. While this was the case with all models, achieving it has been most challenging with the smaller sizes. I learned long ago that with short pianos acoustical power must take a back seat to most everything else. That is not a big a drawback as it might seem as most of these pianos are going to be placed in relatively small rooms where power will take care if itself.

We can make short pianos sound quite nice once we relieve them of the obligation of producing huge amounts of acoustical power. We can reduce their scale tensions, thin out and lighten up their soundboard structures and give them lighter, less dense hammers. The result is something like a VW GTI compared to a Ford Mustang. The GTI is light and nimble, quick and responsive but it lacks the brute power of the Mustang. Both suit a purpose but that purpose is different. We could stuff a bigger engine into the GTI and it would certainly go faster but it would also pretty much ruin its pleasant character.

ddf

I wonder if manufacturers who make a series of slightly longer small grands are not trying to force dealers to carry more stock of their brand and thus create less room for other brands in the same store. Sort of like 10 different cheerios fighting for shelf space.

With the advent of numerical machines and CAD design-having more designs does not add the same costs it once did to manufacture.

The greatest small grand scale ever done was the largest of the Chickering Quarter grands. When they are in good shape the depth of tone is amazing. I see no manufacturer today utilizing the design elements The Quarter Grand established.

I have long argued that piano manufacturers should be continually be developing entirely new models that stretch the limits of known and traditional shapes, sizes and technologies.

Which is exactly what people like Lothar Thomma have done with the new line of Ritmüller/ Kayserburg they developed for Pearl River. These pianos have nothing whatsoever to do with pianos by same name from before.

There are other examples of course, but when calling something "new" when it actually isn't, there are others where it clearly *is*

Del's own designs for both Young Chang and Walter are another good example of this.

Luckily in our industry the "proof is in the pudding" so it doesn't usually take too long before people start taking notice of things.

No, none of these are examples of what I'm writing about. These are all based on existing rims and string frames (even if modified some). The new YC/W pianos is the most extensively redesigned piano product line on the market just now but even these are not examples of what I'm advocating.

That is why I rebuild select pianos for sale-I can establish these things, (except the cost savings of mass production) and there is no new piano available that can match the performance.

I look forward to Del's "radical" PTG Journal article. Change should always be well thought out-the industry has failed so far to give pianist's a reason to replace their old pianos with a new generation of design.

Also careful study of the design evolution of Steinway, Baldwin, Chickering, Mason-Hamlin can offer insight into how to predict the tonal result.

The strength of a theory is always the measure of the predictions you can make from it.

Surely we must include Young-Chang as a company with a troubled finances and some at times horrendous sounding pianos. I look forward and am planning a trip to hear the improvements that Del and YC have achieved in sonic results.

The strength of a theory is always the measure of the predictions you can make from it.

To me it's outcome and end result.

Few people really care how one gets there.

Norbert

This is not what Mr. Thomma told me but perhaps it doesn't matter. We all know that "new" is not automatically "better" unless the designer has a vested interest to accomplish this.

I don't see a contest in terms of "who's designed the most" but "who has accomplished the most doing whatever he was doing. The net result is all that counts.

Most manufacturers are not committed that way at least not for their smaller pianos - why offer someone a 'smaller' great piano when there's [generally] more money to be made on larger ones?

Del what is stopping an aggressive newcomer from breaking with tradition and using someone like you to design it? Surely it wouldn't cost *that* much to do a prototype or two. Maybe 500,000? I would think you could find the capital and if the performance really is that good sell it to some manufacturer looking for an edge?

Well, vision for one thing. Conventional manufacturers have shown little interest in developing or building anything that deviates very far from the centuries-old architecture they inherited (or copied) from their predecessors.

Prototypes can be had for a lot less than that but no matter how successful the prototype convincing a manufacturer to step outside its comfort zone and build—and market!—something different from the traditional norm is something else altogether.

Still, I do continue to prod at the status quo….

ddf