Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Petrof 131 and S-P 126

Norbert,

I wasn't aware that this was a pervasive practice with pianos, but I can personally atest to the stranglehold that certain companies hold over students who play in public school bands. My 3 children, who all play various instruments, were encouraged to "rent" at a rate so high that a year of rental fees would equal the cost of buying a decent used instrument. When we declined to rent, and bought used (French horn, flute, violin, saxaphone, bass) we were given the "stink eye" by the elementary school band director. I'm sad to hear that this may be true of piano teachers and certain piano companies as well.

As for broad generalizations that teachers or concert pianists (or anyone, for that matter) know less or care less than we do, I would assert that this is an overstatement. At least you said "most", not all.

The title of the thread is S-P versus Petrof. My uneducated, heavily biased, non-dealer, non-piano player opinion is that I like the Schulze-Pollmann better. I had narrowed my search to a used Kawai grand and, drum roll, the S-P 126 and the Petrof 131. I announced my decision to purchase the S-P 126 ... and then the members of Piano World convinced me to open the financial floodgates and buy a better grand for my children. No regrets. But IMHO the S-P is better.

Jeffrey,

You mis-applied Galembo's study on our "sound quality" argument on least two issues:

1. Galembo's concluded that the pianists could reliably tell the difference only when they play the pianos, but not when they only listen the them. Our argument on "sound quality" centers on the auditory. I have stated earlier that (despite Galembo's conclusion) I have, in our argument on "sound quality," assumed that people can tell the difference in sound by listening alone (despite Galembo's study). The Galembo study says they cannot by listening alone, but need to add "touch" into the mix to tell the difference.
2. Even after we assume that a group of people (e.g., "trained pianists" meeting certain criteria of what it means to be "trained") can tell the difference, and after we assume that there is some sort of a statistically significant consensus among this group on what sounds "better" -- my argument with you there is whether to accept this group's aggregate ratings as "objective judgment." I'm still waiting for you to tell me (a) what criteria determine who should be in this group whose consensus you readily accept as "objective judgment," and (b) what level of consensus would you deem sufficient to elevate a group's "preference" to the level of "objective judgment." This is an aspect that the Galembo study does not address.

You are, of course, free to criticize the Galembo's paper and his motive, just as Norbert is free to question the motivations of other groups of "trained pianists" (i.e., professional concert pianists and piano teachers) on what pianos they choose and/or recommend.

And I submit that your submission is wrong, for unless one goes in and play the pianos blind folded and without knowing apriori which brand/model of piano he's playing, that person's rating of the pianos would have been tainted by pre-conceived notions of how those pianos should have been rated. That is why "double blind" tests were proposed.

Valid criticisms, of course. Might you have anything better to offer?

Dude, just put Mahalia Jackson's voice in a Peking Opera or a yodeling contest or even a rap session, and see how it works out. Unless you've tried and beat chance on blind tests to positively identify Strads out of a bunch of violins, your Strad statement above rings hollow in this argument.

I do not believe that any one type of music is aesthetically superior to another. I have my preferences, I just don't consider those preferences "objective" by any means. You're a modern art fan, are you not? Have you ever seen crap in modern art museums? Ever disagree with a group of "educated expert" in that field known as the "museum curators" what constitute good "art" in a museum, or do you always agree with the curators?

And I am still waiting for you to tell me two things: (a) what criteria determine who should be in this "group" whose consensus you readily accept as "objective judgment" on "piano sound quality" and (b) what level of consensus would you deem sufficient to elevate a group's "preference" to the level of "objective judgment." I think these are central to our argument.

treeman:



With 'most' becoming an increasingly smaller group all the time.......

norbert

Ax: "I do not believe that any one type of music is aesthetically superior to another."

To clarify: it is not just generally agreed that Chopin is superior musically to Kalkbrenner and Beethoven to Czerny, but that Horowitz and Rachmaninoff are superior to, say, a typical student during a recital to enter conservatory, or to myself, playing the piano. Do you think that Horowitz plays the piano better than I do (not just different, but better)? If so, please explain why you think this. If not, please state your view clearly for our readers, so we may see how far outside the mainstream consensus of musical experience your view is.

Again, voices do differ in quality. I will hold genre stable for comparison. I suspect that either Mahalia Jackson or Aretha Franklin beats Queen Latifah hands down among people who have heard both over an extended period of time. Franklin's voice is simply superior as an instrument even of popular music, and certainly superior to the Brittany's or Madonna's of today. Not just different, superior. I invite anyone to listen to Respect or I Say A Little Prayer compared to Material Girl or Holiday and tell me if they disagree.

Also, Indian classical music is superior, in general, to classical Chinese music. It is more emotionally involved, rhythmically complex, tonally satisfying, and has a deeper and more intricate theoretical structure for a musician to express him or herself. This judgement is born out by sales of world music CDs outside of the culture itself, indicating universal appeal. Indian music is sold broadly outside of India (Ravi Shankar, Vilyat Khan, Nikhil Bannerjee), while Chinese classical music is purchased seldom by non-Chinese, since it is intrinsically less compelling as art music both tonally and structurally.

Ax says: "You're a modern art fan, are you not? Have you ever seen crap in modern art museums? Ever disagree with a group of "educated expert" in that field known as the "museum curators" what constitute good "art" in a museum, or do you always agree with the curators?"

Actually, not just modern art displayed in museums varies in quality. If you go to Italy and look in a random chuch, you will usually see one or two excellent examples of art, and some mediocre stuff. Museum collections of older art rarely include mediocre stuff, since it is left in situ, not purchased by museums. In general, the Whitney Biennials usually include lots of good and challenging modern art, as well as some stuff that will not stand the test of time, or were poor choices. The curators of the Whitney certainly produce, in general, a more interesting collection of contemporary art than simply going to the Meatpacking district art galleries, which are in turn as a group more interesting than a collection of all the art produced by people who want to call themselves "artists" and hope to achieve gallery representation or museum display. In short, the selection procedures by first, galleries and then museums, does, in general, represent modern art of a higher quality that simply all the art produced by people in general, unselected by experts in galleries and museums at all, but just sitting around in the homes of artist-wannabes.

Ax says:: "And I am still waiting for you to tell me two things: (a) what criteria determine who should be in this "group" whose consensus you readily accept as "objective judgment" on "piano sound quality" and (b) what level of consensus would you deem sufficient to elevate a group's "preference" to the level of "objective judgment." I think these are central to our argument."

I suppose if we want to get extremely theoretical, your points are interesting. My definitions would have to be carefully formulated to avoid circularity. However, to determine that there *are* such differences (if not to perfectly define them) all we need to do is what I suggested above: I invite all readers of the PW forums to go to a piano store, play some pianos, and tell us if they detect differences in quality (independet of price concerns). They can also close their eyes and see if they detect differences in quality when someone else plays. I am happy to stand by the consensus of the results that come back (that there are differences in basic quality, even if we have not perfectly defined the terms to the point of philosophical exactitude.)

I guess I'm reviving an old thread, but I'm interested. We've just bought a Petrof 131, about 7 years old, for $7k. It's really for our daughter - I haven't played in decades - so we brought a friend who tried most of the pianos in the price range (up to 12k). For the money, he really liked the sound. So why post, since it's a done deal? Human nature, I suppose. Since I've never bought a piano, I did some research, but research can take one only so far. So I'd be pleased to hear reactions. Please not 'you were robbed' - but if you've strong negative opinions, I'd be glad to hear something like 'And when you're ready to replace/upgrade, you might want to consider...'

When in good regulation and appropriately voiced, I think it's a nice piano that would serve your daughter well for decades. Maybe you could have gotten it cheaper, maybe not... in the end, I hope you're happy with the way it plays.

I seriously considered the Petrof 131 in my search, and I played two of them. One still needed a lot of prep work [unrefined and strident sounding], and the other was very nice indeed, with a rich tone quality.

Don't be afraid of starting a new thread! Welcome to the forum.

i can give you a reaffirming response. i am biased because i recently bought a petrof 131, but my bias is not just rationalizing my purchase. i truly am happy with this purchase.

i went into the market thinking grand piano. i tried many, but my price point was 15K and below. not too far off yours. i tried many pianos from the usa, japan, korea, indonesia, and japan, both grands and uprights. my budget (like yours) did not really allow for the grands over 6'. i also didn't find any german makes in my area in this range (kansas). my budget did allow for smaller new and used grands of many different brands.

i did not have the opportunity to try a schulze pollman 126, though i found one 150 miles away via the internet. a knocked down price (over the phone), plus delivery, was still over 1K more than the petrof and i was in love with the petrof anyway. before i bought the petrof, i played everything i loved on it in two separate multi-hour sessions at the dealer, and the tone was inspirational for me and the action responsive.

the action, in fact, was superior to many grands i played. i know this has a lot to do with piano preparation, but the point is the piano can be regulated to a wonderful action, if it is not already there. the action of my piano, btw, is renner, just as i believe yours is.

having bought the piano, i don't think you should be belaboring the price paid. it was not out of line for what you got. in my view it is a piano with a soul and your daughter is lucky to learn on such an instrument. (i grew up on a spinet.)

so rest easy, and enjoy your piano.

An update: the Petrof was delivered and is, to my biased eyes and ears, just beautiful. I think the sound worked out well - indeed, my daughter's piano teacher says it sounds better than any of her three pianos at home.

Many thanks to those who commented/reassured!

Hi Ax,

My understanding of "dynamic range" is very different from yours. To me, dymanic range is the change in tonal quality available with different playing technique.

For example, last week my wife Margie and I were at the new Bechstein Piano Center in NYC for 3 days of meetings. Margie is not a player (neither am I) and when she heard the term "dynamic range" asked for a demonstration. Richard, the store manager and a heck of a player, played The Bechstein, first at low volume. The sound was very plush and mellow. He then began to play louder. The piano was not only louder but is emitted some interesting harmonics, particularly on the high end, that were very noticable. He then started playing some Rach. The sound kind of exploded with high end harmonics. They were VERY substantial differences, not only in volume, but in the tonal quality as well.

We then went over to a new Sohmer grand that they had on the floor. Admittedly it had not been voiced. When Richard played the same pieces the Sohmer got louder, but the toanl quality remained substantially unchange. No doubt, with a good voicing, its dynamic range would be improved, but I highly doubt it would approach the Bechstein.

True, this is a highly subjective topic. However, a huge dynamic range is one of the main features of Bechstein. They claim, and I agree, that they have one of the widest dymanic ranges in pianodom.

So, I think your description above is inaccurate.

At the risk of returning to the original question, I looked at both the SP126 and the Petrof 131 when I initially started piano shopping.

I initially thought the Petrof sounded much better, but I asked the dealer to prep the 2 SP126's on the floor so I could return and compare again with fresh ears. The SP's sounded better when I came back, but to me the Petrof was still the hands-down winner. I loved the tone and touch. The SP's sounded more brittle, and had a very noticeable break between bass and midrange.

I would have bought the Petrof without hesitation, had I not decided to spend more and get a grand instead.

Good discussion folks, I'm compelled to throw my .02 in here however:

My experience with just about everything under the sun (except clothing) is that you get what you pay for. If object a is pricier than object b, there is a reason for it, or that company will not be in business very long.

The catch here is exactly 'what' aspects of said object make it pricier, and if those aspects are actually worth the extra cost to you.

Hi corax,

Welcome to the forum! And congratulations on the new piano! May it bring you and your daughter years of joy and suffering (Oops I meant delight. Sorry, had a bad practice today!).

Please start a new thread (without all the baggage) with pictures so everybody else can share your joy!

Thanks everyone for the good wishes! We are still in love with the piano. I hope to post pictures, but I still use regular film - must try to persuade my husband to take a digital photo to post.

Steve,

I just saw this response from you.

No offense, but your understanding of "dynamic range" is wrong. Richard's understanding of "dynamic range" is also wrong.

The definition of "dynamic range" is simple:

Feel free to consult other dictionaries and encyclopedia. You will find the same definition and explanation for the term "dynamic range." "Pianodom" does not get to redefine or obfuscate this very commonly-used terminology.

From Axtremus:

Well, perhaps, but others have different opinions.
In the below thread (from the 3rd post onwards) you can read what Del Fandrich said about this subject: http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/10479.html#000000

schwammerl.

If Del uses that post to define "dynamic range," Del would be wrong too.

It is not a matter of opinion. The definition of "dynamic range" when applied to sound really is very simple and very straight forward. Go look them all up:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic%20range

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-92850/compact-disc

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=dynamic+range

Feel free to look-up all other widely published paper-print references too.

You will be very hard-pressed to find a different definition for "dynamic range."