My 7 foot Mason & Hamlin BB was built in 2003. As we all know, for many years M&H was ranked by Larry Fine in the lower end of Tier One (along with Steinway). In 2007, for reasons which he has gone to great lengths to explain in the annual Piano Book Supplement, Mr. Fine decided to move M&H products down a notch to the upper end of Tier Two. I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Fine's rationale, and would like to believe M&H when they say they seek to use the best quality parts in their pianos regardless of country of origin. But that's not the purpose of this post.
Given that my piano was built by M&H five years ago is it possible that Mr. Fine would still consider it to be a Tier One instrument? In other words, is it fair to assume that all M&H pianos produced during the past 15 years are now demoted to Tier Two (guilt by association) or only those produced in the last 2-3 years with the "imported" parts??? Conversely, now that the Kawai Shigeru has been moved to Tier One does that mean all Kawai Shigerus qualify to receive that elevated status (I don't think so) or only those built recently?
Quite frankly, I don't really care how Mr. Fine ranks my piano. I know how well it is built, how it plays and sounds, etc. It has its strengths - and it also has its idiosyncrasies - as do all of the pianos I've had the opportunity to play over the years that are listed in Tiers One, Two and Three. But I'm very grateful to have it !! I also appreciate the service the Mr. Fine provides to the field through the Piano Book. A great source of information - subjective as it may sometimes be !!!
Did you notice any change in the performance level of your piano from the day that the new ranking came out?
I know that Mr. Fine has become a powerful figure in the piano industry, but I don't think his influence can extend to your piano.
Because his rational for the "demotion" was the recent re-sourcing of components, I'm sure that Mr. Fine would still consider pianos made before that re-sourcing to still be Group One instruments.
I don't remember his reasoning behind the Shigeru promotion. If it's because of recent changes to the instruments, then it wouldn't be correct to assume that Shigerus made before those changes should be promoted.
By elevating Estonia to the top of Group Two, he did comment that they "probably belong in Group One," based on changes made in the first part of this decade, but their reputation in the tech community hadn't quite caught up with the reality of their quality and musicality. In that case, it might be safe to assume that any upcoming promotion would be backdated to around 2003-ish.
Okay, this discussion is way over my head but what the heck… I’ll make a comment anyway. First of all, I don’t have a copy of “The Piano Book†by Larry Fine. I once stopped by my local library to check it out and they didn’t have it either. So, I don’t have a clue what is in the book, except for what I have read here on the PW forum and what I have heard piano salespeople quote.
Secondly, it is my observation that those in the piano industry use Fine’s book as it best suits them. For example, I have had a couple of piano salespeople pull out Fine’s book and start quoting something he said in an effort to sway my decision their way. I have also had piano salespeople to say derogatory things about Fine and his book, which I’ll not quote here on the forum.
The bottom line… many in the piano industry use Fine’s book as it best suits them. If Fine’s comments serve them in a positive way, they use it; if Fine’s comments do not provide a positive outcome, they trash him and his book.
How objective and accurate is Fine’s assessments, observations and opinions? It depends on who you ask and whether or not the comments are in their favor. I don’t have a clue.
Best regards,
Rickster
Originally posted by turandot:
Did you notice any change in the performance level of your piano from the day that the new ranking came out?
I know that Mr. Fine has become a powerful figure in the piano industry, but I don't think his influence can extend to your piano. And folks thought Steve Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field" was powerful!
Hi Carey,
You have a fine instrument. Your piano was built before the outsourcing he references occurred, so technically your Mason and Hamlin is a tier 1 instrument. However, the most important factor is whether the piano speaks to you. If you love it, it was the right selection for you. Enjoy!
I agree with the others that have posted that you piano is top rated. However the entire issue is misleading.
Mason & Hamlin designs their pianos and to meet thier rather stringent "specification standards" for manufacture. Parts specifications and assembly tolerances must meet those standards or M&H would reject them in a heartbeat. Whether M&H makes the parts or buys them, as long as they meet the standards and tolerances, it make no difference.
Hi Carey,...
My experience is similar to Rickster's,...
Since there are many versions of the Piano Book and their Supplements,... some Piano Dealers will pick one version that has the best ranking for the piano they sell and use it in their pitch,...
Many people in the midwest are very trusting so they won't do the research to find out the ranking that corresponds to the year of manufacture of the piano.
I myself chose to purchase a Tier 2 2006 M&H A over a Tier 1 2002 M&H A,... I never for a moment wished that I had purchased the higher ranked 2002 M&H A instead
Regards,
Robert
I think that the change in action parts was a mistake and Fine's ranking makes a difference psychologically. I have a BB from the new period which I love, but I wasn't happy when the ranking switched to 2A.
I was hoping Fine would switch the Mason's ranking to 1C in the latest edition. Who wouldn't rather own a 1C than a 1A even if it was the same piano?
Don't you think that Estonia owners who had bought their pianos before the 2A ranking switch were very happy about the new ranking even though the it didn't change their piano's tone?
It's psychologically more appealing to have a 1C rated piano.
"...that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
--Shakespeare
Steve,
For the benefit of folks like Rickster who have not read Fine's reasoning, it should be mentioned that Fine does not challenge the physical specifications and tolerances of the newly-sourced parts. His concern - whether it's valid or not - is that the parts are not yet "time tested."
Not to reopen an old argument, but what does "time tested" mean? How long will Mason have to wait before being restored to Group 1? And does anyone know whether Larry Fine is consistent across brands in demanding "time-testing" for imported parts? For example, if Steinway or another brand at the top of the heap were shown to use imported parts, would Steinway be demoted to Group 2 until those parts were "time-tested"?
I find it frustrating that, on the one hand, Larry Fine sounds (according to Turandot, in another thread on this forum) like a "corporate merger press release" when he talks about Steinway, but demotes Mason to Group 2 on the theoretical ground that the imported parts are not "time-tested." A healthy skepticism is good, but only when evenly applied to all manufacturers.
My M&H BB was built in '06 making it a tier 1 piano. It was'nt until sometime in '07 that I decided to lower my opinion of Larry fine!
Rank Piano Am, you make very good points. I like his books but I too don't think that he is consistent enough. Maybe he is too skeptical about the source stuff. And I am concerned that his method discourages innovation in piano design. I am interested in what Steingraber and Phoenix and a few others are doing. I like the fact that M&H has new parts designs which they are selling to rebuilders. Too bad they would be killed by Fine's rating if they put them into their new pianos.
This whole notion of parts not being time tested is pretty absurd IMO. The parts in question are almost certainly action parts, and one can do accelerated testing by subjecting the action that contains them to an action "pounder" or whatever the right name is. Within a few days, one can subject the action to years of use. Many industries do accelerated aging testing. It's not rocket science. The electronics industry does it, the car industry does it, and no doubt many more industries do it.
Actions have been built with no substantive changes for over 100 years. Does anyone think there are deep dark secrets as how to make good ones? Piano actions are really very simple as compared to the many sophisticated devices and products that are and have been sold for many decades.
Unfortuantely, it is even worse!
Action parts VERY rarely fail. So, not only can accelerated testing be done easily, but there wasn't even an action parts problem with the old Memphis-made Aeolians, and the Chinese-made pianos (and parts) are considerably better made then Aeolians.
Easy testing and no histroy of problems.
You mean like this?
(from our tour of the Mason & Hamlin Factory).
Let's think about this.
The Burgett's sunk a lot of time, work, and money into Mason & Hamlin, with the promise to restore it to the reputation it had many years ago.
They've continued to invest in their infrastructure and their pianos, which now enjoy a great reputation in the industry.
Do ya really think they would do anything to jeapordize their instruments now? I think not.
For the sake of fully-informed discussion, here is the passage in question. I'm not qualified to agree or disagree - just sharing it with those who have not read it:
"The phenomenon of Western makers of high-end pianos sourcing parts in China may be inevitable, but it does trouble me a little more than the other manifestations of globalization...I'm especially concerned about action parts...when a customer is laying-out tens of thousands of dollars for a high-end piano, he or she expects that the manufacturer will use only the most time-tested components...I don't want to sound alarmist...but especially with regard to action parts there are a myriad of opportunities for things to go wrong, and some may be ones that do not show up in tests other than the test of time. In fact, some may not show up as "problems" at all, but rather as a subtle difference in musical expressiveness or as slightly greater wear and tear over the long term...purchasers of high-end European and American pianos probably do not expect Chinese-made components in their instruments, and the pianos are certainly not advertised that way..."
Originally posted by Robert H:
some Piano Dealers will pick one version that has the best ranking for the piano they sell and use it in their pitch,...
My dealer pulled out the Larry Fine book to explain to me why the Charles Walter was superior to the Baldwin Acrosonic.
I've been glad that he did.
My dealer pulled out the Larry Fine book to explain to me why the Charles Walter was superior to the Baldwin Acrosonic.
I've been glad that he did.
So then wiz,
Was that moment forever suspended in time when your dealer pulled out his Fine book the genesis of your passionate affair with Tier rankings?
I don't currently represent Mason & Hamlin. Wanted to say that up front. I believe strongly that Fine's ranking on MH is dead wrong. They are wonderful pianos and represent the best of what an American sounding piano has been and is.
Does anyone know exactly when or starting with what serial number did M&H switch to non Renner actions?
It is my understanding that a new piano guide is about to be published to offset the multitude of concerns associated with the Larry Fine Book. Hard to get much info on it yet other than the publisher is Wobegon Press.
Originally posted by fathertopianist:
It is my understanding that a new piano guide is about to be published to offset the multitude of concerns associated with the Larry Fine Book. Hard to get much info on it yet other than the publisher is Wobegon Press.
That would probably be an interesting book but I think "multitude of concerns" is way overstating the truth about Fine's Piano Book or Supplements. The only real concern seems to be about the newish M&H ranking.
I think the huge majority of us who have dealt with Mr. Fine find him incredibly knowledgable, helpful and totally honest in his evaluatons. It's hard for me to imagine a better book on pianos than the one he has written.
Pianoloverus: you might want to take a look at the thread that I started about the comments on Boston and Essex pianos in the 2008-09 supplement, if you have not done so already. I agree that The Piano Book is an excellent resource, but it does seem to require educated and skeptical reading--as, of course, all such guides do. It has had a long run as the only such source, and it is hard to imagine that competition from another guide will be a bad thing.
Hmm... a Google search for "Wobegon Press" returns nothing. Perhaps Noona hasn't launched her website yet.
Originally posted by Sir Lurksalot:
For the sake of fully-informed discussion, here is the passage in question. I'm not qualified to agree or disagree - just sharing it with those who have not read it:
"The phenomenon of Western makers of high-end pianos sourcing parts in China may be inevitable, but it does trouble me a little more than the other manifestations of globalization...I'm especially concerned about action parts...when a customer is laying-out tens of thousands of dollars for a high-end piano, he or she expects that the manufacturer will use only the most time-tested components...I don't want to sound alarmist...but especially with regard to action parts there are a myriad of opportunities for things to go wrong, and some may be ones that do not show up in tests other than the test of time. In fact, some may not show up as "problems" at all, but rather as a subtle difference in musical expressiveness or as slightly greater wear and tear over the long term...purchasers of high-end European and American pianos probably do not expect Chinese-made components in their instruments, and the pianos are certainly not advertised that way..."
Although Fine's book has been very helpful to many, many people. I still claim he's way off base with this opinion. Actions can be tested, materials can be specified. It seems to me that all he succeeded in doing is raising FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). It is on old salesman's ploy.
Although I attribute no hidden motives behind Fine's words, I do think they are very counterproductive. At some point in time, everything is new, be it a new company, a new idea, a new design, or a new way of making an old design. If only "time tested" products are considered worthy, then progress in any field of endeavor becomes impossible, because no matter how much better something may seem, it is a priori judged inferior and/or not to be trusted by not being time tested.
It is exactly this kind of thinking that has impeded progress in the piano industry. If the auto industry acted like this, maybe the Ford Model A would be a new design, because it took so long to get away from the time tested horse and buggy. So, Fine's demotion of M&H is clear. It doesn't matter how good the pianos sound, it doesn't matter how good the action is and how beautifully it plays, it doesn't matter how high the build quality is, it doesn't matter how well prepped their pianos are--M&H committed a mortal sin--they used Chinese parts. Oh the horror!
Sorry for the rant, but the kind of thinking evidenced by Fine particularly rankles me.
Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
Pianoloverus: you might want to take a look at the thread that I started about the comments on Boston and Essex pianos in the 2008-09 supplement, if you have not done so already. I agree that The Piano Book is an excellent resource, but it does seem to require educated and skeptical reading--as, of course, all such guides do. It has had a long run as the only such source, and it is hard to imagine that competition from another guide will be a bad thing.
As I remember, the major point was about the phrase "designed by Steinway" which many believed to be incorrect or irrelevant. Even if the above is true, when you look at the total of all the information in the Piano Book and its supplements, I think this is not much of an arguement for some of the negative statments about these books.
It is almost like a grain of sand on a beach IMHO. I also feel that many(NOT all) of the people who criticize Larry Fine are far less knowledgable than he is. As far as knowlege of a wide variety of pianos, I think he is among the most knowledgable in the country.
Originally posted by carey:
is it possible that Mr. Fine would still consider it to be a Tier One instrument?
Who cares? You like your piano or you don't. Don't be so concerned about what somebody else thinks.
Too much emphasis is placed by some on Larry Fine’s piano brand ratings. He even cautions against reading too much into them. In his 2007-2008 annual supplement, he says “Don’t get too hung up on small differences [in the piano ratings]. The distinction between one group and the next (especially between Groups 1 and 2) can be subtle, and the difference between adjacent subgroups can be miniscule, even questionable. Furthermore, the preparation of the piano can be far more important to the quality of the product than many of the distinctions shown on the chart. When it comes to dealer prep, it really is possible (to some extent, anyway) to turn ‘a sow’s ear into a silk purse’. Look for a dealer known for providing thorough and competent make-ready and you won’t have to worry so much about what group your piano is in!â€.
Regarding Mason & Hamlin and the use of Chinese parts, Fine states in the same supplement that “Though this approach has raised eyebrows in some circles, and there is obviously some risk, the company says it has kept a close eye on quality. In fact, for some items, it’s possible that the quality available from China is better than from other sources. Most of my contacts felt that the quality of the piano had not diminished during this time and may, in fact, have improved.â€
When I was shopping for a piano recently, I heard conflicting opinions as to why Mason & Hamlin was assigned the rating it received in the 2007-2008 supplement, some from people in the business who know Fine personally and provide input for his ratings. In fact, the exact methodology Fine uses for assigning piano brands to different classes is not revealed in the supplement. The 4th edition of “The Piano Book†contains more information about the rating methodology but not enough details to convince one that the comparisons were done in a rigorous and comprehensive way. If the comparisons were done properly, then there should be more of an attempt to compare individual piano models (e.g. Mason & Hamlin BB as opposed to the entire Mason & Hamlin line of pianos). In the event that a piano’s rating changes, the serial numbers corresponding to the old as well as the new ratings should be specified. The fact that this information is not contained in the ratings indicates how much of an approximation they are.
The bottom line is that you should take Fine’s disclaimer about his rating system to heart and not read too much into the ratings. The factual information in “The Piano Book†about pianos and how to buy them is considerably more valuable than how Fine classifies top tier pianos into groups 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2A in each supplement.
Since the latest edition was published in 01, Masons have gotten better. I understand, they still source from Renner. As I remember the Renner back actions were a little stiff and required some field attention. A pretty run of the mill issue I guess though.
I will bet you money that no one of us, including Mr. Fine, could not tell which parts came from where based on examination.
Many people make decisions based purely on fear and doubt instilled by salesmen and people on forums, not real scientific information.
Scientifically, I take issue with Fines rating. It really hurts the reputation of honest people in the industry. Primarily because it is full of mostly golden information. The piano book is the only real usable resource out there besides forums for consumers to refer to. In fact, he has been a great consumer advocate and resource to the piano community and is a very likable man. For someone of his stature and reputation to do such a thing is disappointing.
Hello Kieran!
I hope you are feeling better by now. We stopped by Friday and talked with Bob. The final coat of finish goes on the piano room floor TOMORROW!
Delivery is just around the corner. Bob had me talk to the movers last night at the store.
Take care!
Brenda
Frank is correct. M&H is not going to jeopardize their reputation after all the effort and expense to rebuild the firm.
From a marketing perspective, if Mr. Fine never made any changes to his books, he would have a harder time selling as many. IMHO, it's much like the new editions of college text books every two years, instead of the former four to five year cycle. It's good for the new book sellers and the authors; and it's bad for the resellers and perhaps the libraries.
For me, the real problem is the damage that Larry Fine has done to his credibility by ranking Mason where he has on the slim "test of time" theory. It is perhaps worth asking whether every innovation by any high-end manufacturer will result in his demoting pianos of that brand until the test of time standard has been met. If not, why not?
What has been so interesting about this thread has been the calm, systematic, and scientific refutation of Larry Fine's concerns about Mason's imported parts. Larry Fine's book is unique and replete with wonderful information. I hope he is receptive to the feedback he has implicitly received here when he turns to the next edition of the supplement.
Thanks to all who responded to my original post. I appreciate the validation - and the variety of excellent insights provided. This was my first official post on Piano Forum - even though I've been visitng the site for several years. I have a great deal of respect for the folks who participate in these discussions. I've been reading Larry Fine's book and the annual supplements since 2001. One thing is certain - the piano industry worldwide is in a constant state of flux. Mr. Fine's book is a good resource for keeping up with those changes - whether you ultimately agree with his rankings or not.
Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
It is perhaps worth asking whether every innovation by any high-end manufacturer will result in his demoting pianos of that brand until the test of time standard has been met. If not, why not?
What has been so interesting about this thread has been the calm, systematic, and scientific refutation of Larry Fine's concerns about Mason's imported parts.
I wouldn't call changing the *manufacturer* of piano parts an "innovation". I don't think this thread has been in any way a refutation of Fine's concerns. I also don't think you realize how carefully Fine considers the consequences when making a potentially negative statement/ranking about a top ranked piano.
IMHO Fine made a very well balanced statement when explaining his ranking change for M&H.
I bet if you asked people whether they'd prefer to own a Mason with Renner vs. Chinese action and other parts, most would prefer to have the Renner.
Is there anyone who seriously thinks M&H wouldn't still be using Renner action parts and other non Asian parts if those manufacturers agreed to charge the same price as their Asian counterparts?
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
[b]
I bet if you asked people whether they'd prefer to own a Mason with Renner vs. Chinese action and other parts, most would prefer to have the Renner.
Is there anyone who seriously thinks M&H wouldn't still be using Renner action parts and other non Asian parts if those manufacturers agreed to charge the same price as their Asian counterparts? [/b]Sure, most people would choose Renner, but that proves absolutely nothing about the quality and performance of either the Chinese or Renner parts. For all we know, the Chinese parts may be better--as an example, Renner has certainly received its share of criticism in the Tech's forum for poor and/or inconsistent quality. A layman's choice between actions is based solely on name recognition and reputation. The layman hasn't inspected or specified the parts in question. In general he or she doesn't understand piano technology.
Additionally, and I believe this point is very important, reducing cost is a valid and very important value that any manufacturer can give to a consumer. Cost reduction should be viewed positively unless it can be shown to reduce the value of the item, i.e., provide less bang for the buck. Everyone, with few exception works hard for their money, and there is always more need than supply in the world.
If M&H can figure out how to achieve the same or better quality and reduce their price, or reduce the amount of a price increase, which is the same thing, kudos to them--they're done a real service to anyone buying one of their pianos.
There is also a widely held misperception that performance pianos somehow shouldn't be or aren't built to a price point. Well, sorry, virtually everything, with some very small exception, is built to a price point. Every product has a perceived value, and almost everyone has limited funds. Perhaps a company like Steingraber has little concern for cost efficiency and just builds their pianos as they want, and charges whatever they need to, but, if so, they are the exception.
I would argue that a company like Yamaha or Kawai does MUCH more good for the piano community than does a company like Steingraber. Only the rich can afford a Steingraber, but thousands of people from all over the world and from many a social stratum have been introduced to the joys of learning to play by the good quality, well made instruments of Kawai and Yamaha.
Originally posted by Roy123:
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
[b]
Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
[b]
I bet if you asked people whether they'd prefer to own a Mason with Renner vs. Chinese action and other parts, most would prefer to have the Renner.
Is there anyone who seriously thinks M&H wouldn't still be using Renner action parts and other non Asian parts if those manufacturers agreed to charge the same price as their Asian counterparts? [/b]
Sure, most people would choose Renner, but that proves absolutely nothing about the quality and performance of either the Chinese or Renner parts. For all we know, the Chinese parts may be better--as an example, Renner has certainly received its share of criticism in the Tech's forum for poor and/or inconsistent quality. A layman's choice between actions is based solely on name recognition and reputation. The layman hasn't inspected or specified the parts in question. In general he or she doesn't understand piano technology.
Additionally, and I believe this point is very important, reducing cost is a valid and very important value that any manufacturer can give to a consumer. Cost reduction should be viewed positively unless it can be shown to reduce the value of the item, i.e., provide less bang for the buck. Everyone, with few exception works hard for their money, and there is always more need than supply in the world.
If M&H can figure out how to achieve the same or better quality and reduce their price, or reduce the amount of a price increase, which is the same thing, kudos to them--they're done a real service to anyone buying one of their pianos.
There is also a widely held misperception that performance pianos somehow shouldn't be or aren't built to a price point. Well, sorry, virtually everything, with some very small exception, is built to a price point. Every product has a perceived value, and almost everyone has limited funds. Perhaps a company like Steingraber has little concern for cost efficiency and just builds their pianos as they want, and charges whatever they need to, but, if so, they are the exception.
I would argue that a company like Yamaha or Kawai does MUCH more good for the piano community than does a company like Steingraber. Only the rich can afford a Steingraber, but thousands of people from all over the world and from many a social stratum have been introduced to the joys of learning to play by the good quality, well made instruments of Kawai and Yamaha. [/b]All very well considered points. Great post.
Treatment of Post-Tierdrop Traumatic Stress is best left to a trained medical professional. Anyone experiencing its symptoms: red eye or chronic eye irritation due to prolonged Fine reading, extreme disorientation, vertigo, sleeping irregularities caused by chronic dreams of falling from high elevations, loss of self-esteem while viewing one's fallboard, sudden and prolonged bouts of depression, the onset of severe dyspepsia during Tier conversations with piano friends, tinnitus and other hearing disorders that occur only when playing one's own piano, compulsive piano shopping syndrome, erectile dysfunction lasting more than four Fine pages, male pattern baldness in females, eczema of the hands and fingers, suicidal daydreams, and lastly, extended participation in Piano Forum Fine Ranking debates should seek immediate medical help.
Originally posted by turandot:
Treatment of Post-Tierdrop Traumatic Stress is best left to a trained medical professional. Anyone experiencing its symptoms: red eye or chronic eye irritation due to prolonged Fine reading, extreme disorientation, vertigo, sleeping irregularities caused by chronic dreams of falling from high elevations, loss of self-esteem while viewing one's fallboard, sudden and prolonged bouts of depression, the onset of severe dyspepsia during Tier conversations with piano friends, tinnitus and other hearing disorders that occur only when playing one's own piano, compulsive piano shopping syndrome, erectile dysfunction lasting more than four Fine pages, male pattern baldness in females, eczema of the hands and fingers, suicidal daydreams, and lastly, extended participation in Piano Forum Fine Ranking debates should seek immediate medical help.
Very clever!
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
Originally posted by Roy123:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by pianoloverus:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
[qb]
Of course my post doesn't *prove* Renner is better, but I think it *means* a lot. Not only would most people choose Renner if given the choice and no price differential, almost all the Tier 1 pianos in Fine's supplement except NY Steinway use Renner actions.
I think it's unfair to assume that a person who would choose Renner was a layman or knew less about piano technology than a person who would prefer CHinese parts. Larry Fine certainly knows a lot more about pianos than a layman, and he very carefully words his statment about M&H to say the Chinese action and plate are not necessarily inferior and could be equal or better.
If it was known that the new M&H action parts were equal or better than Renner than in some sense M&H has done the piano buyer a favor(IF their % markup from cost stays ths the same). But since no one knows how these parts compare, it can't be determined whether or not this is the case.
Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price? [/b]Just because so many high-priced pianos choose Renner should not necessarily be interpreted as any indication that Renner makes superior action parts. It may well be that makers choose Renner because of their reputation, and, dare I say it, snob appeal. It may well be like the old saw, "No one ever lost their job by recommending IBM,"
Also, the average buyer can be assumed to know little about piano technology. The issue is not whether "a person who would choose Renner was a layman or knew less about piano technology than a person who would prefer CHinese parts." The issue is that probably 99.9% of people buying a piano wouldn't know if the specific Chinese action parts used and specified by M&H are in any way superior or inferior to some Renner parts. In fact, who would know that except for the technical staff at M&H?
You say, "Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price?" Why is that a concern? If it's true, why is it a sin rather than a virtue? It's a tough world out there, and if M&H has a choice between raising their prices and losing market share or choosing Chinese action parts that they believe or know are equal or better than Renner parts, why should that give anyone heartburn?
Ultimately, a product must be evaluated on its own merits. Would you be shocked to find Chinese parts in a Mercedes or BMW? Either the M&H pianos deliver the goods or they don't. I, for one, couldn't care the slightest from whom their parts are sourced as long as the quality and performance are there. I have no particular reason to believe that Renner is any more or less capable than some Chinese manufacturers of being able to mill wood to tight tolerances and in using quality cloth, etc.
Hey, actions are not rocket science. They're well machined pieces of wood, along with wool cloth and so forth, assembled so as to achieve some particular dimensional tolerances. Companies were making them over 100 years ago--I think modern manufacturing machinery and methods can handle it--even in China.
OK Guys - please excuse my ignorance - but as a layman I feel compelled to ask the following question - because I've never seen it adequately addressed in ANY of the posts I've been reading about this issue over the past year -nor in Larry Fine's book itself.
What "specific parts" in the M&H piano actions come from China????? Does anyone really know?? Is the entire "Wessell, Nickel & Gross" action now constructed with Chinese parts? Even when M&H was using Renner action parts, were their piano actions "all Renner" or a combination of Renner and parts from other sources? Also - is M&H still using the Renner Blue hammers?
Originally posted by Roy123:
You say, "Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price?" Why is that a concern?
Because if they did it as a cost saving measure because they couldn't get Renner at the same price and we can't be sure about the quality of the new action parts at this point(as Fine says and I believe him),then they may have lowered the quality of their pianos in the process.
One certainly can't take the manufacturer's word that their new parts as good as the Renner parts.
And saying that virtually all Tier 1 Pianos use Renner because of snob appeal is extremly unlikely in my view. These pianos are so expensive that I believe the companies producing them just use whatever they feel is best.
Originally posted by turandot:
Treatment of Post-Tierdrop Traumatic Stress is best left to a trained medical professional. Anyone experiencing its symptoms: red eye or chronic eye irritation due to prolonged Fine reading, extreme disorientation, vertigo, sleeping irregularities caused by chronic dreams of falling from high elevations, loss of self-esteem while viewing one's fallboard, sudden and prolonged bouts of depression, the onset of severe dyspepsia during Tier conversations with piano friends, tinnitus and other hearing disorders that occur only when playing one's own piano, compulsive piano shopping syndrome, erectile dysfunction lasting more than four Fine pages, male pattern baldness in females, eczema of the hands and fingers, suicidal daydreams, and lastly, extended participation in Piano Forum Fine Ranking debates should seek immediate medical help.
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
Originally posted by Roy123:
[b] You say, "Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price?" Why is that a concern?
Because if they did it as a cost saving measure because they couldn't get Renner at the same price and we can't be sure about the quality of the new action parts at this point(as Fine says and I believe him),then they may have lowered the quality of their pianos in the process.
One certainly can't take the manufacturer's word that their new parts as good as the Renner parts.
And saying that virtually all Tier 1 Pianos use Renner because of snob appeal is extremly unlikely in my view. These pianos are so expensive that I believe the companies producing them just use whatever they feel is best. [/b]We can't be sure of the quality of any parts used in any piano. Only the people who test and specify them know for sure--that goes for Renner parts as well. Many knowledgeable techs and rebuilders think that Tokiwa parts are superior to Renner parts, just as an example.
You say that, "One certainly can't take the manufacturer's word that their new parts as good as the Renner parts." BUT, ultimately trusting the manufacturer is what we all must necessarily do when we buy any product. So many modern products are so complex that no one, and I mean no one, can know about the quality of the components used in anything we buy.
To use an automobile analogy again, parts in even the highest price car come from many companies and parts of the world. Auto manufacturers can almost be considered assemblers of other company's products. Should a BMW or Lexus be considered a riskier or inferior product to buy if they contain Chinese parts?
Additionally, I believe Renner makes a variety of action parts at different price points. If so, then there is no one level of Renner action anyway.
As I said before, all we as consumers can do is to judge the product before us. In this case, how does the piano perform, and do we think M&H is committed to producing an honest good-quality product. To be honest, I think this whole Renner thing is a canard. They're a successful company, and some companies find it advantageous to use their parts, and others don't. It's no big deal either way.
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
And saying that virtually all Tier 1 Pianos use Renner because of snob appeal is extremly unlikely in my view. These pianos are so expensive that I believe the companies producing them just use whatever they feel is best.
Then why wouldn't you think that M&H made their decision because they felt Ningbo's parts were best?
M&H is unfortunately no longer Tier 1, and I believe less expensive than all/most Tier 1 pianos.
I certainly have nothing against Masons. I own a 2 year old BB and love the sound and touch. I think they are one of the very best pianos for their price. I just think they made a mistake switching their action and plate sources.
This is just a bit off point, but I've wondered whether an analogy to the wine-making industry (France vs say Australia or the US) runs roughly parallel to piano-making in Western Europe vs. elsewhere. The French winemakers have to do things a certain pre-ordained way, while Australia, the US, etc. are not so constrained. (Don't ask too many questions -- my knowledge of winemaking, and pianomaking, do not run very deep.)
My questions -- are there piano-making customs in place, or perhaps just inertia, that prevents movements away from German-made Renner actions by the very best pianomakers, or is Renner really objectively the very best in the world, unchallenged by others?
What "specific parts" in the M&H piano actions come from China????? Are we talking about a couple of components or is the entire M&H "Wessell, Nickel & Gross" action now constructed with Chinese parts? Even when M&H was using Renner action parts, were their piano actions "all Renner" or a combination of Renner and parts from other sources?
Some of you obviously have strong feelings about this issue - but does anyone have the specifics?
Or is this proprietary info known only to M&H??
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
M&H is unfortunately no longer Tier 1, and I believe less expensive than all/most Tier 1 pianos.
I certainly have nothing against Masons. I own a 2 year old BB and love the sound and touch. I think they are one of the very best pianos for their price. I just think they made a mistake switching their action and plate sources.
Even though M&H is no longer Tier 1, the logic is the same. They are a very expensive piano. Why would you think that they would sacrifice quality for marginal savings?
I think that the reason they changed was that the much newer Ningbo factory produced parts every bit as good as Renner and did so much more efficiently (read: less expensively).
but does anyone have the specifics?
This thread (especially the opening post) is a good place to find specifics.
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/1/18686.html
Originally posted by carey:
Given that my piano was built by M&H five years ago is it possible that Mr. Fine would still consider it to be a Tier One instrument? In other words, is it fair to assume that all M&H pianos produced during the past 15 years are now demoted to Tier Two (guilt by association) or only those produced in the last 2-3 years with the "imported" parts??? Conversely, now that the Kawai Shigeru has been moved to Tier One does that mean all Kawai Shigerus qualify to receive that elevated status (I don't think so) or only those built recently?
What has this forum come to? Why don't you just take the following multiple choice exam:
1. My piano sucks.
2. My piano is pretty good.
3. My piano is really good.
4. I own the world's best piano.
Please choose the most accurate description of your piano and then go play the damn thing. If your music doesn't inspire you then pound away at scales and arpeggios until the muse awakens. There's one thing I can safely assume about your piano and that is that it's not holding you back as a musician.
Hi all,...
I would like to attempt a few clarifications based on information from past posts by Cecil Ramirez, Keith Kerman, and Cy Shuster. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if things have changed today,...
- Wessell, Nickel & Gross (WNG) is not an action manufacturer. It is the action parts quality testing department of M&H.
- M&H owned the WNG name and resurrected it as a nod to the golden age of M&H.
- M&H never have a full Renner Action or a full Chinese action.
- Burgett era M&H always use their own action - Mason & Hamlin action - NOT WNG/Renner/Chinese action - that they design themselves, and many of the parts that are used within the M&H action are made by Renner.
- M&H make their own action bracket and rail, that's why the WNG logo is prominently displayed on these parts and why people may mistakenly assume that the whole action are manufactured by another company called WNG.
I hope this helps,...
Sources:
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/18686.html http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/18686/2.html#000049 http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/16034.html#000014 http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/16034.html#000019 Regards,
Robert
Hi Robert -
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response to my questions and the links to past posts with the information. I would encourage everyone who has partipated in this dialog to follow the links and read this material.
Thanks - and Best Wishes
Carey
Quote from post by Steve Ramirez....."Please choose the most accurate description of your piano and then go play the damn thing. If your music doesn't inspire you then pound away at scales and arpeggios until the muse awakens. There's one thing I can safely assume about your piano and that is that it's not holding you back as a musician."
STEVE - In my original post I was simply asking a rhetorical question. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone - and it generated some interesting responses. As I said before, I could give a flip whether my M&H BB is Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4. It is what it is.
Back when I was a college piano instructor in the 1970s I purchased an Everett studio upright. Its all I could afford at the time - and over the course of 25 years it didn't advance my growth as a musician. After the kids were raised and put through college I then bought a Korean baby grand (again - all I could afford). It was a nice little instrument - but I felt it also held me back a tad. I finally took the leap and purchased the M&H. Wonderful as it is, over time I've found the action to be on the heavy side - which is a challenge with certain repertoire - but at this point I'm gonna live with it because nothing is perfect - right? I'll just have to play the Liszt and Chopin etudes on a Steinway.
you guys know what annoyed me the most when I first read on this forum ? It's every time I saw a post saying "go get a copy of LF and read"
I think that book is overrated and inconsistent, yet many treat and use as if it is a bible. Does it have useful info ? sure, it does.
Just don't loose sleep over it, if mighty LF decides to move your piano up or down a Tier. There's more important things in life to worry about.
Steve Ramirez has a real point. This thread does make Pianoworld seem like it's populated by a bunch of nervous Nellies, who think a book has the power to change their piano, and who fret about who makes the action parts in their piano. Forget Fine, forget the tiers and the ratings, forget the snob appeal of certain brands, and buy and play the piano that speaks to you. It doesn't matter if it costs $500 or $100,000. If you like it, if it warms your heart when you play, if it fits your budget and home, then play it with joy--it's your piano and it doesn't matter what anybody or any book thinks about it.
Carey, if your issue with your M&H is with the action, I would suggest finding a competent tech. and having them tweak your action. ALL piano actions are designed to function within a narrow range, but the target touchweight is consistent with ALL manufacturers and varies in the bass from 55 grams to around 45 grams in the treble. It doesn't matter who made the piano, they all have the same target touchweight. It might help to verify exactly what your touchweight is at this time. To do this, you will need around 15 nickels which you will stack on the keys. I would start with 10 nickels in the Bass section and add nickels until the key begins to go down. Each nickel is about 5 grams. Depress the damper pedal while doing this as you DO NOT want the weight of the dampers factored in for this test. There is NO reason that you cannot play Liszt or Chopin Etudes on an M&H. I certainly do, along with everything else and it is a joy to play. I don't know the history of your piano, but many times on used/rebuilt pianos I have found touchweights that are really quite high, up to 80 grams which can be torturous to play. One of my college profs had a Steinway B action rebuilt and the touchweight was then in the 80 gram range. She affectionately referred to it as her Schwarzenegger piano. Many times rebuilds include hammers of the wrong size and weight. If it was purchased new in this condition, you need to have the dealer address this situation before the warranty expires.
Originally posted by carey:
Quote from post by Steve Ramirez....."Please choose the most accurate description of your piano and then go play the damn thing. If your music doesn't inspire you then pound away at scales and arpeggios until the muse awakens. There's one thing I can safely assume about your piano and that is that it's not holding you back as a musician."
STEVE - In my original post I was simply asking a rhetorical question. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone - and it generated some interesting responses. As I said before, I could give a flip whether my M&H BB is Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4. It is what it is.
I finally took the leap and purchased the M&H. Wonderful as it is, over time I've found the action to be on the heavy side - which is a challenge with certain repertoire - but at this point I'm gonna live with it because nothing is perfect - right? I'll just have to play the Liszt and Chopin etudes on a Steinway.
In general, I found Steve Ramirez's reply somewhat arrogant and innapropriate. If your piano's action os too heavy, it IS definitely holding you back as a musician.
Fairly recently(around 3 years ago?)M&H started using lighter actions in their pianos. The ones they had before this are on the heavy side although some might not be bothered by this or even prefer it. If it is bothering you(and this doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your technique), there have been many threads about lightening an action.
You need a good tech and should start with the simplest type of approach first, i.e. sometimes just lubricating parts of the action accomplishes a lot.
Originally posted by carey:
I finally took the leap and purchased the M&H. Wonderful as it is, over time I've found the action to be on the heavy side - which is a challenge with certain repertoire - but at this point I'm gonna live with it because nothing is perfect - right? I'll just have to play the Liszt and Chopin etudes on a Steinway.
I didn't realize that you were concerned about the heavy action of your Mason & Hamlin. If you can play Chopin etudes on a Steinway but not on your piano there may be something wrong with your action that can be dealt with by a master piano technician.
When I last saw my tech he was telling me about some very recent M&H pianos that required a lot of work by him to get the actions right. I think that in the US, the best technicians are often found in the field rather than at the factories. With your background in music you must know at least one tech who works on high-end institutional performance pianos. Have someone of this caliber look at the piano's regulation to see if it can be improved.
Originally posted by John Pels:
ALL piano actions are designed to function within a narrow range, but the target touchweight is consistent with ALL manufacturers and varies in the bass from 55 grams to around 45 grams in the treble. It doesn't matter who made the piano, they all have the same target touchweight.
M&H definitely lightened their actions a few years ago so this would imply your statment is incorrect even for the same company . I would agree that there is a range in the sense no manufacturer wants a touch weight of 40 or 65, but different manufacturers have different touchweights(or range if they build pianos with greater touchweight in the bass which I think is the usual case) so one piano can feel significantly heavier than another.
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
Originally posted by John Pels:
[b] ALL piano actions are designed to function within a narrow range, but the target touchweight is consistent with ALL manufacturers and varies in the bass from 55 grams to around 45 grams in the treble. It doesn't matter who made the piano, they all have the same target touchweight.
M&H definitely lightened their actions a few years ago so this would imply your statment is incorrect even for the same company . I would agree that there is a range in the sense no manufacturer wants a touch weight of 40 or 65, but different manufacturers have different touchweights(or range if they build pianos with greater touchweight in the bass which I think is the usual case) so one piano can feel significantly heavier than another. [/b]Mason & Hamlin redesigned their actions to have quite a bit less overall key mass than their previous actions. Their target static touchweight is within John Pel's parameters.
PianoCraft does quite a bit of action modification work on pianos from all makers, and I can assure you that while the parameters John Pels describes are fairly common targets for most manufacturers, they are often quite far off.
This includes several of the "tier 1 and 2" makers.
pianoloverus,I said "target" and that is exactly what I meant. As Keith observes, the "target" is not always the net result. There is a big difference between a reduction of mass and the reduction of weight. A reduction in mass will allow a key to respond quicker due to reduced inertia, but the target touchweight will remain unchanged. Hence, no particular manufacturer wants their action to feel "heavier" or "lighter". All manufacturers want the pianist to feel instantly comfortable at the instrument and that is why the standard is roughly 55 grams tapering to 45 grams. Depending on quality control in ANY given company this can vary and vary significantly. It DOES NOT vary by design however. As a player I notice either an increase in mass or touchweight. As a tech, I work to get my target touchweight within the aforementioned parameters. Touchweight can be affected by many factors which include tight action centers, overweight hammers, basic action geometry problems and poor damper timing.
As Carey remarks that his repertoire includes etudes of Chopin and Liszt, I find it a bit surprising that when he auditioned this instrument, he found it acceptable for purchase given his observations a few years later. I assume that he was seduced by the sound and let the playability issues be overshadowed. These issues are easily dealt with by competent techs, and as Keith has opined, it's his bread and butter. I recently had a very good friend audition pianos at Piano Craft and he related to me that Keith's pianos play VERY WELL.
As Steve Cohen has said, as long as the parts meet the specifications of the manufacturer (M & H in this case) it shouldn't matter where they come from.
Chinese sourcing is problematic for many firms because it can take a while to find a good, reliable and trustworthy source for parts. Most materials can be substituted with Chinese "equivalents". Sometimes these are true equivalents, but most of the time the materials are inferior. If the manufacturer specifies a certain brand of material or alloy or whatever, there is an excellent chance that the Chinese source can get that material and make good parts that can be just as good as German or even American. There is usually a period of time where prototypes of the Chinese parts are evaluated and compared to what they are replacing.
The main fear that consumers would have - me included - is not knowing how diligent the manufacturer has been in demanding the exact material and level of workmanship from his Chinese source.
I am only saying that Chinese parts are not by nature inferior to those made anywhere else, but there still is the natural fear that they might be. This is where trust has to play a large role in choosing a brand. What really matters is not whether any parts come from China, but rather how diligent the manufacturer is in maintaining the quality of parts used.
Originally posted by Keith D Kerman:
Originally posted by pianoloverus:
[b]
Originally posted by John Pels:
[b] ALL piano actions are designed to function within a narrow range, but the target touchweight is consistent with ALL manufacturers and varies in the bass from 55 grams to around 45 grams in the treble. It doesn't matter who made the piano, they all have the same target touchweight.
M&H definitely lightened their actions a few years ago so this would imply your statment is incorrect even for the same company . I would agree that there is a range in the sense no manufacturer wants a touch weight of 40 or 65, but different manufacturers have different touchweights(or range if they build pianos with greater touchweight in the bass which I think is the usual case) so one piano can feel significantly heavier than another. [/b]
Mason & Hamlin redesigned their actions to have quite a bit less overall key mass than their previous actions. Their target static touchweight is within John Pel's parameters.
PianoCraft does quite a bit of action modification work on pianos from all makers, and I can assure you that while the parameters John Pels describes are fairly common targets for most manufacturers, they are often quite far off.
This includes several of the "tier 1 and 2" makers. [/b]I certainly didn't mean to imply that and never said that M&H touchweight wasn't within John's range. Perhaps I misinterpreted his statement to mean that a piano's average touchweight could range between 45 and 60. If that were the case, one piano would certainly feel heavier than another all other things being equal.
My point was simply that it's not surprising that *some* pianists could find the original Burgett Masons heavy and that's probably why they made the change a few years ago. And this wouldn't mean it was the pianist's fault. It seemed to me at least like John's post implied all pianos feel the same.
Hi all,...
A while back I read a post from Ori about Renner's plan to stamp every action parts that they make with a Renner logo,...
Do the new M&H pianos have these stamped parts now?
If yes,... then any M&H dealers should be able to easily see and tell us which action parts are Renner and non-Renner,...
Of course you can not assume that all the non-Renner parts are Chinese parts,... but you can at least narrow down the list of possible Chinese parts,...
Regards,
Robert
plover, to once again clarify, a piano of a given size should "feel" very similar from brand to brand. In other words a 6' Yamaha should "feel" very similar to a same size Kawai or Mason or Steinway or Hailun or whatever. I NEVER attempted to imply that "all pianos feel the same". This has a lot to do with key length and appropriate counterweighting of the keys to offset hammer weight. This is a big portion of the reason that larger pianos, 7-9' in length "feel" differently than smaller pianos. Key length is longer and requires less counterweighting. It is nothing more than comparing a long seesaw with a short seesaw. Longer levers require less mechanical advantage to raise a given weight. Removing mass from the M&H action while still maintaining the touchweight can only be positive. Removing inertia will only render the action more "responsive" to the player's touch. It may also create the illusion that the action is "lighter". I guess someone out there might measure the touchweight on both of these Masons. I am curious what actually might be measured. For me, it is academic, if I play an instrument, and I don't like the "touch", I make whatever mods are necessary to make it play as it was designed. In most cases I have found that the basic design was sound, but the implementation lacked.
To bring this thread back to reality I had occasion to try some fine pianos yesterday with a friend on our way home from a vacation together. We stopped in at Jim Laab's in Minneapolis and played a bunch of 7' pianos including a Bosie 225, Bosie 214, two Mason BBs and a Schimmel 7'. Of these 5 very fine pianos the two with the fastest and quickest actions were the two Mason BBs. Then came the Schimmel and the Bosies were far back.
If this entire thread is about the perception of the Mason action I would hope most pianists seeking a grand piano would actually play the thing. Based on my experience the Mason makes itself an obvious strong contender based on the performance of its action. Others will have their preferences, but for me the BB's performance was conspicuous in its excellence in comparison to some of the highest ranked pianos in the world.
Hi all - the thing I like to think most about Mason & Hamlin is how a few of you have commented in here...when the Burgett brothers bought the company; their intent, in part, was to maintain the high standards in which the Mason & Hamlin has always been constructed.
To that end, too, I like to think that no matter what, Mason & Hamlin is built the way it is because the company and its founders love making pianos.
And any product that's created with true passion and true dedication using a preserved high-standard, almost artistic form, could never be a bad thing in my book.
Enjoy your Mason & Hamlin for what it is. Mine continues to sing to me everyday I play it.
Originally posted by John Pels:
plover, to once again clarify, a piano of a given size should "feel" very similar from brand to brand. In other words a 6' Yamaha should "feel" very similar to a same size Kawai or Mason or Steinway or Hailun or whatever. I NEVER attempted to imply that "all pianos feel the same". This has a lot to do with key length and appropriate counterweighting of the keys to offset hammer weight. This is a big portion of the reason that larger pianos, 7-9' in length "feel" differently than smaller pianos. Key length is longer and requires less counterweighting. It is nothing more than comparing a long seesaw with a short seesaw. Longer levers require less mechanical advantage to raise a given weight. Removing mass from the M&H action while still maintaining the touchweight can only be positive. Removing inertia will only render the action more "responsive" to the player's touch. It may also create the illusion that the action is "lighter". I guess someone out there might measure the touchweight on both of these Masons. I am curious what actually might be measured. For me, it is academic, if I play an instrument, and I don't like the "touch", I make whatever mods are necessary to make it play as it was designed. In most cases I have found that the basic design was sound, but the implementation lacked.
While I usually agree with much of what John writes, there are a few things in this post that I disagree with.
I would never expect 5 different brands of piano of a similar length to feel the same. Even if all were done exactly to factory spec and perfectly regulated. While the basic design of the actions would be similar, each would still have differences in geometry and mass that would cause each to feel quite different. For example, one manufacturer might prefer a significantly heavier hammer for their design than another, and this would end up creating a very different feeling action.
Also, as all of these pianos sound different from one another, and the sound develops differently, even if they somehow had identical actions, they would feel quite different based on how the sound influenced the perception of the touch.
As to removing inertia in order to make a piano feel more responsive, this is not automatically a good thing. When a piano has too little inertia in the keys to overcome, while ultimately it may play faster, it feels as if the keys are getting away from your fingers. This is one of the main reasons that people who are used to playing american style pianos often have such a long adjustment period in playing European style pianos.
At PianoCraft, in order to improve the feel and responsiveness of an action, we are just as likely to add inertia as to remove some.
ScottM posted,
Chinese sourcing is problematic for many firms because it can take a while to find a good, reliable and trustworthy source for parts. Most materials can be substituted with Chinese "equivalents".... The main fear that consumers would have - me included - is not knowing how diligent the manufacturer has been in demanding the exact material and level of workmanship from his Chinese source.
I first noticed this issue in the context of manufacturers' frustrations with electronic components sourced from Taiwan. The problem was suppliers deviating from agreed upon specs. It's not an Asian issue, it's a "lowest cost supplier" issue.
Everything that we learn about the Burgetts indicates that they are dedicated to maintaining and even improving the quality of their instruments. If they do the required due diligence, they will regain and maintain the ranking that their instruments deserve. For now, Fine's "wait and see" approach makes sense.
And of course Keith I agree. You can add mass, but it really depends on where you add it as to how it feels. Obviously I was not intending to sanction what I call a "fly away" action. That flies in the face of common sense. As to hammer weights, as time has passed in the last 30 years or so, seemingly so has the wide gap in hammer weights. Any more, it is increasingly difficult to find other than a couple of "standard" grades unless special ordered. I tend to believe that piano makers have pushed towards a greater standardization in an effort to lessen the greater perceived differences between brands and "feel", and as they develop a greater understanding of what actually works better in a given application. Couple that with the long-term effects of heavy hammers on wippens and knuckles. These parts only function well within very narrow parameters.
I never said that they would feel "the same". I said that they would feel similar in a given size and to me anyway that's a more than subtle distinction. I have had friends with Bosies and Bechsteins that I could just sit down and play with no reservations. The euro "adjustment period" to which you allude is alien to me. All were of course in good regulation etc. I fully understand the "perceived touch" phenomenon. it doesn't impede my ability to judge an action though. If I play it for 20 minutes, I will know enough about it, and once again that is why I can't quite come to grips with someone having purchased a top quality high dollar instrument only to find the action unable to cope with etudes, or at a minimum physically taxing. There again, if this is the case, I can't imagine M&H quality control not catching something like this. Typically the player that buys a large Mason, has the chops to enjoy such an instrument to its full potential. There again, I have not played a late model Mason. I know my venerable CC2 doesn't play like that....but there was a time that it did. Those were HUGE hammers, not any more.
Larry Fine is not Jesus........Keith is correct in the above post...
H1
Originally posted by John Pels:
plover, to once again clarify, a piano of a given size should "feel" very similar from brand to brand. In other words a 6' Yamaha should "feel" very similar to a same size Kawai or Mason or Steinway or Hailun or whatever. I NEVER attempted to imply that "all pianos feel the same".
But since Masons of more than a few years ago(before the new action) and the new Masons of the exact same size have a very different feel, how could this be true? In other words, *even within the same make* and the *exact same length* there are big differences. It's not even necessary to look at other makes to find a difference.
And most of the European pianos of the *closest size* to a given Mason model(before the new action design)have a much lighter touch. This is not meant to be a negative statement about the old Masons because some people prefer a heavier touch.
plover, we can debate this all day long. Your observations do not jive with mine. I know what I like in a piano, and I have owned and rebuilt a bunch. I have never known any serious players that liked a "heavy" touch as opposed to the standard aforementioned. If Mason was selling pianos with what you refer to as a "heavy" touch, shame on them and I'm glad that they rectified it. I have heard the same line of talk about almost every brand at one time or another and typically a generalization has been made from a small sample. I have railed on these forums about "prep" for all instruments to get them to the design goals. I have played heavy Steinways and Baldwins. I have played light Steinways and Baldwins and other greater or lesser brands. I DO NOT believe that they play heavy by design, because it has been my experience that most players don't prefer pianos that way. Hence it would be counterproductive for any manufacturer to deliver a piano to the showroom that way. BUT...it happens every day. I have gotten enough feedback from players whose pianos I have rebuilt, that indicate to me that my perceptions are accurate . A lousy, heavy, slow, unresponsive playing action drives me nuts,no matter what nice sounds seem to emanate from the instrument. I would say that every action that I have worked on plays quickly and responsively as they were designed to do. I just lightened and regulated a badly rebuilt action on my M&H CC. The difference was night and day. This thing was virtually unplayable with a touchweight of around 75-80 grams. Was it heavy by design? Heck no. I played the instrument 30 years ago and it played like a dream. But, some moron that thought he could rebuild and regulate got involved and made a mess of a perfectly wonderful piano. Luckily, I was able to discuss some things with Paul Monachino and get a baseline for a place to start on the reversal of this travesty, and it once again plays and sounds like a big Mason should. Paul had actually done all of the prep work on my piano when it was made in 1961.
What European instruments have you auditioned that were light? I have played Bechsteins, Bosies, Forsters and Estonias in the 6-9' range, and that was not my observation. I played the Estonias and Forsters in a showroom. The Bechsteins were owned by friends. We had Bosies in most of the teaching studios in grad school, so I got to play quite a few of them during my tenure there. I believe that they were the 7 footers, as we had both 7' Bosies and 7' Steinways in the piano studios. One of my profs had an "Imperial". We played it often, and I just played it a couple of years ago once again and it was not a light action. Hamburg Steinways play no differently than a properly set up NY Steinway. The key here is "properly set up". Most of the pianos that I thought had "light" actions, actually had been overserviced, that is the hammers had been re-shaped one too many times. These were not found on the showroom floor, but in the practice halls.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree as our experiences are too disparate.
Originally posted by John Pels:
plover, we can debate this all day long. Your observations do not jive with mine. I know what I like in a piano, and I have owned and rebuilt a bunch. I have never known any serious players that liked a "heavy" touch as opposed to the standard aforementioned. If Mason was selling pianos with what you refer to as a "heavy" touch, shame on them and I'm glad that they rectified it. I have heard the same line of talk about almost every brand at one time or another and typically a generalization has been made from a small sample.
What European instruments have you auditioned that were light? I have played Bechsteins, Bosies, Forsters and Estonias in the 6-9' range, and that was not my observation.
I'm afraid there is no debate about newer Burgett Masons vs. the older Burgett Masons (with the older actions). It is a fact that the new ones have a lighter action. They were designed this way. You can verify this with any Mason salesman or the company. I have personally owned both the older and newer models and the newer Mason is *significantly* lighter.
Not only have I owned two Masons I have played at least 15 each of the new and old models so I have not made a generalization from a few models. Without exception the older ones were heavier. According to your post, it seems you have not even played any of the older Masons.
I have also played many Bechsteins and Boesendorfers(and a few Bluthners) and they are also *significantly* lighter than the *older* Burgett Masons.
As far as you preferring a lighter action and thinking all good pianists prefer this, it depends more precisely what you mean by "light".
Unless the statement is quantified it doesn't mean much because what one person might call light another might call average. Horowitz preferred an extremely light action but Rubinstein preferred a much heavier one.
I don't think light is synonymous with responsive, although I would agree that more pianists prefer an action on the lighter side of average. Although the older Masons were heavier than average pianos, they certainly didn't play like a truck. If they did, they wouldn't have sold as well as they did.
One must remember that much of Fine's book is based on hearsay, his gut feelings and his opinions and the opinions of his people in the field. They are opinions and they don't change the world. His written words are not the words of god and weren't handed to Moses on Mt Sinai. His methods are not scientific like say a consumer reports might be. While there is a great deal of good information, there is also a great deal of information which one should take with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by Glenn Treibitz:
One must remember that much of Fine's book is based on hearsay, his gut feelings and his opinions and the opinions of his people in the field.
It's all the way it's said. You used words like "heresay" and "opinions of opinions" which have negative connotations. But another person could say essentially the same thing in a more positive way:
Fine carefully looks at many of the opinions of some of the most knowledgable people in the piano industry. If a particular piano is not reported on by a significant number of techs, he either indicates this in the report or does not even give an evaluation due to lack of data.
plover, without this thread getting any more tedious, I never expressed a preference for "light" I said that the range as specified by most manufacturers of between 55 and 45 grams was my preference. The fact that many do not fall within the desired range does not make it less desirable. I played the Horowitz piano when it was on tour and it was not ridiculously light, maybe 5 grams lighter at both extremes. One of my college profs likewise played one of Horowitz's pianos in the 50's and verified that it wasn't ridiculously light then either. Such is the nature of rumors. Rubinstein did not tour with a personal piano. Therefore he was likely making use of that aforementioned range of 55-45 grams which...is the standard after all. As far as older Masons go, you seem to forget...I own one made in 1961. As to older Burgett Masons, I would warrant that if Carey can't play etudes on them, they play like a truck and I am glad that they changed the design. I have played an array of older but pre-Burgett Masons and they did not play like trucks either. Like I said previously, if early Burgett Masons have "heavy" actions, that was a poor decision on their part and they have rectified it. At this juncture you seem to be comparing only early Burgett Masons with euro pianos. That is hardly an American vs. Euro comparison. I still maintain that they (virtually all mfgrs.) are targeting the 55-45 range.
Well John - speaking of grams....I followed your earlier advice (which I sincerely appreciated) and just spent an hour stacking nickels on my Mason's keyboard. Turns out that the average touchweight of keys in the bottom two octaves is 75 grams, the average weight for keys in the next four octaves is 60, and the keys in the highest two octaves weigh in at around 55 grams. Given that I'm amazed that I've been able to crank out some of the pieces I've been playing recently. Guess my chops are better than I thought !! Obviously I need to get a good tech in to see what can be done to lighten the touch (even though this particular vintage M&H was designed with a heavier action to begin with). My M&H was "new" when I bought it, but it had been moved across the country three times (very long story) and was in dire need of regulation. Obviously the guy who regulated it for us had his own ideas, but I was so happy to have the piano that the touchweight really didn't bother me at first.
In your posts you often refer to your graduate school experience. I sometimes think back to my own grad studies 36 years ago at the University of North Texas School of Music and wonder why, in addition to piano pedagogy and literature courses, we weren't required to learn something about the technical aspects of our instruments. Guess its never too late. Thanks again for your help. I also found an interesting article on touchweight on the pianofinder.com website.
Thanks also to Steve Ramirez and others who provided good advice regarding this issue.
Carey
Originally posted by John Pels:
plover, without this thread getting any more tedious, I never expressed a preference for "light" I said that the range as specified by most manufacturers of between 55 and 45 grams was my preference. The fact that many do not fall within the desired range does not make it less desirable. Rubinstein did not tour with a personal piano. Therefore he was likely making use of that aforementioned range of 55-45 grams which...is the standard after all. As far as older Masons go, you seem to forget...I own one made in 1961. As to older Burgett Masons, I would warrant that if Carey can't play etudes on them, they play like a truck and I am glad that they changed the design. I have played an array of older but pre-Burgett Masons and they did not play like trucks either. Like I said previously, if early Burgett Masons have "heavy" actions, that was a poor decision on their part and they have rectified it. At this juncture you seem to be comparing only early Burgett Masons with euro pianos. That is hardly an American vs. Euro comparison. I still maintain that they (virtually all mfgrs.) are targeting the 55-45 range.
The *entire discussion* has been about older Burgett Masons and the newer Burgett Masons so any discussion about pre Burgett Masons or owning pre Burgett Masons is not relevant. That is why I was comparing early Burgett Masons to European pianos. As far as Horowitz's and Rubinstein's pianos I am only repeating what I've read in several reliable books.
I never said that virtually all manufacturers didn't target the 55-45 range, just that older Burgett Masons had heavier actions than newer Burgett Masons and that older Burgett Masons had heavier actions than most European models.
The discussion began with Carey saying he had difficulty playing etudes on his Burgett Mason with the older action. You told him it wasn't the piano's fault and that all pianos of the same length had essentially the same feel. All I've been trying to show you is that these two statements were not correct. Keith Kerman also told you this in an earlier post on July 29 2:26p.m.
Carey, I give you credit for playing that instrument on a regular basis. One of those scenarios where what doesn't kill you will make you stronger! There again you can end up with tendonitis. Those numbers are on the high side, but not so high that it can't be rectified by a competent tech. I still can't imagine that being normal for an early Burgett Mason though. I tend to think of myself as a fairly physical player and many of my hobbies are far afield from piano to aid in that. There again folks will surprise you. One of my profs in college with the Schwarzenegger piano never had it fixed and wouldn't think twice of rattling through the Rach 3 on that beast.
As to the piano technology thing, I totally agree. In undergrad we had an intro course and for my class project I hung a new set of hammers on my Baldwin A. The tech whom I had come to know spent a couple of days re-regulating the piano at my house afterwards and it was a neat experience. My interest was really borne of necessity. I wanted a big piano and couldn't afford it nearly 20 years ago. I subsequently bought a trashed out Knabe D and the local community college offered a piano tech program and the rest is history. Pianists are likely the only instrumentalists that have such minimal familiarity with their instrument. Meanwhile, try to find a competent tech and explain your problem. If this were me, I would call M&H and have a comprehensive conversation with someone that knows the history and also the remedy between the early and present-day actions. In other words, they may just say add lead at such and such a location, install X hammers from such and such a supplier yadda, yadda, yadda. It would be the best place to start. Maybe they have a local representative that can assist, in that they have recognized it as a manufacturing issue and subsequently solved this problem in production.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by Steve Chandler:
To bring this thread back to reality I had occasion to try some fine pianos yesterday with a friend on our way home from a vacation together. We stopped in at Jim Laab's in Minneapolis and played a bunch of 7' pianos including a Bosie 225, Bosie 214, two Mason BBs and a Schimmel 7'. Of these 5 very fine pianos the two with the fastest and quickest actions were the two Mason BBs. Then came the Schimmel and the Bosies were far back.
If this entire thread is about the perception of the Mason action I would hope most pianists seeking a grand piano would actually play the thing. Based on my experience the Mason makes itself an obvious strong contender based on the performance of its action. Others will have their preferences, but for me the BB's performance was conspicuous in its excellence in comparison to some of the highest ranked pianos in the world.
We like it, too.
Thanks, Steve!
Originally posted by John Pels:
ALL piano actions are designed to function within a narrow range, but the target touchweight is consistent with ALL manufacturers and varies in the bass from 55 grams to around 45 grams in the treble. It doesn't matter who made the piano, they all have the same target touchweight. It might help to verify exactly what your touchweight is at this time. To do this, you will need around 15 nickels which you will stack on the keys. I would start with 10 nickels in the Bass section and add nickels until the key begins to go down.
John (and others knowledgeable in this area):
This is interesting information which I was not aware of. However, it raises some questions.
As we all know, the purpose of hitting a key on a piano is not just to cause the key to go down but to produce a sound. While 45-55 grams of weight placed on a key may be enough weight to cause a key to go down on a well-regulated piano, considerably more weight is required to cause the key to produce a sound (unless the weight is dropped on the key from a height). A more meaningful metric would be the amount of force that must be applied to a key in order to get the key to produce a sound (ideally, one would like to know the amount of sound produced by a range of different magnitudes of force applied to a key but this is probably too complicated to determine). What are the appropriate values that piano manufacturers strive for regarding this metric?
Within what range can different keys vary with regards to this metric in a well-regulated piano?
If this information were available, then a person who is not a piano technician could make some preliminary quantitative measurements to determine how well regulated a piano is. This would be of considerable value in determining whether a piano needs to be regulated.
How well regulated a piano is, can be determined with the use of a few basic tools and visual observation of the hammer, shank and flange as it "cycles". You just have to know what to look for. It is NOT necessary to remove the action to ascertain this, though it is necessary to remove the action to check certain adjustments that are part of the regulating process. Variations between keys should be kept to a minimum. That is the point of regulation after all. Sadly, most pianos likely need regulation. It is generally neglected because of the expense and the piano "plays" after all. I liken it to a tune-up on a car. It is necessary to ensure the most economical operation of a vehicle. Likewise a regulation insures the "economy" of motion in a piano. I am sure that there must be some videos available about regulation in general. Maybe post such a request to the tech forum?
Hi folks. I posted earlier on but was out of commission due to a bilateral hernia surgery----Don't get one.
Now for FACTS!!!
Mason still sources from Renner. The actions are not 'Chinese'. They make their own action rails.
I got this info from my Mason rep.
Perhaps it is the pain pills talking and the fact that I sell Masons for a living, but I am sick to death of the 'fear and uncertainty' approach to selling either by salesman or people who are still trying to convince themselves that what they sell or own is good. Then there is the pitch that argues that what the schools (who got their mass produced soft shell, plastic pianos for next to nothing on some dealer/manufacturer program) use has to be the best because they are schools. Then of course as a bonus, you get a lot of academically intelligent and gifted people thinking they know whats good because it is what they are used to.
What was this post about? Oh yeah, so I have sold Masons for many years and as someone else put it, Fine is dead wrong. Actually I really like Brick's post. He is right on the money.
ACTION WEIGHT
So, you can have a lower mass action or key set that weighs off the same as a higher mass alternative. A greater inertia is required when playing the higher mass action. We are talking about moving mass, not what the keys weigh off at.
If anyone has questions, I suggest calling Mason & Hamlin. People too often generalize based on what they do not know. Fear and uncertainty!!!!!
P.S. Don't forget to be afraid!
Boo!
Originally posted by Kieran Wells:
Now for FACTS!!!
Mason still sources from Renner. The actions are not 'Chinese'. They make their own action rails.
I got this info from my Mason rep.
What was this post about? Oh yeah, so I have sold Masons for many years and as someone else put it, Fine is dead wrong.
Are you saying that *some* parts of the action or all the action parts are made by Renner? Which parts are Renner?
Are you saying that it is not true that more parts of the action are produced in China than was the case with the earlier Burgett Masons? Are you saying that the plates are not produced in China?
pianoloverus,
Mason sources from all around the world. I said they still source from Renner. I said nothing about weather or not more or less, or any parts of the action are produced in China now, I said the actions cannot be called Chinese. You brought up the plates, not me. I think Steinway bought the Kelly plate factory. I could not tell you where the plates are cast. I may not be able to tell you anything though.
The Mason&Hamlin's have steadily improved and are still built better than Steinway. That was what I was getting at.
Originally posted by Kieran Wells:
pianoloverus,
Mason sources from all around the world. I said they still source from Renner. I said nothing about weather or not more or less, or any parts of the action are produced in China now, I said the actions cannot be called Chinese. You brought up the plates, not me. I think Steinway bought the Kelly plate factory. I could not tell you where the plates are cast. I may not be able to tell you anything though.
Saying they "still source from Renner" and the "actions cannot be called Chinese" sounds like your trying to split hairs if they have increased the amount of Chinese parts in their actions. Do you know which parts are Renner and which are Chinese and have they increased the amount of Chinese parts in their actions?
If they haven't increased the amount of Chinese parts why was there a long thread where Cecil Ramirez explained M&H's viewpoint on this very topic?
There have also been several threads discussing whether it was good or bad to source the plates from China. No one has denied the plates are made in China.
As I said before, I think Masons are great pianos and I own a BB. I just think they made a bad decision in some of their choices for outsourcing of parts.
Yeah, I read the thread. I talked to Cecil today too. I think you just have a bone to pick. I don't know why though. I would like to know REALLY what bad choices they made. You are very loose and accusatory with your words. None of your criticisms have been substantive. It's just more 'fear and uncertainty'.
Time for me to go home.
Boo!
Have a good night everybody.
All this over one man's opinion?
I've never read the book, but you have to take it with a grain of salt.
I used to take Siskel and Ebert's word as god as well and missed out on some pretty good movies as a result. Larry Fine has a good understanding of pianos I'm sure, but I doubt he thought his rankings would raise such a debate. OR DID HE?
Originally posted by Kieran Wells:
Yeah, I read the thread. I talked to Cecil today too. I think you just have a bone to pick. I don't know why though. I would like to know REALLY what bad choices they made. You are very loose and accusatory with your words. None of your criticisms have been substantive. It's just more 'fear and uncertainty'.
How come you didn't answer *any* of the questions in my post before your last one? I think your reply is the thing lacking substance.
You made a post declaring that now these are the real "facts". Yet when someone questions you on it you made no direct replies to the questions.
Any possible criticisms I've made have only been things said numerous times before on this and other forums.
Pianoloverus,
I find your *stars* and your "quotes" amusing.
Here are my last two cents and then I have to go to work: Just because something has been said does not make it true. Just because someone has not confirmed or denied your suspicion does not make it true or even a valid concern. I don't think you have enough experience to speak with authority on the quality of Mason&Hamlin pianos today. Your assessment is wrong. The onus is on you dude, not me. A Mason speaks for itself. You are not evaluating the instrument for what it is, you are basing your statements on what you think--a mistake. What are your thoughts based on? Be honest. You seem a sponge for all the biddy gossip that can go on in a forum which is amazing seeing as how you actually own a BB. Who did this to you?
Everything I said was factual. I don't need to defend any of that. Perhaps when I said that Mason still sources from Renner, that may have been misconstrued as implying that they only source from Renner. This was not my intention. I do not comment on where Mason sources from. It is not my business. To get in to that would be feeding into your irrational paranoia of weather or not some screw came from somewhere in Asia or Europe or Mars for that matter. I'll bet thats where those screws come from, Mars! Space piano!!!
Quote: "I bet if you asked people whether they'd prefer to own a Mason with Renner vs. Chinese action and other parts, most would prefer to have the Renner."
Answer: Thats a goofy thing to say because Mason does not use a Chinese action.
Quote:"Is there anyone who seriously thinks M&H wouldn't still be using Renner action parts and other non Asian parts if those manufacturers agreed to charge the same price as their Asian counterparts?"
Quote:"Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price?"
Answer: Mason uses the very best parts available. In some cases it may be Renner, In some cases not. The proof is in the pudding. They don't cut corners on actions.
Everything you have said about actions has been wrong too by the way. Their previous weighting was just fine. Its just different strokes for different folks. I have played gobs of Liszt on them and everything worked just great. A lot of musicians have played those Chopin Etudes on them. It is just the modern fancy to have them set up the way they are.
Be fair. That is all I ask. Just go become a tech (or maybe you are one, I don't know), go service a few hundred Masons, Steinways, Bosendorfers, Schimmels, Estonias, maybe some Bechsteins, do some custom setup for a few university and church committees, field service calls for 10 years or so, and see what gives. Or maybe you have. It seems like you have been on this forum though for a long time so you must be an expert.
Forgive the *venomous* "statements". I am just tired of the *fear* and "uncertainty" stuff. I hope this ~clears~ up the "facts" for you. I have some work to get to. Besides, I think that everybody is probably sick of this discussion.
I am sure you will get the last word in though.
On a serious note, you own a great piano and really your enthusiasm is an asset to the community. We need more people who care about piano and the arts in the world. The fact that you care enough to spend all the time you do on this forum is great.
I have to get to work for real now.
P.S. My avatar is cooler than yours.****~~~****""""!!!!!!
Great post Kieran!
And, Yes, we lurkers/participants do enjoy enthusiasm and different points of view. Why else would we lurk/participate?
To condense all that you and others have said...
my suggestion is...
VISIT THE FACTORY.
LISTEN to the many lectures/sharing that Bruce Clark gives as you tour.
TALK with the Burgett Brothers, one of which always attends the PW tour in May.
Then, make your decision as to whether MH cares about its product and all the partsthat comprise it. Learn about their exploration into what might improve their pianos as well.
I am sure that you, as well as others, will come to the conclusion that they do everything that they can to provide the best MH with the most updated technology that is available to them.
See factory picture posts here:
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/22/147.html http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/22/128.html and there are others - check under Forum members parties etc....
You can see the actions being BUILT, and TESTED as well as all other construction in the photos. But best that those who wonder as they wander, to visit in the factory in person.
Frank (PW) has graciously set up this tour with MH for several years now. And MH has graciously receive us. I for one am grateful and overwhelmed with the knowledge that I have rec'd from the MH owners and management.
LL
Originally posted by Kieran Wells:
KW said:Just because something has been said does not make it true. Just because someone has not confirmed or denied your suspicion does not make it true or even a valid concern. Your assessment is wrong. The onus is on you dude, not me. A Mason speaks for itself. Everything I said was factual. I don't need to defend any of that. Perhaps when I said that Mason still sources from Renner, that may have been misconstrued as implying that they only source from Renner.
______________________________________________
Pianolover said:So far you answered only 1 of 3 questions from my post a while back. You said "Mason sources from Renner" and Mason makes their own action rails, but never said even one part was from China. Then you claim I must have misconstrued something.Again I remind you that Cecil Ramirez wrote a long post explaining Mason's position!
I have never claimed that any new actions parts from China were inferior. I have said I felt it was not a good decision precisely because of the uncertainty involved(exactly what Fine says).
_____________________________________________
KW:Quote: "I bet if you asked people whether they'd prefer to own a Mason with Renner vs. Chinese action and other parts, most would prefer to have the Renner."
Answer: Thats a goofy thing to say because Mason does not use a Chinese action.
_____________________________________________
PL:Here again you're splitting hairs in an attempt it seems to evade the issue. You want to say that since every action part is not Chinese I shouldn't call it a Chinese action. OK, just go and replace every statement I made with "an action that includes more Chinese parts than before".
______________________________________________
KW;Quote:"Is there anyone who seriously thinks M&H wouldn't still be using Renner action parts and other non Asian parts if those manufacturers agreed to charge the same price as their Asian counterparts?"
Quote:"Do you really think M&H would have swithced to Chinese action parts if Renner parts could be obtained for the same price?"
Answer: Mason uses the very best parts available. In some cases it may be Renner, In some cases not. The proof is in the pudding. They don't cut corners on actions.
_________________________________________________
PL: You didn't answer my question again. And when I first posed it, no one answered "yes" to the question.
_______________________________________________
KW:Everything you have said about actions has been wrong too by the way. Their previous weighting was just fine. Its just different strokes for different folks. I have played gobs of Liszt on them and everything worked just great. A lot of musicians have played those Chopin Etudes on them. It is just the modern fancy to have them set up the way they are.
_______________________________________________
PL:I have said numerous times in this thread(try reading my posts carefully)that the earlier Burgett Masons had actions on the heavy side which is true. Then I specifically said they didn't play like a truck because if they did Mason wouldn't have sold their pianos so easily. I specifically said earlier that touch was a matter of preference.
I have said numerous times in this thread that I am extremely happy with my Mason and think Masons are great pianos. I just don't think their decision to switch to Chinese parts was the best one.
I visited a Mason dealer and told him what I thought about the changes. The reply was "maybe in a few years, you'll feel differently" which I think was a perfectly reasonable answer. The dealer didn't try to deny anything I said was true or that my opinion was unreasonable.
pianoloverus,
I think you have a blinding crush on Larry Fine. Is he married? I'll bet he is rich!
I stand corrected on your action weight comment, I skimmed the post-you write a lot of them.
PL said: I have said numerous times in this thread that I am extremely happy with my Mason and think Masons are great pianos. I just don't think their decision to switch to Chinese parts was the best one.
Answer: No one told you which action parts come from where and what percentage is what. I iterate that Mason uses the very best parts in the world for their actions. Judge the piano on its merits. No cost/corner cutting is done on actions. That I am at liberty to say. It is just not my business to respond to any paranoid or irrational assertions regarding origin.
Your 'splitting hairs' analogy is not apt. In this context it refers to a very fine delineation that one may use to his/her own advantage. I am not doing that. I am just standing up for the truth. Masons are superior instruments. They have improved since the original 2001 publication of the Pianos Book. The rating demotion was based on flimsy information, or rather non-information(perhaps that's the problem). That is what all the hype is about. You knock Masons with your assumptions, your tone and intimations, not real information. I take issue with that.
I think that most listers would agree that PL and I have not agreed much on this thread. I WILL say that nothing substantive has been added in Kieran's comments though. All that I can glean is that we should be reassured by a dealer or dealer's rep that all is well because....he says so. This is just about as silly and self-serving as a comment made by Norbert last month about seeking unbiased info from an owner of a company dealing once again with Chinese sourced products. It makes a huge difference whether one is buying non-moving parts (screws, plates, capstans for example) vs. moving parts such as wippens and shanks and flanges. Address the issue if you are able and can contribute genuine information, rather than just throwing up more smoke. There is certainly enough of that already.
Originally posted by John Pels:
I think that most listers would agree that PL and I have not agreed much on this thread. I WILL say that nothing substantive has been added in Kieran's comments though. All that I can glean is that we should be reassured by a dealer or dealer's rep that all is well because....he says so. This is just about as silly and self-serving as a comment made by Norbert last month about seeking unbiased info from an owner of a company dealing once again with Chinese sourced products. It makes a huge difference whether one is buying non-moving parts (screws, plates, capstans for example) vs. moving parts such as wippens and shanks and flanges. Address the issue if you are able and can contribute genuine information, rather than just throwing up more smoke. There is certainly enough of that already.
Well,I certainly agree with you here!
Thats not nice John Pels. I am suggesting that the piano be judged on merit, not ignorant assumptions. Use your own judgment. Play them. Send one to a conservatory where it is abused for 12 or 14 hours per day. I have sent tons of them to churches and schools over the past two years.In fact they gave us an award for it. Perhaps you would like to visit some of them. I would be more than happy to share. Like I said, my main concern is the tone of things here. No one is hiding anything. Go tear one apart Mr.Expert. It seems that in everyones experience, no one has been able to come up with anything substantively negative about a Mason this year compared to five years ago, in fact THEY ARE BETTER. I think this conversation has been exhausted. I just hate to see people make judgments based on emotional bias. It is really too bad. I don't have any more time on my hands though.
Perhaps you should go take a factory tour. I am sure they would love to have you. We would love for you to visit our store too. You would like it.
Over and out.
Fear and Doubt!
So Kieran, if we are to judge on "merit", we would presume that to do so would require an evaluation over time. So, if churches and schools are using them, that's a good thing if over time they prove their mettle. As far as sending "tons" to schools, that could mean a total of 5 Masons, given their mass. I am not sure that the "tone" here is necessarily negative, maybe cautiously optimistic. As I have opined at great length over the last couple of years, it is impossible to evaluate action parts in the short term. Many hours and years are required to determine failure modes. Everything works wonderfully when new with essentially no mileage. The question is how will it fare over time, and as I have also opined no one here has the answer yet to that one. Skepticism has to be the rule until proven otherwise, one way or the other. Taking a factory tour is illustrative, but utterly meaningless in terms of longevity especially as regards parts that are not made in-house. Parts may be specified to a certain standard, but it in no way means that they will be manufactured to that standard and last as the original design was intended. There was a time when one could have never questioned the quality of action parts. Domestic parts have lasted for 100 years with little maintenance which were mostly of Pratt-Read or the original Wessel Nickel and Gross manufacture, then Pratt-Winn which I was skeptical about initially, but they too worked out well. This was not the case with many Korean brands, that over time tended to disassemble..literally. And as to your snide and self-serving " Mr.Expert" comment, assuming that it was meant for me, I would be happy to disassemble an action that had suffered hard use to determine its viability over time. Since I have been doing rebuilding for close to 20 years, I just might have a clue.
It's not fear and doubt and you know it. It's healthy skepticism brought about by a company that set itself up as above reproach in manufacturing a fine hand-crafted instrument using the most reknowned parts and then switched suppliers in mid-stream. The Chinese have absolutely NO track record for quality in any venue. Actually it is the contrary. If Mason were to say that they had switched to Tokiwa, I doubt that anyone would have blinked an eye, such is the reputation of that supplier. Maybe in another 10 or 20 years the Chinese may earn such a title. Or maybe they will suffer the same fate as the manufacturers that made action parts for Sojin or Young Chang. Time will tell.
As far as the discussion being exhausted, well I would imagine that this will be debated until proven one way or the other. Just because one dealer rep says it's over, just doesn't carry any weight. Aren't you the same guys that pull those university sales on weekends?
Oh, I just don't seem to have any more "time on my hands". I need to go back and blast through the Chopin Fantasy one more time. The old M&H beckons.
Nope. I have never done a university sale.
If 5 a year to schools and churches was all we did, we would be out of business.
The pianos get tons of mileage, or in other words extreme use in a very short period of time since they get hammered on for 12 hours per day, at the school districts, universities, conservatories and teachers studios we sell to. What one might call 10 years worth of wear in 2. That is normal for these extreme environments though.
I do not agree with your 'test of time argument'. It does not wash with me.
Quote
John: "The Chinese have absolutely NO track record for quality in any venue."
Wow John.
John Pels,
You have sparked my curiosity.
Please know the following questions don't come with any animosity. If you're feeling a bit rankled, just take your time before replying. I am patient and will gladly give you as much time as you like to respond.
So here they are:
How much time must pass for you to let go of your healthy skepticism?
What criteria must be met?
Can you quantify it?
Or will you defer to Mr. Fine to make the judgement call?
Again, I have no desire to spark further argument on this topic among fellow forum members. I just want to learn about your view on this issue and how you might perceive your future perspective possibly changing, if at all.
Respectfully,
Brenda
Brenda, for me a dozen years with parts in the public domain should show any weakness with emphasis on instruments used in an institutional setting. At that juncture, it could be determined that bushing cloth was adequate to the task and center pins hadn't worked loose, action cloth that was in contact with the capstans hadn't been pounded into oblivion. The quality of both leather and cloth used in the manufacture of knuckles was adequate as well. I certainly don't need to defer to Larry Fine to make decisions for me, but I can virtually guarantee that he is looking for the same criteria to be met over time. Anyone that has worked on piano actions will ask the same exact questions. And as I have said previously the time logged on the instrument and the level of playing will have a direct affect on the aforementioned wear characteristics. You will not find adult beginners thru intermediate level players taxing a piano action. When you get into the most difficult repertoire and are playing hours a day (e.g. college students or advanced H.S. students) this will greatly accelerate wear and compression of action felt and cloth.
It all comes down to what would I install for example in my Mason CC2 when I have decided that I will need to install new action parts. For me it is not much of a decision. There are two companies that make quality action parts, Renner and Tokiwa. At present I am giving the edge to Renner, but only because they offer an adjusting screw for repetition-spring tension that Tokiwa does not. I like that feature rather than having to accurately bend the spring for correct tension. Other than that, durability of either is never in question. The Chinese to my knowledge are not offering action parts as aftermarket repair items to techs at this time. I would assume that I could order a replacement set of wippens through M&H for my CC2 if I was so disposed. Out of curiosity it might be interesting to see what the actual cost of these items might be compared to the other two brands previously mentioned.
And here again, I have not disassembled any Burgett era M&H action. Since others notably Fine have opined that they are using Chinese action parts, I have assumed that he was referring to "moving" action parts, rather than action frames, screws, capstans etc. No one from M&H has been very forthcoming about what exactly is being referred to as "action parts".
Like I have said previously, on high ticket items, worst-case scenario is replacing action parts and re-regulating an action. Cost on the action parts is likely $2000. That plus labor to R&R everything is not that big a deal on instruments that cost say $70K new. You might not want to do it, but if worse came to worse it is not a deal breaker.
As to my perspective changing, it must over time change or I show no growth. I was just as skeptical 20 years ago when I bought Tokiwa parts for my Knabe. At the time, I could not find domestic parts and Renner USA did not exist. The Tokiwa parts are still in the Knabe and it has had the living tar played out of it hours a day. The knuckles could use a replacement and I have a set on the shelf ready for implementation, Tokiwa parts once again. I'm a skeptic Brenda and I hope for the best for all parties concerned, but until time has passed, or in lieu of time measured in years, some concentrated institutional time, no one can really make that assessment.
Kieran, school districts I will discount. Name the conservatories and universities. Please indicate how many pianos were sold to them. Please indicate whether the pianos are used in practice rooms, studios or concert halls. What are the models used in each venue? WHY???? Because 30 years ago I used to log 12 hours a day of practice in the practice halls. The concert instruments and studio instruments do not log near the time that instruments do in the practice halls. In the absence of concentrated "practice time" in practice rooms, all we have is "general time". Either way, the truth will be told. In this we are in agreement. The real question is how large is the sample?
Despite your aversion to my statement, please if you will, state a Chinese product that has not an average reputation, but a GREAT reputation. In other words, a product that is cost no object, they are just known to make "the best". And I don't mean Chinese food by the way which is generally delicious.
Ftp, I think that you have this thread confused with the Kawai warranty thread.
Originally posted by John Pels:
As I have opined at great length over the last couple of years, it is impossible to evaluate action parts in the short term. Many hours and years are required to determine failure modes.
You make these statements as if they were ex cathedra, but I believe they are dead wrong. Where's the proof of your unnuanced statements? In general, it is relatively easy to do accelerated aging tests. Many industries do it to qualify their own products. Consumer Reports does it when they test products. It is not rocket science. If you sat down and thought about it for 5 minutes, I bet you could come up with a short list of things one could do to test an action and determine how well it would fare in the long term.
I think it would be interesting to take some Renner actions, an M&H action, a Kawai Millennium III action, a Yamaha action, and let's say a Brodmann action and run the tests. Here's my prediction--Renner wouldn't turn out to be the best.
Roy, surprising as it may seem I do NOT disagree with anything that you say. Nothing would make me happier. It is nonetheless something that no one seems willing to disclose if indeed it is actually being done. Bring it on and dispel any and all myths. All I know is what I have seen when I disassemble a given action.
Components can be subjected to accelerated testing, but only experience can provide a judgement re the willingness of a lowest cost supplier to comply with contract specs. IMO Fine's "wait and see" attitude remains sensible.
Non-compliance can be handled, but that is a separate issue.
Quote:
John: "There are two companies that make quality action parts, Renner and Tokiwa."
I talked to my good friend who just ordered some abel (German) whippens (yes, I know they are known for their hammers) for a rebuild from Wally Brooks and they are supposed to be pretty sweet--just as nice as renner if not nicer he says. Petrof makes actions too. Detoa makes em. Herberger Brooks/Langer in England (I may be off on the spelling) makes them. Hate to say it, but Steinway makes em. Imedagawa (sp?), another Japanese company makes hammers, shanks and flanges I think. I am not familiar with their action parts if they have any.
You crack me up!
I gotta go.
Just sharing some pics from the factory tours and my thoughts on what I observed.
The following two pictures show the MH actions being tested. FOR HOURS on end. They quickly move back and forth for testing the action. I asked Mr. Burgett about them. He said they go all day everyday to make sure that everything is working correctly. And monitor them (of course)
It made me feel very assured that they not only know what is best for inside their pianos, but that the action will withstand the wear and tear for the long haul.
M H factory allows visitors to go to each and every station on each and every floor. Bruce Clark is always there to demonstate and lecture, while we are also free to visit the surrounding artisans. And pictures? No problem. They have nothing to hide and are very proud of what they produce.
Now, I was pondering just today just how often an action might need to be tested to cover 10-20 years of wear.
Let's see - (and my math is not absolute). Normal use in the home? Let's give it 10 hrs a week.
x 52 wks in a yr = 520 hrs a year use.
If a testing machine ran 24 hrs a day, 24 into 520 = 22 days running for a normal years use.
220 days of testing the action for a 10 year usage.
I have no doubt that this was/is done.
Some more photos of action parts and assemblage at MH
I will add some more pics when I can to the Mason Hamlin Factory Tour 08. I have many others already up on previous tours.
I am not in this for a fight, nor to defend MH (which I don't think needs defending) but just to share what I saw and was impressed with at MH.
And highly recommend that anyone interested sign up for the next PW factory tour (hopefully one will be offered for May 09) so that YOU TOO can experience what goes into a quality made piano.
Kieran, who's cracking who up? I am not aware that Detoa is supplying parts to the aftermarket. I am not aware that Herrburger Brooks is supplying to the aftermarket. If Abel is supplying wippens and they prove to be of decent quality over time I say great. Are they actually making them or are they subcontracted elsewhere? Imadegawa only makes hammers that I am aware of. I was under the impression that Steinway was using only Renner, but maybe that's just the Hamburg. Search the forums and I am sure that you will find general concensus among rebuilders about which action replacements that they prefer.
Lilylady, those are some nice pictures. Unfortunately the setup that is being used for determining longevity over time is "eye candy". None of the action parts is being accelerated to any velocity that would cause any kind of wear whatsoever. In addition the shank/flange assy. has no hammer attached, and hence no inertia is being generated, hence no force is acting on the bushing. The wippens are totally passive as are the knuckles under the shank/flange assy. At this rate of use, they will likely find that assembly under a pile of rubble after the third atomic holocaust in the year 3000, still working to no real purpose. The parts do not appear to be Renner as I cannot discern an adjusting screw for the repetition spring, but the focus is a little bit hazy, so I could be wrong.
Folks, please understand, I am a devout Mason and Hamlin lover and have been so since 1974 when I was introduced to a CC2 at college, a piano that now adorns my living room. I want only the best for this piano company. Burgetts have done an incredible job of re-introducing some of the world's greatest and most well-constructed pianos of all time. This is no small feat in this day and time. These folks are gracious in fostering the tours and are very helpful via phone. If they can't answer the question, they will put you in touch with folks that can and do so willingly. My take on this is essentially the same as Fine, the jury is still out on action parts, and our reasoning is basically the same. In the interim, I still believe that the best course of action is to offer two actions, the standard issue and the "conservatory". Charge another $1000. That will please everyone.
Originally posted by lilylady:
Just sharing some pics from the factory tours and my thoughts on what I observed.
Now, I was pondering just today just how often an action might need to be tested to cover 10-20 years of wear.
Let's see - (and my math is not absolute). Normal use in the home? Let's give it 10 hrs a week.
x 52 wks in a yr = 520 hrs a year use.
If a testing machine ran 24 hrs a day, 24 into 520 = 22 days running for a normal years use.
220 days of testing the action for a 10 year usage.
Lilylady, your math isn't incorrect, but testing can be done much faster. A human can only press 10 notes at a time, and no music that I know of requires this constantly. Additionally, no music requires all notes to be played fff all the time. An action tester can press all 88 keys at a time, do it at a high rate of speed, and with any force desired. One of the rebuilders that posts here, I think it was Del, mentioned having an action tester that could destroy any action within a very short amount of time--I think it took only a week or two.
Originally posted by John Pels:
Lilylady, those are some nice pictures. Unfortunately the setup that is being used for determining longevity over time is "eye candy". None of the action parts is being accelerated to any velocity that would cause any kind of wear whatsoever.
Why would M&H bother with using these machines for "eye candy?" Not enough people tour the factory to make it worth their while. Why did they go through the expense of designing and making them? Why do they go through the expense of putting their actions into them for testing? Could it be that they are testing for something other than longevity? For example, maybe they are just moving the action centers through some amount of range to let their friction stabilize. Otherwise it may be that through the first month of playing, the friction of the action centers will change and downgrade the action feel. John, you claim to be a big fan of M&H, but at the same time you seem to go out of your way to interpret anything about M&H in a negative way. Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.
Roy, all great questions, many of which I can't conjecture an answer to. I just call it as I see it. It's just one guy's opinion. Since, I cannot claim that any of my actions have degraded over the first month of play without cycling them in that manner, and haven't heard this from any other techs thus far, I am once again skeptical. If that were the case, then if the piano ever sat for a period of time unplayed, would it have the same consequences? Inquiring minds want to know.
I am, despite your characterization, one of M&H's biggest fans. I defy you to find another alumnus that keeps after his alma mater for 30 years to get them to sell him a decrepit old practice piano well past its prime to restore, play and love. I handled everything including the moving and transporting of this instrument 1600 miles. Such has been my commitment to this instrument. If anyone has gone to this length, I would like to hear their story and I'll bet others would as well.
What I wouldn't want to see is a rash of failures in their new instruments ensue over time that would allow all of the hard-won accolades for this brand to be diminished for the wishes of a few bean counters saving a few hundred dollars per unit on action parts. Reputations are easily damaged and not so easily resuscitated. Witness the domestic car industry! It is highly unlikely that we will ever recover from the poor quality of the 70's and early 80's. Meanwhile during that same time period, the Japanese car industry produced an incredible product, and that explains their present market share. It also explains why I own two of them. During this same period, the Japanese piano companies also established their presence as preeminent makers. Quality for them is number one and evidently it is as well for their secondary suppliers. In other words I don't want to see M&H shoot themselves in the foot. It's that simple.
If I had money to burn, the easiest thing to do would be to buy and install the new action parts in my piano and play it to destruction if possible. But, if it begins failing, then I have to buy another set of action parts and do this all over once again. Plus, if they start failing, no one will likely believe me on these forums anyway because that wouldn't exactly suit the template that I see fostered here. Sometimes it's a bit too much like Stepford.
Originally posted by John Pels:
Roy, all great questions, many of which I can't conjecture an answer to. I just call it as I see it. It's just one guy's opinion. Since, I cannot claim that any of my actions have degraded over the first month of play without cycling them in that manner, and haven't heard this from any other techs thus far, I am once again skeptical.
Of what are you skeptical? Either the M&H technical people are stupid and are doing a worthless procedure that costs them time and money for no reason, or they're using the procedure for some good reason. Because everything I've heard about Bruce Clark (hope I got the name right) suggests that he is very, very far from stupid, I can only assume that the procedure shown in Lilylady's picture accomplishes something of worth.
I don't really know its purpose, and so just gave an example that may have been silly. I think that Occam's Razor and just plain common sense would suggest that the procedure is not some kind of ruse or due to stupidity. To suggest otherwise seems to indicate that you are, despite what you say, looking for any excuse to badmouth M&H's current pianos and/or the technical and/or management team there. Accept my apologies if I am unfairly tarring you, but, to quote you, I'm just calling it as I see it.
Roy, your assumptions about me are TOTALLY WRONG. If you would like though, respond to the entire post, not the smallest part of it. It speaks for itself. Quit casting aspersions without merit. At some point I will begin to believe that you doth protest too loudly.
Originally posted by John Pels:
Roy, your assumptions about me are TOTALLY WRONG. If you would like though, respond to the entire post, not the smallest part of it. It speaks for itself. Quit casting aspersions without merit. At some point I will begin to believe that you doth protest too loudly.
I did read your whole post, and like I said in my previous post, please accept my apologies if I mischaracterize your comments, which I mean quite sincerely. Having said that, I still am at a loss to explain all the fuss about M&H's choice of parts. Everything I've read about M&H indicates that they build an exceptional, world-class piano, and that they are trying hard to improve their products and increase their reputation and market share.
To believe that would risk all that to save a few bucks on inferior action parts defies logic. They would have to be stupid and shortsighted to do so. Therefore, I have to conclude that the parts they are getting are top notch. If I were in the market to spend lots of dough on a piano I would not hesitate even a millisecond to buy an M&H based on the even slightest concern about their quality. Personally, I don't think anyone one else should either.
Additionally, this whole Renner worship effectively holds back the industry. No doubt other piano manufacturers, after reading how Fine downgraded M&H, and now all the brouhaha on Pianoworld will know that even if they can select superior action parts from some other company, they risk sales and reputation if they do so. This situation gives Renner too much power and potentially allows them to cut corners with their parts, knowing they have this strange stranglehold on the world of high-price pianos.
Roy, I will happily follow along with your logic. Can we agree at least for the sake of argument(and I think that most techs will agree with this) that there are a couple of action parts manufacturers with reputations worth protecting that have been making parts for a decent amount of time and supplying both manufacturers and techs with those parts? Assuming that is the case let us then proceed to your statement about "some other company" making "superior" action parts. Would it be too much trouble for us to then ask what is the company and through what means did they come by this much vaunted reputation?
Can success breed complacency? Absolutely it can. On the tech forum for example, have we been reading about failure after failure of leading action parts manufacturers? I am not aware of such a situation if it exists and I have not heard of manifest failures of the aforementioned leading action parts. So, correct me if I am wrong, but you would be willing to throw your support behind an unknown manufacturer with no track record, on the assumption that a known manufacturer of quality parts (Renner) might cut corners and start making inferior parts in the future? If this company making "superior" parts wants to GET a reputation, the best way would be supplying the aftermarket with parts, getting them into institutional situations and allow them the ability to make such a distinction such as "superior". They might make a splash at a PTG convention. They might plaster their name on their parts, so that everyone would know that action X represents company Y. They might try to get their parts in every darned piano coming out of whatever country they are made and at the same time have a VERY low failure rate.
If you will check the archives, you will see that there have been threads on action parts mfgrs in the past. There are a few rebuilders that post here regularly. They are staking their reputations on the line that their rebuilds will be superior and work for years to come. They too have specified their preferences. Quality is a consideration and so is customer support. Renner USA excels in customer support. What you seem to be negating is that they have a prominent spot in the industry for a reason, and it is not because of a lack of quality. The piano aftermarket is ever shrinking. At this juncture, there is only one major piano supply house left in this country. Any parts supplier stupid and short-sighted enough to begin making inferior replacement action parts will not survive long in this industry. There is always room for more quality manufacturers in any industry. I for one would welcome the competition, but I won't be buying brand X because Roy 123 tells me that they are "superior." Unless of course he can substantiate such a claim. I might also ask, what is your experience with all of the aforementioned action parts and how have you determined that brand X is superior to those you seem to question?
You have been told what companies make actions and action parts and do a good job. They have already stood up to your 'test of time' test.
A wordy explanation with arcane language (vaunted, d.1567), I think. Why would a little gem of a manufacturer need to be widely praised and boasted about?(thats what vaunted means)
No paper thin veneer of high mindedness is going to cut it for me. Of course it is a mighty thin piece of paper that does not have two sides. Of course thats why we are here. (Thats not too wordy I hope.)
It seems like you are either trying to condescend to everyone by writing the way you do, or maybe alienate them. Customers read this for goodness sake. Come on! It seems like you are trying to obfuscate for your own personal enjoyment or ego or whatever. It is no good for anyone, especially you.
You are beating a dead horse. Or maybe I am. More than one person has tried (nicely) to tell you.
Originally posted by Kieran Wells:
You are beating a dead horse. Or maybe I am.
You are.
It seems as if you are trying to set a record for posts that are both rude and never answer the questions/comments posed to you.
Kieran, when you can address the post at the top of this page with substantive information, as opposed to wanton bloviation, please post again.
I am well aware of what vaunted means. The only folks that I know that are vaunting said parts are you and Roy. The usage was correct as intended.
Originally posted by John Pels:
Roy, I will happily follow along with your logic. Can we agree at least for the sake of argument(and I think that most techs will agree with this) that there are a couple of action parts manufacturers with reputations worth protecting that have been making parts for a decent amount of time and supplying both manufacturers and techs with those parts? Assuming that is the case let us then proceed to your statement about "some other company" making "superior" action parts. Would it be too much trouble for us to then ask what is the company and through what means did they come by this much vaunted reputation?
Can success breed complacency? Absolutely it can. On the tech forum for example, have we been reading about failure after failure of leading action parts manufacturers? I am not aware of such a situation if it exists and I have not heard of manifest failures of the aforementioned leading action parts. So, correct me if I am wrong, but you would be willing to throw your support behind an unknown manufacturer with no track record, on the assumption that a known manufacturer of quality parts (Renner) might cut corners and start making inferior parts in the future?
Renner USA excels in customer support. What you seem to be negating is that they have a prominent spot in the industry for a reason, and it is not because of a lack of quality. There is always room for more quality manufacturers in any industry. I for one would welcome the competition, but I won't be buying brand X because Roy 123 tells me that they are "superior." Unless of course he can substantiate such a claim. I might also ask, what is your experience with all of the aforementioned action parts and how have you determined that brand X is superior to those you seem to question?
John, I think we are talking past each other, unfortunately. I did not make claims about any specific action maker making better parts than Renner other than to say that many techs find Tokiwa parts better and have had some quality-control problems with Renner. I certainly didn't say that anyone should accept my opinion about actions. What I've been trying to say is that one shouldn't automatically assume that a non-Renner action part is inferior, and that it would be quite a stretch to assume that M&H would stake their hard-won reputation on inferior action parts.
I've also tried to say that piano actions are neither complex nor particularly hard to manufacture. Let's think about actions. They contain wood or plastic parts, some springs, center pins, and some woolen cloth. Well, spring steel is spring steel, so let's not bother talking about that. Nickel-silver center pins are readily available, so let's not bother talking about them. Woolen cloth of the best quality is no doubt available to any action manufacturer who cares to use it, and well machined wooden parts are no great trick to make with modern CNC machinery. Of course, one needs to use properly seasoned wood of the appropriate grade, but I cannot imagine that that's impossible to get.
The only thing left, is top-quality assembly, and although that takes training, can that be so impossible? Yamaha and Kawai make high-quality, durable actions and as well as Tokiwa, so we know that Renner doesn't possess some magic that no one else has. I bet the Kawi Millennium III action will outlast all others, but that's just a guess on my part.
I guess my point is that any action company who decided to supply top-quality OEM action parts could do so if the will were there. I believe that logic indicates that M&H chose such a company.
If you want to claim that Renner has a well-deserved reputation and name recognition, then that's fine, I'm sure you're correct. If you want to claim that using any action parts other than Renner is risky, and claim that it makes any piano that uses them suspect, then I must disagree. Remember, I'm talking about quality and performance not perception. At this point, I think we should just agree to disagree--I sure don't want this debate to degenerate in any way, and I respect your opinion.
Quote:
John Pels:"Kieran, when you can address the post at the top of this page with substantive information, as opposed to wanton bloviation , please post again."
Bloviation- a.To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner, Date:circa 1879: b. to speak or write verbosely and windily.
Good word.
And Roy, I agree with you 100%. This is not rocket science and CNCing parts is easy in this day and time, and you are correct that it is the assembly that is the issue. As always the devil is in the details. You may be correct as regards the Kawai action as well. The difference is that Kawai (I am assuming) is controlling the manufacture of that action in house. They have staked their reputation on something that they can control, and that detailed work has likely been a large part of their well-earned success. They make a first-class product.
Of course the action company could supply wonderful parts if that were the goal. I hope that it is. As far as M&H and their logic, I am POSITIVE that top-quality is their goal, and that is fine, but the question is whether that secondary supplier will make 50 sets to spec. and get lazy or whatever. They have no reputation to protect. We still don't know who "THEY" are. They have very little to lose. M&H is essentially a low production entity. If they were to lose that(M&H) business it wouldn't bankrupt them. It is assumed that they are likewise making a zillion other parts for other manufacturers. If they play their cards right, they could parlay their quality of manufacture into a going business and aftermarket concern using the M&H name as a great reference, not unlike the other two major manufacturers. Renner does have a well-earned reputation but is not the only game in town.I have also lauded Tokiwa parts. I never claimed that using other than Renner was risky, I claimed that using parts with no track record was risky. It is risky from both the public perception angle and the performance angle.
There again, I suppose that if the warranty means something, all of this may be moot. I am not sure what they mean by a "lifetime limited" warranty on the case and action. Is this the piano's lifetime, my lifetime,, the action's lifetime, not transferrable, transferrable, who knows? It would be nice to know if anyone has a real answer.
I have NEVER had any desire to see other than an exchange of quality information by folks that should have decent answers. It would be nice if M&H had some knowledgeable folks in PR that could supply some meaningful dialogue. What I have seen so far makes me long for "pianomadam".
John Pels posted,
As far as M&H and their logic, I am POSITIVE that top-quality is their goal, and that is fine, but the question is whether that secondary supplier will make 50 sets to spec. and get lazy or whatever. They have no reputation to protect. We still don't know who "THEY" are.
At last.
This point was first made on p.3 of this thread by ScottM. He posted in part,
Chinese sourcing is problematic for many firms because it can take a while to find a good, reliable and trustworthy source for parts. Most materials can be substituted with Chinese "equivalents".... The main fear that consumers would have - me included - is not knowing how diligent the manufacturer has been in demanding the exact material and level of workmanship from his Chinese source.
This is not a Chinese issue, it's a lowest cost supplier issue.
The Burgetts have a
perception problem. Liking that or not liking it will not change anything; dealing with it may. Rich Galassini recently posted re his visit to the Bosendorfer factory. His thread included photos which could well be used to sell from truth. IMO the Burgetts should do the same. Snap 1: The head of MNG examining/testing an action part. Caption reads, "Only the best is good enough." Snap 2: One of the Burgetts smiling as the MNG head hands him an action part. Caption reads, "Nothing but the best will ever be good enough for Mason & Hamlin pianos."
The above was done off the top of my head. Others could certainly do better. The central point remains: Demonstrate that the principals are dealing confidently with the perception issue.
An additional issue remains: Fine's supplement is a reference document. No one should expect him to be anything other than cautious with its reputation. The perception issue will not dissappear overnight, but it can be managed.
It's a quality control issue. Unfortunately there have been enough examples coming out of China where over time it turns out that what was supposed to have been supplied to a certain standard was actually not (think pet food to toys to contaminated heparin). This has shaken confidence in the integrity of not only finished products from China but of products depending on critical components and ingredients (such as action parts) made in China.
John, your points are valid and I don't perceive any bias against M&H in your posts-- just the opposite. M&H are fine pianos. However, I don't think they did themselves any favors by sourcing parts from China, IMHO.
Sophia
Sophia,the quality thing absolutely is the issue and is ongoing. We addressed this the last time we visited this topic. It shows up everywhere in Chinese products. Last year I purchased two air hoses (rubber) from a local store. After one year, one hose developed holes and developed dry rot from end to end. The second hose still looks new. I doubt that it will have the longevity of the Sears hose I purchased 30 years ago and am still using. These Chinese hoses were both purchased at the same store at the same time and sat side by side on the shelf. And yes I know air hoses are not action parts, but there is a pervasive attitude that produces products of such low or uneven quality. And let's face it, I didn't even get my $12 worth from the air hose that I had to discard. I should have kept the receipt, but I never figured on such a short lifetime.
Bloviation by Kieran, JohnPels? That's rich.
I think Kieran has a point. Your comments on the current M&H actions are pure speculation. You're entitled to your opinions, but they don't seem to have any basis other than your general impression that everything from China is crap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a quality control issue. Unfortunately there have been enough examples coming out of China where over time it turns out that what was supposed to have been supplied to a certain standard was actually not (think pet food to toys to contaminated heparin). This has shaken confidence in the integrity of not only finished products from China but of products depending on critical components and ingredients (such as action parts) made in China.
John, your points are valid and I don't perceive any bias against M&H in your posts-- just the opposite. M&H are fine pianos. However, I don't think they did themselves any favors by sourcing parts from China, IMHO.
This is a very fair statement IMHO considering the price class in which wish to market your products in.
In other words, is it worth the few extra dollars in savings to add 'doubt' to the product?
It's in essence a corporate/marketing decision, perhaps less so in terms of actual quality.
On the other hand,if anybody would source certain action parts from Mexico or other parts of the 'Americas' - would that be a concern as well?
Norbert
What does this all say about Chinese-made pianos in general? Should they be avoided for 10 years for "time testing"?
I think not.
On the other hand,if anybody would source certain action parts from Mexico or other parts of the 'Americas' - would that be a concern as well?
Now who in the world would go and do that?
Originally posted by Steve Cohen:
What does this all say about Chinese-made pianos in general? Should they be avoided for 10 years for "time testing"?
I think not.
Chinese pianos should not be summarily avoided for ten years... just need to avoid paying for them, for ten years, like you would pay for pianos that have had 10+ years of time testing.
The logic is simple:
More time testing --> lower risk --> higher price
Less time testing --> higher risk --> lower price
It's just a matter of pricing risk premium, the way I look at it.
(Oh... I'd also avoid putting them in "mission critical" use. Like if I rely on something to make a living, I'd try to avoid using anything that doesn't have an established track record [unless I plan to replace them often, then may be]. But that's just me. :shrug: )
Paul, I'll accept your premise about my "speculation". How would you suggest that I "know" for sure in this situation. What scientific methodology would you prefer? All that we have are unknowns. Feel free to be as detailed as required.
Norbert, for a time we had action parts made in Mexico by Pratt-Win, but after a time, they began to make less and less variety until finally they ceded the market to Renner and Tokiwa. The parts were decently made. Initially I had some reservations about the friction surface on top of the repetition lever. They were using what appeared to be a relatively hard paint instead of the burnished graphite impregnated wood surface that most action mfgrs. continue to use. It seemed to hold up over time in actions that I replaced, so I assumed it was up to the task.
I get a real charge out of this. Folks are mad at Fine for the downgrade and his generally conservative approach to untried products in the industry. His approach is born of experience, or other techs' opinions born of experience. I have essentially that same experience on a smaller scale, and my opinions mirror his. It is a common sense approach. You can't tell me that "his techs" didn't have the same experiences with some instruments made in the last 20 years. And even some of the dealers in an introspective moment will concede (amongst other dealers only), that there have been some serious issues with certain upstart brands in the recent past. Fine has established himself in his chosen niche. Balance his caution with how he would be perceived if all of a sudden, hammers started coming loose and center pins begin working their way out within the first couple years of ownership. He has seen this happen before and so have I. It is not a pretty picture, and I would assume from the dealer's perspective a nightmare. Yes, the manufacturer will maybe make good on it. But what do you do in the meantime? And you can't tell me that the public perception hasn't suffered on certain brands because of this.
And for the record, and for the umteenth, time I don't care where anything is made as long as quality is the major concern. I assumed that Mexico or Central-America would be an area that would contribute to the next invasion. I was told recently that labor costs in Mexico are much greater than China. That's a shame because those poor folks could use some decent jobs, and it sure would save on shipping costs I would think.
Ax, excellent logic, absolutely perfect!
Great post, Ax. By this logic, M&H should be lowering their prices-- doubt that will happen, though.
Originally posted by sophial:
Great post, Ax. By this logic, M&H should be lowering their prices-- doubt that will happen, though.
Sophial,
Axtremus' comment was made in regards to Chinese pianos. And I took his comments to be in light-hearted fun. (Ax, correct me if I'm wrong.)
However, Sophial, your comment does not come across in the same light-hearted manner. Ax's logic on Chinese pianos does not apply to Mason & Hamlin pianos, any more than it applies to your Steinway.
We test our action parts more than any other piano manufacturer in the world. There is no debate on this; it's fact. In light of that fact, why do you think we should lower our prices?
I've got a much longer post for everyone tomorrow.
Cecil
Cecil
Didn't mean to offend you but as I read Ax's post the logic of it implies a "risk tax" (or discount actually) that pianos or components (such as action components) without a time test behind them might entail. Seemed like a logical extension in the same vein. Sorry if I hit a nerve.
Sophia
Ax's logic doesn't convince me one bit - how can it? It just doesn't make any sense:
More time testing --> lower risk --> higher price
Less time testing --> higher risk --> lower price
In other words, some brand which has proven simply *not* to fall apart after x number of years - that was to be the 'test of things' here right? - can now demand whatever price, regardless of how this would relate to the instrument's real value in today's quickly changing market?
And what is *risk* supposed to mean here anyways?
How'bout the *risk* of buying a piano for whatever money and then ending up *not* liking its performance or having to get rid of it later?
This,exactly is the reason why people trade up their pianos - not because they are "falling apart".
Among which there have been many good-excellent name brands, sometimes of quite recent vintage - including a few with actual top names.
All owned by people who never spotted the slightest *risk* when buying these pianos for themselves in the first place.....
Accordingly, the highest *risk* in my type of thinking is a piano that is hopelessly overpriced right from the beginning, gets perhaps less than 1/2 price after one day of use [because of excessive profit,taxes,etc...] and then sounds less and less appealing to its owner after some point in time.
Ever happened to anybody here outside Chinese pianos?
With increasingly better quality Chinese made pianos entering the market now all the time,the greatest *risk* IMHO would be *not* to trust one's own ears and fingers to make a careful - but hopefully somewhat intelligent kind of decision.
Otherwise, one could simply get one's reading skills up to par and then do the buying by *recognizing* and then purchasing the *name*.
[like a monkey reaching out for Banana leaves...
]
As a so-called 'low-risk' buyer [according to Ax] it cpuld ironically be this person in the end who, after spending perhaps too much money on his "safe" purchase in the first place - will be holding the bag down the line......
Norbert
Cecil, hope you'll be providing specifics re M&H's testing.
Several of us have posted examples of why scepticism should be exptected regarding parts sourced from Asia.
The Burgetts have a perception problem. IMO the way to handle it is to formulate a truthful response - with photos when possible - and then make sure that your dealers have the knowledge to cope with this issue.
The issue will not go away overnight, but it can be managed by selling from truth.
Fine's supplement's status as a reference document is a separate, related issue. Fine isn't going to risk that publication's reputation. M&H documenting the quality of outsourced parts and Fine receiving verifying reports from his contributors will in time lead to the company's rating being restored.
Cecil, hope you'll be providing specifics re M&H's testing.
Several of us have posted examples of why scepticism should be exptected regarding parts sourced from Asia.
$12 rubber airhoses from Sears? Heparin? Toys?
Pet food? AC compressor parts? What exactly are the nature of the charges here?
Is Mason and Hamlin to explain why and how it chooses to take responsibility for its own piano actions and plates or why some products in unrelated fields fail due to lack of such oversight?
The picture I'm getting is that M&H and all its employees are in the prisoner's dock here while JP, SofiaL, and FVL are wearing the powdered wigs. It's easy to understand why the Euro piano makers adamantly refuse to unseal their lips about their own sourcing in this forum.
C'mon, William. That's a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? I'd never powder my wig! :p
This thread, I thought, was discussing the reasoning behind Larry Fine's decision to put Mason in Tier 2 based on sourcing parts from China. That judgment belonged to him, not those of us discussing it. The negative perception of products from China right now is colored by the problems in quality control and lax regulatory mechanisms that have resulted in some of the bad publicity for products like those listed. It unfortunately creates a climate of discomfort for those risk averse individuals who want a longer time record of performance on products they buy. Ax's post put this in a simple formula.
Let me reiterate. I think M&H build fine pianos. I admire what the Burgetts have done to revitalize the brand. I would bet that they are testing and scrutinizing their imported parts carefully. I don't think they helped the perception of their products in the marketplace with this move.
Sophia
Originally posted by sophial:
Great post, Ax. By this logic, M&H should be lowering their prices-- doubt that will happen, though.
Actually I'm inclined to believe that M&H have reduced prices. The list prices may not have come down, but I've heard rumors that M&H are offering bigger dealer discounts for their pianos than just a few years ago. I haven't priced M&H pianos but I seem to recall that Monica paid in the low $30Ks for her A. Maybe Kieran would like to tell us what the street price is for an A today. If not perhaps he would at least say if he'd be thrilled to get more than $30K for an A. Frankly having played M&H recently if I was in the market I would find M&H of great interest right now. I like the sound and the action.
William, no powdered wigs here! Luckily, I still have enough up there that any wig is unnecessary. But in all seriousness, there is an expectation that when you spend a certain amount of money, you will be getting a certain grade of product. For the sake of argument, let us assume that M&H has done its due diligence and the parts are extraordinary and consistent. If one were buying a Pearl River, or Hailun or whatever flavor of the day from any of the newer manufacturers, one could comfortably assume that if you are buying a $10K piano, that is what you are getting. You are not getting a $30K piano. You might rightly assume that though it looks like the $30K piano, there are likely some differences other than labor that will dictate that price. So it is also with the $30K piano or the $90K piano. You would rightly assume that you are not getting ostensibly the same product but with merely a higher labor cost. What then adds value to be able to rationalize the differences in price between these instruments? If I buy an M&H I expect the "best", just as I would if buying a Bosendorfer or Steinway. This is the perception issue. The perception is nonetheless born out of success of a given parts supplier over time. That's what reputation is all about. That is the basis of brand loyalty for a quality product. By extension, ponder what comes to mind when mentioning some Korean brands. Their public perceptions are what they are because of their failures in the last 15 or so years. I don't know of ANY musicians that I have spoken with that would buy these brands regardless of price.
Any of the other consumer products you mentioned are just other examples of product quality failures in the public domain that color the perception issue. Obviously no one expects M&H to bear any responsibility for any of that. BUT, by aligning themselves with an unknown company, with at least thus far, an unknown track record, it sure gives one pause.
If Bosie or Steinway or other high-end brands were all of a sudden to switch parts suppliers to an unknown parts supplier, do you not think they would deserve the same skepticism? Don't think for a second that they wouldn't have the same fallout. Folks are likely paranoid enough with Bosies recent purchase. Why is that? Because Bosie has enjoyed an unparalleled reputation for quality and attention to detail in manufacture. Folks are likely worried about some top down decisions that would affect either the completed product, or the perception of same.
I don't want to sound alarmist...but especially with regard to action parts there are a myriad of opportunities for things to go wrong, and some may be ones that do not show up in tests other than the test of time.
Is the onus on manufacturers then to *prove* that 'nothings gone wrong' and most likely never *will* - in other words "prove his innoncence" before anythings has ever happened?
In this debacle Larry Fine should have perhaps
rewarded M&H for its forthrightness rahter than punish it.
As opposed to certain others who cruise like a German U-boat beneath the surface....
Norbert
For the sake of argument, let us assume that........
John,
I have no argument for or against. If M&H has decided to take control of its own action production rather than buying from 'the world's greatest action parts supplier', that's their business. I will personally assume they know what they are doing unless their products prove otherwise.
If Larry Fine wishes to deduct points from M&H's column for sourcing in China, that's his business. I will assume he has his reasons and that he wishes to set and maintain a certain minimum standard for his first group. After all, it is
his first group, his party, his guest list. He can set whatever barriers to entry he wishes, even ethnic ones if he so chooses.
My post was really only responding to the comment that
Cecil, hope you'll be providing specifics re M&H's testing.
Several of us have posted examples of why scepticism should be exptected regarding parts sourced from Asia.
Those examples consisted of an odd grouping of rubber hoses, toys, medicine, pet food, and AC parts. None of those examples was remotely connected to piano manufacture.
It's arrogant to impress on M&H an urgency to defend its practices more vigorously because you, Sofial, and Fogville have offered these compelling
examples of Chinese piano malfeasance. Let's get real.
Is Sofial going to buy an M&H if they lower the price for her?
Are you going to buy any
new piano manufactured in any country?
Is Fogville going to change his byline "It's tone, touch, and appearance" to "It's country of origin and asking price baby. Nothing more than that!"
Originally posted by Norbert:
In this debacle Larry Fine should have perhaps [b]rewarded M&H for its forthrightness rahter than punish it.Norbert [/b]
I think the biggest problem for M&H has been what I perceive as their lack of forthrightness. To quote the 2007-08 supplement:
"As the company explains:
... we are pleased to say that we source our materials... and components from the four corners of the earth...Likewise as the artisans who built M&H pianos in the early Boston days...we are proud to report that the artisans who build our instruments continue to represent a diverse mixture of cultures...
Nothing is said about sourcing any parts from China.
If your read pp. 15,62,63 in the supplement it's obvious that Larry Fine is very direct with his observations about M&H quality, sources for parts, and why he has ranked the piano as Tier 2A. He makes a point of saying many positive things about M&H. You may disagree with his new ranking for M&H, but I think it would be hard to say he was not forthright.
Once again I remind everyone that I am personally extremely pleased with my BB and think Masons are terrific pianos. I just think they made a poor decision about choosing their sources.
Dear PianoWorld readers,
This thread has evolved from one topic to another in a short amount of time. Clearly there are those of you who have set opinions about Larry Fine, our pianos and actions, and a few other topics that have shown up in the 6 pages of this thread so far. Most recently, there has been a lot of speculation about the quality of the action parts that we currently use in manufacturing Mason & Hamlin pianos.
Since the author of this thread, carey, started out by asking questions related to Larry Fine and his evaluation of Mason & Hamlin pianos, I'll begin with some statements on that issue. We respect Larry Fine for the contributions he is making to the piano community as a whole; namely, his attempt to collate information about all currently produced pianos and offer the information to the general public in published form as "The Piano Book". This project is a tremendous undertaking for one person, and to my knowledge, no one else has executed a similar project and sustained its availability for as long as Larry has. Because the scope of the project (number of piano manufacturers) has grown in the past few decades, Larry has increasingly had to rely on input from associated piano technicians and piano dealers to fill in any blanks in his research. Before the release of the PianoBook supplement where the new ranking system was first published, we were contacted by Larry for any new information that would be incorporated into our regular article on Mason & Hamlin. (This is a regular phone call that he makes to all piano manufacturers to check facts before a new Piano Book supplement or revised edition is released.) In the interest of helping him get accurate facts about our manufacturing methods, we invited Larry to come to our factory to review and discuss our methods in person. In particular, we invited him to see our action department and view our testing facilities and action assembly area. Larry opted to go with information about our manufacturing methods that was collected by others, instead of getting the facts first-hand. We have reports that the sources of the information about Mason & Hamlin included former M&H dealers and a competitor to one of our M&H dealers. We feel that if Larry would have accepted our invitation and seen what we were doing first hand, much of the innuendo about our action parts that ultimately appeared in his Piano Book supplement would have be avoided. Our invitation still stands for Larry to come visit and review our piano manufacturing methods.
The quality control of our action parts has been brought into question. We work diligently to ensure that all of our action parts perform at a high level; Mason & Hamlin spends more time on parts testing than any other piano manufacturer in the world. This work has been ongoing for several years, well before the introduction of Wessell Nicket & Gross actions in our pianos. It is important to understand that the Wessell Nickel & Gross actions are the result of many years of educated research and testing by very knowledgeable and competent engineers. The wood we use is hornbeam, imported from Germany. The felt we use for bushings is from England; the supplier has historically been a source for Abel and Renner. There are two main suppliers for felt that service nearly all piano manufacturers in the world; one supplier is located in Japan, the other in England. Of course, the action rail is manufactured in our factory in Haverhill, MA where our actions are assembled.
Of all the important factors that are involved in creating a high quality piano action, the two most critical characteristics we test for in our action parts are 1) high quality wood that has been dried properly; and 2) high quality bushing cloth and bushings that are prepared properly. The wood used in our actions is dried to 6-8% EMC (equilibrium moisture content); we carefully inspect the wood to identify any problems related to shrinkage. Parts are then mounted on action rails and tested individually on custom built machinery; one machine, for example, is designed to heat up center pins so technicians can find friction and possible glue contamination; the test routine on this machine runs about 8 hours. This is the machine that appears in lilylady’s posted photos. JohnPels made a comment about this testing machine, saying “unfortunately the setup that is being used for determining longevity over time is ‘eye candy’. None of the action parts is being accelerated to any velocity that would cause any kind of wear whatsoever.†JohnPels, the machine in the photo is not designed to test longevity. We do that with another test setup, which I’ll describe below.
After individual testing, each flange is hand-checked with a gram gauge for gram resistance and visually inspected for any other problems. The actions are then installed in a piano, given a rough regulation, and subjected to a pneumatic pounding machine. The pounder is set up to simulate approximately 6 months of aggressive playing in a 4 hour test period. After the pounding machine routine is complete, the parts are once again checked and the piano is then sent to final regulation.
With Mason & Hamlin’s sibling relationship to PianoDisc, we are uniquely set up to do extensive testing on action parts. To verify the performance and longevity of Wessell, Nickel & Gross parts, we have done side by side comparison testing with the action parts of 6 well-known piano and action manufacturers. The parts are installed on the same test piano and subjected to the same burn in. During a test burn in with a PianoDisc system, parts are subjected to an estimated 20 million repetitions. To date, our findings indicate that our WNG action parts perform and hold up as well as, and in virtually all cases better than, the action parts from the other companies that we tested.
The information we have acquired from these years of testing action parts for Mason & Hamlin is now being applied to a new project by the Burgett Brothers. In 2007, Wessell, Nickel, & Gross became a new and separate company, a third sibling to Mason & Hamlin and PianoDisc. WNG action parts are a new design, composed of a composite material of carbon fiber and nylon glass. While these new parts are not standard in our Mason & Hamlin pianos, a M&H dealer can now order a piano with the composite action as an option. The WNG action parts are primarily designed as high performance parts for vintage pianos of various brands and have been offered to select piano rebuilders around the country since January 2008. WNG action parts will be generally available to the piano industry beginning October 2008. There are numerous rebuilding projects underway with the new WNG parts and some of the rebuilders have posted on PianoWorld in the Tech Forums and Piano Forums. As with our standard wood actions, the new composite action parts have once again been subjected to thorough testing and in side by side comparisons, the parts perform and hold up as well or better than action parts from other companies. We will be launching the web site for Wessell, Nickel & Gross in the coming months.
A particular supplier that we work with has been regarded by those in this thread as the benchmark for quality in piano actions. However, that parts supplier does not warranty a Mason & Hamlin piano; our company does. When their parts fail, we have to fix the problem. Therefore, we choose to test and verify our own action parts, as well as the rest of the piano, to make sure that they meet performance standards that we set for our pianos.
By now, it should be very clear to everyone reading that our decision to use the materials we use is based on a quality benchmark, not a price benchmark. If an XYZ part and a Wessell Nickel & Gross part are the same price, we’re going with the better part, which will most likely be the WNG part based on our testing. If the XYZ part was offered to us at a lower price than the WNG part, we’re still using the WNG part because it performs better. It’s not the way to save money, but it is the way to build a better piano.
In a recent post, turandot stated “It's easy to understand why the Euro piano makers adamantly refuse to unseal their lips about their own sourcing in this forum.†I appreciated the spirit of turandot’s post, but there’s another reason that piano manufacturers are hesitant to talk about sourcing on open forum. PianoWorld is read by competing piano manufacturers as well as pianists, teachers, technicians, and enthusiasts. It is important that we keep proprietary information, like sourcing, within the company. That is a common business practice that makes sense.
The owners of Mason & Hamlin, Kirk and Gary Burgett, have both made the statement that “we want to be innovators in the piano industryâ€. By one definition, an innovator is “someone who introduces something new for the first timeâ€. For Mason & Hamlin, something new has been a new scale design, a new piano model, or a new set of action parts. While these new things do not start with a track record by themselves, our company’s reputation for quality, backed by extensive and educated testing by competent company engineers, previous success with similar projects, and sound reasons for the decisions that are made, can hopefully give people a sense of optimism, expectation, and maybe even excitement about what we’re trying to accomplish. We hope that each of you will base your opinion of new Mason & Hamlin pianos on the experience that you have playing one.
Cecil
A GREAT post.
Thanks, Cecil.
Nicely done, Cecil. I appreciate the time you took to present this material.
Thank you.
Brenda
Thank you, Cecil. I wish that other manufacturers were as straightforward, candid, open, and responsive as Mason has repeatedly proven itself to be. It is my opinion that Larry Fine has seriously damaged his credibility by treating Mason the way he has, at the same time including what reads like promotional literature from other companies in his write-ups of their pianos. Nor do I for one moment think that Mason is alone among eminent piano manufacturers in obtaining parts from China. You may be alone in candor, but are surely not alone in importing components.
I have personally heard the testing process at the Mason factory, and it makes a serious racket!
Cecil, thanks for your clarifications. I wish you well with your piano and action ventures and I will await the availability of your parts. If they are as you describe I would be foolish not to install the new design in my vintage CC2, which is slated for a rebuild later this year. Let me know when they are available. Track records are a good thing. I would appreciate being along for the ride on this one. It has been way too long since an American company innovated much in piano technology.
I apologize for any incorrect assumptions and am gratified by your forthcoming information.
John
How is all this fuss to come into existence here in the first place?
*Perception of things* - nothing else.
It is with this *perception* of things that we all make judgements of larger things in life - judgements, many of which may well turn out to be wrong.
I personally believe that M&H here is a good case in point.
Today a well known lady teacher with a Doctor degree of Music and originating from Russia, came to our showroom with some of her own students, apparently looking for an upright.
A while back this teacher bought one of our own 'unmentionable' brands
here and has since become a great supporter of this brand and our business.
When walking in she saw a row of new Chinese pianos [unmentionable of course..] and immediately asked "where are these pianos made"?
She could have played one first, but she needed to ask the question before anything was to happen.
I knew from before this teacher loathed anything coming from China, even Japan, so trying to have a little fun I lied to her and said "Germany"
Of course knowing full well that she was not looking for a grand for her students but simply an upright.
After which she said down and exclaimed: "Oh German - you can always tell right away"!
So, let me ask who the heck can tell these days exactly where *parts* of pianos come from - or should care?
Time perhaps to upgrade another unmentionable piano presently in tier 2A right away to up to tier one ??
After all, it's in very same position like M&H and has only superior German action parts.....
Norbert
Hi Cecil,
Very thoughtful post. Honest, informative, factual, candid, above board, and interesting too. I've always respected Mason & Hamlin pianos. Their high quality construction, materials, craftsmanship, smooth actions, and so on.
I think people in the know will continue to buy those wonderful pianos without any thought as to which tier they are supposedly in. Best wishes with the new "High Performance Plastic Parts" sales.
Something the piano industry has needed for a very long time. Hats off to Mason & Hamlin.
Sincerely,
Barry J Arnaut
Excellent response. Thank you Cecil.
With all due respect, I would encourage Larry Fine to drive the 30 miles from Boston to Haverhill and take M&H up on their offer to view their operation firsthand. If, after doing this, Mr. Fine still feels strongly about the Tier 2A ranking - so be it.
I've read posts regarding this issue over the past year and have been amazed at the conflicting statements folks have made about the nature and source of M&H actions - which was understandable, in part, due to M&H's silence on the matter. I just wish that the information conveyed by Cecil today had been provided earlier. His response definitely needs to be shared with others outside of this forum.
Finally, I still plan to contact M&H to determine if anything can be done to lighten the touchweight of my 2003 BB. If the touch can't be improved, I'm not going to sweat it - because that great beast of a piano in my living room is still one heck of a music machine.
I've read elsewhere that it's Mr. Fine's policy not to visit any piano manufacturer because he's not able to visit ALL of them. Apparently, in his mind it's a fairness issue.
I have a question for Sir Lurksalot, who often seems to intervene in threads like this one to explain (and, on occasion, defend) Larry Fine. Why does Steinway seem to be treated differently from other manufacturers? The write-ups of Steinway family pianos in particular makes it sound like Larry Fine takes Steinway's word for everything, such as the vexed question of who designs Bostons, to the extent that another poster characterized the language in the supplement as sounding like a corporate merger writeup (or words to that effect). Why the inconsistency? It has also become clear on various threads that a number of high-end manufacturers get parts from around the globe, but they have not seen a reduction in their standing as Mason has, even though they have been far more coy about it than Mason has.
By the way, in terms of Sir Lurksalot's response about not visiting one manufacturer because Larry Fine cannot visit all of them--it seems to me that there is a difference when a particular issue is raised leading to a particular position being taken in the book. If a visit to the factory would help Larry Fine to understand a particular issue with a particular manufacturer, it seems to me that an exception to his usual rule is not only justifiable, it is mandated, especially when the consequences of his theoretical concern are potentially profound for the manufacturer.
Don't get me wrong--I very much enjoy Larry Fine's book and supplements, and tend to read them carefully. His book is a fabulous and unique resource. I just think that there are some inconsistencies that it would be great to see corrected in future issues. And in this situation, it seems a visit to the factory is warranted.
RPA – if you closely examine the record of my posts in matters such as this, you’ll see that my only interest is accuracy and complete information in those few instances where I can add anything. Being so poorly qualified to even have a worthy opinion on many of these issues (including this one), all I can do is occasionally try to close a few of the gaps that I’ve seen in the discussion. This thread began with lots of talk about Fine’s M&H ranking, so I felt it might be nice for everyone to actually see what he wrote. I don’t agree or disagree with it. A few more recent posts have bemoaned his failure to visit the factory. A brief discussion of this thread in another forum contains a post that mentions his policy on factory visits. I felt that this might be interesting to some readers, and satisfy their curiosity as to why he didn’t visit M&H. You may view this as “defending†him, but I view it as simply adding another fact to the discussion.
Originally posted by Rank Piano Amateur:
Why does Steinway seem to be treated differently from other manufacturers?
If Fine took their word on everything, he'd have said they were vey well prepped(as they tell you on the factory tour). He said they had "the worst workmanship" in Tier 1 which I think is pretty severe criticsm.
Fine also carefully list numerous differnces and similarities between Steinway, Boston and Kawai in his supplement. He gives reasons both for and against choosing Boston over Kawai.
A great post by Cecil, and a good follow-up by Norbert. I hope at least some posters here feel a bit chastened. The piano industry and the piano buying public in many ways is very backward looking. For some people, there's more than a bit a snobbery involved. When a company like M&H tries to be forward looking and actually improves their designs instead of just doing the same things they did 80 years ago, they get criticism, doubt, and skepticism. We should all celebrate M&H's efforts, and like I've said at least twice before in this thread, what matters is their pianos, not what Fine or anybody else says about them.
A great post by Cecil.........
We should all celebrate M&H's efforts.......
As the pendulum begins to swing wildly in the opposite direction.
Originally posted by Roy123:
When a company like M&H tries to be forward looking and actually improves their designs instead of just doing the same things they did 80 years ago, they get criticism, doubt, and skepticism.
You think Masons are definitely better because Cecil says they are? He's the head salesman or representative of the company.
Ok folks, you've managed to beat this topic into the ground.
Those of you who seem to have a chip on your shoulder for M&H, or are determined to defend Larry's book (Larry himself will tell you it's his "opinion", not gospel) are just going to keep trying to find fault.
Those who own M&H pianos, or have taken the tour and met the Burgett's (and the technician's, workers, etc.) will tend to stick by Mason & Hamlin.
I've taken the tour 5 or 6 times now.
I can tell you I am always impressed by their openess, and by the obvious pride that goes into the building of their instruments.
Unlike a certain other U.S. manufacturer whos tour a group of us took last year. We weren't allowed to take pictures, couldn't hear half of what our guide said, and our guide (nice enough person) was a salesman, not a technician.
At least M&H believes enough in what they do to be willing to talk about it on a very public forum, and to open their doors to direct scrutiny (see the hundreds of pictures posted on these forums from our tours).
The only other manufacturer I know of who ever gets directly involved with our forums is Kawai (via Don Mannino).
Part of what keeps our forums interesting is the different opinions of our members.
You've shared your opinions, various members have provided their input.
I don't think anything can be gained from continuing this discussion, so I am closing this thread.
Let's move on to other discussions now.