[CAUT] uprights

[Dan Reed]

If you are not familiar with the upgrade 'X' series of Yamahas, thay 
are IMHO significantly stronger instruments than the 
U1-2-3--series...Check them out...the UX (52" and the UX-1 (48") are 
more robust...I believe the YUX and YAS are also 'X' back 
instruments...Named because of the Radial back support system...The 
U-1-2-3's are IMO, 'OK'..but light weight  in tonal output compared to 
the 'X' backs...can you tell I am an enthusiast?

Dan

Dallas
On Sep 6, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote:

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Love
>> To: 'College and University Technicians'
>> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] uprights
>>
>> Well, I didn’t say that exactly, although I think the U5 is a better 
>> made piano with higher manufacturing standards than the K52 at 
>> present.  Easier to service in an institutional setting where techs 
>> are often pressed for time and working for discounted rates is a 
>> consideration, in my view.  I would not want to be tuning pianos 4-5 
>> times a year that render poorly for ½ my normal rate—call me 
>> selfish.  Poor rendering, btw, is one aspect of quality.  Steinway 
>> uprights (and Bostons for that matter) have that problem.  Moreover, 
>> I don’t see a Steinway K52 outlasting a U5 and when time comes for 
>> replacing parts, they are easier, faster and less expensive to 
>> replace on a U5 as manufacturing is more consistent and service 
>> support is better.   When you put that along side the price 
>> differential I think that choice would be fairly easy.    I have to 
>> admit being completely unfamiliar with the U5.  In fact, I was 
>> unaware until today that it existed.  I've only seen the U1s, U3s, 
>> P-whatevers and T-series Yamahas.  However, when I see 50 and 60 and 
>> 100 year old Yamahas that have held up as well as the 50, 60 and 100 
>> year old Steinway verticals I've cared for over the years, I'll be 
>> convinced.  But I've seen too many Yamaha smiling keybeds, and real 
>> problems with 30 year old pianos to allow me to think it 
>> possible.  Whatever that material is the Yamaha cabinet is 
>> made of seems to start "failing" after a while.  Rendering with 30 
>> year old Yamahas is much worse in my experience than rendering with 
>> 50 year old Steinway verticals.  I really struggle with tuning older 
>> Yamaha P verticals, and fear breaking a bass string with every nudge 
>> of the tuning hammer.  That's just when the Steinways are getting 
>> broken in good.  I've rarely needed to replace a string on a 45/1098.
>  
> You have to approach the Steinway tuning differently than you do the 
> Yamaha.  You put what amounts to a time limit on yourself, get the 
> tuning close, and close it up.  You don't expect the Steinway to sound 
> like the muffled, clinically pure Yamaha, and as long as your octaves 
> and unisons are stable, its fine.  It has a lot more forgiveness for 
> dirty tuning than does the Yamaha, which will sound perfectly horrid 
> when it starts coming out of tune.  In my opinion, the Yamaha requires 
> a finer tuning to sound good than does the Steinway.
>  
> When I was new to this craft, I really wanted to like the Yamaha/Kawai 
> (or Boston, for that matter) products.  I am from a frugal family, 
> which switched to Japanese autos in the 1980s and wanted to 
> believe that the Japanese could build something equally valuable for 
> less than 1/2 the money.  But what I've seen happen in university 
> practice rooms, churches and homes alike have sold me on the life 
> expectancy of the Steinway product. Later, I learned that genuinely 
> comparable Japanese pianos actually cost prohibitively more than the 
> Steinway. That's a tough sale here.  Likewise, we've switched back to 
> American autos for similar reasons (when I had to pay $1200 to replace 
> a headgasket, and later nearly $500 for a starter plus nearly $200 
> for installation for a Japanese vehicle, that got my attention. I used 
> to pay $40 for the starter and install it myself in 30 minutes on 
> American cars.)
>  
> With all due respect, "Easier to service in an institutional setting 
> where techs are often pressed for time and working for discounted 
> rates is a consideration" should not be a consideration in my view.  
> The value the institution gets for its invested dollars over the long 
> term is the primary goal, and a skilled technician should be capable 
> of tuning pianos that require more than a beginner's skill.  The 
> discounted rate should reflect little more than the difference in the 
> number of tunings that can be achieved without having to drive from 
> one to the next in my view.  That shouldn't mean 1/2 a normal rate.  
> If it is, let the price-beater tooner have it, thinks me, and see if 
> he can tune the Steinways. 
>  
> It isn't our responsibility to compensate for an institution's 
> chronic underfunding of maintenance.  Else we become enablers to 
> chronic mismanagement.  It is our responsibility to build a repertoire 
> of skills, make them available to the institution, and if they don't 
> want to pay a higher price for a higher repertoire of skills, let them 
> get what they are willing to pay for.
>  
> And, with respect to replacing parts on the Yamaha as being easier and 
> less expensive, I have little experience, except hearsay - posts to 
> this list - with replacing parts on Yamahas.  And that hearsay is that 
> Yamaha hammers are 150% of the cost of Steinway hammers.  I don't know 
> for myself, but that is my recollection of posts from some time back.  
> I can only assume that is not uncommon with Yamaha pricing?  And we 
> don't know whether Yamaha parts in 100 years will be available for the 
> pianos made today.  And neither do we know if a Yamaha made today will 
> be worth spending any money on parts when it comes that time.  The 
> more commonly sold instruments are not the S4, S6, or CFIIIS(is that 
> the current model?), so it is impossible to compare apples to apples.
>  
> Respectfully,
> Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7414 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080906/e3fca722/attachment.bin