fully disclosed Yamaha lover questions Petrof

[Perik, Mike]

Again it's my opinion that considering my price constraints and that I'm not
a piano virtuoso or a seasoned piano technician the differences between a
Yamaha and a Petrof other than possibly their distinct initial tone are not
perceivable.  I believe that the actions in a Petrof are Renner so how does
this relate to the tolerances of the actions.  I know that the action is
installed on a Petrof frame but I'm not sure I understand if that has
anything to do with the tolerances you mentioned.  I believe that Petrof
also brings the moisture content into that range.  

Some of these arguments that you give for Yamaha seem to the same as what I
heard from the Yamaha salesman I spoke to.  If the Vacuum Shield Mold
Process is so superior why aren't the Steinways, Bosendorfs, M&H, Bechstein,
etc. using it also.
The Petrof dealer would say that they use many of the same manufacturing
techniques these other manufactures use.

I'm not saying Yamaha is a bad piano I just can't justify the extra expense
of nominal improvements. What I mean by nominal is that I personally can not
distinguish the difference.

My research continues, I just hope I can get good enough in the next couple
of months to actually be able to sit down an play a little.  It's extremely
intimidating to go into a piano store and attempt to plunk around on a
piano.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	ETomlinCF3@AOL.COM [SMTP:ETomlinCF3@AOL.COM]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 12, 1999 4:51 PM
> To:	pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject:	fully disclosed Yamaha lover questions Petrof
> 
> << It's my opinion at this moment is that the Petrof pianos give me a lot
> for
>  the price and that there is nothing measurably noticeable gained by
>  purchasing a C2/C3 for the price difference.  I believe that if I find a
>  reputable piano store that preps the Petrof properly I have lost nothing.
>  
>  Mike >>
> 
> That is not my opinion.  A piano made by the worlds #1 piano manufacturer
> in 
> comparison to a former communist block country with problems such as the
> ones 
> listed before in other posts.... there is no comparison in the product.  
> Fact, Yamaha has developed the best casting methods in the industry when
> it 
> comes to the piano plate.  It cost them about $20 million to build and 
> research for the manufacturing of the first Vacuum Shield Mold Processed 
> plate.  All other manufacturers that use this method paid less than half
> that 
> after Yamaha perfected the technology.  Yamaha holds two-thousandths of an
> 
> inch tolerances in the manufacturing of their actions.  Petrof doesn't
> come 
> close to that.  A C2/3 would be the better choice by a long shot.  The 
> soundboard is quarter sawn and the moisture content of the wood is taken
> to a 
> 5-8% range before woods are used in the manufacturing.  The Petrof doesn't
> 
> keep standards such as these.  Longevity of that product would be suspect 
> when comparing to a 1957 Yamaha grand I just serviced that the action
> played 
> like new and the hammers needed shaping and a little regulation and
> voicing, 
> after which I could not believe how good this 5' 7" piano sounded.  You
> won't 
> hear any praising of a 40 year old Petrof like that.  I would not want to
> buy 
> a piano I "thought" was getting "better" in comparison to one that has
> lead 
> the industry for decades.  
> 
> I could go on and on but I would be accused of having a bias.  ( by the
> way 
> thanks Yamaha for the trip to Japan last year to see the factory, that was
> 
> great! )
> 
> I am a self proclaimed Yamaha lover and a tech/salesman of same said
> product. 
>  That, however, does not change the facts that Yamaha is still and will 
> remain for some time the undisputed leader in the price range you speak
> of.
> 
> One mans opinion,
> 
> Ed Tomlinson
> Touchstone Award winner