I have certainly noticed the Steinway "svelte shape" especially compared with my Mason BB. I always thought Masons looked very fat from the side(not talking about the front keyboard view which is I think definitely a few inches wider than most becasue of rim thickness). I used to think the rim was longer vertically from top to bottom, but if I remember correctly(not really sure?), I brought this up on another thread and it wasn't longer vertically. So I'm beginning to wonder if the Mason looks pleasnatly plump because the waist tucks in later than a Steinway B. Or is it the wide tail on the Mason or both or...?

Are there any special piano diets available?

Are there any other makers whose aesthetic is particularly svelte like Steinway or Walter?

I can't think of any myself.

It is obvious how some pianos of the same size look bulky when sitting beside a Walter.

I was in the Seattle area on the weekend at a Piano Technicians Guild Conference.
I saw a 5'7" / 170cm grand that was so wide it appeared to be no more than 5'1"

Well, an enlarged 5' 1" grand. So I wasn't the only one who noticed the proportions of that piano.

And, speaking of really short pianos, I have measured a few early 4' 10" to 5' grands that are as wide as they are long. To my eye these grands look squat and fat. Especially when compared to some of the lovely Knabe, Chickering, Everett, etc., short grands of the same era that were only 53" to 54" wide. I'd much rather build a piano that is 5' 3" long and 54" wide that actually takes up less floor space and has a longer, cleaner sounding bass.

ddf

I'm just curious why some piano manufacturers make piano wider than others. Is it simply easier to design (perhaps it's less cramped?), or is it actually could be a feature that provides something musically?

Me, too. I had understood that in many cases it is the desire for longer bass strings that drives extra width, for the following reason. One way to get longer bass strings in a piano of limited length is to angle the bass strings more. But to do this, in order to keep the strike point in the sweet spot, the portion of the string that is in front of the hammer of the #1 string has to jut out beyond the left end of the keyboard.

Maybe this can still be accomplished by moving the #1 hammer inward from (to the right of) the #1 key. This would be achieved by having the lowest keys kick to the right as they go over the balance rail.

Of course the other reason might be just to have more soundboard surface. But I don't think quantity over quality is the right idea here. From what I understand, uprights have large soundboards, relatively speaking, and this is part of the reason the treble often sounds inferior to grands.

I actually said "That must be the most expensive 5 footer I have ever seen". Only to find out it was 5'7"
My opinion was based on first glance.

You can't go wrong with either model -- pick the one you like based on your preferences for tone and touch. I can say that the 175 we have at church is an excellent piano that's held up well in our sanctuary. The piano sounds like a larger instrument, particularly the bass, which is deep and clear. I do like the way the Walter grands look; they do take up comparatively less space. The 175, which is similar in size to my Steinberg IQ77 at home, looks like a longer piano than the IQ77; the Steinberg looks "stubby" in comparison (but I do love the tone!).

Kevin

I agree with Del regarding the aesthetics of the Steinway B. I think it probably is the most beautifully proportioned of pianos. In a previous post I believe I compared them to beauty of line of a race horse.

The opinion of Russ Ruberts' wife validates my worry with the skinny legs of Baldwin L.
For years it bothered me that the nice line of the instrument was totally ruined by the legs which looked out of proportion. I no longer own the Baldwin and my present instrument, though "fat" or better "pleasantly plump" has really thick legs. (Pianoloverus: I am borrowing your most appropriate expression, hope you don't mind )

I have never seen a Walter piano, but I can easily imagine it must look superb.




Uncle Geoge

Back in the old days of hand drafting full size piano plan drawing, yes, drawing a nice, tight design was more difficult. Accuracy was both important and difficult to achieve. It was time consuming. As well, if you spend much time examining plates made before the advent of NC controlled machines you'll see just how inaccurate the spacing of components such as agraffes and hitchpins can be.

Computerized drawing and drafting programs, along with NC controlled machines, has improved both drafting accuracy and drilling accuracy making it much easier both to design and build pianos with tighter component spacing.

I cannot think of any acoustical advantage to making pianos wider than necessary for adequate hammer and action parts spacing, agraffe spacing, etc.




In theory this is true. But until you get up to the string angles used in vertical pianos—typically upwards of 30°—the increased length potential is not really all that great. Using string angles of this magnitude in a grand presents several problems not the least of which is the wide stereo effect caused by the widely separated bass and low tenor bridges. And, as you point out, excessive width of the piano.




It’s always a balancing act. Increasing string angles also dictates wider spacing at the bass/tenor break (for damper placement), increased action center spacing at the strike line (to keep the hammers from striking adjacent strings) and, ultimately, wider key flare which places an increasing load on the balance rail bushings (which then wear prematurely).




In general piano soundboards are larger than required for best acoustic performance. Making them smaller through the tenor and treble areas actually improves performance.

ddf

Thanks everyone for this thread. I have enjoyed it and learned quite a bit.

Now you've made me really curious. I have been trying to find a Charles Walter grand piano, but have only found uprights. Would you know any dealers in the New York metropolitan area (+/- 100 miles radius) who carry CW grands?

Thanks!
Bach13

Whether or not you find one in the NY area, I think you should really hold out buying a piano until you tried one of the CW 190s. Of all the pianos I played in that size range, one particular CW still haunts me with it's beautiful sound. To be fair, I've only ever played one CW 190, but if it was representative of what the others could/should sound and play like, then I think they probably deserve to be compared to the 'best' pianos in the world. I ended up buying another piano that I love just as much, but sometimes my thoughts drift back to that piano. I think it's sound is what a great piano is supposed to sound like.

No, sorry, I don't. You might call the factory and ask them. I'm not in a location just now where I can easily locate their factory phone numbers but you might check with the online version of the Piano Buyer. You can find an add for the Piano Buyer somewhere on the Piano Forum website.

ddf