Who needs a PR agent with you around?

Another major problem is that many if not most entry-level buyers don't play, or don't play well enough to trust their own judgment. They rely more on specs, ratings and the "story" they are told by retailers.

It leaves the dealer representing a piano with a laminated board at a significant disadvantage, particularly in that large, entry-level market segment and in areas that have several competing dealerships.

Specs, especially those involving major components, *are* part of the story. Especially the "European" story.

Not listing them, hiding them in verbiage of sorts or making them otherwise available, doesn't serve anyone.

IMHO

Norbert

Steve,

Let's be constructive here. I know your thinking well enough to know you are sincerely concerned that competition in the retail marketplace, specifically negative selling, is an impediment to piano innovation and improvement. I also know that as a retailer you certainly want and need to sell some pianos.

Thinking back to your comments on this thread about the NAMM demonstration of the current capabilities of a laminated board, and how that demonstration made you a believer in the technology, let me pose a hypothetical here. I'm posing it to you but answers from any retailer who cares about this issue are of course welcome.

In this hypothetical you already represent a maker of consumer-grade pianos who has given a very convincing presentation to you of its state-of-the-art laminate board technology. You are convinced that the features and benefits of this laminate board, which consists of a solid spruce core with a thin stabilizing skin glued to each side, make the board a good choice in entry-level and possibly mid-level pianos, especially in comparison to the quality of solid spruce board available to the maker at roughly the same cost.

But while you are sold on the benefits and advantages, you face the reality of operating at least short-term at a competitive disadvantage as competitors attack your piano with the same vigor that they have attacked Kawai's use of non-traditional action materials. What do you need to get you on board with adoption of the new technology in pianos that you will need to sell?


A cash incentive for each piano you sell with the the new laminate alternative?


Written contractual assurance that if the laminate board pianos don't move for you that the distributor will take them back?


Thorough training from the company for yourself and any sales staff on how you can best sell the features and benefits to your customers?


Brochures from the maker which you can help you educate your inexperienced and non-playing customers?


A DVD which highlights the company's research and proven test results which you can provide free to your customers?


A model of a cross-section of the laminate board similar to what Story and Clark used to supply for its Storytone boards?


An assurance from the company that it will not publicize the use of the laminate board so that you don't have to face the issue unless a customer asks you?


Something else?


Nothing at all will convince you?




Let me also present a different hypothetical for the other main theme of this thread. Again, input from any retailers interested in this issue is appreciated.

You represent a European company that has traditionally been a member of Larry Fine's most exclusive ranking group. This ranking group is characterized by Larry Fine as including only pianos not built to a price point, but built to the highest standard that the company can achieve and priced in accordance with whatever that cosst.

You happen to know, not through any disclosure from your maker or his distributor but from your accumulated piano knowledge applied to examining pianos and from being an industry insider, that your maker is buying components that are absolutely essential to the piano's music-making capabilites from a lower-cost Asian maker -- not screws or other case hardware, not legs or case parts, but things such as pre-strung assemblies and pre-made action assemblies that are at the core of the piano's music making capabilities. You know that this activity is not consistent with Larry Fine's concept of a piano that is not built to a price point, but to the highest standard the company can achieve. Rather, the company is trimming costs through outsourcing .

It's not that the pianos are 'bad'. They are not bad. However, they are not what they are purported to be by the company, and they do not reflect the image and accumulated prestige on which the company's pricing is seen as justified. I know this is what is eating at least a couple of the retailers on this thread.

What do you do?


Remain quiet and present the pianos as the company intends, rationalizing that this is the direction the industry is going and there's nothing you can do about it?


Alert your customers to what is going on by adding your own knowledge to what the company has disclosed, possibly making you a consumerist hero who doesn't make a sale?


Drop representation of that maker ASAP?

This is a letter from a Bechstein Executive, my question was:

W Hoffmann Vision vs Tradition, this is what he said:

Thank you for your recent request for information about Bechstein and our brands. As you research more about the pianos in the marketplace we are confident that you will find our instruments quite remarkable.

Thank you too, for asking good and pertinent questions about the difference between models. Simply put, all of our pianos are built to Bechstein specifications, whether it be in our Czech factory or in Germany. As you well noted, we source parts from around the world—as long as they also meet our stringent specifications. Key to the construction and ultimate sound and playability, is the understanding garnered over many years building the highest quality pianos in the world. If you have the opportunity to visit our factories in the future you would see that we use much of the same tooling in both the Czech and the German facility. The factories are about 2 ½ hours apart by car. The daily manufacturing process of the Hoffmann pianos are monitored closely by Bechstein master craftsmen. It is our factory—‘C. Bechstein’ is the sign on the front of the building.

While we cannot tell you which instrument is best for your needs, we certainly want to provide you with a choice, all with the distinct European sound and feel. The V series is the ‘entry level’ European offering—not to be confused with the general use of the term ‘entry level’.

We upgrade some technology and materials to bring you the T series. It is our home run! We brought the new T series to the North American market a couple of years ago and we are constantly selling out of the T122 and T128 models. Again, we will never tell you which model fits your needs the best, but we process the orders from the dealers through this office, and can assure you that they are the most requested. They are our ‘iPad’.

You also asked about the A3. It, along with the A2 and A1 from the Germany factory are the three top selling vertical pianos that we import.

The Manufacturers suggested price for the A3 is $20,200.00. The cost of shipping and handling to each dealer around the United states may vary somewhat. If the dealer in your area is able to share some savings with you then that will be up them.

Kevin, ultimately you must choose which piano is best for you and your family. They all have the same warranty. They all have an incredible German pedigree. They all have the unique European tone and touch that you are looking for. We know you will be satisfied with whichever one you choose.

Thank you again for your interest and let me know if we can be of further help in your quest.

Tur,

In answer to your 1st query, it would depend on my competitive situation. If I suspected that a competitor would regularly close a disproportunate percentage of sales in this market segment by telling customers that "no top- or mid-quality manufacturers use plywood soundboards" and that they are "widely known for producing poorer tone quality", I would likely drop the line. I simply couldn't afford to lose that much business.

While I am quite capable of extolling the virtues of the manufacturers I represent, and of a high-tech laminated board, in this example my competitor is telling the truth, and when considering a big ticket purchase, many shoppers would be swayed. I don't like the negative effect on piano evolution of my position, it is one that the overwhelming percentage of retailers would embrace.

As to your 2nd query, I'll pass for now and take potshots at those who respond, as I'm sure they will be gunning for me on my response here!!!!

Well I certainly nope not. I appreciate the candor, even though I can't see a way out of what appears to a vicious circle without someone assuming risk.

I'd guess that some of your competitors use the "no one else does that" line when whacking Kawai, but maybe Kawai's success with Millenium actions is established enough at this point for dealers to withstand the competitive abuse.

The thread has been pretty informative, at least in my opinion; no bickering or taking potshots that I can recall.
Let's see what happens.

Aliwally,

Your response from Bechstein reminded me of a placebo. I don't think it addressed your question in any material way, not that another manufacturer would necessarily handle it any differently.

No. I assume you are referring to the Millennium action. It is seen as an asset by all respectable sources.

Also, you posted a hypothetical. I didn't say it was a problem in reality to me. I'm not faced with the problem.

Steve,

Since I mentioned the Millenium action by name, it's a safe bet to assume that's what I was referring to.

I know that you were responding to a hypoethical. It's just that when you mentioned in your response to the hypothetical that competitors would truthfully say....



in attacking the piano your hypothetically carried, it reminded me of Kawai's real-life situation when they pioneered non-wooden actions.

Bottom line: I appreciate you candor, your interest in the issue, and your responses.

So how do we as an industry make ourselves truly transparent and do we REALLY want to be? and then on what level. For example, in Ailwally's post I noted that more than likely his REAL question was not answered, or at least that was my perception. Where do all the parts come from? Or perhaps there is the question that wasnt asked "Do you have any parts from China in any of your pianos? If so, which ones and if not why not?"

Do we REALLY want ALL the information? and THEN what do we plan to do with that information. Do we intend to use it as a weapon against our competitor ( a practice of the 90's and 2000's that seemed to be the order of the day which seldom works anymore ) or do we plan to use that information as a guideline of pricing structure or education? What do we plan to do with that information?

I am hoping that we are not falling back into the trap of selling against the competitor by whatever means podssible while forgetting to actually sell what we have to offer. Hopefully we are all able to look no further than our present Goverment situation to see what a disaster that can cause.

If we do accomplish full transparency will we then always tell everything we know about the product we sell or will we only tell that information when asked? If the manufacturer gives us ALL the information will we then drop that mfg. because their product does not measure up to what we thought. How does this all work?


Just curious?

Turandot:

The questions and thoughts you post are quite thought provoking, and in a very real sense your inquiries capture many of the quagmires a dealer faces today.

While I think that many of us would love to post honest and forthright answers, I am sure you are aware that it is not possible for most of us to do so for many different reasons and considerations, mostly self-preservation oriented.

Just on PianoWorld alone, in seemingly innocuous responses to postings, some of us get assaulted, chastised and threatened for opinions or facts we share within a thread. I have had competitors post outrageous comments to customers of mine who merely stated they were excited about their new piano (aka, sour grapes at losing the sale), and have had manufacturers threaten me with legal action for posting facts about their production or components - even though both of us know that my statements were true. The reality is, one can be correct but spend a fortune defending the truth (which is NOT pleasant).

Are your questions dancing with the truth? Absolutely. Do many of us know or suspect chicanery? Absolutely. Are we willing to put our money where our mouth is? heck NO - there's too little money around to do that, and the perpetrators know it.

Additionally, I am sure you are aware of confidentiality agreements in contracts. Some of us operate under those clauses and could suffer great penalties for disclosure of proprietary information.

ALL THE ABOVE NOTWITHSTANDING:

When you ask

Obiviously, I am already on board but admittedly on a limited basis. The way I market Kayserburg is very selective, and I only bother to show the product to customers I think are astute, and usually play, and won't be swayed by any sales mumbo-jumbo. I have the luxury of being able to do that because I have other product I can show to customers who I determine wouldn't be open to new technology or would be swayed by competitive vitriol. I know that sounds elitist, but IMHO that's the only way this could work, and since my livelihood depends on it, I get to choose. Today, I already had this thread thrown in my face by a customer who visited a competitor.

Certainly, I would be happy to show the product to anyone who wants to try it, I am not saying that I wouldn't. BUT, in the case of trying to sell, for example, a 48" upright of mine against a Yamaha U1 or Kawai K3 to the typical non-playing parents of a 9 year old prodigy (they all are), I wouldn't even bother to open a Kayserburg but would rather show a Brodmann or Ritmüller 121 so that the solid spruce issue isn't one. Let's face it, much like when I was first selling Kawai composite actions, selling any Chinese made product is challenging at best. What is irksome is when you are selling a Chinese made product against a Chinese made product with a "made in ***** label on it!


UNFORTUNATELY, the publications and technicians who purport thorough examination of our products, and consumers THINK and rely on to really investigate these issues, really don't do ANY investigation past casual conversations or manufacturer representations. That doesn't mean their analysis isn't primarily correct, but there is a window of opportunity for the unscrupulous to jump through, and SOME DO (and some of us know it)!

There are a few glimmers of hope. Mason & Hamlin's development and promotion of it new actions and Steingraeber's carbon-fiber soundboard are moves in the right direction.

No doubt the prestige level of the innovator is a factor. Steingraeber would appear to be bulletproof. I do recall though that M&H's replacement of Renner actions with its own WNG composite action caused a big enough fuss here than Cecil Ramirez himself had to come on here to douse some of the flems. The flames leapt higher because H&H was making their product in China. M&H also got hit with an immediate downgrade from one of your consulting employers. That downgrade was based on veering away from the tried and true.

How you can truthfully label your innovative product's material probably helps or hurts the cause as well. 'Plastic' has more negative connotations than positive ones. 'Carbon fiber' OTOH has far more positive connotations than negative ones because of its success in sporting goods and exotic racing cars. Laminate boards suffer greatly because of some piano people's relentless use of terms like plywood and glueboard to describe them.

I've inferred from reading this thread that Strunz is now involved in laminate board construction. Strunz has some prestige. Their promotion of composite board technology would probably help the cause.

I notice that Hailun has finally included mention of a laminate soundboard on their spec sheets for the models that use this.
This is their wording:

Soundboard: All mountain
spruce with 15 degree spruce
meniscus coating for climatic
resistance and flexibility

Does anyone know where All mountain is?
Is that somewhere in the Alps?


Interesting to see that Hailun has new models coming out soon as Tom Fu pointed out in an earlier thread today in a 168 and 180 cm size.
Piano companies keep bringing out more models every season. Someone must be buying them to keep up with all this new production in the piano industry.

Thereby undoing a year-and-a-half’s worth of careful education and preparation along with all the design and testing work that went into that introduction.

Laminated soundboards are difficult to market because people on the sales and marketing side of the industry—at least some of whom, in my humble opinion, should know better by now!—continue to hold on to, and repeat ad infinitum such antiquated notions to people on the manufacturing side of the industry. It boils down to this: no matter how well they perform, pianos with laminated soundboards won’t sell because you say they won’t sell. And then, because you’ve frightened them into discontinuing them, high-performance pianos using laminated soundboards are unavailable, therefore they don’t sell. And your self-fulfilling prophesy comes true; pianos with laminated soundboards don’t sell. I’d say there’s something of a pattern here and it’s not altogether the manufacturer’s fault.

When folks came into our store repeating these hogwash stories about laminated soundboards it would take me about three to five minutes and one piano to convince them that the right piano for them was the piano with the acoustical and reliability benefits of a laminated soundboard. It took me about that long to demonstrate the benefits of the laminated soundboard system and, without saying a single negative word, convince them that the “competitor across the street” either did not know what he/she was talking about or was simply lying to them. And I’m a lousy salesperson. Surely you professional salespeople could do this much better than I if only you could get over your own fear of what some willfully ignorant “competitor across the street” might say.


Personally, I also think it’s a shame. I—and now others—have demonstrated that pianos with properly designed laminated soundboards work, and work well. Personally, I think it’s a shame that otherwise competent sales and marketing people continue to work at perpetuating the myth that these things cannot be sold. Myths persist only because people are frightened by what they perceive as the unknown. It’s time, folks. The piano industry is not in such great shape that we can continue to allow fear to govern our marketing decisions.

The benefits of laminated soundboards have been obvious to me for better than 25 years. I came very close to getting some of these pianos into production a couple of years back only to see the whole project terminated because of one or two odd, fearful comments by one or two folks who, I should have thought, knew better than to say what they said. I continue to hope that in the future the benefits of laminated soundboards will eventually manage to overcome that fear.

ddf

So much of this is due to salespeople bashing competitors' pianos on the basis of "features" which have nothing to do with how well the piano plays, sounds, or lasts. But the only things that matter are how well the piano plays, sounds, and lasts!

I recently had a piano at our shop with a laminated board for trial. It was interesting in that I actually was under the impression that the piano that was sent to us would have a solid spruce board.

I am sure that the quality of this laminated board was as good as it gets. Quality of material and quality of workmanship do not equal quality of design, although in this case, judging from the rib design, placement and taper, the design was quite thoughtful, at least from the perspective of a solid board.

The laminations on this board were so thin and so cleverly camoflaged, that even knowing where to look and what to look for did not conclusively tell us it was a laminated board.

The action design on this piano was excellent, and the hammers were cold pressed and a very nice weight. Again, no doubt this piano was thought out in ways that we at PianoCraft believe in.
Prior to trying the piano, it was tuned and basic regulating and tweaking were done.

When I played this piano for the first time, I instantly knew it was a laminated board. It had a sound that I associate with laminated boards. I found this quite confusing as I thought this piano had a solid board, and again, inspecting the board visually did not conclusively tell us that it was laminated.
I contacted the manufacturer and they confirmed it was a laminated board.

We had multiple outstanding pianists try out this piano. Everyone thought it played well enough and would make a nice practice piano, and everyone also thought it sounded off somehow. It didn't sound bad, it was just very limited in the way in which it responded.

With all that, this piano still sounded better than some pianos that I am familiar with that have solid spruce boards, and some of these are quite expensive. A badly designed piano results in bad sound, solid spruce or laminated spruce.

I also would have no problem selling a piano with a laminated board, if I liked it. I would not have the slightest problem in telling a client that this piano has a laminated soundboard and if you like the sound, it has some big advantages over a solid board. As a matter of fact, even though I don't sell pianos with laminated boards, I regularly inform clients of the benefits of a laminated board.

I have heard several pianos with laminated boards, and I have never liked any of them beyond their utilitarian properties. Of course, I have heard many pianos with solid spruce boards that I thought just sucked.

As far as I know, I have not heard a piano with a laminated board designed by Del Fandrich. I am completely open to the idea that a laminated board with the right design could sound really nice. I have not heard it yet. I hope to, and when I do, I will not hesitate to proudly sell it should it fit nicely from a performance/value point of view for my clients.

Should I find such a piano, my decision to carry it or not will not be affected in the least over any concern of what some loser piano salesman elsewhere might say about it.

This situation, both in terms of disclosure to the ordering retailer and the camouflaging, would seem to be a slip-one-by solution to the problem. the thinking being that the retailer will follow suit in slipping it by either out of not noticing himself or not wanting to bother with returning the item. A similar event was described a little while back by Russell Kassman. BTW, you two have one brand in common I believe, not that that matters in the least.

Master Kassman did not report on the disposition of his surprising delivery. Would you comment on......

1.)what you did with the piano after the manufacturer owned up to its board construction?

2.)what you think of this type of approach as a way to get retailers and their customers to be more objective in evaluating the musical effects of different board types?

I'm not asking that to bait you. It just seems to me that attempts to camouflage, whether it's Chinese construction hiding behind a German facade or altering major componentry with no notice to anyone, are doomed to ultimately backfire.

Turandot,

In this case, the misunderstanding might have been on my side. It was several months from the point of discussion about the trial piano to when I actually received it. So, based on my memory of that discussion, I thought I was getting a piano with a solid board, but they ended up sending me a stock piano.
When I found out it actually was a laminated board, it was more of a relief that my ears were still working correctly.

So, I don't think this was really an attempt to fool me, just a misunderstanding.

As a general rule, I am like many of the piano buyers here on PianoWorld. When I try a piano, the less I know about the sales pitch of that particular piano the better I like it. I would be very happy to play a piano with a laminated board unknowingly, think it sounded great only to be later informed it had a laminated board.
This is how I try pianos at the NAMM show if I can.

1) The instrument was replaced with one built to their specifications.

2) The consumer is the ultimate barometer. Obviously, I have taken a leap (hopefully not from a cliff) of faith in investing in the Kayserburg product because I believe in it. That being said, chicanery has no place in our industry. I will admit that I prefer a client to PLAY and LISTEN to the piano before I disclose the type of board in the piano, but I certainly wouldn't hide it or lie about it.

Conversely, I prefer the solid spruce Steingraeber's to the carbon fiber instruments. Go figure!

Keith,

Thanks for the reply.

I'm glad your ears are working well, but beyond that data point, I'm not sure what value, if any, can be assigned to your report here.

Since you have now written that this was a trial piano, we can assume it was not a piano with which your had the kind of experience and familiarity that comes with representing, prepping, retailing, and servicing it. Yet you say that you're sure it was 'off' because it had a laminate and exclude any other possibility.

In describing 'off', you say that it was not very responsive. This of course would be in perfect alignment with the traditional criticism of laminate boards, but the fact that you are sure that an unknown piano which doesn't respond as well as you would like has been impeded by its board construction -- well, that conclusion is remarkable!

Despite your finding about good taper, careful rib construction, and cold-pressed hammers, in my experience pianos are as good as they play and sound, and how they play and sound is not a simple recipe of ingredients and build execution. In judging some pricy solid board pianos as lousy, as you mentioned in your post, did you immediately know that a lousy solid board is the culprit?

You say that you are sure that this laminate board was as good as it gets, but you also indicate you have no experience with the boards of which Del is writing . I would also assume that you have little or no experience with the board designed by Lotha Thomma that Master Kassman has praised in the Kayserburg piano. I say that because that piano is in extremely limited circulation even though its board was designed with the hope of getting beyond that level of implementation. Are you sure that the beautifully camouflaged board on that trail piano was "as good as it ges" in terms of sound production, not simply in terms of camouflaging?

We also do not know the basis of your assumption that the delivered piano would have a solid board -- whether that assumption came from a description of specs, from the fact that the company delivering it has no history of offering laminate boards or no history of offering laminate boards at this piano's particular price level, or whether there was simply no reason at all for you to assume a solid board in this piano. While you say that you don't mind at all playing a piano without knowledge of its board construction, disclosure to the retailer and subseqnently to the consumer is an important element of this thread topic.

I understand you not disclosing what became of the trial piano -- whether you kept it, sent it back with a no thanks, or ordered more. That's your business of course unless you choose to reveal what your decision was. However, I think that the description of the board's effect on the sound as 'off', while it does fall in line with traditional laminate board criticism, is a little weak for someone who is as capable of describing piano sound in intricate detail as you are. Hey, that's a compliment!!

Finally, though the report does put you in a very favorable light in regard to your ability to sniff out a laminate board in the absence of any spec knowledge or strong visual evidence, I'm not convinced on the basis of the data presented and the data not presented, that it says anything about laminate board innovation, or how manufacturers should go about presenting the benefits and advantages of their own researched laminate boards technology, or whether there is any basis for installing current state-of-the-artlaminate boards on 'better' pianos than low entry-level.

Personally I see the inherent problems re this subject as these:

1] "transparency"

Describing a soundboard by slipping in a little word such as " soundboard core" and calling it "all spruce" is IMHO misleading or at least confusing, especially for unsophisticated buyers.

This may not be done on purpose, but it obviously avoids telling what it really is, namely a "laminate" or multi-ply.

2] well designed laminates like Del's or Mr. Thomma's should get their place and recognition in the industry and it is up to manufacturers to make use of it.

This based on the assumption designed laminates will perform as good as solids do, something not completely agreed upon by some writers here. So more time may be necessary.

The downside is that it's equally possible to put ordinary,not quality engineered laminates in pianos, as it is possible to put poor quality solids in others.

So the battle may go on to establish exactly what is what.

The way out of this mess is something Ritmüller and some others are presently doing.

In Rit's case there will be upright pianos in future with both type boards - one with Lothar Thomma designed laminates and one with high grade solid spruce.

Manufacturers IMHO would be well advised to make these options available to buyers. The pianos will most likely be differently priced but would have a great opportunity to "compete" with each other by same manufacturer - and in same showroom side by side.

Keeping specs less than specific and burying details in general verbiage of sorts - serves noone.

My 2 cents.

Norbert

I believe that the lowering of the M&H ranking was not based on evaluation of the WNG action but occured when M&H started using non Renner wooden action parts, plates, etc. produced in China. WNG came after that and seems to have been very well received by most. I don't think it was a design innovation but a change of manufacturer that caused the lowering of the Fine ranking.

My impression is that M&H prices haven't gone up significantly in the past few years, and I think that's a very good thing for buyers. It positions M&H as an excellent value in the High Quality Performance Grade category. The only thing I objected to was the claim that the switch to some components from China had nothing to do with cost savings.

Plover,

I saw that you were quoting me and I assumed I was going to receive a negative evaluation of my posting behavior. I was pleased to see that was not the case.

You may well be right. I don't know the exact sequence of events and I would bow to your sequence as stated since I know your follow M&H closely. To be honest, I wasn't even aware of an interim stage between Renner and M&H's own action part manufacture in China, a stage in which M&H was simply buying Chinese wooden action parts as a cost-saving solution.

Here's what I could pull up from an early Pianobuyer on the subject.

http://www.pianobuyer.com/fall09/166.html

The pertinent paragraph is at the bottom of the page just before the warranty information. Although it does refer to Chinese manufactured parts as a questionable choice replacing Renner action parts (which I described as the tried and true), it makes no mention of composite action part and supports your point. I would point outt though that despite the glowing reports on WNG composite actions, M&H has not been restored to its former ranking. I don't think it's the plates that are responsible.

BTW, I agree with you and with those who Mr. Fine kindly mentions in that paragraph as disagreeing with him in downgrading the pianos. I don't have much familiarity with M&H myself, but I do have a lot of familiarity with Renner acttions in various high-priced pianos, and in my opinion, Renner actions in pianos are not uniform in playing quality, and no guarantee of action excellence. So I wouldn't consider them an automatic choices for any performance piano.

Only incorrect information in this case.

As you say, quality of materials and workmanship do not equal quality of design. Although it may be unfair to denigrate quality of design. I do not know the brand or model of piano you are discussion but to make my point I don’t need this information.

Ideally, the piano using a so-called “solid” soundboard panel will have a somewhat different rib design from the piano using a laminated soundboard panel. The last group of pianos that I designed, however, was intended to fit into a relatively low-cost market segment. The manufacture wanted the flexibility to switch from a solid spruce soundboard panel to a laminated soundboard panel with a minimum amount of confusion. We have to keep in mind that the U.S. market is no longer a particularly large one. Most of the Chinese manufacturers find China to be the largest market for their products and, consequently, they tailor their production to meet what they perceive to be most successful in that market. The U.S. market is often an afterthought. As may be, to accommodate this request required compromises at several levels. Neither the two disparate soundboard panels nor the ribs could be designed of optimum performance. Both combinations of soundboard panel and ribs work quite well but neither is the best it could be if each had been designed as a stand-alone instrument.




Would you please describe this sound? What is it you don’t like about the sound of those pianos you have played that you know had laminated soundboard panels?




Most of the pianos being built today using laminated soundboard panels are compromise designs. Whether the compromise is intentional or not is another issue. Most of those pianos that I have examined still use ribsets that would be more suitable to pianos with solid spruce soundboard panels. Most manufacturers are reluctant to hire the people who are qualified and experienced enough to develop high performance laminated soundboard systems. In part, I think, this is because laminated soundboard panels are not generally used in expensive, high performance pianos. They are used in lower priced pianos that are going to be purchased by less experienced and—usually—less musically demanding buyers.

While I think it is a mistake to skimp on the basic research and development going into these pianos the cold, hard reality is that they simply don’t get the kind of tweaking and ongoing development that much more expensive instruments receive. A piano rolling down a semi-automated assembly line is simply not treated the same as an instrument that is built at a rate of one a week or even one a day.

When we were selling pianos with laminated soundboard panels I did not try to make them sound the same as other pianos using solid spruce soundboard panels. I tried to make them sound as good as I thought they were capable of sounding. I then left it up to the purchaser to decide if this was a satisfying sound to their ears. Then I emphasized the very real positive aspects of a well-made laminated soundboard panel; their consistency, their stability, their ability to stand up to extremes of climate, their longevity, etc.

I did not try to compare their sound to instruments costing twice as much; or even half as much. If comparisons were to be made I felt they should be made with pianos costing the same or, at least, nearly the same.




Well, at the rate things are going you may never get this chance. Momentum and fear are formidable obstacles. I doubt I’ll be able to overcome them in my lifetime. I did have hopes for a while there but no longer. I will continue to speak out in favor of the laminated soundboard panel as seems appropriate but I’m not going to waste any more intellectual or emotional energy trying to convince any manufacturer to pursue a path they or their marketing advisors are palpably frightened of following. Even though this would clearly be in their own best interests to do so.

I’m not saying I’d refuse to develop a high performance system using a laminate soundboard panel if asked; but I’ll have to be asked. And I’ll have to be assured that the work will not be wasted. Personally, though, I’m bypassing laminated soundboard panels entirely and moving on to the next logical evolutionary plane.

ddf

If manufacturers skimp on the design to the extent that they make no allowances for difference other than simply substituting the one board for the other, and then slap the laminate into a low-end product , it's disingenuous of them to state that the problem is that retailers and consumers view laminates exclusively as inferior boards that are installed as a cost-saving production element. Manufacturers create the expectation and then fulfill their prophecy. Chicken and egg once again. Who is really chicken: the manufacturer or the retail market? If no manufacturer sees MONEY to be made in differentiating itself from the pack as an innovator, laminate boards will never get off the steerage deck.

I've never been inside the industry, but looking in as a consumer, I would say that exposure to and success in the US market is at this point a marketing strategy to give a Chinese piano a patina of respectability in a crowded field of brands, much like sending a May Berlin to Germany for a ceremonial seal of approval or tossing some Roslau wire into a thoroughly Chinese piano and claiming some sort of German pedigree. With these approaches, when the coals come back to Newcastle, they may glow a little more brightly. I could be way off here, but the marketing strategies do give that appearance. One of the interesting aspects of Master Kassman's report on the Kayserburg a while back was Pearl River's intent to sell these pianos in Europe and to gain some market acceptance there. There's not that much money to be made directly in Europe just as there isn't much to be made in the US,, but there is that patina of respectability that may rub on your product in the home market.

Del,

Without getting too technical or over-simplifying, could you generalize on what is likely to happen when the rib design planned for a solid board has a shotgun marriage with a laminat? In what way is the sound likely to be 'off'?

Del,




I have two problems with this quote. Before I address them, let me say that both Larry and I both attended and evaluated the instruments you designed for Young Chang and introduced at Winter NAMM ‘10. We found them to be outstanding values. The tonality was truly impressive, especially considering the size of the instruments and their wholesale cost. We both concluded that they sounded great! We were asked by, and expressed that evaluation, in no uncertain terms, to both you and the executives of Young Chang. As you know, I also expressed, again to both you and them, my concerns as to the challenges that manufacturers and their dealers faced in marketing laminated soundboards.

Your quote above states that marketing advisors are frightened of innovating with a high-tech laminated board. I am one of those marketing advisors for a number of manufacturers and dealerships. We don’t see it as frightening, rather we see it as taking a risk that has much more downside than upside. The potential loss in sales due to the ease of persuading shoppers to doubt the quality of instruments with laminated boards, far out outweighs the additional sales that well-designed instruments with laminated boards would add. This situation is VERY unfortunate, as in fact, your designs were a major improvement. This situation hinders innovations that produce a better piano. However, being unfortunate doesn’t change the reality. It is not fear that motivates us, but our fiduciary responsibility to advise based on the realities of the marketplace.

You also state that it would be in the manufacturer’s best interest to market these designs. At this point in time, I must disagree. In addition to the points I made above, taken as a group, competitors could truthfully say that pianos that are top-rated and those rated in the mid-range, as a rule, do not use laminated boards, and they are commonly found in low end instruments. A high percentage of the market for these instrument are non-players, many of whom are not good at evaluating tonality, but go by specs and the limited amount of information they get about pianos in general. That argument is persuasive enough to likelt lose significant market share for the manufactuer and their dealers. Again, this situation is very unfortunate, but it is the reality. At this point in time, the risk for the manufacturer outweighs the gain.

On the plus side, things are changing, albeit very slowly. I firmly believe that innovation such as your will be widely marketed in the years to come. You are ahead of your time!!!

Techical explanations and marketing concerns aside for a moment:

We always let our customers discover the sound of pianos themselves. If they don't play, we play for them different type music and show them how a piano sounds within of the different sections of the keyboard. After we talk about balance, tone color, expression and so on. People are often amazed - and grateful!

Once we have established a preference, we move on to other things. Specs and stuff ar important but don't tell that much in terms of sound, performance and personal preference. We add them into out discussion later - not at the beginning.

I have never understood why the industry tends to sell pianos the other way around. A musical instrument is a musical instrument. Music doesn't make for words - nor for *technical data*.

At same time, the industry doesn't need obfuscation of facts. Whenever talking about specs - in the beginning or later - don't hide things. Tell things the way they are.

Buyers will make their own choice.

Hopefully not simply based on *image* - but their own musical taste and preference of the instrument.

Norbert