I can see reasons why some pianos might not use the best materials or have the best construction. It would seem like both these could add considerably to the cost.

But I don't see why any piano should have an inferior design. I have no idea how much it costs a manufacturer to hire a piano designer, but it would seem like any additional cost to hire one the best designers when spread out over many pianos would not make a significant difference. Thoughts?

Well, great design is subjective. So, a piano I consider to be poor because of its design may be considered fantastic by the manufacturer and lots of other dealers.

Honestly, the big reason that there are a lot of pianos out there that have design issues is that many manufacturers consider demanding pianists a nuisance. They also often consider demanding technicians a nuisance. So, they don't even ask the people who really understand piano performance about the result, or if they do, it is just lip service.
Finally, there are a lot of pianos out there that work perfectly well in music that doesn't ask much of them. So, just because I think a piano has a poor design because I find it to have a problem when it is for instance asked to play at a very low dynamic level, someone else who never asks the piano to play at that level might think it is the best piano ever.

Hello pianoloverus
I assume you are talking about product design? I think the very problem is, that you can hold a long discussion about good or bad design. One likes more a baroque style another (so do I) prefers clear and simple lines like the Bauhaus style. So who will decide if a specific design is inferor or not?

I suppose pianoloverus means by design, cabinet design and styling?

Well there are manufacturers that pay particular attention to design and styling: Pleyel

watch e.g. last video on thsi page:

Pleyel - press

or visit Pleyel's piano blog (there's quite a bit about design & styling):

Pleyel - blog

Whether or not thsi helps or will help Pleyel sell a lot of pianos is, of course, anothre question.

schwammerl.

Speaking as an electrical engineer, I suspect that most pianos are not really designed to be inferior, but that tradeoffs have been made between cost, endurance, manufacturability, and features. Pianos intended for most homes are likely designed to use cheaper, less durable, and not as beautiful sounding materials and assembly processes. This allows the sale price to be reasonable for home users.

Concert artists are going to be more sensitive and more demanding of piano construction and tone, and since artists' pianos usually are purchased by institutions, cost is less of an issue. To make matters more complex, piano manufacturers have to pick a point between company profitability, product value, and customer service--these days, it seems more and more companies are setting the balance toward the profitability goal. It's all a tricky mix of constraints with severe consequences for the buyer if he doesn't deeply understand how a particular company and piano will meet his needs.

All this is guesswork on my part...
Bob

I might be guesswork on your part....but it is a great guess!!!

It isn't that the "home use" designs use inferior or less durable designs or materials, it is that the demands of performace-designed instruments are far greater that necessary in typical home use.

Also, I don't see a trend toward more profitability, but rather a trend toward trying to simple survive in this challeging economy.

Other than that, you did pretty good.

Hey Bob,

Those are some very insightful points.
However, there are less expensive pianos out there that have superior design and adequate materials and workmanship that perform at a higher level than more expensive pianos with superior materials and superior workmanship but inferior design.
( names withheld to protect the innocent )

Sorry for any confusion. I was actually referring to the design of everything but the aesthetics of the case...the soundboard, bridges, strings, action, etc.

Most people list design, materials, and workmanship(build quality)as the three components of piano quality and I was wondering why the first couldn't always be excellent. My impression (which could be wrong) is that some pianos have "inferior" designs that were not due to cost considerations.

Pianoloverus -

I think this is an interesting question too. But in all ignorance, I have to ask you... are you sure that design is really a big issue, compared to materials/workmanship/etc? I can imagine the these are somewhat coupled, in that complex/great designs many require exceptional materials or workmanship to "fly". But do you think that anyone is really making "bad" designs nowadays? (I have no opinion, so this is really an honest query).

How come all cars don't have great designs?

And how are we defining great designs? Great absolutely, great within a price range, great for institutional use, great for casual home use? Great for not needing frequent tuning, great for survival in humid climates?

It seems to me that the entire idea of what is a "great" piano has a huge subjective piece to it as well. It can be objective only if it can be scientifically measured, and then we would have to agree on the criteria in any event.

In my view, such criteria cannot exist. What makes a piano great cannot be objective, almost by definition, because what makes a piano great has so many aspects that are inevitably subjective: they depend upon the individual listener's response to how it sounds, how it plays, etc. A piano can stay in tune forever, but if it sounds terrible, it is not a great piano.

One answer - $$$$ and the price the public is willing to pay.

Jonathan

But that gets to the essence of my question. One sees at PW discussion of various parts of the design where an improvement in the original design wouldn't seem to have cost more money or wouldn't have been necessary with a better designer to start out with. If an average piano designer gets X$ for designing a piano at a certain price point, why not hire a superstar piano designer for x+100K to get a better designed piano at the same price point?

"Great" as in upper end designs usually are more expensive to execute, therefore compromises are required for "less than great" designs to lower costs.

Quality most often boils down to the interconnection between the construction techniques, the design, and the materials. Guided by tastes and centuries of trial and error.

Many pianos are designed for certain price points. Pianos of several sizes could have the same action stack, for instance, which is why it is so common for small grands to have 26 bass notes and larger ones 20, after Steinway. Steinway has only three grand action stacks, one with 26 bass notes and two with 20. That sort of restriction imposes itself on the rest of the piano.

There are many pianos designed according to old customs, which may not have been good ones. For instance, wire gauges change a lot on the highest notes, and not so often on the lower notes. However, it is easier to adjust the length of the string on the higher notes, so that you would think that a good design would adjust the length to accommodate fewer gauges there, and leave more leeway for adjusting the gauge in the tenor.

Many piano designs are copied. What seems to be small changes are often made to hide that fact. Those can become bigger and bigger, but their effect may already have been much larger than first thought.

There may be changes made between the design and the final product. For instance, a scale designer may specify a plate with certain characteristics, which the foundry decides may cause trouble in casting. The compromise may be less than ideal.

Of course, there is just plain old incompetence, too!

I am a little confused - if the superstar is getting x+100k for the design wouldn't the price point now be higher due to higher design costs?

Jonathan

The price can be higher, or not much higher, depending on volume. Or think of it another way... invest and innovate, or die. I think Young Chang did the smart thing consulting with Del, and began rolling out changes starting with their BASE series. They are not expensive pianos at all. Suddenly they are pretty serious competitors and collecting orders from dealers.

My thinking is that if the design was replicated on 1000 pianos the additional cost per piano would be only $100.

Then Walmart would have it copied and charge $100 less.

True, but there are some consistent themes that run through these discussions. Most piano players will agree that a lack of clarity in the bass—specifically in smaller pianos—is undesirable. And in most cases it can be improved relatively easily through design. As well, most want a seamless bass-to-tenor transition; again, something that can be achieved with reasonably good design. It would be good if the upper tenor/lower treble didn’t develop a sharp, percussive sound with a rapid energy drop-off after just a couple of years. I could make the list longer but I’m sure you could write your own list.

Not all pianos share these problems. Some because the factory throws lots and lots of hours at the piano before it leaves the factory. Others because somewhere along the line they have been designed out of the piano.



Sadly this statement is one of the most enlightened I’ve seen through this whole thread. Listen up, folks; this is the voice of experience speaking.

ddf

This is true to some extent. The quality of materials used in an entry-level or low-cost instrument is not going to be of the same quality as those used in high-end pianos. But how this translated to acoustical performance is not so clear cut. To be sure, acoustical performance will suffer in the very cheapest pianos but those are rapidly disappearing from the musical landscape.

I see this as a 90/10 issue. Let’s assume that the very best piano possible is ranked at 100%. The first 90% of that performance can be achieved at a relatively low cost. The last few percentage points will come at a somewhat higher cost whether that be in labor, machinery or materials). If the performance of a low- to mid-range pianos comes in at 50% there is probably something very wrong with either its design or its assembly.

In most of today’s production pianos there is not all that much difference in the materials used. There is no good reason why low-end pianos can’t all perform at, say, 85% of that theoretical perfection. Or why mid-range pianos can’t consistently perform at a solid 90% level. Which leaves as an open question why some extremely expensive pianos can’t seem to manage a consistent 90%.



Concert artists tend to play on very large pianos. Institutions do not always base their buying decisions on the performance of a specific piano. Brand recognition plays a formidable roll in this. As does Tradition and the strength of marketing.

Piano companies have always faced the requirement of maintaining profitability. Without it they don’t stay in business. It has long been my observation, however, that on balance this industry spends less than most on basic R&D and product development. Few piano manufacturers have anything like a functioning research and development or product planning department. Many don’t even have a functioning engineering department. Very few companies have the capability to actually design a new piano; either grand or vertical. And very few have the vision to understand the potential value of developing entirely new product lines no other competitor is able to match.

ddf

What you say is true as it applies to the existing manufacturing climate. But this ignores the benefits of fresh, new design. For many companies manufacturing costs can actually be reduced through new designs that can be produced more efficiently and consistently.

The need for profitability should be driving a desire for fresh, new design work. As it is there is so much similarity among the offerings of piano makers in the low-end and mid-range market segments that the only thing dealers are left to fight with is price. So profit margins are continually cut to “save” a sale. Another approach would be to develop a line of instruments that had some distinctive and desirable aesthetic or performance features that were unavailable from other manufacturers (dealers). (And don’t ask me to be specific—that’s what I get paid for!)

ddf

More like, “names withheld to protect the guilty!”

And this is the second most enlightened post I’ve seen in this thread. You’re on a roll, Keith.

ddf

It’s not that there are so many “bad” designs out there; it is that there are so many mediocre designs out there. Mediocrity is ultimately more damaging than bad.

Good design does not demand complexity or high cost materials. Indeed, one of the goals of good design is simplicity. The best design is the most simple possible that will still produce the desired result.

ddf

I'll go back to my cave now.

ddf

Thanks, Del. Of course, I have been a bit of a broken record with these types of observations since I began posting here, but it is nice to feel understood, especially by someone that I respect and admire.

I think a lot of piano companies can't put the bells and whistles into pianos because then the price would go up, and most people say "Well, we don't want to pay much for a piano until we really KNOW if Johnny will continue to play the piano. He's just STARTED"! So, the cheaper pianos will sell because Johnny's mother doesn't know the difference between a good feeling piano, and a bad one. So why should piano makers don't put that much into pianos!

If I can find a piano made 30 years ago, I'd buy that because I think/feel they did have the BELLS AND WHISTLES in them back when!

Just my thoughts and experience!

How do you define "bells and whistles?"

Actually, it's probably a safe bet to say that, overall, pianos today are much higher quality than they were 30 years ago. 30 year old Kimball spinet or 52" Chinese upright? I'll take my chances with the Chinese....

Interestingly enough, I learned this week that Wurlitzer was making spinets as late as 1998 or 1999. Weird, isn't it?

The best feature of some pianos is the slow close fall board. It adds about a grand in value to customers who worry their kids fingers will get pinched if the fall board actually "falls".

You mean Baldwin was making Wurlitzer spinets.........