Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Fazioli pianos

As you say, the prepping and voicing can make a lot of difference to the tonal character. But I don't think Yamaha was trying to aim for a European sound at all with the CFX - after all, they'd acquired Bösendorfer - but rather, wanting to compete with Steinway D, with more color and projection than afforded by their previous CF-IIIS.

For a less strident-sounding CFX in direct comparison with the Fazioli in the 2010 Chopin Competition (where the CFX made its concert hall debut, rather successfully), have a listen to the winner Yulianna Avdeeva playing the famous Polonaise in A flat, Op.53: http://youtu.be/ocoFYiOGxvA, and compare with the Fazioli played by Daniil Trifonov, in the same hall: http://youtu.be/xfqfcHJD_fs - Waltz in A flat, Op.18.

I agree that fit and finish matter and Fazioli is absolutely one of the very best if not the best as far as build quality however I still like the Steinway sound best.

Everyone likes the Steinway sound at its best. It has warm, rich tones, wonderful harmonics, and a growling bass that is perfectly characteristic of the piano. Just remember it is the only piano sound you have heard your entire life on recordings, on the radio, and in recitals. Of course you like it. Any other piano will sound alien and strange to you.

i never said it was the clarity of the Fazioli (this 183 actually had a rather mellow sound), but the extreme projection of the piano: it is not only very loud, but very directional. Thus, even in a large room, you get a lot of echo, reflection, and when you close the lid, a very muddled, confused sound.

This is how these pianos were designed, conceived for: basically to be the smallest pianos to be able to cut through in a (small) concert hall. Thus Fazioli prides itsel that their 1m83 is more powerful than the 2m11 Steinway.

Now keep in mind, that these features that are extremely desirable in concert pianos are not necessarily desirable in home or even recording studio use (or amplified concert use for that matter).

For example, it is extremely difficult to build a concert grand that can impose itself against a 90 piece orchestra in a 2000 seat hall. It is said that only the Steinway D and the Yamaha CF3/CFX have enough projection, power and definition to do this — and the Boesendorfer Imperial and even the F308 Fazioli fail at this. The Imperial might have the most beautiful piano sound out there, but it isn't precise and powerful enough to cut through a wall of 90 strings, brass, winds and percussion.

But if you record piano sonatas or a jazz piano trio, this doesn't matter at all. You might actually be better off with the less dynamite but more subtle Boesendorfer.

The same is true in a home: you would want the longer piano for the longer strings and thus more resonant, fuller bass and medium registers. But you don't need the extra projection.

Wow, that is almost word for word exactly what the Steinway salesman told me at the Sherman Clay store.

Possible this is true, I have just never noticed it. I have never noticed an esthetical difference between a Fazioli, a Yamaha and a Wendl & Lung: to my eyes, they look strictly identical, they are black, shiny and have the same shape.

Some people even have complained about this concerning Yamaha, there is no exterior difference whatever between, say a 30 000 $ C series, a 60 0000$ S series and a 90 000 CF series grand. All the differences that justify the price difference are hidden inside.

The differences are really factual and more than "possible". The shape of the pianos are also different. And not all black pianos are shiny. In Europe, the high gloss finish is most popular but in the US ebony satin is pretty common.

When one is comparing different size pianos from the same maker(like Yamaha)in the same finish of course the finishes look the same. Differences in appearance show up when comparing pianos from different makers. The Yamaha CF series is also shaped differently from other Yamaha models.

There were few exterior cosmetic differences between the C-Series Yamaha and previous CFIIIS concert grand. The pedal lyre was nickel-plated on the C-Series while the CFIIIS used real brass. The fallboard was 2 pieces glued together on the C-Series while the CFIIIS used one piece fallboard. Finally, the CFIIIS used better mahogany and maple for the piano rims.

For most people, they will not notice these differences and will appear to look similar to each other. Granted that current Yamahas have a few more differences between different series, the main improvements are within the internals (sound, touch, tone) like you said.

I have heard the Yamaha CFX concert grand at least 10 times in concerts at Mannes. The above description(metallic, muffled but not really singing and warm, harsh)is totally at odds with my listening experience.

In fact, if the above description were correct does anyone think these pianos would be so popular with professional pianists in recitals and competitions?

As far as the action being stiff, I have not played one but a terrific professional pianist who happens to be member here, told me that the action was particularly excellent. Again, it's hard to believe that Yamaha would design a piano that they want to compete with the best concert pianos and design a "stiff" action.

Thanks for posting this. The fact that they were recorded at the same hall at the same event presumes the recording system was the same for both recordings. The two pianos sound different in that the Fazioli's has greater clarity because there is less low midrange information which can tend to muddy the sound in excess quantity. So one person's muddy sound is another's rich piano timbre. Neither piano sounds strident. The Yamaha sounds a bit richer and full sounding (that's the low midrange talking), the Fazioli has the clarity due to less low midrange information. Great comparison! Thanks for posting.

The difference between the salesman at the Sherman Clay store and me is that I was being snarky. I don't view the omnipresence of Steinways in public settings as a favorable thing; he views it as a selling point.

about a month ago i had the privilege of playing a new CFX at grand piano haus (it was evidently already sold to a chicago university) and my experience was that of ploverus: beautiful cantabile quality, warm mid reg and rich, full lower reg. and the action was typically yamaha, buttery smooth and responsive. for stiff actions see steinway>new.

"Just remember it is the only piano sound you have heard your entire life on recordings, on the radio, and in recitals. Of course you like it. Any other piano will sound alien and strange to you." ...Ha, Not even close to being true.

Of course, what's "strange" is very personal but the reality is that the Steinway sound is the sound heard in the great majority of classical concerts and recordings. Of course, saying it's the "only" sound is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think the statement is mostly true.

This is not the same as saying I think this is necessarily a good thing, but I think the quoted statement is basically correct.

I must say I absolutely love the Fazioli on these videos, and don't care at all for the Yamaha. This is partly personal preference (I personally prefer rounder, warmer sounding pianos to the more brillant ones, and the same is true for the voicing), but also has to do with the fact that the Fazioli pianist (Trifonov) is so much incomparably better than the Yamaha pianist (Avdeeva). So I'm not sure if the problem is listening to a stiff and cold pianist or to a stiff and cold piano....

But i think it would be difficult to argue that the Fazioli isn't the more musical of the two pianos (you might say the Yamaha is more brillant), with a rounder, warmer sound, with more breath, more subtle harmonics, maybe not as incisive as the Yamaha. It would be interesting to hear each pianist on the other's piano.

I found it more interesting two compare to different, more lyrical, pieces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apSE6HfksMw (Ballade n° 4 on Yamaha)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUI90rbdUBU (Sonata N° 3 on Fazioli).

In the discussion/competition of the giants vying for "top spot" [in the mind of some here..] wondering what Chopin would say to all of this.

Considering the prehistoric dogs that were available to his genius in the mid 1800.....

Why not enjoy the dedication of the artists giving their level best to the splendor of the man's music?

Norbert

I think your description of the both the pianos and pianists is totally subjective, and others could easily use far different words to describe them. Some might even interchange the pianos/pianists in your posts and make that conclusion. So I think it's incredibly easy to argue with your conclusions which you stated as facts although they are subjective.

and i find it interesting that so much is extrapolated out of youtube videos, notorious for compression and loss of fidelity, and who knows what quality of amplification and speaker system, when evaluating the most difficult instrument in the world to record accurately under the best of circumstances. these are clearly instruments that need to be heard/played in person to properly evaluate their respective nuances.

You could have noticed reading my post that I used the words "personal preference" and "I love" or "I don't care" which make it clear that I was indeed only expressing a purely subjective impression, with no claim whatever to any objective "fact".

I don't think you applied 'personal preference' to your description of the relative merits of Avdeeva and Trifonov as pianists: you stated those as fact. Which the jury of the competition disagreed with. (I also happen to disagree with you: Trifonov has come a long way since then).

As for the relative merits of the two pianos, one man's meat is another man's poison, as they say.....(though having played both extensively, they are just different meats to me. And I'm not a vegetarian.... ).