Ultimately the truth lies somewhere out there, you just have to be search for it, do your due diligence and satisfy yourself that this is THE piano you want to live with.

Funny thing is, through my search, I generally find that forums provide some of the best subjective user opinions which I would then compare with my own notes.

When I searched for piano ratings, one site I got was :
http://www.pianoratings.com/pianoratings.htm

Interestingly, Sauter is rated very highly there.

Thanks for the interesting, alternative viewer. What would have been interesting was if the reviewer gave more details as to his ratings. All he said was,

"My guidelines for a higher rated piano are quite simple. The better the overall tone, performance and construction of the piano the higher the score"

Since he doesn't give details as to construction quality and durability, I would generally assume he gave a higher weight to performance.

With respect to tone, he states his tonal preference, albeit rather briefly:

" With over 26 years of piano playing I have developed a certain preference for pianos with warm full sounds and unmistakable clear tonality. "

With such a preference, I'm not surprised he would rate Sauter and Bechstein highly, since IMO, they seem to fit this criteria. I'm rather surprised though, at the slightly lower ratings he gave for Grotrian. While I've not heard these pianos live, the recording I heard clearly fits the "warm and full" description (at least to my ears and in my lingo).

Old discussions on pianoratings.com :
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/1/2727.html
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/1/12123.html#000021
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/11725.html

I see that they have updated their ratings page... the last time I looked at that page, it rated Fazioli upright[/b] in Group One.

Yes, that website has been debunked many times here - I wouldn't believe anything on it!

No matter - Grotrian is rated as a bona fide Tier 1 in the "de facto Gospel" Piano Book! :p

(excuse the ribbing, Wzkit... )

Like I said earlier, forums are usually the best source of information about things in general.

You're excused...although I'm not sure that if Pianoratings.com had given Grotrian a better rating, your response would be quite the same!

For someone who has travelled many times to Germany's various factories and playing - as well as listening to other players feedback - on such marvelous instruments as the 7' Berlin Stilwerk's fabulous Bechsteins, Hamburg Steinways wonderful B's, Beyreuth's monstrous semi-concerts Steingraebers, Braunschweigs drop-dead gorgeous Grotrian-Steinwegs and, of course Spaichingen's own stunning Sauter Omegas including also[/b] all of those makers respective 9' concert grands - I think I can afford a bit of an opinion about *performance*.

Counting all these bigger pianos would, at least over the years, add up to about 100 pieces total.

Not that it should matter to anyone.

And please do forget the fact that I am a dealer for this or that brand.

Rest assured that I could be a dealer for any German brand I want, with the only exception of Steinway.

The brands I did choose, I chose for a very simple reason.

Consistency, purity of manufacturing and sheer *performance*.

At par or even slightly above the very best I have ever seen.

So far - no regrets.

Only virtually stunned - and certainly highly appreciative customers.

End of my - or theirs - own 'book rating'.

Norbert

Norbert,
Very well put!

It wasn't meant to be arrogant or anything -simply being completely serious and sincere.

The trouble is always when people judge things they have had only very limited exposure to themselves, or received most of their information second hand.

In case of the pianos mentioned - I didn't.

most sincerely,

Norbert

Is that how you see Larry Fine?

"Limited exposure" is just another way of saying "not enough information," and as articulated before -- it's a poor excuse to discredit Fine's rating of Sauter pianos.

Axtremus,
If Fine really and truly does think it is Tier 2, I can respect that, but disagree with it. In that sense, I disagree with Fine's ranking in this particular case, but am not discrediting Fine's ranking in general - a subtle but important distinction which needs to be made. In disagreeing however, I certainly see no need to refer to his ratings as "rubbish" or "lame", as you have labelled some of our opinions here. This may be a matter of semantics, but I view the use of strong disrespectful words such as these to be unhelpful to the propagation of constructive discussion in these forums.

In any case, I stand by Cy Shuster's assertion of small sample size being a possible factor in the original ratings, amongst other reasons. I use the word "possible", because until Fine confirms the reasons himself, we are merely speculating.

You however claim with a degree of certainty that Steingraeber is even more obscure in the North American market. I am certainly no expert on this market, and it may or may not be true, but since you're a data-driven guy, perhaps you could provide some evidence in this regard - not just in the number of Steingraeber sales in N. America, but more directly, the number of Steingraeber entries amongst Fine's technicians. Until you can do so, your assertion is just speculative like the rest of us, no more and no less.

In any case, you may have missed Fine's latest acknowledgement in the supplement, which is in fact a de-facto acknowledgement that there is clearly a strong alternative view out there - certainly strong enough to merit an explicit mention (as was the case with Estonia). Whatever the reasons for his original ranking (whether for reasons of obscurity, small sample size, subjectivity, politics etc), Fine might have felt that these alternative views were credible enough that it was necessary to single it out for mention. If Fine felt that those alternative opinions were "rubbish" or "lame", or put it simply, lacked credibility, he could have easily ommitted mentioning it.

The fact that he did suggests that at the very least, he gives credence to the these views. Taking it a step further, going by your own argument,

"I believe that Fine thought he had "enough" information -- "enough" for him to have enough confidence to stick it in his book and publish it to the world."

it could be that with greater information availability (of alternative views), and/or larger sample size etc, Fine could now have more confidence to stick this acknowldegement in his supplement and publish it to the world.

Wzkit,

First, let's choose a different terminology since it seems my choices of words "rubbish" and "lame" have proven too unproductively provocative to you. So, instead, I shall use the terms "of dubious merit" and "of little rationality."

Let's break down the arguments further and go through the logic.

If you simply say "I disagree with Fine's rating on Sauter pianos" (do note that with the single exception of having drawn on Stengräber as an example, I have been very careful to limit the argument to Sauter piano throughout this thread), that's well and good, and as mentioned a few times in the past, I respect that. I have no problem with that at all.

When you [the generic "you"] say "I think Fine has rated Sauter incorrectly because his sample size for Sauter was small" -- then let's look at the consequences of that argument:

1. As I tried to explain before -- a "small" sample size can lead to an "incorrect" conclusion only if the the population has a "high" degree of inconsistency. The greater the inconsistency, the easier it is for a "small" sample size to lead to an "incorrect" conclusion. Hence we are lead to the following two possible outcomes:

1a: If you adopt the "small sample size" argument and admit at the same time that Sauter pianos have an appreciable degree of inconsistency among them, then that's fine -- at least you have a coherent argument, and the only argument left is one to determine whether Fine's sample size for Sauter was indeed "too small."

1b: If you adopt the "small sample size" argument and still claim that Sauter pianos are "highly consistent" (something I believe Norbert claimed in the 21st reply in this thread), then the argument becomes one "of dubious merit" and "of little rationality."

---

There is also a ripple effect to the argument that says "Fine has rated Sauter incorrectly due to small sample size," which is that you [the generic "you"] have called Fine's methodology into question.

The statement may say "Sauter" specifically, but the "small sample size" accusation cannot be contained within Sauter as far as Fine's ratings are concerned. You [the generic "you"] are basically accusing Fine's methodology of letting pass a rating as a rating based on insufficient data.

You [the generic "you"] are no longer disagreeing with Larry Fine's "opinion," you are disagreeing with his methodology.

---

Now we come to the "Steingräber vs. Sauter, which one is more obscure in North America" argument.

You (Wzkit) are correct that I do not know for certain the numbers of Steingräber and Sauter entries that got fed into Larry Fine's ratings.

This is what I know:

Steingräber makes around 30 grand pianos a year. There are a grand total of FOUR Steingräber dealers in the US. As far as I am aware, none of them regularly stock Steingräber upright.

Sauter makes around 1100 pianos a year (around 1000 uprights + around 100 grands). I can count up to EIGHT Sauter dealers in North America (and there may be more Sauter dealers that I am not aware of). Both Sauter grands and Sauter uprights are imported.

Given these numbers, I would have to really question Larry Fine's methodology (and even credibility) had he failed to gather at least as much info on Sauter as he had on Steingräber.

---

Last thing to address: why Larry Fine saw fit to single out Sauter to say that some third parties think it should rank closer to "Group 1"?

I don't know -- but whatever the reason is, Larry Fine has not[/b] agreed with these third parties, and this is quite clearly evidenced by the fact that Sauter remains firmly in "Group 2" in Fine's latest Supplement. (It's like one movie critic saying something like "yeah, some folks familiar with the Bolliwood scene think this Bolliwood movie is worth 5 stars, but I'm going to stick with my 4 star rating anyway.")

Further questions to ponder, before one hangs his hat on this third party opinion (albeit one quoted by Larry Fine in his book): These third-parties that Larry Fine quoted -- who are they, what do you know about them, what are their credentials, what conflict of interest might they have? In a nut shell, how much faith and how much credibility would you like to put in their opinion?

In any case, have fun.

AD,
Good question. I had posted extensively about my opinions on various pianos during my 8 month long piano search. After my Sauter was delivered, I again tried out these pianos ont he local market, and based on these multiple experiences, I have formed my own opinions about where certain pianos stand. This is based on my tonal preferences (a varied tone first and foremost, and failing which, at the very least a warm, rich and singing tone). However, as there are certain makes that I have not yet had a chance to try given our small local market, it would not be fair to rate brands like August Foerster, Grotrian and M&H against which I have not had a chance to play personally.

That said, based on the pianos I have tried, I would definitely place Sauter amongst the ranks of Steingraeber and Bosendorfer, and Steinway (that is Tier 1) for performance, with each make having its own unique strengths, and no one being conclusively better than the other. Ibach would definitely be a strong Tier One contender. I would also place a well prepped Shigeru Kawai and Yamaha S series very close to these instruments in terms of performance. That is, they might make a borderline Tier One rating. The one Bluthner I had a chance to play was disappointing due to poor prep; however my gut-feel would be that a properly represented specimen would make it to Tier One. I also had a chance to try an Bechstein A190 (no C Bechsteins unfortunately), which I would place slightly above or on par with Shigeru Kawais and Yamaha S6, but below Steingraeber, Sauter, Bosendorder and Ibach.

Amongst Tier Two instruments, Schimmel and Seiler would rate near the top of the group. Personally, I preferred the Shigeru Kawais and Yamaha S series pianos to Schimmel for the richness of tone. The Schimmel and Seiler tone, while bright and clear, is a little too much so for my tastes, and is something I suspect I would grow tired of relatively quickly. I also happen to prefer the touch of the Kawais and Yamahas - then again I am biased as I grew up with Japanese pianos. Wilhelm Steinberg would be pretty close in rankings to the Schimmels and Seilers. Bohemia too would receive a good Tier Two ranking in my books, certainly above Petrof, based on my own experience.

In the Tier Three group would come the usual suspects - Pramberger, Yamaha C series and Kawai RX series. A particular Chinese grand - the Wilhelm Tell, which is sold for half the price of a Yamaha C3 here, would also qualify for Teir Three, in my opinion, as would Perzina. As for Petrof, the ones I played seemed more Tier Three than Tier Two, relatively speaking, but then again, it might simply have been a matter of poor prep.

Of course, the usual disclaimer applies. That is this are my own subjective rankings based on performance, and my own tonal preferences. The difference between these and Fine's rankings is that I have not considered build quality (confidence), information or warranty in these rankings (because I do not consider myself qualified to lay judgement on these issues), although I'm pretty sure that my Tier One brands would rank superbly in this respect as well.

There will be always be those who disagree because they have different preferences or experiences, but that's what makes this whole forum so interesting. One thing though, I'm not about to label their opinions rubbish or lame . Keeping the tone respectful and polite would go a long way in providing for a constructive discussion.

double post deleted

Why not just simply say "I disagree, and here are my reasons"? Your choice of words "of little rationality", if anything, seem to imply a certain arrogance, almost to the point of insulting the logic and intelligence of the other party. We can agree to disagree, but without the need to belittle another person's opinion.

Pardon my sensitivity here, but I think in online forums or any online/written discussion , it is especially important to be careful in the choice of words, since the other party has little else but your words to judge your intent. Unlike in face to face conversation, where body language, tone of voice and the such can convey quite a different meaning from the actual words being used. Even if your intent was not to be rude and provocative, it could easily be interpreted as such.

On to the main arguments.

---

I personally do not think Sauters are the most consistent instruments in the world. However, please note that my use of the ord "inconsistent" is not to be taken in the negative sense, as in inconsistency with quality. Build quality is certainly very consistent, as far as I can tell. More like there are "inconsistencies" with subjective action/tonal characteristics - precisely the "performance" category where Sauter had 4 1/2 stars which put it in the Tier Two category. In my own experience, the two Deltas which I had to choose from at Spaichingen were as different as night and day. Even though I could appreciate the qualities of both instruments, I can see why someone who has very fixed ideas about what what he wants in touch/tone, and who ended up choosing my instrument, would have hated the other unit poorly, and vice versa.

More importantly, the inconsistency argument could be applied in terms of condition of instrument. It could well be that the samples that Fine's technicians came across could have been poorly maintained, etc. Of course this might not be restricted to Sauter alone - the other brands could well have been subject to a similar degree of inconsistency as well. There is a possbility that the small Sauter sample was subject to a higher degree of inconsistency in condition compared to other similarly small sized samples. But then again, I use the word "could" because I cannot know for sure. These are just guesses, and I'm quite willing to leave it at that, without sounding so definite about things, as you have.

---

First things first, as I had already mentioned, the small sample size argument was one possible (and not a DEFINITE) reason which we might have guessed. We are not 100% sure about Fine's methodology; however the possbility of a small sample size error in this case cannot be ruled out, and it is a plausible argument. It could very well be that the sample size for Steingraeber was a small one as well, but as mentioned earlier, there could be some critical differences regarding the conditions of each sample, imputing an unfair bias in each sample. Again we do not know for sure, but I think these are plausible reasons that cannot be instantly dismissed, just as they are difficult to prove.

My point is this: There are simply too many unknowns and exogenous factors that might have affected this ratings, not all of which are not known by us, and that's your attempt to pigeonhole these factors into a convenient (and circumscribed) set of logical rules to prove/disprove a point with CERTAINTY fails.


Enough said, as you admitted, you don't have the data for Fine's sample size, which is what really matters. The other numbers you have quoted here would lead you to an indirect conclusion (based on circumstantial evidence) that there is a larger sample size for Sauter than Steingraeber. Again, we do not know for sure, there's a possibility of that, but you can't state that with any degree of certainty either.

As for the issue of Fine's methodology, I don't see why it should not be subject to question. Much as I respect Fine's considered opinion, Fine's opinion is just that; thorough as his research might be, there could still be limitations in terms of sample size, data consistency etc(not necessarily through any fault of his own). Obviously something quite as subjective as piano rankings is subject to a whole lot of disagreements as to the "correct" methodology, and I don't think there's anything to say that Fine's methodology cannot be questioned, just like anyone else.
---
How can you know for sure that Fine has not[/b] agreed to some extent with these parties?

As for Sauter remaining "firmly" in Group 2, I wouldn't be so sure, given what Fine has just said. If he felt so strongly that Sauter deserved to be "firmly" in Group 2, there would have been no need to single out the third parties opinions for mention.

How much credibility I would like to give to the third party opinions is besides the point. What matters is that Fine has seen it fit to single out for mention these third party opinions. If he felt that there was too much conflict of interest, and/or these opinions lacked any credibility whatsoever, he could have simply chosen NOT to publish their views. The fact that he has chosen to suggests that HE does not think that conflict of interest issues are not as important as you would have ascribed here. [/QB][/QUOTE]

(p.s. Thanks for the term "cocksure." I haven't heard that term for a long time. )

(p.s. Thanks for the term "cocksure." I haven't heard that term for a long time. ) [/QB][/QUOTE]

You're welcome It sure is used only under very exceptional circumstances and with very exceptional individuals

More like

Tier One
Steingraeber
Sauter
Bosendorfer
Steinway
Ibach

Poorly prepped speciment, but can see the potential of a Tier One piano

Bluthner

Borderline One
Bechstein (Academy Series, never tried a C Bechstein)
Yamaha S
Kawai Shig

Tier Two
Schimmel
Seiler
Steinberg
Bohemia

If you haven't played a Sauter, you should try to find one. Chances are that you either like it a lot, or dislike it intensely. Sauter doesn't seem to be a "middle-of-the-road" instrument.

What are your own subjective rankings?

Ax said:

In this case *yes*.

However, this does not take away from Larry Fine.

The author of the Piano Book specifically states that a lot of his information is supplied by others - however he chooses to dissiminate their information for using in his book.

P.S. I would also recommend to you Ax, to do perhaps a little travelling in Europe sometimes in your life when time allows.

Playing some 100 pianos in different factories does wonders for your [piano] soul....

It may even make you a better *judge of things* with regards to some of some of the things you are so eager to write about here......

Norbert

Isn't the greatest value of the Larry Fine book that it gives us the specifics of a piano's construction? I see this as a backup to the personal preferences that we bring to any piano we play or consider purchasing. After-all, Larry can tell us how a specific model of a piano is constructed - and to the degree that quality construction methods can be agreed upon, teirs are very helpful; but, the ultimate feel and sound of that piano (judgements of which are very subjective and not easily categorized by tiers) will be very different based on how the owner has it 'set up'. In fact, those characteristics of a single piano can change dramatically just by changing owners (assuming the subsequent owner employs a tech to realise any preferences that differ from those of the previous owner). When you come right down to it, we all (should) judge a piano by how it sounds and feels. Mr. Fine's book helps to reassure us that the objective elements of a given piano warrant our interest in it.

I agree, Will. Larry also teaches you how to evaluate the condition of a new or used piano. So even though it hasn't been updated recently (except for the supplements), those parts of the book are invaluable.

--Cy--

An understanding observation from someone who has obviously, never been in a factory.

Or experienced the benefit of having been there.

Where pianos are also often stored in larger numbers to get ready for - you guessed right - shipping *to the field*.

Or hand selected by those individuals who wish to make a specific selection for themselves travelling there beforehand for - you guessed right again - taking one of the specimen home to *their* field.

[Maybe they should have waited for some buying their favourite model first - and then wait for some reports coming in from the 'field' first.... ]

By the way, what's meant referring to "the field", this in case of these quite exclusive, larger type German models here in North America?

What's the number of 'consumer reports' that have been pouring in here for anyone to even start getting anywhere near a 'statistical sample' for sampling,comparing and expertly *judging* them?

2 or perhaps 3?

How many techs here on the Forum have ever worked on a Sauter 6'1 Delta, 7'4 Omega or 9' concert grand?

How many people have ever even seen one, let alone *played* on one?

Respectfully, I would have to ask Mr. Fine the same question: "how many"?

Ever noticed the strange silence coming from Europe itself, the main market for these type of pianos?

One should expect dozens of consumers seeking information for these pianos even from their own home turf - yet there seems to be very little interest in anything anybody here might have to say about these age old European makers.

Least of all is there any indication of 'confusion' or 'arguments'going on.....

[Personal tastes nonwithstanding, of course....]

Perhaps being much more exposed to these type of pianos generally - and being able to regularly be allowed to play on them - has its rewards.....

Now let's ask some German techs over there what their *opinion* would be on an ***-kicking American Mason Hamlin BB. Rumours have it there were 1 or 2 samples over there on the last Frankfurt show.....

Berlin: we're on line - your opinion please...

Norbert

Sauter seems quite rare in the UK - have only come across one. It was an upright in a very modern style case. Was rather bright for my taste but didn't really play long enough to form a firm judgement.

Ratings in the Piano Book are much more important for less well-known brands than the big names, so it is a pity that these are of course precisely the ones about which there is least information to base a rating on. Without making the ratings largely subjective, however, it is hard to see what can be done about this.

Basil:

You can't *rate* a brand without being at least *model specific*!

Even Larry Fine puts a very specific[/b] model by Baldwin - not just the whole brand - in tier 1

This being the case, which specific models then were being compared or expertly 'judged' by the other makers to come up with the ratings?

Somebody's 48" upright to somebody else's 9' concert grand - or how does it work?

People travel to factories all over Germany [and other countries, of course..] to make a personal selection *among* several, often same models available there.

You and me go from store to store to play pianos.

[or from factory to factory..... ]

You cannot easily 'rate' high end products as little as you can compare a Landcruiser to a Hummer, a Corvette to a Porsche.

Well depending who is speaking, of course...

In the end, I believe pianists and of course - you the consumer - have a pretty good voice of their own!

Go for it.

Norbert

Norbert wrote:

How many techs here on the Forum have ever worked on a Sauter 6'1 Delta, 7'4 Omega or 9' concert grand?

How many people have ever even seen one, let alone *played* on one?

Respectfully, I would have to ask Mr. Fine the same question: "how many"?[/b]

Good point Norbert. I haven't experienced many Sauters during my career either. My first experience with them was a new 6' foot instrument at a local Sydney dealer in the late 70's. It was a 'knockout' piano for a 6' instrument, with excellent sustain.

I saw a Sauter concert piano at both the Reno 2001 and the Rochester 2006 national PTG conventions. I haven't read Mr Fine's book, but I can't imagine how an RPT technician/observer such as Mr Fine could place Sauter out of the top group.

When Larry saw my piano no. 3 in Reno, he said he wouldn't include my piano in his book since it wasn't available on the US market. I saw Larry again at Rochester and he said he will be seeing my no. 6 in due course, since a friend of his is the technician who will be looking after the instrument in Boston. I haven't asked, but I'm curious to discover if this one sale to a US citizen will qualify our piano for inclusion in his next edition. I'll be interested to see what transpires.

By the way Norbert, next time you have a 7'4" Sauter in its side on a piano trolly without the top lid, I'd be very intestested in seeing an overhead-image of the piano.

Best regards,
Ron O.

"Each to their own"

Goes a long way.....

Norbert