Ace:

Perhaps I can start to help you.

Before you say anything, I will tell you that I only sell about 3-4 Sauters a year - it takes me 3-5 months to even get one and if I'd sell twice as many, it wouldn't even amount to more than 10% of my entire business.

So, where's the *big beef* here, do you think?

Inside tip: I also happen to be a pretty decent player. So, despite selling these damn things - I actually play them, passionately and - a lot!!

Ever heard that you discover the finer things in pianos the longer you happen to play them?

Has this not happened to you perhaps also as an owner of fine Bluthner grand?

Well, it certainly has to me.

And by no means only involving Sauter.....

So pardon me right from the beginning of [also] voicing an opinion about *piano performance* as a...ahem.. *player*.

Alas, it's nice to see one is not alone in this game....

There are at least about other 25 Sauter owners out there who could perhaps help me out a bit....

Except it's already late at night and it would be unpolite to raise them to the cause at this time....

So,let's see who comes up tomorrow, perhaps.

And remember, I don't even want *tier 1*.

All I want is happy faces.

But please don't blame me if my own or others customers of Sauter pianos and grands have the tendency to go slightly beyond that....

Norbert

"before you say anything, I will tell you that I only sell about 3-4 Sauters a year"[/b]

Why? Chris Finger pianos in Colorado and Altenburg pianos in New York usually have several Sauters to choose from at any given time, and they sell them too. So I'm curious to know why you often won't have any Sauters to choose from.

"Has this not happened to you perhaps also as an owner of fine Bluthner grand?"[/b]

I own a Bluthner upright, not a grand.

Ace30

Ace30,
I'm not entirely familiar with the US market, but I believe Norbert would not be the only one having problems with supply. Cathy Harl in DC too, I believe, will have to wait for new stocks. Even in Singapore, my dealer tells me that he has had to wait a couple of months before new stock is in place.

And why exactly are you so interested in disproving this possible explanation with such arrogance, persistence and condescension? Why not agree to disagree and simply move on? Why then resort to labelling such views as rubbish, lame, irrational etc?. I'm interested to know what your motive is, beyond the usual playing of the cocksure devil's advocate.

And by the way, as earlier pointed out, for me at least, there's a subtle but important distinction between disagreement and discrediting. Disagreeing with one rating does not discredit the entire book, though it does not prevent us from question certain aspects of methodology.

I started this thread as a point of curiousity after coming across Mr Fine's comments in the supplement.I thought these comments particularly interesting, because in my scanning through of the supplement, only one other brand, Estonia, effectively had a rerating. The acknowledgement of the alternative viewpoint for Sauter, at the very least, seemed extremely unusual to me. As I had mentioned earlier (and as you had chosen to ignore), if Mr Fine thought these alternative views were of no consequence, he could have chosen not to acknowledge them. That he does might mean something, what exactly we may not know for sure, but I'd be curious to speculate.

Why would I care about this? Not because the labelling of Tier One, Two, Ten or Twenty would have made a difference to my own final purchase decision - I'm an experienced enough player to recognize a high performing piano when I encounter it, regardless of ranking. If I was so serious about Tier rankings, I would have jolly well bought a Steingraeber, which can be had for about the same price. But I do obviously disagree with with Fine's rankings in this particular case, having played a number of the pianos rated, as well as having heard high praise for the brand from other customers AND even *competing dealers/manufacturers* alike. So a Tier Two ranking in this case obviously sticks out as a point of curiousity, at the very least. And while Fine's rankings are meant to be subjective and not definitive by any means, when one often hears of the Tier One, Two, Ten labelling so often in this forum, one cannot help but feel that a fair proportion of readers (at least the inexperienced ones) are buying with Tier rankings having a considerable weight in their final decisions, as if Fine's word is the one and only Gospel truth. That being the case, given the influence and therefore responsibility his rankings have on the market perception, it is only natural to question when one disagrees.
No Axtremus. I think you (intentionally) missed Norbert's very relevant point, which really was that he finds it difficult to quantify or give an ordinal ranking of different brands in such broad terms, when taking into account the different performances of various models, different conditions, different acoustical environments (which would favour different tonal characteristics, and hence different models etc). In other words, Norbert is questioning the entire premise of a broad based ranking exercise based on some quantifiable measure of performance. There are simply too many variables that would have to be taken into account, many of which would not be able to be controlled for (including possibly sample size), and given that, a grossly simplified ranking system based on X number of stars given, without explaining the actual circumstances under which the rankings were given, could give rise to all sorts of sample biases and disagreements, even beyond the usual constraints of subjectvity.

An ideal but obviously very impractical solution would be to evaluate pianos of the same age, same condition, same level of prep, in the same acoustic environment etc. The list of variables is endless, but all of them could actually be controlled for, it would provide the best and most robust "model" to evaluate different pianos, with the only uncertainty left being the subjective biases of the testers with regards to the vague quality which we call "performance". And yes, even that can be to some extent controlled for by using some hard measuable characteristics (such as the maximum or minimum volume possible for a given force on the key, key reptition etc), but even then, I don't think that fully captures what consumers may be instinctively looking for when looking for high performance.

The simpler alternative, might just be to give a detailed qualitative evaluation of each model, or specific unit, stating clearly the specific circumstances and conditions of the evaluation. As this method hardly claims to be robust, the issue of methodology would be far less contentious as well. A simple advantage of this method is that tedious as it might be to read it, and while there is still a large degree of subjectivity involved, it is at least perhaps more transparent than the "black box" model on which simple, broad based rankings are made on.

To summarize, Norbert is questioning the broad based nature, or indeed the very premise, of the entire ranking system, given that it grossly simplifies what is in reality a complex set of often uncontrollable variables.

My impression of ratings systems in general is that people and organizations (rightly) decry them as arbitrary, simplistic etc but when they do well in them rush to publicise the fact!

Ax
Small sample size argument does have merit. If indeed the conclusion came from a small sample or a skewed sample, the conclusion would not be representative of the population. Any economist worth his salt would tell you that, which is why Wzkit is persisting in this same point, he is an economist by training.

As to whether the conclusion was arrived at using a small sample, neither you nor Wzkit can conclusively deduce since neither of you are privy to Fine's study. For all intents and purposes, his sample could be just one, or ten, or hundred, or a thousand. However, Wzkit deduced that it was probably a small sample based on the fact of the real shortage of Sauter samples available - given the long waiting period for new Sauter pianos to be put on display at most dealers. Now even if Wzkit's deduction was wrong and Fine did have many samples, you are in no position to conclude eitherway since you likewise don't have access to Fine's study. Up to here its all speculation.

As to Ron Overs positive comments about Sauter, he maybe a small competitor, certainly does not have the history nor scale which Sauter enjoys, nevertheless, he is a manufacturer, and that to me means his comments are worth more than a hundred PTG techs put together(no disrespect to the techs here, but building a piano is different from merely fixing it).

Despite all these arguments here, let's look at the reality. The question at hand is whether Sauter deserves a Tier 1 ranking, ie is it comparable with Steinway, Bosie, Steingraeber, Bechsteins, etc... You tried out 1 Omega, good for you. Wzkit and I have tried out at least 5 samples ranging from their uprights to Kit's own Delta, and in our opinion, all of them were on par, or outperformed some other tier 1 pianos which were even larger. I thought Kit's own Delta 185 was tonally as good as a Bosie 200 and better than a Steingraeber 205, while costing significantly less. In terms of touch, I do prefer the Bosie, but that's because his Delta has a different action. As many have said, in this top tier, its really a case of different flavours, they are all equally excellent instruments. What amazed me was that the Sauter could be tweaked to produce a whole spectrum of tones, colors and temperaments when placed in the hands of a skilled tech, something which only an excellent instrument can do.

Now if you cannot see through that, and want to be dogmatic about methods and sample size, then I think its really sad that you cannot see the forest from the trees.

For me, provided I’m personally involved, a sample of one is good enough

AD

And that's the critical caveat - provided you're personally involved. And if you're buying a piano for yourself, the issue of sample size is a moot one. Just buy that one piano you like. Period.

The point is that few (if any) of us here were personally involved in Fine's ratings. And because of that we do not know what actually went into Fine's ratings. More importantly, given that Fine's book has turned out to be a de facto ratings Gospel for the buying public, this would demand a reasonably rigorous ratings system for the ratings to be held to a certain standard of fairness and credibilty. A decently sized sample would be one pre-requisite in this regard.

Perhaps I like to add something here in a somewhat less contentious tone:

Anybody who chooses a piano which is perhaps somewhat less known in the market - be it dealer or customer - must have his/her reasons for it.

When I was one of the very first dealers in North Amarica importing Estonia grands in whole containers some 10 years ago, the competion was virtually belly-laughing.

Little did they know that I had discovered something which was about to become a true heavy-weight few years later - at least in its own class.

Heavyweight meaning, they sell everything they make - and often in advance.

The customers who chose Estonia back then - at that point a completely unknown brand of course - also must have detected something that made this piano unique and obviously highly desirable.

Please remember, this was the time, when Larry Fine rated Estonia grands as being "comparable to lower end Korean pianos"[/b] - something they clearly were *not* - never had been - not even *then*.

What they did need at that time were perhaps some finishing touches - some other mecanical odds and ends here and there, for sure very thorough regulations amd voicing but:a beautiful sounding and quite 'expensively' made piano they were from the very beginning![/b]

In fact, there was *nothing* that would make them "comparable to Korean pianos" at all - I also had plent of those in my stable back then....

No voices of dissention in the Forum then: from some who could perhaps have known better back at that time...NADA!

Like them or not: just look where Estonia is today....

Next came my assertion about 2 years ago, that Chinese pianos - at least some of them - were on the up and up.

And quickly so.

I was almost thrown off the Forum next....

Today we are receiving the first complement of *almost* high end pianos from there, some already with German or Canadian high end soundboards, complete, custom-engineered Renner actions and so on.

Try some of them if you can in time - chances are they will dazzle you........

Anybody go figure what's coming next.

Incidentally Steigerman happens to be the only Chinese manufacturer I know, which are being completely sold out on all 5'6 and 6' grands presently in North America.

[Yes - I know I'm *hyping* again - it's sure nice trying to sell something one doesn't even have.... ]

In fact,I just 'stole' the last available complememt of these pianos from the California warehouse - so we got some stuff at least up here in Canada to sell.

Compare that to some others who have their pianos stacked to the rafters in some odd national warehouse somewhere.....

So, at least my predictions for certain upcoming Chinese made pianos couldn't have been that much off the mark, again.

Sauter, in the high end group, is no different.

Still unknown to many on this continent [they've been around since 1818...] Sauter has always been a totally high performance playing machine, this in the finest German tradition of piano making out.

In fact so much, that I have chosen Sauter on purpose[/b] right from the very beginning, this over and above the whole German mix of pianos also available to me.

I also stuck with them at a time when several other pianos right after German unification became available on the market - for far less.

Today we have several owners here on the Forum who report they could have bought a much more expensive piano - but chose Sauter.

Of course they also must have had *their* reasons.

Perhaps one day people will understand that some in this business - both discriminating dealers and their customers that is - are doing well for themselves for a simple reason.

They feel with their own hands and listen to their own ears.

It's the type of folks that don't mind going the perhaps 'less travelled road' even at the danger getting sometimes a little bit *ahead of their own time*.

Rest assured, none of them - including myself - accomplished that by simply reading one single book.

In fact,it did require a bit more than that.

A lot more.....

Norbert

Norbert,

Is your less contentious point that you have established beyond reasonable doubt that you are prescient?

Actually I'm not.

I'm off to a little camping trip soon....

norbert

Only if the pianos the manufacturer produces warrant such praise.

Ax
Instead of tackling real point raise in my post, you backpeddle to:

1) speculation about the sample size - which you already admit is speculation
2) Ron Overs' opinion as a single sample - now CTPianotech has a more valid point and I would agree with that
3) semantics about definition of trees/forest??? Larry is the "forest"?!?

You are really missing the point of this whole post.

How about an alternative tree-forest interpretation:

Forest: Larry Fine has acknowledged that there are credible sources out there which think Sauter should be in Tier One. This is significant in and of itself given that few other brands were given the same special mention

Tree: Axtremus choosing to nitpick on "small sample sizes", quoting others out of context, and refusing to acknowledge the validity of a credible competitors praise for the brand.

Gosh, everyone seems so defensive.

Sauter owners seem to be saying that the published rating is not important, as they are certain they DO have a Tier 1 piano; or, perhaps they have issues with Fine's methods.

However, this thread has gone to five pages...

I'm not really sure what it is about anymore.

Hey, maybe that's what Kenny was doing with his Bluthner!


Sophia

Yeah, all [/b] German pianos are hot! :3hearts:

The most important question raised by this thread:

Is it "back-pedaling" or "back-peddling"????


--c5

"I'm not really sure what it is about anymore."
Whippen, it's about not really caring that one's own choice of piano is in a top teir, as long as you believe it is, and then arguing about it.

(wzkit, didn't mean to ignore you. You posts are long. I'll respond to the shorter posts first, and get back to your long posts as time permits. Thanks. )

Hi, since cmk called out the point you make, I suppose I should respond to this one too.

I have no fundamental disagreement with what you write here.

The question ask is -- can a judgment on the producer be made based on a "small sample size" of the production output, can a judgment be made based on "limited experience" (in Ron's own words) with the products.

As I see it, some folks try to argue that perhaps Larry Fine's "Group 2" rating may not be credible because Larry Fine might have had "insuficient information" to arrive at that judgment -- that Cy and wzkit later interpreted "insufficient information" as "small sample size."

So I ask: Does Ron Overs has "enough information" to make a judgment to give his praise credibility (vis a vis Larry Fine's rating's credibility)? Does Ron Overs has "big enough sample size" to make a judgmaent to give his praise credibility (vis a vis Larry Fine's rating's credibility)?

If, because of Ron's piano building achievements, one decides that Ron can give a credible appraisal of a brand with a "small sample size" -- and Larry Fine, because he is NOT a piano builder but a book-writer, should be required to have "more samples" to make his rating "credible" (vis a vis Ron's judgment based on three samples), that's OK too as far as argument goes. Though I would like see that explicitly stated by those who espouse Ron's judgment but disgrees with Larry Fine's judgment using the "small sample size" argument.

Hi AD,

Besides that Sauter Omega about which I wrote a long post for wzkit last year, there were two other Sauter uprights that I've encountered since. But I have never wrote about them here because I did not find anything remakable about them to write about. So all told, my sample size for Sauter is THREE (exactly as big as Ron Overs' sample size for Sauter, I might add -- but just to nit-pick, I would claim that the two upright pianos I saw were more "representative" of Sauter's production than the two concert grands that Ron Overs saw if the purpose is to make broad-brushed "Group" rating of a manufacturer. Because 90% of Sauter's productions are uprights. So if one were to judge Sauter, I think a judgment based on their 90% product category would be more "representative" than their 10% product category. ).

Nonetheless, I will not put a "Group/Tier" rating on Sauter here because, believe it or not, I am actually quite aware of the "small sample size" limitation. Rating one single piano is one thing, rating the manufacturer as a whole is quite another. I do see a sample size of THREE as quite small, and I am not willing to make any assumption on Sauter's consistency just yet. So, no general rating of Sauter as a manufacturer from me. Fair?