Refer to my previous posts as to why I don't think your speculation is any "more informed" than mine, and why, despite your claims, you make a long leap of logic.

That's YOUR interpretation of the "point" of this post, after having wriggled and taken things entirely out of context. As the starter of this post, I believe I have a right to restate the original "point" of this post. Let me reproduce what I mentioned:

"While this is not quite the same as a rerating, I would interpret it at least an acknowledgement of the high regard for Sauter in Europe (as Norbert and a few others have pointed out)[/b]."

Let me attempt summarize your (latest) argument as best as I can:

1. Small sample size is not sufficient to give a credible rating for Sauter, given the possibility of variations/inconsistencies (even though you are not sure about the degree of variations/inconsistencies)

2. Larry Fine did not have a small sample size.

Correct?

In fact, when you say, "Rating one single piano is one thing, rating the manufacturer as a whole is quite another," can I take it that you may in fact be agreeing with Norbert's point about their relevance of rating whole brands against each other without taking into account their different models, sizes, acoustical environments etc (the overly simplistic argument)?

If you recall, I had already mentioned about some degree of variation in terms of touch/tone characteristics (Fine's subjective "performance
category), even though objective build quality was consistent. Or had you conveniently forgotten that point once again?

And I have already given enough reasons why such indirect evidence is not enough to support your case that Fine's sample of Sauter's was large enough, or at least larger than Steingraeber's. Again, you chose to ignore that point. Let me recap on what I said:
"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."

and
"The data you have used, provided it is even correct, is circumstantial evidence at best. There's still quite a distance between production and dealership numbers, and the sample size that Fine used [/b]. For example, Steingraeber's marketing might have been more successful, leading to greater consumer and technician awareness of this brand, even if production numbers are smaller. A second possibility is that most Sauter pianos were serviced not by independent tech that Fine used, but by store techs like Chris Finger, Cathy Harl et al. This is speculation of course; I cannot prove nor disprove this, but by the same token, neither can you be so cocksure about your opinion, until you can actually provide the sample sizes that Larry Fine actually used."

And here's another two points that again illustrate the huge leap of logic between your broad production numbers vs the actual sample the Fine used. Of the production numbers you cited (30 grands for Steingraeber, 100 for Sauter annually), how many are actually sold in the US market? Sauter could have produced 100 and sold only 10 in the US, whereas Steingraeber could produce 30 grands, but sell 20 in the US. The second point pertains to the number of dealerships. Dealerships come in many shapes and sizes. Some "dealers" do not actually have pianos in stock, but only order them on demand. And even if they do have keep Sauters in stock, how large are these dealers? 3 large dealers might have more pianos then 8 smaller dealers combined.

Again, not enough detail in your production numbers to come to any sort of "educated guess", let alone any sort of conclusion that allows you to dismiss the opinion in such a cocksure manner.
No more inconsistent than your selective use of when the small sample size argument is relevant and when it is not

As I had already mentioned earlier, that this is precisely what I meant. That because Ron is a piano-builder and a competitor no less, I would give a high degree of credibility to his words, small sample size notwithstanding[/b].

And more importantly, is the issue of responsibility. Ron is not publishing and profiting from a book that has effectively become the de-facto Gospel of piano ratings, unlike Fine. Because of this (and also because of the argument you stated above), I think Fine's methodology has to held up to a higher standard (and therefore higher sample size, more consistency in sampling, rigour etc).

Being a technician for many years as well as being a Sauter dealer, I would like to offer my comments on the discussion concerning Sauter becoming a level one piano in Mr. Fine's Piano Book.
1) The Sauter piano embodies all the qualities that a tier one piano must have. Quality scale design, hardwood rim, solid spruce board, Hardwood laminate pinblock correctly drilled, Klinke tuning pins, Renner or equivalent action, Kluge or equivalent keys, excellent tuning stability, stable regulation, singing tone, ability to take a pounding and still hold up, and most importantly, pianists must love or atleast recognize the tonal quality as a world class sound as defined by the majority of concert pianists.
2)I have sold several Sauter pianos including a Delta 6' 1", an Omega 7' 2", a Konzertflugel(9'0") and played on and/or worked on several others.
These pianos are definitely world class in every sense of the word.
I have had many pianists state that they prefer the tone of a Sauter over a Steinway or other tier one pianos. As a technician, I love the ease of tuning and regulation, the trouble free pedal lyre and mounting system, and most of all, the beautiful singing tone in the treble and the huge bass.
I know I might sound like a salesman, but I have worked on all the tier one pianos and I was disappointed to find out last year that Sauter was not one of them.
3)I hope this will change shortly and that more people will discover this remarkable instrument.
Respectfully,
Alex Kapteyn

I just delivered and prepped a Sauter Delta Amadeus to a customer here in south Texas.

As a technician I was very impressed with the lyre system. When I got into prepping the piano I was impressed with all the thoughtfull details I encountered. Handgrips under the key-bed to assist pushing the action in etc.

This piano had been voiced for the American market, it had a softer tone than is usually associated with European pianos. The Renner Blue hammers have the Weikart Wurzen felt we technicians have come to appreciate.

People are too easily put off by hammer voicing. If you don't like the sound ask the dealer to have it voiced by a good technician before deciding. Sauter also offers customization this way and an artist should probably plan to work with them to get exactly what they want. To quote another technician, "hammers are consumables, they get used up and then replaced."

The piano tuned up solidly with mF tuning blows and I've been back to check it and it is stable just weeks after arriving. The fit and finish both internally and externally set a level of refinement I don't encounter in American brands.

As to the subjectives: my wife is an accomplished pianist. She is the one who turned me on to Sauter pianos. At the 2005 PTG convention I wanted to hear the Mason and Hamlin CC. She said OK and after she said there's a piano here that I really like...a Sauter. Until then she was a staunch Steinway pianist merely tolerant of my forays to check out other pianos. Now she wants a Sauter.

After we delivered the piano my wife went to play it and I noticed how she was playing her repertoire slower than usual, really digging that singing tone. She got a lot of different color out of it and it just sang and sang and...

As to Fine's ratings, they are subjective and admittedly so. I personally do not think that NY Steinways are tier one instruments. I work on them and have encountered too many items that amount to a stillborn piano straight from the factory. Items that cannot be fixed short of destinging the piano or in one case pulling the plate and replacing the board. Now some fine technicians have joined the Steinway team and things are improving. Kelly no longer drills the aggraffe holes, Steinway does. I'm expecting better pianos from Steinway in the near future. It is/was the Steinway arrogance regarding the poor condition in which they shipped their pianos to dealers, the inconsistancy in quality, fit and finish that have turned me off. Marketing calls it personality, I call it slop. I understand that is changing for the better now.

I recommend Sauter over NY Steinway based on my experience with both. I'm proud, now, to be able to offer Sauter to my customers as I have added piano sales to my piano service business.

Andrew Anderson, Artisan Piano

Perhaps several short months or years of experience, will start to make up for the last 200 - at least for some here.

The time other people elsewhere, have had a chance to experience Germany's oldest maker, C.Sauter, since 1818

Perhaps I really wasn't 'ahead of time' as claimed before.

Really was *way behind*......

Norbert

Well you're all a passionate lot. I've been away from this thread for a day, trying to get some work done. Nice post there towards the end of this saga Andrew Anderson.

In the meantime, Gene Sauter took some very nice images of his Omega Sauter 7'2" grand and put them up on his website. Have a look at these images to confirm what many have already said about the quality of these instruments.

Gene Sauter's Omega images can be found at;
http://www.sauter-pianos.com/Pictures-Pianos.htm

Each of the images links to a full size detailed image. In brief, this piano has a log style treble bridge scale which breaks at G23/G#24. This will result in a scale which has less deviation of breaking strain percentage and consequently better tuning stability than some older design grands in this class which break at E20/F21. Furthermore, the bridges are laid out in such a manner as to enable the crossover notes to be situated close to equidistant from the rim. This allows for similar soundboard mobility at ends of the bridges at the crossover, which results in a better balanced tone across the break. Many so called modern piano designs have quite different distances of the bridge ends from the rim. I believe this is a gross design oversight. Such instruments will always have an inferior tonal balance across the break. The problem will be even more pronounced when the bridge layout disparity is combined with a wider bodied case-back, as some sort of quest for a bigger tone. Anyhow, I'd better stop now before I get too involved on this tack.

When we come across a fine instrument I think it is something which we should be celebrating. Hope you all enjoy seeing the images.

Best regards,
Ron O.

Ron - can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by "crossover notes to be situated close to equidistant from the rim" I'm sure a picture is worth a thousand words, but I'm just curious exactly what you are measuring. And I'm not a tech, so layman's terms please

thanks,

Now don't get too technical here, gentlemen:

Some of the famous *tier 1* pianos may be reading here and start copying stuff.....

Norbert

Yep.

Except.....

All dealers - each and everyone, by the way [ ]
- would have suddenly a copy ready in hand in a great hurry....

....if and when it would help *their own cause*....

Norbert

Hi colorado936,

You are bad influence on me. Your question has led to a post which grew from a couple of lines. I hope the following images and text help to explain the ideas behind bridge placement.

http://www.sauter-pianos.com/pictures/Omega/interior/IMG_0758.jpg
Here's a high res image of Gene Sauter's Omega taken from the keybed. Look at the highest note on the bass bridge, and the lowest note on the treble bridge. Notice their respective distances from the rim. They are very close to the same distance in this design. This piano will have a good bass/treble crossover.

A piano which has a bad case of differential bridge to rim distance is the older version of the Mason and Hamlin CC concert grand.
http://www.pianomuseum.org/pages/masonhamlin.html

The latest CC is a very much improved design. As an aside, I visited the Mason and Hamlin factory after the Rochester convention, and was most impressed with the new directions the M&H team is taking with their new models. I believe that M&H is one of the US piano manufacturers to watch with interest.

Getting back to the old CC. Note the relative placement of the bridges. The low end of the treble bridge might be 250 mm from the rim, while the high end of the bass bridge looks to be around 350 at least. This design is guaranteed to have a crossover which is less than satisfactory. Since these two bridges are supporting notes that are next to each other on the keyboard, their respective location on the soundboard should be such that the soundboard activity is similar for each. This is achieved by positioning the bridge ends so that they are a similar distance from the edge of the board. A soundboard gets stiffer towards its perimeter and more active towards the middle.

Look at the CC overhead again, you can see that if you leave the bridge location where it is and make the body wider, you're going to make this bridge location problem even worse. This is the problem with the current crop of grands from one of the current makers. They crow about their wide bodied pianos. But play down from say note F33, chromatically heading down over the crossover, listening for the tonal balance and focus of the tone. If the maker has also fallen for the trap of running the bass/treble break too far down the scale, he/she will be forced into either shortening the speaking lengths at the bottom end of the treble bridge (hockey stick bridge), or fitting a transition bridge. A transition bridge will work very well if it is properly designed, but shortening the speaking lengths on the treble bridge will be a scaling mess, whether covered strings are used for the last few notes or not.
Getting back to our chromatic run from F33 down over the break, if the designer has created a wide bodied case with poor bridge placement as well, which also has a shortened treble bridge low end (hockey stick bridge), the tone from F33 will get progressively weaker and thinner as you play down towards the last note on the treble bridge, changing to a fat and boomy tone as soon as you strike the first note on the bass bridge.

There are design messes everywhere like this in the contemporary grand piano world.

Here's an overhead line drawing of our 280 cm concert grand. We are planning to commence construction of this piano next year (2007).
http://overspianos.com.au/280.jpg

The bridges for this piano have been positioned deliberately so that the high end of the bass bridge and low end of the treble bridge are located equidistant from the rim. If you've got enough screen real estate, you can open three browser windows with the PW text in one, with the CC and our 280 in the other two. This will allow you to see the design differences between our contemporary 280 design and the CC from 1901. The 280 has a very large bass corner sound board cut-off, and the case is designed so as to reduce the soundboard area behind the high treble bridge. These together will result in a sound board area which is reducing from a large area in the bass to a smaller area in the treble. The CC by comparison has a very large area in the bass, which is good provided that the bridge placement issue has been properly addressed (which in the case of this older CC - it has not), but the sound board remains too large in the very high treble. There are acres of soundboard up there at the top which only serve to produce a lack of tonal focus in the high treble, with soundboard ribs which are too long and not stiff enough to provide good support in the killer octave (second top string section). In the case of the CC, the killer octave rib support will be OK from the bridge to the belly rail, but look at the distance from the bridge to the rim on the back side. In this string section the loading carried per rib will likely be over 24 Kg, which will likely lead to premature sound board collapse.
Looking now at the scale design, you will see looking at the two images that the 280 scale runs away from the belly rail quicker than the bridge on the CC. The bridge at the high plate strut (between the top two string sections) is still quite close to the belly on the CC, but on the 280 it is slightly further out on the soundboard. The very much reduced soundboard area behind the bridge on the 280 also will allow the ribs to cope much better with the downbearing loads to which they will be subjected.

Look now to the low end of the bass bridge. The back scale length (the string length from the bridge to the hitch pin) looks to be around 150 mm on the CC. For the very lowest bass note, with a frequency of around 27.5 cps, we really want to allow the bass area of the sound board maximum mobility. The shorter the back scale down here, the more the back scale string segments will tend to hold the soundboard still, preventing it from moving. If we make the back scale longer down here, it will allow the soundboard better mobility for producing those low fundamental frequencies. In the 280 design I have moved the bass hitch pins as far back as possible to maximise the low end back scale length. The back scale free length of our 225 is 150 mm, which is about the same as the Steinway D and probably the same as the early CC (judging from the image). The back scale free length of the lowest note on our 280 is 240 mm. I've run the hitch riser right back to the rim by locating the rim bolts either side of the hitch riser. This is similar to the approach used with our current 225 piano (of which there is only one more available).

Here's an overhead image of no. 3, which shows the hitch pin location in the bass.
http://overspianos.com.au/OS003.jpeg

Have a look also at the soundboard areas with this case. This design also looks to have too much sound board area behind the high treble like the CC. No. 3 had a small base corner cutoff only. For pianos 4 and 5 we fitted a large base-corner cutoff. For piano no. 6 we also fitted a treble cut-off (known as a fish) to reduce the sound board area behind the high treble.

Here is an image which shows the bottom of no.6
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ronovers/no.6underside.jpg

The underside of the soundboard, taken with the piano sitting on the transport-crate base. Note the base corner sound board cutoff to the lower left of the soundboard area, and the treble cut-off (fish), which reduces the sound board area behind the treble bridge in the high treble. The resultant sound board is shaped something like a 'bent teardrop', with a larger sound board area retained in the base where it is needed, reducing gradually in area all the way through to the high treble. Conventional soundboards have far too much sound board area in the middle, or high-tenor section, of the compass. The smaller area mid section of this board allows for a more focused tone in the mid sections, and the reduced length of the middle order ribs allows the sound board to be much better supported in the killer octave area. Bigger isn't always better. As a colleague Ron Nossaman has said about sound board area, you can't make a tweeter woof, and you can't make a woofer tweet. This is why you need a larger sound board area in the bass, with a smaller area leading all the way up to the treble. How big and how small? That's a matter of judgement. There's no magic formula for this stuff.

Sorry Norbert if this has gotten a bit technical. There's little risk of the famous *teir 1 makers copying . . . ". The famous tier 1's don't need to change anything. They are dominating the market with their genuine circa 1900 creations just as they are. Is there any other area of human endeavour where the mob worship a century old design, while relegating those who bring new designs forth to teir two? The famous teir one makers could release a piano-shaped wheelbarrow, and provided they put their name on it and assured folks that it was a piano . . .

Who knows where this will all end.

The mainstream continues to be backward looking. I think there are signs that it may be changing. Helping a renaissance along after a century of piano-dark-ages is one of the most difficult challenges we face.

Ron O

Wow, thanks Ron! I really appreciate the effort you put into answering my question. Lots of good info! (of course I'll need to find some quiet time to digest it all)...

That was a greatly instructive post, Ron. I appreciate the time you put into it. If Colorado is a bad influence taking you from your work to post, I thank him, provided it doesn't get out of hand and keep you from cranking up your production so we might have a chance to play (buy!) one of yours over here sometime soon. (I've been wanting to since I listened to the 225 backing "Black Coffee" a long time back.)

Ron O:

Please accept my official application to become the Canadian importer of Overs grand pianos.

True to form - gotta stay ahead of the pack......

Now, where does one place a piano with 6* stars in the "performance category".....

Norbert

Ron, thank you for your analysis. This is an extremely interesting topic. All I knew when I looked at the Sauter's initially is that they were not only different but special, compared to others I was evaluating at the time.

They wouldn't fit everyone's taste but then again, each of the Tier 1's have their own personality and in the end that is what makes it fun.

Tier....0.5?

How'bout tier 0.3?

Norbert

I've recently learned about this ongoing Sauter commentary on Pianoworld, so I thought I would have a look. It interests me because I just spent about a month working in the Sauter factory. This was an outstanding experience in many ways, including the fact that this was my very first experience with Sauter pianos.

A little background: I am a 20 year technician with a fair amount of concert service experience as well as 20 years of restoration work, and a 36 year pianist with a fair amount of concert repertoire, although rusty at the moment with children at home. I also have spent some time at the Steinway factory in New York, and have prepared new US Steinways for many years in a dealership, as well as years of Yamaha, Kawai, Schimmel, Baldwin, and endless Korean, Indonesian, and Chinese pianos. In addition I have recent experience with several new Mason & Hamlin grands, a few Steinway Hamburg grands, a few Estonia grands, and a few years with new Boesendorfer grands. I have experience with all of these pianos new out of the box, as well as years of in home and concert service and maintenance.

After reading the deep discussion about Larry Fine's rating system, it strikes me that perhaps he could add a "depth" level to his rating of pianos. If some pianos are hard to find many samples of, and it appears agreed upon by all, myself included, that a small sample will not suffice properly, then a "depth" rating would clarify that not many pianists or technicians have been included in this "vote." Like a credit report listing: # of days late, # of severity level ("depth") etc.

My comment on the Sauter pianos in the factory is this. Very few piano manufacturers that I have seen take such extreme care with regulation and voicing in the factory. We all know that there is some change in the pianos as they travel from the factory, but when deep fine tooth combing is done in the factory it provides several aspects of confidence. First, taking time to perfect the technical finishing of a piano while building or rebuilding it reveals imperfections in the entire process that would not be found unless completing this process. Second, very often pianos end up for sale in dealerships that do not get work to "finish" these aspects of the pianos. Thus too many of these pianos go out into the world a mess and build a poor reputation over time. I am too sad to see this all too often with one of my favorite manufacturers... (not Sauter). If the person in control of overseeing the final product is looking at the actual perfected pianos, he can know truly what the product is becoming and can evaluate in the big picture if the direction of manufacture is continuing to be correct. I was very impressed with these aspects of Sauter. Seeing the full manufacturing process be finished to as humanly close to 100% in all aspects was thrilling to me.

I was able to play only uprights (German: Klavier) with the exception of one grand for only a few minutes, which was not in the most favorable setting, so unfortunately I cannot make adequate comment. But the uprights were no less than stunning. I much prefer grands to uprights in general, but my satisfaction playing several models of uprights was totally surprising. I have had nowhere near the pleasure with any other brand of upright. So with uprights personally I could only place them in the top level of all uprights I have seen.

My last comment is on the quality of the production. I am not a piano builder nor a refinisher, although with refinishing, rebuilding, and performance experience I have a good background to observe. The Sauter factory was clearly focused on perfection. I saw perfection in the building of individual cases, in flawless refinishing, in the bellywork areas, in the assembly of the actions both uprights and grands, in the regulation and voicing. Seeing the final product overseen to perfection, and seeing all aspects of production being watched very carefully, I was endlessly impressed by the pursuit of perfection. I was told about choices of wood, choices of parts bought or made elsewhere, specific comparisons by the workers with other manufacturers, etc. What I saw was Sauter choosing quality over quantity. This was a clear stance that Sauter was taking in the industry, instead of being lured down the other path as so many builders are doing.

So, my knowledge here is limited simply to what I saw, but with significant experience in the industry in general to compare, I can only say that I have deep confidence in Sauter putting 110% effort into their pianos and maintaining the highest level of manufacturing choices and quality in the aim to be a piano worthy of a top tier rating by any standard.

Thanks Kenn for sharing your impressions at the Sauter factory and for your useful suggestions regarding ratings and "depth". I too, had visited Spaichingen, having selected my Delta at the factory in December last year. Although I'm certainly no expert on the technical details, a cursory impression certainly concurs with yours, in that Sauter spares no effort to reach the highest levels of quality control, truly uncompromising in that regard. So I too, think that Sauter deserves a top tier rating in terms of quality, though perhaps not necessarily in terms of depth.

Which simply supports my earlier stated claim that "visiting factories" opens a whole new window of understanding what a manufacturer is doing.

Plain and simple.

Norbert

Hi pianokenn, thanks for the detailed and informative source. And welcome to the forum!

Hey Alex, aren't you the one who recently sold a 9' Sauter to South (Baptist) Church in Lansing?

Reading Ron O's clear explanations re soundboard design, bridge placement, and long backscale makes me even more glad that Del Fandrich is a contributor to Piano World.

Del pioneered these concepts in the United States, and I think that many of them are incorporated into his remanufactured pianos and also into his designs for the Charles Walter grands.

I like this discussion!

Outcome of tone is however, still depending on quite a few other - perhaps even more important factors: If anybody has ever played them - Charles Walters and Sauters are actually quite different sounding pianos....

In fact, one could almost say if one likes the tone of the one - he probabaly wouldn't like the tone of the other.

Talking about 'tone ideal' and the basic identity[/b] a pianomaker seeks in making his pianos, is another fascinating aspect of visiting factories.

It's not 'hype' or the B.S. often found in the retail market out there - but the manufacturer taking time to exlain the various steps taken in trying to accomplish a set and clearly identified goal.

Like the many wineries in and around the lower Rhine valley where Sauter happens to be made.....

Norbert

And Ron, too! I won't pretend that I understand every word of his posts, but I learn something from each and every one of them, and I really[/b] appreciate the effort he goes to in including photos to illustrate what he's talking about.

I wonder if Larry Fine ever has people pressure him into raising his ratings??

I'm glad that this discussion has taken on a more constructive tone now. It seems to me that most of the technicians or pianobuilders here have no problem agreeing that Sauter pianos are built to an extremely high level of quality and workmanship. A visit to the factory will confirm that.

What perhaps is more subjective is the basic "tone ideal" or "identity" as Norbert points out. personally found it hard to easily characterise the Sauter sound (variations in individual pianos/models' tone/touch notwithstanding), and more importantly to "pigeonhole" it. I found it completely unique and totally different from other European pianos I encountered. For example, I would describe the
"tonal identity" of Steingraeber, Schimmel, Seiler as basically bright and clear, but to varying degrees. Bosendorfer would be somewhere at the other end of the spectrum, mellow and warm (but still clear), with Bluthner and Ibach somewhere in between. To me, it seemed difficult to characterise the Sauter tone along this scale. Oddly, it seems to be both bright and mellow at the same time! That "woodsy" sound (as Roberta calls it) just seemed an additional dimension which I couldn't find in other makes.

Then there are other aspects such as the bass-treble balance, which is both a function of scale design and voicing, I suppose. Unlike many other makes where the mid-range is the strongest and treble response just tapers off in the highest octave, with Sauter it is just the opposite - the top few treble notes are extremely penetrating. I took quite a while to get used to this, as it meant more difficulty in producing a true pianissimo in this range. Then again the advantage is that I seldom needed to exert much effort to get the top notes to "sing" out when playing chords. As for the bass, for my piano at least (but not necessarily for others), it is likewise deep yet extremely clear and brilliant. I was so used to pianos with a "blurry" bass, that adapating my technique to the Sauter proved quite a challenge. The clarity of tone in my Delta threatens to expose my every technical inadequacy. But then again, there are also those who marvel at the clarity of the bass notes of my piano, so this really is quite subjective.

Better known brands like Steinway and Bosendorfer have been around for awhile, and over time, the market has come to identify a good piano tone with the sound of these makes. Others like Bluthner, Bechstein, Mason & Hamlin, while not as well known as Steinway and Bosie, nonetheless still have some degree of brand recognition based on historical factors. Then there are yet others like Steingraeber and August Foerster, which although relatively obscure, have touch/tone characteristics that seem to conform to conventional ideas of good performance (albeit at different ends of the tonal spectrum). In that respect, one might take some getting used to a Sauter tone! So perhaps this is what accounts for the 4 1/2 star rating in the Performance category....