Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Don't Waste Your Money on a Steinway M!

I just tuned one of these Ms, and no matter how
well designed and manufactured a piano is, there
is a physical limit to how much bass a 5' 7"
piano can have, even if it has "Steinway" on the
fallboard.

Why spend $66,000 on the M, when you could get
a 6' 4" Boston for $39,000 or even around $30k
if it's on sale? You'll get WAY more low end and
bass response and bass resonance!

Steinway is OVERPRICED HYPE!

There, I said it....let the flames begin!

I paid $10,000 for my Steinway M over 20 years ago. It has never let me down. Bought the piano sight unseen from two doctors as part of a divorce settlement. I'm happy with it.

Did the piano cause the divorce?

A powerful bass register alone does not a great piano make. The design shortcomings of that model have been discussed on the forum at length, yet many professional pianists have run across an M or two that we rather liked. I have, though I don't own one, and never really considered buying one.

The piano industry is a very small world. Since you're starting out as a new tech trying to get work at piano dealers, I would suggest keeping this in mind at all times... including when you post here.

Uh, because then you'd stuck with a Boston?




Yep, I remember one that I played and really loved. It was very well balanced. However, this sort of statement can be said about a lot of pianos sizes. I'm not a fan of the L, but I played one a few months ago that I liked more than most model A's I've played.

Whew, and I was just about to pull the trigger on this one!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/121613829753?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Not really...

Scriabin67 was the M you just tuned new?

But a TONALLY WELL BALANCED piano DOES require
a strong, solid low end. The Ms don't have it,
and can't really have it. You've gotta get to 6
foot or larger.

DanS said: "Uh, because then you'd stuck with a Boston?"

Yes, you would, and you'd have a MORE POWERFUL AND BETTER INSTRUMENT!
Sorry to say it, but if Steinway wants to keep their
reputation up with their hype, they shouldn't make
a grand smaller than 6 feet! They'd still be
overpriced hype, but it would be somewhat reasonable.

To Ed: Yes, this was a new piano, but was regulated
well enough. But good regulation will not give you
a bass end that is not there in the first place!

Isabelle1949 said: "I paid $10,000 for my Steinway M over 20 years ago. It has never let me down. Bought the piano sight unseen from two doctors as part of a divorce settlement. I'm happy with it."

If you bought a piano without playing it first, that tells me a lot about what your tonal standards are. I would never buy a piano sight unseen, and I would never buy an M, they are just too tinny on the bass end. But if you like it, then good for you, it's just not the model for me....

Under about 6'6" I'm less concerned with ultimate bass than I am with overall balance and musicality.

Kurt

More powerful? Maybe. Better? Hardly, at least that's been my experience. There are a lot of great instruments out there I'd take over a Boston. I've yet to play one that I've found satisfying.

While I agree that pianos seem to turn a corner around the 6' mark, it's not always feasible to have such an instrument. If I was going to be spending 6 or 7 hours a day in a small room teaching or practicing, I'd rather have a smaller instrument. There's nothing worse than spending all day at a piano that's too much for the room it's in.

Lastly, I'm confident that Steinway is not too worried about their reputation, bold typeface and exclamation points not withstanding.

Well, he's got you there.

Perhaps we should buy an S instead

More Powerful ABSOLUTELY. You can't compare
a 5'7" to a 6'4".

And the Boston GP-193s were ALL better instruments than
ALL the Ms I have ever tried. At least the ones I
have tried and tuned.

Of course Steinway wants to maintain their brand name
hype: That's how they get away with charging such
exorbitant amounts for their 1st tier line.

It wouldn't surprise me if Steinway is only surviving through
the sales of the Bostons and Essexs, what with the outrageous pricing on the Steinways.

Joe80 said: "Perhaps we should buy an S instead"

At $58,000 for a 5' 1", that would be the ultimate waste of money.

Is this true?

Amen, you said it. I'm afraid you are trying to start your flamewar with diesel fuel. You'll get no flashpoint here--I'm sure most agree Steinway's smaller grands, when purchased new, are not a very good value.

I've yet to play a Boston which went anywhere near interesting me. And, size isn't everything, nor is bass.

I agree with this statement.

Scriabin67, judging a piano on power in the bass alone is very much like judging a poem by how well it rhymes. Rhyming is important to make a good poem... unless that is not your goal at all.

I have found most Boston pianos to be very monochromatic - not a lot of colors to be found in the instruments I have played.

Along that line, there is a Philadelphia concert venue built with money from Ray Kroc. They own a 7 ft. Boston. In spite of that we have rented many 6 ft. grands for opera and recital performances there. The musicians (consummate professionals) were looking for more expression than that piano gave them and they paid extra $$ to have it.

I agree that a new Steinway M is usually not the best way to get the best bang for your buck, but using the Boston as a shining example of what a piano ought to be tells me you might need to experience more pianos.

My 2 cents,

my esteemed teacher -- who was a steinway fan, btw -- once said that the "M" stood for mediocre. on the bright side, if you buy one new i believe you can trade up and apply its full purchase price toward a real steinway.

Agreed. "M" is for Mediocre.

The M and S models shouldn't have the Steinway
name on them. They should relegate the tinny-bass,
too-small grands to the Essex line.

What's the point of making a "Grand" piano too small?

You might as well get a 46" upright if you don't have
the space, and you might get better bass response.

Oh, well, everyone has their own taste in pianos...

Friends:
This subject does indeed come up rather often. I too dislike the M and the S. One wonders about Hofmann's liking for the S. Well, he was a difficult and rather peculiar person on various levels. As the greatest pianist during an age of greats, clearly, he is allowed his opinion !
To return to the matter of the M and also the S, some of our fellow forum members have played instruments of this size that confound the conventional wisdom. I have not. Although I've played several Ls over the years that have been very good pianos, I've never played an M, let alone an S, that would inspire me to do anything except mechanical work.
The Curtis Institute had a few Ms in classrooms (theory, history, etc.). None were even faintly musical.
Perhaps someone, anyone, should just come out and state the obvious. The M and the S are intended for customers who want a piano with the S&S name on it, musical performance be damned.
As usual, the best spin on this discussion was contributed by Rich. He didn't mention that his house brand, the Cunningham, FAR out-performs the smaller Steinways in every way.
Karl Watson,
Staten Island, NY

Practice rooms, small spaces in churches or homes, and music studios all have had a long history of choosing the M. It has been their best seller for many years. You also have to consider the durability factor and projection as well as the tone and color available in a nicely voiced and regulated M.

I have M's in practice rooms that are played 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. They hold tuning, regulation and voicing amazingly well even though the bass can't be compared to a larger instrument. A nice M is like a tiny portion of foie gras served with a minuscule artisan toast point.

Regulation and voicing is vitally important in bringing out the best in any piano and often the smaller pianos get neglected in this regard. Work hard on developing your skills as a technician and you will become more sensitive to the nuances of fine pianos. This is a learning curve that just comes with time and experience.

Whoa. What is the point of having a grand smaller than 6 feet or so? Well, I can speak to that. Living in a very small apartment where my grand's tail is literally two feet from where I sleep (as in, if I stumble out of bed, I might hit my grand), I wouldn't (and couldn't!) have a grand larger than the 5'7 I have. Your suggestion that you might as well have a 48 in upright- well, I had a 52 in upright recently (Yamaha YUS-5), which was superb, but it doesn't compare to my C2X. All of this says nothing about acoustics. A larger grand might overpower a small room, hence why you might be better off with a smaller one. In my case, I've had to do some work to ensure that the sound was not overpowering. Having a larger grand would likely prove problematic.

Your fixation on pianos above 6 feet also leaves out entirely the fact that many people can't afford larger ones and make do with what they can afford. To suggest pianos less than 6 feet are aimed at people who just want the S&S name and couldn't actually be concerned about musicality is a bit out there.

"I have found most Boston pianos to be very monochromatic - not a lot of colors to be found in the instruments I have played. "

I have not heard this description before. I wonder what it means spectrally when a piano is "very monochromatic"? Does it mean the power is concentrated at just one frequency or partial (which may not be the fundamental)? It would be interesting to look at the spectrum of such a piano and compare it to a piano with "a lot of color".

Dave,
The way I use the term "monochromatic" is to describe a tone with a vowel sound that resists change with dynamic force. The worst monochromatic toned pianos have an E-vowel sound at all dynamics.

My theory of musically intelligible sound divides the compass into three ranges; low bass is "gong" or "wind" instruments color, "human vocal range" covers from there up to the high soprano C, and the top octaves are in the "bird song" range.

The two part definition of an individual note uses consonant description for the "impact sound" of the hammer strike duration and then vowel descriptions for the "sustained tone".

Preferable vowel sound is oo or ah at soft dynamics graduating to the hardest vowel ee at loudest dynamic.

Human hearing is very good at distinguishing a very slight amount of energy difference in the spectrum that produces a change in vowel perception.

Scriabin67, have you ever heard any small piano that has employed "Hybrid" wire scaling? M's and other small pianos can be rescaled to significantly improve the depth of sound and pitch clarity across the compass. Steinway could easily improve the lowest single strings scaling of the M by using Paulello type O core wire. Notes 27 & 28 can be converted to wound trichord to provide more body to the tone and Pure Sound plain stainless wire on notes 29 & 30, then type O on notes 31 to about note 36.

I have done a couple of the Aeolian 501, (5' 1") grands with Hybrid wire scales that end up sounding as big and clear as a 6' grand. Same can be done with Baldwin M and it has a better, stiffer plate than the Steinway S, M, L, or O.

That said, there are portions of the compass of the M scale that sound very good when well tone regulated. A bigger weakness of the S, M, L,and O scales are the too flexible capo bar. It is not as tall or thick as the A, B and this makes for a less clear treble.

Scriabin, never heard a complaint from anyone who played my piano, including my own piano teacher, two contestants in the New Orleans International Piano Competition, piano performance majors who studied with my teacher or anyone else who played it. Or, for that matter, any professional that gave a recital in our home.

Your comment about my tonal standards being low are an insult. I grew up in a home with a father who was a pipe organ builder/repairman and piano tuner for Werlein's, the most respected music store in New Orleans for decades. Before I learned of the M's availability I tried to locate my grandfather's concert grand. He was professor of piano at Newcomb College, German trained. My interest in piano came too late as my grandfather died about 38 years before that.

Do you really think my tonal standards would be that low? Really? Maybe it is really just the reverse, your standards might be off somewhat, maybe your ear too!!!

My Steinway M is perfect!

Well stated. Agreed 100%.

And at $66,000 and $58,000 Steinway is more than
willing to oblige the name-brand hype they currently
enjoy, even if it means building inferior instruments.

This "M" I just tuned was regulated properly, with proper
let-off distance, and sufficient after-touch, but
the best regulation in the world will not create a
low-end that just doesn't exist in a 5'7" grand.

"I have not heard this description before. I wonder what it means spectrally when a piano is "very monochromatic"? Does it mean the power is concentrated at just one frequency or partial (which may not be the fundamental)? It would be interesting to look at the spectrum of such a piano and compare it to a piano with "a lot of color"."

That's basically a non-sense description used when
someone wants to disparage a piano just because the
name on the fallboard is not one of the elite brands.

Speaking as a moderator here, and for the sake of fairness to all, lets keep in mind that everything that has been said in this thread so far (including the title of the thread) has been someone's opinion. We all have one...

Lets keep things civil.

Rick

This might possibly be the most troll-worthy post I've seen on these boards since joining.

I'd be curious if your client knows the level of disdain you hold for his instrument. I'd sure not let you touch a stack of dominos in my house much less a musical instrument with that attitude.

If I'm not mistaken, I do believe it was you in the tech forums that just recently said that top tier pianos get more attention from you than "regular" pianos, and you wondered if you should charge more for the best pianos. Does this Steinway M get your "best" service because of the name on the fallboard, or do you hold such contempt for this model that it is relegated to just your "regular" level of detail that you save for clients with "lesser" pianos?

https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2428937/Re:_Showroom_Tuners:__Charge_m.html

Rickster, I agree with you on opinions and that everyone has a right to their own.

I do feel that I was insulted by a comment made by the OP and felt it was fair to let him know where I stand. Thanks.

Good morning everyone!

Scriabin67 = pianoman9 = Paul678

Two of the above are banned.

Good day!

We have made many people happy with a Steinway M (and even the occasional Steinway S). They are well-rounded, and very satisfying in an appropriately-sized space. In a showroom like ours, where Steinways are given ample competition side by side other great pianos, people's reasons for buying become even harder to determine. Is it prestige? Is it brand confidence? Is it an unwillingness to branch out? Or is it's performance ultimately preferred? I like to think we've made the customer happy, educated them when possible, and let their own experience confirm their ultimate choice.

In this environment, as in the larger world, Steinway's market share is, while considerable, still in the minority.

I love Steinway pianos, I think they are excellent instruments, with beautiful tone and beautiful build quality. I also happen to think that pretty much all of them are over-priced when new. I think that the best way to get a Steinway is to buy an expertly rebuilt one, and with a good workshop, the rebuilt piano is always as good as new and sometimes better.

In this country it's something like £65,000 for an 0, £72,000 for an A, £78,000 for a B, £90,000 for a C and £130,000 for a D. Steinway charge this because people pay it. That's how markets work. They are beautiful pianos but man, they are so over-priced.

I also think that, when we are going through what is basically a period of deflation in Europe, it's ridiculous that Steinways continue to put their prices up by between 5 and 10 percent per year. There is no actual reason for this annual increase other than the fact that they can.

Yamaha had a large price increase a few years back, but they've reigned it in. A new C3X for £18,000 doesn't seem over-priced for a high quality piano (and it is an excellent instrument). £72,000 for a new Steinway A is just extortionate.

To put it in perspective, in 2003 I seem to remember the list price of the Steinway model B was £43,000, and I remember this because there was a promotional sale on in Glasgow run by Steinway Hall in London, and they were selling the instruments with 20 percent off - one of these weekend sales that they do every couple of years. Anyway that brought the price down to £36,000, and it brought it within the reach of quite a few middle class families who bought Steinways on that day. At the time the Yamaha C3 was £12,000 or so.

With the model B now at £78,000, had the economy grown in line with Steinway's prices, we'd all be using gold toilets.....

I do not think Steinways are overpriced. I think other pianos are underpriced.

while i agree with Scriabin67 that a steinway M is not the best bang for the buck i will take issue with his statement about low-end not existing in sub 6' pianos; e.g. my previously owned M&H model A punched well above its weight class at 5'8", probably in part due to the shape of the piano (extending beyond the straight line from the keyboard to the tail on the lid side) and the resultant extra square inches of soundboard.

This is sound advice that you should take to heart. It seems like you just started working at a Steinway dealer, and I'm sure someone at Steinway reads every post on this forum with the words Steinway, Boston or Essex in the body.

Food for thought. Good luck to you, sir.

Scriabin, I suspect that there are many of us here who would be very interested to see if you would demonstrate the extent to which you believe in your own position by attaching your actual name and location to your signature line. In fact, the "piano industry pro" policy of this forum is that you do so.

To clarify, I think that in their size class the M kicks a-s. It's a great 5'7" piano and has a lot of character. If you can pick a good one up under $20K, enjoy it!

OP, I keep searching the PTG register for "Scriabin67" but for the life of me, all I get is your profile picture

I've played and worked on some Steinway Ms that are dogs, and I've played and worked on some Steinway Ms that are surprisingly nice for their size. Paul678 - I mean... Scriabin67 (wink, wink), upon how many Ms are you basing your opinion?

scriabin posted something less than two weeks ago that may offer some clarity:

"I am currently apprenticing for regulation and voicing under a master tuner/tech, through the showroom I work for."

At this point, I think it best to lock this thread...

And, as far as the mystery identify of Scriabin67, I can assure you that more moderator team research/investigation will be done.

Best regards,

Rick

Bob,

You hit the nail on the head. Personally, I have no patience for people coming in here and badmouthing people/pianos/companies from the protection of anonymity. If people want to be anonymous and participate in conversation without causing trouble it's one thing. But badmouthing others and HIDING behind a screen name says two things to me..

1. Personal agenda
2. Cowardice

By the way, Scriabin, how is the weather in Tucson?