Just purchased the e-book version of the supplement, and this is what Fine had to say about Sauter

"In The Piano Book Sauter was listed as Group 2 (High performance pianos), but some familiar with the European piano scene would place it closer to Group 1 (Highest quality performance pianos)"

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).

Any comments?

The reason why Sauter ended up in Group 2 has perhaps more to do with the fact that Sauter is much less known over here in America [until now... ] - and as a result having only received 2 lousy points in the 'information' category.

In comparison, Steinway received 5 full points there....

On the other hand, in the category 'confidence' and 'quality control', the most important IMHO, Sauter scored full 5 points, higher than even Steinway and some others from Group 1.

Anybody who scores full 5 points in the above, obviously most important two categories, has obviously little to worry about.

Aside from having constantly short supply for their oversea dealers,
of course.....

Norbert

Interestingly, Sauter was also rated 4 1/2 points in the "Performance" category. Every Group 1 piano had a full 5 points in this category. This seems to me probably the most subjective (and important)category of the lot. For me at least, there is a clear distinction between the performance of a Sauter, vs say Petrof or even a Schimmel.

Wzkit,

Yes, it takes five point in performance to make group 1. Larry Fine must be acknowledging performance at this high level.

If our good Larry would have ever had the chance to try several of the absolutely awesome 7'2 Omegas or the almost monstrous 9'concerts, he would have had to give it 6 points in the *performance* category.

In fact rumour has it, they haven't build concert halls yet - to accomodate those pianos....

Norbert

Norbert, have you tried the Peter Maly Ambiente? I heard from Alvin even though its based on the Omega's design, it sounds and feels substantially different.

Interestingly, both Larry Fine and Ulrich Sauter were at Cathy Harl's recent piano party, I believe. Wonder if they actually talked...

I wonder if its more a case that he's acknowledging someone else's high opinion of this make, rather than a change of his own opinion. Larry comments about Sauter were quite distinct from the explicit rerating in the case of Estonia (from 4 to 4 1/2 stars from quality control and confidence).

I am sorry, but Sauter is not nearly as well known in Europe as the other tier one European pianos. The excetion may be Steingraeber which is not very well known either.

Those "familiar" with the european scene that Larry Fine speaks about may not be Europeans.

You are probably right that it is not as well known as the other tier one European pianos. I wouldn't dispute that. The brand does not seem particularly well marketed nor distributed. That said, I would guess that it is still somewhat better known in Europe than in the U.S.

However, perhaps what Larry could have meant was that for those who do know about Sauter, they have a high regard for it and would place it closer to the Group 1 category based on quality and performance. Might this make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. Sauter seems to be a big name in Asia. Tom Lee, which carries them, is the biggest retailer of pianos in Hongkong.

To me, they seem to be very solidly built. I perceived the tone to be thick and broad, a bit un-European in a way.

I'm surprised you mention that Sauter is a big name in Asia. I tend to see it as one of those less marketed brands that would appeal to most hardcore connossieurs in the know, but less so to the typical brand-conscious Asian consumer. In Singapore at least, that seems to be the case, with the vast majority of consumers associating high end with mostly Steinway, Bosendorfer, and perhaps Steingraeber.

Yes, you might be quite right. The Fourth Edition of the Fine book had this to say about Sauter:

"The Sauter grands I've played have had a lush, full singing tone, more like an "American" sound than most other European pianos"

A number of other dealers also told me that among German pianos, Sauter is known to have a warmer, mellower tone, quite distinct from the brighter more powerful sound of a Steingraeber, for example.

That certainly seemed to be the case for some of the Sauters I've encountered, but not all. For example, the Delta which I ended up not choosing at Spaichingen had a thick, rich sound, quite the opposite of my own Delta, which is VERY clear (sometimes even too much for my tastes). And apparently, more recent Sauters have tended towards a brighter, clearer tone, thanks to the use of harder Abel hammers. The older models used softer Abels or Renners, if I'm not mistaken, which probably accounts for their more more "American" sound. Almost all the new uprights I played Spaichingen tended towards a bright, clear and powerful tone. I'm not sure I would classify this as European - while bright, the tonal properties are very different from that of Schimmels or Seilers.

As for build quality, you're definitely spot on!

I am under the impression that Sauter has been marketed to the southeast Asia region for many years as well as South America. The brand is obviously not well known in North America but that will change.

I know that there are few techs who have even heard of the make based upon my non-scientific survey over the last couple of years so I am not surprised about the lack of information. Therefore, I can understand a lower rating in this category. Unfortunately, for a piano that is produced by one of the oldest manufacturers in the world does not seem fair as FIne's book for lack of anything better becomes a defacto reference for the world.

As to the performance category, I must completely disagree. I evaluated the Omega head to head with both a M&H BB and a Steinway B. Neither of these pianos were better in my opinion than the Omega. As Norbert has pointed out, this rating is subjective and having also looked at Schimmels, I can not understand why they (Schimmel) should get 4-1/2 at all. These arguments have gone on around here forever and not doubt continue.

There is always the 2007-2008 supplement to look forward to. In the meantime, I invite anyone who wants to see what I am talking about to contact me to come try my Omega out. Northwestern Michigan is particularly beautiful in the fall.

OK, I think I've seen this excuse repeated for a dozen times here now:

That Sauter has been rated "Tier 2" in Larry Fine's book because it's "too obscure" in North America.[/b]

That's rubbish. Steingräber is even more obscure, and that did not prevent it from getting a "Tier 1" rating in Fine's book.

I can respect your opinion about Sauter being "better" than many "Tier 1" pianos using whatever criteria you happen to use. I can respect your thinking that Larry Fine has erred to rate Sauter no higher than "Tier 2." (Heck, I myself don't agree with all of Fine's ratings.) But I also respect Larry Fine's considered opinion and rating of the Sauter pianos using whatever criteria he was using at the time.

I just think that the "it's rated lower than it should because it's obscure" excuse is very lame.

I don't believe it's because it was too obscure in North America; I believe it pertains to the number of Sauter entries in the data turned in by his technicians.

--Cy--

My impression, at least on this Forums, is that while Steingraeber is certainly as obscure among "mainstream" shoppers, it certainly is not obscure among the more "hardcore" shoppers here, compared to Sauter. Of course, I could be wrong, but an impression is an impression.

So if obscurity was not the reason behind the rating, what was then, Axtremus? Perhaps you have a view? Inferior performance/parts/materials?

Simple: Larry Fine really thinks that it's "Tier 2."

If Larry Fine did not have sufficient information to rate a piano, do you not think that he could simply not[/b] rate it at all?

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.

Axtremus:

How someone in North America happens to rate pianos via a *book* - pianos with very little market penetration, experience and history over here,has very little to do with those parts of the world which have always made up to 90% of Sauter's and several other small German maker's traditional markets in the past.

Including the last 200 years.

A market entirely unknown to you.

Norbert

You want to say that Larry Fine's Sauter rating has no relevance in those parts of the world that make up 90% of Sauter's markets, that's fine. That argument has nothing to do with whether Larry Fine does or does not have enough information to rate Sauter.

I would very much like to know, which geographic regions[/b] are you referring to that make up 90% of Sauter's markets? And is that "90%" measured by unit sales or by Dollar/Euro volume?

Once you tell me which markets you specifically refer to, then we can discuss whether I know anything about those markets -- and more importantly, whether Larry Fine knows "enough" about those markets and how that may or may not invalidate his ratings of Sauter pianos at all.

(Proposed thought exercise: Out of 100 pianos made by Maker-X shipped worldwide, PianoCritic-Y rates Maker-X based on only 10 of the pianos where all 10 were shipped to North America -- under what scenarios would you think that PianoCritic-Y's rating cannot generalize to the other 90 pianos?)

But, first thing first -- enumerate those geographic regions that make up 90% of Sauter's markets[/b].

Well, I disagree with the rating. Its hogwash.

Hmmm, I noticed on the factory website that in the US, Steve Jobs (yes the Apple one), is one of their references. I can't imagine someone like him choosing anything inferior.

cmk, I agree with you.

OK guys..., let's cool down a little and revert to more "respectful" language. We can agree to disagree, but no need to dismiss someone else's opinions as "rubbish", no?

Tier 1 or 2, I think what's important is that Fine appears to have acknowledged that there are those who hold Sauter in higher regard than he or his group of technicians.

Moreover, as already pointed out, the category where Fine marks Sauter down - performance - is also probably the most subjective of all the categories. Obviously, what appeals to us Sauter owners does not appeal to Mr. Fine. That's fine by me (no pun intended). After all, the Sauter touch/tone IS quite unique, and those not used to it may be inclined to mark it down. More importantly, as Norbert pointed out, in the more objective areas of assessment - quality control and confidence, Sauter scores top notch here. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about the build quality of the instrument here.

I'm inclined to take Cy Shuster's stand - the sample size for the number of Sauter entries is simply too small, and it could well be that the few samples that Fine's technicians had tried might be problematic.

Not one.

First of all, Sauter is a monster performer - always has been: a fact well known in Germany itself!

Just play one, the 131 upright Competence, the incredible 7' Omega grand - any - and then compare to exact same model of any other brand.

Chances are, the Sauters will take your socks off...

Next: How do you even measure 'performance'?

Pianist do - technicians don't.

With all respect to Larry Fine and anybody else here - anybody *not* immediately recognizing that Sauter is an absolutely top flight performance piano in every[/b] respect possible, has missed his calling *judging* pianos.

IMHO

All one has to do is sit down and play one.

Chances are you need to look for your socks somewhere after...

Norbert

Great! You claim that there is not even one "problematic" Sauter sample that could have been used for rating in Fine's book. So the small sample size cannot[/b] constitute a valid excuse for its "Group 2" rating. Very good.

OK, are you saying that once a Sauter piano got shipped out of Germany, it somehow stops being a "monster performer"?

If the Sauter pianos perform just as well outside of Germany as they do inside Germany, and the Sauter pianos used for ratings in Fine's book were not "problematic" -- then it's settled:

Larry Fine used non-defective, representative samples of Sauter pianos to arrive at his "Group 2" rating.[/b]

The excuse for Sauter being rated "Group 2" because of insufficient information continues to be lame, and I continue to respect the opinions that disagree with Fine's rating.

I don't have my Piano Book with me, but I doubt the "Performance" category was based on Larry's personal preferences (wrt action/tone/etc.) when playing various pianos. I don't think that was his objective in this category. Perhaps he was referring to the piano's ability to perform well after years of use. Or the ability of the piano to withstand use by a concert pianist versus a novice.

Either way, I think a definition of the "Performance" category is necessary here.

And I'm sure everyone has their opinions on his rating system. But I guess I'm confused why this is so important. Unless it translates into $$ (such as higher resale values), why does it matter?

Why does it matter?
Simple; E-G-O.
No one wants to pay the big bucks for their piano only to find it listed in catagory 2, a performance piano. They want it up there... Catagory 1, a HIGH performance piano.
That's what I bought it and God damn it - Larry Fine is WRONG!

Ax - you should have been a lawyer.

And what of the audience??


The technician, the pianist, and the audience each have an important, and very valid role in judging a pianos performce.

Mr Fines opinions, while not always my own either, are just that--his opinions. He makes very clear in his book that due to the subjective nature of judging pianos, it is quite possible that there is some degree of flexibility of the rating system.

The unfortunate thing is that no matter how many times, and how clearly he says that his rating system is not to be taken as the word of God, folks still debate the ratings as though they're being presented as such.

Rich

Good point Rich. In fact, the same thing happens in the hifi world, mags rave about this and/or that product, when actual listening tests prove otherwise. It is an opinion of one(?), and should be treated as such.

Ultimately with any piano, if a buyer is willing to part big $$$ just based on an opinion without actually playing and trying the instrument, then good luck to him. A fool is soon parted of his money.

As mentioned, hopefully, the tone of this discussion can be kept respectful. Statements like this will only turn this whole discussion into a flame war that ultimately serves no purpose.

Perhaps ego is the big issue for you, and that's why you are projecting your own concerns on the rest of us. But certainly ego/snob appeal is and was not an issue for me, and I believe the rest of us Sauter buyers. I certainly made my choice after 8 months of careful research and consideration, fully well aware that Sauter was rated Tier 2. So obviously ego had little to do with my final purchase. If ego or snob appeal was such an important factor for me, I would have just gone for a similarly priced Grotrian, Blutner, Ibach or Steingraeber instead. Decision were made fully based on considerations of performance, quality and dealer service.

In fact, contrary to your "big bucks" comment, I can say that I paid less than I would have paid for a Yamaha S6 down here (another seemingly high performing, but Tier 2 rated piano). And I'm glad to say that to my ears, it represents far better value for money.

So the short answer is "NO". Those of us here commenting on this issue are not doing so because we want to justify our big ticket purchase to ourselves, but because we genuinely think that it is a good piano, and in that respect we disagree with Fine's rankings. If you disagree with our opinions, that's OK too, but I don't think there's a need to be rude or get personal in the process of doing so.

My appologies. I was not picking on Sauter owners only. My comment was meant tounge in cheek and was as much a commentary on the rating system as piano owners. As well - it was directed at me, myself. I bought a teir two paino. I'm a teir four player. Don't take it too seriously, and if you think it best I will go back and delete the post.
But I do think that ego does have something to do with it. Not the purchase of your chosen piano but the desire to see it in the teir one rank.

Seriously wizkit, I did not mean to offend.
Mike

Ok, no problems, apologies accepted. I don't see it as an ego issue. More of a desire to correct what we view as an unfair opinion, especially when (rightly or wrongly), Fine's book is seen as a de facto "Gospel" for new piano buyers,