**Identifying cheap and expensive pianos**

[starpianist]

Over the past years that I have played the piano, I have made a few observations. I am not sure whether this is an accurate observation or not, but here it is. Cheaper or less expensive pianos have keys that are very easy to press, but sometimes they produce a tinny, more hollow sound. They tend to collect dust faster, too. More expensive pianos, ones like my piano teacher has, take more effort to play, because the keys are harder to press. They give a warm, more composed and rounded sound.  Are my observations correct, according to you? Please put any ideas or comments here if you disagree, or simply want to have a conversation. 

[leucippus]

Well I don't know about collecting dust, but the keys being "harder to press" is probably correct.  Better quality pianos typically have heavier built actions thus resulting in more mass to move.

I'm not sure that I would describe them as being "harder to press".  I think I would simply say that they have a more robust action.  However, in the end I suppose you're right.  It does require more force to set those heftier hammers into action.  But I think they also build up more overall inertia that is actually desirable I think.  I don't like playing on pianos that have an extremely lightweight action.  I prefer the heavier actions of the more expensive pianos.

But this doesn't always reduce to how hard the keys are to press.  It is quite possible to have a cheap piano with a tinny lightweight action and still have keys that are "hard to press".  It's the overall inertia of the action that really makes the difference.

[asyncopated]

The key weight is not a direct product of the quality of the piano.  However, it does reflect what type of hammer mechanism the piano has.  In general there are two types -- uprights and grands.  These two classes automatically have a different feel to them as the mechanism is very different.  In essence, key weight is a matter of preference.

For example, my previous teacher has an ibach.  The touch of the ibach as quite heavy, but it's not difficult to play.  I've also played on yamaha grands before.  Somehow these tend to be quite light.  In college, we have a bossendoffer which is quite heavy, and two steinways both have a surprisingly light touch, however, with a slight crunch at the end.  They are a pleasure to play.

What is very important however is the sound that a piano makes.  Here are some general characteristics that a good piano ought to have.

Each note should sound full, and not like a tin can.  Basically the more tin canny or hollow the sound, the worse the piano is.  The reason that a piano sounds like a tin can is that it's not able to produce overtones, which gives each note its substance.  So you are correct in saying that hollow sound is in general not good.

One should also look for a nice projected singing tone.  Each note should be resonant, and on holding down the note, it ring should be fairly long 8 - 10 seconds before becoming too soft to hear.  This applies especially to the higher registers.  The registers should be equalised in the sense that you should hear the same color as you move from the fatter bass strings all the way to the higher registers.  Lastly if you play appeggios sustained, the sound produced should be solid and balanced, and not weavering, this means that the sound board is good and above to sustain the harmonics.

Having said this, it still gives lots of room for the type of sound a piano produces.  Each piano (even from the same maker) has it's unique characteristic sound.  Much of it is largely a matter of preference.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I also notice that "cheaper" pianos have a much lighter action. I play on a Baldwin that has a quite heavy action, and I love it. I don't enjoy light action pianos to practice on. It is preferance mainly. The roundness of a sound also comes to mind.

Best.

[asyncopated]

I think the action very much depends on personal taste.

For example like I was saying, the actions of the steinways that I play on is light -- very much lighter than the german pianos which are very good as well.

It's also rumoured that Horowitz wanted the action of this piano to be extremely light, arguing that the action of the pianos now are days where much heavier than in the classical/baroque periods.  This may also have something to do with his flat finger technique.  That may have been why he had to bring his piano + technician wherever he gave a performance.



 

[iumonito]

I think the action very much depends on personal taste.

For example like I was saying, the actions of the steinways that I play on is light -- very much lighter than the german pianos which are very good as well.

It's also rumoured that Horowitz wanted the action of this piano to be extremely light, arguing that the action of the pianos now are days where much heavier than in the classical/baroque periods.  This may also have something to do with his flat finger technique.  That may have been why he had to bring his piano + technician wherever he gave a performance.



 

"had to"?  Certainly he could and did, I am not so sure he had to.

Zimmerman these days does the same.  I am sure he is not the only one.

[alzado]

My grand has a more complex feel on this issue of "light" and "heavy."  The grand also makes it easy to hit a wide range of dynamics just by touch, without relying on pedals.  (By dynamics I mean from ppp to fff.)

The upright I take my lessons on is much more limited with respect to varying  the dynamics by touch alone.

I notice also my grand (5'8") has much richer baritone register (approx. the C2 octave) and a more resonant deep base A0 through C1 octave).  The uprights just can't generate that richness.