Steinway L vs M vs O

[CJ Quinn]

In another thread a guy whose opinion I respect said that it was common among techs to view the Steinway M as superior over the L.  This struck me as odd.  Has anyone else heard this or have a direct opinon?  I've played so few Steinways I really have no idea.

[Michele Felice]

The frequently-heard opinion is just the opposite from what you have quoted.  I can imagine that, because Ms are significantly more popular than Ls, that someone passing on this bit of conventional wisdom misunderstood it (popularity equals virtue in the mnds of some folks).

I agree with the conventional wisdom, having tuned a number of Ms and having owned an L. The L is a lot more piano, but not much larger and not much more expensive.

Regarding Os, which are Hamburg Ls, there was an interesting thread on the PTG pianotech BB recently describing how beautifully built, prepared and crated a new O was, which which had just arrived in the US. The tech who first serviced it noted how it was nearly perfect just out of the crate. Even the crate was a work of art, according to the tech. On the other hand, US Ls are quite variable in build quality.

[keith d kerman]

I'm the guy that stated that among techs and pianists I know, including myself, it was generally accepted that the M is prefered to the L.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really conceded or arrogant, so I'll just say it.  I was going to qualify my comment as " among techs and pianists that are really discerning, and comparing outstanding versions of both Ms and Ls, the Ms are generally preferred.  Same for Os over Ms and Ls."   Sorry if this makes me seem like an a,sshole.
I have known people I respect who prefer the L over the M, and a case can be made for that as well, and I wouldn't make that big an issue out of arguing it one way or the other.
With out getting too into it, I find the M to be just about Steinway's most successfully designed piano, and even mediocre examples tend to be musical and work well.  I find Ls to have less overall balance than an M, and for lack of a better term, they are less musically satifying, although certainly louder in the bass, and the action on the L can be fine as well.
I have to confess that while I was a student at the Peabody Conservatory of Music, the common practice pianos were Ls from the 80s, and they sucked pretty bad, partially, but not entirely from insane overuse, and this may be slightly biasing my opinion.

[iumonito]

Very interesting.  I sign on the list of those who prefer M to L (sorry pianos both they are).  I do find O's much better than L or M (I grew up with a 1960's O at home).  I find the greatest difference in the lower half of the keyboard.  For the upper registers there is so much you can do with voicing, but tenor and bass there is simply no where to hide.

Worth mentioning, although literally off topic (so soon!) I find a big difference from L to B, the B being the first relatively satisfying Steinway in my list (I haven't played enough A's to form an opinion, they were not in top shape).  I am unfamiliar with model C, although I would tend to think there may be a big difference there too.

I think we can get some science behind this.  For example do any of you PTG-types care to elaborate on the relative tension vis-a-vis string speaking length of the F21/E20 cross-over passage (I think that's where all these pianos go from three to two string, right?).  How do you think that affects the sound of the whole instrument, tunning stability and of course the change in color at the passaggio?

On a more area to explore, I think, is the thickness of the plate.  Are all of these pianos relatively the same in this regard?

I know there are so many variables that it is difficult to capture why O are better than L, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.

Cheers,

[Michele Felice]

So much for the conventional wisdom about the L and the M (bigger is better, I suppose). KK's comments are thoughtful and enlightening and I can't disagree with them. The preference for Ls to which I referred, without qualifying it in any way, is undoubtedly based on the more powerful bass of the L, which is important to a lot of people (and was to me). A bigger bass is not at all the same thing as a better tonal balance up and down the keyboard or better musicality (whatever that might be specifically).

The problem here really is one of semantics and the desire to make categorical statements about the overall "quality" of a certain make or model of piano, which ultimately is without much meaning. Most people, myself included, are undoubtedly not as discerning about many pianos as is KK, and, even more important, are not as capable of writing well about these nuances.

So, KK, I understand your desire to think of some of us as benighted donkeys (which we often are). We are also capable of learning and I appreciate very much your taking the time to make your perspective clear.

[CJ Quinn]

I still think Keith is just trying to sell me an M he has laying around the shop. 

BTW, Keith, nice 'drive-by' reference to Peabody.

[keith d kerman]

Hi Michelle,

Don't be so hard on yourself.  Someone else could make a very good case for the L over the M, and I would respect that opinion, as I do yours.
I knew I was going to come off like an arrogant SOB .  Sorry.

[keith d kerman]

I still think Keith is just trying to sell me an M he has laying around the shop. 

BTW, Keith, nice 'drive-by' reference to Peabody.

Peabody, Juilliard, Curtis, Moscow Conservatory, whatever, it don't mean sh*t until you hear someone play.

[CJ Quinn]

Peabody, Juilliard, Curtis, Moscow Conservatory, whatever, it don't mean sh*t until you hear someone play.

bullshirt, takes incredible work to get in there and get through.  Most pianosalesman don't have that pedegree, so you deserve the pat on the back for it.   

[keith d kerman]

Well CJQ,

I'll take the pat on the back, but only because it has been tempered with the reminder that I am but a lowly piano salesman.

Actually, my business partner Shaun Tirrell does most of the selling, and he is the real pianist.  He is regularly engaged for concerto performances all over the world, and is just a monster player.  If I can figure out how to post his recording of Liszt Totentanz, I will.  It is better than Cziffra.  Scary.

[Axtremus]

Actually, my business partner Shaun Tirrell does most of the selling, and he is the real pianist. He is regularly engaged for concerto performances all over the world, and is just a monster player. If I can figure out how to post his recording of Liszt Totentanz, I will. It is better than Cziffra. Scary.

That, I've got to hear. If you like, just send an mp3 to me over e-mail, and I'll host it and post it for you for a couple of weeks.

Peabody, Juilliard, Curtis, Moscow Conservatory, whatever, it don't mean sh*t until you hear someone play.

Would you care to share a recording of your own then? I can host/post that for you too.

Now just to bring this back on topic...

I have no strong opinion on the M versus the L one way or the other.
(Lame comment, ain't it? )

[Michele Felice]

Keith--

I didn't intend to suggest that I consider you an arrogant SOB. Quite the contrary.

I was really trying to say that your extolling the virtues of Ms was much appreciated.

I was also trying to say that the problem in communicating about piano tone quality is a complex one and is adversely affected by the tendency for consumers to want to talk in competitive terms about brands and models of pianos. This is a problem of consumerism generally and has much to do with advertising and marketing techniques to which we are all susceptible. I fell into this trap myself in trying to answer CJQ's question. Advertising has encouraged people to view consumption as one of the most important things in life; "keeping up with the Joneses" and that sort of thing.

As a musician (and minor sort of piano aficionado), I find I can enjoy many different pianos (and other instruments too, of which I have several). I can enjoy and appreciate most, if not all, pianos which are well-designed, well-built and well-maintained. As I mentioned above, I owned and played a Steinway L for many years. I now own and play a Walter studio piano. It's not the same piano; it is in many ways not as good. But it is still, in and of itself, an excellent and immensely enjoyable musical instrument.

I very much like hearing in detail about how people appreciate various pianos, even those which are not "the best."

When I was working as a technician, I remember well that all of my customers who owned Ms very much liked and appreciated their pianos. Your comments have helped me remember and affirm what is most important to me.
 

[keith d kerman]

Hi Ax,

When I record something worth listening to, I'll let you know. 

I may have to make a copy of the Totentanz CD and mail it to you.  I am a total technophobe.  What is an MP3?

For me, pianos are cutting edge technology.

[keith d kerman]

Thanks Michelle.  No problems.

[Axtremus]

When I record something worth listening to, I'll let you know.

I may have to make a copy of the Totentanz CD and mail it to you. I am a total technophobe. What is an MP3?

Thanks. I have sent my mailing address to you in e-mail.

[Axtremus]

I was also trying to say that the problem in communicating about piano tone quality is a complex one and is adversely affected by the tendency for consumers to want to talk in competitive terms about brands and models of pianos. This is a problem of consumerism generally and has much to do with advertising and marketing techniques to which we are all susceptible. ...

As a musician (and minor sort of piano aficionado), I find I can enjoy many different pianos (and other instruments too, of which I have several). I can enjoy and appreciate most, if not all, pianos which are well-designed, well-built and well-maintained. As I mentioned above, I owned and played a Steinway L for many years. I now own and play a Walter studio piano. It's not the same piano; it is in many ways not as good. But it is still, in and of itself, an excellent and immensely enjoyable musical instrument.

I very much like hearing in detail about how people appreciate various pianos, even those which are not "the best."

When I was working as a technician, I remember well that all of my customers who owned Ms very much liked and appreciated their pianos. Your comments have helped me remember and affirm what is most important to me.

I understand that you directed the above to Keith. I just want to say that I also appreciate very much what you wrote above.

Often times I feel rather frustrated when piano discussion turns into a competition of trying to "proof" which piano is better (and I am guilty of this myself from time to time) rather than appreciating the different pianos for what they really are, trying to understand  them and figuring out ways to exploit their different characteristics to make the most satisfying music we can on the instruments.

Thank you.

[CJ Quinn]

A very civil thread, thanks everyone. 

[iumonito]

Interesting, your concept tha all pianos are worth a little love.  I actually have the opposite problem: I think most pianos are just insufficiently good.  And don't get me wrong, I do like variety in my pianos.  I would never buy two of the same.  But why spend the money in a piano with an inferior design?

In fact, a well designed piano is just the begining.  I feel nearly all the pianos I come in contact with are in disrepair or not playing to their full potential (Keith, those in your shop a very wellcome exception).

So, then, you have the question "what instruments are really worth spending the time to make better?"  Naturally a question of price as well, but that being equal, then it does make a big difference what instrument to choose.  Why rebuild an L if you can keep looking for an O and rebuild that?  The L deserves no love.

[Michele Felice]

iumonito--

You've run yourself into a bit of a mixup here. The L and the O are essentially the same design (same scale). If you rebuild an L and an O with identical techniques and materials, you will have pretty much two of the same piano, with the kinds of differences that normally can exist between one example and another of the same model. Plus some differences in construction between Hamburg and NY. NY and Hamburg also use different actions and hammers, so there would be choices to make there. The difference between the L and the O is mostly how they are put together, and the materials used, and not so much the design. Craftsmanship and materials can, of course, make all the difference in the world.

Actually, my point in general is not that all pianos deserve a little love, but that all good pianos deserve a lot of love. The more love I have in my life, the happier I am. Of course, that's just my experience.

[iumonito]

Michele, thank you for your kind observation.  I know very little about pianos and will defer to your expertise.

Isn't it the case that there is a diference of about 2.5 tons between the overal tension of a model O (19,000 kg) and a model L (16,500 kg)?

I gladly concede I have not put rims and plates and pins and strings on top of each other, but I am curious why you think these pianos have essentially the same design.  They are not the same size (O = 180cm, L = 177), I can't imagine they have the same specific tensions and speaking lentgh throughout the scale (overall tension suggests the contrary).  Obviously my ignorance is so great that I am missing something essential here that makes these pianos so much more similar than I always heard them sound.

Enlighthen us, or at least me, please.

 

[keith d kerman]

Iumonito, have you been to my shop?  PM me, give me a hint who you are, please.  You are right about the differences between the O and the L.
Different scale tension, soundboard design, bridge positioning, rib taper, etc make for 2 different sounding pianos. 

[iumonito]

Sorry to burden the others, PM is "send me an e-mail outside the thread"?  I am even more of a ludite than you are.

Keith, certainly; I think your hot-rod piano shop is more fun than Disneyland.  I bought a piano from you and I am glad to say I am unlikely to ever buy another one from anyone else.  Don't go out of business!  (To moderators, etc.  keith and I have no business relationship of any kind.  I am glad for him if his business does well, but it does nothing to my finances).

My hints are easy:  the first thing I did once the piano was chosen was to get my then 13-month old son to play with it, he did spit up on your carpet (aren't I lucky he didn't spit up on the soundboard of the Steingraeber 272) and my Polish piano plays Brahms better than Chopin (although I play them equally badly).

 

While we are at it, what piano did Shaun use for his Totentanz?  Can we know?  And go post something intelligent on the Nordiska v. Pearl River thread I started a while ago and only one kind person has posted to.

[keith d kerman]

Iumonito,

Gotcha, I think.

I don't have much intelligent to say about the Nordiska 215 vs the Pearl River.  We get a 7' Dong Bei piano that starts the same as a Nordiska, and we hot rod it, and it is very nice, so the only thing I can say is that the Nordiska has potential, just like your (now) 2 year old.
Our piano is called the Maestoso.

[Michele Felice]

iumonito--

I apologize for telling you what is evidently not so with the L and the O.

I was mistaken, thinking that the the L and the O had the same string lengths and thus they had the same scales. Actually, I had read this somewhere and it may reflect something that was true at one time. If the current wire sizes and tensions vary, the bridges vary and the soundboard design varies, then they do not have the same scales and indeed are quite different pianos. Vive la difference! I am happy to know this.

I do know that their current overall sizes are not exactly the same, reflecting their differently-shaped tails, but that is beside the main point, which is that they not alike in tonal design.

It also occurs to me that a skillful rebuilder might be able to rebuild an L, as mentioned in the original post regarding rebuilding, and change the scaling, by means of string tensions and sizes, and bridge and soundboard design, to make it more like an O, and thus a better piano, according to the iumonito taste.

I guess I am learning that if I am going to post comments here, I need to spend more time hanging around piano shops. Which is, unfortunately, not something I can do. O for the life of the connoisseur!

[jlh]

Here's how one piano mover described it to me:

Model S = Small
Model M = Medium
Model L = Large
Model D = D*** that's heavy!

[iumonito]

iumonito--

I apologize for telling you what is evidently not so with the L and the O.

I was mistaken, thinking that the the L and the O had the same string lengths and thus they had the same scales. Actually, I had read this somewhere and it may reflect something that was true at one time. If the current wire sizes and tensions vary, the bridges vary and the soundboard design varies, then they do not have the same scales and indeed are quite different pianos. Vive la difference! I am happy to know this.

I do know that their current overall sizes are not exactly the same, reflecting their differently-shaped tails, but that is beside the main point, which is that they not alike in tonal design.

It also occurs to me that a skillful rebuilder might be able to rebuild an L, as mentioned in the original post regarding rebuilding, and change the scaling, by means of string tensions and sizes, and bridge and soundboard design, to make it more like an O, and thus a better piano, according to the iumonito taste.

I guess I am learning that if I am going to post comments here, I need to spend more time hanging around piano shops. Which is, unfortunately, not something I can do. O for the life of the connoisseur!

Of course, no offense taken.  I hope you feel likewise.     Sadly I do not have the chance to hang out at the piano shop either, like the guy in the book about "Luc" on Paris' left bank.  I suspect Luc is a patzer anyway.  The description of his work suggests to me an undue obsession with veneer and very little about angles, densities, thicknesses, speaking lengths and the other things fun about piano construction.

Keith, thanks for the note on Dongbei.  Maestoso is a pretty cheesy name, but hey, if people like it...  I will give you a call when I have a chance (hopefully before September) to go check them out and to see what is it that you are doing with your Estonias.  I saw Estonias in a reputed New York shop a few months ago and was unimpressed (I was unimpressed by their Masons too, so you get the idea).

[jbmajor]

I'm the guy that stated that among techs and pianists I know, including myself, it was generally accepted that the M is prefered to the L.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really conceded or arrogant, so I'll just say it.  I was going to qualify my comment as " among techs and pianists that are really discerning, and comparing outstanding versions of both Ms and Ls, the Ms are generally preferred.  Same for Os over Ms and Ls."   Sorry if this makes me seem like an a,sshole.
I have known people I respect who prefer the L over the M, and a case can be made for that as well, and I wouldn't make that big an issue out of arguing it one way or the other.
With out getting too into it, I find the M to be just about Steinway's most successfully designed piano, and even mediocre examples tend to be musical and work well.  I find Ls to have less overall balance than an M, and for lack of a better term, they are less musically satifying, although certainly louder in the bass, and the action on the L can be fine as well.
I have to confess that while I was a student at the Peabody Conservatory of Music, the common practice pianos were Ls from the 80s, and they sucked pretty bad, partially, but not entirely from insane overuse, and this may be slightly biasing my opinion.

Wasn't Steinway bought out by another company in the mid 70's?  Could this suckage be because the materials used were slightly different from then on, along with the process in which the instrument was made? 

I read another thread that detailed more about this.
This could be why used Steinways are such a hot item now.

[rich_galassini]

Just an interesting observation - the Steinway family designed the M to be a piano for the home and members who were also piano designers thought very little of the model. (See "The Steinway Saga" by Fostle)

Count me as one who prefers the O over the L and the L over the M.

(Makes me wish i were more discerning)   

[CJ Quinn]

(Makes me wish i were more discerning)   

At least we know you like Bjoerling...

[rich_galassini]

Amo tutti i tenori buoni lirici, Chris. (I like all good lyric tenors)

Also all good lyric pianos for that matter.

[Impresario]

I had a business partner that was one of the best piano technicians in the country.  He serviced 90% of the venues in Detroit, including the symphony.  Both Horowitz and Rubinstein left their tuners home when they performed here.  Most of his clients had Steinways.

He maintained that the model M had the most undesirable scale of all the Steinways.  A bass too big for the treble and the break between quite noticeable.  He thought the S was a better balanced piano.  But recommended the L for the benefits of its size as well as better scale. 

The model A has been considered one of the best scales Steinway created.  Steinway discontinued them in America, but still build them in Germany.  Go figure!

[CJ Quinn]

The model A has been considered one of the best scales Steinway created.  Steinway discontinued them in America, but still build them in Germany.  Go figure!

Steinweg just announced that they will be buiding As in Queens again.

[calin]

Hey, this is my first post here.
I believe that the Steinway O  is much better than the M (I have played several from Hamburg). It has the same number of bass strings but is longer. The main difference is that the bass of the O is more powerful and has pretty good definition down to the lowest note,. Actually I think it is one of the best basses in that size of piano that I have played. And the break is also less obvious on the O than the M. When I bougth my O, I compared it to an A and M. It sounded better than both, although the A is somewhat longer.

Calin

[CJ Quinn]

Hey, this is my first post here.

Hope it's not your last!

[wynnbear]

Sorry to revive an older thread, but I've always been curious about something.  Would one of you experts compare and contrast the O vs. the L and speculate about why Steinway would change from one model to another in the US but not in Europe?