Baldwin Spinet Recommendation
rlg...@my-dejanews.com
I am in the market for a new piano for my children (and
maybe myself) to learn on. I've read a good portion of
Larry Fine's _The_Piano_Book_ and I've got a question about
the Baldwin Spinet. If anyone cares sharing their opinion
with me I would be appreciative.
I realise that Larry Fine does not consider the spinet
a very good piano. His reasons are the poor tonal sound
and the expense of maintenance. Well, I certainly don't
know anything about it but 1) I can't tell the difference
between the spinet and the Classic 665 for sound (not
much anyway), 2) We take pretty good care of our stuff
around here and if the spinet only lasts 5 years and we
use it I won't be adverse to buying a much more expensive
instrument when the spinet breaks, and 3) when none of
us currently play I'm not adverse to saving a grand,
(there's a 4th reason too but I'm kind of embarrassed to
admit it, I like the looks of the spinet over the Classic).
My worry is the picture Larry Fine paints of the loss
leader, the bottom of the line piano that is "so terrible
that the company hopes nobody will buy one". The paragraph
where this abomination is detailed sounds a lot like my
experience at the piano store.(a "University Sale" to boot:)
So my dilema is this: Am I so ignorant that I think the
spinet compares well enough to the Classic 665 when it's
really a truly awful machine which I will regret having
purchased? Or is it a good starter piano for a family?
Thanks for listening so far and thanks for any responses.
R. Guye
P.S. Anyone know where I can get a bumper sticker that
says: "My other piano is a Bechstein"?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ragtimbill
Actually, there is nothing wrong with an Acrosonic spinet. Of all the spinet
pianos out there (and most of them are pretty dreadful) the Acrosonic is the
top. I was a tuner/technician for many years and speak from experience. When
we bought a piano for our church in memory of our mother, we needed a spinet
for the junior chior rehearsal room, since it was a small room, and the
director could sit at the piano and still maintain eye contact with the
kiddies. We anted up enough to buy an Acrosonic and were very pleased with it.
Technically, the only cautionary thing I know to tell you about the Acrosonics
is that the very early ones (in the 1940s) had a sharp angle at the upper
bearing point of the bass strings that caused some string breakage. Baldwin
straightened that out long ago, though.
I *really* like the Acrosonic, and I think you will not go wrong on the
purchase. Do some comparison shopping, however, and don't pay full retail
without checking for a better deal.
(BTW, my endorsement does not cover other spinets. But as a technician I would
not want my mother's name on a plaque on anything less than a Baldwin.)
P.S. Can't help you with the bumper sticker. But my favorite was on my
brother-in-law's old truck which said "My other car is a piece of sh*t too!"
Bill Rowland
Broken Arrow, OK
Ragti...@aol.com
SEMarcus
<<I am in the market for a new piano for my children (and
maybe myself)...I've got a question about the Baldwin Spinet.>>
There has not been a spinet piano produced under the "Baldwin" or "Acrosonic"
names for several years. When Karen Hendricks became President/CEO of Baldwin,
one of her mandates was that the confusion of having several different grade
levels of pianos under the same nameplate be clarified. Thus, the spinets and
other economy pianos (such as the grands imported from Korea) carry the
Wurlitzer brand name.
Kindest regards,
Steve Marcus (SEMa...@aol.com)
http://members.delphi.com/stevemarcus/index.html
Director of Sales, THE BEAUTIFUL SOUND, INC.
(630) 325-9999
IBruton
We dont' mind.
>I am in the market for a new piano for my children (and
>maybe myself) to learn on. I've read a good portion of
>Larry Fine's _The_Piano_Book_ and I've got a question about
>the Baldwin Spinet. If anyone cares sharing their opinion
>with me I would be appreciative.
I tend to agree with Larry's assessment. Try the Yamaha P22 or U1, there's a
bit of a price difference, but both are much better than any Acrosonic Spinet.
The U1 is a 48" upright. I forget what the P22 is, but they both have a very
pleasing sound. If you don't like Yami's tone, you can try other brands. My
personal preference is anything taller than 45".
>We take pretty good care of our stuff
>around here and if the spinet only lasts 5 years and we
>use it I won't be adverse to buying a much more expensive
>instrument when the spinet breaks
I see your point. However, can I point out to you that if a Spinet does wear
out after 5 years, and you must choose between pianos again -- Wouldn't you
consider that a waste of money? Always buy the best quality you can afford.
When I bought my Yamaha C3 Grand, I wanted the C7. I only thought I could
afford the C2, but I was able to swing into a C3. I couldn't be happier with
my choice. If you can afford a 45 incher, buy it. It will last longer than 5
years (I'm not saying that the spinet only has a 5 year life span), and it will
bring you much playing pleasure. If you find that you don't want the piano
after a few years of playing, you will be much better off trying to sell it
than the spinet. Hope this helps you. Keep us informed!
Isaac B.
Proud owner of a beautiful Ebony polish 6'1" YAMAHA C3!!!!!
Rick Clark
before in this forum is that different technicians can form very
different opinions of the same thing. So here's a little diversity:
On the issue of spinets, I advise avoiding them, even when they are
Acrosonics (though I think your Baldwin spinet is not an Acrosonic
anyway). It is not merely an issue of design and tone. I see a high
degree of manufacturing defect, sloppiness of workmanship, and poor
materials in spinets, including a great many Baldwin spinets. I
typically find: 1. Poor regulation right from the factory 2. Cheap,
puffy felts which cause the regulation to go out of tolerance very
quickly. 3. Cheap substitutes for leather and fabrics which ultimately
fail to perform adequately or become noisy 4. Sloppy stringing or
plate drilling work, and the inability to line up the hammers to the
strings properly as a result 5. Overly hardened hammers which get
chewed up quickly by the strings 6. Substitutes for time-honored
adhesives which fail to perform adequately, leading to extraneous
clicking noises, or cause the hammer felts to come undone from the
cores. (Very common in my locale)
Now, to be fair- any of these things *might* occur in any number of
different brands, and quite commonly some *will* occur in the cheaper
ones, however, I find *more* of these kinds of problems in the
spinets, including Baldwins, because for the most part, spinet
manufacturers are not just designing a smaller, less expensive piano,
but they are also almost always cutting back significantly in quality
of materials and workmanship as well. And Baldwin, to my eye, seems to
have a long tradition of trying to cheapen things up in ways that do
not work particularly well.
Now- there may be certain years when quality is higher. I do agree
that some old Acrosonics seemed well enough made, in their day. I have
not surveyed the latest Baldwin spinets, but I did work work on a
direct-blow new Acrosonic console recently that was OK (though not
better than typical Korean pianos). But I personally would not
recommend a Baldwin spinet, unless I could give it a good
going-through first and determine if it is any better than the typical
ones I find.
But hey, if you're shopping for furniture as opposed to a musical
instrument- then it probably doesn't make much difference. And if you
*are going* to take good care of it, that alone will set it above the
pack, for I do find the neglect of spinets probably is more damaging
that any quality deficiencies it left the factory with.
But if *I* were on the budget of a Baldwin spinet, I'd be looking at
Korean pianos. They can have their little problems, too, but not so
many, and they certainly excel in points of materials quality and
tolerances. Plus, the direct blow action and bass tone are well worth
it, I think.
Rick Clark
Dave Zappa
I am in the market for a new piano for my children (and
maybe myself) to learn on. I've read a good portion of
Larry Fine's _The_Piano_Book_ and I've got a question about
the Baldwin Spinet. If anyone cares sharing their opinion
with me I would be appreciative.
I realise that Larry Fine does not consider the spinet
a very good piano. His reasons are the poor tonal sound
and the expense of maintenance. Well, I certainly don't
know anything about it but 1) I can't tell the difference
between the spinet and the Classic 665 for sound (not
much anyway), 2) We take pretty good care of our stuff
around here and if the spinet only lasts 5 years and we
use it I won't be adverse to buying a much more expensive
instrument when the spinet breaks, and 3) when none of
us currently play I'm not adverse to saving a grand,
(there's a 4th reason too but I'm kind of embarrassed to
admit it, I like the looks of the spinet over the Classic).
I can't tell the difference between the spinet and
the Classic 665 for sound
I like the looks of the spinet over the Classic
I won't be adverse to buying a much more expensive instrument....if the spinet only lasts 5 years
It doesn't mean a hill of beans what Larry's book says about poor spinet tone if YOU like it, so that's Fine's argument #1 against spinets down the tube (it's also a statement on Baldwin's current console piano if it's being matched tonally by 10 year old Baldwin spinet pianos). It DOES cost more repair time (which translates into dollars) to make action adjustments due to the inaccessability of the action on a spinet, so argument #2 stands true. You like the looks, this is a starter instrument for you it sounds like, it's probably quite a bit less expensive than the Classic, sounds like a reasonable choice.
My worry is the picture Larry Fine paints of the loss
leader, the bottom of the line piano that is "so terrible
that the company hopes nobody will buy one". The paragraph
where this abomination is detailed sounds a lot like my
experience at the piano store.(a "University Sale" to boot:)
Many spinets WERE loss leaders - the Acrosonic spinet wasn't one of them. The Baldwin Classic spinet was. I've heard the additional production time spent building the indirect action and cutting away the keybed, regulation, etc.. offset any material cost savings over a console and the spinet was as expensive, if not more, to produce. Starting to see why only one model is currently in production (the Bald-litzer or Wurliwin 1176)?
So my dilema is this: Am I so ignorant that I think the
spinet compares well enough to the Classic 665 when it's
really a truly awful machine which I will regret having
purchased? Or is it a good starter piano for a family?
Why recommend the Acrosonic? Well, for a spinet the Acro was pretty well designed and sounded pretty good. The key (I think) was the full-size rather than compressed action. Additionally, it had a full length guide rail for the stickers which facilitated the use of capstains which helped make it easier to keep regulated (from what I've been told anyhow). The later Classic spinets used the 88 rubber grommet/88 plasic nut set-up that just doesn't seem to be of the same quality. Also, when they went to the Classic spinet they made the soundboard laminated spruce/basswood/spruce or spruce/poplar/spruce, I can't remember which I just remember it was laminated. The last Acro spinet was the 3000 series which they discontinued in the late 80s.
So, look inside the piano- if you see a long piece of wood with 88 steel stickers coming thru 88 bushed holes it's a Acrosonic, if you can see the end of the keysticks and each keystick has a steel "fork" with the sticker running thru a black rubber grommet capped with grey plastic screws it's not the action I'd recommend.
Beyond all that, yes it's a good starter piano for your family if it's an Acrosonic. No it's not an awful machine you will regret investing your money in.
--
Dave
Retail salesperson representing Steinway, Boston, Yamaha, Samick,
Kohler & Campbell, PianoDisc, & Clavinova. Support your
local
service-oriented dealer. Opinions expressed are my own and do
not
necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer. To reply by
e-mail
please remove the "SPAMTHIS" from my address.
VOCE88
>not terribly keen on Baldwin, who sued him when the 2nd edition was being
>published
No Dave - It was only a threat of a suit
Just keeping the facts straight.
~This in no way constitutes an endorsement of Baldwin or other product~
Richard Galassini
Cunningham Piano Co
1 800 394 1117
Thomas D. Seay, III
> The Piano Book is a good resource to be sure, but when it comes to
> "Baldwin" and "spinet" Fine treads the objectivity line IMO. First, he's
> not terribly keen on Baldwin, who sued him when the 2nd edition was being
> published due to unfavorable and (again IMO) unfair reviews. He also
> (quite fairly in most cases) does not recommend any spinet piano.
Dave,
In all fairness and to be totally accurate, Baldwin didn't actually sue
Larry Fine.
As I understand it from talking with him, Larry sent his reviews to
Baldwin for their comments before publication, as he did with all piano
manufacturers. Most compaines were very helpful and gracious, even those
whose reviews were less than complimentary. Baldwin and a few other
companies chose to be contentious and threatened lawsuits if he published
their reviews, since they apparently felt that his reviews were unfair and
baised. Furthermore, according to Fine, Baldwin was afraid that other
manufacturers would use those negative reviews against them.
This whole situation is explained in great detail in the Preface to the
3rd edition, found on page xii, if anyone is interested in getting the
facts.
Tom Seay
The University of Texas at Austin
--
Best wishes,
Tom Seay
The University of Texas at Austin
Dave Zappa
Dave,In all fairness and to be totally accurate, Baldwin didn't actually sue
Larry Fine.
lund...@aol.com
> Many spinets WERE loss leaders - the Acrosonic spinet wasn't one of them.
> The Baldwin Classic spinet was. I've heard the additional production time
> spent building the indirect action and cutting away the keybed, regulation,
> etc.. offset any material cost savings over a console and the spinet was as
> expensive, if not more, to produce. Starting to see why only one model is
> currently in production (the Bald-litzer or Wurliwin 1176)?
Gentlemen:
I read this thread with great interest. The question I have is where does the
Hamilton fit into the scheme of things in the Baldwin line? Compared to the
Acrosonic and Classic. Thanks for any technical info you can provide.
Bob
Baby Grand
studio size... both the model 243 which is the institutional, or "school
piano", and the 5000 series Limited Editions, which are the more decorative
cabinets with the same 45" scale internal components. They do of course
have two other, larger models, the 248 (48") and the 6000 (52"), but the
Hamilton is the high end for the 45" scale.
the Duke of URL
N 369 RD
"Baby Grand"