Choosing the Right Upright: The Boston UP-132 v.s The Yamaha U3

A Closer Look at Two Popular Models

At M. Steinert & Sons, we are often asked about upright pianos, particularly two popular 52-inch models, the Boston UP-132 and the Yamaha U3. Both are highly respected instruments, frequently chosen by students, teachers, and professional musicians who may not have the space or budget for a grand piano but still want a full, responsive instrument.

I wanted to sit down with these two uprights and record a direct comparison. The setup was deliberately simple. Both instruments were placed in the exact same location, against a wall, just as they would be in someone’s home. There were no studio tricks and no added reverb. The instruments were recorded exactly as they are.

To highlight the differences, we created nine side-by-side comparisons using short excerpts of classical repertoire, alternating between the Boston and the Yamaha. Each passage was selected because it reveals something essential about an upright piano, such as resonance, sustain, clarity, color, or touch. I encourage you to listen carefully using headphones if possible and notice how each instrument responds. The contrasts are subtle at times, but once you hear them, they are impossible to overlook.

Side-by-Side Comparisons

Example 1: Schubert A Minor Sonata, Secondary Theme

Schubert’s writing is all about singing lines and subtle decays, which makes the A Minor Sonata a revealing test. Listen for how each piano handles the long, vocal lines.

On the Boston the melody sustained beautifully through the chords. The sound projected without thinning, giving me freedom to stretch phrases and let the music breathe. On the Yamaha the sound was more direct and decayed faster. It felt like looking at every note through a microscope: crystal clear and precise, but with fewer overtones to blend into that human, vocal quality Schubert is famous for.

Example 2: Debussy, Fireworks Prelude

Debussy demands sparkle in the upper registers, where uprights often struggle. Pay attention to how each piano treats the highest notes.

The Boston surprised me with breadth of color and warmth, especially in the middle and bass. The Yamaha countered with brilliance. Each articulation was etched in glass, very immediate. In the highest range, though, the sound dropped off quickly, and I had to push for more volume to keep the line alive.

Example 3: Prokofiev Piano Concerto No. 3, Second Movement Opening

This passage is harp-like, full of delicate motion. It is a perfect test of how softly each upright can play while still carrying resonance.

The Boston allowed me to play very softly while still keeping resonance, which opened up a whole range of pianissimo colors. On the Yamaha there was a limit to how soft I could go. Below mezzo piano the notes sometimes would not speak at all, so I had to stay louder than I wanted. The clarity was there, but the palette was narrower.

Example 4: Prokofiev Piano Concerto No. 3, Third Movement Excerpt

Prokofiev asks for sudden bursts of energy that stretch across the keyboard. This makes it an ideal test of how smoothly an upright can handle wide dynamic shifts.

On the Boston the transitions felt smooth, letting me move from soft textures to powerful climaxes without a jolt. The Yamaha packed plenty of punch, but as I pushed into fortissimo the outer registers turned a little woody, more two dimensional. The power was there but not the same sense of sustain.

Example 5: Scriabin Prelude Op. 37, No. 1

Scriabin’s harmonies live in soft dynamics, where subtle resonance makes or breaks the sound. Listen to how the overtones interact.

The Boston delivered richness and color even when played quietly, with overtones that gave me more to paint with. On the Yamaha, melodies stood out easily, but supporting voices competed because of the sharper attack. The bass was strong, though more hollow. It had volume but less detail, like tall trees without the smaller life around them.

Example 6: Rachmaninoff G-sharp Minor Prelude, Opening

Rachmaninoff builds long, arching lines that rise and fall like waves. As you listen, notice whether the piano lets the melody expand naturally or forces the player to push for sound.

On the Boston the transition into bigger sounds was seamless, easy to modulate without losing color. The Yamaha excelled when I used pedal. Rapid passagework blended well, and the pedal helped cover the quicker decay. Without pedal the body of the sound dropped off faster, so I found myself compensating by pushing for more volume.

Example 7: Bach Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue – Fugue Opening

Bach’s counterpoint is a perfect test of clarity and sustain, especially when played with almost no pedal. Pay attention to how clearly each instrument separates the voices, and whether they still hold together as a line.

On the Boston I could weave the notes into a continuous line, which is rare for an upright. On the Yamaha the clarity was striking. Each voice separated cleanly, but pianissimo control was a struggle. Some notes double-struck or dropped unless I played louder than intended. It was sharp and detailed, but without the depth of color.

Example 8: Schumann Davidsbündlertänze, “Innig”

Schumann asks for intimacy, a line that sings quietly and warmly. This is where subtlety matters most. Let’s take a look at how each piano handles quiet expression.

The Boston gave me warmth and balance, especially in the bass. It let me spin out a long, lyrical line with ease. On the Yamaha I had to keep the volume higher just to maintain stability. The sound was still beautiful, but less nuanced. It was like painting with a fine-tipped brush when what I wanted was a broad stroke.

Example 9: Brahms Ballade Op. 10, No. 4

Brahms is orchestral in nature, with dense harmonies that demand a wide palette. As the final example, this is a fitting test because it asks the piano to combine power, clarity, and depth all at once. 

The Boston let the harmonies expand and sustain, almost like playing a small grand. The Yamaha gave me definition, which worked well for clarity in dense textures. But to achieve the same fullness I leaned more on the pedal, blurring notes together to create resonance that the instrument itself did not naturally hold as long.

Closing Thoughts

After playing both instruments, what stands out is that they represent two distinct philosophies of sound. The Boston UP-132 leans toward warmth, sustain, and a broader tonal palette. It often feels like playing a grand piano, and it invites phrasing that breathes. The Yamaha U3 leans toward clarity and immediacy. It gives you everything under a magnifying glass, every articulation sharply defined.

If you search for these instruments online, especially Yamaha uprights, you will notice one word appearing again and again: reliable. The more research you do, the more you will see that word repeated as if it were the deciding factor. But ask yourself, is reliability really why you buy a piano? We expect a refrigerator to be reliable or a washing machine to be reliable. A piano is different. It is not an appliance. It is a musical partner.

Both the Yamaha and the Boston, as well as most modern uprights in this price range, are built to last. Reliability is a given. What matters more is how they make you feel when you play them. Do they invite you in? Do they open up your sound and let you explore? Those are the questions that lead you to a meaningful choice.

Neither piano is perfect for everyone. If you want crystal-clear definition and accuracy, the Yamaha will speak to you. If you want resonance that surrounds your sound, the Boston may feel more natural. Both deserve to be played, not just researched.

The best way to know is to try them. Sit down, play your music, and see which piano answers you back. I invite you to visit one of our showrooms and experience both the Yamaha U3 and the Boston UP-132 in person.