>I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but I've been reading about the "big test", and what's involved. It all starts with the basic premise that we start at A-440. It's been worrying me a bit. Who's A-440? > >Any thoughts out there? > >Brian Trout >Quarryville, Pa. >btrout@desupernet.net Stirring up the troops and spreading discontent again huh? <G> Well, let's turn over a rock and see what's underneath. The low end, cheapest of all possible "tuning machines" are just slightly better than kazoos as pitch sources. They are more stable than Ken's cat, but not as easily re calibrated. Heck, nothing alive is purrrrfect. On the other hand, if you compared the pitch calibration of the SAT, RCT, and TuneLab, I suspect you would find that they agree very closely. A few years ago, our local PTG chapter checked their forks against the SATs the members had at the time and the only "absolute" agreement was among the SATs. I seem to remember my old Accu-Fork being pretty close too, but the fork I carry for tuning was a tad off, as were most of the others. The collective local membership now has at least one each of the big three ETDs, so maybe it's time to try it again and find out. In any case, a TuneLab download might be a good place to start prospecting. Some of the folks out there on the List have done such comparisons. Does anyone have numbers, caveats, obfuscational observations? Ron
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC