RCT

[Frank Weston]

I've never used RCT, but my experience with TuneLab is extensive, and before
TuneLab I did (and still sometimes do) aural tunings.   I do think I can
clarify some of the points Don made.

Don Wrote:

>A few of the points which, to me, make RCT worth the cost:
>- The sound of the tunings is very different between RCT and TuneLab.  I
have not been able to get TuneLab to generate a decent (to me) temperament,
for instance.  Even RCT has trouble doing this on some pianos, but it is
much better than TuneLab.  Dragging a generic curve to match inharmonicity
measurements does not give the same affect.

TuneLab allows the user to choose many, many options for developing a
tuning.  Dragging a curve is just the quickest and dirtiest.  Even then the
curve may be modified to suit specific tastes and choices of the tuner.  If
I don't like the rough temperament developed by the TuneLab curve, I have
the choice of making more or fewer inharmonicity measurements and creating a
curve a note at a time using just about any combination of criteria that can
be imagined.  If the temperament does not suit the tuner, blame the choices
the tuner makes, not the software.


>- With RCT, you sample 5 or 6 notes, you select the tuning style, and it
calculates an excellent tuning. There is no messing around with dragging the
chart around and doing a visual estimation of an aural tuning. It is easy
and accurate.

I can get a suitable tuning for most pianos using TuneLab and measuring
three notes.  The whole process takes about three minutes and allows me to
make choices.  I gather that RCT (in this particular mode) makes all the
choices for the user.

>- If you don't care for the default octave styles, you can individually
tweak them to taste, and this is repeatable from one piano to the next.  No
need to guess.  Again, I find this much easier in actual use than dragging
that generic curve around.

If you don't like the defaults, there are many more choices.  Just change
the defaults to suit you.

>- The tuning display is more precise to use.  I have used both extensively,
and have concluded that RCT's is much better.  Others who have used both may
want to chime in - I think they will agree.

I can't comment of RCT, but the tuning displays on TuneLab are more precise
than I can attain with the hammer.  The spectrum display is extremely useful
for tuning the notes above the dampers.  I can get most of them with out
having to mute, since the display lets me see what each individual string is
doing.

>- RCT allows easy, graphical comparisons of different tunings, making it
very easy to compare two tunings in the computer.  I use this a lot!

TuneLab does this, but not easily.  I would like a much more straightforward
means of displaying comparisons.

>- All piano tuning involves compromises, and (no offense to Bob) Dean
understands aural tuning extremely well, so was / is able to design the
software with the right compromises built in.

TuneLab provides all the information for the tuner to make the decisions.
The machine makes no decisions except for suggesting a stock curve.  I like
the control and the ability to make the choices.  Maybe this is the big
difference between the two systems, and maybe this is the explaination as to
why some personalities prefer one system to the other.

>- The harmonic analyzer is a very useful tool, which I use on most tunings
to help choose which partial to tune to.  This cannot be discounted as a
minor difference - it is extremely useful.

This sounds like a nice feature.  I can't comment, not having used it.
>


In summary, I would say that the big differences between the two systems are
$750, and the philosophy of user involvement in decision making.  Both
systems will give you good results if you know how to use them, but, If
you're poor and opinionated, try TuneLab first.

I'm waiting for the first system that works on Windows CE.  Whoever gets
there first will truly have an advantage.

Frank Weston