Rick writes: <<We know that a machine so far, is not demostrably better than a good aural tuner. I can't agree with this, It has been demonstrated that a machine is not demonstrably better than a "great" aural tuner(Virgil/Coleman comparisons of 1999?). I don't know if a "good" one is going to be competitive. What we KNOW is that the quality of the tuning done by the machine is determined by the quality of the piano. As Al Sanderson once said, "If you have a perfect piano, the machine will give you a perfect tuning". Audiences are poor judges of tuning beyond unisons. It would be more instructive to have a group of pianists play the same pieces on both tunings and select the one that felt most "in tune" for them, (but don't try this with ET and a Coleman 11, the latter wins every time!) >If that were the case, good tuners would have switched to machines because good tuners would never pass up an opportunity to improve.>> Umm, yes, That is the case, and that is why many of us formerly aural-only tuners wonder why more of the aural-only tuners don't avail themselves of the new technology. "Amazing tech, how sweet the light The buttons and dials so cool, My ears were once the only right But now machines help rule. In loudest halls, where roadies shrug In homes where vacuums roar, I pull my plugs, and fit them snug With the SAT, I want no more. The stretch, the curve are there to see The breaks approach like shoals, All I could need, is my DOB To reach sweet harmonies' goals. In olden days, the beatings' haze would leave me tired and mean, But now I'm not so out of phase, I was fine, but now I machine". Good luck, Ric. Ed Foote RPT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC