----- Original Message ----- From: David M. Porritt <dm.porritt@verizon.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: Tuneoff The "aural only" tuners are convinced they can do MUCH better than a machine, dave _____________________________ David M. Porritt NOT this aural tuner. I posted my sentiments on that seven times. (actually my mail software messed up. sorry) Once was enough I had hoped. ; ) Again I don't think good aural tuners are much better than machines. I don't think machines are any better than good aural tuners. Both have their pluses and minuses. ............................................ Jim Coleman wrote---- and I'm sure you could find many "dyed-in-the-wool" aural tuners who would jump at the chance to "defend the faith" if you should become incapacitated .................................................. And again I welcome any and all aural tuners who want to "defend the faith". I don't happen to know any tuners who say they are MUCH better than a machine. (or are you speaking for yourself?). Please send them my way. Come out best in a "pre-season" tuneoff, and you get to the Tuner's Super Bowl in Chicago. A tie and we open it up again until someone better comes along. But as I said before I don't think that will happen at the level judged as good tuning. It should be a tie at best. Otherwise somebody messed up. The tuneoffs may seem a spectacle to some eyes but if done right I think they can provide valuable educational opportunities for many others besides a few tuners at a convention. I think Jim Coleman's sentiments are along these lines when he says. "Could we achieve such an interest in fine piano sounds that it would once again be fun to make music." ---ric
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC