<html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> I'd like to chime in here in favor of the Verituner... (I've used both, but prefer the pocket pc version)   A few years ago I led a chapter program, part of which gave me the opportunity to tune/sample/calculate using the 4 machines being discussed on the same Baldwin upright.  I limited the experiment to calculating a tuning "right from the box", by following the printed directions.   There were significant differences in the calculations from each.  I observed that the Verituner was the only machine that didn't end up with a smooth curve when a single partial was graphed.  Even though the other machines take multiple samples to calculate the tuning, the result is forced into a smooth curve.   I did not try to use the custom functions of each to see if I could come up with the same final tuning using any of the machines... Something for a future project?    Any machine makes assumptions based on the information input...  At this point, the Verituner seems to need to make the least amount of assumptions to come up with the tuning calculation.  Being able to refer back to the temperament octave with actual inharmonicty data seems to give it the edge in making the tuning match the piano.  The custom style function allows you to make the machine follow your tuning preferences.   RCT has a wicked precise pitch-raise function.  Tunelab allows for muteless(!) large pitch raises.  The SAT battery lasts forever and is very durable.   RCT, Tunelab and Verituner all have internet forums to allow techs to communicate with each other about specific issues and questions.   Ron Koval Concordia U. <hr />Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! <a href='http://biggestloser.msn.com/' target='_new'>Learn more.</a></body> </html>