pianotech-digest V1997 #853

[Kent Swafford]

james turner wrote:

>The discussion about the SAT vs RCT the past few days has been
>interesting.  Sometime this year, I want to get either a RCT or the
>SATlll.  I haven't seen an RCT yet, but it seems to compute a better
>tuning with the more information it records over the FAC of the SAT.
>Will some of you guys comment on this as I would really like to know.  

A discussion of the data and methods used by Chameleon are contained in 
my January 1997 Journal article on RCT. Anyone who would like to read 
this article may do so, either by going to the following web address:

http://www.reyburn.com/innovations.html

or by requesting the article from me and I will e-mail it to you.

>Also, is the RCT really harder to read over the LED's of the SAT? 

I don't believe this is a simple yes or no question.  See below.

>With
>my current SAT ll, I often have trouble reading the last two octaves in
>the high treble.  This has always anoyed me to no end.  Moving the
>machine sometimes help, but often it doesn't.  

At the default settings, the RCT spinner is _slower_ and more stable in 
the high treble, so in that case the RCT spinner should be much easier to 
read.  In the bass, at default settings, the RCT spinner more sensitive, 
that is, faster and less stable than the SAT, but as I point out in my 
article, this faster bass spinner was easy for me to get accustomed to 
and I believe it has helped me train my ear to hear the inherent 
instability of the piano bass strings.

It should be pointed out that the RCT spinner response is thoroughly 
adjustable to taste, and can if desired be set to behave exactly like the 
SAT LED "spinner."

>I have never heard anyone else mention this problem with the SAT and the
>high treble so is it just me or what.  If I decide to get a RCT, I hope
>it does better in the high octaves than the SAT.  
>Jim Turner

I believe you would be very pleased with the adjustable spinner of RCT.

Kent Swafford