Aural or Visual Tuning?

[Kent Swafford]

SSC Lab Computer 2 wrote:

>Dear Listpeople:
>
>    I have been delighted and even moved by the recent discussion of
>questions about use of ETDs in quality tuning work.  As a result of your
>thoughts, and a recent experience, I have decided to get an RCT.
>    The experience is worth reporting: I went for a job interview at a
>university.  For a tuning demonstration the professor asked me to tune a
>piano which had just been tuned with an SAT!  He wanted to know if I
>could improve it.  Yes, I believe I improved it just a little,
>especially by deciding to clean up a few octaves over the break at the
>expense of some frighteningly even 10ths.  

>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>But the truth is, the result
>of my aural nitpicking of the machine tuning was probably better than
>any aural tuning I've ever done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>    They liked my tuning.  The prof. could actually tell where I'd
>favored the octaves.  _Some_ of these people can really hear!  I
>couldn't help wondering what would have happened if I had tuned first
>and they'd asked the other guy to improve my work with the SAT.  Whew!
>    I got the job, and left feeling a bit like John Henry: I'd beaten
>the steam drill, but nearly died with my hammer in my hand... 
>    From now on, I'm going to just tune, and give up proving.
>    Will an RCT make me a better person? I had a PT100 once, and it
>didn't help.
> 
>        Ed Sutton, RPT
>        Wichita, KS for a little while longer.

Ed,

Congratulations on your new position.

I wish I could underline and italicize that one sentence above in 
bold-face uppercase 72 point text.

Your experience is the same as mine:
The best tunings I do are by aurally tweaking tunings that began with a 
visual tuning.

Best wishes.

Kent Swafford