Wim,
My Mac 2300C weigh in at just over 4 pounds . You are probably looking
at the weight of IBM PC laptops, not Macs. The RCT will hold an almost
unlimited number of calculated tunings at no extra cost for memory
enhancements. The PianaLizer portion of the RCT program shows you the
partial structure of a given note which can be used for comparison on
voicing problems. I think the screen problem for tiring the eyes is on
regular monitors , not the flat screen laptops. All else I agree with. It
is the user that determines the success of a tuning.
James Grebe
R.P.T. of the P.T.G
pianoman@inlink.com
Creator of Handsome Hardwood Caster Cups and Practical Piano Peripherals in
St. Louis, MO
-----Original Message-----
From: Wimblees@AOL.COM <Wimblees@AOL.COM>
To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 5:43 PM
Subject: SATIII/RCT comparison. was Re: question
>In a message dated 98-10-30 09:08:38 EST, you write:
>
><< Hey, I haven't heard any comments on using SAT III. I know Wim sent his
> back for repair but have not heard how the new ones are working. Are they
> living up to expectations?
> I have found that once the SAT and RCT are here there is not a whole
> lot that can make them better although they can be made more convenient to
> use. I am waiting now for RCT 3.0 for my Mac, the 4th update to the
program
> since last Oct, 25,98. I am just as excited as you guys getting the SAT
> III.
> James Grebe >>
>
>
>Jim & List:
>
>I got a replacement to use while mine is being "repaired". To say it needed
>repairs is not fair. It wasn't broken. It needed the automatic note switch
>installed.
>
>The one that I am using has that feature, and it works great. I have been
>thinking about writing a comparison between the RCT and the SATIII, so
this
>is a good excuse. I don't own a RCT, but have heard enough about them, and
>used one a couple of times, to be able to give fairly accurate evaluation.
For
>those who have both, feel free to disagree with me.
>
>First I want to point out that both machine are excellent. But I think that
>for the "basic user", technically there is very little difference between
the
>SATIII and the RCT. If you are a more experienced user, you will find
>advantages of one over the other, but it is going to be the user, more than
>the machine, that will find the advantages of one over the other. I don't
want
>to get into the more detailed differences, because I am not an experienced
>user, and I do not have the qualifications to do that. But there are some
>other differences that I want to mention.
>
>The main difference between the 2 units are this:
>1. Weight. The SAT III weighs about 3 pounds, if that much, and measures 6"
by
>4" by 3.5" This allows the unit to fit easy in a breif case, or tool bag,
with
>still plenty of room for other tools. The RCT has to be used with a lap top
>computer. The lightest weight lap top I could find in a catologue was 6.5
>lbs., with most in the 7 - 10 lb range. Lap tops are 12" by 12", although I
>understand that some smaller ones are coming out. I also heard that those
>smaller ones are not as effective. When you flip up the top, it's 12" high.
On
>most upright pianos, that might become a balancing act. In most grands, it
>might be easier to put the lap top on the struts, but you can't get it to
>close to the bass end.
>2. Batery life. Before I sent my original SATIII back, I had tuned about 50
>pianos. When I tune, the machine is turned on for about 15 - 20 minutes for
>each tuning. SO I had about 12 or 13 hours of use. Just before I sent it
back,
>I checked the battery use feature, and it showed I had 100% battery life
left.
>In other words, even after 12 hours of use, it hadn't even drained the
batery
>enough to show I had 75% life left. That, to me, is amazing. When I was
>looking at the lap tops in a catologue, the longest use was about 5 hours,
>most had only 3 - 4 hours of battery life. I would say that that feature
alone
>should make a big difference in using one machine over the other.
>3. Automatic up note feature. Mitch and Jim Sr. went round and round on
that
>feature before. One comment Mitch made was that he was able to have the RCT
>follow him "like a puppy dog" when he went down the scale to another note.
I
>found that the same with the SAT III. The only place I am having difficulty
is
>the very first couple of notes in the bass, and the last three of four
notes
>in the treble. But then I was tuning a couple of cheap spinets and old
grands,
>with very little quality of sound coming from those notes.
>4. Eye wear. Someone mentioned this to me at the TSA. When you are looking
at
>the screen of a RCT, you are looking at a computer screen. If you do this 4
or
>5 hours a day, For most of us, that is going to be a strain on the eye. The
>SAT II has little lights going around in a circle. Not much eye strain
there.
>5. Durability. How many times have you dropped your SAT, and have it
survive?
>One of our chapter members left hers sitting on top of her car when she
drove
>off. It still worked after she picked it from the street. Can you do that
with
>a lap top computer?
>
>Overall, I am happy with my SATIII. As I might have mentioned before, I
needed
>a second unit, and for the extra couple of hundred dollars, I am satisfied.
>The only way I would have considered the RCT is if I had a lap top in which
to
>install the program. I might consider doing that, if and when I get a lap
top,
>but from what I described, the RCT is going to have to come up with a
>considerable more attractive reason for me to purchase it.
>
>All of this, of course, is my own opinion, and it should not be contrued as
an
>endorsement for the SAT III or a condemnation of the RCT. As I said,
>technically, they are both equal. It all depends on who is using it to say
>which is better. And the bottom line for both machines, is that the user
has
>to know what he/she is doing. In other words, neither machine will be of
any
>use to someone who doesn't have the basic skills to tune a piano.
>
>Wim Blees
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC