Verituner Users

[Greg Newell]

Joe,
    I can understand that one might choose Verituner over SAT. I had one and
noticed quite a difference when I switched to Tunelab. I never was able to see
how measuring 3 notes could give an accurate representation of the whole piano.
I had an original SAT converted to FAC with more memory, yadda, yadda, yadda.
It was good to cut my teeth on but I wanted more. Since it was so easy to try
Tunelab because of it's shareware status I did and was hooked. I can measure as
many or as few as I choose and receive a great calculated tuning.
    Now, as to the difference between Veritune and TuneLab or RCT I'm really
not that convinced that there is enough of a difference to chuck ones present
ETD in favor of a Veritune box. For my money I can make the difference up (if
there is one) aurally and have a great deal more functionality in what I choose
to carry with me. If there were a great demonstrable difference in the quality
of tuning that would be one thing, but all I've heard so far is conjecture and
hype. It would be interesting to have each program do a measurement for the
same piano and compare the calculated tunings for each. That sure might be an
eye opener, no?

Greg

Joe And Penny Goss wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> For me The tuners, (SATlll And Verituner) do not give the same results with
> the same effort doing the same job.
> Again for me, The SATlll or ll does the job of a 50 to 100 Cent pitch raise
> much easier than the Verituner. One pass and usually it is close enough to
> use the Verituner to  nail a great tuning better with less effort than SAT.
> Joe Goss
> imatunr@srvinet.com
> www.mothergoosetools.com

--
Greg Newell
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net