ETD's accurate?

[A440A@aol.com]

Terry writes: 
>My understanding is that the AccuTuner will come very close to an optimal
>tuning on a large well-scaled piano straight from the FAC calculation.
>Large well scaled instruments have relatively little compromise in developing
>their stringing scales, and the FAC calculation comes very close to matching
>those scales. 

     On a good scale, the FAC will surpass the VAST majority of the aural 
tuners I have seen, and the differences that one may find between machine and 
expert aural will be totally unnoticed by musicians.  This has been borne out 
by years of performance work.  
    So far, I have not been able to find a musician that had anything but 
praise for the tuning that comes from the straight FAC on a Steinway D. This 
includes Yo Yo Ma, Alecia de Laroccha, and as of last week, when I decided to 
give the FAC a clear shot for the rehearsal,  Dawn Upshaw actually commented 
on how beautifully tuned the piano was!) 
   I have compared my best aural ET tuning, (saved into the machine and refine
d through repeated use) with the FAC and the differences on the D are moot,  
the musicians I tune for agree.  This may be due to the fact that the machine 
was invented by a man who was trained to tune by the same teacher I had.    
The machine is more consistant and convenient when stage hands are around, or 
the piano is 4 cents away from pitch, etc.  Being able to control stretch 
with a touch of a button,(and return to it exactly, later on), is also a 
great benefit.  
I am in agreement with Jon Page, who wrote: 
> Creativity comes with knowing which temperament to offer the customer for 

>their playing repertoire.  
   Machines make a wide variety of temperaments available to the working 
techs.  Though the documentation of the earlier tunings has been available 
for decades, it seems that techs weren't able to justify the time required to 
learn a full range of temperaments.  However, now, using the machines,  the 
musical world is beginning to see the folly of relying on one tuning for 
everything.  This is in line with technology's history of making changes in 
intonation possible.  We should also remember that John Henry tried to fight 
technology with muscle and it killed him.   

 
and 
Newton writes: 
 >At what point does accuracy become playing with yourself?
    Good point.  Other than unisons, which usually need to be within .5 cent 
spread, with a piano that will change by 1 or two cents over the course of a 
day's change in temperature, trying to hold starting pitch to .5 cent and 
octaves to 1 cent tolerance is academic.  
    After 27 years of tuning( the first 18 of them strictly aural), in highly 
scrutinized venues, these 1 cent differences have proven to be of no 
consequence.  (and with state of the art microphones right on top of the 
piano strings, being listened to by producers that are spending $2,000 per 
hour on a recording session,  you can bet that any problems result in a very 
quick, less than pleasant call!!)   
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT