<html> Bill, As a 23 year aural tuner myself, I can tell you that RCT creates excellent tunings.  When tweaked using a part of the software called "Custom Equalizer" the software will allow you to consistently tune in your aural style, with octave types set the way you like to do it by ear.  I am hard pressed to tell the difference between my best aural tuning and my best RCT tuning on a well scaled piano. The worse the scale is, the more difference there will be between your tuning and RCTs.  That's why it's important to keep listening, no matter what ETD you use.  It makes sense that Verituner will adapt to poor scales better than RCT, but it does not allow the same degree of easy customizing of the octave stretch that, to me, is more important.  Those out tuning all kinds of pianos in the real world would likely disagree with me - but it is the finer pianos on which I judge the quality of a tunings - I wouldn't criticize anyone's tuning on a spinet. An important point: Pocket RCT is still in version 1, which does not include the custom equalizer.  It has been promised for version 2, which should be out before too long and will be a free update.  I consider this tool essential for the finest, last level of tuning quality.  Although the default tuning provided by pocket RCT is excellent, the inability to tweak the octave stretch causes me to only use the iPAQ for quick tunings and pitch raises.  For concert work I tune by ear with my laptop RCT running for reference. Battery use on the iPAQ can be a problem, but a little care in setting the display backlight allows it to run all day on a single charge, especially with the iPAQ 3800 models.  It's a good idea to carry a car adapter to allow between-tuning re-charges as well. Don Mannino RPT At 10:50 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I've read everyone's reviews of the Verituner, and don't doubt that it has brought the calculation of a tuning up a notch from RCT, TuneLab and SAT by 1.) working from the basis of an 88-note sample rather than a 5-note sample (Obviously more accurate if the VT has its samples on hand before the tuning instead of as they come in during the tuning pattern), and by 2.) paying attention to *all* coincidental partials in an interval instead of just one. But having taken my RCT laptop out for showtime this summer, it's clear that the only practical ETD is one the size of a Compaq iPaq in the Spurlock clip holder. So the big question for me as I count my pennies towards a major jump towards an ETD is: is the slight drop in the precision of the tuning calculation greater than the ease of use of an iPaq unit which fits in a shirt pocket, and can be moved from Tuning pin to tuning pin? (This also allows the built in mic to do its best work.) Richard Brekne seemed to conclude that the differences in the calculated tuning were mainly in principle and of not that much practical value. IOW, if I choose an iPaq based ETD, is what I gain in compactness more than what I would lose in the sophistication in the tuning's calculation. (Speaking as a 30+year aura tuner.) Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G. ".......true more in general than specifically"     ...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew roots of Calypso music +++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ pianotech list info: <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives" eudora="autourl">https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</a></blockquote></html>