<HTML>In a message dated 10/18/02 10:56:14 AM Central Daylight Time, pianotuna@accesscomm.ca writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Piano tuning comes down in the final analysis to a matter of "taste". Machines or programs have no taste other than what the "creator" puts in them, or that which the end user "tweaks" into them. </BLOCKQUOTE> While on the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand, because, as Les pointed out, we are fallible, even from day to day, if a piano tuner happens to have a bad "taste" one day, it is going to be reflected in the way the piano sounds. One thing that I want to strive for in my tunings is consistency, especially in the university setting, where pianos get used by many different people, and the same people use many different pianos. I want to make sure all my pianos are tuned consistently the same way, day in and day out. That is where an ETD is, in my opinion, much more effective. When it comes to my concert work, again, I want to be consistent. If I know where that piano is, and it's the same every time, then when, and if, a concert artist has a complaint about the tuning, I can use my machine to look at an individual note to see if it has slipped. If has, it is easy to make a change. If it hasn't, then I know I need to make a minor adjustment to the artist's wishes. I can then later retune that note back to where I want it. Aural tunings are good. And I have tuned some pianos that were tuned aurally as much as a year ago, that matched my machine perfectly. But in my opinion, machine tunings are better in the long run, for consistency and accuracy. I wouldn't give mine up for anything. Wim  </HTML>