NY Times Article

[Allen Wright]

Interesting article, yes. I disagreed with one thing the author (probably
not a piano tuner) said, though, namely that tuning a piano with cybertuner
is no faster than without. A tuner with well-developed aural skills using
cybertuner can certainly tune faster with it than by ear alone, if he/she is
using it to it's full capability. All kinds of "logistical" moves in tuning
are made much less complicated and quicker - one small example among many
being (for example) checking unisons. Whereas normally one might have to
mute each string of the unison separately by using an intervallic check to
determine which string is the offending one in a sloppy unison (determine
where each string fits in the overall tuning), with a VTD one can much more
quickly find out which string/s aren't where they're "supposed" to be in the
overall tuning and go right to that string to make the change.

This is assuming, of course, that the tuning curve for that piano has been
well established beforehand by the machine, or by creating the best tuning
aurally and memorizing it in the machine. So that the standard you're
comparing the piano to is a good one.

I also disagreed with the comment by Anita Sullivan that implies that
electronic devices are mainly or perhaps only useful as a time saver for
doing large pitch raises. To me this is a kind of damning with faint praise
that I think is unfortunate and misleading.

I'd be surprised if most good aural tuners who gave a VTD an honest try
didn't come to the conclusion that using both aural skills and a good
machine is a superior approach to tuning, at least in terms of speed and
consistency. Not that one can't do a great job aurally (I tuned ears-only
for 17 years), just that one can do a great job more quickly and in some
ways more interestingly (because of all the new feedback) with a VTD. 

sincerely,

Allen Wright
Oberlin Conservatory