NY Times Article

[A440A@aol.com]

Allen writes: 
>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. 

      I agree,  I spent 16 years under the microscope of zillion dollar 
microphones and studio monitors, tuning aurally.  When Al Sanderson finally 
produced a progammable tuner, I bought one and it made me a better tuner,  
instantly.   I suppose that if it helped me, it could help others.  
     We can't refine an aural tuning over and over again,  we must start from 
new every time, but, if we record our best aural tuning, we can continually 
modify it until is exactly like we want.  Plus, once recorded,  it is simple 
to hit that ideal of perfection from 15 cents away, in a  noisy room, with a 
bad head cold at the end of a long day, consistantly, in  90 minutes or so.
      There may be tuners that can do a better job without a machine than 
with one, but I don't see how.  
Regards, 
Ed Foote, RPT
(and there are some other things like being a multi-temperament technician )