accutuners

[Thomas D. Seay, III]

Newton Hunt writes:

>    On a decent piano (note that I did not say instrument) I
>    would defy any tuner to distinguish between a good SAT
>    tuning and an aural tuning while the piano is being played.

Most piano technicians, as Newton correctly observes, would not be able to
distinguish between an SAT tuning or an aural tuning, all other things
being equal. I know I couldn't if I tried.  However, if you do a SAT tuning
for a client who has a notion that all electronic tuning instruments are
inferior , that client (i.e., the person who is paying your fee for tuning
the piano), is most likely  not going to be happy with his "perception" of
your tuning, regardless of whether you or I or Franz Mohr, or anyone else,
approves of it. This is, of course, not the fault of the SAT or the
technician who uses it.  But it is reality and it is for this very reason
that  I believe technicians should be able to tune the same either with or
without the SAT (and in all fairness, most technicians can and do). I also
believe that aural technicians should make every attempt to learn how to
use the SAT and benefit from it, even if they don't "approve" of it .

 My greatest fear is that some ham-fisted  neophyte "tuner" with more money
than "cents" goes out and buys an SAT and descends upon the unsuspecting
public, tuning merrily away  with little or no skill,  leaving dead or
dying pianos in his wake and trashing the reputation of anyone who uses an
SAT. This, again, is not the fault of the SAT or the technician who uses
it.

I, too, am really enjoying this forum. Our thanks to Jack Reeves for
setting it all up for us.





Kindest regards,

Thomas D. Seay,  RPT
The University of Texas at Austin