Proof "reading" Accu-tunings

[MR ALLAN H DAY]

-- [ From: ALLAN DAY * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

To all,
Debating the merits of aural tunings vs. Accu-tunings is probably
healthy. But like any controversial issue there will always be strong
opinions on both sides. A few of my aural tuning Colleagues in VT are
happy converts to the Accu-tuner. I can see their points I almost took
the plunge myself.
  There are 2 points however that kept me away from using one:
1. Tailoring the tuning to the artist. I see all the verbage about
FAC's and calculating the stretch factor to accommodate the
inharmonisity of the piano. However, where that might be arguably good
for the piano what if the artist doesn't like it?
   After one has developed a rapport with an artist you can please
him/her by executing their favorite tuning according to their
individual taste. Its like being a chef rather than a recipe follower.
  How does the accu-tuner deal with this need to over-ride the
arbitrary nature of its program?
2. A recent graduate of the N. Bennett St. School brought his machine
over to show me. He said that the instructors at the school advise that
one should always check or proof the accu-tunings aurally to make sure
it sounds correct. If you know what's correct to begin with, why use
the machine? He couldn't give me a satisfactory answer. Or at least one
that justifies the cost of the machine.

	I would be interested to read what others have to say about these
points.

	I can see the practical application in a university setting or other
multiple piano circumstances. I fight fatigue at the end of a 5 tuning
day. I assume the machine cuts down the fatigue factor. And then there
are the wild pianos that just can't seem to be tamed aurally. A
colleague says its for those pianos and easy pitch raising that he
bought the Accu-tuner.
Allan