Proof "reading" Accu-tunings

[Keith A McGavern]

While these are exceptional situations given despite all that has been
said, here's some answers to your questions:

Parts of Allan Day's post:
>...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?

Once you establishing their favorite tuning, you read, enter, and save it
for all time, for each artist, for each piano.

>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.

After enough aural checks against what the SAT is capable of doing, a
professional learns how the SAT can be relied on it for the majority of
circumstances involving piano tuning.  Obviously, exceptional situations
call for exceptional measures.

If you are holding off because of these two points only, then you have
apparently allowed yourself to believe that because this unit doesn't serve
you at the table as well as cook and prepare your meal, it doesn't have any
value.  Suffer it to be so now.  One thing is fairly evident, it is not the
current owners of Sanderson Accu-Tuners who are missing out.  It's only the
persons who haven't crossed the line that seem to have reservations.

Sincerely,

Keith A. McGavern, RPT
kam544@ionet.net
Oklahoma Chapter 731
Oklahoma Baptist University
Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
=A9 1996 by Keith A. McGavern
(No part of this post may be reproduced for use outside
pianotech@byu.edu without permission from the author)