RCT vs SAT (warning, long)

[Kent Swafford]

Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote:

>Hi Kent:
>
>I have deliberately avoided getting into a public battle of RCT vs SAT.
>When you say that the computer gives RCT a definite performance advantage,
>I have to disagree with your opinion. 

The performance advantages of RCT include the accuracy of A4 when tuned 
from a calculated tuning, auto-note-switching, the ability to tweak 
calculated tunings in individual octaves, the ability to name, save, and 
retrieve tuning records with on-screen directories, automatically varying 
over-pull during pitch corrections, on-screen control of pitch level... 
The list is long and well-documented.

While the SAT III promises some neat features, RCT is available now, 
while the SAT III has only been announced, and is not yet available, as 
far as I know. 

I have found RCT to be reliable. I have a backup Powerbook just as I once 
had a back-up SAT. I have never really needed the back-up Powerbook yet 
just as I never really needed the back-up SAT. I still carry an SAT every 
day, but in the past year have used it only for chipping.

BTW, to save time one can boot up the Powerbook and RCT every morning and 
put the Powerbook to sleep when in transit. A Powerbook that is regularly 
crashing has a problem that can and should be fixed.

>Where does it
>end? I just want to tune pianos, basically. I don't really need a computer
>to tune pianos. 

Well, right, one doesn't _need_ RCT or TuneLab or an SAT to tune pianos. 
I still carry a tuning fork, I guess in case of thermo-nuclear-induced 
electromagnetic pulse that would fry all electronic devices. :)

However, as long as the electronic devices are still working it is great 
to have so many good choices in electronic tuning devices. Different 
strokes for different folks, and all that.

Kent Swafford