Jim: Have you tried TuneLab97 yet? I'd be curious about your experience. dave 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 RCT which I have is a 2300c. > Although I have been more fortunate than others, I have not had to send > mine back to Apple for service. However, the number of times it has let > me down on the job in 1 1/2 years is many more times than the SAT or the > SOT has let me down in some 15 years. I do not call that performance > advantage. Fortunately I can still tune aurally. Just yesterday after > taking the trouble to sample 5 A's on the piano, the moment I clicked on > the Chameleon to calculate the tuning from those samples, the machine died > on me. I finally ended up selecting a similar piano in memory to tune by. > I would prefer to have used a custom tuning for that particular piano. I > have never lost a calculated tuning with the SAT. > > It only takes 1 minute to calculate a custom tuning with the SAT. With RCT > it takes 1 minute 46 seconds to calculate a standard OTS tuning with > default selections already made and the computer already on and warmed > up. I started with the selection of the Chameleon and ended with the > appearance of the spreadsheet of the complete tuning. Would you call that > performance advantage? If you added the extra time for a cold boot up, > starting the program, etc., it could easily go over 4 minutes. Performance? > If you add in the number of times you have to remeasure because of noise > factors, null points etc. it could be much worse. > > It takes me longer to tune with accuracy with the RCT than it does with the > SAT. The SAT has only one display mode and it relates to beats. Two beats > per each rotation of the LEDs. I waste more time with the RCT in trying to > decide when the Spinner pattern is stopped and whether it is sharp or flat. > Part of this can be blamed upon the transient nature of piano tones. This > is obvious when you can't get the full blush to stay on for more than a > brief moment without a lot of fussing around. At the number 2 Spinner speed, > in the Cents measuring mode the full blush indicates .1 cent accuracy. The > Spinner is too jumpy to suit me at that default speed. I prefer the Hertz > mode or measurement because it relates more to what we hear and the > spinner is less jumpy. At the default speed of 2 in Hz mode, the full blush > is indicative of .4 cent accuracy. At least at this speed, you can tune > faster with confidence because it is a little easier to make your judgments > as to sharp and flat. But it is still easier for me to make those judgments > with the SAT, especially when utilizing the 4 LED stopping method combined > with making the pitch judgments consistently in regard to the time portion > of the decision. A technique of hitting the key hard and immediately playing > softly enables better accuracy on both machines because the curve of the > frequency change is smoother with a soft key blow. When one can tune with > the SAT to hold 4 LEDs on for just two or three seconds, the accuracy I > perceive is better than trying to hold a full blush on the RCT with a > similar spinner speed. Sure, it's possible to hold a longer full blush with > a much slower spinner speed, but then where is the accuracy that is boasted? > > Being a compulsive educator, I made a number of suggestions for better use > of the RCT. The latest is to select the 140 degree spinner shape so that > you will more easily see the half blush and the full blush. Even though > they will light up only momentarily, you will still be tuning in a tight > consistent tolerance. The same goes for the SAT. If you tune so that you > get a 4 LED pattern, you can see which way it is leaning on the fence > between two major LED positions, and when you stop the the LEDs from fading > from one position to the next, you have extreme accuracy. This is spelled > out in an article for publication soon. > > The RCT has some neat features also. It has automatic note switching. > The SAT III also has it. The RCT has the ability to change an equal tempered > tuning into an historical tuning. The SAT III also has that (up to 14 > different kinds). The RCT has temperament sequencing so that you can tune > in the order of your favorite Temperament. The SAT has a collection of up > to 4 different temperament orders which can be utilized. Both machines > have an infinite number of ways to stretch a tuning scale according to one's > preference. The SAT III is smaller, easier to handle. The SAT battery is > a very definite advantage, I do not even have to carry a bulky charger. When > after a week or two when I get the first indication that the battery is > getting low, I can still tune another piano or two. The SAT III has a > battery power indicator which shows ahead of time when you're getting lower. > The RCT also does, but you don't have much time left until you must go get > the charger (don't leave home without it) > > There are definite advantages to having a computer with you on the job. > There > are small organizers which are cheap and take care of most of those things > for which you may need a computer on the job. The thing that still > bothers me is that I have tied up over $4000 in my RCT and I still don't > have everything I would like to have on it for other purposes. The Operating > system has been upgraded 4 times since I bought mine. I'm still 2 systems > behind the latest version 8.1. I could use a modem, I could use a CD drive > (I have to borrow one now to load any of the newer software. Where does it > end? I just want to tune pianos, basically. I don't really need a computer > to tune pianos. Besides, I have a good IBM type at home. > I did buy a DOS emulator program so that I can run my business software on > the MAC. It doesn't run windows '95. Where does one stop with all this > stuff. I just want to tune pianos easier and better. I know, I said that > before. > > Just my opinion. > > Jim Coleman, Sr. (with flame suit handy) > > On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kent Swafford wrote: > > > Frank Cahill wrote: > > > > >Hi, kent. My only problem with the RCT is the battery life. Is this the > > >unit bases on a MAC type pc? If so, I does not last long on batteries. > > >My Accutuner goes for a few weeks on a single charge. > > > > > >I'm curious, what do you like about the other tuner? I fine tuner here > > >uses one and she loves it! I've never used one but hear good things > > >about it. > > > > > >I'd appreciate the info. > > >Thanks > > >-- > > > > > >Frank Cahill > > >Associate Member > > >Northern Va > > > > Battery life when using RCT does not compare to the battery life of the > > SAT. However, the raw power of a modern computer (BTW, SAT's still run at > > only 2 MHz) allow RCT a significant performance advantage over the SAT. > > IMHO, RCT's superior performance easily makes up for any power management > > considerations. > > > > Kent Swafford > > -- _______________________________________________ David M. Porritt, RPT Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas _______________________________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC