Tuneoff/takeoff

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Rick writes: 
<<We know that
a machine so far, is not demostrably better than a good aural tuner.

      I can't agree with this,  It has been demonstrated that a machine is 
not demonstrably better than a "great" aural tuner(Virgil/Coleman comparisons 
of 1999?).  I don't know if a "good" one is going to be competitive.  What we 
KNOW is that the quality of the tuning done by the machine is determined by 
the quality of the piano. As Al Sanderson once said, "If you have a perfect 
piano, the machine will give you a perfect tuning".  
     Audiences are poor judges of tuning beyond unisons.  It would be more 
instructive to have a group of pianists play the same pieces on both tunings 
and select the one that felt most "in tune" for them, (but don't try this 
with ET and a Coleman 11, the latter wins every time!)

>If that were the case, good tuners would have switched to machines
because good tuners would never pass up an opportunity to improve.>>

  Umm, yes, That is the case,  and that is why many of us formerly aural-only 
tuners wonder why more of the aural-only tuners don't avail themselves of the 
new technology.  

"Amazing tech,  how sweet the light 
The buttons and dials so cool, 
My ears were once the only right
But now machines help rule.

In loudest halls, where roadies shrug
In homes where vacuums roar, 
I pull my plugs, and fit them snug
With the SAT, I want no more.  

The stretch, the curve are there to see
The breaks approach like shoals, 
All I could need, is my  DOB
To reach sweet harmonies' goals. 

In olden days, the beatings' haze 
would leave me tired and mean, 
But now I'm not so out of phase,
I was fine, but now I machine".  

Good luck, Ric.  
Ed Foote RPT