-- non-subscriber, please reply to sender and MMD --

It is truly unfortunate that the standard in which pianos now will be
judged is whether or not it can supposedly tune itself?  I guess string
scaling, hammer quality, tone building, voicing, regulation, dynamic
range, bridge and sound board quality and tone will not be the
standards any more?  Whether the developers realize it or not, all of
the above mentioned (passe standards) have major effects on the outcome
of the tuning of any piano.  It is not technologically possible to have
each note struck, measured, raised or lowered to the proper measurement
in a temperament, then strike the strings and pull the unisons in tune
without any moving parts.  There would have to be some sort of listening
circuit to check which strings are out of tune, an adjustment made, and
a retest of the temperament string and it unisons to determine if all
notes are in tune or is there going to be an idiot light like on a car
that says "in tune" and we are supposed to believe it if it says so?

The developers further assume that there is one perfect tuning for
every piano and would have to account for the variance in stretching of
a temperament.  String players like intervals narrower and some styles
of music require more tension in the upper and lower ranges, and some
people hear certain sections of the piano sharper or want to hear it
flatter than it should be.  What is in tune to one person is not to
another.  The degree of stretch is determined by the technician, as
communicated to by the player as we are dealing with an art, aren't we,
called music?  If in fact these factors are not addressed the quality
of tuning will have the sterility of a cheap sound card in a computer
with no variables.

In a time when materials, labor, shipping and costs of producing pianos
goes up yearly it is rather naive to think that any musician that
values his instrument would spend extra money on a gimmick that would
lock him in to one companies conception of the correct tuning for his
piano.  It would make more sense to use better quality materials (i.e.,
the above now passe standards) as your better constructed pianos once
settled hold a tune much better than  lesser quality parts used in
pianos that won't hold a tuning but can supposedly tune themselves.

In an age where the cost of piano lessons is $25 to $40 x four is
$100 to $160 per month, spending that much yearly or more yearly on
tuning and maintenance is very reasonable.  The piano is one of the
most labor intensive products ever produced and its made of wood which
expands and contracts and goes in and out of tune.  It requires a
trained technician to address all of the workings of the different
systems that work together that comprise a piano and, if a person is in
a professional situation traveling in an ensemble, a good digital piano
is better than hauling a cheap sounding acoustic around even if it can
tune itself, and if the artist is a soloist he'll need a good acoustic
piano and a technician to tune, regulate, voice, and repair the other
physical moving parts that can fail or need service.

Lastly, when a company makes a claim to have something so revolutionary
it is going to change the piano as we know it and be the new standard
which pianos will be judged, etc., you need only to look at the other
products they produce and just see how well they do what they claim
they can do.  With 30 years in the piano industry as a piano technician,
I've come across dozens of your Pianomation Systems only in households
where nobody plays.  In no case have I ever come across anyone who had
one of your systems that could play?  I wonder why?

Ron Dasaro
prokey@msn.com.geentroep [delete '.geentroep' to reply]

 [ I wish my wife would heed the 'idiot light' in the car when it
 [ signals improper temperature or oil conditions.  The computer in
 [ the auto -- and, I believe, in the self-tuning piano -- knows when
 [ the machine is okay and when it isn't.  -- Robbie