The Piano Technicians Guild (PTG) has an "aural tuning requirement"
in order to become a Registered Piano Technician (RPT).  Yet in January
1997, at the PTG's "Great Chicago Tune-off", Jim Coleman tuned his
piano using electronic tuning devices while Virgil Smith tuned his
by ear.  These were the best piano tuners using both methods they
could find.  55% of the 500 piano technicians, piano players and
musicologists voted for the electronic piano tuning as the best.

I'm not surprised.  A metal tuning fork is not the best pitch reference
-- it expands and contracts due to temperature changes and the pitch is
also affected when it gets dented or chipped.  One can set an electronic
tuning device to listen to the same partials that an aural tuner listens
for and the electronic device will be accurate to within 1/10 of a cent
(better than virtually all aural tuners).  A 1970 Sight-O-Tuner (using
the concert tuning method) is a lot more accurate than the vast
majority of aural tuners.

There are electronic tuning devices today that are way better than that
Sight-O-Tuner.  Way too many piano technicians think "all the glory" is
in turning tuning pins but there is so much more to a piano.  That's
why piano technicians are called "piano tuners" because the majority of
the time most are tuning pianos.  Tuning is "clean work" and you are in
and out of the house quick and easy with a hundred bucks.  You don't
need many tools, supplies or even a workshop.

I'll give you this: electronic piano tuners generally tune that way
because it's easier, and it _is_ embarrassing how little some care
about the quality of their tunings.  My belief is whatever method one
uses, it depends most on the person doing the tuning.

Bill Maguire