<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; cha=
rset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/9/04 10:54:20 AM Central Daylight Time, fssturm@un=
m.edu writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue =
2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>I can't really say from my own knowledge and e=
xperience that the butterfly <BR>performs better than the Schwander or other=
designs (the Baldwin, the <BR>Pratt-Read, etc). But I have heard it stated =
that the regulation of the <BR>butterfly (when it is regulated properly) is =
more stable over time, and <BR>that it produces quicker and more reliable re=
petition. We're talking <BR>highest level performance here - concert stage v=
irtuoso stuff, really <BR>splitting hairs.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>I can understand that it might be more stable, but, as you said, only w=
hen it is regulated properly. But because it is so difficult to get a precis=
e regulation on a butterfly, as opposed to the screw adjusted reps, it would=
seem to me that having a rep that can be adjusted much closer, and easier, =
would be preferred. But maybe only by technicians, and not pianist=
s. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wim </DIV></BODY></HTML>