<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi Stephen Boy was most of what you wrote in reply music to my ears. In particular the following quotes from your post.... <blockquote>"He misses the main point, though, with his judgmental use of the word "improve". " </blockquote> <blockquote>"I couldn't get away from an impression of  "engineer knows best" and "the stupid piano manufacturers should pay attention".  Many of the so-called engineering "facts" are arguable, or still open questions" </blockquote> <blockquote>"...which obviously overlooks the critically important contributions of action "impacts" to the overall sound of the piano, not to mention the potential for "after-escapement" behavior by the pianist to influence factors that can affect the sound-scape, or as part of the overall mechanical interaction between the pianist and the instrument (think golf or tennis). The pianist is a lot more than just a finger on the key. " </blockquote> The first quote is a point I have tried time and time again to make, the insistence by many on confusing the concepts of <<improvement>> or <<better>> or <<good>> with some engineering concept without real regard to how the end user (pianists) actually experience instruments.  A classic example of this is criticisms levied often at some manufactures scales.  No matter whether or not pianists actually display a real and obvious preference for one sort or another... if the scale does not fit some (particular)  mathematical model... it is no good and can not possible sound good.  The second quote echoes in more depth the first, and also raises the one true fact in many of these discussions... that the underlying science perspectives that many of these mathematical models rely on are by no means to be taken for granted in the first place. This is easily enough demonstrated by simple virtue of the fact that there is so much obvious disagreement among experts as to what these constitute in the first place. The third goes to the specific matter of piano touch itself and reminds me much of the more dispassionate and interesting musings and studies that come from Alexander Galembo and Anders Askenfelt on this subject.  p Refreshing humility is expressed in all three points.. Would that there was more willingness to meet each others views, thoughts, and perspectives with the same open mindedness and patience instead of the agenda oriented aggressiveness one so often meets.  I maintain the article in interesting tho.. from the perspective of being another contribution by an <<authority>> of sorts to the basic discussion of pianos and piano design. Its worth a read and worth the kinds of thought provoking replies (such as your own post) it brings out. Cheers and thanks for the reply. I enjoyed reading your comments. RicB Stephen Birkett wrote: <blockquote cite="mida0602040abd44930a0c13@%5B192.168.0.102%5D" type="cite">I've seen, and been troubled by, this article before. It's quite a mixed bag, with some good points, as well as quite a few howlers and a rather naive attitude to both piano design and the capabilities of modern engineering methods. The author gets the point that design stagnation needs addressing. The basic premise is sound up to a point: ............... refer to Stephens post for the rest Stephen </blockquote> </body> </html>