<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   "David C. Stanwood" wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Is there something that pianists like about inconsistency in static weight and the proportional dynamic force needed to push it?   Should we be building in static weight inconsistency?   Personally I don't see an advantage.  I have this compulsion that whenever I identify something in the action that has weight that the pianist is moving, I want to smooth it out....  It's a question of how much is overkill.  In engineering it's called specification and tolerance.  I think pianos need a little more engineering when it comes to weight and leverage characteristics.  Pianist notice and appreciate (and pay for) the difference. David Stanwood <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"></a> </blockquote> This actually is a very strong point that has yet to be even close to challenged by opponents of PTD. Claims are made that none of this amounts to a hill of beans once we leave the pianisimo level, a claim that is neither substantiated in any sense and is counter intuitive to the nth degree. And again... given the ease of balancing keys and hammerweight in this sense, compared to the corresponding process of weighoff.... I fail to see any reason not to adopt the equation based approach. As far as the overkill argument is concerned..... well we are just going to get into sarcasms I think with little chance of objective reasoning. Personally I see nothing about this that is overkill.... rather it is a logical extension to what has been attempted to be done all along in  employment a less efficient and every bit as cumbersom traditional weigh off proceedure. When somebody can put forward physics/mathematical proofs or reasonings that show conclusively (or even close to conclusively) that static balancing is a meaningless componet for any wholistic concept of dynamic balance, then perhaps we on this side of the fence will take notice. Until then.... :) btw... if anything... Stephens simple illustration of dynamic principles underlines the advantage of static balancing for both his soft and hard play zones, in as much as such regard to amounts and placement of lead will result in consistancy with regard to both breakpoint location, and acceleration slope characteristics from key to key. So if anyone is looking to Stephens work for a justification to throw out Stanwoods... they should look elsewhere me thinks. Cheers RicB -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>