- Edited
I don't know if this is pertinent to the discussion. I have the CA97 with the Grand Feel III. I chose it because I was trying to bring my physical playing into line, and felt the physical sensations and responses (the keys responding to me, my hand responding to the action of the keys) were crucial for that. If that action was similar to an actual acoustic, then I'd be able to transition with more ease.
I did not think of another factor at the time. When we play and the action does its ideal thing, we also respond to the sound we end up producing. Supposing you have a wonderfully engineered action, but you end up with a weak sound or small dynamic range. Then you are going to start putting in a lot of physical effort for example to create fff if that hypothetical piano can only give you mp. (an exaggeration) This also affects what you do physically.
My values at the time were "I don't care for the impressive sound that a piano makes, because I'm the pianist, and it's up to me to shape the sound." Thus action was paramount. But I did not think of what I just cited.
Some time after getting my Kawai, I found a discussion on it, where some kind of limitation had been written into the software for fff. A bit afterward I played a piece which went to fff, and it simply "flatlined" at a given point. On Audacity, it's like somebody took a ruler and exacto-knife, and simply sliced the top. No settings could change that. In the discussion one IT expert had managed to write some kind of program to circumvent it. I can see myself putting in excessive physical effort for fff which will have no results, because the audio-feedback will give messages to my hands about what they are doing and achieving.
In short, physical responsiveness, optimized physical mechanics also have a counterpart in audial output, and this also affects what we do physically. That's the conclusion I've come to in the year that just passed.