Dear Grandpa Mario, first of all, welcome to our forum.
The CA 97 is certainly a better digital piano than the CA 65, but I don't think it will solve the problem.
Being used to playing on acoustic grand pianos, these provide us with infinite possibilities and infinite nuances. In digital, a change of domain occurs (from "continuous" in acoustic to "discrete" in digital) and this limits us greatly. The MIDI protocol offers 127 levels of dynamics, but the samples are much fewer. Nowadays all digital pianos, or at least most of them, possess samples of acoustic pianos.
Sampling 127 levels of dynamics would be impossible with current technologies, or at least very resource-intensive in terms of design, the creation of the library, and the machine required to run it, and it would be intended only for the use of a few. Let's remember that we are in a consumer market: manufacturing companies must aim for sales and create a project that, even if they could afford it by selling to very few people, essentially wouldn't sell for one reason. The price would be extremely high because, as already mentioned, the design would have to be very demanding, as would the work during the production phase, and even the hardware on which it should run would have to be extremely high-performance and therefore also expensive. Releasing a digital piano that exploits all the dynamic changes of the 127 velocity levels could easily reach a cost of 15,000/20,000 euros. Someone with 20,000 euros to spend on a digital piano could spend it on soundproofing a room in their house to accommodate an acoustic piano.
We thus find ourselves in a very delicate situation where projects are designed specifically for the consumer market, which must inevitably make qualitative compromises. In fact, normally between 7 and 21 dynamic layers are recorded on modern pianos, which are then spread across the 127 MIDI dynamic levels. However, we know that the sound of the pianissimo differs from that of the fortissimo not just because of volume, but above all because of timbre!
In acoustic instruments, we find ourselves in a "non-linear" realm starting right from the hammer. The hammer behaves differently depending on the force with which it strikes the string. Not by chance, it is made of harder zones and softer zones. The hard zones do not participate in the action when the string is struck in pianissimo; conversely, they intervene in fortissimo. Therefore, the difference in sound, aside from volume, is enhanced primarily by the difference in harmonic production and thus by the variation in timbre.
Naturally, small differences in dynamics between two sounds do not give us the idea of a radically changed timbre, but as energy increases, the differentiation begins to become increasingly important and also exists in the natural evolution between two close dynamics. By spreading 7 sampled dynamic levels over the 127 MIDI levels, these differences are exaggerated, with the result that in pianissimo we would hear a timbre that is not properly that of the pianissimo, even if it has the volume of the pianissimo; this will give us the impression, despite the low volume, of not being in the pianissimo, frustrating our interpretative efforts.
In essence, at the current state, there are no truly successful paths, and even if there were, we would always be limited by the 127 velocity levels, which are certainly not few but would still be nothing compared to the infinite interpretative, dynamic, harmonic (in terms of overtones), sound pressure, etc... possibilities offered by an acoustic piano: this is why I also maintained the irreplaceability of the acoustic piano in other posts.
I hope I have answered your question, even if I had to give you bad news.
