Two 
signs in these bars are the first dynamic indications from the beginning of the Etude – the leggiero indication given at the beginning, although it evokes some associations of dynamic character, leaves a broad margin for arbitrary decisions, as far as the absolute dynamics level is concerned. The middle section of the piece (bars 17-48) includes, however, numerous 
signs and other indications, yet the complete image of dynamics is unclear due to the differences between the sources. The dynamic course, which emerges from particular sources, seems to be totally different in some places:
-
In GC (→GE) the dynamic hairpins appear only in bar 21 and in the entire section they are present only as pairs of symmetric signs. The indications do not precise the absolute level of dynamics, which is determined in a more detailed way only by two
signs in bars 23 and 43 and dim. in bars 45-47. Therefore, the entire fragment is generally maintained in the dynamics. -
In FE the aforementioned two signs in bars 17 and 19 lead to
in bar 21, after which further hairpins appear – same as in GC – only in pairs ( ). The indication is repeated also in bar 29 and the general dynamics level is compatible with GC only from in bar 43. Hence, the prevailing dynamics here is , generally valid from bars 21 to 42. -
EE includes another set of indications; in the first 4 bars it is compatible with FE (two ), yet in the next five with GC – lack of in bar 21, presence of in bar 23. In bar 26 dim. appears, yet in bar 29 emerges, which with respect to the lack of in bar 43, is valid until the beginning of the next dim. in bar 45, particularly that after in bars 37 and 39 there are no respective signs in bars 38 and 40. Therefore, in this version the basic dynamics in bars 17-28 is , while in bars 29-44 – .
The above descriptions do not include certain crucial factors on purpose – generally, the range of validity of dynamic indications (and not only) is not strictly defined; the indications do not have to be complete (composers could have considered certain changes to be obvious or just the opposite, to be optional or even non-significant), while the very dynamics level may result from the fact of including other elements of the work – articulation, accents, harmony, register, etc. Therefore, the accents in bar 36, with which Chopin provided the return of the main theme in the new key and low register, clearly suggest reinforcement of sound, even without a written . This makes us think that the indications of particular sources may be mutually complementary, so that in each of the messages Chopin draws the attention of the performer to another aspect of one, cohesive dynamic concept. This hypothesis is even more likely when we consider that the majority of indications was added in the final phase of writing the Etude, at the time of completing and correcting three, almost finished Stichvorlage manuscripts, and then in the proofreading of FE. The analysis of these corrections (visible in GC, default in the remaining two, lost manuscripts) reveals Chopin's image, who, having these three manuscripts in front of him, corrects local inaccuracies (e.g. in bar 43) and introduces additions, writing his – clarifying in that moment – vision of the performance of the Etude.
Taking into account the above, in the main text we combine the complementary indications from various sources, giving in brackets these, whose inclusion can be considered as optional in the light of the sources (see bars 21, 26-27, 29 and 37-40).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: No initial dynamic marking, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
