Hi Romy and JJTriode:

I wish I could take credit for all of the very pertinent commentary by Rosalyn Tureck, extracted below but I will not. I do agree with the sentiment though and the reasoning behind her expressed opinion, although it is clearly a matter for never-ending controversy.

Rakesh

Bach—Piano, Harpsichord or Clavichord?

By: Rosalyn Tureck

From the Rosalyn Tureck Collection,
Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University

Some people maintain that Bach must be played on instruments of his time, others say he must be played on modern instruments. First, I should like to state that I do not hate the harpsichord and clavichord! I have played both since my early teens and have always loved them. I believe that the subject is not one for endless controversy, but one where greater knowledge and understanding are needed.

The greatest fuss has been made over the harpsichord versus the piano. Why hasn't an equal amount of fussing occurred over the use of the clavichord also all instrument of Bach's time? I think that in all the worry about the harpsichord, the fact that Bach was a German has been somewhat lost sight of. Germany was slower than the rest of Western Europe in becoming a modern and cosmopolitan country. It brooded under a religious mantle for a longer time than France or England, with the result that most of its music making, creative or recreative, was for, or in, the church and home. The instrument for the church was obviously the organ. The instrument for the home was, in Germany, the clavichord. The great court concerts and entertainments were rare compared with the activities of the French court. In the French court the harpsichord reigned. English, French and Italian tastes were strongly for the harpsichord. The Germans loved the organ and the intimate singing tone of the clavichord. It was much more to the taste of the Germans' mystical religious and home life than the sharper-toned harpsichord.

Who, in fact, was the great harpsichord composer of the time? — it was Couperin. He was to the harpsichord what Chopin was to the piano. He developed its possibilities to the utmost : the very structure, figure and ornament of his works are so intrinsically developed from harpsichord technique and its possibilities of sonority that I would be the first to say "this is harpsichord music, and is best on the harpsichord". I would never play Couperin on the piano. Yet he himself complains, in his own excellent treatise "L'art de toucher le Clavecin", that the harpsichord is an inexpressive instrument and that to give it a more yielding character he has conceived certain playing devices to give the illusion of expressiveness. One of the most important is "l'aspiration"—a rhythmic change where one plays the note late and which, by loosening the steady beat from its moorings, creates a sense of greater fluidity. It is common knowledge that the harpsichord, with its plucked tone, was regarded by musicians of that time as lacking in expressiveness. In this respect it had a place far below the clavichord, one of the most expressive and sensitive of Western instruments. The main advantage of the harpsichord was in its brilliance due to the plucked tone, and in its later days in expanded register and the possibilities of changes of quality through registration. These changes. however, were mechanical, dependent on pulling a knob or pushing a pedal, as on the organ. The harpsichord was, therefore, the very antithesis of the clavichord where all tone and colour were achieved directly through the fingers, and the entire sense of connection with this instrument was extremely personal.

People growing up within the last twenty or thirty years have been exposed mainly to the harpsichord school, and cannot help but make the artificial division between the impersonal and the personal. stressing the impersonal because the harpsichord as such enforces this impression and must, because of its very nature. If these same people had equal experience in listening to a clavichord, they could complete a very important side of their understanding of Bach. Unfortunately, I find that the greater majority of those who are -interested in early instruments and music have had little contact with the clavichord, and many students and members of listening audiences who have often heard a harpsichord have never heard a clavichord. Yet the clavichord was equally, and in Germany more generally, employed in Bach's day along with the harpsichord. Add to this the facts that Couperin was the harpsichord composer of his day, that French and Italian interests brought the harpsichord to its high point of fashion, and one begins to wonder why this instrument is so singled out in our time for Bach playing. If the harpsichord were revived for the playing of Couperin and the French composers of his time, this would be understandable, for their music without the harpsichord remains in a twilight sleep except for a few interested composers and students. Bach, however, has lived and will live no matter what instruments are around.

I believe that the main reasons for singling out the harpsichord are practical ones. It has a wide register and can be heard, to some extent, in a small concert hall; whereas the clavichord cannot be heard at all outside of a normal sized room and is therefore absolutely useless in our modern concert life. And yet, when a harpsichord is played in a large hall, who can say he really hears it? Most of its subtleties are lost in any concert room seating over 250 or so; and in a large hall, or with even a small chamber orchestra, one can hardly hear it at all. Indeed, many listeners associate the harpsichord with a regular or irregular twang which they like or dislike as the case may be. The music of Bach is too rich and too fascinating for one to be content with only a rustle from a major part; and I cannot believe that the practice of playing harpsichords in concert halls is fair either to Bach or to harpsichords.

With regard to authenticity, the either-or thinking appears again. The harpsichord is right because it was used in Bach's time; the piano is wrong because it was not. Is art really as simple as that? It is, of course, so safe to play Bach on a harpsichord: there is simply no question about one's intentions, and there is often no question about how one is playing Bach, as long as one plays it on a harpsichord.

I doubt that Bach would have been so pleased about this emphasis on the harpsichord as Couperin would have been. As for historically correct sound, how can one entertain the thought of authenticity when a harpsichord plays with an orchestra of string players who, whether they use some version of a curved bow or not, are playing the violin with a technique, tone, style and bowings derived from the study of Paganini, Bruch and Tchaikowsky, and with an orchestral style mostly formed by modern orchestras and harmonic music? — to say nothing of ornamentation which, for the most part, is excruciatingly wrong. Aside from the fact that the harpsichord can hardly be heard, the combination of modern violin playing and harpsichord is utterly anachronistic.

It is too easy to he lulled into a false security on seeing (or even in performing on) a harpsichord. Harpsichordists do not always play the harpsichord in its own terms: they often make a simple transfer of piano playing to it. Harpsichordists as well as other instrumentalists bring with them musical attitudes, concepts, unconscious psychological values which are the result of 19th century music and ideas. By this I have in mind larger matters than crescendo and diminuendo. I mean, as one instance, that the concept of sonata, progress, dynamic growth is brought to the harpsichord, where it does not belong in Bach, just as easily as to any other instrument. Another instance: one can double on the harpsichord in typical octave piano style, and few people will be the wiser. Doublings were indeed employed on the harpsichord in Bach's time: but the style of doubling was very different from that of the octave doublings of Liszt and Busoni in their transcriptions of Bach. On the other hand, there is the harpsichordist who is too sparse because of superficial knowledge of ornamentation and figured bass, and little or no identification with the quality of style implicit in Bach's form and structures.

The use of the harpsichord is, therefore, by no means enough; and it has proved in many instances, instead of realising the composer's intentions, to bring about distortion. Sonority is sound—sound is not music. Music is highly organised material; the style of organisation communicates meaning, musical and extra-musical meanings. The medium for reproducing music is sound. Therefore sound of course plays an inevitable part; but does Bach's music depend so much on specific sonorities that all else is lost if these specific sonorities are not duplicated? This must be answered.

We must recognise it, whether we like it or not, that concern with precise sonority is a 19th century heritage. Thus the orchestra developed its varied choirs of strings, brass, wind, percussion to the extent we know today. Composers such as Berlioz and Debussy became obsessed with the colour possibilities. Chopin could not write successfully for any other instrument than the piano, Paganini for the violin. From composers who wrote mainly or best for a particular instrument or combination, it was a natural step to associate certain types of music with specific instruments. Bach never suffered from these limitations. Have we not enough examples of the range of Bach's abilities in all fields of music, solo, instrumental, choral, orchestral, and all sorts of combinations? And have we not enough examples of his numerous transcriptions from one combination to another, from one instrument to another? By insisting on specific sonorities in Bach, the 20th century imposes the limitations of the 19th century on this vast, unlimited genius. Must Bach be throttled and confined to an imitation of a single sonority when Bach himself moved so freely from instrument to instrument? This concern with sound duplication is an imposition of our time upon Bach. And since we are so mechanically minded, we have been duped into thinking that duplication is the real thing. Duplication is at best the concern of the historical teacher, at worst it is mechanical. The appalling thing is that duplication can become a desired end in art.

I feel that the study of earlier instruments and techniques is invaluable and that it should be an integral part of the curriculum in every music school. I would go further and prescribe harpsichord, clavichord and organ for pianists; viols and their techniques of bowing and tone production for strings; and study of the dances of the suites for all. But we must not confuse historical scholarship with living art. If we long for duplication of periods in art and make it a standard of art, is this not the greatest nostalgia of all, far exceeding that of the 19th century, ending in utter sterility? If the aim for duplication in art is continued, then we must duplicate Mozart pianos and develop specialists in that; we must re-manufacture Chopin's piano, which is very different from the piano of today. Performance then becomes a closed series of identifications based on material factors such as instrument specification and imitation. A sorry end indeed, for end it would be.

We must make distinctions between art and scholarship, and respect each for its contribution. But it is folly to confuse the two. Scholarship is by no means divorced from art—and in Bach especially it is an essential need. But it is a means for the artist, not an end.

No great art dictates its terms to the letter. If so, it would be so confined to its own period that it would be incommunicable to other times. There are subjects which can be the pets of scholars but they remain within their own circle, contributing little and leading nowhere.

Let us face the fact that 200 years from now instruments will be different. What will people do then? With the accumulation of great music since, say, 1600—five hundred years of music—would it be seriously suggested that performance be filed in compartments of preserved instruments and techniques? Recently I was on a panel discussing The Relation between Composer and Performer. I asked another member of the panel. Mr. William Schuman, the composer, what he would prefer for performers of 200 years hence to do about his music. Were they to play it on the instruments of our time or theirs? He answered with the greatest conviction : "But of course on theirs". There is no more sure way of killing a composer than of confining him to his own period.

JJ Triode wrote:

Romy,You refer to the D minor concerto as a "piano concerto," but wasn't it originally composed for harpsichord, like all his other keyboard works? (Except organ of course.)  Anyway, I have a harpsichord recording of the D minor with Sylvia Marlowe, a student of Wanda Landowska, that I enjoy.  I wonder if you could comment on the factors involved in hearing works like this on the piano versus harpsichord, clavichord or whatever.  I suppose this question is tied to the whole notion of "original Baroque instruments" as necessary (or not) for Baroque music, but there are specific issues with the harpsichord: limited control of dynamics, and limited loudness, pretty much requiring a smaller orchestra etc.  Anyway, your observations on this would interest me.Regards,JJ

JJ, I see no problem with the fact that it was composed for harpsichord. In fact if I am not mistaken it was composed originally for violin and then something happened and Bach converted it to harpsichord. I do not see any rational or purpose to create a conflict piano vs. harpsichord and I do not acknowledge the artificial conflict the people invented out there. The miracles beauty and insane smartness of Bach music is not in the instruments it render but on those harmonies. You can play it on lute or balalaika it still will be what it will be. You see, each instilment is own expressive tool and each instrument is own set of limitation and opportunities. It is not about the instrument but about what you do with it and how you can interpret on your instilment the Bach’s melody and rhythm.

I personal am fine with Bach first piano concerto on either piano vs. harpsichord.  As I said above this weekend I was spinning Trevor Pinnock  - this are all harpsichord with Engleish Chamber Orchestra.  I have a few other harpsichord performances but I have only Pinnock   that recorded ALL Bach piano music, including the double and triple harpsichords. I am very sorry that Rafael Puyana  did not recorded the First D minor concerto in his prime a huge lost but it is what it is. I do not mind to hear the piano version. The only thing I do not like when people begin to play Back overly romanticized, like if it is Schumann or Rachmaninoff. I hate it, I prefer Back to be played with balls  and attutude but with own balls, when the will of the player rises to the magnitude of the work itself.

I might drop a few names that I remember I enjoyed to a degree but frankly my taste in Bach D minor concerto is absolutely vandalized by Glen Gould. After I first I heard his play it made me lost interest in any other piano interpretation of this work. I have perhaps a two dozen of LPs of his recording of this work – all of them horrible – but I can’t do anything with myself – when I see this record in a store I just can’t help myself.

Romy the Cat wrote:

In the end my idea to have a good leaving room completely integrated with my playback installation but without having the room feels as it is some kind of dental office turned out to be implement perfectly. It is very relaxed living room and it is a good listening room, in fact if I built the house from scratch I would problem go for the same type configuration. … The only things I asked myself at this point is why I did not do what I did now back in 1996, when I moved to Boston. Rgs, Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

May 16, 2010: My ultimate wet audio dream was to have Bruckner Room. But so far it turning out that I got another big B room. Since 3 days back I stopped the intellectual masturbation with my room my playback up for the whole week and listening what I am listening I recognize that have un-proportionally high amount of Bach in my listening. It is not that I have anything against it but I wonder if my new listening environment has anything to do with it….

Romy the Cat wrote:

Mar 07, 2011: I spent today pretty much a whole day working with my playback searching for a way to implement my ULF injection. Later on I will describe in details what and how I did what I did but now I do not want to talk. All the I would say that I did it and the result is beyond spectacular it made this installation is perform at the level life altering experience. I do not exaggerate. What Macondo does now is beyond audio and music it work now at some kind of subconscious physiological level   and it is physical.  I can write a whole book describing the audio experiences I have today for the last 2 hours, it is truly life and believes altering. I find a way to inject into my room+ 30dB (!!!) from where I was before at 25Hz, and inject it in away the it affect absolutely nothing in my bass.  The stunning thing about the room and the way how I did it is the room perfectly dissipates it sounding and measuring perfectly flat. The sonic impact is beyond any references that I can give you – it is truly paralyzing. It feel like you are driving a car at high speed,  the car lost control on ice and you are  flying knowing that there is nothing the you can do anymore, waiting to happen whatever will happen. It has that will squashing effect that I was pitching and dreaming for so many years – it is truly very different experience. Sound wise it did not change but it added some kind physical connectivity of each particular of body to sonic events and each vibrato become my own physical sensation. It is enslaving and it is subordinating but it my version of audio, it is what I do.  I never worshiped audio with it. Now I have it and I have a full contol over it.

If you paid attention there is almost a year difference between the quoted posts above. Yes, since the introduction of my ULF channel, not only introduction but setting it up to work properly, many my observations about my room got altered. The result is superbly positive but it is not the point. The point is the introduction of ULF channel made very many pure room ingredients to behave in very different way, sort of the “The Other Side of the Rainbow” effect. The ULF is a game changer but not in direct way. The room pumping with ULF and the sonic (not listening) consequences of it made me to think that it might be possible to deal with room’s sound by gradual taking away lower frequency layers and to recognize how higher and frequencies behave. I think I would need to develop such a methodology and to teach myself what specifically to listen while it is being done.

Meanwhile, the tricks that my room throws with new ULF spiced presentation is superbly impressive. I know that I have a great room, that was the objective of my search but I did not predict that mine purely conceptual things that lived only as a segments of my conceptual imagination would suddenly click-in with such ease after certain things are taken care of. Anyhow, the “dealing” with my room is over, I do not think that Room is a factor anymore in my case as the presentation that I am getting looks like do not get room into account anymore.  For sure room still in play but the presentation is very much decoupled from room. It is not that “soundstage is wider than the walls”. The whole soundstage has absolutely no presence in my room now. The room has a feeling that you are in forest with sound coming from “some kind” of direction, but the direction has own references 360 degree around me. It is not just 3D of holographic feeling but rather some kind illusion of space where gravity removed. I push button play and there is a silence and  then with the very first sound, not even musical but just noise, the noise before orchestra starts, the roof, the floor and walls are flying away from the room.

If you lucky to see a good production of Tchaikovsky Nutcracker then do you remember that moment when mice fill he room, Clara begins shrink and the Christmas Tree right besides her being to grows. The Tree acts as at enter point to the realm of magic and wishes, the Clara’s jump into the Alice's Rabbit Hole. I have seen one production where this moment was done insanely fantastic. Along with Grow of the Christmas tree they created an illusion of bending the walls of the stage in proportion with the tree grow. That was stunning beyond believe as whatever eyes were seeing it was natural deformation of perspective, they were in real time changing  the trapezoidness of the side walls of the stage, impacting the visual projection of the tree to the state  - spectacular! 

Funny, but as first noise come from loudspeaker my room does in the way the same flip – juts drops own boundary and  tune itself for anything but not for itself. It is kind of ironic as I spend so much efforts to make my back-above located midbass horn to sound as it comes from front, I did accomplish it and it worked very-very well. Now I feel it might be a mistake. I feel that it might be a mistake as the location of the sound sources now are pretty much irrelevant (with one exemption that I’s mention later) and I do not min now some channel to be elsewhere.

This all will be filtered up and settled down as the time goes by but for now my room sound great and in a way acts for me as a lab for antimatter sound studying…

A few months ago, in May of last year in the thread about Listening Rooms and Composers  and How to play Bruckner Sound on Audio I have complained that my room is not what I was looking for as I was hoping to have Bruckner Room but I need up with Bach Room.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=13535

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=13757

With the recent changes: utilization of ULF in proper position, fine tuning the midbass level, fine calibration the amount of “upperbass front override” and a proper calibration  of total quantity of upper MF range to the amount of ULF my room turreted to be what I was hopping all along – the perfect Bruckner playing machine.

I can’t even start to describe now Bruckner shall sound and how audio might or might sound and interpret Bruckner Sound. Bruckner Sound is a whole world, it is the sonic primordial soup, saturate with zillion micro- organisms from which anything can be developed.  Audio does not sever Bruckner well and it mostly can play Bruckner. Audio mostly presents Bruckner as a gray brick wall of sound that hits listener right in a face. In really the Bruckner Wall is not made with brick but made from multicolor sponges and it does not hit face but jut makes you to scare about your face and uses the rest of your imagination to shape your after-scare aftershocks….

My understanding of how Bruckner shall sound was an evolutional process and it did not come from live Bruckner performances. I never attended any transcendent Bruckner experiences during live events, at least not those that made me to think about Sound. All 3 Bruckner Sound Super Events were clearly audio related.

The first event took place in 2003 or 2004 what I heard in a very good listening room a brand new Wilson Audio Alexandria. They just announced it and it was a first of second that they even built and the owner let to hear it with a condition that I will not express my opinion publicly about the speaker as long as he owns it.  Leaving all positive and negative moments of Alexandria sound there was one aspect that absolutely blow me away. Alexandria was able to play very loud and very dymick with incredibly amount of intermodulations. The Alexandria was sliding up and down across a dymick range and it’s MF did something fantastic – they hold own identity with firmness of granite cliff. I never heard the effect like this in audio, at least to that degree of perfection and Even my Macondo at that time did not do it as great as Alexandria did in that room. I might question the chromatic identity of those tones, in fact I do not question but rather disagree with them but Alexandria did show off how MF and upper MF shall be played.

The second even took place a few years later when I heard for a first time Japanese mastering of Matacic with Czechs playing Bruckner 7. It never seen anybody over-inundates Bruckner sound with such insane amount of colors and in such a beautiful way. After that my mind begun to built the notion to combine the Matacic’s chromatic saturation with Alexandria’s ability to hold the identity of the tone across dymick range and the most important at the very top of the dymick range. I did not have it but the itch of that virtual reference did settle in my mind for years.

The third moment was last year in very end of June. I was in the middle of fixing my new house, my room was not ready yet, my playback was set up but near as close I would like it to be. I did not have my playback for a few months, since March of the last year and I was truly missing it. To entertain myself and inspire my soil with envy I drove to a local audio guy to hear his setup. There were things that I like in his version of sound and there were the things that I did not like. In the end of the listening I was playing one interesting recording of Shostakovich 8 and what his playback did with it was beyond believe. His hand at that time very aggressive and very boolean-like sounding upper MF and his had large, properly made and instated midbass horns. So, when the midbass horns were flooded the room with Shostakovich’s boom-boom his MF and tweeters held the ground astonishingly well (he was multi-amping). Whatever the midbass horns were vomiting out themselves as VERY high volume level the MF were just as they have to  - right there, maintaining its identity. The bass wind interment and sections were in particularly beyond believe – the bass notes were sliding up and down in midbass hurricane but the upper harmonics of the notes lived with calm weather. It was a phenomenal show and I got from that trip what I was looking for – the next week I have initiated me own midbass project.

So, my version of Bruckner Sound is in a way a combination of all 3 above-mention results, plus some my own ideas. I was straggling for a while with my desire to reduce Bruckner Sound pressure and to substitute it with tonal pressure, as now my playback does it wonderfully.  I think I do have the best Bruckner Sound I even had before and I am truly drink from the cap of pleasure and in some ways ego. Sorry, it is sounds too bravadishly but it is what it is – I am very proud for accomplishment of that “proper” Bruckner Sound of my dreams.

I wonder what will come next….

Somebody in this there warned me that the fiberglass pipe wall finishing that I employed on the wall with my midbass horn, behind my listening location might be environmentally not healthy. I have very high sensitivity to fiberglass and one single tough of it makes me to itch for a few hours. After initial installation, heavy vacuuming of the room and an agonizing day of fiberglass allergy I did not detect any further sigh of me being irritated by fiberglass.

However, the last month, since the playback is finally all right and I run it at full throttle I begin to note any interesting pattern. After a prolong and loud listening I did pick some very minor signs of fiberglass itching. I presume that the pressure denigrating by my midbass horns lows fiberglass particles into the room.  Since the fiberglass particles have higher electrically potential then airborne dust I made a number of experiments by ionizing and charging the air in the horn mouth hoping that it discard or absorb the flying fiberglass. I even put magnets one different polarity on the perimeter of the midbass horns. It did not world. It was not annoying but it did give sometime a minor feeling the something was fiberglassish.

I have to say the it never thought to change my organ room treatment for anything else. I so much love how it looks and sounds that it is here to stay for good. Still, it is my LIVING ROOM and I was not aggressively looking for some kind of solution to permanently address the problem. Last week I have a very late listening my Bruckner 8. It was around midnight and I somewhere in the middle of my $45 Cohiba. The play was spectacular, juts beyond believe. The North German Radio Symphony Orchestra threw a firework beyond believe I clanked the things all the way up. The preamp was in unity gains and it was the highest volume my playback can do. It was loud. In the end of the Eight I feel that my neck was itching. I got pissed – nothing shall interfere with my Bruckner! Since I was still high in my Cohiba and I went to basemen and took a can of satin polyethylene and spayed it over my organ pipes. The fume killed the Cohiba, killed Bruckner and killed my desire to continue to listen but it looks also that it glued the fiberglass dust and had addressed the problem. From the last week, regardless the volume I use I have no sights of any fiberglass effect. Very cool! Also, that satin polyethylene is absolutely not visible on the pipes, on the walls and on the horns. Very cool solution….

Romy the Cat wrote:

I did not feel it before but now I do. I do want to have a fireplace in my listening room. Not any fireplace and not the usual fireplaces that are typical in the US cardboard houses. I would like to have a large fireplace in my listening room, let say 7 feet wide and 5 feet tall, what I can light a significant fire. I love to listening music and to look at fire, I have discovered it in myself last year; unfortunately I did not know it before.  There is a wall in my listening room and in VERY good location what I can convert to a good size third fireplace. It would be very nice but I afraid that to make it to comply with all fire codes it would be easier to build a new house. I have a fireplace living room that I do not use but it is very far from Macondo and the fireplace in there is not the size that I would like to have. Well, you can’t put one ass on many chairs but still I do want to have a bid size fireplace where I would be able to listen my Bruckner... The Cat

noviygera wrote:

You can easily install a cast iron fireplace/stove. They are not big but bigger than no fireplace at all and easy to install as far as meeting the codes. My father just installed one and another friend of mine has one. I like them so much that I am installing one myself in my new house. like this? http://www.darboystone.com/html/stoves/gas/kozyheat-duluth.php

Last week I had an audio visitor from far US state and listening Sound in my room and wanting to make a compliment to me he said: “of cause, no one can’t achieve this bass without your solid floor”.  Being asshole as I am I begun to stress with him the theory about the importance to have a solid floor in order to get proper bass. After a few minutes of conversation I recognize that I can’t hold myself and begin to laugh. I told that my listening room has a large basement under itself and the whole floor is very much suspended. The guy looked at me surpassed and asked why he does not feel any vibration on the floor and particularly since I drive the playback VERY loud. I told that I dealt with the problem by dumping the floor. He was very surpassed and asked HOW it was done.

I think the explanation worth to be publicized.

First of all I do not agree with his assessment and I feel that some vibration still detectable on the floor while music plays loud. Still the residual vibration is very minor, at the borderline with being negligible.

What I did was very my view very non-expensive but effecting: detecting the resonance key point and implementing support columns under suspender floor. In Home Depot I got a number of jacks and put them in a number of strategic locations. I have written about it but I did not describe HOW I tune the jacks. The tuning is remarkably simple.

I have 2 jacks under equipment rack, 3 jacks around the lessening chair and two jacks user loudspeakers. After I unsalted them I begin to play music loud (Bach organ concertos) sit in my chair and feel the vibrations. While I was doing it I over telephone directed a friend of my in basement to rise or drop the individual jacks.  As I reach the point of floor stop response I marked the excursion of the jacks and left it to sit like this for 2-3 weeks. Then we fine tune the jacks again.  Doing it for a few time I get the point that floor looks like settled and I just do 1/8 of the jack turn each 2 month – the floor feel like hold stable.  Very easy and very effective.

The only thing was that I was not able to set the proper floor damping under my chair and I was forced to use 25 feet long 8x8 beam across the room. Initially I used rubber pad between the jacks and the floor but then I was forced to get rid of any rubber and use juts 3x4 pieces of wood. So it is not as much damping but rather an additional firmness….