Literary sources reassure us that the luteharpsichord existed, though none has survived to tell us exactly what it looked or sounded like; reconstructions based on drawings vary considerably in both respects. The booklet tells us that it ''existed as early as 1511'', but what Virdung referred to in that year was a ''harfinventiv'', apparently some sort of harp rather than lute, and references to anything that might be construed as a lute-harpsichord appear about a century later. Such an instrument may have existed within the lifetime of Dowland (1563-1626) but there is no evidence that he was even aware of it; likewise, though he could well have seen and heard one, there is nothing to suggest that Weiss thought of any of his works in terms of it.
Lute-harpsichords were sighted in Paris as late as 1778, but we have no good reason to suppose that Duphly was in any way influenced by one; nor can we deduce, from the fact that he probably knew Weiss, that Domenico Scarlatti had the instrument in mind in any of his sonatas—the guitar is cited as a tenuous connection in this case. However, given an instrument for which there is no proven repertory, I suppose one has to assemble one as best one can. Bach, on the other hand, owned two such instruments and there is good reason to believe that at least some of his so-called 'lute works' were written for it—and the case for BWV996 is perhaps the strongest of all. In the end we return to the familiar watershed—does the end-result make good musical sense? Here, although most items have been press-ganged into service, the answer is yes. The instrument sounds like the hybrid that it is, albeit more like a lute-stopped harpsichord than a lute, and it has been extraordinarily well recorded.
Heindel plays in excellent style, with well-judged tempos, a controlled measure of rubato, and adds tasteful embellishments to the Bach. I have greatly enjoyed hearing this music, dressed in fresh sonorities and so winsomely played, and I suggest that you share that pleasure.'