I'm one of the people who pointed out changes from the first version - changes that Hahnemuhle denied. They tweaked it some. Those differences are documented in the charts on my website. Essentially, it's the same paper, though.
Here's what I just did. I printed the Northlight linearization image on two sheets as follows:
1) 1440 dpi, luster paper type, ABW zeroed (no tone), dark, no profile
2) 2880 dpi, pgpp paper type, ABW zeroed (no tone), dark, no profile
The 1440 shows the dither pattern as a very fine halftone in the middle values, the Dmax is visibly lower than the one at 2880, and the transitions near the dark end are not quite as smooth. The 2880 with the pgpp setting is smooth, no halftone look, transitions have no visible reversals or stripes in the circular images. You can see the difference from a good distance away, even in rather poor light. The blacks with the 2880 pgpp setting are visibly deeper, and the circular shapes with the light centers become rounded, dimensional by comparison to the 1440. This is enough to convince me of the superiority of the 2880 setting without touching these prints with a spectrometer. I'll get the numbers for you, though, after they've dried enough.
I think the Hahnemuhle guys are aiming at the lowest common denominator with their recommendations; a printer that can't print as finely as the Epson Pro-printers. It's easy to get away with a recommendation like that if nobody checks, because it's, well, adequate. It's still a terriffic paper, though.
Aloha, Aaron