Thanks for that link. The real hard core audiophiles seem to like analogue, tubes, and minimalist microphone techniques. While I would need to listen to his recording vs Searles recording, I wonder how much coloration is added since every piece in the recording chain has tubes. And I guess I'll never know, unless I purchase a reel to reel deck! Most of these audiophiles have a lot of money, which usually indicates that they have been out in the work force for a while, which usually indicates that they grew up on tubes and analogue, which explains their liking for these sorts of recordings. Their goal isn't transparent sounding equipment and recordings but coloration. This isn't meant as a criticism, only an observation.

Don't get me wrong - I vastly prefer Bach on harpsichord. I actually even own a clavichord that doesn't get played often enough. (Sadly, I'm thinking about selling it since I need new monitors and I do a lot more recording and composing than baroque keyboard playing these days.)

My current favorite Bach keyboard interpretation is Richard Egarr's Goldberg Variations. I discovered Gustav Leonhardt's WTC recordings in my father's record collection as kid and that pretty much spoiled Bach on piano for me for the rest of my life. But a think a thoughtful pianist can make Bach work on piano, whereas I think a lot of other harpsichord music (Rameau, Couperin, the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, even Scarlatti IMHO) just doesn't.

I love Bach on the piano, and find it profoundly emotional with the appropriate playa. (© Plush). Especially this.

My first digital recording back in 84 was of the Bach Partitas (Jean Louis Steuerman) on piano for Philips which ended up on a two CD set (it was originally intended only for vinyl).

Bach: Keyboard Partitas BWV 825-830 / Jean Louis Steuermann | ArkivMusic

This tended to give me a liking for Bach on the piano, which survived the stresses of the project.

"Well rather than ideally recorded" said the Gramophone reviewer. Huh. Well, not bad for a first attempt. It won a Diapson D'Or award in in France FWIW.

One of the few times I've cried in a concert hall was when listening to Joanna MacGregor rehearsing Contrapunctus I from the Art of Fugue at Wigmore Hall - her warm-up performance just before a concert was just so perfect (with an specially introspective quality because it wasn't for an audience - when it came to the concert it wasn't quite the same). Of course I didn't have the tape running. But then the best musical memories are, perhaps, in the mind rather than on the tape.

+1

And the best performances exist in the mind.

I was very interested to read this thread about our Bach Cello Suites recording. It's gratifying to hear that there are people as passionate about the details of recorded sound as Winona and I are - with many great comments and insights.
My interest in microphones and their use comes from the very first time I used an inexpensive omni mic to record a piano at home (I was about 12 years old at the time). I was shocked at how the sound of the room overpowered the piano, compared to what I heard live with my own ears. That experience began a life long journey of experimentation with microphones and mic technique. About 4 decades later, the first time I heard these ribbon mics, I was pleasantly surprised by how close the sound was to the way it sounded to me just standing in the room listening.
For the past decade or so I have also dedicated myself to the study of Baroque performance (I play violin for my own amusement and study with a distinguished member of Tafelmusik). I agree that the amount and length of reverb plays a critical role in this music. For a solo work, my preference is to lean toward the reverb balance the musician hears in the room, rather than the balance heard by the often too distant audience member. In this way, we hear the performance as the soloist felt it. I'll agree this approach does not work for every situation and it is a subjective choice, but it was the choice Winona and I made after a good deal of experimentation and reflection. As for the difference between ribbons and condensers, they both have their applications and I love and use them both. In this instance, the ribbons won our hearts.
Cheers,
Ron

Here we agree somewhat.

Hello Ron,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to this thread. It's very interesting to hear your comments. I was especially interested to hear your thoughts on capturing the sound that the player hears, as opposed to the more common audience perspective.
Can you tell us a little more about the space, the rest of the signal chain (preamps, converters, etc.), and your general recording philosophy?

Thanks again for dropping by the forum, and please stick around!

Thank you Ron for the intriguing post and for taking the time to write! It is informative to hear your recording philosophy. In my opinion, the sound of the hall can become a crutch to mask a less than stellar direct sound. What you show quite clearly is that if the direct sound is of high enough quality, it can stand on its own without a huge amount of reverb. Reverb becomes a matter of taste and is not a necessity. In your recording I just get lost in the sound of the cello, like I'm sitting right in front of it. This is how I see it, anyway!

In any event, your recording of the Cello Suites is, in my opinion, one of the best. The gorgeous sound of the Guarnari is captured beautifully. Bravo!

Hi Matyas - the recording chain was really nothing out of the ordinary - I've always concentrated more on the things that to my ear make the largest difference, and while I agree that the preamps and converters affect the quality, once you reach a certain level, it makes far more difference to the recording to move a mic an inch to two than to change the converters etc. This was recorded on a standard ProTools rig at 24/96. The preamps were True Systems Precision 8. Clean and simple. The room was a large room at the back of a home in the country, and houses a large kidney shaped swimming pool, which was full for some of the suites and empty for others (which added to the reverb - have a listen and you may notice the difference). The combination of high sloping cedar ceiling and beams, glass walls and tile floor with cement pool provided the reverb. Not a perfect space, but surprisingly good (better and quieter than some churches I've recorded in). We tried many rooms for this recording, but settled on this one. Really one could record these suites in any quiet space, but the right amount of reverb really helps the performer to feel the timing and articulation and make it all work together. We tried adding reverb by using distant omni mics and reverb programs, but were always drawn back to the sound of just the three ribbon mics with nothing added - probably because that's closest to how Winona heard it when she was performing them. I think when you stray too far from what the performer hears, you alter the intent of their performance and that's often not a good thing.
If you want to hear the 24/96 recording, it is available for download at "The Classical Shop.net".

[QUOTE=ron.searles;9088856]I've always concentrated more on the things that to my ear make the largest difference, and while I agree that the preamps and converters affect the quality, once you reach a certain level, it makes far more difference to the recording to move a mic an inch to two than to change the converters etc. This was recorded on a standard ProTools rig at 24/96. The preamps were True Systems Precision 8. Clean and simple./QUOTE]

Thanks again for the info, Ron! I doubt you'll get much of an argument on that point from many people here. You certainly won't from me!

I look forward to hearing the whole thing at 24/96!

Thanks Shosty - This project was a real labour of love that we put a great deal of time and meticulous effort into. It's very gratifying to have this positive feedback!
Cheers,
Ron

[QUOTE=matyas;9089191]
Not to be one to bow to peer pressure (OK well may occasionally I do) I have been doing all my location recording through a Metric Halo LIO-8 for the last couple of years, and recently ordered an Metric Halo ULN-8 as well, to get the benefit of their highly acclaimed integrated mic preamps along with their really wonderful D to A and A to D. Most recordings are at 24/96, but I'm just finishing up a recording done at 24/192 and it sounds pretty amazing, if I do say so myself.
I still love the Royer mics for many things, but a good matched set of 3 Neumann TLM 50s and a couple of well placed DPA 4006s and Schoeps omnis can be a pretty great combination for larger groups, with piano.
A lovely new pair of ATC SCM50a monitors along with my venerable Stax 303 headphones help me to verify that everything is ok.

It’s so fun to come back to this thread 11 years after it was started and read this discussion! I still stand by the Royer mics used in this Bach recording.
Released just last November are the full set of unaccompanied Violin Sonatas and Partitas by JS Bach, performed on gut strings at A=415 Hz by renowned violinist Julia Wedman. Again, the approach was to put you close to what Julia hears herself while performing these pieces. It was recorded in a lovely sounding church, with a Blumlein pair of Royer 122s as the primary pair, with a number of other mics arranged to collect the sound in the church. Mixed and released in both stereo and Dolby Atmos, I believe Julie’s performance sets the bar on historical (and beautiful) performance of this amazing work. Have a listen, on any of the usual streaming sources, in Hi Res 24/192 stereo and Dolby Atmos. Julia Wedman - J.S. Bach: Sei Solo - Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin.

Hello Ron,

There is something about the Royer ribbon mics that adds just enough seasoning to bring out the character of the cello that translates to speakers and headphones so musically--particularly the notes with vibrato in the first octave on the D string. My favorite track is the prelude from the second suite in d minor.

Just wanted to add I've enjoyed listening to this recording many times, and appreciate the esthetic from the players perspective. I own a couple of the more "bombastic" recordings of the Bach Suites, and while impressive they can get tiring to listen to.

Thanks for sharing the news on the violin recording, will have to check that out!

-Louie

I really thank you for sharing your information and expertise here. It is appreciated, along with the lovely recordings, as well...;-)

Any hard copy for the Dolby Atmos? As in, blu-ray music discs?

I've searched a fair amount and found zilch. I can find it streaming, but I gave up on streaming awhile back -- the loss of quality is disturbing. Works fine for commercial pop, but acoustic violin where I'm trying to listen to the difference between steel and gut strings? Not so much.

So I guess I'll just continue to save up my money and buy live concert tickets. But in this case I'd buy a blu-ray for the DA (can an SACD do DA?) if it was available and I could find it.

EDIT: SACD can only handle six discrete channels, so no DA for you!

Hi Bruce - I agree with what much of what you say re BluRay for the Atmos version. Production costs for small independent labels are too high to make this possible. Julia’s Bach is best heard on Tidal, Apple Classical or Amazon Prime music - (a search for Julia Wedman will quickly locate the 2 album set). There it can be streamed at 192KHz 24 bit lossless. The Atmos mixes, which are a full remix from the original microphones - not just an up mix of the stereo, while not the high res of the stereo, still sound great, and definitely put you in the church, right in front of Julia. (The Atmos Master is at 96KHz 24 bit, but of course the streaming version is lossy 48 KHz). If you have a great Atmos speaker setup, I recommend hearing it that way - and yes, you will hear that it’s gut strings. If you listen on hi quality headphones (I love it on my Stax electrostatics for this), the High Res stereo is by far the best way to listen.

I hope this dry close up solo instrument recording trend doesn't become the norm.

Taste is subjective, of course, but I enjoy some space around the instruments, not drenched in reverb, but also not so dry and closed in, that the annoying string artefacts distract from the beauty of music...

Performer's perspective... I don't know... as a performer you are invested in so much more that just pure sound...

You do hear reflections, too, also the close tone, but you are more focused on how your internal interpretation manifests...

As a listener I prefer the sound of 2 to 3m away (and more) from a musician and not on top of him/er, almost touching the resin on strings, lending an ear to the touch of bow and string, etc. which is distracting...

For the material that was recorded so many times, it is difficult to come up with something really amazing, I guess... but all the high-end talk, gut strings, exotic sample rates, Atmos and whatnot, doesn't make me like this recording, ufortunately, and I enjoy Itzhak Perlman's recording much more for example (also for the sound, not just playing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDaLZsZS4c

I agree Itzhak is a wonderful romantic musician. I wouldn’t have thought if him as an example for Bach interpretation though. I’m curious to know if you listened to the Julia Wedman Bach recordings? It’s definitely not overly close or dry.

15 years after the release of this recording, we have just released a hi res and Dolby Atmos version, remixed from the original multitrack master. It’s available for streaming from all the usual platforms.
In the works - lossless Dolby Atmos and hi res Auro 3D files coming soon from Immersive Audio Album. For this of us “allergic” to lossy encoding, this will be the one to get!

May I ask which Dolby Atmos compatible array you used in the original sessions ?

There are a number of "modern" ribbon mics today, such as the AEA N8 and a couple of Samar mics (mics with a wider frequency response than the 122) that were not available 15 years ago when the recording was done. I am wondering if the recording was done today, would the Royer's still be the choice (over the "modern" ribbons)?

Me, I have a pair of 121's that I love on guitar amp, and a very few other things. I am note sure how the 121 differs, sound-wise, from the 122, but I wouldn't think to use the 121 on a solo cello. However, given the way this recording sounds (and I like the sound very much), I may change my mind. [for the record, the last cello I recorded, I used a Royer sf2, as a spot mic].

I haven't posted on gearspace in several years but I happened to log on today and re-read this thread. It was quite a lively discussion!

I will definitely look into the hi res release. This recording is still one I revisit. The sound of the cello is captured beautifully.

Speaking from experience, the 121s sound great on solo cello, IMO.