Any body recorded a cello?

[boomtap]

I would be interested in hearing your experiences with a cello. I am going to be recording one soon.

 

[Janesaid2me]

Well ive never done a cello before but heres my suggestion (ive used on a violin)...I would use a nice large condenser mic either tube or with a nice tube preamp...make sure you keep it a few feet back from the cello (2-4) and place it facing around where the bow meets the strings...fool around with position alittle till you find a sweet spot....same with how far back you place the mic....depending on how good the player is you may need a limiter to get any nasty peaks out and eq accordingly...but not much...hope that helps.

 

[dgatwood]

Two things have worked well for me. If I'm burying it in a mix, piezo mic (stick-on guitar mic). Easier on the performer, as there's nothing to interfere with bowing, but I doubt it's good on the finish. (In my case, cheap plywood cello, strings cost almost as much as the instrument... you get the idea.)

Anyway, if memory serves, I rolled the resulting upper mids and highs way back and boosted the lower mids, but that was a few months back, so I could be a little off. Sounds surprisingly good for a mic that cost less than my C string....

For something that's going to be more in the foreground musically, I'd suggest a cardiod mic about two feet away, pointing directly at an F hole. Experiment with distance and placement to suit. That seems to work well as long as the cellist doesn't keep hitting it with his/her bow.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

This was recorded flat with very little reverb and no eq:

http://cdbaby.com/mp3lofi/charisse-02.m3u

I think I used an RCA 44BX, about 2 or 3 feet out front. (Room was about 11' x 12', with a 7' ceiling.)

If you have broadband, go here and load "Taillights":

http://cdbaby.com/cd/charisse

 

[Massive Master]

I record strings a lot... There really isn't a right way or wrong way with something like a cello... It's very dependent on the part the cellist is playing (figuratively speaking) in the recording. A "direct" route, such as Harvey suggested, is usually very good to capture it somewhat "naturally." If it's solo strings, that's probably your best bet. If it's there as a "support" instrument, you might want to try hanging a mic about (player's) face level angled down somewhat.

Or higher...

Or lower...

Or closer or farther away...

I'd have an assitant handy to help with placement if there's someone available.

The room will have a lot to do with how it fits in the mix also... I like a little distance most of the time myself. But again, it really depends on what works at the time.

Boy, that didn't help at all, did it...?

 

[xstatic]

Since my father is a professional cellist with a REALLY nice cello, I have a little experience with this. I have found in general that small diaphragms seemed to work a little better for me then large diaphragm mics. They were a little more "controllable". The last time I tried different mics I tried AKG 414Buls, AT 4050, BLUE Blueberry, AKG 451, and Royer 121. What I discovered sounded the best to me (and him) was an AKG 451 at about 1 45 degree angle downwards so it was pointing just above the bridge, and placed about 4 feet from the bridge. Then I used the Royer down low and turned it sideways. I focused it at the F hole about 18" from it, form the side with the high strings, slightly angled back into the center of the cello. I turned the mic sideways so as not to interfere as much with any bowing technique.

During mixdown the Royer (ribbon mic) took up about 75% of the signals when blended back together. The Ribbon really gave a nice and full (but not too exaggerated like the LD mics did) low end. What was really nice though was how the highs also came out so smooth and extended without being harsh or to "stringy" sounding. The 451 from above helped retain a little of the "distant" feeling without being too washed out sounding.

 

[boomtap]

Thanks for all the tips, I love the sound of the cello, I think I will have some fun on this.

 

[true-eurt]

Since my father is a professional cellist with a REALLY nice cello, I have a little experience with this. I have found in general that small diaphragms seemed to work a little better for me then large diaphragm mics. They were a little more "controllable". The last time I tried different mics I tried AKG 414Buls, AT 4050, BLUE Blueberry, AKG 451, and Royer 121. What I discovered sounded the best to me (and him) was an AKG 451 at about 1 45 degree angle downwards so it was pointing just above the bridge, and placed about 4 feet from the bridge. Then I used the Royer down low and turned it sideways. I focused it at the F hole about 18" from it, form the side with the high strings, slightly angled back into the center of the cello. I turned the mic sideways so as not to interfere as much with any bowing technique.

During mixdown the Royer (ribbon mic) took up about 75% of the signals when blended back together. The Ribbon really gave a nice and full (but not too exaggerated like the LD mics did) low end. What was really nice though was how the highs also came out so smooth and extended without being harsh or to "stringy" sounding. The 451 from above helped retain a little of the "distant" feeling without being too washed out sounding.

Thanks for going into detail..It helps a recording illiterate like be mucho..

 

[giraffe]

i've recorded a little cello in my time, had sucess (good, nothing to bet the horse on) with both a mc-o12 and an earthworks sro depending on the sound i was going for (fuller or brighter, in that order)

but this is more of a question really

i've never been able to get that "music box" cello sound, ya know kinda old school, i realize you need first a good cello (and i don't have one)
but besides that does anyone have any reccomendations on that specific cello sound?

 

[true-eurt]

Thanks for going into detail..It helps a recording illiterate like be mucho..

I have no idea why I said that.Yes ,I do own a Cello.Do I play it?. NO..So why would I record it... ..a 'newbie stupie' I guess.