# Mic for cello, home recording



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 16, 2021)

While thinking about her future, a young Oberlin cellist studying with the principal at the National Symphony in her gap year, has very shrewdly inquired about home recording.

I anticipate that those hiring a solo cellist for projects done remotely would want a rendering as dry as possible. The budget is probably somewhere around $3,000, and eventually may want to expand out to being able to record a quartet. To begin though, for the purposes of film/pop remote recording gigs on a laptop, what are the mic/preamp/interface recommendations?


----------



## Stringtree (Mar 16, 2021)

I lived for three years with a cellist, and our interests in common overlapped. We spent a lot of our spare time trying to find that sound. Large-diaphragm condensers, small-diaphragm condensers, ribbons, close instrument pickup mics, dynamics, PZM's. This was in a large living room with parallel walls, and it always sounded like that.

We made a lot of recordings but we never found it. Today, my grown-up self would say that the cello is terrifically *exciting*, and that the sound has the capacity to resonate the room, and that the room is a co-instrument, contributing its own (not so great) sonic characteristics in an unintended duet. 

If I had $3K, I would treat the corners and flat surfaces of the recording space with Owens-Corning 703, assuming a living room or large bedroom. I'd not try doing cello recordings in a small bathroom or closet, because it would sound exactly like a small space. 

That treatment cost me $200 because I found some large, bulky panels somebody on Craigslist was getting rid of. 

I'd get a (dual) Millenia, Audient, or RND preamp and a DPA d:vote, KM-184, Royer ribbon, or Earthworks to stick in places the cello sounded magnificent. Dual preamp because mixing the close transients with room makes sense. Any quiet interface would do, and modern ones are great. 

For remote recording, stereo is a must, just a humble suggestion. A pair of AKG C414 XLS will provide pattern flexibility and relative neutrality. These are the most flexible mics I own.

I'm just a schlub, but I hope you keep us updated on your friend's journey to audio happiness. Seriously, it's room uber alles.


----------



## Michael Carnes (Mar 16, 2021)

I'm not sure a still-in-school cellist has the wherewithal to pick up preamps and mics of that quality. I'm also quite sure it's not necessary. I work with a number of good players here in Salt Lake City and I recently worked on a record-at-home performance of a solo bassoon piece with the principal bassoonist of the Utah Symphony. She had a simple Blu Yeti and it worked just fine. Would I rather have had her in a nice hall with my usual array of Schoeps and friends? Sure. But the point is that a little care can take you a long way. We tried (remotely) a number of mic positions and came up with something that worked well. I did some track cleanup and it went right to podcast.

I agree with some room treatment, but probably not the same treatment. A cello radiates all over and you're going to want to capture some of that. Too much deadening in the room is going to leave you only with the harsh stuff that comes right off the strings. A combination of strategic absorption and diffusion is what you want. Diffusion will allow her to capture sound coming from the full instrument without too much in the way of room modes. And there are ways to get there without dropping too much change.

I love the preamps and mics that Stringtree recommends, but I love them more for me than for a novice. Something like an SE-8 and a decent little Focusrite preamp/interface would be more than enough. The cellist in question should be able to get some basic help in terms of mic setup and preparing tracks, but the last thing you want to do is force her into becoming a techie.


----------



## Stringtree (Mar 16, 2021)

Sweet advice, @Michael Carnes. This is why I come here, for distillation of advice and curation of gear when I need to get it. @Stephen Limbaugh, yeah, for sure, listen to this guy! Speaks truth, he does.

The word "strategic" presupposes something gained through the ear and internalized to the brain. 

My best money was spent in a true studio to find out what that is. Just a little to listen and play. After that I knew what I had to do. Before that, I was clueless. I didn't know how bad my rooms sounded or what steps I had to take to make them better. 

Can we not entice her into becoming a techie? Lol. That's something I respect among people who know their stuff and can slap down setups with true knowledge. Not down to microphone capsules and oxygen-free cables, but principles that rock. 

My favorite encounter with a performer was a pioneering woman in the recording business who dusted my ASS with her encyclopediac adeptness with everything techinical. 

Not necessary, but awe-inspiring and part of the future. Truth is, a mic in a room is a known entity, to those who hear mics and rooms. There's a variability to those input parameters. Some good, some not so good.


----------



## Michael Carnes (Mar 16, 2021)

I should have added that there's a bit of software involved. There's got to be some recording software involved and it needs at a minimum to record at 44.1/48/24 bit. Our cellist friend has to be comfortable with a little bit of that. And there may very well be noise seeping into the room (I remember that my apartment in Boston during my school days wasn't exactly quiet), so noise removal might be necessary before shipping tracks to a client.

I don't want to be discouraging to this young cellist. I know some really fine players who are completely at home with the tech. I know other equally fine players who aren't sure which is the working end of a screwdriver. I personally feel that basic technical competence is part of the necessary toolkit for classical musicians coming out of school, but most conservatories would rather act like it's still 1890.


----------



## CT (Mar 16, 2021)

Definitely agree that a cello will need a tame enough room or it'll come out awfully boomy. Also agree with the mics (stereo, yes) Stringtree suggests. I would add that Sennheiser's MK4/MK8s are supposedly a good step in the Neumann direction at a fraction of the cost, though I haven't tried either myself yet.


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 16, 2021)

AKG C414 XLS lower near the body, set on figure 8 if the room sounds good; otherwise cardioid. Rolloff on the mic at 40Hz.

Neumann KM 184 (cardioid) higher near the neck joint but a bit back.

Warm Audio 2-Channel Preamp. If the budget grows by 25%, go with the Rupert Neve.

If I had this setup for my acoustic guitar I'd be dancing in my backyard.


----------



## pmountford (Mar 17, 2021)

I'm using a pair of KM184 for recording my cellist. I'm after a close, bright sound (think Max Richter) so I didn't use the ribbons. Alot of variety achieved with mic placement. Can only reiterate that room sound is so important with cello. Having said that, you can only use what you have re recording space.
I went from Behringer interface to MOTU and to me a big difference. Next step will be something like a warm audio but I'm not currently feeling the need.
Also amazed at how little some musos know about tech which I would also have thought should be an essential part of their education nowadays.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Mar 17, 2021)

pmountford said:


> Also amazed at how little some musos know about tech


Honestly, the culture of classical music as it generally exists, is hostile toward such “brutish” tasks like setting up microphones, using personal computers, and electricity. Those duties are for people capable of placing sheet music on music stands, or offering mini flashlights to guide patrons to their boxes.

Fortunately, I have been approached by one with a contrarian streak. 👍🏻


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 17, 2021)

For the later proper "quartet expansion" you would need ideally 6 mics. A direct mic for each instrument plus a stereo pair. In a really amazing room a stereo pair could even be enough, but the room has to be great. So...With 3000$ it cannot work unless you go really, really budget. 

For just the cello:
I would second recommendations about the AKG414. It is such a versatile mic. 
On the more obscure side I can also recommend a cheaper, but not worst option: Mojave ma300 valve mic. A bit darker then the 414, and a beauty. 
Neumann km184 is kind of a standard for many classical instruments, but on cello you still need that large diaphram condenser to properly translate the low end of the instrument.
Another really really sharp sounding and much cheaper small diaphram option is the mighty AKG51B.

At this budget, I would say a 414 and a nice, clean interface with decent preamps like the AudientID22 or the RME Babyface will do the trick and last for years. An addition of a small diaphram stereo pair such as the 451 or 184 will add a lot of versatility to the rig.

Obviously it is worth checking out if the room acoustics are good enough, and if they are not a problem which not even a vintage U47 could solve....


----------



## Instrugramm (Mar 17, 2021)

As many said, some room treatment and a decent microphone + preamp should do it.
I record my cello close to the back wall (as that's where I got my diffusion panels placed, the rest of the room's too dead by now) into my Apollo interface (with emulated preamps) via a Microtech Gefell M1030 (although my Neumann TLM 103 did a fine job as well, the MG captures more of the transients).


----------



## Stringtree (Mar 17, 2021)

I got to play with a 451E with omni capsule, and it was terrifying. This mic captured life itself!


----------



## Bernard Duc (Mar 17, 2021)

There is very little point in recommending a particular high-end microphone or preamp unless if you know the room, the musician, and the instrument. Not only that, but I think it's even a disservice. Let this young cellist start with entry or mid-level microphones and preamps. She will learn to find the best spots in the room, the microphone placement she likes, maybe she will realize that her room is too noisy, or that it needs treatment, and in general she will be training her ears. Once she starts feeling limited by the quality of the gear, then it will be time for her to make her own research and find a microphone that suits the sound she is looking for. 

This doesn't mean we cannot give advice. I, for one, think that large diaphragm microphones are often easier to work with for beginners, they tend to me more forgiving. With a room that's probably not that great I would look for tighter cardioid patterns with a good back rejection. Budget wise, I would put the most money in the microphone, then in the preamp. Even some of the cheaper audio interfaces (I believe Focusrite is one of those) have very decent preamps nowadays. No matter how much money is spent on microphone + preamp, I would make sure there is plenty of money left to buy room treatment if needed, but rather than buying it at the beginning I would advice her to start recording and gradually make changes. If she wants some help with that and has the dimensions of the room, I would be happy to give her a few pointers, I have a pretty decent knowledge of architectural acoustics.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 17, 2021)

Bernard Duc said:


> There is very little point in recommending a particular high-end microphone or preamp unless if you know the room, the musician, and the instrument. Not only that, but I think it's even a disservice. Let this young cellist start with entry or mid-level microphones and preamps. She will learn to find the best spots in the room, the microphone placement she likes, maybe she will realize that her room is too noisy, or that it needs treatment, and in general she will be training her ears. Once she starts feeling limited by the quality of the gear, then it will be time for her to make her own research and find a microphone that suits the sound she is looking for.


- the most recommended mic here, the 414 is not cheap, but hardly "high end" (especially given the budget). (My personal preference is a Flea47 through a Redd.47 thorough a Burl B2  )
-I don't agree you have to know the player the musician and the instrument to know which mic could be appropriate at least as a starting point, and surely for a recording novice.
(This scenario might apply to vocals, on which the "right" mic to suit a certain vocalist is an important choice)
There has been decades of engineers using certain standard mic models because they know, they just "work", then they might try different options, depending on the session and preferences, but an sm57 on a guitar amp/a d112 on a kick drum/ an 84 on a violin/ m49 for classical music/ Schoeps on piano etc etc....
If I was someone not at home around mic models etc I would love for someone to give me a friendly and useful help and recommend a few tried and tested options to choose from. I also believe, that given the budget, it is recommended to start with something that can get you results right away, why compromise? It is also a good investment for the future of any musician.

I do agree about the preamp being less crucial compared to the mic choice.


----------



## Bernard Duc (Mar 17, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> - the most recommended mic here, the 414 is not cheap, but hardly "high end" (especially given the budget). (My personal preference is a Flea47 through a Redd.47 thorough a Burl B2  )
> -I don't agree you have to know the player the musician and the instrument to know which mic could be appropriate at least as a starting point, and surely for a recording novice.
> (This scenario might apply to vocals, on which the "right" mic to suit a certain vocalist is an important choice)
> There has been decades of engineers using certain standard mic models because they know, they just "work", then they might try different options, depending on the session and preferences, but an sm57 on a guitar amp/a d112 on a kick drum/ an 84 on a violin/ m49 for classical music/ Schoeps on piano etc etc....
> ...


I'm not speaking of the 414, which is indeed a mid level mic, I'm speaking of some of the more expensive mics and preamps people have been mentioning here. 

But really, the first focus should be on the room and isolation from outside noise, which is likely to make a much bigger difference. Most people I know who do home recording have an audio quality that's not sufficient for my standards, and it's usually because of the room.


----------



## Stringtree (Mar 17, 2021)

Bernard Duc said:


> I'm not speaking of the 414, which is indeed a mid level mic, I'm speaking of some of the more expensive mics and preamps people have been mentioning here.
> 
> But really, the first focus should be on the room and isolation from outside noise, which is likely to make a much bigger difference. Most people I know who do home recording have an audio quality that's not sufficient for my standards, and it's usually because of the room.



I think the answer is that great mics and preamps will only work in well-treated spaces in a home environment, or an environment that naturally predisposes itself to the recording of music. 

So... A church that sits idle a lot of the time. An old Masonic temple that has a lot of space to experiment with. In this case, a set of decent mics and a Zoom recorder can yield astonishing results. Whole rig fits in a purse. Or Man Bag, or whatever. Couple of stands under the arm that's not lugging the cello case. A university or library auditorium. 

You're not opening a recording studio, just trying to generate funds by playing music. Offload some of the overhead, make some friends with good architectural spaces that are being wasted. And don't waste your own money toward improvements you don't need.

If deliverables are the goal, the bar is going to be high. Those "in the know" will be able to hear a compromised room in milliseconds. The bar is extremely high, and capturing the best is key.

A padded cell, or amateur home space, is going to sound compromised unless one knows what one is doing. Enlist the help of a knowlegable friend. Pay. Make it serious.

There's a lot of latitude for large spaces. The naturalness of sound bouncing off walls and cornices and ceiling is extremely pleasing to the ears. Sounds expensive because it is.


----------



## tonaliszt (Mar 17, 2021)

As someone in college currently, I would prioritize something easy and portable like a zoom h series. 

The odds of someone hiring a freshman cellist to do remote recording in a dorm room are rather low, while the chance the cellist would want to record their lessons, or quartet practice on short notice seems much more likely. Having something small that can work on its own and stick around in a backpack seems like a better idea to me.


----------



## JJP (Mar 17, 2021)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Those duties are for people capable of placing sheet music on music stands,


As a copyist and librarian, I feel triggered.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 17, 2021)

I've recorded a cellist in a crap room with an SM57. It sounded pretty good.

Not recommending that approach, but just sayin


----------

