Just looking (not listening yet) - I would think the following:

1 - Cello - move the royer away from the F-hole. Aim it at the bridge if you are wanting a darker sound, towards the neck (where the neck is above the body) for a brighter sound. Considering you're a Midwesterner looking for an American sound, base of the neck would probably be preferred.

2 - Main pair - I would think this is too close to be an "overhead pair."

When using an overhead pair on piano and soloist, I like to use that pair to get the "complete picture." This requires space for the two disparate sounds to merge and complement eachother. Then, I use the spots to bring definition where needed.

As such, I would pull the overheads out and up, continue to spot mic the cello with the Royer then use mics to spot the piano that have a decent level of rejection so that you're not picking up too much cello. Place these mics a little outside the piano (distance and height varies to taste.)

I'll try to listen in a little bit.

Cheers -
J

Hi, I think the main mics are a bit too near to the cello. The piano has a nice ambience around it that the cello is missing. It seems too direct, not blending with the piano. I personally would set up the main pair for a nice sound of the cello with the piano already at the right spot but a bit too distant. Then I would mix in the piano spots (stereo) to give it a more direct impression (pull it forward) that fits to the cello. If you have room mics you can add additional ambience if necessary.
Best regards
Hermann

To me, the piano is already too wet and the cello is a hair too dry. Usually when I'm doing solo piano in this place, a linear distance of about 250 cm is just right for the ambience; this recording is about 370 linear cm away. Making an ideal recording with a single pair seems to be impossible. If I had my way, I'd ask to move the cellist closer to the piano, thus solving the problem, but the way they're setting up, there's like 1.25 m between the cello and the nearest part of the piano.

Thanks for the input guys.

still haven't listened...sorry.

one thought though -
as an engineer, I often listen to my recordngs and think they're too wet. then the client hears it and they love the ratio of reverb or evn ask for more.

perhaps in your awareness of the effect, you've become hyper aware.

Interesting... I strongly feel that this piano sound is too wet; everything below 800 Hz or so sounds like an indistinct blur. I'm interested to see what you and others think about this point.

David,

I just recorded a cello/piano duo doing Schnittke/Beethoven/Chopin sonatas in Cincinnati (CCM). I used a Schoeps MK21 wide-ORTF pair alone, and they love the results.

Interesting on the setup: "my" cellist set up virtually right in front of the piano (her chair back was maybe 1-2 feet from the front edge of the piano), in line with the hammers, but with her cello angled maybe 30-40 degrees to the left as heard by the audience (so the pianist is visible in her peripheral vision). My array was set up a touch left of piano centerline, angled slightly back toward centerline. The cello hangs a touch on the left channel, but that's the way it was heard in the hall, so that's how I preserved it, and that's the way they wanted it.

I find that the balance with cello/piano is REALLY dependent on repertoire. Wide dynamic range in the cello can really have it popping out of the texture or almost inaudible under the piano. Finding a happy medium with placement is a big challenge!

My only "wish" is maybe for an ever-so-subtle piano spot at times. (In this hall, they set the piano up only 3 feet or so from the rear of the stage. Here's a pic of the room: http:// (Werner Recital Hall at CCM))

once I listen (and I swear it wil be some time today) would you be willing to send me individual track files?

Thanks for the anecdote, Michael.

Jeremy: Hell yeah! Anything you want, just let me know and I'll cut them right now before I go and record harp, piano, and flute (oh my).

The different ratio of ambience for the two instruments seems to be a problem of the perspective seen from the main microphone. One way to work around this, that means to even out the differences of distance, would be the use of cardioids (also nice for audience rejection). You can position the main pair at a greater distance, so you will have a more uniform level of ambience for both instruments. You could use the omnis for piano spots to add a little low bass if needed.
Regards
Hermann

Hey Hermann, I had the exact same idea... I treid cardiods at the dress rehearsal, but the overall tone from the omnis was just so much better. I may stick both on one stand for the concert.

David French wrote: Hey Hermann, I had the exact same idea... I treid cardiods at the dress rehearsal, but the overall tone from the omnis was just so much better. I may stick both on one stand for the concert.

Yes, that's what I feel most of the time (omnis so much better... :roll: )

David French wrote: but the overall tone from the omnis was just so much better.

I almost always prefer the sound of omnis over carioids. They seem more tonally balanced in general.

That doesn't mean I won't use em, I just agree that in general, the tonal balance from omnis is usually far more open and realistic.

Comments based on listening to samples via internal G5 computer speaker....

The main mic balance favors the cello too much. The cello is dry and the piano is very wet, giving the incorrect perspective that the piano is 25 feet behind the cello. The spot mics are not helping. If anything, they are net negative because they over-exposing the limitations of the player.

Where is the soloist with relation to the piano?

My initial impression is that you need some distance with that cellist. Let the acoustic help its tone and mask undesirables. The piano has the opposite problem. Maybe a directional main mic (royer?) in front but further away from the cello, and the omni's acting as piano spot mics?

David, I really loved to hear everybody's response here because everybody hears things differently from each other. All quite valid. And all professionals.

I like my fine arts recordings, highly flavored and not necessarily to reproduce "sonic accuracy". I like cardioid microphones for their intimacy and greater warmth from proximity effect. Omni's for their ambience and freedom from proximity effect. Ribbons to impart a darker quality (excluding the Royer) on the cello. MS ribbons on the cello. Close-up. Sure! You bet! And a ORTF condenser pair, close-up for the piano. And your omnis, for the hall ambience and the main floor flavor.

Otherwise, I really liked your example of just the main pair if I had to choose one or the other. As opposed to your second clip with the spot's. It was all very nice stereo on both examples but I thought that the cello lacked a more centralized mono, front and center sound on both clips. Sure, it was nice. Sure, it was stereo. But I like my soloists mono, center. LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU! (I really didn't mean that. It's just an example. I find it's really difficult to talk to somebody that is crossed eyed or walleyed. See? Just an example of the same perception.) I don't necessarily always want the way "they" appeared visually onstage, although I generally do that more for rock-and-roll when video is involved but not always and generally not for solos.

My recording and mix, appears on my "sound stage" and in my head first, beyond the confines of the hall. What you've done is all beautiful stereo, expertly executed but I like that feeling of greater "center focus" and intimacy, for the instrument and/or vocal that is to be the center and point of interest. After all, we are trying to take people on "our journey" and not necessarily to a specific venue or some kind of technical blah blah thing.

Come with me on my magic carpet ride. And please don't step on the wolf.
Ms. Remy Ann David

Totally agreed about the lack of central focus.. it's the nature of the omnis, I suppose. I will try to somehow fix that for the concert.

Here's a sample from the Shostakovich sonata that was played, if anyone wants to hear it.

I think I made a good attempt at solving the problems that we identified.

Thanks for the pic, David. Nice result. Can you provide measurement or mic choice changes you made from your earlier recording?

It appears "your" cellist likes to sit about two feet further to the right (from the audience perspective) than does "my" cellist .... 8)

David! That sound is exactly as I was trying to express to you, of what I like to hear. Much more Mono Center focus on the cello with a great degree of presence. Beautiful piano accompaniment almost ethereal in its aural content. How beautiful! Just enough of that beautiful hall reverb to truly make you anxious to hear the next trailing reverb.

I wish I had something nasty, stupid, ridiculous to say, but I don't.

A+ + in my book
Ms. Remy Ann David

Michael: The changes were backing the mics up by 40 cm or so, raising them up by about 30 cm, moving the cello spot to the other side of the cello, adding a bit of EQ (cut at 450, boost at 5 k) to the piano spot, and using less of that spot.

Remy: Thanks so much. This means a lot to me coming from you.

I might be getting a session with this player to record the same material...

Are you using three 4006s in the main pickup?

No. On that tall stand is a pair of CMC64 (28 cm / 70 deg.) as well as the 4006 pair for convenience of comparison. The 4006 won without difficulty, but for the last half of the concert, I printed the CMC64 in my multitrack just for the heck of it.

Okay...sorry for being a dead-beat wanker...but, I finally listened.

First two samples...

WHOA lots of low end stuff going on there. Very bloated and as others have mentioned, very "close" on the cello and very distant on the piano. As you mentioned, much mid and low is a blur.

Concert sample -

Still lots of low end information which does not need to be present (near infra-sonic stuff.) I would personally put a HPF on at around 40 Hz and a gentle slope cut below 200 Hz. (It seems a bit out of control there.)

One thing I notice by your picture is that the soloist and the piano are pretty far back on stage (can't tell for sure since the edge of the stage is not pictured). This probably contributes significantly in the excessive bassiness of the recording. They need to be more comfortable getting closer to the edge. For solo with piano, it should not be half and half (midway on the stage). IMO, they should be farther forward than 2/3rds up the stage - maybe as much as 4/5ths. Are the acoustics in that hall modular? (For some reason I recall that they are...maybe I'm wrong.) If that's the case, make the stage smaller.

One other thing of note here...I thought the whole recording was too loud. I know that "loud" is a relative term, but, monitoring at my fixed level, it was quite a bit louder than I would have expected from cello and piano. In fact, in the samples, levels were in excess of -4dBfs which should be reserved for those wonderful moments in Mahler symphonies, not cello concerti.

Now it sounds like I'm being excessively critical, and believe me, that's not my intent. There's a lot of positive things happening here. The sound of the cello is, well, sublime. The reverb is fantastic (is it real or is it memorex? There's only one point (1 min, 1 sec and 8 frames in on the concert recording) where I felt there might be hint of "fake" reverb.

I like to approach the recording of a soloist and a pianist in one of two ways.

Method A:

Think of mic'ing the players rather directly (spot on the soloist, stereo spot) and using that mix to build your ensemble sound. Then, bring up your ambient pair to create a sense of room and space. This logic flies in the face of all of those "2-track only purist afficianado (freaks)" out there. Well, IMO, 2 tracks isn't always the answer and I think anyone who insists that it is is more likely afraid of the difficulties involved in a good multi-mic set up and use their "purist" approach as a defense against sanity and reason. (Sorry...tangent).

This particular method works in environments where:
1 - the hall is excessively reverbarent
2 - the hall has a little too much noise for my taste
3 - the acoustics of the hall lack a little from what I might want.

Method B -
Mic the performers with a good, well-placed over head pair and use that well-placed pair to provide your overall mix. Then, bring in spots (if necessary) to fill in the potential gaps.

This method works when:
1 - The acoustics are just right
2 - The performers know how to feed off of one another and blend appropriately

IME, Method A is the most appropriate in most situations. I have rarely had the opportunity to employ Method B as the acoustics in most venues simply suck. Occassionally though, I do get that wonderful gig where the hall is good, the performers are good and everything works out well.

In your particular case, it seems as though the hall is inappropriate for the performance. Perhaps a tad too "big" both in the literal sense and the figurative/subjective sense. In which case, method A seems to be (IMO) the more appropriate method.

Cheers!

J.