Tinny sound accompanying cello on recordings ?

I never heard of adding weights on bows per se. Is this a known technique?

No it is not normally done that way - usually the bow is balanced so you select the bow based on its feel and weight to help produce the desired sound.

Sorry if my narrow example missed the mark - there are a lot of other ways to control the sound of a cello - I did not intend to give an exhaustive list.

Ah OK, I thought for a minute that after coaching my daughter on her cello for 12 years I had warped my memory. . . which I probably have (grins!)

In regard to all this it is interesting to see how the historical shift from viol/gamba to cello/violin changes those idiosyncratic string resonances. It gives a totally different set of variables and 'extra' sounds.

Mental strings versus gut strings are TOTALLY different, as the string players above can attest to. It is always great to sit down and compare are 17th century consort of viols to a modern chamber ensemble playing the same piece. Easy to find with Bach, Purcell, Vivaldi, or even Couperin.

I have had the pleasure of hearing Harrell preform the Dvorak live. I sat fairly close to Harrell, probably about 35 ft. My guess is that what you are describing is probably a recording accurately capturing his sound. I would describe it as cello with a bit of bite. I liked the performance very much. I've also heard Truls Mork, Alban Gerhard, and Janos Starker live, and I recall all of them having a somewhat more mellow sound than Harrell. The advice that was given earlier to listen to a live cello is excellent advice. I would add to that to listen to a number of different performers. It is surprising how different one instrument sounds from another.

Dougdeacon...No need to apologize about the "threadjack". Your comments/observations are never less than interesting and insightful. Frequently funny too, and that is certainly welcome. I also just wanted to mention something in response to your remarks about the effects of cleaning lps. I recently compared three copies of the same recording. Notwithstanding wear (though with all three wear was relatively light) and the matter of earlier vs. later stampers, I decided to clean one with a 75/25 mix of very pure, triple de-ionized water/99.9% pure isoprophyl, and another with a highly regarded (at least, here on Audiogon)record cleaning rinse. The third copy was simply left alone, never having been cleaned by me (only the Audioquest record dust brush) since I had purchased it. After listening intently to all three several times, this is what I heard: The sound of the one cleaned with alcohol/water presented considerable detail, top to bottom, but overall seemed just a very slight touch bleached in contrast to the copy cleaned with the commercial solution. In turn, this latter copy seemed to compromise slightly the top end detail of the alcohol/water disc, while giving more presence to the midrange to lower midrange. To my ears, the record left alone seem to have displayed the best balance in sound of both of the aforementioned discs. This was not the first time I have experimented like this, with the results being the same. Unless a record really needs a cleansing, my preference dictates laissez-faire. Does anyone else care to comment on whether they've tried a similar test, and what they found/preferred ? Now I seem to be "threadjacking" myself.