Topic: DIN? NOS? ORTF? XY? WTF???

[DSatz]

gutbucket, I agree with you completely on all points in your message. Thanks for posting.

--best regards

[F.O.Bean]

anyone remember the "nutter method" ?
he used to use minimal angle and a lot of spacing.
made good pulls.

i've applied that method several times with very good results.
run hypers about the same spacing as DIN (30cm) but angle them inwards so they point just at the outside of the stacks, instead of at 90 deg you'd be closer to parallel

ahem Simpy, DIN=20cm/90*, not 30cm/90*

[Simp-Dawg]

anyone remember the "nutter method" ?
he used to use minimal angle and a lot of spacing.
made good pulls.

i've applied that method several times with very good results.
run hypers about the same spacing as DIN (30cm) but angle them inwards so they point just at the outside of the stacks, instead of at 90 deg you'd be closer to parallel

ahem Simpy, DIN=20cm/90*, not 30cm/90*

d'oh, you're right, i suck.   i must've had NOS on the brain...by the way bean if you want to hear the wide cards NOS at red rocks, go download my panic show.  i know you're not so into them, but the tape is killer and if you don't groove on jimmy herring then there's just no hope for you.

[rockthing]

  Spaced Omnis

    This technique uses two (or three for large ensembles) omni-directional microphones evenly placed in front of an ensemble. This technique can easily produce phasing problems. A 3:1 rule should be utilized. 





<snip>

My comment- Blatantly incorrect (and one of my pet peeves). The 3 to 1 rule does not apply in this case at

<snip>

/rant off

Grea+ ranT. I thought I was just crazy when I read about the 3 to 1 rule.

and referring back to my comment a few posts ago,

It's funny how sometimes you make a mistake,
and it's not a mistake. 

[sunjan]

According to DPA...

"Some successful configurations are named
after the institutions that used them first, like
ORTF (Office de la Radio et de la Télévision Française),
NOS (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting), DIN
(Deutsche Industrie Norm), etc."

Like Dsatz implied, the DIN part is incorrect, both by name and conclusion. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung

DIN are "just" in charge of the norms, as opposed to RAI, ORTF etc which are broadcasting organisations.

BTW, I found another good technical overview, outlining NOS, EBS, RAI, ORTF, DIN. Check it out:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/VergleichAequivalenzMikrofonSyst.pdf

The text is in German, but the table and diagram can be understood universally. 

[sanaka]

Disclaimer: I skipped over most of this thread and am just going to blurt out what I want to say 

Drawing on the profoundly deep well of my my recording experience (insert humongous sarcastic guffaw here), I have derived a new and unique stereo micing technique. It dawned on me after long and careful ponderance of the various stereo techniques for two cardioid mics:  ORTF NOS RAI DIN OLSON XY.

I have dubbed it ONLYORSONFARTSDIOXIN

The setup is to place the mic capsules from 0 to 30 cm apart, at an angle of 90 to 135 degrees.

I hope you all find it very flexible and able to suit your needs. 

Peace,
Sanaka

[headroom]

I use quite often LTE for Film Video Documetary. Time Level Equivalence is a compromise between ORTF and NOS 

Level Time Equal Spacing 22cm 90* with cards,  96* Field of recording like ORTF

Technique described here on page 25:

http://www.marcousticaudio.de/Stuff/Diplomarbeit.pdf

I tried to translate from german with my " Swiss English "
First wavereflextions are captured with very precise information about the soundspace without overstreching  or losing the Pinpoint Information.

[headroom]

See link
 
http://www.mpkortschak.com/html/hauptmikrofon_engl.html

Inspires from the LTE techonlogy I recognised an " invisible identity line" in the area of the equivalent Stereo microphone techniques, to which t (time) and l (level) keep the scales. LTE based on ORTF proportions. Because of the combination of the recording area and the capsel dependent treble focus, the stereophonic main axis sounds much muffled in contrast of the edge areas. Nevertheless, there is on my " invisible identity line " a point, where these tonal unbeauties are perfectly balanced. "Well balanced XY" works with the same prinziple but disclaims the time difference component.

[mtee66]

I too have skipped the better part of this thread, but thought I'd throw out an observation for your comments.

The above stereo configurations are based on "first-order cardioid" mics space and angled accordingly.  When these configurations are used with sub and hyper cards (as many tapers note in their recording specs) has the stereo effect been compromised?  What are the trade offs or benefits? 

[Gutbucket]

Yes, the pickup pattern of the mics, the spacing and the angle between them are all interrelated.

Michael Williams' Stereo Zoom paper is helpful in explaining that relationship.

[datbrad]

Also, with SD cards, they are accurate off axis slightly more than 90 degrees, and this is one of the reasons the various coincident and near coincident patterns sound good. Subs are even more accurate off axis, and I would think this makes them better suited for ORTF than any 90 degree pattern.

Likewise, I have found that hypers at 90 degrees can sometimes not sound right, due to hypers being less accurate off axis than cards, and can sometimes have a "hole in the middle" effect in the soundstage when played back. For this reason, when in a boomy room or farther back than I would be if I could choose and hypers then are called for, I usually run them at 80 degrees, spaced about head width apart.

My thinking there is that if you are in a good enough sounding space to run at 90 degrees, you don't need hypers in the first place. YMMV......

[Javier Cinakowski]

Where did DINa come from ?   Looking at the SRA diagrams, I don't think I would use this configuration with hypers (maybe cards)...   DINa gives a +/-35 SRA, which is typical for most of the venues I record in, but 120° puts you a good bit into the reverberation limit of the theory.  Using hypers in a recording situation with a SRA of +/-35 I would choose 32cm x 80°   ...  Not only would this config give you a more stable image, it would also limit more chatter and reflections from the sides.... my $0.02

I just ordered a ⅝-27 die and stock to make my own rods, so I can have a selection of mount sizes.  I'll slide the rods in a shock/isolation mount and attach my rode swivel mounts.  This would be similar to the kwon bar setup but much cheaper and I can make any size I would ever need....

I am going to make bars for every SRA angle from +/-30° -> +/-60° chosing the most ideal point on the graph. 

Here are the options I will have...
notes:
- the rode swivel mounts give 17cm without a extention bar....
- I can't make a bar larger than 22cm becasue it wont fit in my bag, so I am limited to 37cm distance....
- The threads are 1cm, so 2cm per bar of threads...
- To limit the amount of bars I need to carry, slight compromise is made on the hyper graph...

Cards:
SRA+/-30° = 37cm X 110° =  22cm bar
SRA+/-40° = 32cm X  85°  =  17cm bar
SRA+/-50° = 23cm x  80°  =   8cm bar
SRA+/-60° = 17cm x  80°  =   No Bar

Hypers:
SRA+/-30° = 37cm X  90° =   22cm bar
SRA+/-40° = 32cm X  60°  =  17cm bar
SRA+/-50° = 23cm x  60°  =   8cm bar
SRA+/-60° = 17cm x  50°  =   No Bar


So, all I need to cover a 60° -> 120° SRA without reaching the angular distortion or reverberation limits is 3 extention bars!

    

[Javier Cinakowski]

BTW, you don't need a sextant to measure the SRA.  Some kind soul here told me of an old sailing trick.  Hold your closed fist with arm extended completely out, your fist is 10°.....

[Gutbucket]

Love the 3-bar system, great idea.

BTW, you don't need a sextant to measure the SRA.  Some kind soul here told me of an old sailing trick.  Hold your closed fist with arm extended completely out, your fist is 10°.....

 

[Javier Cinakowski]

T+ Mr. Gutbucket!