Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)  (Read 5180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tim

  • (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 32913
  • Gender: Male
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2004, 03:29:19 PM »
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.
I’ve had a few weird experiences and a few close brushes with total weirdness of one sort or another, but nothing that’s really freaked me out or made me feel too awful about it. - Jerry Garcia

Offline Kwonfidelity

  • (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Press Record!!!
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2004, 03:47:04 PM »
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.

WTF*** did Julian know about taping?!?!?!    And whoare these Oade doods I keep hearing about?

 ;)
Southern Recording, Inc.
High Fidelity Audio Capture

Offline Tim

  • (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 32913
  • Gender: Male
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2004, 04:00:32 PM »
I'm telling J you said that ;-)
I’ve had a few weird experiences and a few close brushes with total weirdness of one sort or another, but nothing that’s really freaked me out or made me feel too awful about it. - Jerry Garcia

Offline wboswell

  • (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2004, 04:05:37 PM »
Julian fluffers.  The lot of you...

Offline nic

  • Big In Japan
  • (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4700
  • Gender: Male
    • half dead batteries
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2004, 04:06:53 PM »
Julian fluffers.  The lot of you...

this must be a Widespread thing. . .


the water's clean and innocent

Offline Tim

  • (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 32913
  • Gender: Male
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2004, 04:11:35 PM »
Julian fluffers.  The lot of you...

 :lol:
I’ve had a few weird experiences and a few close brushes with total weirdness of one sort or another, but nothing that’s really freaked me out or made me feel too awful about it. - Jerry Garcia

Offline mhibbs

  • (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
  • it's all about the GA preamps
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2004, 05:48:49 PM »
>You mean:
>mk4s: ortf, 17/90, 20/90?

yeah, I was more referring to ortf vs 20/90, but a comparison of 17/90 to the two would also be great.


mitch
Oade preamp museum curator

Offline Sean Gallemore

  • (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8316
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2004, 07:05:30 PM »
I'm running 14cm 90* with fantastic results, DIN-S?

Offline boomfizzle

  • (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2021, 12:41:45 PM »
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.

This is why TS is awesome.  This 17 year old post just unlocked some incredible examples for me.
Mics: Nak300CMs |  AT853s 4.7k mod | AT2021s | Superlux S502mkii | Superscope EC-3S | Superscope EC-33S Recs: Zoom H6 | Tascam DR-22WL

Offline rocksuitcase

  • (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7113
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re:DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2021, 01:55:23 PM »
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.

This is why TS is awesome.  This 17 year old post just unlocked some incredible examples for me.
And the Oade's ran a mic comp for us as well!
https://archive.org/details/gd85-08-31.schoeps-oade.sacks.25943.sbeok.flacf    90 X-Y 17cm/90* Schoeps CMC441 & 8ft spaced Schoeps CMC42s -> custom M118 x2 -> custom Oade mixer -> Oade MOD PCM-F1
https://archive.org/details/gd85-08-31.oade.connor.8237.sbeok.shnf                   90 X-Y 17cm/90* Schoeps CMC441  only   

I just happened on these as I was uploading our AKGc422 recording of this show last month, AND I happened to be set up next to them at this show and our third deck was patched into their analog chain. my master cassette is sick (in a good way)!             
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3154
  • Gender: Male
Re: DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2021, 11:29:57 PM »
These "cookbook" miking arrangements were developed decades ago from various peoples' experience, with whatever kinds of music they happened to be recording, under the conditions that they typically encountered. Later on, various formulas were devised which gave a mathematical basis for evaluating mike setups, but even those formulas aren't necessarily precise or reliable (e.g. the way in which arrival-time differences are equated with level differences and vice versa).

The kind of recording that most people here seem to do most of the time is quite different in principle from the kinds of recording that these "cookbook" methods were devised for. The "cookbook" methods assume live, unamplified performers in concert hall settings or studio recording of live ensembles. There are certain built-in assumptions about the way that reverberation will vary with distance from the sound sources, which aren't particularly valid when the sound sources are loudspeaker arrays that are pumping out pre-mixed audio (generally in mono) and where the room has other than concert-hall acoustics. Most of all there's an assumption that the engineer is free to place the microphone pair at any desired distance from the sound sources and at any desired height, so that the balance of direct vs. diffuse sound can be chosen to suit the room, the type of music, and the intended type of playback system.

I'm not saying that the formulas are irrelevant; I'm just saying that there's no reliable basis for any argument over which one is "best". Certain approaches make more technical sense than others--but even the approaches that are obviously flawed from a technical standpoint (e.g. coincident, large-diaphragm, dual-diaphragm cardioids, or pairs of shotgun microphones in any configuration whatsoever) can, at least sometimes, produce good-sounding recordings. And the approaches that make much better technical sense overall (e.g. with small, single-diaphragm supercardioids or wide cardioids having some moderate spacing between them) can be disappointing. A lot depends on factors that are simply outside the recordist's control. And a lot depends on what you personally consider to be a satisfying or a disappointing recording, since different people listen for different qualities in a recording.

--best regards
« Last Edit: October 02, 2021, 11:35:17 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline datbrad

  • (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Gender: Male
Re: DINA (17cm/90deg) vs. DIN (20cm/90 deg)
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2021, 10:31:55 AM »
The main thing I've learned over the years recording bands where the source (backline amps+PA) isn't a soundstage created by the actual instruments is to reflect back on one fundamental of what stereo recording is about, controlling the effect of sound that seems to reside in between the loudspeakers on playback. What I hear when I listen to a DIN vs XY recording of a concert stage is what sounds come from between the loudspeakers and what sounds are pushed off to the sides. Once you get far enough away that your distance is greater than the width of the music's soundstage, there isn't much of a difference in how the mics "hear" the desired source with XY and DIN. What noticably changes is the position of ambient sounds, particularly undesired sounds like audience noise. Consider an audience member several feet away and seated 85 degrees to one side of the mics position relative to the stage, clapping extra loudly or making some other distracting racket. In an XY recording, the directional cue of where that person is located will be audible due to the L/R intensity differences between the channels, but they will sound in between the speakers on playback along with the desired soundstage, just closer to one side than the other. Adding inter-channel delay with a 20cm spacing narrows the SRA enough that it creates an illusion that they are well off to the side of the soundstage, being almost entirely heard coming from one speaker on playback.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 07:44:21 PM by datbrad »
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Beyer M201>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD561 (Oade CMOD)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 35 queries.
© 2002-2021 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF