Topic: ORTF or DIN(a)

[Professor chaos]

give me a break dude. its just what people call that technique.

[Professor chaos]

i guess i could have said it in a better way or maybe used an emoticon. i wasn't offended at all. it is kinda funny but thats what they call it. +T

[boojum]

Because ORTF, NOS and the DIN(a) arrays are best a slightly different things, go to the Rycote website and this address: http://www.rycote.com/assets/documents/technical_files/The%20Stereophonic%20Zoom.pdf.  The publication addresses all arrays possible with graphs as to how to set distance between diaphragms and the angles.  It is all physics, not opinion, and the author has done the research for you.  You need only plug in your parameters and go.  I use it for acoustic recording.  It would also apply as well to PA.

Cheers

[momule]

IMO the configs kinda all have a little +'s & -'s

[XY] Best to use in a muddy room or with a loud boomy band. very narrow soundstage.
[DIN] Good overall quick and easy set up.  Sometimes kinda just sound blahhh.  Not a whole lot of sound stage.
[DINA] a bit better sound stage than DIN but not as boomy as ORTF.
[ORTF] Huge soundstage.  Tends to muddy up the overall AUD sound if used any where other than stagelip.  can make a hollow/empty sound to the middle of the soundstage.

 

[Brian Skalinder]

Just wanted to reinforce the idea that while feedback from your peers may provide a useful starting point, different people have different opinions of what configs sound good in what circumstances, etc.  Also, while it helps a lot to understand the physics (a la the sterephonic zoom doc), no documentation can tell you how the recording will sound to your ears, or what sound you prefer.  Opinion is very much a part of making recordings that you like, and real-life field experience - and experimentation - is critical to developing your own opinions on mic configs.

Regarding feedback from your peers, and people having different opinions, consider XY.  Many people find it has a narrow soundstage.  I used to think so, too, until I started running wider included angles.  The wider included angles really opened up the soundstage for me.  I also find I prefer XY (or other coincident techniques like Mid-Side or Blumlein) on-stage or stage lip as I think the spacing of near-coincident techniques (like ORTF, DIN, etc.) sometimes exaggerates the soundstage to a point I find unnatural, while others love these near-coincident techniques on-stage.

As for the stereophonic zoom comment...the information, again, serves as a good starting point.  It won't do you any good until you experiment and find what you like, when, and where.  For example, you might be in a situation with a narrow soundstage, so you may decide to run 20cm spacing with an included angle of 130º.  While this may provide more accurate stereo representation of the soundstage, in a loud concert environment it might also capture too much ambient noise - so while you gain stereo imaging, you might also gain the undesirable effects of increased crowd noise and reverberant sound.

So...take the comments as starting points only and get out there and record to see what you like. 

[F.O.Bean]

I was playing around tonight with my MBHO KA 200 N Cards/KA 500 HN Hypers and my newly acquired MBHO DIN and NOS KwonBars, along with my older DINa KwonBar. I did notice that my fav configs in front of my stereo in order of preference were:

1. Hypers/DINa
2. Hypers/NOS(yes, thats right, hypers/NOS I imagine when I get the subcards, I will like them in NOS as well The hypers in NOS provided a nice sense of openness and space with the wider spacing, but also had that crisp and focused hyper pattern, but with seemingly better bass response than a tighter spacing. The lowend was a bit more loose than DINa, but was nice a present in the mix. I can DEF see myself trying this out at the usual haunts I usually record Hypers/DINa in
3. Cards/DIN
4. Hypers/DIN
5. Cards/NOS

I didnt do Cards/DINa, but Im sure I would have liked it alot.

[rowjimmytour]

I've been playing with wider spacing and less off-axis angling, with nice results, in an effort to eliminate more audience.

I do this too, often running a DINish or NOSish type set-up at 80-90 deg. and ~ 25cm separation.

I do this mostly in the small bar I tape in since the SDB is 8' left DFC and the place is boomy and narrow. I also have taking up using the hypers but for acoustic stuff I think XY hypers work best there.
Peace

[bgalizio]

I was playing around tonight with my MBHO KA 200 N Cards/KA 500 HN Hypers and my newly acquired MBHO DIN and NOS KwonBars, along with my older DINa KwonBar. I did notice that my fav configs in front of my stereo in order of preference were:

1. Hypers/DINa
2. Hypers/NOS(yes, thats right, hypers/NOS I imagine when I get the subcards, I will like them in NOS as well The hypers in NOS provided a nice sense of openness and space with the wider spacing, but also had that crisp and focused hyper pattern, but with seemingly better bass response than a tighter spacing. The lowend was a bit more loose than DINa, but was nice a present in the mix. I can DEF see myself trying this out at the usual haunts I usually record Hypers/DINa in
3. Cards/DIN
4. Hypers/DIN
5. Cards/NOS

I didnt do Cards/DINa, but Im sure I would have liked it alot.

No "hole in the middle" with hypers NOS?

[F.O.Bean]

I was playing around tonight with my MBHO KA 200 N Cards/KA 500 HN Hypers and my newly acquired MBHO DIN and NOS KwonBars, along with my older DINa KwonBar. I did notice that my fav configs in front of my stereo in order of preference were:

1. Hypers/DINa
2. Hypers/NOS(yes, thats right, hypers/NOS I imagine when I get the subcards, I will like them in NOS as well The hypers in NOS provided a nice sense of openness and space with the wider spacing, but also had that crisp and focused hyper pattern, but with seemingly better bass response than a tighter spacing. The lowend was a bit more loose than DINa, but was nice a present in the mix. I can DEF see myself trying this out at the usual haunts I usually record Hypers/DINa in
3. Cards/DIN
4. Hypers/DIN
5. Cards/NOS

I didnt do Cards/DINa, but Im sure I would have liked it alot.

No "hole in the middle" with hypers NOS?

not that I could tell about 5ft in front of my stereo. maybe in the back of a venue, but doubtful FOB/DFC where I record mainly

[Gutbucket]

...As for the stereophonic zoom comment...the information, again, serves as a good starting point.  It won't do you any good until you experiment and find what you like, when, and where.  For example, you might be in a situation with a narrow soundstage, so you may decide to run 20cm spacing with an included angle of 130º.  While this may provide more accurate stereo representation of the soundstage, in a loud concert environment it might also capture too much ambient noise - so while you gain stereo imaging, you might also gain the undesirable effects of increased crowd noise and reverberant sound.

So...take the comments as starting points only and get out there and record to see what  you like. 

Brian makes an excellent point. The Stereophonic Zoom data really helped me to understand the relationship between the spacing and angle between the mics, but only addresses one aspect of many when recording - which is minimizing the angular distortion of the placement of instruments across the soundstage on playback.  It tells you nothing about adjusting things for boomy rooms or imperfect acoustics vs stellar rooms, noisy crowds vs quiet audiences, the response behavior of your particular mics of-axis, how much ambiance you'll pick-up, how loose or tight the bass sounds, or what sounds most natural to you.  All of those things are often more important considerations & balancing all that is an art.

[boojum]

^^^^ Williams says in Stereophonic Zoom that this technique will get you very close to what you want.  It accounts, as you said, for angular distortion and soundstage, something which no one has mentioned as critical in acoustic music, and which this technique addresses.  ORTF, for example, may be very good in a certain soundstage width/distance combo and NOS in another set of circumstances.  What the paper does do is save the RE from having to re-invent the wheel at every venue.  It gives you an excellent starting point and that is its sole intent. 

I find it useful for that.

I recorded a jazz duo Friday and did it with an omni at the drummer's right ear pointing toward the drums, another omni right in front of the kick drum and two cards parallel and low down pointed at and in front of the guitarist's amp.  It came out very well except that there is a bit too much kick drum.  My fault at the mixer.  I have tried the SZ technique on these guys and it does not work in the venue at all.  There is no "golder Rule" but this is a good start for acoustic.  That is its purpose.  Black magic and voodoo are also still required.

Cheers

[Seth01]

Hey guys,

I just wanted to say thanks for all the great info from this thread.  I've learned a lot and greatly appreicate it.