Author Topic: ORTF with Hypers??? (Read 9992 times)

stevetoney · « **on:** February 15, 2008, 04:46:42 PM »

I've been doing some listening on archive and noticed more than once where people ran hypers in ORTF. Am I missing something or doesn't ORTF kinda defeat the purpose?

John Willett · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2008, 04:53:10 PM »

ORTF is cardioids at 110 degrees at 17cm spacing.

Any other pattern / angle / spacing is *not* ORTF.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2008, 04:53:32 PM »

hey, read that stereophonic zoom paper. I don't think I will ever bother using a standardized configuration....

Will_S · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2008, 04:58:51 PM »

What purpose do you think is being defeated? Are you thinking of hypers as extremely directional beasts that are only good for pointing right at the sound source from a distance? They're not shotguns.

Are you thinking hypers are just for cutting down on off-axis room noise? I think they can be pleasing in better situations as well.

Hypers ORTF (for now accepting any mics 17cm apart and angled 110° are ORTF) will create a wider stereo image than card ORTF. Hypers tend to have a pattern that's more uniform across frequency than cards are (i.e. a card is more directional at high frequencies than it is at low). So if you want to create a wide stereo image, but maintain good frequency response for sources straight in front of you, hypers might work better than cards. E.g. to get the same image width you would with ORTF hypers (assuming a fixed setup location of course, and for the sake of argument saying you didn't want to go wider than 17cm due to phase/timing considerations), you'd probably have to run cards at 130 degrees or more. That's starting to put sources directly in front of you far enough off axis to sound colored with some cardioids. Hypers, while attenuated more off axis, at least are more evenly attenuated across all frequencies, and so will color the central sound less.

Not to mention, some folks like the effect you get from the rear lobe picking up a bit of ambience out of phase.

stevetoney · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2008, 04:59:49 PM »

Quote from: John Willett on February 15, 2008, 04:53:10 PM

ORTF is cardioids at 110 degrees at 17cm spacing.

Any other pattern / angle / spacing is *not* ORTF.

Ah sooo. I missed that point about ORTF and was just focusing on spacing and angle.

BC · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:02:56 PM »

isn't ORTF intended specifically for cardioid mics?

BC · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:04:11 PM »

FWIW, just found this from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique

ORTF combines both the volume difference provided as sound arrives on- and off-axis at two cardioid microphones spread to a 110º angle, as well as the timing difference as sound arrives at the two microphones spaced 17 cm apart.

stevetoney · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:07:50 PM »

Quote from: Will_S on February 15, 2008, 04:58:51 PM

What purpose do you think is being defeated? Are you thinking of hypers as extremely directional beasts that are only good for pointing right at the sound source from a distance? They're not shotguns.

Are you thinking hypers are just for cutting down on off-axis room noise? I think they can be pleasing in better situations as well.

Thanks for the thoughts/opinions. I wasn't debating their use in ORTF, but really was curious if the config was kinda oxymoronic.

So, while no I knew most hypers aren't extremely directional mics (your first question), I was thinking more along the lines that their primary use was decreasing off-axis noise (your second question).

So, I appreciate the tech info. Good stuff. +T

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:09:59 PM »

Not sure what you mean by "defeat the purpose". Taking up boojum's chorus: check out The Stereophonic Zoom (linked in the sticky at the top of the forum). Hypercardioids at 17cm spacing with 110º included angle yield a sterephonic recording angle (SRA) of ~37º (for a total of 74º spanning L to R, or vice versa). So if the sound source occupies roughly a 74º arc from the recording location, it seems a reasonable However, note this configuration risks capturing too much centered reverberation (see the SZ link for details).

Quote from: tonedeaf on February 15, 2008, 05:07:50 PM

I was thinking more along the lines that their primary use was decreasing off-axis noise (your second question).

That's one of the challenges, and why SZ is just a starting point. It's a challenge to balance SRA, reverberation, and angular distortion. Fun trying out different options, at any rate.

stevetoney · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:12:17 PM »

Quote from: BC on February 15, 2008, 05:04:11 PM

FWIW, just found this from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique

ORTF combines both the volume difference provided as sound arrives on- and off-axis at two cardioid microphones spread to a 110º angle, as well as the timing difference as sound arrives at the two microphones spaced 17 cm apart.

I'm not debating, but this statement is kinda generically true of any of the mic configs, isn't it? Although of course the point of XY is to eliminate timing difference.

stevetoney · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:17:26 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on February 15, 2008, 05:09:59 PM

Not sure what you mean by "defeat the purpose".

I guess my choice of words might not have been the best. When I was referring to 'the purpose', I was referring to the rule of thumb that lots of people recommend hypers for minimizing room reverb.

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:19:53 PM »

Steve, I would also suggest trying hypers/NOS and see how you like that. I would suggest being DFC and pretty close to the stage. Here is my 12/31 RAQ recording, where I was 9th row/DFC w/ hypers/NOS

http://www.archive.org/details/raq2007-12-31.ka500.722.flac16

jlykos · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2008, 02:16:15 AM »

Hypers ORTF run a greater chance of you having a hole in the middle of the soundstage because of their wider spacing. I run hypers in DIN (17 cm / 90*) all the time and I like the results very much. The narrower angle results in a more coherent soundstage.

Roger Gustavsson · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2008, 07:24:35 AM »

You can find quite a lot of information on stetting up microphones on Sengpiel's homepage. This one gives a good view of how different setups work. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Stereo-LautlokEines60.pdf

waltmon · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2008, 12:05:23 PM »

I agree with the 90 degree spread on the hypers. While I loved the sound of the instruments w/ the 150's @ 110...the vocals seemed distant. The 90 degree change really tightened up the sound and pushed the vocals much more forward in the mix.

notsofast · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2008, 04:20:18 PM »

I did exactly what jlykos & Bean did with my Hypers DIN (17 cm / 90*) and I am so very happy with the results. Will post my pull of Perpetual Groove to LMA latter this week and will welcome comments as this will be my first posting.

Tim

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:56:17 PM »

Quote from: notsofast on February 24, 2008, 04:20:18 PM

I did exactly what jlykos & Bean did with my Hypers DIN (17 cm / 90*) and I am so very happy with the results. Will post my pull of Perpetual Groove to LMA latter this week and will welcome comments as this will be my first posting.

Tim

NICE!!! I ran Hypers/NOS at the RAQ NYE show for NYE and was AMAZED at the results. I ran Hypers/DINa on 12/30 and was just 3 rows behind where I was setup for NYE and the Hypers/NOS came out AMAZINGLKY KICKASS!!! I am SOOO GLAD that I bought all of the KwonBars before XMAS before Cascademedia.net closed down. Now I have the DINa/DIN and NOS KwonBars and am ready for everything coming my way. Now all OI need is the MBHO Subcards and the single MBHO Figure-8 capsule I already ordered and my rig is ready for the next level

Bean

stober · « **Reply #17 on:** February 24, 2008, 06:38:28 PM »

Quote from: tonedeaf on February 15, 2008, 04:46:42 PM

I've been doing some listening on archive and noticed more than once where people ran hypers in ORTF.

If any of them are mine it was a mistake.

Last year at Bonnaroo and Langerado I thought I was running my mk4's but instead I was using my mk41's.So there where a few times I ran them ortf.I can't believe I did it at TWO festivals but I did.

Jammin72 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 24, 2008, 07:39:56 PM »

Many hypers can be run with that configuration. Look at the polar pattern chart for your mic, in general you can run with an included angle of 2X where 1K drops off by 3db on the chart. In the case of the CK63 it's right in the range of 50-55deg so it's not a stretch to get good results using ORTF.

deadheaded · « **Reply #19 on:** February 24, 2008, 07:47:29 PM »

O.R.T.F. is not about the angles. it is about the spacing. 17 Centemeters.
if using cardiods you run at 110* if using hypers you run the angles at 90*. same 17 cm spacing just different angles based on the capsules being used. i run mk-41's only. i run them at 17 cm @ 90*. in my recording notes i always call it O.R.T.F. some people call hypers at 90* 17 cm spacing DINa.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #20 on:** February 24, 2008, 10:47:10 PM »

Quote from: deadheaded on February 24, 2008, 07:47:29 PM

O.R.T.F. is not about the angles. it is about the spacing. 17 Centemeters.
if using cardiods you run at 110* if using hypers you run the angles at 90*. same 17 cm spacing just different angles based on the capsules being used. i run mk-41's only. i run them at 17 cm @ 90*. in my recording notes i always call it O.R.T.F. some people call hypers at 90* 17 cm spacing DINa.

FWIW, you're labelling your recording notes incorrectly. As John W already noted previously in the thread, ORTF = cardioids with 17cm spacing and 110º included angle. It isn't about the spacing, it isn't not about the angles, and it isn't one thing with hypers and another with carioids. It's about the specific combination of pattern, spacing, and included angle. Any configuration that is not cardioid, with 17cm spacing, and 110º is -not- ORTF.

DSatz · « **Reply #21 on:** February 24, 2008, 11:02:24 PM »

Brian, I agree with you, and there's one more thing: small-diaphragm condenser microphones must be used.

This isn't "according to me"--it's according to the developers of the ORTF system, Messrs. Condamines and Laracine.

--best regards

Jammin72 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 24, 2008, 11:25:40 PM »

I'm trying to find where I read this... but I recall reading somewhere that when originally developed the French used hypercardiods but for now I'm having a hard time relocating that data...

Will_S · « **Reply #23 on:** February 25, 2008, 01:46:01 PM »

Quote from: Jammin72 on February 24, 2008, 11:25:40 PM

I'm trying to find where I read this... but I recall reading somewhere that when originally developed the French used hypercardiods but for now I'm having a hard time relocating that data...

I also thought I remembered reading that when I first saw this thread, but I couldn't google it back up.

stevetoney · « **Reply #24 on:** February 25, 2008, 02:53:34 PM »

Quote from: Jammin72 on February 24, 2008, 11:25:40 PM

I'm trying to find where I read this... but I recall reading somewhere that when originally developed the French used hypercardiods but for now I'm having a hard time relocating that data...

You're having a hard time finding the data because French hypercardiods retreated behind the front lines and prepared to surrender, but cardiods stepped out front to save ORTF recording...hypers have a short memory and are bitching about it now.

Javier Cinakowski · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2008, 02:56:44 PM »

Quote from: tonedeaf on February 25, 2008, 02:53:34 PM

Quote from: Jammin72 on February 24, 2008, 11:25:40 PM
I'm trying to find where I read this... but I recall reading somewhere that when originally developed the French used hypercardiods but for now I'm having a hard time relocating that data...

French hypercardiods retreated behind the front lines and prepared to surrender, but cardiods stepped out front to save ORTF recording...hypers have a short memory and are bitching about it now.

Part of the problem was that the French-hypers failed to take into consideration the reverberation and angular distortion. The cards were able to porperly inplement these variables by reading their copy of the "Stereophonic Zoom." The SZ is not availible in French....

notsofast · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:09:40 PM »

Could we agree on calling them by the proper term, "freedom" hypers, please.

Tim

nedstruzz · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2008, 04:37:38 PM »

I've run hypers in an ORTF fashion and recieved great results. Typically FOB in an outdoor or WSP enviornment.

Petrus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2008, 08:29:09 AM »

All mics, angles and distances are legal, as long as you get pleasing results...

I have even used hypers with a Jecklin disc, it happened to have mic suspensions attached at the moment. Childrens choir in a slightly too revibrant studio. Worked fine, if not "by the book". Angle was about 60 deg.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2008, 12:43:02 PM »

No question people should use what works best. The "standard" well-known configurations are just a starting point. But that doesn't mean recordists should misappropriate the names of the "standard" configurations. I, for one, am having fun more and more breaking away from the "standards" and using the Stereophonic Zoom go guide my starting point.

Gizby · « **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2008, 03:30:50 PM »

Someone needs to start a thread on Stereophonic Zoom. I want to try it out, but I'd like some general feedback first.

dactylus · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2008, 07:07:35 AM »

Quote from: Moke on February 26, 2008, 12:03:13 PM

Quote from: Petrus on February 26, 2008, 08:29:09 AM
All mics, angles and distances are legal, as long as you get pleasing results...

I have even used hypers with a Jecklin disc, it happened to have mic suspensions attached at the moment. Childrens choir in a slightly too revibrant studio. Worked fine, if not "by the book". Angle was about 60 deg.

QFT

I've taken to labeling ORTF as 17cm@110º cardioid
DIN, labeled as 20cm@90º cardioid
DIN-A as 17cm@90º cardioid
XY as XY90º, XY100º etc.
wild ass guesses = 15"@50º cardioid, 12"@70º
baffled cards etc.

did I mention tht I used dual membrane LD's and a j-disc baffle with excellent, stunning results?
we were told that can't be done either.

Moke - what were you recording when you used "dual membrane LD's and a j-disc baffle"? Were you running omnis or something else?

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2008, 05:22:41 PM »

Quote from: dactylus on February 27, 2008, 07:07:35 AM

Quote from: Moke on February 26, 2008, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: Petrus on February 26, 2008, 08:29:09 AM
All mics, angles and distances are legal, as long as you get pleasing results...

I have even used hypers with a Jecklin disc, it happened to have mic suspensions attached at the moment. Childrens choir in a slightly too revibrant studio. Worked fine, if not "by the book". Angle was about 60 deg.

QFT

I've taken to labeling ORTF as 17cm@110º cardioid
DIN, labeled as 20cm@90º cardioid
DIN-A as 17cm@90º cardioid
XY as XY90º, XY100º etc.
wild ass guesses = 15"@50º cardioid, 12"@70º
baffled cards etc.

did I mention tht I used dual membrane LD's and a j-disc baffle with excellent, stunning results?
we were told that can't be done either.

Moke - what were you recording when you used "dual membrane LD's and a j-disc baffle"? Were you running omnis or something else?

omnis

Petrus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2008, 01:51:45 AM »

Why would the size ot the mic affect the diameter of the baffle? The baffle is supposed to represent the human head, yes? Baby mics, baby's head?

Author Topic: ORTF with Hypers??? (Read 9992 times)

stevetoney

stevetoney

stevetoney

stevetoney

stevetoney

stevetoney