Topic: wanted: pros and cons (from in the field experience) between DINa/DIN/NOS

[jeromejello]

i am looking to pick up another bar for my mbhos.  since i can't have my favorite pattern ortf, i was wondering what some of you all think about the following setups & when is the ideal situation for them to be utilized (e.g., on stage, fob, in the section [at the typical rock show]):

DINa / DIN / NOS.

At this point, i am only using cards, but i plan to add hypers and/or widecards to my arsenal - so feel free to interject as appropriate.  I already have a DINa mount, but would love to know more about its preferred situations.

[Rob D.]

I typically mount my cards on NOS or DIN, depending on the venue and distance from the stage. I almost always mount my hypers on DINa giving them the short seperation needed. YMMV but this has gotten me optimal results. And don't be afraid to experiment, this hobby is all about trial and error

[Gil]

I've pretty much settled on NOS for whatever situation I'm in when running cards. Hell, I've even run omnis in "NOS" with good results. I should also add that this is based on zero science; I've just had the most consistant results with NOS vs. DIN, ORTF, and XY.

[ghellquist]

i am looking to pick up another bar for my mbhos.  since i can't have my favorite pattern ortf, i was wondering ...

Stupid question. Why not ORTF ?
// Gunnar

[Rob D.]

He only wants to mount his active caps/cables on a bar mount (see pics here: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=126156.0)

[jeromejello]

i am looking to pick up another bar for my mbhos.  since i can't have my favorite pattern ortf, i was wondering ...

Stupid question. Why not ORTF ?
// Gunnar

not a stupid question... i would LOVE to run ortf... unfortunately there is only one kwon mbho ortf bar and peter aint selling it...

if there was a ortf bar available, i do not think i would have this conversation since i would just have that bar and be happy with it... since i have a DINa bar and not 100% thrilled with it, i am looking to see what else is out there... i am actually leaning to NOS for cards and keep the DINa for hypers.

[ghellquist]

Sorry, I am probably not aware of what exactly you are running and whether that makes things impossible. This is however what I used to for ORTF:

1) a variable bar
http://www.guitarcenter.com/K-M-Microphone-Bar-Dual-Mic-Holder-450488-i1322950.gc
2) a few microphone adapters to get one of the mic holder higher than the other to allow the back ends to cross
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=3569&C=SO&U=strat15
3) my normal mic holder.
4) a cardboard template, 110 degrees, 17cm

I liked the setup enough to eventually buy one of these
http://www.schoeps.co.uk/en/products/mstc64u
// Gunnar

[jeromejello]

Sorry, I am probably not aware of what exactly you are running and whether that makes things impossible. This is however what I used to for ORTF:

1) a variable bar
http://www.guitarcenter.com/K-M-Microphone-Bar-Dual-Mic-Holder-450488-i1322950.gc
2) a few microphone adapters to get one of the mic holder higher than the other to allow the back ends to cross
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=3569&C=SO&U=strat15
3) my normal mic holder.
4) a cardboard template, 110 degrees, 17cm

I liked the setup enough to eventually buy one of these
http://www.schoeps.co.uk/en/products/mstc64u
// Gunnar

i run ortf with all my other mics... in ways you describe (i have a DIY vert bar that my akgs & earthworks use for ortf) its just that my hos are actives, and i like the small profile.  it is super small when i use a kwon bar... there is only one kwon mbho bar  out there...

[stevetoney]

I've yet to hear anything that I've done where I can hear a difference between DIN and DINa, so for me I stick with DIN because it just seems to be closer to optimal spacing given that's about how far apart most peoples ears are.  So to my way of thinking it's a logical spacing for approximating the human hearing experience.  Since my recording goal is to reproduce what I heard when I was there, that spacing just makes sense to me.  I've only recorded using NOS spacing a few times, but I had pretty good luck with the stereo imaging with those recordings, so I'd say I'm a fan of that configuration too.  My favorite configuration for creating stereo image is mid-side when I can get fairly close to the stage, which is kinda a con for DINa/DIN/NOS because I prefer mid-side for make sure I get the best stereo image.

[midside]

All due respect for tonedeaf, but:

- I do not think that DIN came about because of the spacing of human ears, I believe this is a myth and that it actually has more to do with the pickup pattern on cards, angle and spacing to get a good stereo image to play back in a speaker system.

- If the room sounds good, I would go with cards in ORTF or DIN.  If the room is not as good, then DINa with hypers.

- Mid/side is a great technique and can sound wonderful.  I use it most the time for my work 'in the field'.  Works great for a small portable 'in the bag' and 'run and gun' kit.  But, it has its merits and downsides:

MS good:
- small (if using actives or compact mics)
- fits in a tiny blimp
- ready to go, no set up
- easy to operate, just point and get good levels, tweak in post
- great stereo image, gives a sense of 'being right in it'

MS bad:
- weaker bass
- strong proximity effect on off-axis, very noticeable when the source is moving (in other words, if the source is not stationary, it will be hard to keep a constant when they move from the mid to the side)

For concert recording, like tonedeaf said, up close is best...and, off axis movement does not come into play as much.  But, if you really want the best of both worlds, then do a 4 channel, MS with a couple omnis to flank

[stevetoney]

All due respect for tonedeaf, but:

- I do not think that DIN came about because of the spacing of human ears, I believe this is a myth and that it actually has more to do with the pickup pattern on cards, angle and spacing to get a good stereo image to play back in a speaker system.

- If the room sounds good, I would go with cards in ORTF or DIN.  If the room is not as good, then DINa with hypers.

- Mid/side is a great technique and can sound wonderful.  I use it most the time for my work 'in the field'.  Works great for a small portable 'in the bag' and 'run and gun' kit.  But, it has its merits and downsides:

MS good:
- small (if using actives or compact mics)
- fits in a tiny blimp
- ready to go, no set up
- easy to operate, just point and get good levels, tweak in post
- great stereo image, gives a sense of 'being right in it'

MS bad:
- weaker bass
- strong proximity effect on off-axis, very noticeable when the source is moving (in other words, if the source is not stationary, it will be hard to keep a constant when they move from the mid to the side)

For concert recording, like tonedeaf said, up close is best...and, off axis movement does not come into play as much.  But, if you really want the best of both worlds, then do a 4 channel, MS with a couple omnis to flank

Right, I definitely agree with you Larry.  I wasn't really clear in my statement.  I didn't mean to imply that DIN is analogous to human hearing or even that's what the basis for the 20cm spacing is.  What I guess I meant to say is that I've never been able to tell a sound difference between DIN and DINa, so selecting between the two I've gone with the slightly wider spacing because of the thoughts I had in my mind being that the delay between the two mics would be approximately similar to the sound delay between the two ears, which as a starting point seems to make sense to me.  Having said that, it's clear to me that the DIN technique, with 20cm spacing and 90 degree angle of incidence, is a standard for creating a stereo imaging effect based on time delay (caused by the spacing) and sound pressure difference (caused by the angle of incidence) as explained so well in the now famous Stereophonic Zoom article.  If anyone doesn't understand what I'm talking about, then go straight to the source and read the Stereophonic Zoom article that's stickied at the top of the 'microphones and setup' forum.