Topic: ORTF or DIN(a)

[Brennan]

Very roughly here, I'm thinking about this:

For in indoor venue is it generally better to run like this ---> \    / (ortf?) or this ---> /   \(DIN(a))

Please no smiting; I'm just trying to learn here

[stevetoney]

I'm still learning myself, but I think you've got your figures a little mixed up.

Assuming your mic capsules are at the top and the sound source is at the top (not the bottom), ORTF, DIN and DIN(a) all involve separating your microphones into a sorta 'toes pointed outward' manner.


<Sound Source>

         \  /


ORTF has 120 degree's of angle between the mics and the capsules are 17 cm apart.

DIN has 90 degree's of angle between the mics and the capsules are 20cm apart.

DIN(a) also has 90 degree's of angle between the mics, but the capsules are 17 cm apart.


Your right-hand example, or toes pointed in configuration, is called the X-Y or coincident mic'ing technique. 



<Sound Source>

          / \


In this technique, the mics are aligned so that they also may have a 90 degree or 120 degree angle, but the capsules are aligned so that one is directly above the other vertically. 


The goal for ORTF, DIN, and DIN(a) is for the sound to arrive at the capsules from the L and R speakers at a slightly different time...and this is similar to how our ears work...there is a slight delay between the time that sound from a single point source gets to each ear.  Our brain understands and interprets that delay.  Coincidently, if you haven't figured out the logic, 17cm - 20cm is the distance between most peoples' ears.

The goal for X-Y is to make have the sound waves from both speakers arrive at both capsules at the exact same time.  In this situation, there is no time delay on our final recording between the two mics (unless of course the sound is coming from above or below the mics.)

Generally, people on this list prefer the first three methods to X-Y because it's more natural sounding and usually can provide a better stereo image with nice separation if the PA is stereo mixed...or if there's no PA and you're just close to the stage and want to have the feel for...say...guitar left, drums center, and bass right.  Having said this, there are plenty of X-Y lovers on this list, so as always, the best advice is that you should experiment with your own gear and come to your own conclusions.

The rule of thumb is that ORTF is most popular outdoor where there's not as much reverberant sounds, where DIN and DIN(a) are used indoors.  DIN and DIN(a) have the 90 degree angle, which vs 120 would tend to minimize the amount of sound that's coming from bounced sources instead of directly from the stage.  ORTF is also popular when you know that the venue has great sound...and you'd like to simulate the overall sound in the venue as closely as possible.

Worthy of mention is another technique called NOS.  In NOS, the mics are also separated by 90 degress angle, but they're 30cm apart.  I've never tried NOS, but my understanding is that this technique attempts to further accentuate stereo imaging, but the downside is that many recordings will end up with a 'hole' in the middle.

[cgrooves]

I only run ORTF if I am very close to the stage.  I like my mics to 'point' more towards the outside edges of the stacks, so when I'm pretty far back I stick with DIN, or a 'custom' configuration (i.e. use a separation & angle that allows my mics to 'point' to the outside edges of the stacks.

Edit:  Most people use hypers with DINa and cards with DIN, BTW.

[terrapinj]

so many variables on mics, location, room, band etc

i generally run DINa with my hypers - cards i'll run either DIN or ORTF if closer or onstage/stage lip

DINa and ORTF have the same spacing, but the angle is 110deg ORTF v 90deg for DIN

[easy jim]

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.

[flipp]

Indoors I usually run DINa because it is the easiest pattern to set up with one of my t-bars due to the size of the bar and the way the mics/shocks fit. I seldom run ORTF but often modify DINa by decreasing the angle to 75-80°. Sometimes a visual aid helps. Scroll down to the Dial-A-Pattern pics in this thread to get a better idea of the commonest patterns most tapers use.
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,75507.0.html

[Tapeholio]

I'm thinking of getting a mic pattern template tattooed on my arm.

[BayTaynt3d]

I only run ORTF in a wide source situation like an orchestra or big band typically. Otherwise, I tend to run DIN if back a bit and XY if in close. Also, for loud PA type shows, I typically run hypers pointed just outside of the stacks in DIN/DINA if the venue sounds OK, and possibly in XY if the venue sounds like crap (yes, that's hypers XY outside of stacks, call me crazy, but I find it helps in a shitty room that's a PA gig).

[RobertNC]

I've adopted DINa as standard config for both hypers and cards.  ORTF to my ears seems to be a little too off-axis for running LDs.  In a really bad room I'll tighten it up and run XY.  At least with the LDs, if you listen to a recording with cans both mono and stereo, the amount of stereo image captured is really pretty significant.  But in a better room I like DINa much better.

If you are not sure, I think DIN or DINa are good starting configs.

[DSatz]

RobertNC, you're spot on--the ORTF technique was developed with small, single-diaphragm cardioids, and requires small, single-diaphragm microphones to image properly. If large-diaphragm and/or dual-diaphragm microphones are being used, it's not ORTF.

The reason for the "small" part should be obvious--the off-axis frequency response of larger microphones isn't very consistent with their on-axis response--but in case anyone's wondering why single- vs. dual-diaphragm is an issue, compare the polar pattern of any dual-diaphragm condenser to that of a good single-diaphragm condenser such as a Schoeps, Neumann, DPA or Sennheiser. It's quite different--dual-diaphragm cardioids "fatten out" at low frequencies--they tend to become "wide cardioids." With a pickup pattern that approaches omnidirectional, you don't get much difference between channels at low frequencies in a closely-spaced mike arrangement, and that greatly reduces the sense of spaciousness in the recording.

By comparison, a good single-diaphragm condenser such as a Neumann KM [1]84 or any Schoeps cardioid will still be a real cardioid at 100 Hz--even at 50 Hz, where the frequency response is already rolling off, the pattern still holds. That's rather amazing, especially when you think about how these capsules obtain their directionality.

--best regards

P.S.: Now can someone please help me a little? I know where the ORTF and NOS techniques come from (gosh, that would be Radio France and the NOS), but I'm curious to know where "DIN" and "DINa" got their names. I'm not aware of any DIN standard that specifies particular microphone arrangements in terms of patterns, angles, distances, etc.; does anyone here know who came up with these names and/or arrangements?

[flipp]

Only place I've ever seen mention that DIN is a proprosed standard is http://www.recordinglair.com/record/location/micplace.htm though it doesn't give details of the proposal.

[Professor chaos]

while you are learning you can always use the marc nutter pattern which is "just point at the outside of the stacks". i 've used this several times while learning and it works great. good luck,

-Mike W.

[cgrooves]

while you are learning you can always use the marc nutter pattern which is "just point at the outside of the stacks". i 've used this several times while learning and it works great. good luck,

-Mike W.

I'm in agreement with this 'pattern' when I'm far back in an arena.  I typically run DIN, although I've experimented some with XY lately (with mixed results).  I recently taped the first night of a two night run in DIN from the back of an arena.  The second night, I used the 'point at the outside of the stacks' technique, and prefer it to the first night.  I doubt there is as much stereo seperation, but the kick drum (and even some hf sounds) are clearer to my ears. 

[John Willett]

ORTF has 120 degree's of angle between the mics and the capsules are 17 cm apart.

I think you'll find that ORTF is 110 degrees - distance is correct, though.

[Gutbucket]

...

P.S.: Now can someone please help me a little? I know where the ORTF and NOS techniques come from (gosh, that would be Radio France and the NOS), but I'm curious to know where "DIN" and "DINa" got their names. I'm not aware of any DIN standard that specifies particular microphone arrangements in terms of patterns, angles, distances, etc.; does anyone here know who came up with these names and/or arrangements?

ORTF (French) - Office de Radiodiffusion Television Française.
NOS (Dutch) - Nederlandsche Omroep Stichting.
DIN (German) - Deutsches Institut fur Normung.  I've read this is a 'proposed' standard, not official.

Seems the Italians also feels the need to have their own 'standard':
RAI (Italian) - Rai Radiotelevisione Italiana. Similar to ORTF, cardioid microphones 21cm apart, angled 100 degrees.

also:
Olson - similar to ORTF, cardioid microphones 20cm apart angled of 135 degrees.
A basis upon which to roll your own spacing and angle combo and the resulting degree of angular distortion in the resulting stereo image.

[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.