Topic: DIN? NOS? ORTF? XY? WTF???

[Tim]

if you're in an ideal location run the cards and run em wide

[Patrick]

Anyone Ever try running this RAI?

It really doesn't seem like this would sound terribly different from true ORTF, at least with audience taping of a PA system.

[boojum]

This Williams article covers all mic patterns and how to set them up according to the width of the sound field.  It is quite simple once understood.  It even offers a way to set angles with a folded piece of 8 1/2 b 11" paper, standard writing/Xerox/printer paper.  It is all physics, not much black magic or sorcery.  Using Williams' technique you are at a good starting point and will have only minimal adjustments needed.  This would be for acoustic performances.  Recording from the stacks would be a lot easier.

Link:  http://www.microphone-data.com/pdfs/Stereo%20zoom.pdf

[newplanet7]

Anyone Ever try running this RAI?

It really doesn't seem like this would sound terribly different from true ORTF, at least with audience taping of a PA system.

That's what I was thinking.
I was going to try it last saturday, stage lip but, I went with ORTF instead.
It's only a little bigger than din on the capsule spacing.

90*@ 7.9"
VS
100*@8.3"

[Nick's Picks]

anyone remember the "nutter method" ?
he used to use minimal angle and a lot of spacing.
made good pulls.

[rockthing]

Olsen! brilliant.

back in December I was attempting to run an ortf setup,
but still hadn't internalised the numbers and
accidentally set up an Olsen. 17cm@135*
I guess it wasn't so dumb afterall.

The room was pretty small and I got a lot of 'ambiance', needless to say.
Actually, the ambient crowd recording between sets is brilliant.

I also went through a phase of accidentally running what I thought was DIN with
the mics 17cm@90*... getting ORTF and DIN mixed up... no complaints from me, though,
just not sure if I could really call that DIN or not

DIN is easy to set up, but NOS is even easier, and I have enjoyed my results so far.

NOS was especially good when closer than half way into a small club.

I've used ORTF when the PA was too loud for the room
to keep the caps from pointing directly at the stacks.

I used DIN for a couple of duet performances, both amplified and acoustic,
both would be at stage lip or on stage distance.

[F.O.Bean]

For the record, DINA=17cm/90*, not DIN. DIN's spacing is actually 20cm/90* NOS=30cm/90*, and ORTF=17cm/110*(just the same as DINa spacing, but with a 20* wider angle)

Just letting you know the correct abbreviations and naming standards for spacing/angles Those are the main ones. There is also XY=90* angle, with one capsule DIRECTLY above the other, that method of one capsule over the other one directly like that is called placing your mics 'coincidently'. DINa/DIN/NOS/ORTF/etc are considered 'near'coincident' patterns FWIW

Happy taping brotha!

Bean

[DSatz]

Bean, no particular angle or directional pattern is implied by the term X/Y--it only refers to coincident placement of two microphones, just as A/B refers to a pair of microphones that are spaced some distance apart. It's not at all clear how far apart equals "some distance," though I'm sure that most reasonable people wouldn't call an ORTF setup or sphere stereo or a Jecklin plate "A/B."

What I'd like to know is how the name "DIN" ever became attached to a stereo miking method, let alone two of them. Someone ought to fess up, I think. The DIN issued thousands of standards for industrial production in Germany--every piece of hardware on the market conformed to one or more DIN standards, or else no industrial customers would ever buy it. But the DIN standards didn't tell you how to hold a hammer for the best effect, or the most intelligent way to change a light bulb. I have copies of several DIN standard documents for studio microphones. There's a lot in there about impedances and voltages and connector types, but nothing at all about how to use them; that's not what was being standardized.

I suspect that "DIN" is someone's made-up name, either because they liked the technique and wanted to make it sound more official and important, or because they wanted to think of themselves as being important because they were the person who first gave that name to that miking technique.

But I'm very willing to be proven wrong, right here in quasi-public, if someone would just tell me the number of the particular DIN standard which specified these stereo miking methods.

--best regards

[darby]

DSatz,
here is an article that was posted here by someone else... I don't remember who
that describes different stereo configurations

I'm not saying that it is the absolute standard by any means
but it is one that most people on this site seem to follow

http://www.recordinglair.com/record/location/micplace.htm

[datbrad]

The first time I saw what is now called DIN and DINa, it was in the '80s at a Dead show. I asked the taper what that pattern was, and he called it a "near coincident 90 degree XY". For that reason, I used the term "XY" on my DAT source notes when I was doing what is now called DINa, from about 1992 until 2002. 

[taperwheeler]

According to DPA...

"It is possible to combine the principles of AB and
XY in setups normally referred to as “near coincident”.
Some successful configurations are named
after the institutions that used them first, like
ORTF (Office de la Radio et de la Télévision Française),
NOS (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting), DIN
(Deutsche Industrie Norm), etc."

[deadheadcorey]

I perfer xy and din. you have to expirement. your location depends too.

.02

[Gutbucket]

DSatz,
here is an article that was posted here by someone else... I don't remember whothat describes different stereo configurations

I'm not saying that it is the absolute standard by any means
but it is one that most people on this site seem to follow

http://www.recordinglair.com/record/location/micplace.htm

Yeah, but watch your sources.. that page also has incomplete, misleading and blatantly incorrect info:
(Quoted material in italics with my comments beneath)

XY

    Two cardioid microphones are placed at 90 degrees and the capsules are positioned as close as possible.

My comment- Incomplete & misleading. X/Y denotes two mics coincidentally placed of any pattern and any angle. For close instrument recording cards at 90deg may be a good choice, but I'd suggest much wider for our purposes when using cards, slightly less angle with hypercards and 90deg only with fig8's for Blumlein - a special case of X/Y.


MS Technique

    This technique uses two microphones placed close to each other. One microphone has a cardioid pick up pattern and the other with a figure 8 pick up pattern...

My comment- Incomplete. M/S can use any pattern for the mid mic.  Cardioid is a popular choice, but so is hypercardioid.  Omni might be appropriate on stage and a fig8 mid decoded with equal mid and side proportions = Blumlein)


  Spaced Omnis

    This technique uses two (or three for large ensembles) omni-directional microphones evenly placed in front of an ensemble. This technique can easily produce phasing problems. A 3:1 rule should be utilized. The 3 to 1 rule states that for every 1 unit of distance from the sound to the microphone should be 3 units of distance between microphones. (Example: microphones are 5 feet in front of the ensemble - the distance between the two microphones cannot be less than 15 feet - 7.5 feet each from the center line.) The microphones in spaced omni should typically be 2 to 10 feet from the center line.


My comment- Blatantly incorrect (and one of my pet peeves). The 3 to 1 rule does not apply in this case at all.  It was designed for addressing comb filtering problems (referred to as 'phasing' above) of multiple mics that will be mixed together (summed) to a single channel.  It works very well for that application. To a lesser extent it also applies to multiple mics on separate sources pan potted across a stereo bus, another form of summing the various mic feeds.  Imagine multiple on-stage FOH mics for each performer and instrument.  It does not apply to spaced stereo mic'ing where the two mic feeds are not meant to be mixed together but feed to two separate speakers.  It is in fact blatantly absurd when applied to that case. Think about it- if you are 10' back from the stage the 3 to 1 rule says you should space your mics no less than 30' apart! If you are 30' back in the section, make that 90' apart! Obviously that is extreme. But worse, it's also physically impossible. If each mic is 1 unit of distance from a single source, they can only be 2 units of distance apart from each other at most.  Thats only if the mics and source are all arranged on a single line with the source in the center.  Simple geometry.

And guess what? if you sum an A-B stereo recording you might get comb filtering! That's no surprise, but that's what the 3 to 1 rule was designed to eliminate.  In effect it intentionally creates a 'hole in the middle' as it aims to decorrelate the sources as much as is needed to eliminate the comb filtering threat, and with it any the very means by which A-B stereo works.  The 3 to 1 rule simply does not apply to stereo mic'ing, yet this mis-information is repeated all over the web in multiple places.  Don't believe it.

/rant off

[Simp-Dawg]

anyone remember the "nutter method" ?
he used to use minimal angle and a lot of spacing.
made good pulls.

i've applied that method several times with very good results.
run hypers about the same spacing as DIN (30cm) but angle them inwards so they point just at the outside of the stacks, instead of at 90 deg you'd be closer to parallel

[MIQ]

Also interesting is the "Two to One Ratio" - to get the same signal level, and direct to reverberant sound ratio, a cardioid mic can be placed twice as far away as an omni mic.  This is a generalization since the actual Distance Factor is 1.7 for a cardioid.  Hypercard is 2 though.

If you haven't checked out "The New Stereo Soundbook" by Streicher and Everest, you should.  A lot of good stuff in there IMHO.  There is a great chart on page 7.11 with different mic patterns, their polar equations, pick up arcs, random energy efficiencies, relative outputs at 90 and 180 deg, and distance factors.  Theoretical, sure, but useful for undertanding mic differences.

DSatz wrote this a while back and I respect his perspective - "there are a few things that if people doing recording would take the time to learn, it would save them from all kinds of frustration and bullshit. One of those things is Ohm's Law and its basic practical applications. Another is the difference in behavior between pressure and pressure gradient transducers (microphones), and directly related to that, the third thing is how to read the polar diagrams for microphones."  

I'm just starting to learn.  This place (Taperssection Forum) has been great as a beginner.

-MIQ