Topic: Hyper Config

[rockymtnryan]

I run primarily hypers from a variety of venues (outdoor amp, indoor arena, theater, club)

If you run hypers do you tend to use the same config (DIN for example) or do you mix it up?  I have the option of NOS, ORTF, and wide ORTF with the one bar, and I'm curious if some of these wider configs would be recommended with hypers.

[Gutbucket]

Sure, here's the general concept- When using more spacing between microphones, use less angle between them.

Here's a table with a full spectrum pre-calculated suggestions.  It was calculated using supercardioids, but when working it up I substituted cardioids and hypercardioids to see how different they would be and the answers didn't change as significantly as I expected-

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=167549.msg2087409#msg2087409

[carlbeck]

I've recently decided to scrap the DIN, DINa, ORTF & NOS standards & switched to PAS for my typical concert recording. It's opened my eyes to running much wider mic spacing with Hypers or Cards than I would have in the past. Last night I ran 70 degrees with 36cm of spacing between caps Hyper, in the past I would have assumed "hole in the middle effect" with Hypers when in fact the recording sounds better than my DINa recording with Hypers from the same stand. If you read up on the Stereo Zoom concept it explains the science behind this but essentially shallower angles will allow you wider spacing between capsules & still retain imaging with higher direct sound vs room reveberance. Of course I'm not suggesting that there's no need for the standard configs especially since I ran them for years, I liked the fact that they were repeatable standards, it simplified my set up & they don't call them standards for nothing but I was also getting frustrated with my recent recordings feeling that something was lacking or off. Using the standard configurations just didn't "look right" anymore in relation to the sound source point of aim so I read numerous threads here regarding Stereo Zoom & PAS.
So in regards to your question, yes, in the past I only ran DINa with hypers, now I will adjust according to the room vs depending on the "standard"

EDIT: While I was posting my thoughts as usual Gutbucket to the rescue, he is as always explaining the concept better than my understanding could ever be, read the thread & go from there. Good luck & have fun!

[obaaron]

^^ ditto... I run hypers PAS and cards DIN on the same stand for most shows and always seem to prefer the hypers PAS.   

[jlykos]

I like DINa with hypers (17cm capsule spacing, 90 degrees). I use(d) hypers for probably 95% of all taping events, switching to omnis for open air, uncovered venues. I have a pair of cardioid caps, but really don't use them much at all.

[Tom McCreadie]

A bit OT, nit-picking and old school, but am I the only teeth-gnasher at the nomenclature slop that creeps into some of the posts?
The standards such ORTF and NOS etc. aren't mere descriptions of an spacing/angling geometry arrangement. They describe the total system that demands one specific mic pattern (cardioid) in a particular arrangement.

Saying "ORTF with hypers" is like asking a barman: "Give me a Scotch on the rocks without ice."   :-)


"No I am not superstitious. It brings bad luck." (Laurent Fressinet.)

[rockymtnryan]

So seems like the consensus is  DIN/DINa for the hypers, or some type of wide PAS depending on the situation. NOS/ORTF for the cards. Thanks for the feedback.

[voltronic]

A bit OT, nit-picking and old school, but am I the only teeth-gnasher at the nomenclature slop that creeps into some of the posts?
The standards such ORTF and NOS etc. aren't mere descriptions of an spacing/angling geometry arrangement. They describe the total system that demands one specific mic pattern (cardioid) in a particular arrangement.

I'd say your technically correct, but for the purposes of brevity it's a lot faster to say "hypers in NOS" and everyone understands exactly what that means.  It's a lot more cumbersome to say "hypers 30cm apart angled 90 degrees outward," don't you think?  Especially when comparing between different standard spacings.

On the other hand, you could pick further nits about SD vs LD mics in these configs, for example ORTF specifically calls for SD cards.

[carlbeck]

A bit OT, nit-picking and old school, but am I the only teeth-gnasher at the nomenclature slop that creeps into some of the posts?
The standards such ORTF and NOS etc. aren't mere descriptions of an spacing/angling geometry arrangement. They describe the total system that demands one specific mic pattern (cardioid) in a particular arrangement.

I'd say your technically correct, but for the purposes of brevity it's a lot faster to say "hypers in NOS" and everyone understands exactly what that means.  It's a lot more cumbersome to say "hypers 30cm apart angled 90 degrees outward," don't you think?  Especially when comparing between different standard spacings.

On the other hand, you could pick further nits about SD vs LD mics in these configs, for example ORTF specifically calls for SD cards.

Agreed, for technical purposes these are not specific NOS or ORTF techniques but to answer the OP's question in regards to the bars he has available to him with his active microphones they will do. Most of us know what he is referring too & for the point of this discussion these terms are easily understood.