Topic: Somebody please explain this chart

[percoplus]

This chart has been up in this forum for a while and everybody raves about it. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are the capsules on the ends pointing outward or in? Please clarify the instructions. What the hell am I doing with my knuckles?

[page]

This chart has been up in this forum for a while and everybody raves about it. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are the capsules on the ends pointing outward or in? Please clarify the instructions. What the hell am I doing with my knuckles?

Caps always point outward.

The diagram illustrates a couple of things related to a series of popular stereophonic configurations:
1) Spacing of mic caps.
2) Angle of mic caps relative to each other.

Each color and line pattern (dots, dashes, etc) combination represent a given stereo pattern (ORTF, DIN, RAI, etc). Some people print this out and take it with them for when they record and they use it as a template to try and ensure they are setup the way they want instead of either just guessing or eyeballing it. In that regard, it works well if you are trying to use one of these stereo patterns.

To add some stuff:
When you point your caps, point them parallel to the lines, not the rectangles at the end of the lines (those exist so you can get the spacing correct). Ignore the hand/knuckle remark if it helps, you're using this purely as a guide to help you setup your stuff based on certain angles and spacing.

[percoplus]

This chart has been up in this forum for a while and everybody raves about it. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Are the capsules on the ends pointing outward or in? Please clarify the instructions. What the hell am I doing with my knuckles?

When you point your caps, point them parallel to the lines, not the rectangles at the end of the lines (those exist so you can get the spacing correct).

But the lines point inwards, except for the XYs. So, the rectangles are the caps?

[Gutbucket]

Not indicated and somewhat confusing is that the orientation of the stage or sound source is off the bottom of the page, not the top.

Rectangles indicate the position and orientation of the diaphrams themselves, inside the capsules/mics.  The similarly colored lines indicate the mic bodies extending behind the capsules, as would be the case for typical 'end-addressed' small diaphram mics.

The bottom half of the diagram is just an identical copy of the top.

[achalsey]

DPA gives a good explanation of all this that I found useful.

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Download/Stereo%20Recording.aspx

edit:  ha, oops.  Just read the other thread and saw you've already read this.

[percoplus]

I'm still not seeing it, man. But then i'm not a sound guy. And now the sound stage in in the other direction? On, Lord...

[flipp]

Look at page 2 of the following: http://www.taperssection.com/reference/pdf/Manual_ShureA27M.pdf
Much easier to understand.

[percoplus]

Yeah, flipp, that one is easy to understand. And I get the other thing, too. It makes all the difference in the world if the sound source is at bottom of the page.

So, based on these two documents i count nine different 2-mic configurations. Now, I need to figure out which one to use where.

Thanks everyone

[Gutbucket]

Nine specific points along the Stereo Zoom infinite continuum.

[stevetoney]

Nine specific points along the Stereo Zoom infinite continuum.

The Stereo Zoom article...talk about confusing!  While the SZ article is well written, I think that even experienced TS members have stated that they had to read it multiple times before they really understood what it's saying.

For the sake of the Percoplus, the SZ article provides the reasons why DIN, DINa, ORTF, NOS etc are simply 'typical' popular mic configurations...with specific spacing and angles of incidence.  The SZ article outlines a concept and corresponding methodology to optimize any given recording scenario, which leads to the potential for nearly any spacing and incident angle.

[stevetoney]

Caps always point outward.

Page, perhaps there's no need to belabor the point when the OP seems to understand the chart now, but this statement is easy to misinterpret.

When capsules are in X-Y coincident, the only way to set them up for coincident spacing is to have them pointing in a toe inward manner...which I'd translate as being pointed inwards.  Therefore, caps don't always point outward.

[Gutbucket]

..i count nine different 2-mic configurations. Now, I need to figure out which one to use where.

..the SZ article provides the reasons why DIN, DINa, ORTF, NOS etc are simply 'typical' popular mic configurations...

Stereo Zoom is helpful in understanding the inter-linked relationship between stereo mic spacing, angle and pattern. Understanding that relationship helps in developing a practical feel for what combinations to use in various recording scenarios.  I'm throwing the Stereo Zoom information out there not for specifically applying it's charts directly (which can be rather confusing), but for helping to get a conceptual handle on the underlying relationship.. the why and where.

Although it often takes reading it a few times and a bit of contemplation to get that to sink in- the specifics are less important than the idea that under-pins them.  It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's a good start.

[flipp]

When capsules are in X-Y coincident, the only way to set them up for coincident spacing is to have them pointing in a toe inward manner...which I'd translate as being pointed inwards.  Therefore, caps don't always point outward.

But when in XY the mic on the right is capturing the left sound source and verse vica so once again the caps are pointing outward.

just to be argumentative 

[percoplus]

Nine specific points along the Stereo Zoom infinite continuum.

This statement says it all, doesn't it? All of the acronyms like ORTF, DIN, NOS, etc., mean absolutely nothing because they do not take into account all of the variables necessary to make the best decision. There's a continuum of angles and distances that can theoretically produce the same result.

So, what exactly am I supposed to be trying to achieve? Please don't say, "do whatever sounds good to you" or "there's no right or wrong answer." While there may be more than one right answer, there are definitely wrong answers or you are all wasting your time here.

[stevetoney]

Nine specific points along the Stereo Zoom infinite continuum.

This statement says it all, doesn't it? All of the acronyms like ORTF, DIN, NOS, etc., mean absolutely nothing because they do not take into account all of the variables necessary to make the best decision. There's a continuum of angles and distances that can theoretically produce the same result.

So, what exactly am I supposed to be trying to achieve? Please don't say, "do whatever sounds good to you" or "there's no right or wrong answer." While there may be more than one right answer, there are definitely wrong answers or you are all wasting your time here.

You want to study this information and realize what differing angles and spacing does to the sound, and then use that information consistently with achieving whatever your goal is.  In my case, my goal is to replicate the sound and stereo image as accurately as I can.  Your goal may be different; however, I believe that most people have a similar goal as me. 

When you get to the field and you're confronted with such variables as distance from the stage, width of the PA speakers, volume of the sound, etc, understanding how different configurations best interacts with your recording scenario will help you achieve your goal. 

For example, there are a number of 'rules of thumb'...ORTF has a wider angle of incidence, so use that when you're outside or in better sounding rooms (which have less reverberant sound waves)...NOS when you're close in...etc.