Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)  (Read 1121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« on: August 10, 2020, 12:52:03 PM »
Hi. I pretty much think that I've documented the history of "Blumlein", ORTF and M/S stereo recording methods by now; does anyone know where the so-called "DIN" stereo recording methods come from? I say so-called because I've never seen any DIN standard that specifies a particular method of recording--and given the nature and function of the DIN, I think it's unlikely that such a standard actually exists. I've always assumed that the name was made up by someone who probably had nothing to do with the DIN, who wanted to make their own idea sound authoritative.

But I wonder if it's still possible to trace any of the actual history, or whether that's lost in the sands of time by now. If anyone knows the secret origin story for "DIN" stereo recording and (even better) where I can verify it, could you please step forward? Does anyone know how long ago the name began being used, where and/or by whom--or (looking through the other end of the binoculars) does anyone know how long ago the actual method, regardless of any naming or lack thereof, started to be on anyone's list of suggestions for two-mike setups?

To tell the truth I don't even know what distances and angles "DIN" is supposed to be, or whether there's general agreement about that. I'm pretty sure I've seen one or more recommendations for cardioids, with alternative methods referred to as "DIN A" and "DIN B" or the like, and one for narrower patterns such as supercardioid or hypercardioid. But those might just be other people's further add-ons to the original attempt at sounding official.

Plus with any "cookbook" recipe, you have to ask what kind of microphones they were developed with. "Cardioid" doesn't say a whole heck of a lot unless you at least specify small or large, single-diaphragm or dual-diaphragm, since their behaviors are so different above and below the midrange. X/Y with dual-diaphragm cardioids (which generally have broader patterns at low frequencies--sometimes much broader) gives a whole other, much less fun experience of room and space from X/Y with single-diaphragm cardioids, for example--while the angle you can use for X/Y with large-diaphragm microphones is limited by their greater off-axis treble rolloff, which forces the angle you choose between the capsules to be less, which again undermines the spaciousness at low frequencies. And there are almost no actual supercardioid or (especially) hypercardioid microphones on the market, especially with a range wide enough to use for music recording--but there sure are a lot of microphones in between that their manufacturers call one or the other pattern--not to mention how their pickup patterns may vary at different frequencies ... all of which affects how you would choose to deploy those microphones in stereo pairs, if at all.

But I digress as I so often do, so I'll stop now and put this question out to the universe. Thank you.

--best regards
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 01:02:32 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline if_then_else

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2020, 01:44:05 PM »
Based on Sengpiel's description (and several related thesis papers), it appears that this was only meant as a draft or proposal. I don't think it has ever been officially adapted as a norm.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/BekannteStereoMikrofonsystemeUndIhreWinkel.pdf

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2020, 01:44:14 PM »
Quote
The DIN technique is specified by Deutsches Institut für Normung (the German national standards organization). This method is similar to the ORTF using two cardioid microphones, but they are spaced 20 cm (7.9 inches) apart at an angle of 90°. Results are similar to the ORTF technique, but it more suitable to miking at shorter distances, such as a piano.

Source: https://lossenderosstudio.com/article.php?subject=11
Recordings on LMA: https://archive.org/search.php?query=taper%3A%22Lucas+Lorenz%22
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2020, 03:37:17 PM »
Well, the late Prof. Sengpiel was a real stickler for factual detail, so his chart is the most credible source that I've seen so far.

As far as the Los Senderos Studio article is concerned, I can understand an American not realizing this, but it makes little sense to say that something is specified by the DIN if you don't give the number and version of the standard. There are literally tens of thousands of them, covering all areas of industry and manufacture, and they're revised periodically to keep up with industry trends. For example, the one that defines phantom powering (DIN 45596) has gone through a number of important revisions, and most 1970s phantom power supplies don't meet later versions of the standard; modern, transformerless microphones won't work properly with them if at all. I see them offered to the unwary on eBay all the time (e.g. the Neumann N 80).

But unifying industrial manufacture is one thing, while a specification for a stereo main microphone setup doesn't fit the DIN's mission in any way that's obvious to me. So if indeed someone on a DIN working committee put forth such a proposal at some point, I can understand very well why it wouldn't have been accepted. Still, I'd like to know who, if anyone, actually did that, and when if so, and what it was based on.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 03:42:23 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2020, 04:18:43 PM »
This is an interesting topic, and I can't help but wonder if there might be a better chance of finding someone who knows on Gearslutz.  (Which is not to say the topic shouldn't have been raised here, nor that someone on here won't know the details.)
Recordings on LMA: https://archive.org/search.php?query=taper%3A%22Lucas+Lorenz%22
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2020, 04:48:07 PM »
To clarify for anyone wondering, DIN as a near-spaced stereo-pair microphone configuration refers to a 20cm/90-degree inclusive angle near-spaced stereo pair configuration using cardioids, and DIN-A to the same 90 degree angle with a 17cm spacing (often using supercardioids), at least as used around TS.com.  While the specified angles and spacing don't seem to vary, the polar patterns used seem to be general convention rather than being rigidly specified.

I always assumed both of these to be practicality-derived mashup adaptions of OFTF and NOS, but I've no idea where they actually originated.

FWIW, as far as history a quick internet search turned up a 1998 Sweetwater article mentioning DIN- https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/din-stereo/  And I came across a few attributions and references to articles by Tom Bates such as this one- https://web.archive.org/web/20160614191539/http://emerald.tufts.edu/programs/mma/mrap/StereoMicTechniques.pdf in which he states in part:

The DIN stereo technique is more useful at shorter distances, for example on piano, small ensembles or used for creating stereo on a instrument section in a classical orchestra. (Proposed standard in Germany)

^ which seems to be a common description appearing in most mentions of DIN as a near-spaced stereo microphone configuration.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2020, 05:35:04 PM »
Once the realization fully sunk in that all named near-space stereo pair configurations are little more than a few specific points along the continuum of spacing/angle/pattern relationships, sharing a common history of representing a few of the most commonly used compromise configurations among many, I more or less lost interest in the name origin mystery. 

What maters to me and I suspect most tapers is not that ORTF is of French origin, NOS Dutch, and whatever the Italian's claim as their historically insightful variant, but how it sounds and in what situation each variant might be most applicable. Folks might as well call it Sally rather than DIN and I wouldn't expect the Germans to protest!
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline if_then_else

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2020, 01:20:26 AM »
Well, the late Prof. Sengpiel was a real stickler for factual detail, so his chart is the most credible source that I've seen so far.

You're always on thin ice quoting a master thesis but anyway...

Quote
4.3.3 DIN-Verfahren
Das DIN-Verfahren ist in der Praxis nicht bekannt und stellt einen einstigen Vorschlag vom
deutschen Rundfunk für eine Aufstellung der Äquivalenzstereofonie dar.
Ich habe dieser
Aufstellung dennoch Beachtung geschenkt, da sie einen Mittelwert zwischen ORTF und
NOS bildet und somit repräsentativ für die unzähligen Möglichkeiten einer Aufstellung mit
ungefähr gleichwertigem Anteil von Pegel- und Laufzeitdifferenzen sein soll. Die Eckdaten
dieses Verfahrens lauten: Mikrofonbasis = 20cm, Öffnungswinkel = 90°. ^[82]
Dies hat einen Aufnahmebereich von 101° zur Folge, wobei das Verhältnis von Pegel- zu
Laufzeitdifferenzen 52,4% zu 47,6% beträgt.

http://www.floxbox.net/data/diplomarbeit_florianparzer.pdf

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2020, 07:39:59 AM »
if_then, many thanks. That's a very nice paper and I hadn't seen it before. SAE over here, I think, is rather different from the way it seems to be in Germany.

The author almost apologizes for including "DIN" on his roster of techniques since he considers it so similar to ORTF (somewhere between ORTF and NOS) and because the method is, according to him, unknown in the studio world (my impression as well). But it serves for him as an example of how a little "wiggle room" can be a good thing once one has paid due attention to the fundamentals. In his listening tests, which were based on miking the same drum kit many different ways, he found that it gave results very similar to ORTF but just a little more detailed in rendering the timbre of particular elements, since its stereophonic recording angle is slightly less. He clearly liked it better overall than "stock" ORTF or NOS in his tests.

--Gutbucket, it's fine with me if you don't care about the history of recording methods. I posted here to get and share information, not to check your attitude. I learn a bunch sometimes by following one path or another on impulse, often going farther than other people consider reasonable, but I want to make sure I haven't missed something important "waiting around the bend". Sometimes I find valuable goodies, but at least as often, the things that I find out seem kind of useless--until, some time later, they can be combined with other seemingly useless stuff. Then occasionally, what emerges may be somewhat less useless.

In fact I'd be content with that as my epitaph: "During his long life, he became somewhat less useless." I know that while it's actually happening, though, to other people it probably looks more like foolishly wandering around, or jerking off, or I don't know what. It even looks that way to me sometimes. OK, a lot of the time.

--best regards
« Last Edit: August 11, 2020, 07:56:49 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2020, 09:47:40 AM »
Quote
4.3.3 DIN-Verfahren
Das DIN-Verfahren ist in der Praxis nicht bekannt und stellt einen einstigen Vorschlag vom
deutschen Rundfunk für eine Aufstellung der Äquivalenzstereofonie dar.
Ich habe dieser
Aufstellung dennoch Beachtung geschenkt, da sie einen Mittelwert zwischen ORTF und
NOS bildet und somit repräsentativ für die unzähligen Möglichkeiten einer Aufstellung mit
ungefähr gleichwertigem Anteil von Pegel- und Laufzeitdifferenzen sein soll. Die Eckdaten
dieses Verfahrens lauten: Mikrofonbasis = 20cm, Öffnungswinkel = 90°. ^[82]
Dies hat einen Aufnahmebereich von 101° zur Folge, wobei das Verhältnis von Pegel- zu
Laufzeitdifferenzen 52,4% zu 47,6% beträgt.

Can anyone translate this?
Recordings on LMA: https://archive.org/search.php?query=taper%3A%22Lucas+Lorenz%22
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline TheMetalist

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Sverige/Sweden/Suède
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2020, 10:11:09 AM »
Quote
4.3.3 DIN-Verfahren
Das DIN-Verfahren ist in der Praxis nicht bekannt und stellt einen einstigen Vorschlag vom
deutschen Rundfunk für eine Aufstellung der Äquivalenzstereofonie dar.
Ich habe dieser
Aufstellung dennoch Beachtung geschenkt, da sie einen Mittelwert zwischen ORTF und
NOS bildet und somit repräsentativ für die unzähligen Möglichkeiten einer Aufstellung mit
ungefähr gleichwertigem Anteil von Pegel- und Laufzeitdifferenzen sein soll. Die Eckdaten
dieses Verfahrens lauten: Mikrofonbasis = 20cm, Öffnungswinkel = 90°. ^[82]
Dies hat einen Aufnahmebereich von 101° zur Folge, wobei das Verhältnis von Pegel- zu
Laufzeitdifferenzen 52,4% zu 47,6% beträgt.

Can anyone translate this?

Sure.

Quote
4.3.3 Signa modum
Hunc tumultum sensit modum in praxi notum est, et non est prior a rogationem
Germanica radio ad album de condigno stereophony. Et hoc
Sed attendendum est, ut ad institutionem, quod est average valorem et inter ORTF
Et sic formae repraesentativae n antequam aestimaretur scabillum possibilities of a album
Tempus Transit differentia inter esse et pari gradu. A key notitia
Haec autem cognitio sunt: ​​tortor ligula, facilisis = basi 20cm: ostium = angulum XC SAac. ^ [LXXXII]
Hoc recording praecessi in a range de CI ° Ratio autem est in campestri undique
Ut differentias aetatis: 52.4% quod 47.6%.
"The music is your passport - Your magic key - To all the madness that awaits you." B.L. '86

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2020, 10:53:51 AM »
Yes, I totally agree and really didn't intend to come across as critical of the inquiry.  I've wondered too, find the history of recording fascinating, and commonly find myself absorbed in what I'm certain others consider pointless and otherwise useless wandering around!  There is some useful stuff in dark and dusty corners.

My post above was just a poorly implemented reminder intended to get readers to consider acronym-named "equivalence stereo" configurations not as magical things in themselves which are unique and exist on their own terms, but rather as near-spaced microphone-pair configurations that gained historical recognition, are easy-to-implement and have proven useful.  Just hoping to lift the veil on the phenomena underlying it all for others in the same way that's proven insightful and useful for myself.

 
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2020, 11:02:45 AM »
..identifying with this bit of the Googolic Latin/English translation of the above-

"4.3.3 DIN method The DING method is not known in practice and represents a former proposal from German broadcasting for a list of the equivalence stereophony NOS forms and should therefore be representative of the innumerable possibilities of a list with approximately equal proportions of level and transit time differences."
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline morst

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4152
  • VOTE!
    • #twitterSUCKS
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2020, 11:38:13 AM »
My post above was just a poorly implemented reminder intended to get readers to consider acronym-named "equivalence stereo" configurations not as magical things in themselves which are unique and exist on their own terms, but rather as near-spaced microphone-pair configurations that gained historical recognition, are easy-to-implement and have proven useful.  Just hoping to lift the veil on the phenomena underlying it all for others in the same way that's proven insightful and useful for myself.
Whew! Now I feel a little better about my non-reproducible "throw and go" setups of my near-spaced microphone-pair configurations!!!


Sounds ok to me, and nobody has yet complained about the recorded angle on the finished FLAC files....
seriously, VOTE!

Offline if_then_else

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2020, 11:42:14 AM »
..identifying with this bit of the Googolic Latin/English translation of the above-

"4.3.3 DIN method The DING method is not known in practice and represents a former proposal from German broadcasting for a list of the equivalence stereophony NOS forms and should therefore be representative of the innumerable possibilities of a list with approximately equal proportions of level and transit time differences."


The DIN method hasn't been [widely] adopted in practice and is based on an initial proposal by the German radio broadcasting service for a near-coincident [respectively "mixed stereophony"] technique.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2020, 11:50:55 AM »
Thanks for the better translation. I chuckled at "DING method". Hoping the the gist of the part I was identifying with auto-translated well enough-

"..and should therefore be representative of the innumerable possibilities of a list with approximately equal proportions of level and transit time differences."
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2020, 12:09:03 PM »
Hey morst, since tapers often note just the microphone model and nothing at all about the configuration I'm happy to find any notation of microphone configuration.  I'm sure it reads as Greek to most listeners yet is helpful to other tapers chasing after their own ears.  Sometimes after heading home and having forgotten to note it while recording, I've actually set the mics up again while my memory remains fresh to better document what I did, even if it only serves to remind myself.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2020, 12:35:48 PM »
heathen, here's a quickie translation, but please "see below" re: German vs. U.S. ways of thinking about these issues.

------------
4.3.3 DIN method
The DIN method is unknown in actual practice, and represents a former proposal from German [public] broadcasting for an "equivalence-stereo" arrangement [see below --ds]. Despite this, I have given consideration to this type of setup because it forms a mid-point between ORTF and NOS, and thus represents the countless possibilities for setups having roughly equal components of level and arrival-time differences [again, see below --ds]. The benchmark data for this method are: 20 cm spacing between the microphones; angle between the two main axes, 90°. This leads to a stereophonic recording angle of 101°, with a 52.4%-to-47.6% relationship of level to arrival-time differences [yep, see below --ds].
------------

Here's the "below" part: In U.S. textbooks, it is generally explained that stereophonic localization can be based either on the precedence effect (when two microphones are spaced apart, direct sound from any given source will arrive at the closer microphone first, unless the source is exactly on the center line between them) or the effect of the microphones' directionality, assuming that they're aimed away from one another. Most people here are familiar with that dichotomy, I think. You can go back to the 1970s or even late 60s and find books that showed and compared the two methods. Both had a lot of tradition behind them, and important practical pros and cons could be discussed (e.g. regarding mono compatibility, which was a big thing back in the LP-and-mostly-mono-radio era)(back then most pop music stations were still on the AM band, and many people still listened to FM radio in mono either in their cars or on portable radios)(and airplay was the primary driver of record sales).

In U.S. books and articles starting maybe in the late 1970s (but definitely by the 80s) the "or" became an "or/and"--where the "and" meant directional microphones that were spaced apart and angled apart, but neither spaced nor angled apart as much as in the traditional A/B or X/Y approaches. The authors seemed to feel as if they were being forced to concede the existence of such "neither fish nor fowl" methods, though. They were based on trial and error, and no handy theoretical explanations could be offered for the setups that worked well vs. the ones that didn't. The only advice was to try, listen, not go to extremes, and pray for luck. The ORTF method was sometimes mentioned, a little grudgingly as it seemed to me.

Where they took it somewhat farther in Germany was to reason out that mathematical formulas, based both on the trigonometry of microphone patterns and on experiments that quantified the precedence effect (i.e. how far--to what actual angle--do you hear a source being shifted to the left or right when it arrives at your ears X milliseconds sooner rather than later?), could allow any given angle between two microphones of a given pattern to be translated into a roughly equivalent distance between the same two microphones, or vice versa. Using an equivalence formula, intermediate spacings and angles could be interpolated between any two A/B vs. X/Y endpoints. You can even select your favorite point along the curve of those interpolated settings, depending on the relative effect of "arrival time differences" versus "level differences" that you want to apportion.

That changed the whole game. Now you could choose your desired stereophonic recording angle (based on your distance from the sound sources and the angular width that they represent from your microphones' point of view), then choose how much you wanted to rely on arrival-time differences vs. level differences (each of which gives a recording a different spatial "feel"), and the formulas could tell you the spacing and angle that would give you what you wanted. Suddenly it was no longer guesswork. But that approach didn't find its way to the States until ... frankly, I don't know whether most people here understand it even today. Instead they rely on Williams' or Sengpiel's charts or on Wittek's "stereo assistant" on line. All of which is fine fine fine.

But the result is a big gap between American and German writing about this topic that still persists. In the German writing there are three basic categories of two-mike stereo recording methods, all of which are brightly-lit and clearly defined: (a) methods that rely on arrival-time differences only (i.e. spaced omnis), (b) methods that rely solely on the directionality of the microphones, which creates differences in level between channels for each distinct sound source, depending on the angle from which its direct sound reaches the microphones (i.e. X/Y), and (c) "equivalence" methods which rely on calculated, or at least calculable, tradeoffs between principles (a) and (b). All three categories are understood to be fundamentally knowable and predictable, although certain non-ideal behaviors of microphones (e.g. large dual-diaphragm cardioids) still need to be taken into account.

Meanwhile in most American writing there are still mostly just the two opposite poles (spaced vs. coincident), with the in-between area given less respect, even though it's where so much of the fun is--like as if "some people like to swim in those waters, but there are no firm guidelines, and you could get your ass bitten if you aren't careful". That attitude implicitly encourages people to rely on cookbook formulas as safe havens, while others express their indomitable American spirit by doing the exact opposite, declaring that they don't need no steenkin' formulas.

--best regards
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 01:14:08 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2020, 01:39:19 PM »
Thanks very much DSatz.
Recordings on LMA: https://archive.org/search.php?query=taper%3A%22Lucas+Lorenz%22
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6376
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2020, 02:54:29 PM »
Thanks very much DSatz.
Seconded DSatz      +T
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline datbrad

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
  • Gender: Male
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2020, 01:18:37 PM »
I ran a 90 degree 15cm spaced pattern with my AKG 461s in the '90s. Since DIN wasn't a term I had ever heard used for a stereo pattern at the time, I just wrote "XY" for source info on my DATs. I knew it wasn't an accurate use of the term, but with NOS being 30cm and ORTF 17cm, I figured anything less than 17cm at 90 degrees was closer to XY than anything else I could call it.
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 01:20:24 PM by datbrad »
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Beyer M201>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD561 (Oade CMOD)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2020, 04:25:22 PM »
At the risk of saying to much when I should probably just coast, I'll add a couple comments.

The first concerns the history of near-spaced configurations such as "DIN" as used in the taper community and is not likely to come as a shock to anyone here reading this thread. It is that in the live music taping community (which is primarily an American phenomena, yet not closely connected with American writing on stereo recording) the use of near-spaced two-microphone stereo microphone configurations is the accepted norm and has for a long time.  Sure, coincident and spaced A-B techniques have long been used as well, but near-spaced has been most common for tapers for decades.  Since I've been around TS, new tapers who come to this site upon having being initially exposed to concert taping through other tapers are likely to assume a near-spaced configuration is simply how it's done (specific config or not, named or not).  In contrast, newcomers to this site who may have some home studio experience but have not really been otherwise been exposed to "audience concert taping" culture often assume "X/Y" simply as how its done. That difference may in part be a reflection of the general mode of American writing on the subject which David describes verses the somewhat more isolated taper subculture.  It could be that what makes concert taping somewhat different is that it didn't really develop until the the 1970's after stereo reproduction of music had already been fully adopted by the culture at large and portable stereo recording equipment had become more widely available, that it for the most part consists of straight "what you record is what you get" ambient stereo rather than mixed/panned "sound on sound" mono track layering, and developed within a somewhat self isolated community in terms of a collective number of enthusiasts doing it, sharing the recordings, sharing tips with each other and talking about best methods amongst themselves, when compared to professional recording circles which was the source of American writing on the subject, prior to dusty corners of the internet such as this place becoming available to everyone everywhere.

That said, I've found how tapers think about the nearly ubiquitous near-spaced microphone configurations they are using to be a meaningful differentiation within the taper community. I see three general categories, the first are those who point the microphones at the stacks or there about, using whatever generic near-spaced mic bar they have on hand that hold the mics well, without giving much thought to spacing and angle.. or rather not to the interactive relationship between the two.  It's more like the spacing is good as long as it is "similar to ear-spacing" and otherwise "not spaced apart too much" (having heard about problems with a "hole in the middle"), and angle being mostly about "pointing the microphones so they are focusing on the PA, rather than angled widely focused on the bar, toilets and trash cans and exits along the side walls". The second category are tapers using a popular acronym-named near-spaced configuration or choosing between a couple of them.  They tend to have a good comprehension of result if not not necessarily a good understanding of why certain configurations work well or not - "DIN A with my hypers in situation A, NOS with my cardioids in situation B, but DIN was better with that other pair of cardioids I used to run..".  And the third being folks who have an understanding of trading "arrival time differences" against "level differences" whether they actively use that knowledge or not, by doing calcs, looking up tables, using online calculators, or choosing standard setups with an better understanding of the basis upon which they work.  To be clear, I'm not making any value judgements here.  No category has an exclusive lock on making good tapes and tapers should go about recording however they most enjoy doing it.  Its just that I find these general differentiations useful in helping me understanding the mindset of another taper with regard to their approach, so I can better relate to them in our interactions and conversation.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13938
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunther Theile nailed it!
Re: so-called "DIN" stereo recording method(s)
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2020, 04:45:54 PM »
My second comment concerns the clearly-defined three basic categories of two-microphone stereo recording methods-

As used by tapers, methods that rely on arrival-time differences only (i.e. spaced omnis), rarely actually rely solely on arrival-time.  A clear, if simplified definition does make for a useful simplification in understanding the underpinnings of how it works, and serves as contrasting corollary to methods that rely solely on the directionality of the microphones creating differences in level between channels (i.e. X/Y), yet most live concert spaced omni taper recordings contain significant level difference information for individual sound sources that are located nearby.  This includes pickup of surrounding audience when recording from a distance, close reflections, and the on-stage sources themselves when recording on stage or at the stage-lip, a common situation in which tapers use spaced omnis.  Inverse square law in relation to the spacing between the microphones and the angle of arrival from such nearby sources determines the level differences.

Coincident techniques as applied are closer to behaving like their simplified "platonic" description in conveying no phase-difference information.  Sure in real world implementations imperfect coincidence imparts some high frequency phase difference, but as real as such unintended errors and their effects may be, they are just that - the effects of implementation errors - and as such tend to represent negative rather than positive implementation-related qualities.  In contrast, level difference of nearby sources in spaced pair recordings generally correlate to positive qualities.  Specifically, it imparts some degree of "equivalence stereo" to the portrayal of those sources (significant in on-stage and stage-lip recordings), and helps push distracting nearby audience chatter to either sides of the playback image, making it easier for the listener to direct their attention away from it and retain focus on the music of interest (significant in more-distant audience recordings).

I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to get at is clarity on some important differences between theory and implementation.  Partly because the two frequently get tangled up in discussion, and partly because in general, tapers tend to be driven more by implementation realities than how theory applies.  In light of this, I tend to think in terms of the basic 3-ways of the "German school of writing" some of the time, yet other-times find it useful to think in terms of a couple different 2-way differentiations, neither of which are representative of the "American school of writing".  I find it more useful to place the key division either between no inter-channel timing cues (coincident level-based only microphone pair techniques and panned mono sources) and some-degree of inter-channel timing cues (near-spaced and wide-spaced microphone pair techniques), or between techniques which are clearly intended to use a somewhat balanced combination of level and timing (near-spaced) and those which are predominantly level or timing based (coincident and wide spaced).

Not trying to convince others that my way of thinking about all this is the right way, only relating what has proven useful to me in the "modeling problem" of connecting theory with implementation realities in a few different ways.  Part of what makes taper-style concert recording so interesting is where and how it doesn't fit neatly into either the American nor European schools of professional recording approaches.  35' wide spaced omni recordings of PA amplified concerts from a position distant from both stage and PA is a good example.  Taper concert recording is representative of otherwise unique approaches and has a history all its own.

It's entertaining for me to think and write about this, so thanks for the space to aimlessly wander around a bit!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 04:52:01 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 64 queries.
© 2002-2020 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF