Topic: Schoeps active users...

[Nick Graham]

Let me preface this by saying I understand how different configs work better in different settings, etc. However...

Does anyone else just pretty much use ORTF exclusively?

I've got the DIN, DINa, and Vark Bars, but have found 99.9% of the time ORTF just sounds better regardless. DIN seems to have that "hole in the middle" effect, and DINa just sounds too thin.

Anybody agree?

[grider]

Let me preface this by saying I understand how different configs work better in different settings, etc. However...

Does anyone else just pretty much use ORTF exclusively?

I've got the DIN, DINa, and Vark Bars, but have found 99.9% of the time ORTF just sounds better regardless. DIN seems to have that "hole in the middle" effect, and DINa just sounds too thin.

Anybody agree?

strange, since with ORTF the caps are angled wider apart from each other than they are with DIN, I'd think the biggest hole in sound would be generated by the configuration with the largest degree of angle separation, which would be ORTF (110 as opposed to 90 in other words)

[Rick]

Let me preface this by saying I understand how different configs work better in different settings, etc. However...

Does anyone else just pretty much use ORTF exclusively?

I've got the DIN, DINa, and Vark Bars, but have found 99.9% of the time ORTF just sounds better regardless. DIN seems to have that "hole in the middle" effect, and DINa just sounds too thin.

Anybody agree?

I had both the DIN and ORTF bar and ended up selling the DIN bar because I like ORTF better with the schoeps

Someone else said this; but there's a reason why schoeps only makes a ORTF bar 

[Brian Skalinder]

In a good sounding environment, I prefer ORTF - wider and deeper soundstage, better stereo imaging.  I don't hear a "hole in the middle" effect with DIN/A, but they do have a more shallow, narrower soundstage to my ears, with less stereo imaging - an effect I appreciate in crappy sounding venues.

[rowjimmy]

A friend of mine let me borrow his active setup with 21s and ortf bar earlier this year.
To illustrate how much he  swears by that config, I can tell you that he never took the caps out of the bar- even when shipping the rig.

My experience with it was very good and I pulled a nice FOB Sharon Jones recording.

ORTF, like every other config, may not be the BEST solution for every situation but, I'll have a hard time saying that sub cards, FOB, ORTF isn't an excellent option to have.

[SonicSound]

According to Michael Williams book "Microphone Arrays for Stereo and Multichannel sound Recording" the stereo recording angle (SRA) using Cardioid microphones for ORTF (17cm/110deg) and DIN (20cm/90deg) are both +/- 50deg.  However the Angular Distortion (AD) for ORTF is 5deg and 4.5 for DIN.  Based on this I generally chose the DIN configuration over ORTF.  However I recently hit the workshop and crafted a 25cm/70deg bar.  This configuration gives still gives the same SRA of +/-50deg but improves the AD to 4deg.  I have not done any comps but am very pleased with the results from this weekend (STS9 & WSP).

Here is a blurb from the book:
"This characteristic of angular distortion is perceived as a compression of the extremities of the reproduced sound field towards the loudspeakers.  This can also be interpreted as a stretching of the centre of the reproduced sound image, sometimes called 'hole in the centre'.  This is in fact a misnomer, as the centre of the sound image still exists but is spread over a wider sector in the centre of the sound stage."

[Tim]

A friend of mine let me borrow his active setup with 21s and ortf bar earlier this year.
To illustrate how much he  swears by that config, I can tell you that he never took the caps out of the bar- even when shipping the rig.

My experience with it was very good and I pulled a nice FOB Sharon Jones recording.

ORTF, like every other config, may not be the BEST solution for every situation but, I'll have a hard time saying that sub cards, FOB, ORTF isn't an excellent option to have.

with 21's try NOS

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I have mostly run my mk21's nos.  Though I had a stage lip result a while back where the mk21 nos lacked depth compared to mg200 ortf. The mk21/nos was going into the r09 so I'm not sure whether to blame the r09 or blame nos.  I need to try the mk21's ortf but share the concern about picking up more aud.

[SonicSound]

Not sure how much of the impact was from the configuration.  I would guess that the difference was attributed to a card vs. a subcard.

I have mostly run my mk21's nos.  Though I had a stage lip result a while back where the mk21 nos lacked depth compared to mg200 ortf. The mk21/nos was going into the r09 so I'm not sure whether to blame the r09 or blame nos.  I need to try the mk21's ortf but share the concern about picking up more aud.

[rowjimmy]

Naturally the amount of aud you'll get depends on how close/far you are. You'd also have to consider how much PA vs Stage you want/need depending on the band & room.
NOS with subs can certainly be done right at the right spots... Unfortunatly, I had to send the 21's back 

I have mostly run my mk21's nos.  Though I had a stage lip result a while back where the mk21 nos lacked depth compared to mg200 ortf. The mk21/nos was going into the r09 so I'm not sure whether to blame the r09 or blame nos.  I need to try the mk21's ortf but share the concern about picking up more aud.

Seems to me, If you run them too close to the source and in too tight a config you'll end up with a very mono recording due to too great an overlap. The exact opposite of the problem of running ORTF too far back.

[RebelRebel]

I always use a modified NOS with the 21s..they shine in that configuration. with cardiods, I use ORTF exclusively. the depth of image and source localization is great.

[Brian Skalinder]

I always use a modified NOS with the 21s.

Modified in what way?  I'm not entirely pleased with my 21s NOS, partly due to recording in far-from-ideal environments.  So, gotta mix it up some more.  Curious about your experiences, even though we record very different sources in very different environments.

[RebelRebel]

I always use a modified NOS with the 21s.

Modified in what way?  I'm not entirely pleased with my 21s NOS, partly due to recording in far-from-ideal environments.  So, gotta mix it up some more.  Curious about your experiences, even though we record very different sources in very different environments.

110-120 degrees and 12-14inches capsule separation..ive been getting remarkable results.

[midside]

You should try MS sometime (as long as you are not in the back of the house).
The 2 biggest complaints about MS are:
1. you have to matrix in post
2. weak bass
Well, yes, you need to do post, but then you can control your stereo width.  How many times have you found (afterwards) that your recording was too wide?  Just narrow it down a little and there you go.   As far as the bass thing goes, this is only true to an extent.  You won't get the amazing full rich bass that is possible with split omnis but I dont' think that set-up was on your plate. And, if you think that the bass isn't wide enough for your liking, then use a shuffler (look it up) in post.
OK, I'm ready to hear all the purists slam me now for mentioning post processing as a good thing...LOL!

[Colin Liston]

If I run the B&K's ORTF at the Freebird from my ususal spot, all I hear out of the right channel is people at the bar and bottles smashing.
I usually just point them at the stacks.