Anyone tried ZOOM SGV-6?

[kingkorg]

So in the end i made a pair of clip on tom mics out of the capsules. The 180° rejection in the HF is way better than say k67. Here's the comparison. Red is a u87 clone i made, the other one is the clip on mic.

Link to the clip on.

https://a.aliexpress.com/_mqgfJDo

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a couple of these Zoom mics if I can find them for cheap. I wouldn't use it as is, but if I can get used functional ones it might be worth using the capsules as spot mics or instrument mic like that.

So in the end i made a pair of clip on tom mics out of the capsules. The 180° rejection in the HF is way better than say k67. Here's the comparison. Red is a u87 clone i made, the other one is the clip on mic.

Link to the clip on.

https://a.aliexpress.com/_mqgfJDo

Is the rear rejection better than the EM200?

 

[kingkorg]

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a couple of these Zoom mics if I can find them for cheap. I wouldn't use it as is, but if I can get used functional ones it might be worth using the capsules as spot mics or instrument mic like that.

Is the rear rejection better than the EM200?

I'm not 100% sure about my 180° measurements, and it's tricky because it is heavily dependant on distance. 180° graphs change radically with distance. However it seems the high end rejection peak is shifted higher in these. Where with EM200 rejection is a bit less but more linear with lower frequency peak.

In the end it just has to come down to audio testing and shootouts. Way too much witchcraft involved in off axis response. Especially with something like cymbal bleed, since part of the sound are cymbals reflected of the tom heads hitting the front of the diaphragm.

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

I'm not 100% sure about my 180° measurements, and it's tricky because it is heavily dependant on distance. 180° graphs change radically with distance. However it seems the high end rejection peak is shifted higher in these. Where with EM200 rejection is a bit less but more linear with lower frequency peak.

In the end it just has to come down to audio testing and shootouts. Way too much witchcraft involved in off axis response. Especially with something like cymbal bleed, since part of the sound are cymbals reflected of the tom heads hitting the front of the diaphragm.

Whatever capsules are in this mic, they look like they'd be great in location audio mics. Some of the cheaper shotgun mics and other cardioid and supercardioid mics could definitely use solid capsules like this or the EM200.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Both middle and bottom capsules are flipped in polarity in respect to the front one. Which confuses me especially regarding the bottom one which is responsible for the low end. The mic has terrible low end response and it's not surprising. The bottom capsule effectively cancel this range being out of phase. The mic has great off axis rejection, but 0° is basically useless. So what's the point?

I've checked the litterature on the Zoom site. This mic uses the age-old principle of out-of-phase cancellation (remember the days where singers had two mics tied wit gaffa tape?), with a twist.
So Zoom have perfected the system, probably using active phase compensation for the spacing of capsules, which makes it a two-way simple end-fire array.
It works only when the source is extremely close to the front diaphragm, which is why they specify it as a vocal microphone.
Indeed, any distant sound is gonna be cancelled, that's the idea.
That is in agreement with your post #23.
I suggest you re do your measurements with the speaker very close to the mic, but even then the source would not be close enough to a point-source.