Discussion:
Sursound Digest, Vol 121, Issue 11
(too old to reply)
Len Moskowitz
2018-08-16 17:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Justin wrote:


> it's
> http://www.zylia.co/


Thanks, but I still can't seem to find a web page with its basic
specifications. Perhaps I'm missing an obvious link.





Len Moskowitz (***@core-sound.com)Core Sound LLC
www.core-sound.com
Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
Bo-Erik Sandholm
2018-08-16 17:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.

Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise is
not disturbing :-).

I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone is
relevant in that directional microphones response.

But I am can be totally wrong in this mental visualization of the decoding
process. I have not done any mathematical research of this...

Bo-Erik Sandholm
Stockholm

2018-08-16 19:04 GMT+02:00 Len Moskowitz <***@optonline.net>:

> Justin wrote:
>
>
> it's
>> http://www.zylia.co/
>>
>
>
> Thanks, but I still can't seem to find a web page with its basic
> specifications. Perhaps I'm missing an obvious link.
>
>
>
>
>
> Len Moskowitz (***@core-sound.com)Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180816/0e6716ca/attachment.html>
Stefan Schreiber
2018-08-16 18:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don’t believe at all that they (Zylia) are using MEMS clusters...

Otherwise very interesting thoughts in the cited mail below... 

I also believe that noise of different capsules doesn’t add up (so I
agree with Bo-Erik, at least at first sight), but we can’t get below
the noise floor of a single capsule. MEMS type or not...

Typical specifications (High performance MEMS audio sensor):

https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/mp23ab01dh.pdf

(SNR: 65dB)

I personally would be very interested in a PRO version of the Zylia
ZM-1 microphone, especially since even the current version seems to be
(quite? very?) nice. According to various personal reports....

Best regards

Stefan

- - - -

Citando Bo-Erik Sandholm <***@gmail.com>:

> I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
>
> of the MEMS (clusters?)  that are used in Zylia.
>
>
>
> Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise is
>
> not disturbing :-).
>
>
>
> I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
>
> ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
>
> The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
>
> all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
>
> and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
>
> full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
>
> Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone is
>
> relevant in that directional microphones response.
>
>
>
> But I am can be totally wrong in this mental visualization of the decoding
>
> process. I have not done any mathematical research of this...
>
>
>
> Bo-Erik Sandholm
>
> Stockholm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180816/a534fc29/attachment.html>
Wim
2018-08-16 21:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I seem to remember the Zylia uses Primo electret capsules. And this post on
the Prorecording list seems to confirm it:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/prorecordingworkshop/zylia-microphone-t19409070.html

And this AES publication confirms at least the electret part:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17902
"Zamojski, Jakub Affiliation: Zylia sp. z o.o ... a spherical microphone
based on inexpensive electret capsules"


Op do 16 aug. 2018 om 20:33 schreef Stefan Schreiber <***@mail.telepac.pt
>:

> I don’t believe at all that they (Zylia) are using MEMS clusters...
>
> Otherwise very interesting thoughts in the cited mail below...
>
> I also believe that noise of different capsules doesn’t add up (so I
> agree with Bo-Erik, at least at first sight), but we can’t get below
> the noise floor of a single capsule. MEMS type or not...
>
> Typical specifications (High performance MEMS audio sensor):
>
> https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/mp23ab01dh.pdf
>
> (SNR: 65dB)
>
> I personally would be very interested in a PRO version of the Zylia
> ZM-1 microphone, especially since even the current version seems to be
> (quite? very?) nice. According to various personal reports....
>
> Best regards
>
> Stefan
>
> - - - -
>
> Citando Bo-Erik Sandholm <***@gmail.com>:
>
> > I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
> >
> > of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise
> is
> >
> > not disturbing :-).
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
> >
> > ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
> >
> > The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
> >
> > all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
> >
> > and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
> >
> > full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
> >
> > Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone
> is
> >
> > relevant in that directional microphones response.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I am can be totally wrong in this mental visualization of the
> decoding
> >
> > process. I have not done any mathematical research of this...
> >
> >
> >
> > Bo-Erik Sandholm
> >
> > Stockholm
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180816/a534fc29/attachment.html
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180816/3b75c4ed/attachment.html>
Bo-Erik Sandholm
2018-08-17 11:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That is nearly 2 year old info, I found when reading one of the links.

I suspect there have been some Zylia product developement up to now.
Possibly also on the USB interface implementation.

If the MEMS noise level is acceptable and the stated MEMS advantages - long
term stability and very low difference between individual samples of MEMS
elements that they may have made an exellent choise of mic elements for a
ambisonic array.

But Listening to recording samples and mesurements will show the resulting
implementation quality, MEMS seems to be Electret microphones implemented
with a semiconductor process.
I found this very interesting, at least some MEMS have mechanical membrance
resonances at around 15 kHz. Older mems implentations referenced here

https://nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/3832EB0E-2297-4CF5-B58AC8FC54DF9705/Seattle%20Presentation.ppt

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032405/

MEMS can be constructed using optical readout of data, then getting below
23dBA self noise - Electrostatic MEMS have appearently higher values, I
have not found how much.... And dont know what MEMS Zylia uses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032405/

This indicate that SNR values around 64 to 65 dBA might be typical of a
conventional MEMS microphone.
https://www.ama-science.org/proceedings/getFile/ZwZ2Zt==

Here is aRECENT summer 2017 press release from Infineon about their 2017
MEMS mic elements. Seems there is a difference.
I am not a Mic designer so I do not know what a 70dB SNR ratio means in the
real world for performance.

https://www.infineon.com/cms/en/about-infineon/press/market-news/2017/INFPMM201707-064.html
extract below:
Current MEMS microphone technology uses a sound wave actuated membrane and
a static backplate.
Infineon’s dual backplate MEMS technology uses a membrane embedded within
two backplates thus generating a truly differential signal.
This allows improved high frequency immunity for better audio signal
processing and increases the acoustic overload point of 10 percent Total
Harmonic Distortion (THD) to 135 dB SPL.
The SNR of 70 dB is an improvement of 6 dB compared to a conventional MEMS
microphone.
This improvement is equivalent to doubling the distance from which a user
can give a voice command that is captured by the microphone.

Additionally, the analog and digital microphones have excellent
microphone-to-microphone matching (±1 dB sensitivity matching and ± 2°
phase matching) which is ideal for implementing in arrays.

Bo-Erik: I dont think this will be good enough for not having matched
elements in production if only a single standard A to B conversion is used?

Showing how to mount MEMS microphones for best performance!
https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-AN557_MEMS_microphone_mechanical_and_acoustical_implementation-AN-v01_01-EN.pdf?fileId=5546d4626102d35a01612d1e3bf96add

Any comments for further speculation welcome :-)

Bo-Erik

2018-08-16 23:03 GMT+02:00 Wim <***@gmail.com>:

> I seem to remember the Zylia uses Primo electret capsules. And this post on
> the Prorecording list seems to confirm it:
> https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/prorecordingworkshop/
> zylia-microphone-t19409070.html
>
> And this AES publication confirms at least the electret part:
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17902
> "Zamojski, Jakub Affiliation: Zylia sp. z o.o ... a spherical microphone
> based on inexpensive electret capsules"
>
>
> Op do 16 aug. 2018 om 20:33 schreef Stefan Schreiber <
> ***@mail.telepac.pt
> >:
>
> > I don’t believe at all that they (Zylia) are using MEMS clusters...
> >
> > Otherwise very interesting thoughts in the cited mail below...
> >
> > I also believe that noise of different capsules doesn’t add up (so I
> > agree with Bo-Erik, at least at first sight), but we can’t get below
> > the noise floor of a single capsule. MEMS type or not...
> >
> > Typical specifications (High performance MEMS audio sensor):
> >
> > https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/mp23ab01dh.pdf
> >
> > (SNR: 65dB)
> >
> > I personally would be very interested in a PRO version of the Zylia
> > ZM-1 microphone, especially since even the current version seems to be
> > (quite? very?) nice. According to various personal reports....
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > - - - -
> >
> > Citando Bo-Erik Sandholm <***@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise
> level
> > >
> > > of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self
> noise
> > is
> > >
> > > not disturbing :-).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
> > >
> > > ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
> > >
> > > The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise
> from
> > >
> > > all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
> > >
> > > and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have
> the
> > >
> > > full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
> > >
> > > Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual
> microphone
> > is
> > >
> > > relevant in that directional microphones response.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But I am can be totally wrong in this mental visualization of the
> > decoding
> > >
> > > process. I have not done any mathematical research of this...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bo-Erik Sandholm
> > >
> > > Stockholm
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20180816/a534fc29/attachment.html
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sursound mailing list
> > ***@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> > edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20180816/3b75c4ed/attachment.html>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here,
> edit account or options, view archives and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180817/e83fd1d2/attachment.html>
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
2018-08-16 18:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/16/2018 10:22 AM, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
> I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
> of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.
>
> Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise is
> not disturbing :-).

:-)

> I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
> ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
> The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
> all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
> and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
> full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
> Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone is
> relevant in that directional microphones response.

I think the noise we are talking about is that of the difference
microphones. In an open array built with cardioids that would be for
order 2 or higher, in a rigid sphere array with omnidirectional capsules
that would be for order 1 or higher.

Those components drop in level at low frequencies at a rate of n x
6dB/octave (starting at high frequencies). For the second order
components of a microphone made of cardioids n = 1 (6dB/oct), add
6dB/oct per order increase for higher orders.

As the component drops in amplitude towards the low frequencies you need
a filter that compensates for the drop, and of course it amplifies the
sef-noise of the capsules as well. At some point you have to give up or
the noise becomes a problem (where exactly depends on the self-noise of
the capsules and what kind of materials you are recording).

In the second order microphones I'm building for the SpHEAR project I
can use the second order components down to about 400-500Hz ("unity
gain" for them is at around 9KHz). Even then the noise is objectionable
(but not necessarily "disturbing" :-) for recordings that have wide
dynamic range (my encoder uses an expander on those components to try to
minimize that effect). You can definitely hear the noise if there is a
silence in the recording. Of course it disappears if you mute the second
order components :-)

A third order microphone (made of cardioids - I don't think there is
one) would be worse, the drop would be 12dB/oct for the third order
components. So you would have to limit the low end of the frequency
response at a higher frequency.

AFAIK nobody specifies the noise specs for _those_ components in an
Ambisonics microphone. In a first order microphone made of cardioids
that is not a problem, as is the case for the first order components of
a second order microphone made of cardioids.

(as a reference, the open source octofile software released for the
OctoMic shows that their calibration has three choices for the low
frequency cut off for the second order components, 500Hz, 900Hz and
1.5KHz).

-- Fernando
umashankar manthravadi
2018-08-17 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
zyla is made of mems. We are now getting low noise and high sensitivity mems, but they are still omni.

Omni mounted on the surface of a sphere has some directional characteristics. Later today I am going to measure a single mems loaded with a 16 mm square horn (mouth flush on a 40 mm sphere) to see what kind of directivity pattern I will get.

umashankar
________________________________
From: Sursound <sursound-***@music.vt.edu> on behalf of Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <***@ccrma.Stanford.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:05 AM
To: Surround Sound discussion group; Len Moskowitz
Cc: Justin Bennett
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Looking for mic advice (Zylia)

On 08/16/2018 10:22 AM, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
> I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
> of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.
>
> Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise is
> not disturbing :-).

:-)

> I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
> ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
> The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
> all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
> and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
> full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
> Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone is
> relevant in that directional microphones response.

I think the noise we are talking about is that of the difference
microphones. In an open array built with cardioids that would be for
order 2 or higher, in a rigid sphere array with omnidirectional capsules
that would be for order 1 or higher.

Those components drop in level at low frequencies at a rate of n x
6dB/octave (starting at high frequencies). For the second order
components of a microphone made of cardioids n = 1 (6dB/oct), add
6dB/oct per order increase for higher orders.

As the component drops in amplitude towards the low frequencies you need
a filter that compensates for the drop, and of course it amplifies the
sef-noise of the capsules as well. At some point you have to give up or
the noise becomes a problem (where exactly depends on the self-noise of
the capsules and what kind of materials you are recording).

In the second order microphones I'm building for the SpHEAR project I
can use the second order components down to about 400-500Hz ("unity
gain" for them is at around 9KHz). Even then the noise is objectionable
(but not necessarily "disturbing" :-) for recordings that have wide
dynamic range (my encoder uses an expander on those components to try to
minimize that effect). You can definitely hear the noise if there is a
silence in the recording. Of course it disappears if you mute the second
order components :-)

A third order microphone (made of cardioids - I don't think there is
one) would be worse, the drop would be 12dB/oct for the third order
components. So you would have to limit the low end of the frequency
response at a higher frequency.

AFAIK nobody specifies the noise specs for _those_ components in an
Ambisonics microphone. In a first order microphone made of cardioids
that is not a problem, as is the case for the first order components of
a second order microphone made of cardioids.

(as a reference, the open source octofile software released for the
OctoMic shows that their calibration has three choices for the low
frequency cut off for the second order components, 500Hz, 900Hz and
1.5KHz).

-- Fernando

_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
***@music.vt.edu
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsursound&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C880a958762324ad22ac808d603a71cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636700413605498803&amp;sdata=XyLmjx2mOOdApTO%2FBIrFR0Mzo%2FYnFvCW4Pes6Do7U3w%3D&amp;reserved=0 - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180817/2db3da37/attachment.html>
Eduardo Patricio
2018-08-17 09:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi everyone,

On this page you have some information regarding the capsules (and frequency response), DSP, and the currently available software applications (ZYLIA Studio, Studio Pro and ambisonics converter).

http://www.zylia.co/white-paper.html <http://www.zylia.co/white-paper.html>


______
Eduardo



> On Aug 17, 2018, at 5:14 AM, umashankar manthravadi <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> zyla is made of mems. We are now getting low noise and high sensitivity mems, but they are still omni.
>
> Omni mounted on the surface of a sphere has some directional characteristics. Later today I am going to measure a single mems loaded with a 16 mm square horn (mouth flush on a 40 mm sphere) to see what kind of directivity pattern I will get.
>
> umashankar
> ________________________________
> From: Sursound <sursound-***@music.vt.edu <mailto:sursound-***@music.vt.edu>> on behalf of Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <***@ccrma.Stanford.EDU <mailto:***@ccrma.Stanford.EDU>>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:05 AM
> To: Surround Sound discussion group; Len Moskowitz
> Cc: Justin Bennett
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Looking for mic advice (Zylia)
>
> On 08/16/2018 10:22 AM, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
>> I agree with Len, we have not seen any technical spec of self noise level
>> of the MEMS (clusters?) that are used in Zylia.
>>
>> Only text saying that in normal musical recording situations self noise is
>> not disturbing :-).
>
> :-)
>
>> I have a personal theory that self noise of physical elements in an
>> ambisonic mic array is not directly additive.
>> The basis for my theory is that as we convert to B-format the noise from
>> all the physical elements are distributed over a spherical surface,
>> and the noise level for a virtual microphone in decoding do not have the
>> full sum of the added microphone noise levels.
>> Only coherent noise within the take up volume of the virtual microphone is
>> relevant in that directional microphones response.
>
> I think the noise we are talking about is that of the difference
> microphones. In an open array built with cardioids that would be for
> order 2 or higher, in a rigid sphere array with omnidirectional capsules
> that would be for order 1 or higher.
>
> Those components drop in level at low frequencies at a rate of n x
> 6dB/octave (starting at high frequencies). For the second order
> components of a microphone made of cardioids n = 1 (6dB/oct), add
> 6dB/oct per order increase for higher orders.
>
> As the component drops in amplitude towards the low frequencies you need
> a filter that compensates for the drop, and of course it amplifies the
> sef-noise of the capsules as well. At some point you have to give up or
> the noise becomes a problem (where exactly depends on the self-noise of
> the capsules and what kind of materials you are recording).
>
> In the second order microphones I'm building for the SpHEAR project I
> can use the second order components down to about 400-500Hz ("unity
> gain" for them is at around 9KHz). Even then the noise is objectionable
> (but not necessarily "disturbing" :-) for recordings that have wide
> dynamic range (my encoder uses an expander on those components to try to
> minimize that effect). You can definitely hear the noise if there is a
> silence in the recording. Of course it disappears if you mute the second
> order components :-)
>
> A third order microphone (made of cardioids - I don't think there is
> one) would be worse, the drop would be 12dB/oct for the third order
> components. So you would have to limit the low end of the frequency
> response at a higher frequency.
>
> AFAIK nobody specifies the noise specs for _those_ components in an
> Ambisonics microphone. In a first order microphone made of cardioids
> that is not a problem, as is the case for the first order components of
> a second order microphone made of cardioids.
>
> (as a reference, the open source octofile software released for the
> OctoMic shows that their calibration has three choices for the low
> frequency cut off for the second order components, 500Hz, 900Hz and
> 1.5KHz).
>
> -- Fernando
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsursound&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C880a958762324ad22ac808d603a71cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636700413605498803&amp;sdata=XyLmjx2mOOdApTO%2FBIrFR0Mzo%2FYnFvCW4Pes6Do7U3w%3D&amp;reserved=0 <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsursound&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7C880a958762324ad22ac808d603a71cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636700413605498803&amp;sdata=XyLmjx2mOOdApTO%2FBIrFR0Mzo%2FYnFvCW4Pes6Do7U3w%3D&amp;reserved=0> - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180817/2db3da37/attachment.html <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180817/2db3da37/attachment.html>>
> _______________________________________________
> Sursound mailing list
> ***@music.vt.edu <mailto:***@music.vt.edu>
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180817/42de1686/attachment.html>
Justin Bennett
2018-08-16 17:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.zylia.co/zylia-zm-1-microphone.html

But yeah, you’re right, there are NO real technical specifications.

When it arrives, maybe I can get some students to do some measurements!

best, Justin


> On 16 Aug 2018, at 19:04, Len Moskowitz <***@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Justin wrote:
>
>
>> it's
>> http://www.zylia.co/
>
>
> Thanks, but I still can't seem to find a web page with its basic specifications. Perhaps I'm missing an obvious link.
>
>
>
>
>
> Len Moskowitz (***@core-sound.com)Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic

Justin Bennett

***@justinbennett.nl
www.justinbennett.nl
http://jubilee-art.org/
Loading...