Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Jecklin Float QA !!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Jecklin Float QA !!! - Page 13

post #181 of 663

The problem is with the transformers and no way around that, regardless of what's pushing them.  Even the when properly bifilar wound they still are a gigantic compromise which is only made worse by the high ratio.  Nobody but McIntosh does bifilar though... 

 

Plenty of the Lambdas have been subpar but that's hardly the issue here, more claims of this being the second coming.  Since it's common practice on HF now to get a discount in exchange for favorable impressions it helps to be a skeptic. 

post #182 of 663

Totally agree I am very skeptical too as what we know currently is very little other than anecdotal.

 

People are commenting from memory and that's notoriously unreliable when evaluating sound and is really only an impression.

 

There are precious few hard facts about the QA float even with the new description that has recently been posted.

For example there is a claim that the unit will go down to 20hz, but is this at -1db, -10db or -30db?  Such figures are meaningless unless qualified.

It talks about retaining the original ideas and making the headset lighter and more comfortable to wear and the improved transformer to power the headset, but no real facts like

What type and construction of transformers are used ?

What new materials are used and where ?

Are the electrostatic panels basically the same of have they been updated ?

Whats the frequency range and linearity ?

Is the bias voltage the same as the previous Float ?

 

 

So far as I have been able to ascertain at the launch there was nothing else to make a direct comparison against be it either original floats or other types of electrostatics.

 

Hopefully we will all soon be put out of our misery when some of the head-fi early adopters can give us some direct comparisons with know headphones.  Then we might know if the QA Float is the holy grail or just a slightly improved version of the original.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

Plenty of the Lambdas have been subpar but that's hardly the issue here, more claims of this being the second coming.  Since it's common practice on HF now to get a discount in exchange for favorable impressions it helps to be a skeptic. 


Edited by complin - 10/19/12 at 1:21pm
post #183 of 663

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

Totally agree I am very skeptical too as what we know currently is very little other than anecdotal.

 

People are commenting from memory and that's notoriously unreliable when evaluating sound and is really only an impression.

 

There are precious few hard facts about the QA float even with the new description that has recently been posted.

For example there is a claim that the unit will go down to 20hz, but is this at -1db, -10db or -30db?  Such figures are meaningless unless qualified.

It talks about retaining the original ideas and making the headset lighter and more comfortable to wear and the improved transformer to power the headset, but no real facts like

What type and construction of transformers are used ?

What new materials are used and where ?

Are the electrostatic panels basically the same of have they been updated ?

Whats the frequency range and linearity ?

Is the bias voltage the same as the previous Float ?

 

 

So far as I have been able to ascertain at the launch there was nothing else to make a direct comparison against be it either original floats or other types of electrostatics.

 

Hopefully we will all soon be put out of our misery when some of the head-fi early adopters can give us some direct comparisons with know headphones.  Then we might know if the QA Float is the holy grail or just a slightly improved version of the original.   

 

-1dB, -3dB, -5dB, ...

 

and, then tells them all about the complete sound?

Does this automatically as an example, that a pair of headphones at a position around the 20Hz has a little more dB, completely better?

There are people who can not understand. They discuss technically till death.

Would they give up a K1000 because a Audeze has dB more bass?

What do they know when they have 25 sheets and measurement diagrams on?

What exactly do they do then the overall sound?

Aha - just-2dB at 25Hz. Aha, this curve at 3kHz.

Aha, and then tell them something about the overall sound?

I give them 20 measuring diagrams and they tell me then, without listening to exceptional values ​​which belongs to which headphones.

This works for things that are really bad.

But that certainly does not top headphones that are all okay so far.

Or they think: you have a measurement diagram of Orpheus, from the Stax Lambda X, from Audez'e LCD3 from HiFiMAN HE6, -

they do not know is which graph belongs to which headphones

and then they tell me without hearing before: That's exactly my favorite pair of headphones?

That I would like to see.

And I'd like to see if the choir has more breathing or not. I would like to see reference to a measurement diagram.

 

No kidding: Let's put us together, I give them five diagrams and they tell me then: Here there is more breathing. There, the ratio was exactly between wealth and transparency.

And much more.

All of this has to do with quality at the end. Take the measuring diagrams and bury them.

You can derive some important things - that's correct. But they can not derive a lot of things. For this they need to hear.

Anecdotes are what they are, for others the tool.

 

Example: Computer says: ideal measurements
and they know that it fits

 


Edited by michaelxray - 10/20/12 at 1:01am
post #184 of 663

You are TOTALLY missing the point here!

 

We/I am not stuck on or only evaluate a product by its technical specifications, but any audio audio product worth its salt publishes some technical specifications.  They provide an indication of what wan can expect in terms of its capability and performance and gives some indication about how it may sound.  We cant measure every aspect of what we will hear, but what is true that such measurements offer a strong correlation to the sound singnature and potential hot or low spots.  This has been born out by the work that Tyll Hertsens has been doing over at InnerFidelity and other head-fi members.

 

Headphones are transducers as loudspeakers.  So would you buy a loudspeaker without knowing some technical information like its capabilities to produce frequencies, how flat the frequency response was, how efficient it is, how the impedance varies so you can match it with an appropriate amplifier NO.  Would you base your purchasing decision on the technical specification alone without listening to it NO.  Would you buy it without comparing it side by side with other comparable products NO.

 

These QA Floats are not a cheap purchase for $3,500 you expect to know what you are getting, its not like purchasing a cheap headphone from the dime store!

 

If you think we should just accept hearsay and marketing hyperbole then you must either be naive or disingenuous?  Those of us who have been active in the audio hobby for a long time are very skeptical of such claims made for products, we don't board the fanboy hype train until we have an informed opinion of a product. We have seen and heard it all before!   

 

Are Objective Headphone Measurements Relevant to Audiophile's Subjective Experience?

"The trick here is knowing that objective and subjective evaluation happen in two different domains, and one has to have an open mind to bring in information from both without feeling conflicted. If a person falls too strongly into one camp or the other, their viewpoint bias may override the ability to see valid points of the other viewpoint. The question is how to keep both valid viewpoints at the same time."

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/are-objective-headphone-measurements-relevant-audiophiles-subjective-experience

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

-1dB, -3dB, -5dB, ...

 

and, then tells them all about the complete sound?

Does this automatically as an example, that a pair of headphones at a position around the 20Hz has a little more dB, completely better?

There are people who can not understand. They discuss technically till death.

Would they give up a K1000 because a Audeze has dB more bass?

What do they know when they have 25 sheets and measurement diagrams on?

What exactly do they do then the overall sound?

Aha - just-2dB at 25Hz. Aha, this curve at 3kHz.

Aha, and then tell them something about the overall sound?

I give them 20 measuring diagrams and they tell me then, without listening to exceptional values ​​which belongs to which headphones.

This works for things that are really bad.

But that certainly does not top headphones that are all okay so far.

Or they think: you have a measurement diagram of Orpheus, from the Stax Lambda X, from Audez'e LCD3 from HiFiMAN HE6, -

they do not know is which graph belongs to which headphones

and then they tell me without hearing before: That's exactly my favorite pair of headphones?

That I would like to see.

And I'd like to see if the choir has more breathing or not. I would like to see reference to a measurement diagram.

 

No kidding: Let's put us together, I give them five diagrams and they tell me then: Here there is more breathing. There, the ratio was exactly between wealth and transparency.

And much more.

All of this has to do with quality at the end. Take the measuring diagrams and bury them.

You can derive some important things - that's correct. But they can not derive a lot of things. For this they need to hear.

Anecdotes are what they are, for others the tool.

 

Example: Computer says: ideal measurements
and they know that it fits

 


Edited by complin - 10/20/12 at 2:19am
post #185 of 663

Michael, you're digging the hole deeper, this is a condescending look upon both professional and amateurs who pay attention to objective gear performance evaluation besides subjective impressions which can border on waxing lyrical at time. In particular, you chose the bass for pit's sake. If there's one thing that everybody agrees upon, be it in the speaker or headphone world is the direct correlation between natural bass extension (hence the need to precise how many dB down else anything goes to 10Hz, -15dB down...) vs. bloom with steep roll-off and subjective impression of bass firmness / delineation.

 

It's one thing to have an opinion, but ignorant rumbling is of very little help.

post #186 of 663

Um, what exactly is the point of showing a fashion model when talking about "ideal measurements?"

 

First off, a fashion model is basically meant to be a walking coat rack: ie. thin and tall. The look serves a functional purpose. Talking about "ideal" is going to be difficult, because different people have different ideals. A computer cannot tell us what is ideal. We have to interpret what a computer tells us, and decide for ourselves. In other words, neutral does not equal ideal. Neutral is neutral. It just happens to be ideal for a lot of people because it interferes with music less than say a very bassy or very trebley sound.

 

Going back to the model, there have been studies conducted to create "composites of beauty" or try to find "the most beautiful people on earth." But these are always based on values that are imported by the people conducting the survey, even if they are considered timeless values like symmetry, etc.

post #187 of 663
Thread Starter 
Quote:

 

Headphones are transducers as loudspeakers. So would you buy a loudspeaker without knowing some technical information like its capabilities to produce frequencies, how flat the frequency response was, how efficient it is, how the impedance varies so you can match it with an appropriate amplifier NO

 

 

 

I bought my Equipment allways by hearing them.

 

The important question is why people need measurements wich they did not made yourself to see if a headphone or speaker have for example a deep and flat Bassresponse? 

 

For Example: Audeze Rev.1

 

I heard it for the first time and don´t know anything about it. After hearing i could say anything important what  these Headphone do and when it comes to frequenzy it is a childplay to hear that it has a outstandig deep Bass without any highs or lows in the frequenzyrange up to the mids . 

 

I hear a Denon AHD-7000 It also had deep Bassresponse but it isn´t flat .

 

I can hear that an AKG K-1000 dont make a deep Bass but I also can hear that its response is also very Flat.

 

I dont need a measurement which shows me things that easily can be heard.

 

So my only Chance is hearing. And that is what I believe!

post #188 of 663

You have to agree is a nice pair of legs though! evil_smiley.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Um, what exactly is the point of showing a fashion model when talking about "ideal measurements?"

 

First off, a fashion model is basically meant to be a walking coat rack: ie. thin and tall. The look serves a functional purpose. Talking about "ideal" is going to be difficult, because different people have different ideals. A computer cannot tell us what is ideal. We have to interpret what a computer tells us, and decide for ourselves. In other words, neutral does not equal ideal. Neutral is neutral. It just happens to be ideal for a lot of people because it interferes with music less than say a very bassy or very trebley sound.

 

Going back to the model, there have been studies conducted to create "composites of beauty" or try to find "the most beautiful people on earth." But these are always based on values that are imported by the people conducting the survey, even if they are considered timeless values like symmetry, etc.

post #189 of 663

Yes I agree that listening is vital and the most important thing when selecting audio. But it is very subjective and due to both physical and psychological differences the experience will be different for everyone.

 

All i'm saying is that the objective measurements put some scope and quantative measures around that subjective experience.  Those measurements give us some boundaries in which to place our subjective experience. What you will find is that knowing how something measures will often correlate with how it will sound to you subjectively, it's not the whole story just a guide.

 

You say the AKG K1000 has a very flat frequency response and does not do bass.  We AKG claim a Frequency range: 30 Hz to 25,000 Hz, but this is not qualified (i.e. +or - 5db).  We all know that the K1000's dont do deep base so the response at 30 HZ must be -20 db which is why no one can hear it!  The "official" frequency graph provided by AKG shows a very flat response, but for many people the sound is very thin and bright so we need both objective and subjective information to get the full picture.

 

picture2ll2.png

 

You go on to say that you perceive the Audeze to have a deep flat bass response, so here is the frequency graph for the LCD2.  What it also shows is a flat response to 10 hz hence the extended bass but that from 1KH the fr gradually reduces to in some areas to -15 db which is why many people say they are veiled or lack that top end sparkle. 

 

 3fb1e68f_1000x500px-LL-49b476de_MySN5698240LCD-2FrequencyGraph_Compared.jpeg

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam73 View Post

 

 

I bought my Equipment allways by hearing them.

 

The important question is why people need measurements wich they did not made yourself to see if a headphone or speaker have for example a deep and flat Bassresponse? 

 

For Example: Audeze Rev.1

 

I heard it for the first time and don´t know anything about it. After hearing i could say anything important what  these Headphone do and when it comes to frequenzy it is a childplay to hear that it has a outstandig deep Bass without any highs or lows in the frequenzyrange up to the mids . 

 

I hear a Denon AHD-7000 It also had deep Bassresponse but it isn´t flat .

 

I can hear that an AKG K-1000 dont make a deep Bass but I also can hear that its response is also very Flat.

 

I dont need a measurement which shows me things that easily can be heard.

 

So my only Chance is hearing. And that is what I believe!


Edited by complin - 10/20/12 at 6:16am
post #190 of 663
Thread Starter 
Quote:
But it is very subjective

 

 

Yes and no!

 

Yes because the most put in their subjectiv loves.

 

No because there are many objektiv things to hear.

 

For example:

 

T1, HD-800, HE-6 are all Headphones with a much better Quality as for example DT880,HD-650,HE-4.

 

This is fact and it doesnt matter if some people prefer a HD-650 to a HD-800. This decission is subjectiv and so we have to accept this but the HD-800 has clearly the better Quality.

 

I´m shure the most People search for a prefered sound. So the statements are always done with this Background.

 

The Jecklin QA is highly exempt from any sounding and thats why i called it the best.

 

It is very difficult for me to write in english so I cant realy write what I think but I hope you understand what I will say.

post #191 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

You are TOTALLY missing the point here!

 

We/I am not stuck on or only evaluate a product by its technical specifications, but any audio audio product worth its salt publishes some technical specifications.  They provide an indication of what wan can expect in terms of its capability and performance and gives some indication about how it may sound.  We cant measure every aspect of what we will hear, but what is true that such measurements offer a strong correlation to the sound singnature and potential hot or low spots.  This has been born out by the work that Tyll Hertsens has been doing over at InnerFidelity and other head-fi members.

 

Headphones are transducers as loudspeakers.  So would you buy a loudspeaker without knowing some technical information like its capabilities to produce frequencies, how flat the frequency response was, how efficient it is, how the impedance varies so you can match it with an appropriate amplifier NO.  Would you base your purchasing decision on the technical specification alone without listening to it NO.  Would you buy it without comparing it side by side with other comparable products NO.

 

These QA Floats are not a cheap purchase for $3,500 you expect to know what you are getting, its not like purchasing a cheap headphone from the dime store!

 

If you think we should just accept hearsay and marketing hyperbole then you must either be naive or disingenuous?  Those of us who have been active in the audio hobby for a long time are very skeptical of such claims made for products, we don't board the fanboy hype train until we have an informed opinion of a product. We have seen and heard it all before!   

 

Are Objective Headphone Measurements Relevant to Audiophile's Subjective Experience?

"The trick here is knowing that objective and subjective evaluation happen in two different domains, and one has to have an open mind to bring in information from both without feeling conflicted. If a person falls too strongly into one camp or the other, their viewpoint bias may override the ability to see valid points of the other viewpoint. The question is how to keep both valid viewpoints at the same time."

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/are-objective-headphone-measurements-relevant-audiophiles-subjective-experience

 

 

I have a lot of respect for the work of a Tyll. No question. I admire his effort and time. No question.

But I personally have, to this day and have been for almost 40 years, used no measuring chart.

Speakers is to buy on the hearing. Headphones exactly the same.

Take a look around K1000 chart. And they will not find anything to say with 100% certainty: I buy, or I do not buy.

All they see (good straight sound, no deep bass, a little more problematic efficiency-74dB) can hear them too. They need no sheet.

And all that really matters, they do not see.

Or see it on the diagram how far away from the head is the stage?

Or see how much air is in the sound?

Or whether the sound is a little dry.

There are another 20 things that are important for a headphone fan. Things they can not see well.

But they can hear it. If they can do it.

And there is also the key. The only key.

For that is the problem. So, one needs diagrams.

post #192 of 663

deadhorse.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

 

I have a lot of respect for the work of a Tyll. No question. I admire his effort and time. No question.

But I personally have, to this day and have been for almost 40 years, used no measuring chart.

Speakers is to buy on the hearing. Headphones exactly the same.

Take a look around K1000 chart. And they will not find anything to say with 100% certainty: I buy, or I do not buy.

All they see (good straight sound, no deep bass, a little more problematic efficiency-74dB) can hear them too. They need no sheet.

And all that really matters, they do not see.

Or see it on the diagram how far away from the head is the stage?

Or see how much air is in the sound?

Or whether the sound is a little dry.

There are another 20 things that are important for a headphone fan. Things they can not see well.

But they can hear it. If they can do it.

And there is also the key. The only key.

For that is the problem. So, one needs diagrams.

post #193 of 663

No objective data = no purchase. This is something that should be expected past a certain price range. If they come later, than I wouldn't worry until then. (Unless we're adventurous like you, MF.) I've seen too many failure headphones hailed as the second coming of Christ to put much worth on pure hearsay. I do appreciate concise and informational subjective impressions, however. You know, the ones without a million synonyms for "nice sounding".


Edited by juantendo8 - 10/20/12 at 2:59pm
post #194 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

I have a lot of respect for the work of a Tyll.

post #195 of 663
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantendo8 View Post

No objective data = no purchase. This is something that should be expected past a certain price range. If they come later, than I wouldn't worry until then. (Unless we're adventurous like you, MF.) I've seen too many failure headphones hailed as the second coming of Christ to put much worth on pure hearsay. I do appreciate concise and informational subjective impressions, however. You know, the ones without a million synonyms for "nice sounding".

 

First Hearing -then buying and not first reading and buying.wink_face.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Jecklin Float QA !!!