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 17

post #241 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens View Post

 

I just want to hear these cans. 

 

And measure them.  :D

 

I would like to see the following:

 

  1. FR measurements + HD distortion measurements
  2. Subjective impressions in direct comparison with established high-end rigs, i.e. SR009+T2DIY with the same source (meaning DAC/TT and recordings) preferably from people where I can make sense of their reviews even if their opinions and preferences are not the same as mine (Tyll, LFF, asr, RD, MF, maybe a few others, etc.)

 

Sorry, "authenticity" and "color of Metal" does not cut it. This is "Summit-Fi". A few of us are tough cookies who've been around to see the cycle of BS. As MF said, this thread already smells.


Edited by purrin - 10/22/12 at 8:43pm
post #242 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

So far, I have not seen a measurement that would produce a graph to show just how much do pads of a certain phones under test alter our hearing - that graph would be the most relevant to the perceived SQ if the transducer itself  is assumed to be "perfect".

Not sure what kind if rational you are using to come to this conclusion? As I mentionned, discrepancies at LF typically come from issues with earpad sealing. The LF extension / cut-on frequency is particularly sensitive to the seal if the pads are impervious type (e.g leather or pleather skin) and the baffle plate is not perforated (such as all stax earspeakers, the lcds and most likely the floats) resulting in a sealed or possibly vented earcup cavity. Well, just like plugging the port of a vented speaker or drilling a hole in a sealed unit, LF response of a headphone of sealed or vented earcup type is heavily affected by leakage (e.g. lack of seal).

Now take an open dipole type of speaker or in this case the float, you loose this sensitivity to the earcup seal because there's no earcup! You might still have some sensitivity to positioning, especially no bass toward the edge of the baffle, but given the huge size of the driver, it should be minimal. Likewise, HF response in padded phones may be sensitive to positioning due to acoustic resonances in the earcup but in case of a float, you don't get these pronounced standing waves inside the earcup cavity because, again, there are no earcups! Note that you do get resonances still (if anything across the thickness, and actually laterally as well because of large discontinuity in geometry), but they may be of lesser influenced than in say a leather pad. In that sense, I understand the potential technical merits of the float enclosure type.

You may get some directivity from the driver at mid high frequencies, but also here, given the large radiating surface, one expects little sensitivity with positioning (at least less sensitive than traditional drivers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

So far, I have not seen a measurement that would produce a graph to show just how much do pads of a certain phones under test alter our hearing - that graph would be the most relevant to the perceived SQ if the transducer itself  is assumed to be "perfect".

I guess you mean the baffled driver response in free field vs. response at ear location when installed with the earcup , earpad and all? Actually, it certainly would be nice to get such data but I think you can keep dreaming on it. I know audeze measures the baffled drivers response, in similar fashion to traditional speaker designers who started from baffled response to design multi-way systems and cross-overs. Audeze are 1 driver system so they use that for Q/A purposes (turns out the pads are just as critical as the drivers in the way they use them and they've learned their lesson the hard way wink.gif ).

Making the bridge to speakers again, do you ever see the response of baffled drivers as part of speaker spec sheet? No, reason is it's no use to the end user and does not translated what the assembled performance might look like. Except one thing: having a response chart and CSD on the baffled driver will tell you if the nasty resonances you're noticing on the assembled unit come from the driver rather than the cavity / earpads / frame. But again, this is probably not something a manufacturer would want to openly disclose.
post #243 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Well, I do get to hear music live often enough to remember the sound in broad terms - while recording it, if not otherwise. The super exact memory of any specific violin, piano etc is rather short lived - general impression regarding say strings, woodwind, brass, kitchen department (percussion) etc -  is not.

 

Floats are different beast than normal headphones; they are the original ear speaker in the true sense of the word.  Although I do not doubt they can be measured, I doubt they can be measured with sufficient statistical accuracy or averaging of the (numerous) result(s).  What is simply not understood well enough is the fact there are no pads to alter our natural hearing as with almost any other headphone ( most notable exception is AKG K 1000 ) .

So far, I have not seen a measurement that would produce a graph to show just how much do pads of a certain phones under test alter our hearing - that graph would be the most relevant to the perceived SQ if the transducer itself  is assumed to be "perfect".

 

It is sad to see Michael from Germany doing such disfavor to a valid transducer with fervent claims of it being #1 Uber Alles, hype, etc, etc. No, I have not heard the new Jecklin QA - but they would trully have to mess things up pretty badly to take away the prime charm and allure of the Float - that is to say the reproduction of the acoustics music was recorded in. I have not have yet had the privilege to hear Stax 009 - yet I can say it can never be a match for Float regarding soundstage. And vice versa - Jecklin would never be able to match the bass from any Stax. They are different designs, totally different concept, only thing in common is electrostatic principle of operation. They can not be directly compared -  certain type of music and recording techniques will favor one or another on sample to sample basis.

 

For the most important part of the frequency band we hear, the midrange, Float with its lack of earpads does have advantage over any padded headphone. It is not as sucessful at  acoustically dissapearing as AKG K 1000 - one can hear Float when worn on head with no musical signal propadated through it - the enviroment does get changed from that of zero on your head. The difference between the old Precide produced Float and new QA version in this regard should be minimal, if any. Both will be worse than K 1000 and better than anything else.

 

Make or break in electrostatics is not the transducer itself ( it is very near perfection, at least in the midrange ) but "electrics". Precide produced transformers left much to be desired, to remain polite about it. Bass was particularly poor, the louder and lower the signal , the worse performance from transformer, compounding the already compromised bass performance of the transducer even further. Properly driven Float is no bass champ, but can hold its own well enough. Hope QA version of transformer  is significantly better than what went on before. If I understand it correctly, they drive it with Quad 405, an amplifier that has, despite being around for ages, yet to gain full recognition by public at large. It has been designed to drive electrostatic speakers and  smaller "ear Quads" are electrically very similar load. 405 is quite special if upgraded properly. Taken together, It can be a good start for QA.

 

Once you try Float for at least a weekend time, it should be clear comparing it to Stax or anything else is apples and oranges - only way to determine what suits you best is to listen by yourself.  It is unique sound, not achievable by anything requiring pads. How much has QA improved upon  Precide produced original remains to be seen/heard.

 

And yes, more often you do get to hear the sound live, more chances there are to embrace Float in the end.

Please do not misunderstand.

But all theory is gray.

There is a difference between hype and fact.

Unfortunately, there are people who believe: Everything can not measure it, they can not hear.

Our brain is far too complex to be reduced to this.

But this theme is endless.

I have. Attention of the theorists But nothing more. Conviction - mostly not.

Almost always turns out that the people who are full of theory, have trouble hearing.

Why is that, I do not know. No matter. One person so - another person is so.

 

One thing I can say:

If a person with the float QA hear and you do not notice what the sound characteristic is different compared to headphones with pads ... then I'm sorry, that person is not going to help.

Even though they are now of the opinion, my words are arrogant. For me it is a fact. I've always experienced in decades, the same.

There were also people who have never noticed what a K1000 characteristically different.

I'm sorry. It is so. Many people have not even noticed the difference.

For them it was a good headset - perhaps this opinion - but more analysis was not possible.

Such things are unacceptable to me. Yes, I have to live with it - but I do not understand it.

I've never understood it and I'll never understand.

And I can not understand: The nonsense with the measure.
There are normally two ears on the head, right? Please what can not be heard and interpreted?

So, in this context, one more thing:

It's not my fault if there are people who can not believe their ears. Only, it should not be generalized. There will always be generalized. This is the largest and most error.


Edited by michaelxray - 10/23/12 at 2:21am
post #244 of 663
Michael,

Being ignorant is fine, saying "Almost always turns out that the people who are full of theory, have trouble hearing." is insulting.

Please stop insulting people to make your points (which I fail to see what they are really).
post #245 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

Michael,
Being ignorant is fine, saying "Almost always turns out that the people who are full of theory, have trouble hearing." is insulting.
Please stop insulting people to make your points (which I fail to see what they are really).

It is no insult. Unfortunately, it taught the experience and time.

I'd rather talk about a different situation.

Unfortunately that is the reality. Not all headphones fans, but many.

My translation into English is not enough to describe precisely what I mean.

 

Please believe me: I have often seen things from people:

K1000 has a small stage, a small head space ...

Grado RS1 sounds like broken

HD800 has too little bass

Stax sounds bright

007 sound is bad - it did not work

K701 is the best headphones

a few examples of 1000 over the years

When they read such things, or similar, they are dealing with the situation:

They stand in one place while it rains while it is dry. It is at the same time day and night.

You will then begin to understand the circus.

If they have experienced enough circus, they begin to devote themselves to the people who are there, where it is not at the same day and night.

 

When speaking about these things, it causes frustration. This is perfectly clear to me.
I can not change, sorry. Therefore, because the years are full of it - it's the reality.

post #246 of 663

http://www.audiomicro.com/tracks/dialog/820162 floatsmile.png

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

It is no insult. Unfortunately, it taught the experience and time.

I'd rather talk about a different situation.

Unfortunately that is the reality. Not all headphones fans, but many.

My translation into English is not enough to describe precisely what I mean.

 

Please believe me: I have often seen things from people:

K1000 has a small stage, a small head space ...

Grado RS1 sounds like broken

HD800 has too little bass

Stax sounds bright

007 sound is bad - it did not work

K701 is the best headphones

a few examples of 1000 over the years

When they read such things, or similar, they are dealing with the situation:

They stand in one place while it rains while it is dry. It is at the same time day and night.

You will then begin to understand the circus.

If they have experienced enough circus, they begin to devote themselves to the people who are there, where it is not at the same day and night.

 

When speaking about these things, it causes frustration. This is perfectly clear to me.
I can not change, sorry. Therefore, because the years are full of it - it's the reality.

post #247 of 663
Dear Michaelxray, I am not offended and I don't think you are arrogant. I think language barrier may cause that. It seems that you are frustrated that you can not describe what you have experiences with the new Jecklin Float QA. However it is almost impossible for us to understand the performance of the Jecklin enough to decide from your expression. The keyword that I got may be "authenticity" or original and it is different from other headphones at present in the market. Do you mean that it provide more realistic sound than the others especially in the "live" performance? I agree with you that using the frequency analysis may not be accurate in this open design headphone like the AKG K1000 and the Stax may lack the bass response or have smaller soundstage. I am also in the same bandwagon with you and Sam73 as I have already ordered and pail almost in full amount of the Jecklin. I will know the answer myself, hopefully soon but it is good to know other experiences as well. Can I ask a few more questions? : concerning the sound signature, which headphone is more comparable to the new Jecklin Float? if not similar, which headphone treble is comparable to the new Jecklin( midrange and bass too), as well as soundstage, dynamic, timbre, resolution, cohesiveness etc. If there is something that you think that can make the Jecklin a better or perfect headphone, which are those?
Edited by kiertijai - 10/23/12 at 6:40am
post #248 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post


Not sure what kind if rational you are using to come to this conclusion? As I mentionned, discrepancies at LF typically come from issues with earpad sealing. The LF extension / cut-on frequency is particularly sensitive to the seal if the pads are impervious type (e.g leather or pleather skin) and the baffle plate is not perforated (such as all stax earspeakers, the lcds and most likely the floats) resulting in a sealed or possibly vented earcup cavity. Well, just like plugging the port of a vented speaker or drilling a hole in a sealed unit, LF response of a headphone of sealed or vented earcup type is heavily affected by leakage (e.g. lack of seal).
Now take an open dipole type of speaker or in this case the float, you loose this sensitivity to the earcup seal because there's no earcup! You might still have some sensitivity to positioning, especially no bass toward the edge of the baffle, but given the huge size of the driver, it should be minimal. Likewise, HF response in padded phones may be sensitive to positioning due to acoustic resonances in the earcup but in case of a float, you don't get these pronounced standing waves inside the earcup cavity because, again, there are no earcups! Note that you do get resonances still (if anything across the thickness, and actually laterally as well because of large discontinuity in geometry), but they may be of lesser influenced than in say a leather pad. In that sense, I understand the potential technical merits of the float enclosure type.
You may get some directivity from the driver at mid high frequencies, but also here, given the large radiating surface, one expects little sensitivity with positioning (at least less sensitive than traditional drivers).
I guess you mean the baffled driver response in free field vs. response at ear location when installed with the earcup , earpad and all? Actually, it certainly would be nice to get such data but I think you can keep dreaming on it. I know audeze measures the baffled drivers response, in similar fashion to traditional speaker designers who started from baffled response to design multi-way systems and cross-overs. Audeze are 1 driver system so they use that for Q/A purposes (turns out the pads are just as critical as the drivers in the way they use them and they've learned their lesson the hard way wink.gif ).
Making the bridge to speakers again, do you ever see the response of baffled drivers as part of speaker spec sheet? No, reason is it's no use to the end user and does not translated what the assembled performance might look like. Except one thing: having a response chart and CSD on the baffled driver will tell you if the nasty resonances you're noticing on the assembled unit come from the driver rather than the cavity / earpads / frame. But again, this is probably not something a manufacturer would want to openly disclose.

Well, what I actually meant was the difference any pad has on our hearing due to distortion of the pinna cues etc  - not on the performance of the driver alone, which I have "assumed to be perfect" ( no such thing in real life ) for this case. I agree it is not probably but certain something a manufacturer would not want to openly disclose - if such info does exist, it is being used to trick imperfect drivers imperfectly  monunted with earpads in a way approaching an ideal scenario - and would be secret #1 not to be disclosed to others. Earpads are necessary evil if one wants extended bass ( name me a single person who does not want deeper, lower, better, ..., bass ... ! ) and if the whole thing can be made so that it is about right regarding distortion introduced by the earpads AND having great bass = victory.  Perhaps one day - no such thing I had the prtivilege to audition so far.

 

Float is not perfect - it is still essentially a very  large plate with sharp discontinuity at ends , allowing some reflection(s) between itself and the side of the head adjacent to it ( ear included, of course ).  As any electrostat, it is less than 50% acoustically open, that is to say it is not transparent enough. Still, far better situation than anything requiring earpads. It is this essential feature that sets it apart.

 

Hope Jecklin Float QA will be more reliable than the original. As far as reliability is concerned, nothing in headphone universe can challenge the reliability of Stax, with its proven field record that is second to none.

post #249 of 663

I'm sure other Jecklin Float users will agree, but in my experience they are no more or less reliable than Stax, and out of several that I've owned only one with a  faulty transducer that was easily repaired.

Just for the record Stax went through a very bad reliability patch a few years ago to the extent they lost a number of their dealers due to these issues.  I'm delighted to say Stax managed to salvage the situation and returned to their normal high levels of quality.  I only hope they can maintain this with their new owned Edifier.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Hope Jecklin Float QA will be more reliable than the original. As far as reliability is concerned, nothing in headphone universe can challenge the reliability of Stax, with its proven field record that is second to none.

post #250 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiertijai View Post

Dear Michaelxray, I am not offended and I don't think you are arrogant. I think language barrier may cause that. It seems that you are frustrated that you can not describe what you have experiences with the new Jecklin Float QA. However it is almost impossible for us to understand the performance of the Jecklin enough to decide from your expression. The keyword that I got may be "authenticity" or original and it is different from other headphones at present in the market. Do you mean that it provide more realistic sound than the others especially in the "live" performance? I agree with you that using the frequency analysis may not be accurate in this open design headphone like the AKG K1000 and the Stax may lack the bass response or have smaller soundstage. I am also in the same bandwagon with you and Sam73 as I have already ordered and pail almost in full amount of the Jecklin. I will know the answer myself, hopefully soon but it is good to know other experiences as well. Can I ask a few more questions? : concerning the sound signature, which headphone is more comparable to the new Jecklin Float? if not similar, which headphone treble is comparable to the new Jecklin( midrange and bass too), as well as soundstage, dynamic, timbre, resolution, cohesiveness etc. If there is something that you think that can make the Jecklin a better or perfect headphone, which are those?

+1 on language barrier. Must be frustrating for Michaelxray, I sincerely believe he means well. Then again, the road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

 

No headphone, or in this case, ear speaker, is perfect from all points of view.  Each has its pros and contras. One can always say AKG K 1000 lacks the ultimate delicacy electrostatics are capable of. Or Stax having less than ideal soundstage presentation. Or Jecklin Float  ( along with K 1000 ) lacking bass. That is why I keep both K 1000 and Stax Lambda Pro - to have most, if not all, grounds covered. 

 

Roads open to Jecklin Float improvement from the original are as follows:

 

1.) Better, hopefully much better transformer, particularly in the bass

2.) More open yet still sturdy/stable design to hold transducers in their place; judging from published photos, could not have been done any better.

3.) Some form of frame structure to insure warpage of the big ESL plate is kept to an absolute minimum while offering some damping to the same;

      the same comment regarding photos published applies.

4. ) Use of MUCH thinner material for the diaphragm and dust covers - to improve the high end response and lower the fundamental resonance.

5. ) Change in stator design to cater for lower structural resonance(s).

 

After receiving your new Jecklin Float QA, it will be rather quickly clear the questions you are posting are near impossible to answer -  they are different beast, be it original or QA version, and can not be directly compared in a sense "for midrange articulation, its nearest equivalent is XY ", for bass ZX, for treble XX, and so on.  

 

But make no mistake, you should find them a treat for tricks Juerg Jecklin has packed in this original design way back in early 70s and are , if we neglect the existance of MB Quart "near equivalents" from the 80s ( that are next to impossible to obtain ), still unique.

 

Hope you will enjoy them - I would love to be in your shoes regarding Jecklin Float QA, but unfortunately my wallet disagrees.

post #251 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

I'm sure other Jecklin Float users will agree, but in my experience they are no more or less reliable than Stax, and out of several that I've owned only one with a  faulty transducer that was easily repaired.

Just for the record Stax went through a very bad reliability patch a few years ago to the extent they lost a number of their dealers due to these issues.  I'm delighted to say Stax managed to salvage the situation and returned to their normal high levels of quality.  I only hope they can maintain this with their new owned Edifier.

 

 

I was "absent" from the headphone scene for quite a while and did not know of the Stax issues that have obviously took place while my radar was looking for other things audio. So, I apologize for any inconviniences my remark regarding Stax' perfect reliability record might have caused.

 

I also wish Stax would be able to maintain high level of quality under new ownership.

post #252 of 663

If my memory serves me correctly the Peerless PMB/ MB Quart we basically Jecklin transducers in a different frame so basically rebadged Floats.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

But make no mistake, you should find them a treat for tricks Juerg Jecklin has packed in this original design way back in early 70s and are , if we neglect the existance of MB Quart "near equivalents" from the 80s ( that are next to impossible to obtain ), still unique.

 

Me too, I would like to know how much improvement over the old Floats before spending such a large sum.  Perhaps the new transformer might offer almost as much benefit in uprating the performance of the PS2 ?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Hope you will enjoy them - I would love to be in your shoes regarding Jecklin Float QA, but unfortunately my wallet disagrees.

 
post #253 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiertijai View Post

Dear Michaelxray, I am not offended and I don't think you are arrogant.
Thank you.
I think language barrier may cause that. It seems that you are frustrated that you can not describe what you have experiences with the new Jecklin Float QA.
No, I'm not frustrated. The translation, however, is extremely complicated.
Do you mean that it provide more realistic sound than the others especially in the "live" performance?

Yes. From my perspective, very much more realistic. That is the main reason for my statement of quality. And this quality of realism is so clear that I do not know any other headphones that can do that.

Can I ask a few more questions? : concerning the sound signature, which headphone is more comparable to the new Jecklin Float? if not similar, which headphone treble is comparable to the new Jecklin( midrange and bass too), as well as soundstage, dynamic, timbre, resolution, cohesiveness etc. If there is something that you think that can make the Jecklin a better or perfect headphone, which are those?
Very complicated to translate so that it makes sense. I think it affects all the points that they call. It is very hard to describe when you're trying to look at individual points. Rather, it is its strength, an extremely realistic level in a full composite (complete unit) to show. It is a very expressive playing. And a great presentation. This point also makes more sense - towards live. In German I would say: Imagine the larger cinema before, but absolutely clear and precise.
 
post #254 of 663
Very complicated to translate so that it makes sense. I think it affects all the points that they call. It is very hard to describe when you're trying to look at individual points. Rather, it is its strength, an extremely realistic level in a full composite (complete unit) to show. It is a very expressive playing. And a great presentation. This point also makes more sense - towards live. In German I would say: Imagine the larger cinema before, but absolutely clear and precise Can I say that it is neutral sounding headphone? with smooth transition between treble, mid, bass with cohesiveness of various components This is definitely not the "V" type frequency response but more of a linear response, any hump in certain frequency range? It is a very expressive playing : Is this equal to forwarding presentation? like you are sitting in the front row of the concert? Is its vocal forwarding too? Could you elaborate more why the presence of earpad makes the sound worse? and how can you control your soundstage to be like a real soundstage with the design of the new Jecklin Float ? and I do think different people (heads) may not have the same effect. Do you use the same concept as the AKG K1000 to create the soundstage? I think the Quad 405 is a solid state amplifier , have you tried with the tube amplifer?
post #255 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiertijai View Post

Very complicated to translate so that it makes sense. I think it affects all the points that they call. It is very hard to describe when you're trying to look at individual points. Rather, it is its strength, an extremely realistic level in a full composite (complete unit) to show. It is a very expressive playing. And a great presentation. This point also makes more sense - towards live. In German I would say: Imagine the larger cinema before, but absolutely clear and precise Can I say that it is neutral sounding headphone? with smooth transition between treble, mid, bass with cohesiveness of various components
Yes, exactly. When one speaks of neutrality, the float-QA is on the first place.
This is definitely not the "V" type frequency response but more of a linear response, any hump in certain frequency range?
No. At least not that I would have noticed something.
It is a very expressive playing : Is this equal to forwarding presentation? like you are sitting in the front row of the concert? Is its vocal forwarding too?

Not 100% understood.

They sit there as the recording (recording technology) dictates. The stage is sometimes closer - sometimes farther away. It all depends on the recording.

The float QA is a real work tool - that it was developed by Jürg Jecklin originally.

Jürg Jecklin wanted a pair of headphones, with which he can work precisely as sound engineer.

And you can hear that.

They are thus spatially always be exactly the shooting situation.

Could you elaborate more why the presence of earpad makes the sound worse?

I'm trying.

 

The pads produce a damping. Normal use of the manufacturer with this effect. Thus the pads are a part of the total vote.
Two things happen:

 

First,

 

you get an additional room. It is the small space between the pad and the ear. This space has nothing to do with the recording room


With Headphones X they sit closer to the stage. With Headphone Y they sit further away from the stage.

Have they even asked the question, why is that?

 

secondly,

 

The tonality. Direct sound, indirect sound. A portion goes directly into the ear, the rest is reflected by the pads. Just imagine:. In her room were the walls of padding material.  And these reflections would reach their ears.

 

Conclusion:

The pads change the space of the recording - the arising virtual headphone space.

The tone changed by the indirect, reflected sound of the pads.

 

When they hear the float QA, they realize very quickly: you have only the recording-room - no virtual headphone space.

 

and how can you control your soundstage to be like a real soundstage with the design of the new Jecklin Float ? and I do think different people (heads) may not have the same effect.
I think the problems of the differences are reduced, Because the float QA gives a precise idea of the recording.
Do you use the same concept as the AKG K1000 to create the soundstage?

Not exactly the same.

The float brings more expression, strength and size of the performers or instruments.

thereby also changing the view of the stage.

K1000 has a relatively small driver. In contrast, the float has huge driver.

Just imagine a bigger TV.

Where they would like to see the Highlanders? On a larger TV or on a little?

I think the Quad 405 is a solid state amplifier , have you tried with the tube amplifer?

Yes. Einstein combination

You can select different components. Whether tube or transistor. I have also used the headphone amplifier CEC HD53N. He has max. 2x18W.

It was no problem.


Edited by michaelxray - 10/24/12 at 11:05am
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 !!!