Originally Posted by kiertijai
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.