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 5

post #61 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordwestlicht View Post

Well, michaelxray, you seem to be Otwin, the user with different former accounts on hifi-forum.de (the largest German audio/video-forum) and you're completely banned there.

 

I really don't want to offend or insult you, you have like every body else the right to say what you want to say, but personally out of my experience, I can't take your opinions seriously, from all that I've read from you written in German in the last years.

 

You tend to hype every new and expansive pair of headphones in your typical florid writing style in German, as well as some cables and other equipment and some people also say, as you can read somewhere on the German hifi-forum.de, that it sometimes seems that you get paid for writing your "opinions".

 

I don't know whether this is right or not and I really don't care in the end.

 

You have your (few) fans on the German open-end-music.de-forum, but most you've written in your long history of writing, is -simply put- unreproductible for me and many others.

 

This is only my opinion out of all I've read from you. I really think you've hyped a lot already in the last years.

 

That said, maybe you're right and the new Float-set is an outstanding and superb can/amp-set. But whether this is the hard fact or not, only time will tell.

(Well, with "only time will tell" I mean my own experiences and the experiences of many others, that want to try out the new Float sometime, after it's available.)

 

Based on your former reviews in German, I'm sorry, but I can't take the correctness of your opinions for granted.

 

But please don't be offended, it's just my personal reception of what you've written about other cans/amps/cables in the past.

 

Maybe the new Float sounds unbelievably amazing, but at the moment I'm very very very very very skeptical about that.

 

Greetings from Germany,

 

Frank beerchug.gif

 

       Thank you !!

post #62 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by complin View Post

 

I really dont understand what if any point you are trying to make here, its comes across as totally incohertent

Perhaps English is not your first language?

 

    Ditto !!!  What the h*&ll is he trying to articulate (and NOT succeeding at) ???

post #63 of 663
The Jecklin Float QA is the bee's knees and shoots laserz and vomits rainbows over everything else bar the 009 which he hasn't heard.
post #64 of 663

I will remain skeptical since none of the Jecklin's were ever more than mehhh performance wise.  Even when you remove the crappy transformer boxes from the equation and connect them to a proper amp (not the Jecklin amp though as that one is a bad joke) they are still not anywhere near good.  Now some of this was due to the build quality so fix the drivers properly and things will improve but running dipoles this close to the ear with no attempts to seal the baffle will cause a lot of problems.  Simply throwing larger drivers and higher voltages at the problem will not make it go away. 

post #65 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

Is it a problem to recognize that the QA Jecklin makes sounds clearer than any other headphones? (Exclusive Stax SR-009)

 

Connected to what? With what source and music?

 

If they can produce a TOTL 'stat + amp at reasonable price (going by the prices listed on the site) then good on them. However, as other people have pointed out, you have to clarify your comparisons better.

 

It'd be more reasonable to say "I heard the new Jeklins and was very impressed by their clarity, which was better than I remember from my experience with the 007s" etc.

 

We've had the Ultrasone Edition 9s, Sennheiser HD-800s, Beyerdynamic T1s, Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3s and other headphones suggested as the next greatest headphones ever and to some degree many people have been disappointed by each, so what you're writing isn't encouraging us.

post #66 of 663
Oh I got it, you meant better than anything, excluding the 009 which you haven't heard (exclusive and excluding are two very different words). Sorry for the misunderstanding, I hope the clarity of the phones is better than that of the message wink.gif.
post #67 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by spritzer View Post

I will remain skeptical since none of the Jecklin's were ever more than mehhh performance wise.  Even when you remove the crappy transformer boxes from the equation and connect them to a proper amp (not the Jecklin amp though as that one is a bad joke) they are still not anywhere near good.  Now some of this was due to the build quality so fix the drivers properly and things will improve but running dipoles this close to the ear with no attempts to seal the baffle will cause a lot of problems.  Simply throwing larger drivers and higher voltages at the problem will not make it go away. 

 

I can understand them. They base their statements on the old wine. And maybe they think: old wine in new bottles. I have to disappoint you but. It is not so. Basically: New wine in new bottles, with the advantage of the good design and development knowledge. But it is very difficult to agree to a human positive if it is negative. I knew 30 years ago people said back then: Stax is absolutely no solution for them. This sound does not like. Understand it: You can twist anything until it is evaluated only negative.

post #68 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

Oh I got it, you meant better than anything, excluding the 009 which you haven't heard (exclusive and excluding are two very different words). Sorry for the misunderstanding, I hope the clarity of the phones is better than that of the message wink.gif.

 

I mean: excluding. Sorry.

post #69 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

 

 

It'd be more reasonable to say "I heard the new Jeklins and was very impressed by their clarity, which was better than I remember from my experience with the 007s" etc.

 

What's the difference?

 

We've had the Ultrasone Edition 9s, Sennheiser HD-800s, Beyerdynamic T1s, Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3s and other headphones suggested as the next greatest headphones ever and to some degree many people have been disappointed by each, so what you're writing isn't encouraging us.

 

These are all very good headphones. Many people are glad to have these headphones.

 It is inviolable.

 But, even if they have enough knowledge, they must know that from a dynamic HD800 can conjure no electrostatic Sennheiser.

 and

 from a beyer T1 can conjure no electrostatic Stax.

 I ask myself: What are you waiting for?

 We are talking about very different things.

 For example, the sound of a 007 presents so many things very differently than an HD800. And vice versa: A HD800 presents so many things differently than a 007th

 If I do as a headphone fan that I am the sound of a dynamic headphone is more enjoyable than an electrostatic headphones, then I know my way.

 And vice versa.

All this can be taste. However, better resolution, more clear sound, more natural sound, speed, ... has nothing to do with taste, but with quality.

post #70 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelxray View Post

 But, even if they have enough knowledge, they must know that from a dynamic HD800 can conjure no electrostatic Sennheiser.

 

Really?  A properly driven HD800 is the closest thing I've ever heard to a HE60.  Hell, which would you say measures better?  Please don't answer, it's rhetorical.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennhheiserHE60.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf


Edited by Anaxilus - 8/5/12 at 1:50am
post #71 of 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

 

Really?  A properly driven HD800 is the closest thing I've ever heard to a HE60.  Hell, which would you say measures better?  Please don't answer, it's rhetorical.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennhheiserHE60.pdf

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf

 

 If they see two measuring diagrams, and nobody tells them about which headphones are, they can guess it impossible that one electrostatic headphones and the other a dynamic headphone.

 

Measuring diagrams are a good resource. But not anymore. If they do not believe they can help quite simple: You then buy the next headphones just because the measurement diagrams, without the chance to hear him before. If this works, then congratulations. You should be sure: it does not work that way. A measurement diagram shows a lot. But it will never represent things in the context that is important for the people. You can talk to a computer. If the computer has no feeling for sentence-accent, which is only half of a thing.

post #72 of 663

Translated from German - Interesting article 8/4/2002 about Jürg Jecklins' current experiments in sound courtesy of AV Guide.CH ©1999 – 2012 avguide.ch gmbh switzerland http://www.avguide.ch/magazin/sound-image-und-space-mehrkanalige-aufnahmetechnik 

Sound, image and Space

Multi-channel recording technique

avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in the field of surround sound.

orchester400.jpg
 
 
 
 

 
 
Behind the three words sound, image and space is concealed the secret of a good surround recording. avguide visited during a recording sound engineer Jürg Jecklin at the Tonhalle in Zurich and learned the latest in terms of good tone.

Problem child Surround Sound

Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
Sky full of microphones: On the ceiling Jecklin stereo disc. On the stand: front-wheel for OSS 3-2-1 technology
In spring 2002, the Symphony Musikhochschule Winterthur Zurich, Zurich Tonhalle concert. Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin was mandated to implement them in a conventional CD stereo.Secretly, however, Jecklin used the opportunity to broaden his experience comes to surround sound.avguide Jürg Jecklin visited the control room and spoke with the inventor of Jecklin floats, as well as the legendary Transdyns Jecklinscheibe about his latest ideas in terms of multi-channel recording technique. One thing was quite clear: It takes far more than the largest possible number of microphones that is mixing it at will in some way on five channels to create the perfect surround sound.

The basic idea of ​​the "OSS 3-2-1" technology

The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.
The Mackie 24-channel recorder HardDisk (below) works with high-resolution 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency. Top: Stereo-DAT.

With OSS called 3-2-1 Jürg Jecklin his surround recording technology, the test phase is not yet complete. But the basic ideas are clear, and outlined the division of responsibilities for the different sound channels clear. In order to be understood internationally, makes use of the usual Jürg Jecklin in the film industry with respect to sound vocabularies. with "sound" is meant the sound quality. Possible that they should be good, of course. The term "image" refers to mapping of the direct sound, so for example the acoustic projection of an orchestra. The term "W" denotes the left-right figure. The depth map "Depth" is available in 5 layers:Layer 0 is where is the speaker level. Layer 1 specifies the normal distance, where you put a violin, place and listen to a singer. In layer 2 are such a small chamber orchestra, or the strings of a major symphony orchestra. positioned behind the strings, the brass sit in the third layer in the Layer 4, the back of the orchestra plazierzte percussion group and possibly shown a choir. Layer 5 is used to display remote orchestras, which are primarily perceived in space. "Space" is the space of a recording. A monophonic recording is no "space". In "Space", a distinction between front-Space, Side Space, Back Space and Full Space. A convincing surround recording can be done in full space. A stereo recording has only a front-Space. That would be like when you listen to a concert from a box. Side-space would be heard in a bad surround recording, in which the sound is only coming from left-right would. Backspace comes from behind. full space can be properly implemented only with 5 channels, but also mono sound. Image can be realized in stereo. With surround sound you have the advantage that you have the front three channels. This enables a defined center.








 

The time of the two-channel recording is over

Not satisfied with the sound?
Not satisfied with the sound?
Even stereo recordings should be done three channels. The situation has changed: Even with the mediocre sound surround re-administration of a 5-channel system-Kompakt result compared to a stereo playback advantages. The sound is of course better with an expensive speakers. But the full space is missing. 
The question is: Will we get a better sound or full space? Space is often underestimated. We are continuously in an acoustic environment and are always there in a full space. The full-space, we have the time, he is the living room and not those of the concert hall or church. With a successful recording surround the relocation succeeds in the concert hall. 
Of course, all speakers used should be sound quality. There is, however, the amount of two expensive high-end boxes for five good speakers, so you better than only two. 
The world looks different now. Nevertheless, it goes with the surround sound on very resinous. The shops are still full of CDs and not full of music DVDs, or SACDs. The sound engineers and the industry to make only half-heartedly. Thus, the consumer is also only a very small range to choose from. 
In the near future, one can assume that more and more people have a 5.1 system at home, but certainly not a second set next to it in stereo. The matter is arranged around the TV around. Now you have recordings of audio-amplifier and 5.1 speaker configuration are made. In Vienna, at the Institute of Acoustics and experimental music in all control rooms in the AV amplifier with small Tannoy monitors use. It must also be taken to avoid being played on such a system stereo recording sounds good. This is now, for example, Dolby Pro Logic 2 is a very good playback capability.

Distribution of tasks

Jürg Jecklin with two students
Jürg Jecklin with two students
Looking at the matter from the video-film side, has one of the five channels in the broad sense "Sound, Image and Space". The center channel takes over the dialogue. Front left and front right are for the voice-over (technical term from the film industry) is used, so for sound generator, which are located forward, but not in the picture. The rear channels produce background noise. The .1 channel plays only in the low frequency Keller called "low frequency effects". This division of work is convincing and accepted by consumers. 
Even with Jecklins OSS 3-2-1 technology, there is a very similar distribution of tasks.Instead of dialogue would be the soloist, and instead of off-the orchestra sound. These two pieces of information are recorded separately and a strict Verkoppelung would be disastrous. Reason: The left-right balance can always adjust quickly, so even a layman.But the optimal balance between left / right and center, is very difficult to find. It must be assumed that the center speaker a bit louder, some quieter times. So you have to take an image insensitive to differences in the level of the center channel. This is the case, if something else entirely present on the center channel sound, as on the left-right channels. If the soloist So from left-right separated, you can select it louder or quieter without the sound collapses into itself. 
In other words: can one needs to vary with the center channel volume without having to do the voiceover something. This is the movie soundtrack with dialogue in the center channel of the case. For music, it is more difficult because it is hardly possible to separate completely the soloist. If it louder in the wake of the center channel makes the whole spatial relationships change. Now comes the task of distributing OSS 3-2-1 technology with Image (3) Space (2) and Low Frequency Effect (1) for the course.

Miking

Two discs for optimum surround sound
Two discs for optimum surround sound
For the voice-over sets up a Jecklin his discs with two ball microphones. 
A mounted in the middle of super-cardioid microphone takes the information for the center channel. This allows the center channel may be varied in level, without at the image of the off-tone remains the same. It is possible, a soloist in the middle pull approach, and the sound of the orchestra remains untouched. Would be in the center channel to the soloist even as the wind section of the orchestra positioned behind it, would produce a level of variation, a drastic change, possibly even a collapse of the overall sound quality.Additional microphones may therefore only be assigned to the voiceover.

The thing with the Space

Incur from the rear must be a ghostly impression of space, so a virtual reality from a different room. The reality has gespenstigste one with an artificial head, at least in terms of space. You must now use a simulation method. What comes from the front, immediately locates it in the image. What appears on the mandatory side, one feels as a space. After Jecklins should view the area behind the side effect of producing non-speakers, but the listener will be drawn up. The whole should also work in the traditional 5.1 speaker arrangement. 
Jecklin now uses the space for a second disc, the microphones are directed to the back and kidneys characteristic. This is because, the space signal can not contain direct sound components. Two omni would still first the direct sound from the orchestra, before arriving reflections would. Consequently Jecklin is now two kidneys in parallel and separated by a moderate intensity of this disc. Thus, only the rear half-space is taken up, the orchestra will disappear completely.

Final Thoughts

What is lacking at the moment, a Surround recording technique, which generally convinced. Now there are certain points not so good and unfortunately many good shots.Each experiment and see what the other does. On the Jecklin developed by Jurg OSS-3-2-1-recording technique is reported in avguide further. The plan is a blueprint for even a surround recording kit, which can also be used by the amateur with great success. One thing is certain: Jürg Jecklin has caused with his stereophonic Jecklin disc a sensation.The time for a surround configuration is right.

Sound engineer Jürg Jecklin

 

 

- Worked 30 years at Radio DRS, including 10 years as chief engineer. In addition, 
freelance work for the record industry. - For his work as a sound engineer, he developed the electrostatic headphones Jecklin FLOAT, the OSS technique with the so-called Jecklin disc, and the sound processor TRANSDYN. - During nine years he was technical advisor to the company MB in Obrigheim (D) and taught for 15 years at the Music Academy of Basel, acoustics and "work with denMedien" - teaching in-service training for sound engineers of ZNM and the ZEPRA - Published approximately 400 articles in various national and international journals 3 Books: the Speaker Book, music recordings, mono-stereo Quadro to work. recording and playback of music - Current Job: Professor at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Institute for the Theory of sound. . Director of the Institute for Electroacoustics and Experimental Music (3 or professors, 4 assistants, 39 lecturers and 150 studentsCurrent developments: Kleinmonitorbox, professional headphones, methods for objective quality assessment of loudspeakers - Residence: primary residence 7603 Vicosoprano, a second home in Vienna - Email Address : floatsound@cs.com

 


Edited by complin - 8/5/12 at 2:27am
post #73 of 663

Nonsense.

 

Not everything is measurable, and no one is claiming that measurements convey "the soul of the music" or whatever tired language you want to use. However measurements DO tell us certain things about the way headphones sound: they are helpful in conveying the overall tonal balance. There is a certain beauty to a linear sounding headphone, or even a headphone with subtle colorations: look at a graph for the SR-Omega, the SR-007, the SR-009, and the Orpheus HE90. Those are beautiful graphs (yes, I think mathematics, modeling, and programing can be beautiful). More importantly, those graphs correlate to four headphones that sound beautiful. No, not everything can be measured, and no one is claiming otherwise it seems.

 

If you want to view music as some esoteric ritual involving magic and soul, that's fine. I like doing it myself. However headphone engineering is usually NOT successful when measurements are ignored and the designers just slap stuff together with no understanding of that "cold" science behind it. Headphones themselves simply play back that "magical stuff" and things tend to get a bit messy (and painful) when people start treating the headphones themselves as magical devices.

 

Not everyone is able to blindly throw money at some new $3,000 product because a random guy on the Internet says it's the greatest sounding thing ever. Now, I'm crazy enough and in such a position as to be able to try these out on a whim, so I will. And I'll report my findings back, maybe send them to purrin to be measured, and hopefully BOTH (subjective impressions AND measurements) will help people get an understanding for how these sound.

 

I mean, yes, there's a hugely subjective element to listening. So we can't very well rely on some vague statements (choirs sound lifelike, instruments sound like they're there --- I mean, what does this even REALLY mean? It smacks of marketing BS). Measurements are helpful as safeguards to runaway hype and provided a common ground for communication (which is evidently a problem here).


Edited by MuppetFace - 8/5/12 at 2:45am
post #74 of 663

I remember the old electrostatic Jecklins, of which I have heard two versions.  They were interesting headphones, and the thing that I liked about them the most at the time was how comfortable they were compared to the ESP-9's that were considered the "reference" headphone back in the 70's when I heard the 'Floats.

 

The Jecklins were very easy to wear in comparison, but the sound was not as good. The Jecklins sounded OK, kind of airy, but they had NO bass impact.  I don't imagine the new ones could, either.  Maybe some lows, but I doubt they have what headphone enthusiasts like to call "impact" in the bass. It's hard for electrostatic headphones that are sealed to ear to produce this kind of impact, I think due to the generally small excursions to which electrostatic drivers are restricted.  Now, take away that seal and you have the bass from the front of the Jecklin panel cancelling the bass from the back.  Don't forget that 30 Hz  sound has a wavelength of 11.44 meters!  That's 37.5 feet!  So,  the front and back of the Jecklin panel are for all intents and purposes driving the same acoustic space..... not a formula for bass reproduction.  Yes because the ear canal is acoustically closer to one side of the panel by ~0.009 wavelength there will be SOME bass heard, but....  

post #75 of 663

i will get the Jecklins in 8 weeks(current delivery time) will compare these phones against HD-800 and SR-009 and will test the Jecklins  with solid state and triode amplifiers.

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 !!!