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 47

post #691 of 695

For one, thinker has an SR-Omega to compare the QA Float with (among others). That's pretty good reference I'd say.

 

IMHO implying to take apart something to pieces in order to prove (in likeliness) it's sub-engineered by someone's standards is quite slippery ground in ad hominem terms. Also, saying that someone is "talking up" a product implies dishonesty (why, is it a competition to Stax amps in any way?). It also implies products could be "talked down", which actually seems happening. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post


I think a re-think is in order.

Just because something "sounds good" doeesn't mean it is engineered good.     :blink:

 

Wait... isn't the purpose of (audio) engineering to achieve good sound? Which is harder problem to solve in your opinion, mill an aluminium block with a CNC router, or to figure out how to make good sound? The latter is certainly going beyond pure engineering standards, see 100 years of Japanese DIY audio heritage for instance, with an abundance of circuits executed at astonishing quality level, and taking a lot of personal paths, without "talking down" the others. But everyone is free to choose their poison, and spend their money on either sound or engineering or both.

post #692 of 695

The purpose of High Fidelity playback engineering is to reproduce the sound contained in the storage media as faithfully as possible.

 

This means that the reproduction of the data contained in/on the record, tape, CD, computer file, etc, etc, should sound as close as possible to the recorded media.

 

If the reproduction equipment makes the recorded media sound better (perhaps through second order harmonics, or truncated frequency response in a troubled area of the recording) then it is Not, by definition, high fidelity.

 

In true high fidelity bad recordings should sound bad, not a glossed over passable melange of a somewhat varying copy of the original recording.

 

True high fidelity does nor should it seek to cover for bad recording nor bad mastering of a performance.

post #693 of 695

@wink

 

IMHO there is no good sound if the whole chain is not viewed together. Whether we get good sound in the end starts with the microphone, the recording process, medium, and then the playback chain as you mentioned.

 

If we start with the recording, there is no good reference nor any cue for what is good sound.

 

When I said "making good sound" was in these terms, and the subject was engineering quality vs sound quality.

 

What you wrote about is another property (making bad recordings sound better than others), that may have correlation with my terms or may be an orthogonal property. I have met good sounding equipment of both types (cruelly revealing and more forgiving), so I'd say neither can monopolize "good sound" :). 

 

Anyway, back to the original issue, I can understand this hobby may get personal sometimes, but let's respect each other in words and deeds :). Peace.

post #694 of 695

I have finally managed to hear the QA Float today.

It is not really comparable to normal headphone listening, it provides a rather different kind of experience.

The fact that nothing touches the ear already creates a different ambience. It takes a bit of concentration to compare it with headphones.

Also, it takes some time to get used with a different head support system (3 head bands).

 

The sound stage is in a different class than headphones, with a much-much more realistic musical environment.

There is good, acoustic bass - by which I mean there is no extra slam or boom, but enough bass to give presence and realism to instruments. It does beat quite many headphones on bass quantity alone, but the better spatial cues make us perceive a fuller and more realistic bass. It's likely a kind of psychological effect, but it works.

 

The clarity is exceptional, especially with percussion, but also voice is very natural relaxed.

 

The sound feels a bit ethereal sometimes, but I guess this also depends on personal setup of the ear speakers. There are a lot of variables in play, this comes from the distance of the drivers from the head, and may also be a psychological effect, since if I concentrated on a given instrument, it sounded at least as full bodied as on headphones.

 

Most importantly, the QA Float does convey music and it sounds as an organic whole over the audio spectrum.

 

I have played with the Transdyn settings, it improves energy delivery a little bit, but the effect is smaller than I expected. So IMHO the entry level QA Float may already be a shockingly good audition system, IMHO beating many similarly priced headphone systems - if someone is compatible with the kind of listening experience this "ear speaker" system delivers.

 

Needless to say these count as small speakers, so music will be heard in the next room as well...

post #695 of 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by zolkis View Post
 

I have finally managed to hear the QA Float today.

It is not really comparable to normal headphone listening, it provides a rather different kind of experience.

The fact that nothing touches the ear already creates a different ambience. It takes a bit of concentration to compare it with headphones.

Also, it takes some time to get used with a different head support system (3 head bands).

 

The sound stage is in a different class than headphones, with a much-much more realistic musical environment.

There is good, acoustic bass - by which I mean there is no extra slam or boom, but enough bass to give presence and realism to instruments. It does beat quite many headphones on bass quantity alone, but the better spatial cues make us perceive a fuller and more realistic bass. It's likely a kind of psychological effect, but it works.

 

The clarity is exceptional, especially with percussion, but also voice is very natural relaxed.

 

The sound feels a bit ethereal sometimes, but I guess this also depends on personal setup of the ear speakers. There are a lot of variables in play, this comes from the distance of the drivers from the head, and may also be a psychological effect, since if I concentrated on a given instrument, it sounded at least as full bodied as on headphones.

 

Most importantly, the QA Float does convey music and it sounds as an organic whole over the audio spectrum.

 

I have played with the Transdyn settings, it improves energy delivery a little bit, but the effect is smaller than I expected. So IMHO the entry level QA Float may already be a shockingly good audition system, IMHO beating many similarly priced headphone systems - if someone is compatible with the kind of listening experience this "ear speaker" system delivers.

 

Needless to say these count as small speakers, so music will be heard in the next room as well...


Both your and thinker's impressions have convinced me to first revive  my old  once very beloved Jecklin Floats, and try them with one of the new power units. And if the new one proves to be a real upgrade from the old ones I might go all the way.

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 !!!