Jecklin with LDC and/or cardioid?

[Omicron_9]

Greetings.

I am in the process of constructing a Jecklin disk, and while I know it was originally designed for a pair of SDC omni, I was wondering if anyone has tried it with a pair of LDC (card or omni), and/or SDC cardioid? I'll be finding out firsthand once I have the disk finished, but in the meantime am rather curious.

TIA.

Kind regards,
-0.9

[springer]

Jecklin specs are for omnidirectional mics. LDC omnis would work just so so for far-field (low noise yes, but at what cost?). My question is why avoid the spec of a proven winner? Get some great omnis and do the do. It will really blow you away on some things. In a great room, imaging with sense of correct space, this configuration can be wonderful. And setup is a snap. I made mine from a cut out circle of compressed fiberglass (704?) and originally had some felt over the top. I had some issues with comb-filtering, si I went out and got some "gorilla fur" and sewed it all up and now - KONG LIVES!!!

I recently did an symphony orchestra with it and 2 AKG c480/CK62's - yeah!

[Omicron_9]

Update of sorts.....

Jecklin disk is done, and I tried it using LDC matched pair in omni and cardioid. The main reason I made this inquiry is that I don't have a matched pair of SDC. Yet. Both patterns worked; so far it's just a matter of taste. Again, so far; I am new to Jecklin. The disk itself turned out quite well.

Thanks and regards,
-0.9

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Omicron_9

Update of sorts.....

Jecklin disk is done, and I tried it using LDC matched pair in omni and cardioid. The main reason I made this inquiry is that I don't have a matched pair of SDC. Yet. Both patterns worked; so far it's just a matter of taste. Again, so far; I am new to Jecklin. The disk itself turned out quite well.

Thanks and regards,
-0.9

Could you expand on the differences between omni, as originally spec'd, and card in your tests, please? I am quite interested in using my CMC 64's in this pattern. I have done it with an inexpensive pair of omnis and liked it. How great was the imaging difference and "warmth"?

TIA

[Omicron_9]

Greetings.

First of all, this was neither an exhaustive or scientific test. The only matched pair of mics I own are AKG 414-XLII, and I like them very much. They're very accurate, and have a fantastically low self-noise. I record solo and chamber pieces in my studio, which is a very good sounding space. I put up the 414s so as to hear the differences in various patterns when in a Jecklin disk configuration. In this manner, I hope to start to learn about Jecklin mic'ing, and also to help me decide if I want to invest in a matched omni pair. I'm not new to stereo mic'ing, but I am totally new to Jecklin disks and know nothing about them. So basically this was little more than an experiment. I need to do some more with various spacing, disk placement, etc., but again, this was nothing more than just a quick experiment for my own use. Distance between capsules was 7 inches. That all being said, using omni the imaging was a bit .. .. not sure how to explain.. deeper perhaps? I wouldn't say wider L/R as such, but seemed to have more depth than cardioid. I also tried the fig.8 setting and liked that, too. Omni obviously introduced more room sound into the signal; not a good thing or a bad thing; just different. Since I'm just starting out with this technique, I don't yet have a preference; I'm just learning.

As for "warmth," I have nothing but disdain for this overused and meaningless word. To me it's a euphemism for "dull" and/or "colored" and possibly even "inaccurate;" none of which are qualities I want in a recording. But hey, that's just me and one person's opinion. The Jecklin didn't add any "warmth." I don't think it's intended to make the original signal duller.

Here are a couple of pics of my homemade Jecklin. That's a 12-inch lollipop saddle pad, perfect fit for the 12-inch plexiglass disk. For now, I have it discretely mounted on a gooseneck so as to allow greater flexibility in positioning.

Regards,
-0.9

[Plush]

Jecklin is made to be used with omni mics with a treble boost ---boosted even more than so called diffuse field equalized mics. Also they need to be pointed out from the disk at an angle of approx. 25 degrees.

Your disk may indeed work but you may find that it is constructed of a material that is too sound absorptive. Only trials will tell. For the mics you are using, you will need to eq that mutha.

There is a rather strict specification for use of Jecklin or Schneider disks.

[Omicron_9]

Originally Posted by Plush

Jecklin is made to be used with omni mics with a treble boost ---boosted even more than so called diffuse field equalized mics. Also they need to be pointed out from the disk at an angle of approx. 25 degrees.

Your disk may indeed work but you may find that it is constructed of a material that is too sound absorptive. Only trials will tell. For the mics you are using, you will need to eq that mutha.

There is a rather strict specification for use of Jecklin or Schneider disks.

Plush,

Thanks for that. The polar bear fleeciness isn't as dense as it looks, but again, I'm just learning. I will try the 25-degree angling; thanks for the info and suggestions.

Kind regards,
-0.9

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Plush

There is a rather strict specification for use of Jecklin or Schneider disks.

Can you point us to any resources that might show these specifications? I've read some of Jorge's original dissertations as well as the white paper on Jecklin Disc recording on the DPA website, and I don't recall any requirement for an elevated treble response or a 25° angle. Then again, it was years ago that I read those materials...the memory sure ain't what it used to be!

What were we talking about?

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Can you point us to any resources that might show these specifications? I've read some of Jorge's original dissertations as well as the white paper on Jecklin Disc recording on the DPA website, and I don't recall any requirement for an elevated treble response or a 25° angle.

I wasn't sure myself, but it appears that Juerg Jecklin indeed specifies a linear diffuse-field response. Do you read german? Here's a pdf that mentions it.

While the 414 XL-II isn't exactly a diffuse-field omni, its treble boost might help here. I don't doubt that this fuzzy-looking contraption will produce useable results...

[Omicron_9]

Originally Posted by d_fu

I wasn't sure myself, but it appears that Juerg Jecklin indeed specifies a linear diffuse-field response. Do you read german? Here's a pdf that mentions it.

While the 414 XL-II isn't exactly a diffuse-field omni, its treble boost might help here. I don't doubt that this fuzzy-looking contraption will produce useable results...

Hello,

This is interesting reading:

Optimum Stereo Signal Recording with the Jecklin Disk

My 414 pair isn't my ultimate Jecklin choice, but it's the only matched pair I have, so they get pressed into Jecklin testing duties. For now.

Thanks and regards,
-0.9

[pkautzsch]

It might be interesting to some of you that the surround version of OSS, called OSIS (I think it's Optimal Surround Imaging System) comprises a "standard" Jecklin setup with, I think, DPA omnis for LR, an additional MKH60 short gun mounted "into" the disc for Center, and another, smaller disc a few feet back with two cardioids (MK4V) pointing backwards. If I remember correctly, he uses cardioids for one reason only: to eliminate direct sound on the LsRs channels, and he carefully chose the MK4V out of a selection of cardioids.
Here's a german link:http://www.mdw.ac.at/I101/iea/tm/scr...al/osis321.pdf

[ShawnF]

I've found it interesting that the original specs call for 16.5 cm separation between the mics, whereas in the later spec (in the German pdf cited above) he calls for 36 cm. That has always seemed like a fairly large adjustment. Also, the size of the disc has gone from 30 cm to 35 cm.

[boojum]

I knew the specs had changed to a larger disc with wider mic spacing but did not know about this new wrinkle. My German is pretty bad - last class was in '58 - and I can only make out part in a cursory first attempt. I will try Babblefish to do the deed. I have a fear that this array is going to get more complicated with diminishing benefits. Has anyone tried this array other than Jecklin?? Jecklin's work is very interesting and I think he is the most innovative since Blumlein. YMMV

Cheers