Buying a Jecklin disc but I don't want to get ripped off!!!

[Larry Elliott]

David

I too agree with Rich. And the MB one does look better when you use it in a concert situation, as I do regularly. I use mine with DPA 4006TL’s.

Larry

[Recording David]

@ Larry & Rich - yes, I know you are both correct. I'll be getting an MB one for the 2 string quartet discs I'm recording this summer. I hadn't appreciated before how important the foam type/density is. In my mind I had the Jecklin disk in the same category as over-priced stereo mounting bars but in this case it seems that the brand name product is the one to go for.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by sonare

Simon uses an M-B disc, and because of that I bought one KNOWING that I would get the same results with the same mics (tonally speaking).

Both my Jecklin and Schneider disks are the MB ones.

The only problem I find is storage and transportation without crushing the foam. Still loking for the ideal solution.

[mathieujm]

My problem with my old MB disk was that the original foam desintegrated gradually. I was obliged to replace it. I get some special sound idolation foam from a factory near me. It's more robust and seems to have less reflection than the original. But then I found that in most concert situation ORTF with cardio was easier to manage than OSS with omni.

And yes John, it's not easy to transportate and it's heavy on a big tall. I liked it for organ, but putting it 6 or 7 m high is not a simple thing.

JMM

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Both my Jecklin and Schneider disks are the MB ones.

The only problem I find is storage and transportation without crushing the foam. Still loking for the ideal solution.

Rich found a round plastic cake box (TupperWare, or the like) that fits his like a glove...

[sonare]

Originally Posted by hbphotoav

Rich found a round plastic cake box (TupperWare, or the like) that fits his like a glove...

As I recall this was a Rubbermaid item purchased at Target. YOu have to remove the stand and mic adapters but then it is a beautiful thing!

Rich

[boojum]

I read a lot of the available info on the Jecklin disc. I found that NHK made theirs with the lambs wool cover on the disc and decided to opt for that as I could not be sure about the absorption of the different foams. I assumed that lambs wool, faux or otherwise, was more similar than foams. I have also recorded with the grids which have a pronounced rolloff at ~14kHz. This was the choice of the chorale director who did not like her chorale with the grids as spec'ed by Jecklin. I did. The problem was that they revealed too many chorale flaws. ;o) In other apps I would go as spec'ed by Jecklin.

Cheers

[Corran]

I've continued to work on my Jecklin Disc and I have just finished a prototype. I ended up using much too thick foam, but I have not tried it to see how it sounds. I will try it in a couple weeks.

A friend of mine suggested a place to get thinner foam so I will be working up something soon. If it works well I might be able to produce a dozen or so.

[ohmoka]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Both my Jecklin and Schneider disks are the MB ones.

The only problem I find is storage and transportation without crushing the foam. Still loking for the ideal solution.

I use for my MB (jecklin) a laptop carboard box, inside the disc is wrapped using bubbly plastic. Not the best solution, but it does the job.

[guosh]

i'm in the process of building my own jecklin disk too. so far i've constructed a wooden disk with a base. i'm planning to get some high frequency absorbing foam to stick on it, and install 2 flanges for the mics

hope it works, i'll be testing it on a friend's choir this sunday to see how it sounds!

[jglamar]

Corran, is this offer still going? I would be interested.

Originally Posted by Corran

I'm actually working on one right now with pieces available at craft stores and custom cut material. When everything is done I should be able to offer it to Remotesters for like $75 including shipping.

Would this interest you (or anyone else)? My prototype is almost done, I'm just sourcing materials for connecting it to a mic stand.

[Corran]

Hey there,

I was so close but the material I was using for the sound absorption didn't work. I am trying to find some upholstery or something that'll look good (and self-adhesive) for it instead. I'll post here if I figure out something...honestly I've been thinking about going ahead and picking up one from Mercenary after screwing around for so long.

[RichS]

Not to be nit-picking or argumentative, but...

We post endlessly about being able to hear minute differences in converters, mic's, and preamps, but some of you are willing trust you recordings to a homemade jecklin disc with "trial-and-error" materials that could negatively affect your results, not to mention negatively affect your opinion of the technique.

I'm also not keen on the idea of hoisting close to $4000 worth of Schoeps atop a mic stand, strapped to something that looks like a reject from a church craft fair. A jecklin disc does tend to elicit questions, and I'd prefer not answering the one that asks "why does it look like a fuzzy toilet bowl cover." There is something to be said about a professional appearance.

Considering the totals most of us have spent on equipment, purchasing a manufactured disc shouldn't be that much of a stretch. Yes, I agree that DIY is sometimes a valid approach for experimenting, but a jecklin disc is an established, standard technique... you either want one or not.

Thanks... I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Corran]

I completely agree with you. However, I'd like to try out the technique without spending almost $300! Plus, the official Jecklin disc is seriously not much more than a plexiglass circle (easily made) with some type of absorptive material on top. When I set out I wanted to make something that looked almost identical to the official one, not something that would illicit some odd stares and questions.

For one, I think the official disk is overpriced. I would buy one in a heartbeat if it was under $200. Perhaps I'll find something that'll work perfectly (and look nice too), or maybe I'll end up buying the real thing. We'll see.

[Petrus]

I have made 2 disks which both work just fine, and look OK (to me).

I personally do not belive that a lot of scientific research has been done about the minute differences about the optimal surface material & foam & resonances of the disk. The idea is to just block some of the sounds arriving from the sides and not reflect the frequences which could cause comb filtering. Simple thing, simple enought to be a nice DIY project.

Compared to AD/DA differences, for exaple, the whole art of miking is much more important by a factor of million, and still most want to argue about converters and preamps, not placement and choice of mics, which would make million times bigger differences in the final product.

And I am not talking figurativelly. If you compare two high-end converters, maybe the 20:th bit is different. If you comapre two mics or the same mics placed differently, at least the 10:th bit is already different (maybe the 5:th...).

I am not going to worry about my Jecklin disks, and they are strong enough to carry any microphone.

[JEGG]

I'm surprised to find this discussion still going on. It's interesting.

A couple of points:
1. Someone mentioned being leery about attaching several thousand dollars of mic's to a home made disk.

Think of it this way: With my construction, it is the very rigid and almost weightless disk that is attached to tried and true hardware-such as a short solid aluminum AB bar-that have held thousands of dollars of mic's very many times over many years.

2. A variety of materials have been used for "real" disks over the years. Why not use superior materials when they are available?

3. I have compared my disks to the MB's, and they sound remarkably alike-when the dimensions are alike, except that mine seems to reflect significantly less from about 1-4k.

4. Just as there are a variety of dimensions and tastes to AB omni's, and stereo arrays of cardioid and hypercardioid mic's, so can there also be a variety of approaches to THE DISK (all genuflect, now).

And for the record: the MB's are not to historical convention. Where is the lamb's wool molting all over the mic capsules and everything below the stand? (I may be incorrect in remembering the disks were based on a wood disk, originally, then made from perspex, and now?)

5. A past era was very hung up about the use of tilted omni's, and not just for disk use. This can be found in older engineering books. This has long gone by the wayside, as mic makers now offer all sorts of tilts, peaks, diffraction spheres, pressure rings, and shelves-why be a slave to an abstraction?

6. No one has mentioned using a shuffler, which is often mentioned as integral to the disk technique. Highly recommended when recording large forces. When used as intended, it contributes to a sense of spaciousness, and, of course, more lower frequencies will be directionally reproduced than without.

I'm not advocating my own disk contruction, I mention it to suggest that there are options worth exploring in the design and use of the disk.

Sometimes, it seems that we are becoming fundamentalists bowing to One Incarnation of the Sacred Disk. Fundamentalism is fine, I guess, but be sure to use the fleece of the sacrificial lamb. The lamb should be slaughtered under the light of a full moon, excepting nights which occur during feasts of the major warring monotheistic traditions.

[guosh]

MEGA OREO!!