[Marburger]

  We had a few people ask about the "basic" packaging (the actual word wasn't quite so nice....  My partner Zeke had the perfect answer: "you don't listen to the box".
 
Mics can be good and bad.  Good when you need one to have a call (however, I know you can always use the mic on the phone, and still use your earbuds), but they do introduce measurable and often audible audio artifacts.  A couple of quick measurements on an AP are all that you need to show the effect of the mic circuit, especially on cell phones with high output impedances.  And based upon our questioning at RMAF and NYC CanJam, I'd say about 75% of headfi folks really don't care about the mic.  So - no mic!

Exactly! This is what I have been thinking about mics. I rarely have long calls therefore it doesn't bother me to take a phone out of my pocket. It is good that I am within  75% too

 

[DanWiggins]

We're part of the 75%, always makes me think of this clip:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY 

 

[Brucemck2]

Terrific sonics (Be model) and great customer service!

 

[meringo]

@DanWiggins Thanks for participating with us here on HeadFi! I have an engineering question for you --  Why attached cables? 
 
Although I loved the Be, I was a little surprised to see a $300 IEM without detachable cables. I'm sure there are advantages, and I'm curious as to how that decision went down. Reviewing the website, it looks like you have a pretty great warranty to help ease any concern of a break, so I ask this plainly to gain some general knowledge. 

 

[DanWiggins]

Why not?
 

 
Seriously, there are really only two viable alternatives for detachable cables at this point:
 
The 2-pin PlasticsOne type connector, which is really big and bulky for IEMs (we made the cable attachment as small as possible for a reason - comfort)
 
An MMCX variant, but those are (IMHO) completely inappropriate because they are rated for a low number of insertions, are not intended for rotation once mated (typically RF cables are routed once and secured, as changing routing of the cable will affect RF system performance), and are not all compatible.  Witness the countless threads complaining about noisy and poor-performing MMCX-based connectors!
 
So at this point, we're going wired.  Reinforced cables, properly designed cable locks, and slick-enough jackets.  We are investigating a potential connector for some time in the future, but for now - it's hard to beat attached cables.  And if one should break because of materials or labor defects, well there is a 5 year warranty!  We can also repair the cables fairly affordably as well...

 

[RobA19]

Think my post over on the Trinity thread a few weeks back was the first to mention Periodic. So pleased they're doing well. Definitely see the Be in my future, but my wallet is taking a breather from 3 sets of Trinity earphones (waiting on delivery like everyone else!) and a new set of iSine 20's & B&W wireless P7's Will be reading reviews with great interest.

While I'm waiting for my Trinity Air & Hunters to arrive I was web searching headphone reviews (as we do) & came across a new US start-up called www.periodicaudio.com 

Can't seem to find anything about them on here, but read an interesting post (on a site called audiosciencereview) from one of the owners, Dan Wiggins, which I found very informational. Sounds like he knows his stuff! Here it is:-

[COLOR=141414]"Well, after the Beats explosion (I did some consulting for a big name at that time), nearly every factory in China became "a headphone factory". And suddenly you had dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of brands popping up, selling off-the-shelf product from China.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]The big German brands - Sennheiser and AKG - kept plugging along. Bose kept going with ANC specific units. And everyone else tried to focus on consumer products. Everyone wanted to be the next Beats (and truthfully, no one will be. Beats was a unique combination of the re-emergence of the sports-star/music-star glamour with the ubiquity of portable music players/phones to carry decent amounts of music. It was a generational shift in consumer behavior and Beats captured the essence of the behavior).[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]Now, it's all about marketing - how do you pitch what you have, how to do you tweak an off-the-shelf design. No slam, but a lot of the current darling of high-end over-the-ear headphones started by taking off-the-shelf Foster units and changing out earpads, or headbands, or maybe rear cups. Some move up to doing more - like walking the sample rooms at Foster (which are impressive, especially the Panyu, Guangzhou, China facility to which I've been way too many times), choose a stock transducer, and go for a new industrial design.[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]And as more and more 2nd and 3rd tier companies are making product in China, they will cover your costs on mechanical design, they will do prototypes for you for free, and lower MOQs to hundreds. So suddenly if you fancy yourself a "headphone designer", you can get into the business for $10,000 and some effort and have a stock of units. And probably - like 99% of those in the market - end up selling dozens a year (or less). So you get a proliferation of brands big (remember SOL Republic?) and small (look at dozens that come and go from one show to the next).[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]It's really a super-low barrier-to-entry to the market, but to build staying power, to actually succeed long-term, takes more than just a slick marketing gimmick and cheap product (and trust me - you can get off-the-shelf product for really cheap - like planar magnetic headphones for under $40/pr, decent 40mm diameter over-the-ear units for under $20, and OK sounding IEMs for under $5/pair). It's why you can find $4.99 earbuds at your local 7-11 store, and also see $50,000 new units. Heck, even big universities are getting into it, like the Warwick Audio 'stats that many are starting to roll (essentially rebranding an off-the-shelf design from a design team from the University of Warwick) for $5,000 a set. Change the cosmetics, give it a unique name - and presto, you're a headphone/IEM brand![/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]But as all things acoustical, the biggest effects are in the transducers. You can tweak earpads and headbands and rear cups, but you get relatively small changes in performance. Doing a unique driver - something fresh from the ground up - is where big gains are made. Rolling your own transducer takes real engineering chops, some advanced modeling, and lots of sweat. Not many people do this - really, it's AKG (Harman), Sennheiser, Bose (a little), Foster (who designs/builds for LOTS of big names), and then a handful of independent designers/engineers (such as myself). Many of those smaller Chinese factories will "design" their own transducers, but it's usually just taking a well-reviewed product, taking it apart, and cloning the insides as best they can.[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]I've spent a few decades designing transducers for nearly everyone in the business (I can guarantee my work has been heard, at this time, by everyone in the world - either directly with products like SONOS and Beats and Final, or indirectly via pro work like KRK and Mackie and Event or consumer products by Dell, HP, Apple, or generics from Flextronics and others) and worked with my Periodic partners to do something special. TO do what we have done for dozens of other companies in the past. We wanted to step forward and see if we could do what our clients have done.[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]Rolling a product from the ground up means more time and effort and more cash, but the results are better. So we started with a clean sheet and went full-focus on the product. Three products, the best we can realize as a platform, and just do sonic changes with the materials chosen. Nothing else. It took us 4 months to realize, but after the time and effort and tooling (which we did not have to remake/redo - we got it right the first time), we came out with something we believe is unique, in terms of performance, price, and positioning. We didn't do the "in thing" which is handfuls of balanced armatures jammed together in a too-small housing, with too-complicated networks. We did what we thought was right - and I think it's going to pay off. The results at least seem to be drawing lots of attraction!"[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]
[/COLOR][COLOR=141414]Dan[/COLOR]

[COLOR=141414]Be really interested in anyone's views, maybe by PM preferably, as I don't want to go off Trinity message any more than I just have.[/COLOR]

 

[meringo]

  Why not?
 

 
Seriously, there are really only two viable alternatives for detachable cables at this point:
 
The 2-pin PlasticsOne type connector, which is really big and bulky for IEMs (we made the cable attachment as small as possible for a reason - comfort)
 
An MMCX variant, but those are (IMHO) completely inappropriate because they are rated for a low number of insertions, are not intended for rotation once mated (typically RF cables are routed once and secured, as changing routing of the cable will affect RF system performance), and are not all compatible.  Witness the countless threads complaining about noisy and poor-performing MMCX-based connectors!
 
So at this point, we're going wired.  Reinforced cables, properly designed cable locks, and slick-enough jackets.  We are investigating a potential connector for some time in the future, but for now - it's hard to beat attached cables.  And if one should break because of materials or labor defects, well there is a 5 year warranty!  We can also repair the cables fairly affordably as well...

 
Thanks! This is a great explanation. 

 

[Marburger]

  Why not?
 

 
Seriously, there are really only two viable alternatives for detachable cables at this point:
 
The 2-pin PlasticsOne type connector, which is really big and bulky for IEMs (we made the cable attachment as small as possible for a reason - comfort)
 
An MMCX variant, but those are (IMHO) completely inappropriate because they are rated for a low number of insertions, are not intended for rotation once mated (typically RF cables are routed once and secured, as changing routing of the cable will affect RF system performance), and are not all compatible.  Witness the countless threads complaining about noisy and poor-performing MMCX-based connectors!
 
So at this point, we're going wired.  Reinforced cables, properly designed cable locks, and slick-enough jackets.  We are investigating a potential connector for some time in the future, but for now - it's hard to beat attached cables.  And if one should break because of materials or labor defects, well there is a 5 year warranty!  We can also repair the cables fairly affordably as well...

Now I see the logic behind it. Actually I am not cable guy at all. Unless the stock is well made, i do not care about upgrading. 5 year warranty is also rarely seen for iems  Actually i have not seen other than this yet.  

 

[DanWiggins]

In addition to designing audio product for just about everyone on the face of the earth, my team has also been responsible for launching literally hundreds of consumer products over the last 20 years.  Literally hundreds of millions of boxes shipped (heck, SONOS alone is 10+ million), and literally over 40 man YEARS spent on factory floors doing production (I typically spend 3 months a year on factory floors).  We've learned what to engineer in to survive nearly any real-world use case out there, and exactly how to build something that will provide all the quality you need.  
 
Our test spec runs 17 pages and covers things like thermal cycling, thermal/humidity/vibration long-term storage, cable bending, cable pull tests, eartip insertion/removal cycling, repeated drop tests, liquids exposure, UV exposure, and much more.  With that kind of coverage of testing and the experience background we have you learn a lot about materials, assembly techniques, and longevity of products.
 
Designing a product where you can offer a long warranty requires paying attention to the details during the design, designing with the assembly process in mind (so you do not design in assembly failure operations), and then testing the crap out of it before you release it.  You run the tests on a few hundred units to guarantee 2 sigma (98%) results (meaning you build and burn 200 of each model) and then you can offer what you want.  Yes many see a 5 year warranty as risky, but then, starting a headphone/IEM company is risky in itself!
 
EDIT: NOTE we do NOT cover damage from abuse.  If you run your knife through the cable - that's on you.  If you drop your IEM in your pool - that's on you.  If your dog chews up, swallows, then "returns" your non-functioning IEMs - that's on you (although this one may get some special treatment as it would be a funny-as-heck story!).  But if they fall apart from normal wear and tear, that's on us and we'll stand behind it 100%!

 

[DanWiggins]

Think my post over on the Trinity thread a few weeks back was the first to mention Periodic. So pleased they're doing well. Definitely see the Be in my future, but my wallet is taking a breather from 3 sets of Trinity earphones (waiting on delivery like everyone else!) and a new set of iSine 20's & B&W wireless P7's Will be reading reviews with great interest.

Just a quick note about what you can get when you actually design everything - transducer to cable to body - and do it correctly.  Watch Jude's SoCal preview, about 17:30 into it.  You'll see a pretty eye-opening THD plot...

 

[Marburger]

OK, @jude lets discuss in the forum what is your favorite out 3

 

[DanWiggins]

  OK, @jude lets discuss in the forum what is your favorite out 3

Better than that, people should stop by the CanJam in SoCal this coming weekend and listen!  We have 4 listening stations set up.  Each station features digital streaming content from Tidal (basically anything you want) via a SONOS Connect (using the Toslink/optical output), which feeds a Channel Islands Audio VDA2 DAC, and that feeds a Channel Islands Audio VHP2 headphone amplifier which then drives our IEMs.  And we have more loose/open box IEMs as well!  At NYC, we often had 6 or 7 people listening to units at our booth.  So no excuse for those who attend that they "couldn't listen to our gear" because of someone else in the booth...

 

[jude]

OK, @jude lets discuss in the forum what is your favorite out 3

My favorite of the three is definitely the Periodic Audio Be (beryllium). I'm listening to it right now from the Chord Hugo 2 (pre-production unit), and it's an extremely impressive IEM for $299. During the CanJam SoCal video shoot, I didn't have time to listen to it for an extended period, but I'll keep it in my backpack to give it more listening time.

First impressions: I'd call the Periodic Audio Be's signature neutral-ish as I'd personally define it (as "neutral" is still a bit of a moving target in the headphone world). There's flat-measuring like the Etymotic ER4SR, but that generally sounds (to me) leaner than what I'd subjectively call neutral. (For this reason, I prefer the Etymotic ER4XR to the ER4SR.) My tastes have definitely shifted over the past few years to something more akin to the sound of flat-measuring speakers in a good room environment--something that compensates for the lost room effect with headphones.

(Though I've spoken with Dan Wiggins, we haven't specifically discussed this topic yet. I'll hunt you down at CanJam, Dan! )

Paul Barton of PSB has been discussing this for quite some time now. One day soon, I'll discuss a trip we took last year with Paul Barton to the NRC in Ottawa where we listened to the flagship PSB loudspeakers (that measure rather flat) in an anechoic environment (versus a more normal room environment). Anyway...

Here are the measurement from the CanJam SoCal Preview Video, where I compare the frequency response and total harmonic distortion of an IEM (Etymotic ER4SR) that measures pretty darn flat (with diffuse field correction applied) versus the Periodic Audio Be, which, in comparison, more closely meets my personal definition of perceived neutrality.

(I will measure the Etymotic ER4XR and drop a similar comparison in here, sometime after I get back from CanJam SoCal.)

First, some information about the measurement setup I used for this--audio measurements were made using:

1. G.R.A.S. 45BB-12 KEMAR with anthropometric pinnae for low-noise earphone and headphone testing
   1. This is a next-generation headphone testing setup, and you can read more about it by clicking here: Next Generation Headphone Testing
   2. I will be posting more details about this system soon, as it is definitely worth discussing in detail.
2. Audio Precision APx555 Audio Analyzer
3. Rupert Neve Designs RNHP headphone amplifier
4. Herzan custom acoustic enclosure
5. NOTE: The measurements reflect diffuse field correction applied via the APx555's input EQ.

(Click on the images below to view them in a larger size.)




​

 

[DanWiggins]

  (Though I've spoken with Dan Wiggins, we haven't specifically discussed this topic yet. I'll hunt you down at CanJam, Dan! 

)
 

Stalker!  Restraining order! 

 
In general, flat IN EAR tends to sound overly midrangy and dull.  Flat ANECHOIC tends to measure bumped-in-bass and spiked-in-treble when in-ear.  Why?  Cavity resonance of the ear canal and proximity effect for the bass.  It's kind of the stuff that Sean Olive over at Harman has been documenting.  And has been "known" inside the industry for quite a while.  Designing something that is flat in your canal will typically be perceived as bass-shy and dull on the top end - or that it has too much midrange.

Much like speakers.  Speakers that measure completely flat in an anechoic chamber and have no real consideration for in-room use tend to sound overly boomy and shrill in a typical room.  The environment of your speaker - whether an ear canal or a large room - has a massive impact on the actual sound you hear.  So it should account for that.

If I take my IEMs and measure them free-field, in a ~1 cubic foot sound box, they measure radically different than they do on my IEC 60318-4 coupler.
 
Rooms (or in this case, ear canals) always win...

 

[Marburger]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif
   
My favorite of the three is definitely the Periodic Audio Be (beryllium). I'm listening to it right now from the Chord Hugo 2 (pre-production unit), and it's an extremely impressive IEM for $299. During the CanJam SoCal video shoot, I didn't have time to listen to it for an extended period, but I'll keep it in my backpack to give it more listening time.
 
First impressions: I'd call the Periodic Audio Be's signature neutral-ish as I'd personally define it (as "neutral" is still a bit of a moving target in the headphone world). There's flat-measuring like the Etymotic ER4SR, but that generally sounds (to me) leaner than what I'd subjectively call neutral. (For this reason, I prefer the Etymotic ER4XR to the ER4SR.) My tastes have definitely shifted over the past few years to something more akin to the sound of flat-measuring speakers in a good room environment--something that compensates for the lost room effect with headphones.
 
(Though I've spoken with Dan Wiggins, we haven't specifically discussed this topic yet. I'll hunt you down at CanJam, Dan! 

)
 
Paul Barton of PSB has been discussing this for quite some time now. One day soon, I'll discuss a trip we took last year with Paul Barton to the NRC in Ottawa where we listened to the flagship PSB loudspeakers (that measure rather flat)  in an anechoic environment (versus a more normal room environment). Anyway...
 
Here are the measurement from the CanJam SoCal Preview Video, where I compare the frequency response and total harmonic distortion of an IEM (Etymotic ER4SR) that measures pretty darn flat (with diffuse field correction applied) versus the Periodic Audio Be, which, in comparison, more closely meets my personal definition of perceived neutrality.
 
(I will measure the Etymotic ER4XR and drop a similar comparison in here, sometime after I get back from CanJam SoCal.)
 
First, some information about the measurement setup I used for this--audio measurements were made using:
 

1. G.R.A.S. 45BB-12 KEMAR with anthropometric pinnae for low-noise earphone and headphone testing
   1. This is a next-generation headphone testing setup, and you can read more about it by clicking here: Next Generation Headphone Testing
   2. I will be posting more details about this system soon, as it is definitely worth discussing in detail.
2. Audio Precision APx555 Audio Analyzer
3. Rupert Neve Designs RNHP headphone amplifier
4. Herzan custom acoustic enclosure
5. NOTE: The measurements reflect diffuse field correction applied via the APx555's input EQ.​

 

 ​

(Click on the images below to view them in a larger size.)​

 ​

​

 ​

 ​

​

 ​

 ​

 
 
 Thank you for the extended impressions and for the FR chart  Jude! You kept your word as you promised in your last Headfi TV
Actually,  I am glad that  I made the right choice for choosing the Be. I wanted also lately something neutral reference but not cold or sterile. I hope it will grow on me every time i upgrade my source too. I have no doubt that the Be will scale up very well from the flagship sources like  Hugo 2. Unfortunately I will be able to test mine only through old and trusty Fiio x5, when it arrives next week. i will upgrade later for something better, but at the moment can't decide which DAP or dac/amp will complement it better.
By the way, for the money Mg, Ti  are very competitive   in the market too. Also I would like to know how the sound differs from each other too.