Gaudio: the journey from an idea to a real product

Dear sbaf community,

I’m a passionate music listener as music represent a constant reality in my everyday life.
I’m the founder of Gaudio, a Swiss-based in-ear audio company. MOT tag have been requested, it could need some time for the activation.

Given my passion, in 2018 I decided to start engineering my own pair of universal in-ears, focusing only on sound quality.
This brought to the creation of the brand named Gaudio, located in Switzerland, later in June 2019.

Gaudio is the acronym of my family name and the word "audio". But it also comes from the latin "gaudium" which means enjoyment, happiness and delight. These words does exactly represent my vision of what Gaudio in ears want to bring to the people's everyday life.
You know, from time to time we face difficult moments in our lives and I strongly believe music does help; music is something that walks by my side since always, I believe many of you would share the same feeling about it.

After around 1 year of development from the first idea, I’m now ready for the launch of the two first models of the brand which I expect to land in January 2020.

Some members here may already know a little bit about this project. I’ve sent some prototypes back in January to be tested, to have an objective feedback on the acoustics and ergonomics.
I want to thank especially Shotgunshane and james444 for their openness, for their useful feedback and in general to the sbaf administration to let it happen.
Their main concerns back then was about ergonomics (at the time the shell were made for a shallow fit) and about improving the treble region on both models.

I'm glad to report that I was able to substantially improve both prototypes on those parameters.
This took a long time, some headaches and the project became therefore very complex; it required a big effort and high motivation but the outcome greatly exceeded expectations.

Now it’s my turn to give something back to the community.
This thread wants to be a log of the efforts made in the quest of making such a product. I hope to be able to post once a week and at steady rate.
I hope these writings will be interesting and valuable for the community, giving some insights of what means dealing with such a project, about the difficulties that almost made the development stop or to drift away, to finally achieve the “eureka” moments which brought me some fresh air.

I encourage anyone to discuss matters further and to bring your personal point of view in the discussion.
If you are interested in something in particular, just ask and I will do my best to answer as quick as possible

The brand logo:



Nico

 

Reserved

 

@zeed:
What type of sound signature you are aiming at?
These will be Universal IEMs?
Any price estimate?

Most likely too early to ask for these three questions, but I'm curious.

 

@YMO
Don't worry, no problem at all!
1) Sound: to achieve a correct timbre (more on this later) was for sure the main goal from the beginning; however, I will offer some different house tunings in the lineup and upgrade the technicalities from there. So there will be for example 3 family sound tunings and in each, the customer will find a growing performance from the entry-level to the totl ones.
2) Universal IEMs, yep.
3) <1000 (USD/CHF/Euro)

@shotgunshane
Hey Shawn!
I have a different background honestly; I have a degree in electronics and telecommunications, so it's mainly my technical interest in the matter which brought me there.
I started tinkering with iems for my interest and then planned to make it my main job. A gamble for sure, but when you feel so passionate about something, you just have to do it. Doing what you enjoy most for a living is, in my opinion, priceless and worth the risk.

My favourite iems, this is a interesting question. Without mentioning the ones I don't love, I'd say the following in no particular order:
- PP8
- VE5
- VE8
- Andromeda

Each do come with their own pros and cons but they are great performing products.

 

Hey guys,
Back from some days of break and relax; I even managed to survive to the launches/dinners with my relatives so all is fine.
Hope you had also a good time in the meanwhile.

I'm writing a couple of paragraphs about the work behind the external shape and the acoustics; meanwhile, I thought it would be interesting to post a couple of sketches to give an idea about the aesthetics.

 

ERGONOMICS
Let’s start from the beginning.

The initial shells were based on my earmolds but with many areas trimmed/reduced to better the comfort.
The left and right sides of the proto units I sent out were therefore made in different dimensions and overall shapes to better estimate how to drive the changes for optimal comfort.

Averaging the feedbacks, the comfort on this first iteration got the following ratings:
LEFT = 4/10
RIGHT = 5,6/10
Not a much encouraging score to be honest, and this is why I started digging deep in the matter.

Usually, when I don’t get something or it’s not clear enough, I just scrap everything and restart from the basis. A hard learning approach for sure, but the one which proved to be the most effective.

I then started studying audiology books, whitepapers and graduation thesis to better understand the subject.
After I analysed several dozen earmolds and ear scans and I started experimental testing on different subjects.
This was the starting point to base my work from.

At a certain point, I got a solid enough idea to start investing money in it, which means producing some shells.
At this time, two people joined the team and gave a great contribution to the project: a mechanical designer and a specialist in 3D printing.
In trio, we started prototyping the shells by 3D drawing the parts, then 3D printing them and finally testing the assemblies on the field.

In the process, around 15 versions in total were drawn and then printed.
Out of them, we chose the one which felt comfortable for most people.

The main concern here was to get the angled canal done right and coupled with the deep insertion it wasn’t an easy task at all, but in the end, I think we succeeded.

To provide a better fit, we drawn it for having a reduced interaction with the intertragus notch, tragus and concha cymba areas; since we wanted it to sit firmly in the ear, we also paid much attention in designing it to achieve a good coupling with the concha cavum area.

Also, due to the form, it’s possible to rotate it for both an easier insertion and better adjustability.
People with medium to big ears will have them to slip in the ear without problems and stay almost flush to the ear, while people with little ears or particular canal shapes will still be able to wear them, just having to position them a bit more toward the exterior and using the smallest ear-tips provided.



And here the earphone outcome. Do you like it?





Cheers

 

MATERIALS

The choice of materials. The first protos were hand made in acrylic, but they felt flimsy and cheap.

In particular the nozzle was way too fragile and I was afraid that it could crack when inserted in the ear-tip, or even worse, break in the ear canal if mishandled.

With this solution I would have probably been able to keep the price down (which was the idea at the beginning), as I would have manufactured the shells in house with a minor investment, but I just wasn’t pleased with the outcome.

The main problem when you make a hand crafted product, which is low batches per year, with a limited budget and limited people to work on, is of course the high cost of materials. Some manufacturing solutions aren’t even available (such as metal/plastic injection moulding, die casting and forging) because they require big loads of money to set up.

This reason alone is what back then pushed me to invest time into DMLS technology (3d printing by laser sintering of metals, various kind of), thinking this was the best compromise for the duty.

I reached out to several big 3d printing services around and managed with them different solutions to get our stuff printed properly, but despite the efforts and too many drawing reworks, the results were never suitable.

The nozzle for example, would have required for sure an additional step into a turning lathe machine to get the part as we wanted. The additional machinery step would have costed more than the 3d part itself, so it was a no go.

The shell of the earphones and the top lid, however, didn’t turn out that bad, but these also required a supplementary step; this time a heck of hand-work to get the parts nicely finished and prepared for the surface coating.

So, after two months while we were scrapping our heads about DMLS printing, we just gave up! That's it we gave up!
The extra work required, the tolerances which were way too high,and the results proved to be unacceptable for our goal and expectations.

In fact, when we were talking about hundredths of a millimetre of tolerances (0,000X of an inch, for the American folks), this printing method was delivering tens of a millimetre of variance (0,00x of an inch) and was screwing out our efforts on all sides: aesthetics, coupling of parts, latching, etcetera.

We then forced ourselves to modify the parts for having them produced my mechanical machining, requiring a turning lathe for the nozzle and a 5-axis lathe for the shell and the top lid.

The previous latching system was even more solid and smart and it was a pity having to re-engineer it and simplify the whole system, but you know what? The only thing to do was to redraw parts which can be produced at a reasonable cost, so we had to do so.

The final result rewarded our efforts, the units turned out incredibly well and after few of revisions we settled on the final drawings.

This is the story behind the choices of having our parts produced of aluminium and stainless steel instead of acrylic, and by 5-axis CNC machining instead of 3d printing or manual acrylic moulding.

At the end, I think that we did a good job on keeping the reasonable prices, given the manufacturing costs; the MSRP of the final product well fit the high engineering efforts behind it, the high-grade materials used and the better durability and look of the whole assembly.

Below the renderings on the front of the earphones.
We have designed it with a style that wants to recall elegance and performance; the shape can recall the automotive and watchmaking sector, do you like it?

 

Hi, guys!

I've been pretty busy lately, as certain details are still being finalized in preparation for launch. Namely the packaging and the website.
Below an insight about acoustics, hope you will find it interesting


EARLY DAYS - ACOUSTICS

The idea in the early days was to build one high performance in-ear model.

I chose to work on two different versions carrying out the same tuning, and then choose which one of the two was the best. Both designed with different micro speaker models (balanced armature drivers specifically). The main goal was to use as few drivers as possible so I could bring them to the market at an affordable price.

I decided that the minimum number of speakers was three. Why and how?

Using only one driver proved right away to be unsatisfying as the distortions were high and there was a severe roll-off on both extremes. The roll-off on the treble could have been partially mitigated by shifting (by using different acoustic tricks) some peaks, to the sacrifice of other bands of the spectrum, creating therefore big valleys and an artificial outcome.

The roll-off, lack of details and overall shortcomings in the bass were also hard to address because simply put, a wideband driver couldn't deliver enough performance there (for my standards).

Using two drivers (1 mid 1 treble) would have addressed the treble issue but of course the bass would have just improved slightly, so this option was ditched.

Adding a dedicated bass driver to take care of this region was then necessary and the total driver count went to three.

The plan was to come out with a neutral sounding earphone but great at detail retrieval. I however, deliberately avoided a dead flat tuning, because it would have ended with a technical but really boring earphone.

So, I started tinkering with my two builds with three drivers in each and pushed them to what I thought, at the time, were the acoustic limits.

After around three months of fine tuning, soldering and up turnings, I kept only the two models that were the most promising.

Things rarely go the way we predict, and I ended up with two models. I couldn't get rid of either, deciding to develop both of them..

On a side note, all the work done so far had been done using a handcrafted measuring system which had, if I have to be honest, a few too many limits both in terms of the repeatability of the measurements and the correctness of the information shown for the treble region (8khz+).

I diversified the tuning slightly on each but I left some common traits untouched.

One prototype was linear in the bass, with slightly elevated mids to treble region for better articulation, separation and detailing. This was called PROTOTYPE01.

The second one was slightly warmer and characterized by elevated bass (around +3dB compared to the first) for warmer vocals, bolder instruments and a more engaging feel; coupled with subdued highs for a “relaxed”,pardon the expression, rendition. This one was PROTOTYPE02.

I then prepared one pair of each prototype per person to be sent to Shotgunshane and james444 for them to test and get some genuine feedback.

I was quite confident, as I’m really picky, and I wouldn’t have sent stuff out if i wasn't one hundred percent certain about it. But you never know right so I was very curious to hear their thoughts.


PROTOTYPE01

The result I was aiming for was a neutral but not boring presentation, it was very satisfying at that time to note how the lows and mids were considered to be of very good quality.

The treble area was where I was advised to further work on, in particular by lowering the 6khz peak that was there, to avoid sibilance that was sometimes noticeable in some songs.
We discussed it, and James also shared some advice and trials about damping it a little more.

Some more info about this subject. When you use higher dampening to lower the level of a specific region, two things may happen:

1. You lower the useful peaks and keep “bad one” untouched.
2. You address the “bad one”, but at the expense of treble extension.

After trying different application methods, more damping did not bring the desired result and it was therefore necessary to think of another solution. The problem was that the 6khz peak got lowered a bit, but at the expense of treble extension. I didn’t want that.

I then took the hard way and worked a lot on the optimization of the sound bores by trying different solutions and acoustic tricks until I got to the desired result.

The outcome turned out great. I was able to retain the same extension but taming that nasty peak down. Great!

I then inserted the configuration in my universal test shell, slapped on the same couple of ear tips I was using and very confidently launched the first test song and…

… in a matter of minutes, I was totally disappointed as the result was not what I was expecting by far!

Okay, let’s be honest, the sound was not bad but still worse than the initial tuning; the FR got screwed by the ear-tips so much that it sounded worse than the first version I sent out for evaluation. What a let down after all the work done!

The lesson learned? The ear tip which was appropriate for a setup version, was completely off for the new version. The shape of an ear-tip may be beneficial to the sound of a certain setup but it may become totally destructive for a slightly different one. Minor differences were expected but this experience had proven the opposite.

This situation forced me to deeply explore the subject of ear tips and the result was two-sided. I would retune it, taking into consideration the new chosen ear-tip but that meant the fit would now be deep instead of shallow.

I went back to the drawing board and my soldering iron and after some trials I ended with a new configuration which took into account both the newly chosen ear tip and and the deep fit contribution to the perceived sound.

The tuning ended up very nice. A much smoother 2-6khz region and a bit more extension at 8khz!

Here you can see the frequency response of the early custom-prototype, the early universal-prototype which I sent out for evaluations and the final product outcome.

CUSTOM VERSION vs EARLY UNIVERSAL VERSION SENT TO JAMES (same internals)
20-20kHz range
No smoothing
G.R.A.S. RA402 High-res simulator


CUSTOM VERSION vs ACTUAL UNIVERSAL VERSION (new tuning)
20-20kHz range
No smoothing
5 earphones production units averaged
G.R.A.S. RA402 High-res simulator


ACTUAL UNIVERSAL VERSION (new tuning) vs EARLY UNIVERSAL VERSION SENT TO JAMES
20-20kHz range
No smoothing
5 earphones production units averaged
G.R.A.S. RA402 High-res simulator



As a side note, you may find it interesting to see how the behaviour of the treble region changed when going from a custom to a universal shell.

Believe me when I say that it was really hard to get so close to a custom performance (and actually bettering it a little) without compromising the rest of the spectrum.


PROTOTYPE02

On this model I was aiming for a slightly warmer tone coupled with subdued treble, a “romantic” and intimate tuning.

The fact is, this prototype received quite more serious feedback because even if the softer and warmer presentation was still “around neutral” and accepted, the treble was found to be too subdued and wiggly. The dips were so severe as to compromise the overall rendition and to bring down the quality of the product as a whole.

Since this wasn’t acceptable, I spent several weeks on the configuration, attempting to get rid of these shortcomings but without changing drivers, because the mids were so nice that I couldn’t let go of them.

I spent most of my time tinkering on this prototype.

In addition, I would like to point out that at that time I invested quite a lot of money in a professional measurement system that was appropriate for my needs, i.e. a system that was compliant with IEC711 standard and more importantly, capable of accurate measurements up to 20Khz, from Danish manufacturer G.R.A.S.

But despite my efforts and the new measuring system, I could not solve the issue that was intrinsic to the chosen speakers and I was then forced to opt for the hardest decision: a complete redesign by using different drivers.

It's hard to say how long it took me to get the performance right again, but in the end the result was really satisfactory.

The wiggles in the treble turned into a straighter line, and the overall level which before was too subdued, got elevated by around 6-7dB.

This is the model which objectively improved the most and I’m confident to say that now the treble, which was in origin the weak spot, turned into its main strength and I’m very proud of the outcome!

This version is for those who like sparkly highs and in general a great treble articulation.

Below are the measurements of the previous models listened to by james and shotgunshane, and the newer final version.

ACTUAL UNIVERSAL VERSION (new tuning) vs EARLY UNIVERSAL VERSION SENT TO JAMES
20-20kHz range
No smoothing
5 earphones production units averaged
G.R.A.S. RA402 High-res simulator



Fast forward to now. The two setups which I settled for are very satisfactory from my point of view and I honestly think you will be pleased as well.

Are these earphones perfect? Nope. No product is and to be honest it’s simply impossible to achieve perfection, since everyone has different tastes and expectations.

What can be done though, is to work hard to get as close as possible to excellence, listen to people’s positive and negative feedback, and to continuously improve one’s product or service as a whole.

And that’s how I work every day.

I can guarantee you that you will find a growing performance going from our standard model to our superior model. Maybe a different tuning? Yes. Lesser technical qualities? No.

If you feel this is not the case, either your earphones got broken or I became deaf. In either case, please let me know asap because then I definitely need to get my ears checked =)

 

TESTING/LISTENING

I would like to talk a little bit about listening, as that's a major part of the process. It's not all about the technical stuff. It's also about how we receive.

I also thought it might be interesting to have a better idea about the man behind Gaudio (me) and how I usually work.

When listening for pleasure, I just sit back and relax. I search for some songs which fit with my mood, I free my mind and enjoy what I’m listening to. Simple as that.
When doing critical listening, however, I do things differently. I believe that requires a completely different approach, no matter if I’m listening to an iteration of a prototype of mine or a product from a competitor, I do the same mental work.

At first, I divide what may be objective from subjective as much as possible.
I start by making a general idea by asking myself: is the tonality correct? How technical is the rendition? A sort of first impression.

Tonality is always a bit of a difficult subject because people have different reference points. PA systems, headphones, earphones, live concerts, real instruments etc.

And also, I’d never presume to think that ‘my reference’ is the only one, so some kind of mediation is needed.

That’s why I try to keep some room, some margin of movement, in my perception of ‘correct tonality and timbre’ when I work on something. Then I focus on each different specific aspect and analyse them one at a time, listening in loop to the same tracks I’m used to and comparing them with known headphones/systems.

Examples of those aspects that come to mind are: bass level, bass quality (texture), bass bleed in the mids, extension in the subs, bass layering and separation, bass speed and decay, reverbs and overall dynamics; and again mids level, mids character (warm, neutral, thin), issues (sss, shhh, etc), dimension and positioning of vocals, body of instruments, treble level, treble extension, layering and soundstage dimension, cues and so on.

Quite some stuff right? And honestly analysing each one, one by one, does help me a lot.
What I leave aside from the equation, is my personal feeling, the “Do I personally like that kind of tuning?” question.

A while ago, while listening to a product ,which I wouldn’t say is my cup of tea, I recognized how technically amazing this product was. They soon became my target to match.

This is to say that with this objective approach, I’m able to admit when a product is great at technicalities, even if it doesn’t carry my preferred tuning.

There are great performing products out there. Reality is that we’re talking about something like 5-10% of the overall offer, and usually they are really pricey. From my point of view it’s a shame, and I hope things will change soon.

Back to my work. When working on my prototypes, it will often trigger what I call the ‘reverse placebo effect’.
What is that?

Instead of unconsciously convincing myself that the rendition will be of high quality (because I've worked hundreds of hours on it and it's my own creation, my baby, so it can't be bad!), I start consciously with the idea that I will surely be disappointed by the result. Call me mad, some people do!

I start listening again to the usual tracks with a very underwhelmed feeling. I’m so alert to details and critical about them, that I underwhelm myself every single time. Hence the name of the reverse placebo effect!

For this reason, until the result is good enough, I find myself tweaking and perfecting while listening to each track as much as possible.

With this kind of analyst approach, I have so many iterations with the models that I can’t even count, as I'm never satisfied enough, I know right? Crazy, but that is just who I am and I have to live with it

But then, when I listen to something ‘really worth it’, the feeling is surprisingly awesome and I know that I’m onto something interesting and it’s worth investing some time tinkering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you noticed any different feedback regarding your listening at different times of the day (morning, evening, night), your mood or as a result of other causes?

I’m interested in your findings, what do you think about this subject?

 

NAMING

So, after calling these two models PROTOTYPE1 and PROTOTYPE2 for one year, and MODEL1 and MODEL2 for another half a year, I would like to present you the official product names and the reason behind them.

Since Gaudio is based in the south of Switzerland, we would say that our company is "Nested in the Swiss Alps".

I like mountains, for many reasons. For the fact that they were here long before us, and they will stay long after we leave. A symbol of longevity and immutability.
I also like the different shapes of their ridges and the story behind them. Sometimes a strategic and arduous barrier to cross or to conquer, other times a magnificent landscape which we discover after a long climb.

With their purity and unspoilt nature, they dominate everything.
Sometimes their name guards their history or the tale of the men who have dared to climb them.

Pointed and solitary peaks that stand out in the sky, surrounded by perennial glaciers, or soft forms, rich in watercourses and forests, where faunas and flora proliferate.

Mountains are capable of evoking emotions, of awakening something innate within us; they are capable of disconnecting us from everyday life, making us lose the concept of time and letting us enjoy the feeling of lightness and freedom.

These are the same emotions that I would like people to experience while listening to music through our products.

So, without further ado, I present to you our chosen product names:


NAIR (model 1)

Altitude: 3.056mt above sea level.
Name: From Romansh ‘Black peak’.
This mountain is situated in between the Canton of Grisons and the Canton of Uri. Piz Nair is the highest point in the Corviglia ski area. It offers great views of the Engadin valley and the surrounding mountains and overlooks the famous village of Saint Moritz which is situated underneath.



CLARIDEN (model 2)

Altitude: 3.267mt above sea level.
Name: Derived from ‘Clareta’ Latin ‘clarus’, which means light, bright, shiny.
The cantonal borders between Glarus and Uri runs over the summit.
Large glaciers cover its South side, while the opposite side is characterized by steep flanks which open up to a breath-taking view over the Klausenpass and the beautiful surrounding valleys.



The reasoning behind the choice of the colours of inlays is also linked to the acoustic tuning of each model. A plain light grey shade with black logo for NAIR, to convey its neutral, studio reference-like character. A more eye-catching colour contrast by using charcoal black and red logo to communicate the strong character of CLARIDEN, which is clear, but also engaging and strong thanks to its elevated bass.

In addition, a second “subgroup” name was created to accurately identify the performance of the various models.
The two models presented here are both part of our '300 Series'.
Eventual future lower performing models will be included in lower series (200, 100), while higher performance models will have a higher series number (400,500).


“ And into the mountains I go to loose my mind and find my soul”
Pradip Shaw, John Muir

 

Hello there!
Our website is now up and running, check it out! http://www.gaudiolabs.com/


So, how should I price Gaudio?
The Gaudio entry level in-ear comes at quite a fair price, but not when compared to competitor’s similar
models, as our competitors generally charge much more.

Gaudio is all made by hand (my hands) in Switzerland. I make small quantities, in small lots in my lab.
Everything is thoroughly assembled and checked.
It's artisanal work done by a very small company.

The high quality materials we use come at a high price. The drivers I use are the best out there from Sonion
and Knowles. Our suppliers need to keep up with my quality standards and they charge a premium for that.
So, as you probably already imagine it’s not cheap to produce a fine made product like the one I set out to
achieve.
It should also be noted that Gaudio doesn't use an out of house factory 'production-line', assembling
earphones in cheap acrylic shells and using low cost, imprecise drivers. All our engineering (acoustic and
mechanical) is done in-house and by hand.

By keeping things in-house, Gaudio in-ear prices won’t drastically increase from one model to the other,
forking out twice as much money, but the model price difference will be very mild compared to our
competitors. This is our goal and what I’m fiercely proud about.
This is what I think is a reasonable way of offering quality products to the public, without digging deep into
their pockets for no reason at all.

The goal here is to run a sustainable business which allows us to pull out a salary for living and to invest
more and more in the company, in the people, in the methods and equipment to help the business grow.
I have big plans for Gaudio!

What people buy along with each pair of Gaudio earphones is also my commitment to improvement and
my ‘will to do better’ attitude. Product after product, on each new release, following your feedback and
the latest technology available.


The pricing comes as follows.

PRESALE (from Now to 15/04/2020)
749 CHF
744* USD plus shipping
653* EUR plus shipping and VAT

STANDARD (from 16/04/2020)
899 CHF
894* USD plus shipping
785* EUR plus shipping and VAT

About the shipment.
We ship worldwide.
Deliveries to Switzerland are free of charge, while in Europe and the rest of the world a small contribution fee of CHF 35 will be asked. I only use Express courier and the shipments do include insurance.
For our EU customers only, I managed to arrange with our forwarder the DDP service (delivery duty paid). The customers finalize the purchase on our e-shop and the system automatically include customs and VAT costs of the customer’ country.
In this way, customers will receive the goods directly to their home without any surprises and, above all, I'm able to offer a simple, hassle-free experience to them. I think it's something cool.

Also, the shop accepts three main currencies, so you can avoid high conversion fees.

The aim has always been to guarantee fair prices to customers outside Switzerland; for this reason, I decided not to set fixed and adjusted prices per currency (i.e. $799 or €699) but instead to follow the market exchange rate.

This means that you may see prices change day by day, but this way you are sure to have the best possible price on the products instead of a fixed, but higher ones.
This is a trial of which I would like to test the effectiveness, how it is perceived by customers and if there are any weaknesses, in a temporary window of a few months. Your opinion is thus more than welcome!

The original goal was to provide a deadline by which the products would have been shipped out. Due to recent developments regarding the global health emergency that is causing the Covid-19 virus spread, I cannot guarantee shipment on these terms.
I have therefore decided to provide an indicative date "from _" and regularly update customers about it.
This date is set as of 15 April 2020.
I think this is the most transparent way to handle this. I hope you will understand.

Please consider that all the parts (excluding the packaging) are already here in the workshop, ready to be assembled; so the only variable is when our packaging supplier will ship it to us.

I am very concerned about the success of this product and that is why your feedback is essential.
From the website to the product itself, to the packaging or the sound, there is always room for improvement or for solving any issues you may encounter.

The list of articles (which I hope are exhaustive and interesting) may have raised a formality barrier; that is why I would like this thread to get back to a space for dialogue and discussion with you about any topic. Something organic and inclusive, where you can talk or ask anything you might be interested in.

Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon!

PS: My thoughts go to the people and families on the four continents who have to stay in quarantine and experiencing difficult times; hold on, a hug to you from Switzerland!

 

The usual way to get things rolling here is to start a loaner program so you can gather feedback from trusted ears.

 

Quick comment on the website (just took a quick look). The white text on a light background is really difficult to read. One of the tougher things about site design is picking the right palette, having to deal with the many (like myself - red / green color blind) who can't handle certain colors (overlapping). Otherwise site looks good, but I pretty much give up when I see colors without the contrast I need.

 

This is a very useful comment, thanks for the feedback!

I'll soon have the white writing modified to give them more contrast as you suggested.
Are there any other parts where the contrast gives you problems?

A loaner tour can certainly be feasible, it depends a bit on how many would be seriously interested in this eventuality.

In the meantime, it gives you a mixed feeling of weirdness and pride to see your products, in their production version, measured and uploaded by someone like crinacle!
Here the link to his post: https://crinacle.com/2020/03/13/graph-database-update-14-03-20/

 

@ChaChaRealSmooth

 

I forgot to say, great job and good luck in your enterprise!

 

Noted down!

Thanks man, very appreciated

 

I had the changes made as promised. Does it look all right now? http://www,gaudiolabs.com/
Thanks again for your feedback!

Hi, crinacle!
Thanks for posting your impressions here.
I am very pleased that you find the shape, comfort and build quality to be very good!

I am very curious to read what your final opinions will be.
In the tests have you had a chance to try different ear tips?
I found the best compromise in the FinalE so far, but I am open to suggestions!

As for Nair, it is an honour to see it get compared to a legendary iem like the PP8 is.
It seems that the hundreds of hours spent on tuning have paid off after all!

About Clariden, on the other hand, I do hide a certain concern. I would like to understand in detail what you find "off" to improve the next iterations.
From my point of view, I think both are on the same technical level.
The goal with Clariden is different than with Nair (obviously).
The result I wanted to achieve was a sound that was as clear as possible, with a very good extension in the top end and avoiding a sibilant and plasticky tone.
Is the dip on the 6-7khz creating problems? Or the treble shape/level?

Luckily there is always room for improvement and a desire to challenge myself on tuning!