Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 10 August 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, August 2019

I measured the Periodic Audio Carbon earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. Except as noted, all measurements were made using medium-sized, single-flange silicone eartips, as these fit the ear/cheek simulator best. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

The above chart shows the Carbons’ frequency response, which in terms of the shape of the curve is fairly textbook. There’s more bass than usual, though, and a little more energy around 5.5kHz than I’m used to seeing, but all of this is still fairly close to industry norms. Incidentally, substituting one of the supplied medium-sized foam tips had very little effect on the frequency response.

This chart shows how the Carbons’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps, or some exotic tube amps. As I usually see with earphones employing no balanced armatures, there’s very little difference in response with the high-impedance source, which means the Carbons should sound about the same no matter what you plug them into.

This chart shows the Carbons’ right-channel response compared with another single-dynamic-driver model, the Campfire Comets. I also included the recently reviewed Simgot EN700 Pro earphones, as well as the AKG N5005s, which, when used with their reference filter, are the earphones said to best conform to the so-called “Harman curve,” the response that research shows delivers what most listeners consider the most natural sound. Again, there’s more bass than usual, and a little more energy around 5.5kHz -- although also less around 7.5kHz, and less at higher frequencies. This might be the reason John Higgins and I described the Carbons as lacking a bit of “air” in the upper treble.

The Carbons’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart looks pretty clean, except for some resonance between 200 and 300Hz, and a very high-Q (i.e., narrow) resonance centered at about 5.2kHz. This seems to correspond with the second treble peak in the frequency response plot.

Periodic Audio’s claims about the Carbons’ ultra-low distortion seem to bear out. I can’t say with confidence that this is the lowest distortion I’ve measured, as once the distortion levels get this low, noise starts to intrude on the measurement. But I can say that the Carbons’ distortion ranks among the lowest I’ve ever measured. Without a doubt, 1% THD at 20Hz/100dBA is exceptional performance.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the Carbons with the silicone tips is so-so, but with the foam tips, it’s excellent.

The impedance magnitude of the Carbons is largely flat, measuring about 33 ohms up to 1.5kHz, with a couple of slight impedance peaks that correspond with the frequency response peaks in the treble. Impedance phase is very close to flat.

Sensitivity of the Carbons, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 32 ohms-rated impedance, is 112.6dB, way higher than the rated 98dB, thus the Carbons will deliver ample volume from any source device.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 July 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2019

I measured the Campfire Audio IO earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. All measurements were made using medium-sized silicone eartips, as these fit the ear/cheek simulator much better than the supplied foam tips did. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

The above chart shows the IOs’ frequency response. If you pushed those peaks at 1.7 and 3.9kHz up by about 1kHz each, this would look like a very typical measurement for high-quality earphones.

This chart shows how the IOs’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. As usual with earphones using balanced-armature drivers, there’s a significant change in tonal balance when you switch to a source device with relatively high output impedance. In this case, a high-impedance source will give you several dB less bass and a couple dB less treble.

This chart shows the IOs’ right-channel response compared with two other Campfire Audio earphones: the affordable Comets and the super-high-end Solarises. I also included the AKG N5005 earphones, which when used with their reference filter are the earphones said to best conform to the so-called “Harman curve,” the response that research shows delivers what most listeners consider the most natural sound. It appears that the dip at 3kHz (the only very clear difference between the IOs and the other models) is what gives them a subjectively brighter tonal balance.

The IOs’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows that any resonances are well-damped and die out within a couple of milliseconds.

The IOs’ measured total harmonic distortion (THD) is surprising. Between 900Hz and 1.7kHz, it’s a little on the high side, at about 2%. However, the amount of distortion didn’t significantly change when I raised the level from 90dBA (which is very loud) to 100dBA (which is crazy loud). The Clio analyzer told me this is almost all second-order harmonic distortion -- which means it’s adding harmonics between 1.8 and 3.4kHz. I thought this might be spurious noise entering the measurement system, so I remeasured it a week later after a fresh setup and calibration, but I got the same result, and a check with a real-time spectrum analyzer told me there was no unusual noise in the room. I’m not sure if you’d notice this distortion, because 2% isn’t much for an audio transducer, but it is right in the most sensitive range of the human ear, so it might be an issue with some recordings.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the IOs is excellent, especially considering that I had to use the silicone tips; you’ll likely get even better results with the foam tips, assuming one of the supplied sizes fits you well.

The impedance magnitude of the IO earphones ranges from 13.5 ohms in the bass to 27 ohms in the midrange, with corresponding (but fairly mild) swings in phase. This is why the tonal balance changes when the output impedance of the source device changes.

Sensitivity of the IOs, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 26-ohms rated impedance, is 115.7dB, which is exceptionally high, so the IOs will deliver ample volume from any source device.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 10 July 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, July 2019

I measured the Melomania 1 earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless headphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

The above chart shows the Melomania 1s’ frequency response measured with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. This is a fairly standard response for earphones, with a large peak centered at 2.6kHz and a smaller one centered at 8kHz. The unusual aspect of it is that the bass response in the two earphones seems to be different -- something we sometimes see in active headphones and earphones, because the bulk of the internal electronics sometimes changes the acoustics. (This result held up through repositionings and remeasurements of the two earphones.) According to my measurements, the bump is centered at about 120Hz in the right channel, and 80Hz in the left channel. The 120Hz bump is consistent with our impressions that the bass is a little bloated; pushing the bump down to 80Hz or lower tends to reinforce the bass without making it sound bloated. The impulse response (from which the Clio derives the frequency response) shows that the latency with the MEE Connect is 320ms. This is a high number, but true wireless earphones usually have a lot of extra latency. However, because the MEE Connect and the Melomania 1s both have aptX, and Cambridge Audio’s spec is 70ms, I’d expect this to be a lot lower. This long latency is no problem for music listening, but it will create lip-sync problems with video content and will create lag problems when playing some video games.

This chart shows the Melomania 1s’ right-channel response compared with the 1More E1026BT-I, Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless, and the Jabra Elite Active 65t earphones. The Melomania 1s are pretty much in the ballpark with the rest of them, except for a little less overall treble energy.

Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, I could not use Clio’s sine sweep function to measure total harmonic distortion (THD) versus frequency, so I did discrete THD measurements of sine tones in one-octave steps. This is a little more demanding than a swept tone because the tones have to play longer and the voice coil in the driver gets a lot hotter. Normally I take this measurement by setting levels at 90 and 100dBA using pink noise, but the Melomania 1s wouldn’t play at 100dBA; the best they could muster was 97dBA (which is still very loud). Regardless, the distortion is very low at all frequencies.

In this chart, the red line indicates an external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Melomania 1s’ isolation is above average, comparable to that of the very secure-fitting Akoustyx R-220s.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 June 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2019

I measured the Jade IIs using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, and a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because electrostatic headphones can operate only in conjunction with a dedicated amplifier, I was unable to run my usual sensitivity and impedance tests -- but they’re irrelevant in this case, because you’d probably always use these headphones with this amp.

The above chart shows the Jade IIs’ frequency response. It looks typical of what I’ve measured from other planar (in almost all cases, planar magnetic) headphones, except for the Jade IIs’ bass roll-off below 50Hz and extra-potent peak around 3.3kHz.

This chart shows the Jade IIs’ right-channel response compared with several high-end planar-magnetic headphones, including the HiFiMan HE1000 V2s, the Audeze LCD-Xes, and the Meze Empyreans. All of the planar-magnetic models have deeper bass extension and a less-pronounced peak in the 3kHz region.

The Jade IIs’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart looks typical of most open-back planar headphones, with lots of very high-Q (i.e., narrow) resonances in the range between 2 and 5kHz, and negligible resonance in the bass.

The Jade IIs' distortion is very low at the loud listening level of 90dBA, but unusually high at the extremely loud level of 100dBA. This suggests that the amplifier began clipping; transducers rarely, if ever, show such an abrupt change in distortion behavior. So if you want to crank heavy rock music to extreme levels, these aren’t the headphones for you, but they’ll work for anyone who listens at non-dangerous levels.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Jade IIs’ isolation is among the poorest I’ve measured, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because open-back headphones aren’t supposed to isolate the listener from outside sounds, and that lack of isolation suggests a very lightweight (and, presumably, responsive) diaphragm.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 01 June 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, June 2019

Except as noted below, I measured the EN700 Pro earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. The headphones were amplified using a Musical Fidelity V-CAN. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

The above chart shows the EN700 Pros’ frequency response with tip 1. Note that this is the first set of earphones I can remember measuring that did not fit into the KB5000 simulated pinna; I had to use the RA0402’s stainless-steel coupler to measure the EN700 Pros. This shouldn’t change the frequency response measurement much, but it does support the fit problems I had with these earphones. Measured in the coupler, the EN700 Pros have a “by the book” frequency response.

Here you can see how the frequency response changes when tip 2 is used. It’s a subtle difference, with about 1dB less treble at 8kHz with tip 2 (which could be perceived as more bass).

This chart shows how the EN700 Pros’ tonal balance changes when they’re used with a high-impedance (75 ohms) source, such as a cheap laptop or some cheap professional headphone amps. Using the higher-impedance source reduces the treble by about 1dB at 3kHz, which will make the EN700 Pros sound slightly warmer.

This chart shows the EN700 Pros’ right-channel response compared with two other earphones in their price range, the Campfire Comets and 1More Quad Drivers. I also included the AKG N5005s, which when used with their reference filter are the earphones said to best conform to the so-called “Harman curve,” the response that research shows delivers the most natural sound. The EN700 Pros look pretty close to the Harman curve, although with slightly less bass and more treble.

The EN700 Pros’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart shows no significant resonances.

The EN700 Pros’ measured total harmonic distortion (THD) is unusual. It doesn’t vary with level -- it’s basically the same at 90dBA and 100dBA. It’s also worse in the mids than in the bass; normally the reverse is true. From about 250Hz to 3kHz, the distortion runs between 2% and 3%. For a transducer, that’s not really all that high, but still, something a little different seems to be going on here.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. Isolation of the EN700 Pros (shown with the small tips, which are the ones that best fit the KB5000 pinna) is unremarkable, although if you’re able to get a good fit with these earphones (something I couldn’t really do with the ear/cheek simulator), you may get better blocking of environmental noise than I measured here. For perspective, I included isolation curves of the Campfire Comet earphones (with silicone and foam tips), as well as the Bose QC20 noise-canceling earphones.

The impedance magnitude of the EN700s is almost dead flat at 17 ohms (the rated impedance is 16 ohms), with essentially flat phase response.

Sensitivity of the EN700s, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz, using a 1mW signal calculated for 16 ohms rated impedance, is 108.0dB -- quite a bit higher than the rated 101dB. Even measured at the industry standard 500Hz, sensitivity is 105.2dB. You will have no problem getting loud volumes when plugging the EN700s straight into a smartphone or tablet.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 20 May 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019

I measured the E1026BT-I 1More Stylish True Wireless earphones using laboratory-grade equipment: a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with KB5000/KB5001 simulated pinnae, and a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer. For isolation measurements, I used a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface. A MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter was used to send signals from the Clio 10 FW to the earphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed. Note that because of the latency introduced by Bluetooth, I wasn’t able to do a spectral decay measurement, and of course my usual impedance and sensitivity measurements are irrelevant for wireless earphones. If you’d like to learn more about what our measurements mean, click here.

The above chart shows the E1026BT-Is’ frequency response measured with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae. This is a fairly normal result for earphones, although we might typically see the traces moved further to the left -- i.e., the bass bump centered closer to 100Hz, and the two treble peaks shifted down by about 1kHz. One note: the latency (which is seen in the impulse measurement used to calculate the frequency response) of these earphones with the MEE Connect is 319ms, the longest I can remember measuring from Bluetooth headphones or earphones. That’s no problem if you’re listening to audio-only material, but it’ll create lip-sync problems with video content and likely make playing certain games feel a little weird.

This chart shows the E1026BT-Is’ right-channel response compared with the Sennheiser Momentum True Wirelesses and the AKG N5005s (the N5005s are the earphones that currently best conform to the “Harman curve,” shown in research by Harman International to be the preferred in-ear headphone response for most listeners).

Because of the latency of the Bluetooth connection, I had to measure distortion the old-fashioned way, with discrete tones instead of a sweep. This chart shows distortion plotted at one-octave intervals. Even though this method is more demanding because the single tone is played continuously at a high level for several seconds per measurement, thus encouraging heat buildup in the driver’s voice coil and the amp, the E1026BT-Is’ distortion remains very low, staying under 2% even at the low frequency of 32Hz and the extremely high level of 100dBA.

In this chart, the red line indicates an external noise level of 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The E1026BT-I Stylish True Wirelesses’ isolation is the least of all the earphones included here, probably because they don’t fit as deep in the ear canal as typical passive earphones such as the 1More Quad Drivers and Campfire Comets do, and they’re not as bulky as the Sennheiser Momentum True Wirelesses.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 10 May 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019

I measured the Matrix Cinema ANCs using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp. For measurements in Bluetooth mode, I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get the signal to the headphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.

The above chart shows the Matrix Cinema ANCs’ frequency response measured in what I expect will be its most-used mode: Bluetooth and noise canceling on, with the Dynamic Music mode selected. This curve is unusual mostly in that it’s tilted toward the treble, and the broad bass/lower-midrange hump below 1kHz will likely give the bass a somewhat boomy quality.

This chart compared the response of the Matrix Cinema ANCs using Bluetooth (with ANC on in Dynamic Music mode) versus using a wired connection with ANC off. As my listening experience suggests, the wired model with the processing off delivers the most balanced frequency-response measurement.

This chart compares the response of the four different CinemaEAR modes, and also shows the response with CinemaEAR bypassed.

This chart compares the response with Bluetooth on in Dynamic Music mode, with noise canceling on and off.

This chart shows the Matrix Cinema ANCs’ right-channel response with Bluetooth and noise canceling on in Dynamic Music mode, compared with other over-ear models (all in Bluetooth mode with noise canceling on). The only anomalous quality of the MEEs is that compared with the other headphones, they have a lot more energy above 5kHz relative to the level of midrange and bass, which should make them sound a little brighter than average.

The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart -- measured with a wired connection because of Bluetooth’s latency -- is free of significant resonances.

The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ distortion is measured here with a wired connection; the internal amps of the headphones may add some distortion, but my analyzer can’t compensate for Bluetooth’s latency when doing distortion measurements. You can see that the distortion is present but fairly modest at the loud level of 90dBA, hitting about 2.5% at 100Hz and 7% at 20Hz. At the extremely loud level of 100dBA it gets high: 5% at 100Hz and 17% at 20Hz. These levels of distortion may seem scary compared with measured amplifier distortion (which is typically under 0.5%), but distortion in transducers doesn’t seem as noticeable. That said, I did notice some fleeting distortion at times when playing loud, bass-heavy music.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ isolation is quite good in the “airplane band” between about 100Hz and 1kHz, reducing noise by an average of 17dB, and delivering surprisingly even noise reduction through this range.

The Matrix Cinema ANCs’ impedance response in wired mode is typical for a closed-back, dynamic-driver model, averaging 33 ohms and with essentially flat phase response.

Latency of the Matrix Cinema ANCs used with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter was 34ms, which is typical for headphones using the aptX Low Latency codec. Thus, you will not experience lip-sync problems using them for video or gaming. Sensitivity of the Matrix Cinema ANCs with a wired connection with ANC off, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz using a 1mW signal calculated for the rated 32-ohms impedance is 105.9dB, which will deliver plenty of volume when you plug into an airliner’s inflight entertainment system.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com

Details

Parent Category: Products

Category: Headphone Measurements

Created: 01 May 2019

Reviewed on: SoundStage! Solo, May 2019

I measured the BT One headphones using a G.R.A.S. Model 43AG ear/cheek simulator/RA0402 ear simulator with the KB5000 and KB5001 anthropomorphic simulated pinnae, a Clio 10 FW audio analyzer, a laptop computer running TrueRTA software with an M-Audio MobilePre USB audio interface, and a Musical Fidelity V-CAN amp. For measurements in Bluetooth mode, I used a MEE Audio Connect Bluetooth transmitter to get the signal to the headphones. These are “flat” measurements; no diffuse-field or free-field compensation curve was employed.

The above chart shows the BT Ones’ frequency response measured in Bluetooth mode. This is an unusual result in many ways. The elevated plateau in the bass response from about 25 to 150Hz is reminiscent of the bass bump found in the Harman target curve. The midrange bump centered at 600Hz is extremely unusual; I’m sure I’ve measured a headphone with a similar peak at some point, but I sure can’t remember which one it might have been. The response peak centered at 3.5kHz is a common feature of headphone response, although about 500Hz higher in frequency than I usually expect to see it.

This chart compared the response of the BT Ones using Bluetooth versus using a wired connection. Interestingly, the midrange bump seen in BT mode vanishes in wired mode, and the response looks more typical.

This chart shows the BT Ones’ right-channel response compared with other over-ear models, including the AKG N60NCs (shown with noise canceling on; thes headphones come fairly close to the Harman target curve), the Beyerdynamic Aventho Wirelesses, and the Marshall Mid A.N.C.s (also with noise canceling on). These curves are normalized at 500Hz; if you elevated the BT Ones’ curve by a few dB, it would look a lot more like the others, except for its unusual peak at 600Hz.

The BT Ones’ spectral decay (waterfall) chart looks mostly free of resonances, except for a little bit below 400Hz.

The BT Ones’ distortion is measured here with a wired connection; the internal amps of the BT Ones may add some distortion, but my analyzer can’t compensate for Bluetooth’s latency when doing distortion measurements. You can see that the distortion is a little higher than average, hitting about 2.5% at 100Hz and 3.5% at 20Hz. Surprisingly, the distortion didn’t increase all that much when I went from 90dBA to 100dBA; it rose by an additional 1% on average between 100 and 600Hz. Note that distortion of headphones and speakers is not as audible as distortion of amplifiers, so it’s unlikely you’d notice this distortion unless you had the BT Ones cranked up all the way with bass-heavy material that features a lot of dynamic range compression.

In this chart, the external noise level is 85dB SPL, and numbers below that indicate the degree of attenuation of outside sounds. The BT Ones’ isolation doesn’t quite match that of the other on-ear headphones I included on the chart, but for small, non-noise-canceling headphones, it’s OK.

The BT Ones’ impedance response in wired mode is close to flat, averaging 37 ohms and with essentially flat phase response.

Latency of the BT Ones used with the MEE Audio Connect transmitter was 34ms, indicating that they include the aptX Low Latency codec, even though it’s not specifically stated on the BT Ones’ webpage. Thus, you will not experience lip-sync problems using them for video or gaming, provided you use a source device that has aptX LL. Sensitivity of the BT Ones with a wired connection, measured between 300Hz and 3kHz using a 1mW signal calculated for the rated 32-ohms impedance, is 109.0dB, so you are sure to get plenty enough volume when you plug into an airliner’s inflight entertainment system.

. . . Brent Butterworth
brentb@soundstagenetwork.com