Soranik MEMS-3S

Introduction​

Earlier this year, I was at a private meet after CanJam in New York City where I was introduced to a surprisingly good prototype from a brand that I'd never heard of before.

That brand was Soranik, a Vietnamese boutique, and the buzz was surrounding its prototype that made use of MEMS drivers, a new technology that only recently started making its way into some TWS and in-ears.

After the weekend settled down, I shared my excitement and impressions of the early MEMS-3S on some forums, and to my surprise, Soranik's owner Hieu reached out and asked if I'd like to demo the finalized version.

He was kind enough to ship a new unit all the way across the world so that I could listen to and share my thoughts about the MEMS-3S in this review. A big thank you to him and Soranik for their generosity.

Now, let's talk driver specs.

The Soranik MEMS-3S used for this review was a demo unit loaned to me by Soranik for the purposes of this review.

Click to expand...

Unboxing​

The Soranik MEMS-3S is a hybrid in-ear monitor with one dynamic driver tokening the bass, and two full-ranged MEMS drivers, from xMEMS and USOUND.

The MEMS-3S is priced at $2200 USD for the universal version and $2800 for the custom version.



What's inside the box:

• A pair of MEMS-3S
• AP-0 energizer
• Stock cable with 4.4mm termination
• 4.4mm to 4.4mm interconnect
• Metal puck case

The included AP-0 energizer is needed because MEMS drivers require a constant voltage to drive unlike traditional balanced armature and dynamic drivers.

An interconnect is provided to connect your source to the energizer's input, then the MEMS-3S is plugged into the output of the energizer.

Switch the energizer on and you're good to go. Admittedly, this was a routine that was awkward at first, but one that I got used to by the second listening session.

Comfort​

The 3D-printed MEMS-3S shells are very lightweight, weighing just 5 grams each. The nozzle width is 5.7mm and the length is 5.4mm, however, the shell itself extends into the ear about another 3.5mm, for a combined length of about 8.9mm.

The combined length is on the longer side, but due to the smaller nozzle width and shell ergonomics, actually helped achieve a deep insert and a good seal without too much discomfort.

It's important to note that the MEMS-3S has an open-back design, which raises two concerns: 1. whether it isolates outside noise effectively, and 2. whether it leaks sound to the outside.

While the MEMS-3S isolates environmental noise very well, there is a tiny bit of sound leakage to the outside. It's not egregious, but I wouldn't recommend using it in quiet places like a work office or library.

Shell weight: 5g (each)
Nozzle width: 5.7mm
Nozzle length: 5.4mm

Click to expand...

Sources​

These are the main sources I used during the review process:

• iBasso DX320MAX Ti
• CMA Eighteen Master

Even with the AP-0 energizer, the MEMS-3S required additional power to run. On both my sources, I had the volume knob at about double what I normally use for my typical listening levels.

Once I did reach my listening levels, the MEMS-3S sounded properly driven so it wasn't an issue beyond having to crank up the volume. Hieu also sent over the next iteration of his energizer, the AP-1, which was much more powerful than the AP-0.

The AP-1 has significantly more power and much lower noise than the AP-0. The AP-1 had more grip and command over the entire frequency response which resulted in an more refined listening experience overall. I found it to be a significant upgrade over the AP-0.

Sound Impressions​

Lows​

Measurements were taken on my personal IEC-711 clone coupler.

Click to expand...

The bass of the MEMS-3S is tuned with a tasteful sub-bass lift and is well-extended all the way down to 20Hz. The sub-bass has a satisfying rumble with good definition and tactility. The mid-bass is also well-textured, with good bass note heft and edge definition to boot.

The bass dynamics are also very good, so I'm getting thumpy bass notes with a nice sense of slam from most tracks that call for it, especially those with healthy amounts of both sub-bass and mid-bass.

While I wouldn't consider MEMS-3S's bass strictly one of the best that I've heard, when I focus in on individual aspects of the bass, the MEMS-3S executes every single one at a high level. The MEMS-3S has an excellent, undeniably high-quality bass.

Mids​

The midrange of the MEMS-3S is highly resolving and has a colored yet pleasant tone. The MEMS-3S has the ability to resolve very fine microdetails and on the prototype, the midrange was one of my favorite features.

On the production version, the tuning has undergone some minor changes. It's still very enjoyable and has all the resolving capabilities and intangible enjoyability of the prototype. However, female vocals occasionally sound a touch hollow and shouty. It's only present on a few tracks but it rears its head every now and again. Male vocals don't seem to suffer from this issue but present very slightly recessed.

Tuning nitpicks aside, on the tracks that don't trigger the problem areas, vocals are presented euphonically and with a high enjoyability factor.

The timbre of the vocals on the MEMS-3S distantly reminds me of Elysian Diva 2023's for its coloration and euphonic quality. However, that's about all they have in common, as MEMS-3S's vocals aren't nearly as forward as Diva's, and is significantly more resolving and technical.

Highs​

The treble on the MEMS-3S is, in my opinion, its greatest strength. The MEMS-3S's ability to resolve treble microdetails is on par with the Annihilator 2023's, and even takes it a step further by rendering them with an uncanny realism that even the Annihilator's can't achieve.

The treble quantity approaches my tolerances but doesn't push past them because the MEMS drivers imbue the treble with an EST-like ethereality. On orchestral music, the attack is extremely precise yet don't feel overly sharp. Instrument notes have a realistic timbre and weight despite the notes being slightly more overloaded on the attack than the rest of the note body.

The treble also sports impressive microdynamic control, highlighting the expressiveness of instruments like cellos, violins, and pianos. The timbre of these instruments are uncannily lifelike in terms of their weight, solidity, and pace.

Considering all of these attributes, I'm left with the fact that the MEMS-3S possesses one of the top two or three treble responses in an IEM that I've ever heard.

Detail and Imaging​

The MEMS-3S has details in abundance, and impressive imaging due to the defined attack that it presents notes with. The staging feels very spacious in both width and depth, perhaps aided by its open-back design.

Tonality​

The MEMS-3S has a colored, euphonic tone, somewhat reminiscent of the Elysian Diva's.

The MEMS-3S strikes an exquisite balance between the bass, mids, and treble. My focus doesn't feel like it's being pulled towards any particular region. Instead, it sounds like I'm getting equal amounts of bass, mids, and treble all at once, all executed at a high level.

Dynamics​

The MEMS-3S has impressive microdynamic control, deftly rendering the microdynamic swings on my test tracks. The MEMS-3S has decent macrodynamics, but I found the total dynamic range about average for its price range.

Shortcomings​

Here are some shortcomings of the MEMS-3S:

• Female vocals can occasionally sound hollow and shouty.
• Use of an energizer may not fit everyone's use case.

Strengths​

Here are some strengths of the MEMS-3S:

• World-class treble.
• Great resolution, among the top in its class.
• Excellent bass response.
• Solid micro and macrodynamics.
• Available in CIEM.

Intangibles​

Midrange nitpicks aside, I think the MEMS-3S strikes a beautiful balance across the bass, mids, and treble. This presentation is one I wasn't used to, as most in-ears I've heard emphasize one, or sometimes two of the regions.

The thing that struck me the most was the treble quality, which was highlighted best on orchestral tracks. The MEMS-3S presents instruments with a remarkable realism that I haven't heard before in other in-ears. It captures the weight, timbre, and pace of instruments in a lifelike manner.

Comparisons​

MEMS-3S Vs. Annihilator 2023​

Facing off against the treble king, the MEMS-3S features a treble that's just as extended as the Annihilator's with a similar ethereal timbre. What the MEMS-3S treble does better than the Annihilator's is realism that it achieves by presenting the treble with a solidity and decay that the Annihilator's treble lacks.

On the resolution front, both sets are highly capable and resolve microdetails phenomenally, but the Annihilator does seem to have a slight edge in this area after some careful A/B.

Staging is clearly wider on the MEMS-3S, whereas I found depth and height to be comparable on both sets.

The Annihilator has a more pronounced mid-bass, though MEMS-3S's is plenty punchy as well and does it with superior texturing and weight. I found the Annihilator's mid-bass quantity to be too much on certain tracks, especially on slower, more nuanced music. In my opinion, the MEMS-3S's bass has a more tasteful tuning that should suit more genres than the Annihilator's. I also prefer the MEMS-3S's overall note weight more than the Annihilator's which often feels a little lean.

Overall, I think Annihilator is the more technical IEM, just edging out the MEMS-3S in sheer resolution and dynamics. The MEMS-3S wins some ground back with a larger stage, a more balanced tonality, and with a more realistic treble.

I think choosing between these two IEMs will come down to personal preference and some quality of life decisions, like whether you mind an open-back design and your willingness to use an energizer.

Conclusion​

Every year, there only seem to be a handful of in-ears that do something truly innovative. The vast majority of new releases utilize tried-and-true but familiar driver configurations, often with some minor tuning departures from sets that have already been on the market for years.

In a copycat market, the MEMS-3S and Soranik's history of innovation feel like a breath of fresh air. The MEMS lineup isn't Soranik's first attempt at implementing exotic driver technologies either—at CanJam Singapore 2023, Soranik showcased a tribrid prototype, Basilica, which utilized a magnetostatic driver.

Despite being a small boutique, Soranik has shown that they're unafraid of pushing the envelope by utilizing the latest MEMS drivers in their designs, producing not just a great MEMS implementation, but one of the finest overall in-ears on the market in the MEMS-3S.

The MEMS-3S is for those looking for a highly technical MEMS set with a W-shaped tuning, unique coloration, and one of the finest trebles on the market. I would highly recommend the AP-1 energizer over the previous AP-0 iteration as well, to extract the most performance out of this set.

What's Next​

• Next, I'll be working on a written review of the Melodic Artification Alter Ego.
• Then, I'll be taking a hiatus from written reviews to focus on building a YouTube review channel.

Soranik MEMS-3S
The IEM that feels like no other IEM

Fitting and Build Quality:
MEMS-3S feels more premium than MEMS-3. It feels more solid in the hand, feels well-made overall.
The fitting is also one of the best to my ears.

1. Sound
All of these reviews used the AP0's built-in Energizer.
I think the MEMS-3S has a similar sound DNA to the MEMS-3, which is U-shape.
But MEMS-3s take it up a notch, it sounds more U-shape leaning toward V-shape compared to MEMS-3.
There is a boost in the Bass and Treble sectors.

Bass:
The MEMS-3S has a very well-tuned bass. Punchy, deep, dynamic and detailed.
The bass is more focused on the subbass area. It has a decay that's not too long, so it's still quite fast in response.
The bass is handled by the DD and MEMS, so the bass has a superb extension.

Mids:
For the mids, the 3S has mids that feel slightly behind the bass and the treble.
The mids have good note weight, clarity and superb detail.
It's not the best mid for me because it's a little less forward for some songs that focus on vocals, but it's still enjoyable nonetheless.
Cable and eartips rolling seems to help the mid to be slightly more forward.
Also, I'm told the Energizer upgrade to AP1 will help compensate the mids in this 3S.

Treble:
The treble is smooth, full bodied and the extension that is above any iem I have hard so far.
It is sparkly, detail and clean.
Even though the treble is very extended, the treble is still safe and not piercing at all.
The airiness is simply superb, helped of course by the open back design of the iem too.
For any treblehead, this iem will not disappoint at all.

2. Technicalities
Detail, Transient, Resolution:
Not much to say, simply a TOTL level technicalities. Slightly better than the MEMS-3 I had heard as well but not a night and day different either.
Both can compete in the TOTL class at any price in my opinion. No complaints.
MEMS-3s resolves slightly better detail than Madoo typ821, Seeaudio Hakuya, Kinera Odin, or Noble Viking Ragnar.
While it's miles ahead in term of detail, resolution from IER-Z1R.

Soundstage:
I think the soundstage is special for IEM. It's grander than most IEMs. it is wide, tall and airy.
The open back design helps MEMS-3s feels very open for an IEM.
Also due to it's open-back nature it is quite a bit unfair to compare it to most IEM out there.
It quite delivers an open back headphone-like experience comparable to at least a HD600/Focal Clear.

3. Source and Drivability
This is the hardest IEM to drive that I have ever tried. This IEM is harder to drive than its MEMS-3 sibling.
Soranik told me that the Energizer AP0 can't fully drive this IEM. So Yeah.
For MEMS-3S, you need a source that powerful enough to drive hard to drive headphones to enjoy the MEMS-3S fully.
In that regard, it's not a very portable IEM.
But you get the amazing sound for the trade.


4. Comparison:

Vs MEMS-3 (2MEMS+1BA)
Disclaimer: the MEMS-3 I had tried is the prototype unit with 2MEMS and 1BA, it is slightly different than the current MEMS-3 with 1MEMS and 2DD.
Soranik told me the MEMS-3 with BA and DD differ in the bass (more subbass on the DD version). Similar technicalities for both of them.
I haven't heard the new version, that being said I hope I can heard it someday.

Overall, the 3S has a more warm, full-bodied and smooth sound than the MEMS-3. The MEMS-3S is also cleaner so it feels more detailed.
The MEMS-3s is slightly more V-shape compared to MEMS-3 which has a more forward upper-mid.

Bass:
The 3S has much better bass than the MEMS-3. The 3S has more dynamic, more detailed and deeper bass.
The 3's bass is more focused on the midbass so the subbass is a bit lacking. While the 3s bass is more complete from subbass to midbass.
In some songs, the MEMS-3 bass can feel a bit one-note, still deep but less dynamic. In MEMS-3S, that never happens

Mid:
For the mids, the 3s feels a bit more reserve compared to the 3. The MEMS-3's mids are more neutral and forward by comparison.
The MEMS-3S mids are warmer, full-bodied, and smoother. The timbre is also slightly better in my opinion. MEMS-3 has a thinner mid overall.
Also the slightly more forward mid of MEMS-3 can be more sibilance than the 3S.
For Ani-song playlists, that require more vocals presence, MEMS-3 actually is more suitable than MEMS-3S.
On the other hand, for a deeper voices, MEMS-3S is better.
Both have different flavors in the mid.

Treble:
Very similar treble response overall However MEMS-3S has more full-bodied treble.
MEMS-3 by comparison has a thinnish treble.
The extension is great on both variant.
But MEMS-3S hands down has better detail and resolution at the top end, also a tad cleaner as well.

Technicalities
Not much difference to be honest, but the 3s is cleaner and has better micro-details especially in the low and high end.
The bass is overall better and more complete as well in my opinion.
Soundstage also feel grander, more holographic on the MEMS-3s. MEMS-3 feels more 2D-ish by comparison.

Drivability
As I mentioned above. MEMS-3S is harder to drive than MEMS-3. Both of them are very difficult IEMs to drive overall.
So just prepare a strong source like a desktop setup.

Vs HD600
Soranik seems to be interested to know my opinion on MEMS-3s compared to any Headphone.
Why HD600? Simply because it is the headphone I used the most.

Overall, I think MEMS-3s is more detailed, has a faster transient response.
Probably MEMS-3s is closer to Focal Clear than to HD600 in term of sound quality. Which I think is very impressive for an IEM to have.
However, it has been a while since last time I use my Focal Clear, so take it with a grain of salt.

The bass and the treble on MEMS-3s both go deeper than HD600. The mid is cleaner and detailed on MEMS-3s as well.
HD600 feels more neutral balance while MEMS-3s feels musical and fun.
As an open back headphone, HD600 doesn't boast a massive soundstage like other openback for example ADX5000 or its sibling HD800.
MEMS-3s soundstage isn't as wide as ADX5000 but it is at least as big or even bigger than HD600. Definitely a win for an IEM.
The only thing that has HD600 completely better than MEMS-3s is that the comfort. Also, the main reason why I still use headphone nowadays anyway.
The comfort of Headphone especially lightweight one like HD600 is very hard to beat by any IEM.
But that applied to any IEM not only to MEMS-3s, so yeah.

5. Conclusion
I think it can be considered that the MEMS-3S is still best of the best from Soranik's MEMS lineup in term of technicalities. It is also currently one of the best IEM I ever heard. My listening experience with the MEMS-3s always an absolute bliss to me.
It's not so much different from the MEMS-3 by any mean, however the MEMS-3S is still technically a better IEM. Mems-3s has a safer tonal, smoother, better detailed, resolution, and better immersive holographic soundstage as well.
However, for its price, the MEMS-3 which is below 2000 USD, is still hard to beat.
The drawback for MEMS-3s and MEMS-3 is in portability for those looking for a portable set as this IEM needs a dedicated AMP. In addition, there is also sound leakage due to the open back design.
But other than that, for the sound, technically for me personally there is no complaint.
Soranik definitely deliver with this.

Background: I've listened to 5 different Mems 3 series units before writing this review, with the first one around September last year. Each one had slight tuning variations, though the unit borrowed for this review is the final retail version. In the past, I had also borrowed a non-S Mems 3 to compare against gear like the HiFiMan Arya. I'm personally quite familiar with Mr. Hieu, the company owner, so this review may have some bias, although I'll try my best to be fair. After this, the review unit will be passed on to someone else. I haven't received any payment from Sonranik (I once requested a stock cable but was denied lol).

-Design:

• Open-back design but doesn't leak too much sound, probably suitable for air travel. It isolates sound about as well as my Odin despite being open-back. Lightweight shell with decent build quality, but the nozzle orientation is quite awkward, causing discomfort as it seems to want to skew diagonally into the ear canal, making extended wear unsuitable for my ears. Fun fact: when ordering, you can request a customized shell design from the company. I've personally seen some very beautifully made custom shells.
• The company currently has 2 main energizer/amp options: the AP0 and new AP1. Personally, I didn't notice much difference between the AP0 and AP1 except that the AP1 is more powerful with higher gain (perhaps a slightly more V-shaped tuning on the AP1). I heard the CEO say the difference would be bigger when using weaker sources like DAPs and dongles, but unfortunately I mostly have single-ended gear now apart from the Topping A90D as my only 4.4mm balanced output device. I generally still prefer single-ended over balanced in most cases.

-Gear used for review:

• E1da 9038D, Qudelix 5K, Topping A90D, some diy dac/amp from Happy audio on taobao.
• Stock cable (in the past when I borrowed a non-S Mems 3, this stock cable was the bassiest of the 3 options and likely more suitable for most listeners than the other two)
• Dunu S&S tips.
• IEMs for comparison: 64 Audio Tia Fourté, Empire Ears Odin.
• Also had the chance to try other gear like R2R DACs/amps from Mr. Thien, Chord Mojo 1, FiiO Q5, Kan amp at meetups.
• This review will have some comparisons and references to other IEMs I've heard like the Mems 3, Rhapsodia Supreme V3, Annihilator 2023, and LCD-i4 based on test tracks: Polyphia's "Playing God" and "Cruel Angel's Thesis".
• Just before writing this, I had demos of the Sony MDR-Z1R, IER-Z1R, and WM1ZM2.
• I'll also mention the Crafters Audio Aurum as I had it recently.

*About sound:
The first impression is a very wide soundstage and crystal clear treble. However, with the stock tips, the bass was lacking according to anyone I let audition it, but it was much better after switching to Dunu S&S tips (gave this feedback to the CEO, heard that more tips may be included later).

The tuning can be described as having the bass of a V-shaped sound and treble of a well-done U-shape, with a "wow factor" from the apparent detail and enormous stage.

-Tonality:

• Let's start with the highlight - the treble. It is indeed boosted, but mainly in the air region above 10kHz rather than encroaching on the lower treble where sibilance issues arise. It's a smooth, full-range boost rather than an offensive peak like the U12T's treble spike I dislike. This contributes to a big, airy sound without being harsh, and quite smooth while helping create a sense of detail. However, this tuning also reveals recording flaws, so it may not suit those wanting a more laid-back listen, though it's probably the least bright of the Mems I've heard.
• Bass: Initially with the stock tips, I thought the bass was boring, lifeless with no note weight and an overly thin sound. But when I switched to Dunu S&S tips, the bass was dramatically better - it rumbled with excellent slam and was nearly Odin-tier, just with slightly faster decay. This bass can handle anything without getting fatiguing. It's one of the few IEMs I can listen to continuously for 4-5 hours without sound fatigue (fit fatigue aside) as the bass keeps up with the treble without drowning out the midrange.
• Midrange: This sounded boring and plasticky with stock tips, but gained fullness and lost the plasticky timbre after the tip swap. However, with certain instruments having very high harmonics, there's still a sense that the timbre is slightly off due to the boosted air region pushing those upper harmonics higher than neutral. Overall it's still quite smooth, just slightly skewed in timbre from the treble boost affecting harmonic balance. Using a warm source would help.

-Technicality:

• Based on reference tracks and memory, this is likely more detailed than the non-S Mems-3 and on par with the Rhapsodia Supreme V3, probably because it's less bright than the old Mems so lower treble no longer masks fine details. However, the Mems-3S decay is a bit too fast, causing some loss of sustain/realism for certain instruments. Some may perceive a lack of detail in the decay region, leading to reduced musicality.
• Comparing to the Annihilator 2023, it's about on par but the Mems has slightly less treble decay from my A/B testing (not 100% sure how the new Mems S compares). Against the LCD-i4, the Mems isn't an issue and may even feel more detailed despite the LCD's more holographic staging("thanks" to its wonky tuning).
• Compared to the Odin and Fourté, the Mems is competitive in overall detail retrieval and arguably more revealing in the treble due to its brighter tuning, initially giving a greater "wow" factor. However, all the details are ultimately present in the other two as well, just less forwardly presented. The Mems' treble boost contributes to that initial "wow."
• Against the IER-Z1R, the Mems is noticeably better (though the IER's midrange tuning is quite poor). Versus the better-tuned MDR-Z1R, the Mems doesn't have the veil or laid-back quality, sounding cleaner and clearer. On busy tracks like the "Playing God" guitar cover, the MDR-Z1R can sound a bit sluggish while the Mems remains crystal clear. The same can be said when compared to the Crafters Audio Aurum - despite both having treble boosts, the Mems handily outresolves the Aurum.

-Staging: Very wide in terms of width, though height and depth aren't quite as outstanding. Depth is inferior to the Fourté and Odin - the Odin can stage rearward better, while the Fourté has an edge in staging forward presence and is taller overall. However, the Mems' imaging remains very good, and though just good in note weight rather than thick like the Odin or enveloping like the Fourté (which is a preference thing), many may prefer the clean, effortless presentation this allows for certain instruments..


-Comparisons to full-size open-backs (HD800S and Arya V2/V3):
The Mems' staging is quite similar to the HD800S, with both having a sound well-suited to classical/orchestral tracks by maintaining excellent separation and positioning of individual elements within their wide, airy soundstage. On the other hand, the Mems 3S's bass doesn't quite match the HD800's lean low-end, as it has fuller, punchier bass overall. So while sharing some similarities to the HD800S's staging capabilities, I now think the Mems 3S is more akin to the Arya in overall tonality - a bit more V-shaped than neutral, but not as dry or affected by the mild 1-2kHz dip that can cause a lack of body on the Aryas. The Mems' bass doesn't have the holographic, enveloping quality of the Aryas, but it also avoids coming across as too thin.


-Compare in more details:

+Odin:

• The Odin has an edge in bass quality, with deeper extension and better spatial propagation that contributes to a more realistic feel, even though the overall bass quantity is similar between the two. The Mems' bass feels a bit more contained and in comparison. The Odin's staging is also more holographic overall, mainly due to better front/rear projection compared to the Mems 3S, though the Mems has a slightly wider maximum width. On the other hand, the Mems' treble boost gives it an apparent detail and crystalline quality advantage over the Odin. Midrange timbre still slightly favors the Odin as well.
• Note weight goes to the Odin too, with a thicker, more solid character, while the Mems leans thinner - helping create a clean, clear and effortless presentation for certain instruments that can sometimes sound more true-to-life, or alternatively veer into sounding overly sterile depending on the track and source gear. The Mems has an airy, shifted timbre that can provide a refreshing, fatigue-free listen. It's worth mentioning that due to the >10kHz boost, perception will also depend on one's ear structure, age/hearing capabilities, and choice of ear tips.
• Which one I prefer comes down to the moment, as they offer different flavors - both are good but with contrasting strengths. Having the option to switch between the two is ideal, though I can't definitively say one is outright better than the other overall. The Odin's downside is its finicky fit with the driver flex, while the Mems suffers from a long, slightly diagonal nozzle that doesn't work well with my ear shape.

+Fourté:

• The Fourté has a much wonkier tuning overall (though not as extreme as the IER-Z1R which I A/B'd against). Each has its own timbre issues - the Fourté comes across as overly hollow and lacking in the upper midrange, while the Mems 3S can have an overly thin, plasticky quality to the upper treble for some (personally I think this improves after finding the right tip). But in terms of timbre irregularity, the Fourté is clearly worse without EQ.
• Where the Fourté has an advantage is staging and holographic presentation, though its maximum width still falls a bit behind the Mems 3S. However, the Fourté's note weight, imaging precision, forward projection, and overall "flexibility" of its staging are better than the Mems. It also has an edge in height presentation. But these strengths come at the cost of an extremely uneven frequency response. That said, even with EQ the areas where the Fourté outperforms are still present, just not to the same over-the-top degree since that staging was partly enabled by the wild tuning deviations.
• The Fourté is significantly more comfortable for my ears though, as the nozzle doesn't have the same diagonal entry angle or depth as the Mems. I also prefer the Fourté's heftier feel and premium build with aluminum and copper rather than resin (though lighter resin shells are a preference for some). The Fourté also has an internal apex module making it very suitable for air travel (I've flown 3 flights with it), though I've heard the Mems is also great for flying since it doesn't have pressure balancing issues at different altitudes.

-Conclusion:
The Mems 3S has excellent sound quality - clear, capable of retrieving the finest musical details, and not afraid to be compared against other top-of-the-line IEMs, flaws and all. Its staging is also exceptionally wide, with no issues matching full-size open-back headphones (to my ears, it comes closer to the Arya's presentation than most other IEMs).
To be honest, this IEM is quite similar to full-size open-backs in terms of (in)convenience - it's really meant for home use most of the time, as carrying it around can get rather cumbersome. It's justifiable to call this a full-size headphone experience packed into an in-ear form factor. The most reasonable solution for portable use would probably involve a Bluetooth dongle like the FiiO BTR15, clipped to the AP0/AP1 amp and stowed in a pocket or bag. But for many, this still won't match the convenience of simply plugging the Fourté into an affordable Bluetooth adapter like the $10 TRN BT20XS and being able to freely take your IEMs everywhere.