After my time with Penon’s sets I will say one thing. Not every Penon will/has to vibe with you. But when you find your Penon, it hits hard.
Fan 2 hits me the same way Seriak hits RBW. And the best thing about Penon is they don’t really do redundant sets. Each new set is complimentary to the ones that came before, AFAIK
I think I have not seen any single person in this hobby so persistent in a love for one particular piece of hardware 
also “famous Penon sauce” is something I would like to get a taste of and their IEMs sets are REALLY rare in EU, not even mentioning Poland.
Interestingly it is surprisingly close in tuning to cadenza and all of those new kids
Which is why I tried the Cadenza, and didn’t really care for it at all. 
As far as anything I can actually identify, and it’s really clear to me vs the Canon, is sub-bass isn’t just a blooming cloud of tremors, it has a clear moment of attack the same way mid-bass does. It has a slowish decay which I enjoy, but a very distinct hit. The sub-bass graphs like many others, but sounds unlike any other cheap/expensive IEM I’ve tried. It also doesn’t feel separate to the rest of the tuning like a “bassy” FiiO.
If anything that’s where I don’t hear the “old school 3 part stereo system” that Tony hears, though I love and respect his impressions and that he shares them, the Serial is much more coherent about its bass than most sets IMO.
No separate woofer hanging off the bottom like the EJ07M sounded to me. Everything that’s good about a dedicated woofer, but not a “bass” under there, then “mids” in the center, then “highs over here” listen. Plenty of room to it though.
I should probably stop 
Don’t you ever stop BC. We should all find the love you have for Serial. And don’t let anybody say otherwise.
And also, Serial stomps all the budget sets through the ground. I don’t care what their graphs say, they are not playing the same game as Serial.
I agree a lot with this. I feel like between 300-500 is a dead zone where nothing is really better than anything under $300. Over $600 starts to introduce options that are better but they aren’t 2x better. This is only for IEMs since buds are a whole different game
TBH guys after trying a bunch of stuff ranging from $15-2000, as long as the tuning isn’t severely gutted then there isn’t that much difference tech wise. What I found is that “detail”, “imaging”, “separation” etc is mostly in the FR along with quality/coherent and non-distorting drivers - more specifically in the mid-bass and treble area. So if mid-bass isn’t bloated and there is good treble extension then it’s honestly VERY HARD to pick out any differences in perceived tech. Perceived clarity and separation is mostly from the mid-bass tuck and as long as imaging isn’t off centered and floaty (aka inverted) then it’s REALLY hard to pick out any differences.
Unless you’re going for a unique tuning like the U12T or Z1R etc then anything along the lines of Variations, OG Monarch, EJ07M, and Quarks DSP will be very similar - and IMHO the best “tech” under 80db for people with a “normal” hearing target and no hearing loss or drastically different shaped ear canals. Now of course personal preferences matter such as wanting more mid-bass or treble etc, and ear anatomy as well, but I’m speaking in general.
The only real difference I noticed jumping from a $15 set of similar tuned IEMs (like the DSP to Variations) is that the treble is smoother and the imaging is more centered/precised/less floaty because of the DSP vs passive wired. Clarity and separation wise they’re almost identical. I came to realize that detail is also just part of FR so as long as there isn’t massive drops or rolloffs then I personally don’t hear any difference.
Now, some may say “but more and better drivers can pull out more detail”, and to that ima have to disagree to a certain extend. If your driver isn’t made 50 years ago then you most likely won’t hear much of a “detail” difference as long as there’s no distortion or noticeable incoherency that masks the FR - which there are very few off currently. Even a cheap $15 set of Quarks DSP does pretty well in that department. The only time I ever noticed this is when there’s a crap ton of bass at high volume where you do in-fact need good/faster drivers to keep up without the bass falling apart and bleeding into the mids - but mid-volume? I hear little differences - maybe if it’s a DD vs BA in the bass where the DD has that air slam feel.
But ya, sorry for the rant LOL. I guess what I’m trying to say is that probably go for tuning>>> over “tech” since that’s where the main difference really lies.
And to add to this, I think the reason why the OG EJ07 is the best for high-volume is because even though it has less bass and treble it actually follows the same target/principle as the others mentioned (tucked low-end) with increased volume. The treble on the Variations etc gets way too much at high volume, so even though the treble on the EJ07 looks a lot less on graph - it actually doesn’t sound like so because everything is louder and more audible - if it followed the same treble then your ears will be DEAD at 85db+ LOL. Low-end is also similar - any more and it would feel overwhelming at higher volumes (which the basshead in me likes but doesn’t quite fit for its tuning/use context).
I like most of what you said here, but I am curious how your experience matches up with my anectdotal evidence. Like I said, I think there tends to be a technology jump from $20 to $80-100. While many songs don’t provide a stress test on technicals so it often doesn’t matter, “Swashers” by Yosi Horikawa (and Serratus/Ripples) has been a total revelation for me regarding imaging, dynamics and some of the intangibles in technicalities.
In the first 15 odd seconds there’s the crashing of waves and dynamics and imaging play a huge role in this. You need good enough dynamic range to accurately portray the cresting of the water and you need proper imaging to play the left-to-right panning of the waves as they are presented. Bad technicals blob the sound as left/right/center, and a good $20 set can present enough dynamics that you can hear the waves creating properly but any panning in the left ear dies before the center image.
The better sets I’ve heard can pan from left-to-center, then separately pan center-to-right. Most quality earbuds I’ve heard can produce the full panning from left-to-center-to-right cleanly like real water flows.
It is a tangible test of something rather intangible, but it’s a way for me to verbalize what I hear in a way anyone can follow along, once you’ve heard the effect and know what it can sound like.
I think more drivers can help if implemented well, perhaps they can support separating the frequencies into the different speakers so you can perceive easier? But mostly I think you’re right that tuning (and how that interacts with our ears) does the most work
Well said 
I’ve been using Yosi (letters and bubbles) as well as highly dynamic songs like KPOP/JROCK etc to test, and it definitely shows on IEMs that have roll off in the treble or too much peaks and dips. From my experience dynamically speaking as long as the FR is smooth there shouldn’t be any issues with imaging and the like. I will say that earbuds do hit differently like the Serratus, and pretty accurate to what you said about them panning better. Might be because of the overall design (bigger surface area and closer driver vs small nozzles) but ya - Variations and Quarks DSP? Very little difference to me clarity/separation wise but Variations do sound airier and images better - although that’s most likely FR related + non-DSP.
The U12T for example has 12 drivers but I didn’t notice much difference in imaging and clarity and the like - in fact vocals were less clear because of the scoop, but it did sound a lot sharper and gave the perception of more micro-details because of the boosted treble. Without the boost I wouldn’t have noticed much difference, but I will say the stage and layering feels wider because of the scooped vocals though. Plus, I haven’t heard an IEM with a similar tuning as the U12T so I can’t give you an accurate comparison if it’s the driver or the treble… but that might change with the U6T 
Yeeeeeah bro, Swashers on the Ripples is fricken amazing! You can really hear those individual waves, and the female voice circling around and above your head chefs kiss
How then will you explain that almost identical FRs of different IEMs have different sound and extraction of details? I think the quality of the drivers matters a lot. And yes, tuning is the most important part of an IEM’s sound.
For example, my FH7 and IE600 are different setup, different type of drivers, but have the same detail extraction. 
yeah, most audiophiles sure like to fool themselves to believe otherwise.
Also makes the regular consumer gear more viable than most audiophiles like to believe…
What’s your favorite iem atm?
I only use my buds now. Havent touched an iem in months (maybe a year now…). (excluding tws for outdoor use.)
But it would be the Sony MDR-EX800ST (modded + PEQ)
FH7 and IE600 is very similar in the midbass and treble after you compensate for the IE600’s smaller driver that graphs more bass and treble than it actually sounds.
But they don’t. For example, Quarks DSP ($15 1DD) has almost the same FR as Variations (aside from the treble and sub-bass region where the Variations is tuned differently) - and their detail elsewhere and separation to me is exactly the same in areas where their FR isn’t different. The difference is more in the imaging since the Quarks DSP (digital signal output) isn’t passive like a traditional headphone jack which makes the imaging floaty.
When I EQ the DSP to the Variations I could barely tell a difference - more down to placebo than anything. But I will say that the 7mm driver in the DSP does feel less full and textured in the bass vs the Variations. So, you’d be right that driver size and speed matters - although I’m not sure about the amount. If a single high quality driver is used I don’t think anyone can tell the difference 
Planar and BA timbre is more because of added distortion and unevenness - and bass slam. So the only region I’d say you can notice a difference is in the low-end of a DD vs others.
It’s funny you say that because not that long ago, some guy here tested some EQ from one iem to another, and landed to a different conclusion. I don’t remember exactly what sets were compared though.
Interesting… Not questioning your validity or trying to be an ass or anything, but based on my experience most people can’t tell the difference between inverted polarity and dynamic range which heavily affects imaging, and perception of detail. Many times it’s often air and distortion are often misheard as more “detail”, and then there’s the fact that people tend to hear what they want to hear For example my friend who lend me his U12T said he loved the vocals and that they were so full even though it’s clearly recessed and congested - the extra treble in the U12T makes the vocals pop-out/sharper but it’s still fundamentally hollow. Which I guess goes back to my point of most people don’t really know what they’re picking out for. Again, not trying to be an ass here hahaha 
Just giving my two cents of what I’ve experienced.
At the end of the day “you like what you like”
Correcto 
I didn’t really conduct the experiment myself: that’s another member who did.
I tried to EQ some sets to others, but I mainly did it with way different techs (1bb+4ba to 1dd, planar to hybrid, etc) and didn’t compared to the “real” sets, so my experience isn’t valid. Besides that, I have no coupler to check the EQ’d set and correct the FR accordingly.
It wasn’t in anyway scientific, but it was fun. And I can tell you the s12 will never sound like a mangird tea 
