I don’t have the Hekili with me, so this is not to be taken too strongly:
- Bass has better texture/definition in the Canon. The Hekili improved over the Lokahi by having DD over BA, but as far as DDs go it didn’t stick out to me as anything special. It was a little soft around the edges.
- Treble on the Hekili, as with the Lokahi, is something else. I’m happy to admit that I’m probably the opposite of a snob when it comes to treble. But even I had to take notice of what a difference really good treble makes. The treble of the Canon is an improvement on the Aladdin, to my ears sounds very detailed without ever sounding hot.
- Timbre on each is about equal, with Canon probably coming out a little on top.
- The Hekili added some 8k intensity to percussion, as well as having intimate vocals. Although never sibilant, I found it a little overstimulating.
- I had a good fit with each. The lack of notches on the nozzle of the Hekili can mean some tips either slip off eventually or never fit to begin with, but comes with the upside of allowing deeper insertion as it decreases the overall diameter.
I’m glad I tried out the 101 setting, so far I think this might sound best to me. It could be that my preference for sound signature went from mid-centric → netural with bass boost to… → shallow v? Without me really noticing?
I’d be tempted to still call the Serial (edit, said Canon by mistake earlier) neutral with bass boost - but looking at some graphs made me realize how it really doesn’t stop to plateau in the mids much - which is why I thought maybe it would be worth giving the 101 configuration a go with the Canons. It’s not to do with boosting the treble, but more to do with recessing the mids a little. The relativity of FR curves is interesting.
From this discovery on I think comparison between the Canon and Serial will be a closer call than before.
I should keep emphasizing that playing these earphones against each other right now isn’t at all a game of “which is better”, it’s clear to me that both have excellent SQ, I’m purely working out which is matching my current preferences more. My gut feeling is that more people would actually prefer the Canon, especially given what a large chunk of the audiophile community/forums love their intimate vocal staging, and the general blend it presents.
Listening while typing, I definitely really dig the 101 setup.
EDIT: A quick switch back to the Serial out of curiosity, now that they are both ticking a lot of boxes for me. 101 makes the bass the best so far for my taste, I do notice that in the Canons there is a pervasive wide sub-bass warmth (that would be awesome for soundtracks, Zimmer etc) which doesn’t really take anything away by being absent in the Serial either. An interesting “nice when it’s there, fine when it isn’t difference”.
I’m surprised that without it the Serial never sounds thin, or with thin note weight. Not sure how it does it. Serial bass still an enigma to me. Supposedly it has a fairly slow decay, but it has an edge, perhaps some kind of tactile impact, that is a real strength to it and pairs beautifully with its slower analog decay. Sounds like an actual speaker, in a good way, not fuzzy, warmth-over-everything way.
EDIT: Fell on black days came on, imaging point goes to the Canon.
Edit: Timbre is starting to matter. Even when I’m fond of the overall tuning, I just haven’t been able to get lost in the music, it’s a distraction. This may end up being the winning factor for the Serial. Vocals and many instrument sounds just don’t sound “right” even if they’re at the right levels and in the right places. Maybe I should stop wasting my time on BA hybrids.
It’s a shame I don’t like tuning of most pure DD sets (Oxygen, Zen, 3DT, etc.)
