Short answer: the 64 Audio U4s. It ranks #629 of 1291 in-ear headphones by sound quality, rated 3.7/5, at $1,199; the Soranik MEMS-3S 2025 ranks #806, rated 3.5/5, and costs $1,200, which makes this an easy call rather than a real tradeoff.
Why pick the 64 Audio U4s: The U4s pairs one dynamic driver with three balanced armatures for a warm, bassy tuning, with bass, low mids and air all within half a decibel of target in squig.link hobbyist measurements. The tradeoff: The presence region sits about 5.7 dB under target with a 7 dB dip near 5.1 kHz, so vocals lose bite and instruments sound veiled.
What the Soranik MEMS-3S 2025 does well: A broadly balanced tuning with a preference score of 68 against the Harman target. The catch: An uneven response, 2.3 dB standard deviation from target.
Buy the 64 Audio U4s. It is rated higher for sound quality than the Soranik MEMS-3S 2025 and costs less, which makes it the one to get unless you need something the other one does better.
Looking for alternatives? See the complete Headphones rankings.
The U4s pairs one dynamic driver with three balanced armatures for a warm, bassy tuning, with bass, low mids and air all within half a decibel of target in squig.link hobbyist measurements.
64 Audio $1,199.00 eBay
A broadly balanced tuning with a preference score of 68 against the Harman target.
e-earphone (JP) eBayPrices on this page were last checked October 16, 2026 at 5:46 PM UTC. Product prices and availability are accurate as of that date/time and are subject to change; the price and availability shown on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
As an eBay Partner, we may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Specifications Side By Side
| 64 Audio U4s | Soranik MEMS-3S 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $1,199.00 | $1,200 |
| Ranked | #629 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones | #806 of 1291 in In-Ear Headphones |
| Form Factor | In-ear | In-ear |
| Back | Closed | Closed |
| Harman Preference Score | 70 (median of 22 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) | 68 (median of 4 squig.link measurements, calibrated to AutoEQ) |
| Deviation From Target | 2.27 dB standard deviation | 2.27 dB standard deviation |
| Tonal Tilt | -0.48 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) | -0.77 (negative is warmer, positive brighter) |
| Sub-bass Extension | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (-1.3 dB at 30 Hz) | Within 6 dB of target down to 20 Hz (+5.6 dB at 30 Hz) |
| Connection | Wired | Wired (3.5mm / 4.4mm) |
| Driver Type | Hybrid (1 dynamic + 3 balanced armature) | Hybrid |
| Drivers | 1 x dynamic + 3 x balanced armature | 1 Dynamic, 2 MEMS |
| Impedance | 11 ohms | - |
| Sensitivity | 107 dB/mW | - |
| Frequency Response | 10Hz - 20kHz (Manufacturer specified) | - |
Frequency Response Compared
Both headphones’ measurements overlaid on the Harman target. Above the target sounds louder in that range, below it quieter. Each curve is the median of several independent measurements, shifted so its 500 Hz to 2 kHz average sits at 0 dB, so only the tuning is compared.
Measurement data: the 64 Audio U4s from aden, aftersound, audioamigo, breampike, ekaudio, freeryder05, gadgetrytech, iemocean, iemworld, isaiahse, jaytiss, lown-fi, mmagtech, obodio, precog, recode, smirk, soundignity, superreview, therollo9, vsg and zerostresslevel; the Soranik MEMS-3S 2025 from aftersound, dchpgall, hbb and vsg, all via squig.link.
Related Headphone Comparisons
More top alternatives to 64 Audio U4s: