Aful Cantor

Unboxing Experience

AFUL has crafted a premium unboxing experience that reflects the flagship nature of the Cantor. Inside the box, you'll find:

• Earpieces (one of two faceplate design options)
• Zipper carrying case: Leather-like exterior, soft orange interior
• Premium cable: 3.5mm or 4.4mm, cloth-covered, and high-quality
• Silicone ear tips: Light-colored, gray, and black (S/M/L)
• Cleaning brush and cable clasp strap
• The accessories are practical and thoughtfully designed, making the unboxing a satisfying experience

Design and Build
The build quality is excellent and the Marine Echo faceplates are visually stunning. The earpieces feel durable yet lightweight, with slender nozzles that provide a refined aesthetic. The cable is excellent, exuding a sense of luxury, and the leather-like carrying case adds a touch of elegance. The overall build quality and presentation are top-notch, as expected in this price range. The case is equally premium, with a soft interior that keeps everything protected in style.



Fit and Comfort
The slender nozzle requires deep insertion for optimal sound, but once fitted, the Cantor feels secure and surprisingly comfortable. The small nozzle diameter pairs well with the provided ear tips, ensuring a snug fit. Long listening sessions were free of discomfort as I could wear these for hours without discomfort. Tip: make sure the ear tips sit flush with the nozzle’s metal tube for the best seal and sound quality.

Sound Signature
The Cantor delivers a neutral, dynamic, and reference-like sound signature with incredible detail. It excels in clarity, precision, and technicalities, making it a fantastic choice for critical listening.



Bass
The Cantor’s bass is outstanding. Sub-bass-focused, it delivers impressive rumble and texture, with a snappy, fast response. The Cantor has an outstanding bass texture. While it doesn’t overwhelm, it adds fullness to the lower mid-range, ensuring a full and natural sound. Bassheads may crave more quantity, but the quality is second to none.

Mid-Range
The mid-range is a highlight, offering exceptional clarity, transparency, and detail. Vocals—both male and female—sound lifelike, airy, and extended. The balance ensures zero bass bleed, and the tuning avoids shoutiness, maintaining an engaging yet natural presentation.

Treble
The treble is well-extended, detailed, and airy, with a hint of sparkle that adds excitement without harshness. It complements the rest of the frequency range beautifully.

Detail, Separation, and Soundstage
The Cantor’s technical prowess is remarkable. Its resolution rivals top-tier IEMs like the QDC Anole VX, dissecting music with precision while avoiding an analytical character. Instrument separation is stellar, with a wide and deep soundstage that allows each element to occupy its distinct space.

Comparisons
AFUL Performer 8

While the Performer 8 shares a similar tuning, the Cantor has significantly better sub-bass, texture, detail, and separation. The P8 is easier to drive and has a flatter soundstage. If you’re upgrading, the Cantor feels like a natural step up.

AFUL Explorer

The Explorer has a more fun-oriented tuning with greater bass quantity, but the Cantor wins on bass quality, texture, and technical performance. The Explorer shines at higher volumes, while the Cantor excels at moderate listening levels with its balanced presentation.

Softears RS10

The RS10 offers a smooth sound signature with an emphasis on mid-range vocals, making it a great choice for those who prioritize vocals and instruments. However, the Cantor surpasses it in detail retrieval, sub-bass texture, and treble extension. Both are non-fatiguing and cater to different preferences: the RS10 highlights the mid-range, while the Cantor delivers a more neutral and balanced tuning that still brings vocals to the forefront.

Unique Melody MEST MK III CF

The MEST MK III CF stands out for its holographic soundstage and immersive presentation, but the Cantor stands out with its textured bass, neutral tuning and superior detail.

Conclusion

The AFUL Cantor is an IEM that doesn’t just deliver, it exceeds expectations. Its technical abilities, reference-level tuning, and premium build quality make it a true flagship. While the bass might leave bassheads wanting more, its texture and quality are outstanding. If you’re looking for an IEM that’s as comfortable with critical listening as it is with casual enjoyment, the Cantor is a fantastic choice.

The Cantor is a great value for those who prioritize neutrality, detail, clarity, and precision.

Disclaimer:
I received the Aful Cantor as part of a review tour in my country organized by Hifigo.com. I am not associated with either Hifigo or Aful in any way and have no incentive whatsoever to write anything positive or negative about the IEM. The impressions shared in this write-up are based on my usage of the IEM over a week or so. The IEM is available for purchase from Hifigo.com at the following (non affiliated) link:

https://hifigo.com/products/aful-cantor


Introduction:
The Aful Cantor is the latest IEM from Aful acoustics, which also happens to be their flagship IEM. At an asking price of about 800 USD, more than double the price of their previous flagship aka, Aful Performer 8 (AP8), the Cantor is packed with 14 BA drivers on each side. The IEM has an attractive faceplate and the unit I received came with a 4.4mm BAL cable. The cable is a high purity OFC copper cable with nylon fibre braiding, which makes it supple and free of micro phonics. The connectors are made of brass and have a gold complex coating, giving the cable a premium finish both in terms of aesthetics and sound.



The earpieces themselves are quite lightweight, but the nozzle is unusually shaped. The nozzle gives an impression of a deep fit and although I was initially concerned about comfort in terms of the fit inside my ear (due to the deep nozzle), the IEM was comfortable to wear and I never felt any discomfort. The nozzle shape however made it difficult for me to use ear tips like Azla SednaEarfit Max or Xelastec II since those had wax filters built in them and they didn’t quite fit the IEM correctly.
The IEM came with 3 types of ear tips and a leatherette carry case that had a soft fabric interior. The carry case is fairly large and can easily store the IEM and cable without any stuffing / congestion. Overall the packaging is minimalistic and sufficient.

Sound Impressions:
The Cantor has good quality bass that has the right slam and detail, but in terms of physicality, it is somewhat obvious that this is BA bass which ends up sounding somewhat lean. Given the overall tonality the bass response is coherent with the rest of the frequencies, but it doesn’t have the kind of oomph that a DD or BCD has. However, the bass response is clean and controlled, which means that there is no muddiness and no bass bleed either.

Aful claims that the cantor is designed in such a way that the drivers handling the mids can work independently, providing a clear and uninterrupted midrange performance thanks to what they call the “Phase Interference Suppression” technology. And I’m happy to inform you that, yes, the midrange on the Cantor is well executed. Both male and female vocals convey emotions beautifully and nuances are well presented.



There is a great amount of detail in the treble region without any spikes or harshness of any kind thanks to the “Lossless Direct Drive Topology”. There is a good amount of sparkle and airiness that also creates a perception of spaciousness making everything sound open and well spaced out. Given that the overall signature tends to lean towards neutral bright, the treble presence can become slightly overwhelming especially on tracks which are already bright.

In terms of soundstage, the Cantor has a wide and deep soundstage providing a sense of spaciousness akin to a live performance. Layering, separation and resolution is top notch providing excellent detail with each note distinctly audible. Although wide and deep, the presentation isn’t holographic and remains pretty much two dimensional (unlike say something like the Sony IER-M9 which has a sense of holography in its presentation).



Conclusion:
All in all, the Cantor is a well tuned musical IEM that works for mid centric genres like Bollywood. It offers plenty of detail with a wide and open soundstage that should satisfy most people. The bass response is somewhat lean and lacks the oomph of what a well tuned DD or BCD can deliver.

Thanks to @gadgetgod for the review unit of Aful Cantor - MarineEcho 4.4 edition.

Overview​

The Cantor is the Aful flagship, and sports an all BA combination. The iems are claimed to sport 14 BA drivers, although I wasnt able to get info about whether those include drivers on both sides (I think so considering the size).
Aful has been well received in the recent past with their well rounded Aful Performer series of iems. The Cantor takes the series up a notch with a fantastic faceplate with a sound that is well within the house tuning.

Build and Package​

The iems came in a nice medium sized box with the product info on the outer sleeve. The inner box is a nice 2 piece faux leather finished one with iems nestled in foam and a
fairly large leatherette carry case housing the cables, and 3 sets of tips, a cleaning brush, all nestled in a golden velvette fabric on the inside.

The iems are quite lightweight and sport small diameter nozzle (Yay). They also have a slight metal extension, allowing for deep insert.



The faceplate looks fantastic with blue-silver mosaic in resin.

The cables are a sturdy paracord sleeved iems terminating in 4.4 on the source end and slightly angled 2 pin connectors with a chrome plated housing. They plug in flat into the iems.
Nicely minimal packaging without going over the top.

Sound pairing​

As usual, I paired the iems with the trusty Lotoo PAW S1 with music from my playlist selection from Qobuz and YT Premium. The iems drove well at a 50 volume on high gain on the device and was plenty loud.

Sound impressions​

The Cantor is tuned for musicality (based on the house signature) and that means it is not analytical, harsh/bright in any way. It is a balanced and a slightly subdued (treble wise) iem that works very well with vocals, Jazz and old bollywood in general very well.
The music is rendered very soulfully and does not intend to wow the audience in presenting a lot of energy in either the bass or treble areas. Instead it is a nice warm cup of soup on a cold night.
Bass : 3.75/5 - The bass is quite deep and has a soft presence. There is sufficient quantity of bass, without going over board with slam or bleed into the mids. However, it hsa a softer landing and sustain
Mids : 4/5 - Both male and female vocals are well represented with good amount of emotions carrying through. Without any interference from the bass area, mids are quite well rendered.
Treble : 4/5 - While the iems are bright, there is good amount of treble detail and the all BA config allows for very fast transients being rendered without getting mushy. This is all presented without any harshness whatsoever even on
fairly bad mastered tracks. They may not impress a treblehead, but there is nothing missing in the music.
Stage and Imaging - The iems are average in terms of stage size, and goes wide from a imaging perspective. However, the depth is quite shallow and the presentation feels 2d.

Comparisons​

Aful P8 - In comparison to its older sibling, the Cantor has a touch more details in the treble and with a slightly deeper bass. The relatively small nozzles also help with long usage and provide a more mature listening session.
Sony IER M9 - Are we comparing this to the classic from Sony? Why not, considering that both are in a similar price range and are both all BA iems! The M9 has more pronounced bass and detail retrieval, and shows off an upper hand in the music arena.
However, the Cantor is no slouch either, and hits back with better wear comfort (as there are no parts touching the back of the concha, unlike the M9). The fact that it is being compared to a legendary iem as the M9 itself is a commendation of the quality of tuning.

Conclusions​

The Aful Cantor is a nicely done iem which work very well with genre such as Jazz, vocals, old bollywood etc and for older ears that would like a velvetty treat without harshness.

After watching online reviews I was sceptical about this product not because of the fit, but for the tuning they obtained. For reasons I don’t trust any IEM manufacturers blindly these days even if they obtain records of successful releases in the past.

As I imagined fit was not even a problem. But the impressive factor of this IEM was how well they tuned it. Yes! I found it more appealing than the technical aspects that they are getting praised for.

You just can’t expect BA to provide the quality of bass it delivers. The amplitude and as well as delivery both felt very authoritative. Rumble is there, although not with a huge Physicality but it is there without being shy. The resolution and attack/decay are not too fast and very AFUL-like. The impact is real when songs call for it. Lower mids are a tiny bit more elevated than neutral and the bass gives it a husky tone and weighty definition when coupled with a big dip at the 10khz range. There's a hump in 1khz that does add some special sauce to the midrange in terms of forwardness.

Now comes the impressive section of the FR, the upper mids sounded so smooth and detailed. It surpasses IEMs like Supernova in the 4Khz to 7Khz Range. Not just in the upper mids, the lower treble also feels very refined.

5-8Khz

This range was showing a bit of elevation like the Supernova on graphs, but it sounds safer than the graph. The lower treble is not harsh & it never tends to feel sibilant even on Orchestral tracks. I listened to Ecos - Coco Tomita ( https://shorturl.at/qiBrL ) and it was a super smooth listen, there was no point where I needed to lower my volume.

So they designed to use this IEM with a deep fit and the tips should be inserted to the rim. This is necessary since AFUL wanted to avoid any tip interference with the sound, I simply followed that and got the result. Improper fit/insertion will break the experience in this region.

I never got the fit of ER2SE and B2 right on my ears, and this one is way better for my ears even though it reaches deep. But I would have appreciated a resin extension instead of the steel one.

Not so impressive part

The 10-12 kHz range feels way too safe for my liking. A little more elevation through EQ fixed that but I would’ve liked a more upfront presentation of the vocals in higher register. But it is understandable since I am a treble head and elevation might thin out some of the instruments that occupy the lower mids.

I received this package from a friend for review purposes. In two days I must have listened to more than 20 hours on this. And I decided to buy it for my personal use after day 1. The reason behind that is the pinna, it makes my favourite genres shine, for which U12T is still my No. 1 choice and I am a fan of something like Supernova. Cantor feels like it completes the middle ground and handles both of the pinna philosophies properly by bridging a gap.

My full review will be uploaded on YouTube next week, stay tuned.

DISCLAIMER
No one influenced me to say anything good or bad about any of the products. All opinions and thoughts are mine and 100% honest with my findings.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SOUND

The first time when you listen to this IEM after a proper fit into your ears as well as the tips. You will realise how neutral it sounds. Not only in the sense of the frequency distribution throughout the spectrum, But everything will feel very neutral and vibrant. The bass is defined and well-textured. Sure there are some caveats that I will explain later, But all in all it is very refined to the point that I exude such a perfect amount of richness to the lower mids that it feels very neutral yet lush. The upper mids are spectacular, to say the least. Shimmering, detailed, hyper-textured, and safe and non-sibilant by a huge margin. The lower treble continues the elevation and produces a very vibrant sound. The sibilance is not there by any means but if you are treble sensitive give it a listen before purchasing. The lower and upper treble gets separated very distinctively which is a fault in my ears. The upper treble continues to exude the properties of the IEM in its full glory. Air frequencies are so enjoyable and detailed that it can compete with IEMs at a much higher price. The overall details are very well implemented in this IEM. Be it the drivers or the frequency distribution, this IEM sounds detailed through and through. The texturing is very well done. The resolution is equally great. The soundstage feels natural not very huge but not nowhere near closed. The soundstage is a bit squeezed in the X Axis, Z Z-axis is pretty deep, and the Height is pretty average for the price. Dynamics are excellent and never felt too fast or too slow maintaining the right Balance. The timbre in most instruments is OK but for a few instruments, it’s not a lifelike reproduction.

SOUND: OBJECTIVE

OVERALL BALANCE

If we start with the bass, it is quite moderate in quantity. You won’t feel the absence of the bass ever so slightly. Till 140hz it follows head-to-head with the Harman Target. Which is substantial and offers a very good sense of weight to the sound. It doesn’t overshadow the later frequencies nor it mask the details in it. The other very beneficial way of tuning the bass is the 8.5 kHz peak. The peak complements the bass elevation a lot and conserves much more sense of detail. After the 140hz it does over-stomps the target by some amount and flushes to the 200hz range. What it does is give an ever so slightly fullness to the lower mids, which is not much but just gives the male vocals slightly more huskiness and lushness to the instruments. The 10K which is responsible for providing some artefacts in the mids are also not present due to the dip, which on the other hand causes other problems but I will discuss them later. The forwardness does follow up to 1 kHz gets a bump and then declines the Pinna Compensation. I believe The hump in the 1khz and delayed follow-up till 2.5khz does give it a spacious presentation in the sound. There is a steady decline after 2.5khz and then the inclination till 7khz and at that point it dips a little. Due to the pinna, there is absolutely no harshness in the upper mids and no dryness can be noticed in the lower mids too. Also, there is some loss of definition in the textural information in some instruments but I am nitpicking at this point.

PINNA COMPENSATION

Now if we talk about the pinna, yes I do like the philosophy of this pinna although I know that it is not suited for all the genres out there, Eqing it gave me a lot more details and forwardness of the Upper-mids and on the other side it looses all of its magic. The audio becomes papery and the upper registers feel very uneven so I left the Tuning AFUL implemented and enjoyed it as it is. Then comes the most controversial part of this IEM the lower treble. This section of the Frequency response is very dependent on the seal and depth you inserted on your ears.

FIT

A shallow fit will break the whole immersion factor and as well it will also cause this region to feel detached from the upper mids. So to ensure you get the proper tuning that these IEMs are intended for, check the tips and insert them deeply. The nozzle is not as big as the ER2 series or Blessing 2 Series, so it is not a problem even for my tiny earholes. The hump in the 8khz (Which is 2.7 dB over the Harman Target) does a lot of things to be exact. For the most part, it brings up the detail forwardness and the sense of resolution in the sound which would’ve been a miss because of the pinna recession. Any safer treble than this would’ve caused a more blunt and smoothened version of the Upper-mids which would sound like masked.

Being said that this region even with the deeper fit might not be ideal for someone who is very treble sensitive and doesn’t like details as such in their music, thus the recommendation of trying before buying. Then comes the decision that annoys me the most, the 10k dip. The dip causes a bit of masking to the later frequencies in the mix. The airy nature of the instruments gets a bit detached for this dip. Suppose a cymbal hits and we can hear all the extension, the texture the intricacies in the tone. Then suddenly when the falloff happens the continuation gets lost. The reason why AFUL did this tuning might be to provide some organicness to the midrange and provide a smooth session even though the IEM is excellent in detail retrieval. After the dip, the treble corrects itself and continues with a very airy nature.

SOUND: SUBJECTIVE

INTRODUCTION

So, all and all the IEM sounds very neutral. The Bass might be not as powerful as a DD but the quantity and quality both are there without any complaint. Mids are the best part, they are textured, and a bit of lushness is also there as well as detailed. Upper mids are safe and never hard, lower treble is forward and resolving. The upper treble though is airy and felt a bit disjointed due to the safe nature of the 10Khz. It seems that AFUL haven’t decided to target any genre and they made a jack of all trades and master of none. They previously had experience with the Explorer Series it seems. And they will utilise the research and development to create this monster. So why is this IEM tricky to review? Half of the reason is, that there is nothing like it, that I listened to previously.

I discussed all the characteristics but it will be hard to explain, and as a reviewer, I have to review everything very objectively I think either people are going to love it to death or otherwise, they won’t. People who listen at very high volumes might not find it well-suited for their use. People who are after less resolving but more accurate sound reproduction won’t find this appealing. But, for people who are after resolution, this IEM can save their wallet. Those who want clean and vibrant sound will adore this IEM. People who prefer mid-bass thump/attack will also like this IEM.

GENRE COMPATIBILITY

Orchestra / Jazz sounds transparent and full of resolution, but it won’t give you 100% realistic timbre
Rock / Hip Hop / Experimental / Electronic everything sounds stupid-good with this IEM
Country / POP sounds good and nothing extraordinary about this IEM

HOW NOZZLE EFFECTS THE SOUND

The other half of the reason is the nozzle. Not the nozzle itself but the perception of it and it might feel odd on first listen, which goes away after two days and after that, it feels way more comfortable than ER2SE or Blessings 2. However, there are problems associated with the nozzle. Few people are not inserting the tips into the rim, which breaks the acoustic performance and creates an unsatisfactory result. Few people can’t fit it deeply which causes uneven treble. Other than that the Cantor is kind of demanding, it requires power to sound good. The good thing about this IEM is, that it can produce details like nothing else in its price segment. But due to that, where excellent recordings sound out of this world, poorly recorded music sounds flawed. The immersion factor in this IEM is tech-oriented, where closing eyes shift presence.

TUNING

BASS

Now if we talk about the Subjective Part of Tuning. The sub-bass is very rounded and it's a more mid-bass over the sub-bass experience. There is an unsubstantial rumble in the sub-bass. Although the physicality is not much, the IEM reaches deep and exudes extreme frequencies. If the songs are more sub-bass focused the IEM might sound a bit too reference grade and linear. I wouldn’t call this bass presence pillowy or soft, it does produce heft but the songs have to call for it, it won't produce excess bass stupidly. The mid-bass feels a lot more physical than the sub-bass and exudes a body to the music. The attack is not too fast nor too slow. The overall bass performance does scale up with the volume though. The texturing is a bit lesser than the sub-bass yet the definition is a bit better. On very bass-heavy tracks too it retains very controlled. I wouldn’t call it a very tight experience but it is very thumpy at least. Overall the bass on this set is very OKAY! It won’t wow you with the amplitude but the quality of the tuning is pretty good and transparent to the music you are listening to

MIDRANGE

Now if we dive into the midrange we can notice a very high quality of reproduction of sound in both the lower and upper registers. The lower mids are a bit more elevated and male vocals do sound very lush and husky. The definition is praise-worthy and nothing is there to complain. No dryness / No nasally-ness nothing, the voices do pop out from the background. Female vocals are just fantastic on this IEM and the star of the show here. The extension is incredible. The Airiness is very captivating. The resolution is phenomenal, Full of shimmer and shine. Never so slightly sibilant even on loud volumes, Although this section also relies heavily on the insertion depth of the IEM.

TREBLE

Treble on the other hand might be a little polarizing but for me, it’s super smooth, The speed and transience are just on par or better than TOTL-level sound. The bite and crunch are there in apt quantity. The subtle cues are projected very vividly in the music itself.

SOUND: TECHNICALITIES

Now if we talk about the technicalities of this IEM. They are very good, like TOTL, and there’s nothing more to it. It's very worthy of its price tag. Although I should say that I liked the fact that it doesn’t stretch every song I throw at it. It adapts to the songs and expands or subtracts as the soundstage presents itself.

RESOLUTION

The resolution is just phenomenal. You can’t even guess that it costs below 1K just by judging the resolution of this IEM. The dynamics are excellent on this IEM as was expected, from an ALL-BA set.

TIMBRE

Timber on this IEM is a bit tricky. On the one hand, the string instruments do sound very good, like violins and guitars. But, on the other hand, the drums do sound a bit less realistic. Wind instruments though do project an image that is very reminiscent of good quality recording than a lifelike one.

CONCLUSION

Overall I liked this set for its ability to pronounce itself for being a flagship under $1000. It has my recommendation.

Tech inside according to Aful website



The Cantor features two advanced composite drivers: one for ultra-low frequencies (10-100Hz) with an ultra-thin, extended sound tube, and another for powerful bass. Precision-tuned acoustic tubes enhance depth, power, and clarity, transforming low-frequency performance with superior elasticity and bass depth. High-Precision 3D Printed Acoustic Tube Structure


The first technology is the acoustic crossover tube. It uses physical frequency division to adjust the sound frequency response of the pair. It has been fine-tuned and optimized to harmonize the sound waves from different tubes. This eliminates the peaks caused by the resonance of the unit under traditional frequency division technology.



The Non-Destructive Direct Drive Topology Technology in the AFUL Cantor earphones enhances sound clarity by eliminating resonance through an asymmetrical sound path, delivering extended, smooth highs. This advanced approach surpasses traditional damping methods, preserving high-frequency detail without harshness.



The AFUL Cantor's Multidimensional Frequency Division Architecture efficiently integrates 14 BA drivers, each with a specific function, to deliver a cohesive soundstage with smooth frequency transitions and an immersive, balanced audio experience.



The Cantor earphones utilize high-precision 3D printing technology to create acoustic components with ultra-fine pathways as narrow as 0.15mm, pushing the limits of 3D printing capabilities. This precision enhances audio performance, providing bass with unparalleled depth and clarity.



It can directly act on the sound frequency response of the pair and helps in overcoming peaks caused by the resonance of the unit under traditional frequency division technology. It also gives the balanced armature drivers a smooth treble frequency response that rivals an EST unit.



Driver

Balanced Armature

Driver Configuration

14 Balanced Armature Drivers

Plug

4.4mm (Balanced)

Connector

0.78mm 2-Pin

Impedance

20Ω ± 10%

Sensitivity

106dB @ 1kHz

Frequency Response

5Hz - 35kHz

Cable Length

1.2m

Working Sound Pressure Level

20 - 106dB

Technology

Dual Channel Acoustic Maze Technology
Non-Destructive Direct Drive Topology Technology
Multidimensional Frequency Division Architecture Technology



Box Contents

1. AFUL Cantor
2. Detachable Cable
3. Carrying Case
4. Silicone Eartips (S, M, L) * 9


Disclaimer

This review reflects my personal and subjective listening experience with the mentioned audio gear product. I would like to thank Hifigo for organizing this review tour in my country and allowing me to share my thoughts on the product. Please note, this review is not influenced by any form of compensation.

Before proceeding, it is important to mention that most of my impressions of the gear are based on the source and test tracks mentioned, so your mileage may vary.

Sources: Earmen Angel and Cayin RU7



This is my first encounter with an Aful IEM, having previously skipped the P5 and P8. I was very interested in listening to their flagship offering, and I am thoroughly impressed. The Aful Cantor is a set of in-ear monitors (IEMs) that have been attracting attention in the audio community for their well-rounded sound signature and technical performance. I was excited when I was approached to review this unit, as I had previously shown interest in the P8. This review aims to delve into the various aspects of its sound characteristics.



Bass



Before delving into this section, it’s essential to address the proper use of Cantor’s nozzle and tips. Given the nozzle's length, there is a tendency not to position the tips correctly. For optimal results, it’s advisable to use the stock tips provided with the package. These tips should be fitted so that they cover the entire nozzle and not just the upper portion. Improper insertion can result in a poor seal, which affects the bass response. Initially, I faced this issue but was guided by local audiophile friends to fit the tips correctly, and then evaluate.



Regarding the bass on the Aful Cantor, it is well-executed, emphasizing sub-bass extension rather than mid-bass prominence. The sub-bass offers satisfying depth, extending low to provide a sense of rumble and weight when the track demands it. This gives the IEMs a tactile feel, especially in genres like electronic, hip-hop, and cinematic scores. Mid-bass is punchy and tight, contributing to a sense of speed and control in the lower frequencies. It avoids excessive bloom or bleed into the mids, maintaining a clean and distinct bass profile. This clarity allows for bass guitars and kick drums to present with good texture and detail. For bass-heavy tracks, the Cantor can deliver impact without overpowering other frequencies, making it versatile across various genres. However, bass enthusiasts who prefer an exaggerated response may find the Cantor’s tuning conservative, favoring a natural and balanced presentation over a bass-dominant one.

Mids



The mids on the Aful Cantor are clear and detailed, with a slight forwardness that emphasizes vocals and instruments. This positioning creates a sense of intimacy, particularly with vocal-centric music. Male and female vocals are rendered with good tonal accuracy, providing enough body and warmth for a natural timbre without sounding overly thick. The lower mids are clean, benefiting from bass control, which avoids muddiness or congestion. This clarity extends to the upper mids, where the Cantor maintains detail and presence without harshness. Instruments like acoustic guitars, pianos, and strings have a realistic texture, and complex passages in orchestral music are well-handled. Although the mids are balanced overall, there is a slight upper-mid elevation that can occasionally introduce sharpness in tracks already forward in that range. This sharpness does not become sibilant or fatiguing in most cases but is something to consider for those sensitive to upper-mid frequencies.



Treble

The treble on the Aful Cantor is energetic and detailed without being overly bright. There is enough sparkle and airiness to give cymbals, hi-hats, and other high-frequency instruments a crisp and defined sound. The treble extension is impressive, reaching high enough to create a sense of space and openness in the soundstage. The treble is carefully tuned to avoid harsh peaks that can cause listening fatigue. The Cantor balances detail retrieval with smoothness, allowing for long listening sessions without discomfort. This makes it suitable for genres with intricate high-frequency content, such as jazz or classical music, where treble clarity is essential. Some listeners may find the treble slightly subdued compared to more analytical IEMs, but this restraint helps maintain a balanced overall tonality and avoids a clinical sound signature.

Technicalities

The Aful Cantor excels in technical performance, demonstrating good resolution, imaging, and soundstage.



Resolution: The detail retrieval is superb for its price range, with subtle nuances in the music easily discernible. The Cantor resolves micro-details in well-recorded tracks, making it suitable for critical listening.

Soundstage: The soundstage is wide with a decent sense of space and separation between instruments. While not the widest in its class, the stage has a natural width that enhances the listening experience without sounding artificially stretched.

Imaging: Instrument placement is precise, with accurate positioning within the soundstage, offering a clear sense of directionality.

Dynamics: The dynamic range is solid, with a good contrast between soft and loud passages. The Cantor handles sudden changes in volume and intensity with ease, adding liveliness to the music.

Timbre: A strength of the Cantor is its natural timbre, with slight BA nuances. Instruments sound true, without artificial coloration in the sound.

Conclusion

The Aful Cantor is a well-rounded IEM with a balanced sound signature and impressive technical capabilities. It excels in natural bass, clear mids, and detailed yet smooth treble, combined with strong technical performance in resolution, soundstage, and imaging. While it may not cater to those seeking extreme bass impact or an ultra-analytical signature, it provides a versatile and enjoyable listening experience across various music genres. Overall, the Aful Cantor is a compelling option for audiophiles seeking a detailed and refined sound at a competitive price point, striking a good balance between musicality and technicality. The starry night version is particularly appealing, offering an aesthetic enhancement over the original.

Introduction
AFUL is an audio company that has been producing reasonably priced and sufficiently advanced in-ear monitors (IEMs). Their latest product, AFUL Cantor, is a fully BA IEM which wants to further enhance resolution, precision, and above all provides grandeur while listening to music. With attention to neutral tone and a detailed bass response, Cantor helps deliver such recordings helping the management of the depth landscape more than the sources provide. This IEM is an example of just how far creditable performance has been achieved out of AFUL products without causing an interference to the desired market price.

Build
The AFUL Cantor is built for ease of use as well as practical purpose use. Its lightweight design includes strong materials making it sturdy too and not excessive in weight. The metal nozzle increases the strength of the structure as well as helping in sound production.
For better sound quality, the IEM was fitted with a silver plated copper detachable cable which is also convenient since it can be replaced when necessary. The 2 pin port is more effective with compatibility with numerous third party cables. All in all the Cantor is overwhelmingly clean cut with practical affordable design with particular focus to functionality.

Comfort
The AFUL Cantor also has a moderately long nozzle to help the user fit the standard and other ear tip attachments. The length of the nozzle is such that it sits comfortably within the ear canal and also assists in reducing sound leakage to improve comfort. While it does not protrude too long, the nozzle is long enough to assist in the positioning of the IEMs without discomfort. The Cantor can thus be used for longer periods with ease, as it retains a compact size which is not any trouble to carry around.

Sound
Lows: The Cantor is basing rather rich and balanced linearity from bass and deeper midrange. It has good control over the bass and provides a definition which helps to enhance other frequencies and not mask them. It is able to provide a good punch on bassy tracks while maintaining details in complex passages. It is this ability to accurately reproduce bass and its definition that makes it possible for the users to enjoy dry tracks making the Cantor preferable for bass dependent genres.
Mids: The Cantor does especially well in reproducing general vocal and instrumental sounds in the midrange. They are focused and transparent which creates good separation in what is mixed. Vocals are warm and close making the performance emotionally engaging. Whether strings or woodwinds, all orchestration is portrayed very well eliminating struggles to follow various lines in thicker arrangements. All in all, the midrange area is fairly balanced – not too hot and not too dry.
Highs: As good was the Cantor’s treble performance which had a very nice linear and extended high frequency response. Trebles flow with a pleasant sense of space in them enabling plenty of details to be present without sounding piercing. Treble adds a fine dose of glitter in the overall sound and generosity without the unwanted coloration of tone. There is a nice control of the treble zone allowing not only the edges to be held but also the articulation of high-frequency instruments such as cymbals and string arrangements.

Soundstage: This is one area where the AFUL Cantor shines. The soundstage of IEMs is accurate and creates a three-dimensional sonic space. From the focusable soundstage, one is able to picture both depth and width of the sounds that are produced. All the instruments are well positioned within the soundstage which makes it easier for the audience to visualise how it feels to be in a live performance. Thus, thanks to this well-developed sound stage the audience can appreciate the numerous musical constructs without any feeling of stuffiness and this goes a long way in optimising the listening experience in different music types.
Resolution: In fact, resolution is the strongest point of the Cantor. The IEMs give a pretty good resolution that allows the reproduction of faint sounds which are easily missed. In this respect, the Cantor is designed for those who value profound listening since great caution needs to be placed on details. A clear and good separation of the different instruments produces a clear sound output, where every single sound can be distinctly heard in a recording.
Timbre: The Cantor affords a natural presentation of timbre, which allows all sorts of instruments and vocalisation to be perceived as they are in reality. This naturalness elevates the enjoyment one gets out of music since it is easy to appreciate the sound produced by each of the instruments. The opposing wakening and thickening thermal scissor-like effect makes the sound very vivid and satisfying, which makes it very simple to listen to Cantor in different types of music.

Comparisons with Other IEMs
AFUL Performer8 (P8): In this respect, the P8, in contrast to Cantor, is capable only of performing at some genres, if bass is required then P8 won't be able to deliver what the Cantor can. A bit of soundstage is what favors P8 where the soundstage however is flat and which makes it ‘less difficult’ to push than the ‘punchy’ dynamics of the cantors' sound. P8 may appear to have more treble because the the extended treble but it feel artificial. P8 also sounds more congested, especially on the complex tracks, which in the case of the Cantor due to its imaging and separation create impressive 3D, audio feels more engaging and effortlessly than the P8. The vocals of the Cantor have also been improved where vocals stand out to be more smooth and believable if compared to P8 which sounds artificial too crispy in some instances.

Softears RSV: Softears RSV is well known for the warm, bass-heavy and vocal-tuned profile it carries. On the other hand, the Cantor has a more linear sound. Both IEMs sound fine in offering a good quality bass but emphasis on dynamic bass in Cantor which makes it win as the bass spawns out more, making it snappier and more lively. However, the mids on the RSV are a bit too lush and engaging although very pretty for more vocal tracks, the mids on the Cantor are more transparent and articulate making instrumental clarity better. In the case of the Cantor, the treble is rather extended and more detailed than what the RSV offers that tends to become rolled off at times.

7th Acoustics Supernova: Enter the market 7th Acoustics Supernova, which is able to boast balanced sound signatures and large soundstage. Among both the Cantoros and Supernova try out the same depth and width of the soundstage however the Cantor excels in depth and resolution. Because the Supernova is able to deliver a good level of dynamic and spatial contrast between instruments and their positioning against one another in the sound field. The Supernova offers a more polished presentation, while the Cantor manages to outperform in dynamically active scenes due to faster bass performance and improved treble.

Softears Twilight: The Softears Twilight is well known for its smooth and musical tuning, which many find attractive for casual use. On the contrary, the elite voicing of this earphone model known as the Cantor opts for a reference perspective with clarity and detail as the top priority. The warmth and thickness of the bass of the Twilight is pleasing, although it can occasionally suffocate the mids. The Cantor, on the other hand, sustains a neutral posture. The midrange on the Twilight is very warm and engaging in the sense of deep expression of vocals, but the Cantor gives out a clearer vocal feel. Sound wise, it is the Cantor that captures the small and intricate micro dynamics that help build intensity and submergence when listening through intricate pieces of music.

Rating
Comfort:
The AFUL Cantor offers a lightweight, ergonomic design that provides a comfortable fit for long listening sessions. The nozzle length is well-balanced but that extra long nozzle thingy could be an issue for aftermarket tips.

Sound:
Lows:
The bass is punchy with excellent depth and texture, though the mid-bass can become a bit overwhelming on certain tracks. It's well-suited for bass-heavy genres but may need a touch more balance for some listeners in the mid-bass region.

Mids:
The mids are resolving with good texture and timbre, offering clarity and detail.

Highs:
The highs are smooth, extended, and detailed, with no sharpness or harshness even on brighter tracks. They provide a sense of airiness and sparkle, contributing to the overall balance of the sound without causing fatigue.

Overall Rating: (4.7/5)

TL;DR
It handles low frequencies with great precision, making it suitable for bass-heavy tracks while maintaining clarity in complex passages. The mids are natural and transparent, providing engaging vocals and instrumental separation, while the treble is smooth and extended, adding brightness without becoming harsh. The soundstage is another standout feature, creating an immersive, three-dimensional experience that enhances both depth and width, making the Cantor a versatile IEM for various genres.

DISCLAIMER

This is a tour unit from HIFIGO.

The AFUL Cantor can be gotten here: https://hifigo.com/products/aful-cantor (no affiliate links).




SPECIFICATIONS

• Driver configuration: 14 balanced armature drivers per side
• Frequency response: 5 Hz - 35000 Hz
• Impedance: 20 Ω
• Sensitivity: 106 dB
• Cable: 2-pin 0.78 mm; 5N LCOFC copper cable; choice of 3.5 mm (single-ended) or 4.4 mm (balanced) termination
• Tested at: $799 USD

ACCESSORIES

Other than the IEM, these are included:
- 3 pairs of wide-bore silicone eartips (S/M/L) with small plastic case
- 3 pairs of narrow-bore silicone eartips (S/M/L) with small plastic case
- 3 pairs of balanced silicone eartips (S/M/L) with small plastic case
- Cable
- Cable clasp
- Cleaning brush
- Carrying case

For something retailing at just below TOTL territory, the accessory line-up here is serviceable but not all-inclusive; we do not have foam tips included, and one would expect a modular cable at this pricing.




Of the silicone tips provided, we have 3 options, and all come in their own little plastic case. The narrow-bore ones boost bass but with some soundstage compression, whereas the wide-bore ones increase treble air and staging. The balanced silicone tips are kind of a midpoint between the above 2.

Do tip-roll to see what suits your needs, but here's a pro tip - no pun intended - the AFUL Cantor requires a deep insertion due to a long nozzle, so one might need to use a eartip one size down to cater to the deeper fit, compared to a more traditional-sized nozzle IEM.




The stock cable is a 2-pin 5N LCOFC copper cable. It is sheathed externally with a braided nylon fibre, and lined internally with a softplex PVC layer from America. This cable is supple and tangle-free, with minimal microphonics. There's a chin cinch to secure the IEM during usage. It also comes with an leatherette cable clasp that operates via a button fastener.

Sadly, this cable is not modular, but when ordering, one can opt for a 3.5 mm (single-ended) or 4.4 mm (balanced) termination, depending on your source needs.




We also have a cleaning brush and a gorgeous rectangular zipper carrying case. This case's leatherette externals complement the soft velvety lining on the inside. It is literally a case of being both practical and elegant (no pun intended), with inner webbing to lodge accessories.

The rest of this review was done with the stock cable and stock wide-bore silicone eartips. No aftermarket accessories were used, so as not to add any confounders to the sound.


BUILD/COMFORT



The housings are fashioned from 3D printed technology, with an intricate series of acoustic tubings, some measuring a mere 0.15 mm. The faceplate sports a mother-of-pearl concept that has snail and seashell granules suspended in German blue resin. Consumers can select between a fetching marine echo or tasteful starry night design.



This resin finish is semi-translucent, so one can visualize the 14 BAs inside each shell!



Despite packing vents, the Cantor is quite good in passive isolation - marketing materials quote a 20 dB attenuation figure - and it is just slightly less during my field tests.



The nickel-plated brass nozzles measure 4.35 mm in length and 4 mm in diameter. AFUL says this design ensures an improved treble extension and plays a part in the Cantor's tuning, as we will read below. Yes, some eagled-eye readers may be shocked about this IEM's Etymotic-violating nozzle length, but actually, the extra metal tubing is not meant to be inserted into the ears, but covered by the entire eartip all the way to the inner aspect of the shells. It actually fits and functions like any run-of-the-mill IEM like that, and with this intended fit where the eartip covers the entire nozzle, the Cantor fits well, with no discomfort.




For smart alecs who try to fit the eartip shallowly to only cover the metal tubing and leave the rest of the nozzle sticking out, then there might be ergonomic issues. However, do note that some aftermarket eartips that are shallow or stubby may leave the metal tubing exposed, and this may result in discomfort or even injury to the ears.


INTERNALS

The Cantor packs 14 BAs within each shell - yes 14 BAs per side - and not those hyperbolic 7 per side addition shenanigans cunningly done in CHIFI advertisements. These drivers use an RLC network division with electronic crossovers. We do not have any information on the driver brand though.

AFUL is a company that is not afraid to pilot exotic and innovative tech - see the AFUL MagicOne for example - and the Cantor boasts of some creative sonic concepts, which we will dive into detail below.




For the treble BAs, AFUL employs a direct drive topology system, housed within an anti-resonance chamber, with a step catheter in the nozzle. This is supposed to eliminate high frequency resonance via an asymmetrical sound tube - termed the RLC Network Frequency Division Correction Technology - and this eliminates the need for traditional dampers.

The midrange BAs utilize phase interference suppression via a 3D printed structure; this is timed to harmonize resonances and reduce peaks.




2 composite BAs handle the bass. One covers the 10 - 100 Hz frequency band, utilizing an ultra-thin extended sound tube that augments sub-bass frequencies by bleeding away the upper frequencies.

Another interesting tech used in the Cantor is an air damping arrangement, which balances pressure between the environment and ear canal. This, on paper, is touted to improve comfort and also heighten bass elasticity and punch.


DRIVABILITY

I tested the Cantor with the following sources:
- Apple dongle
- Cayin RU7
- Chord Mojo 2
- Fiio KA11 dongle
- Fiio KA17 dongle
- Khadas Tone Board -> Schiit Asgard 3 amp
- Onix Alpha XI1 dongle
- Questyle M15 DAC/AMP dongle
- Sony Walkman NW A-55 DAP (Walkman One WM1Z Plus v2 Mod)
- Sony Walkman NW A-55 DAP (Walkman One Neutral Mod)
- Sony Walkman NW WM1A DAP (Walkman One WM1Z Plus v2 Mod)
- Smartphone

This IEM is quite easily driven off weaker sources, and amplification is not 100% required.


SOUND & TECHNICALITIES


Graph of the AFUL Cantor via IEC711 coupler. 8 kHz is a coupler artefact peak.

Tonally, once the Cantor's long nozzle is covered by the eartip - as per its intended design - what the listener will hear is a neutral with sub-bass boost tuning. This is very monitor-like and relatively uncoloured, other than for some sub-bass resonances.

Please note that the shallow-fit way of not covering the nozzle fully or inserting it superficially in the ears, will result in a bright and sibilant tuning that is quite different from the planned tuning. This may also cause discomfort, as discussed above.


Graph of the AFUL Cantor utilizing deep fit versus shallow fit, via IEC711 coupler. 8 kHz is a coupler artefact peak.

For these reasons, deep insertion with the eartip covering the nozzle, is crucial for both ergonomics and the final sound.

The Cantor is a sub-bass focused IEM. Bass extension is deep, but like most other all-BA sets, the Cantor has a lack of decay and movement of air compared to a classic DD bass. So there isn't a visceral rumble felt in bassy tracks, but the Cantor more than makes up for that with a superbly textured bass with no bleed and rapid speed. So it is literally a case of quality trumping quantity in the bass.

The Cantor's midrange is very clear and transparent in view of no bass leakage. This allows instruments to be layered and palleted on a dark background. Upper mids reach a 5 dB climax, which translates to non shouty vocals - the anti pinna gain gang will rejoice!

Treble is extended with great resolution and clarity. This isn't an overtly steroid-infused treble - sibilance is mostly controlled- though the Cantor may just lie on the edge if you are very treble sensitive. However, treble sensitivity is partially dependent on ear anatomy, hearing health, eartip choice, source pairing and volume played at (Fletcher Munson curve), so YMMV.

At its sub-$1000 price tag, the Cantor is class-leading when it comes to technicalities. Soundstage is extended in all 3 dimensions, with music projecting beyond the ears. Most AFUL IEMs have an Achilles' heel when it comes to soundstage, but I'm pleased to report that the Cantor is easily the best in this arena. Micro-detailing, transients, imaging and instrument separation are likewise impressive and effortless, easily besting all-BA rivals in the same price range or even higher.

Think of the Cantor as a scalpel that can dissect away layers of music, to allow critical listening. Analytical-heads will surely have a eargasm. I know it is a cliche when one claims that this IEM can let listeners pick up fine nuances in tracks that you didn't know existed, but it is no hyperbole to make this statement here. And all this is without veering to an overly sterile soundscape due to the boosted sub-bass.

Like most other all-BA types, the Cantor inevitably has some element of BA timbre, but it isn't too egregious, with just a whisker of hollowness for acoustic instrumentation in the treble frequencies.


COMPARISONS

The Cantor will be compared against other TOTL all-BA types. Planars, hybrids and single DDs are left out of the comparisons as the different transducer types have their own pros and cons.




Sony IER M9

The M9 is a pricier 5 BA set. It is tuned warm neutral, with a thicker note weight and lusher midrange, though with less sub-bass and treble presence.

The M9 has a more natural timbre, but loses in most technical departments - the M9 has weaker clarity, instrument separation, soundstage and micro-detailing, but has a hair better imaging.

Of note, some users may find the M9 uncomfortable for longer listening sessions due to an unvented pressure sensation in the ears, which is not present on the Cantor.


Fiio FA19

The FA19 is a 10 Knowles BA set. It comes better accessorized and has a tuning switch (bass boost) that adds some versatility.

Even so, both tunings confer a warm neutral profile, that has a thumpier mid-bass and less treble air than the Cantor.

The FA19 costs 200 bucks more, but is a bit weaker in soundstage and imaging.


CONCLUSIONS



The Cantor is a formidable 14 BA set that can play in the same playground as kilobuck boys, especially when it comes to sheer technical performance. It might even bloody the noses of some higher-end all-BA competitors! This is not a case of cramming as many drivers inside a shell and hoping for the best - a cardinal sin that many CHIFI manufacturers commit - as AFUL has put some novel and exotic tech to good use.

We hear a crystal-clear neutral with sub-bass boost tuning, coupled with a tight and fast bass, with outstanding texturing. The midrange is clean as a whistle, with resolution in spades heard in the treble frequencies. The Cantor is a technical tour de force, allowing users to dissect music, analyze tracks critically, and to hear minutiae in the sonics. Yet this is without being a sterile boring fest, due to the addition of some sub-bass from the aforementioned technological ideas.

The Cantor has relatively easy driving requirements, decent ergonomics (despite the longer nozzles), and good passive isolation, which superimposed on the neutralish profile and class-leading technical chops, makes it a great option for those looking for a stage monitor or audio tool.

Speaking about the long nozzles - if the metal tubing is not covered entirely by the eartips, or if stubbier aftermarket tips are installed - this may result in sub-optimal sonics (a sibilant and harsh treble may ensue), in addition to ear discomfort. So please cover the nozzle as per its intended design, and with a deep fit, this will showcase what the Cantor is capable of and do the sonics and ergonomics justice.

Like its all-BA brethren, this set has a mild compromise in BA timbre for acoustic instruments and BA bass (ie lacking movement of air). The Cantor may also be on the fence for the very treble-sensitive, though eartip rolling and source pairing can mitigate this to some extent, in addition to volume played at (Fletcher Munson curve).

All things considered, the Cantor is one of the outstanding technical champs I've had the pleasure to listen to in my IEM journey. Retailing at just below $800 USD, it isn't cheap, but it performs like a TOTL set, even besting some pricier all-BA types like the Sony M9 and Fiio FA19 in technicalities. I would call it a deserved flagship of the AFUL stable for sure.

It is not an exaggeration to say that I have been waiting a few years to finally write this review article. The reasons were twofold. Firtsly, the product itself took a long time arrive: it has been more than one year and multiple releases between the moment AFUL teased their flagship 14-driver IEM Cantor and time when it is finally here on my desk. Secondly, ever since the time I started reviewing IEMs a few years back, I have been waiting for someone, somewhere, somehow, to make that IEM, the one that makes me say: “This is it!”. Needless to say, it has been a long wait.

With this context, you would excuse me if this review is somewhat more verbose and introspective than usual. I’ll highlight the main points to help you skim, but if you would indulge me, grab a cup of something and get comfy. We are in for a ride.

Forewords​

• What I look for in an IEM is immersion. I want to feel the orchestra around my head, track individual instruments, and hear all of their textures and details. I’m not picky about tonality, as long as it is not make the orchestra, violin, cellos, and pianos sound wrong.
• I rate IEMs within with a consistent scale from 1 (Poor) to 3 (Good) to 5 (Outstanding). An overall ranking of 3/5 or above is considered positive.
• Ranking list and measurement database are on my IEM review blog.
• The terminology for subjective impressions in this review is based on the Audio Wheel for reproduced sound defined in the technical report ITU-R BS.2399-0
• This review is based on a review sample purchased at a discount from Hifigo (Thank you!). I have no affiliation with or financial interest in AFUL and Hifigo.
• The unit retails for $799 at the time this review was published. Unaffiliated link: Hifigo

---

In pursue of the ideal​

You are going to see quite a few superlatives in this review, such as “ideal”. Therefore, I think a short detour to lay the groundwork would be beneficial. Let’s talk about the “ideal” IEM. Before doing so, we need to revisit a related concept, the “perfect IEM”. A fellow reviewer once said that a “perfect” IEM, the one that has no fault to the ears of any listener, is impossible because people’s requirements are contradictory. For instance, an IEM can not simultaneously be perfect for a “basshead”, a “treblehead”, and a reference because the very act of tuning the frequency response toward bass or treble would turn an IEM away from a reference “flat” response, and vice versa.



Now, I have nothing but full agreement that a “perfect” IEM is an impossible self-contradiction. However, I (stubbornly?) believe that an “ideal” IEM is possible and actually should be pursued. Bold claim, I know. This claim begs the question: what is an “ideal” IEM?

To me, in order to talk about an “ideal” IEM, we need to take a step back and look at the IEMs themselves. What are they? What is their “point”? To me, IEMs serve but one purpose: faithfully translating electrical signals into sound waves. In other words, they are “screens” or “monitors” for the ears to “see” the audio content, be it music or movies or video games, as faithfully, clearly, and detailed as possible. They don’t have to be to be “soulful”, just as you wouldn’t ask your TV to be “soulful.” If they do a good job, the “soul” of the content would be laid bare for you to enjoy.

The implication of my conceptualisation of IEMs is that an ideal IEM, at least to me, is pretty much define-able and thus not a contradictory but a realistic target to shoot for. In other words, an ideal IEM is the one that faithfully reflects the source material (a.k.a., “flat” response), with an extreme level of resolution down to the minute spatial cues and details. An ideal IEM should be so crystal clear that you can track and follow any individual element in the mix without difficulty, yet you can also sit back and see how the whole mix come together, without losing sight of components. It should be so detailed that voices and instruments in the mix feel real. The spacial cue should be so accurate that you can pin point both the direction and distance of the sound sources in a virtual sound field crafted by an audio engineer or a game engine. And it should do all of this without sounding like ice picks in your ears.



What I find interesting is that there appear to be a strong relation between the actual construction and engineering effort behind an IEM and how close it is to the vision of an ideal IEM. For example, a smooth and even frequency response helps an IEM avoid the dreaded masking effect, allowing details to shine. The ability of an IEM to maintain smooth and audible response deep into the upper treble correlates to micro details and reproduction of spatial cues. A better cross-over design with minimal overlap between drivers tend to keep the sound clean and detailed. Cutting back on the use of dampening foams and filters tends to keep note attacks snappy and clean, further improving clarity, instrument separation, and details. So on and so forth. Engineering and ingenuity, not magic, power the “ideal” IEMs.

Can we ever reach an ideal IEM? It’s hard to say, since we need know what the maximum level of information crammed into recordings that we can extract. In my experience, whenever I think we are “there”, the next level is just around the corner, being perfected on the workbench of an IEM engineer somewhere. There has always been the next level. So, the path towards an ideal IEMs forks into two branches: (1) given an unlimited budget, how close can we get to the top, and (2) given a limited budget, how far can we go. In other words, the first path is the battle for “State of the Art” (SOTA), and the second path is the battle for productionalisation of SOTA, to make it accessible to as many listeners as possible. Both are interesting and challenging.

And that brings us back to the topic of the article today, the AFUL Cantor.

_____

General Information​

As you know, the “General Information” section of my review is the time to geek out about the engineering and technologies of an IEM. Buckle up, we are going to stay here for a while.



Let’s start from the top. Cantor is a 14-driver IEM that features a 7-way electrical crossover, 5-way mechanical crossover design with minimal overlaps. It means the incoming audio signal is split into 7 parts, each of which is fed to a pair of Balanced Armature (BA) drivers (thus 7x2=14BA drivers in total). The output sound wave of 7 driver pairs are fed into 5 separate sound paths, which further shape and tune the final response. If you geek out about IEM as much as I do, I think you would find the crossover design of Cantor a rare beast, even amongsts SOTA IEMs. In general, more sophisticated crossover provides tuners a precise control over the frequency response of the IEM. It also ensures that each driver produce sound within their optimal frequency band which, in my experience, leads to stronger clarity, instrument separation, and detail retrieval. Moreover, it also allows tuners to do some interesting tricks, one of which AFUL utilised to implement the bass response of Cantor.



The bass of Cantor is handled by what AFUL calls “Dual Channel Acoustic Maze Technology.” Personally, I call this technology “splitting BA woofers.” It operates based on two main ideas: (1) electrically splitting the bass frequencies into subbass (10-100Hz) and mid-bass and feeding these parts to two different sets of BA woofers; and (2) connecting the subbass woofers to a long acoustic tube to create Helmholtz resonance in the subbass frequencies, amplifying this region. The end results is a bass response that is snappy and agile in the midbass attack whilst maintaining the necessary “weight” and physical sensation in the subbass. Such “weight”, when done right, contributes the illusion of bass elasticity that many of us crave. Keen readers might find the resemblance between Cantor and Subtonic STORM regarding “splitting BA woofers”. (Though, admittedly, the “splitting” of Cantor is not as extreme as STORM, which actually features two BA woofers from two different types, combined into one composite driver.)



The treble of Cantor is also quite extreme in terms of driver count and technological design: 6 BA drivers are carefully controlly electrically before outputing the sound into what AFUL calls “Non-Destructive Direct Drive Topology Technology”. Essentially, it replaces the usual tube-and-filter design with a new 3D printed bracket and sound path that is designed to eliminate resonance. This technology helps flattening the dips and peaks in the treble which, in my experience, a main causes of harshness and loss of treble details.

Let me elaborate on this point. When your treble response has strong peaks with valley in between, you need to choose one of two options when setting your listening volume: set it low so that the peaks would not hurt your ears at the cost of details in the valleys, or set it high so that you can hear all the details in the valleys at the cost of harshness and acoustic masking from the treble peaks. By smoothening the treble, Cantor overcomes these problems, without relying on acoustic filters that tends to have negative impact on perceived dynamic and resolution of an IEM.



Another peculiar design to aid the treble response of Cantor does not reside inside the earpieces, but on the nozzles themselves. Yes, I’m talking about the scary-looking metal tubes extruding from the nozzles of Cantor. The purpose of this metal tube is to maintain the shape of the sound path all the way from the tweeter array to the end of the ear tips to preserve all of that treble information goodness. In principle, this design is quite similar to the Pentaconn Coreir ear tips. The difference is that the metal tube is integrated into the IEMs rather than on the ear tips.

Compared to the bass array and tweeter array, the midrange design of Cantor seems relatively tame. Dubbed as “Intermediate Frequency Phase Interference Suppression” technology, the midrange driver array of Cantor consists of 4 drivers, splitted into two groups. Each group handles a different frequency band and uses a separate sound path before merging together at the nozzle.

To round-off the the technology galore, AFUL brings a “High-Damping Air-Pressure Balance System” to Cantor. Simply put, Cantor has a pressure release vent in the nozzle to balance the air pressure in the ear canal in order to reduce discomfort (a.k.a., “pressure build up”) in long listening session. However, the dampening of this pressure release mechanism is quite high, so the noise isolation of Cantor does not reduce as much as, say, 64 Audio IEMs with the APEX pressure release vents. At the same time, it does not release pressure as much as the APEX vents.

---

Non-sound Aspects​

Packaging and accessories: The packaging of Cantor is quite straightforward, if not minimal, though not devoid of flair. The artwork on the outer cardboard sleeve is a simple product photo any “show-off” about the engineering packed inside. I have but one complaint here: the font used by the word “Cantor”. Why are the width of the letters not even??? It would be understandable (though not really acceptable) if the designer has to squeeze the text to fit on the faceplate, but why the text is also squished on the cardboard box?











The inner box feels a bit fancier than previous AFUL IEMs. It feels subtly luxurious, though certainly not as over the top as some other high-end IEMs. Inside the box, the packaging is rather minimal and efficient: both earpieces sit in their own slot whilst all other accessories are kept inside the carrying case.

Accessories is where Cantor improves upon its siblings. The usual plastic puck case is replaced by roomy faux leather case with soft velvet lining. The stock cable also looks and feels nice with cloth sleeve, custom metal hardware, and leather cable tie. I enjoy this cable quite a bit because it is does not hold memory and easy to handle. My only complaint is that the cable is rather microphonic. One way to address this microphonic problem is to use the built-in chin slider to tighten up the cable around your neck.





Regarding ear tips, AFUL supplies 3 types of ear tips with different hardness. They influence how the IEM fit and thus can have varying degree of influene on the sound.

Ear pieces design: I was rather surprised to find that Cantor’s earpieces are not that large. Whilst it is thicker than all previous AFUL IEMs, the part that actually sit against the ear concha is only on the medium side of the spectrum, and noticeably smaller than many other high-end IEMs.



Now, let’s talk about the part that draws the most concern and skepticism: the nozzles. Without ear tips, the nozzles indeed look scary due to the length and the protruding metal tube. However, I would say these pictures are misleading. Here is why:



The metal tube is completely hidden by most ear tips, besides very short and wide ones such as Divinus Velvet Wide Bore and Sancai Wide Bore. In other words, the empty space between the end of the nozzles and the opening the ear tips, which is always there on other IEMs, is filled in by the metal tube. Thus, when you put the ear tips on, the total nozzle length of Cantor is no different from other IEMs.

Fit, comfort and isolation Despite the scary-looking nozzles, I found that Cantor is one of the more comfortable IEM because its nozzles are rather slim. To me, slimmer nozzles mean less pressure on the ear canal, meaning more comfort in long listening sessions.

Speaking of long sessions, I’m happy to report that I did not experience any pressure build up even when I use the IEM as background music for many hours continuously. Despite the pressure release mechanism, noise isolation of Cantor remains quite high. It handles bus rumble and street noise quite well.

Ear tips recommendation: In order to get the most out of the treble response of Cantor, you need to wear this IEM deep enough. As most IEM with strong treble extension, if you wear Cantor in a shallow fit, the treble would become harsh and piercing.

How deep is enough? I say you would need medium to deep fit, but not necessarily as deep as the infamous Etymotic fit. In other words, if the cap of the ear tips sit comfortably at the first bend of your ear canal, you are good. If the ear tips barely hang onto the opening of your ear canal, you are going to have treble problem.

By changing the depth of the fit, you can control the trade-off between treble smoothness and soundstage width. In general, shallower fit means wider perceived soundstage and harsher treble. Grippy ear tips can help you achieve better seal, which lead to thicker bass response. For me, my optimal ear tips are the stock medium tips.

---

Sonic Performance​

Testing setup:

• Sources: iBasso DX300, L&P W4, FiiO K7
• Cable: stock cable with 4.4mm termination
• Ear tips: stock medium ear tips.

The subjective impression is captured using the lexicon in the Sound Wheel below. I’ll clarify the terminology as I use them. If you want to see more details of the lexicon and related reference, please have a look at the technical report ITU-R BS.2399-0.



Timbre: It is helpful to think of an IEM as a filter that highlights or subdues different parts of the incoming audio signal. This effect can be measured objectively by the squiggly lines below, called Frequency Response (FR) graphs, which measure how loud an IEM is at different frequencies from 20Hz (bass) to 20kHz (upper treble). Subjectivity is how your ears and brain interpret the effect of that filter on your music and decide whether it is “enjoyable.” There are some “rules of thumb” when it comes to tonality, but most interesting IEMs usually bend the rules masterfully.



Figure shows the frequency response of Cantor against the Harman in-ear target. Measurements were done with an IEC-711-compliant coupler and might only be compared with other measurements from this same coupler. Above 8kHz, the measurement likely does not match the response at the ear drum. Visit my graph database for more comparisons.

The tonality of Cantor is rather difficult to describe due to how colorless it is. The most relevant adjectives that I can use to describe cantor’s sound would be transparent, balanced, and natural. I find this IEM tend to disappear when the music starts because I hear the music rather than hearing the colouring of the IEM over the music. All voices and instruments sound like how they should be. Different parts of the frequency respones in a mix, be it difference lines of a piano solo recording or different instruments in a rock band, are properly balanced against each other. If a recording is supposed to be bassy or thumpy, it would sound bassy and thumpy with Cantor, and vice versa.

If I try to give a more “technical” description, I would say Cantor has a mild W-shaped sound signature, meaning it emphasises the subbass, midrange, and upper treble with a good sense of separation between these frequencies. In particular, I found that voices and main instruments of most recording tend to be brought forward rather than pushed behind the bass and treble. At the same time, the midrange does not overpower the rest of the response. The accuracy of Cantor’s response means that different mixes can have noticeably different instrument balance, rather than sounding similar.



Let’s go into details about how Cantor present various types of voices and instruments in some test tracks. The first track is Shivers by Ed Sheeran, which is invaluable for checking the harshness and sibilance of an IEM, as well as its balance across the midrange frequencies. Cantor does not intensify the harshness in this track, but at the same time it does nothing to reduce the sharp edges either. I quite enjoy the way Cantor renders Ed Sheeran’s voice in this track. It does not add a blanket of warmth on this voice but also does not tilt his voice toward upper midrange to make it thin and shrill like some full Harman or diffuse-field based IEMs.

The next track is Kiwi wa Boku ni Niteiru by See-Saw, which is an excellent song to test the ability of an IEM to handle female vocals in “weeb musics.” Cantor does a great job here, making the voice of Chiaki Ishikawa bright and clear, while maintaining enough energy in the lower midrange to avoid making the voice thin and harsh. I also enjoy how crystal clear the rest of the mix is, allowing me to hear all other sound elements making up the background of the track. I was quite surprised by the amount of detaild packed into this familiar track when I listened to it with Cantor the first time.



The next track is Now We Are Free by 2CELLOS, which assesses an IEM’s ability to render lower-midrange, particularly cellos. Cantor passes the “2CELLOS” test with flying colour. The main cellos have a thick and authoritative tone with proper “weight” and low-pitched rumble, without sounding muffled or muddy. I’m particularly impressed by the ability to Cantor to handle the lower midrange of this track, which is quite saturated due the presence of two cellos and the cello and doublebass sections of the orchestra. Cantor managed to maintain the definition of and separation between these instruments, preventing frequency region from becoming muddled.

The next track is Playing God by Polyphia. I focus on the tonal quality and the level of energy conveyed by the guitars. This track also helps assess the balance of the bass against the midrange, which is reflected by the relative loudness between the bass guitar and the rest of the music. There are two aspects that Cantor impressed me with this track. The first aspect is the sheer texture and detail of the bass guitar. I can hear a distinct low-pitched growling of the bass guitar. It’s powerful and present whilst also maintaining impressive level of control and details. The second aspect that impressed me was the percussions. The kick drum has clean yet powerful attack. Cymbals and hats are energetic enough and full of micro details without becoming harsh or piercing. At the same time, Cantor does not pull the treble back, so you might find the treble a bit too high if you are after a warmer and milder tonal balance.

The next track on our list is the aria of Bach’s Goldberg Variations, recorded by Lang Lang. I find that piano is the best instrument to assess the overall tonal balance of an IEM. Simply put, if the piano does not sound even across the frequencies, the midrange of an IEM is imbalanced. Cantor renders the piano with a great sense of balance across the spectrum. None of the voice unnaturally overpower other voices. Moreover, the sense of clarity and separation is remarkable, making it very easy for me to “zoom” into individual voice and then “zoom” out to hear how all voices interact with each other. In some parts, such as at the end of Variation 2, I can even hear the sounds of mechanisms inside the piano. Another area where Cantor does a great job is the ability to fully convey the dynamic of the recording, smoothly transitioning from piano to forte with all the shades in between. Simply put, the IEM manages to grab my attention and refuses to let go throughout this long piece.



The next track on our list is Ciaccona from Bach’s Violin Partita No.2 in D Minor, performed by Kavakos. This track aims to assess two aspects: the rendition of violin and the reproduction of upper treble energy, which is reflected by the quality and detail of the reverberation and micro details at the decay end of violin notes. Cantor presents the violin with a dry, clean, and textured tone. I like how the violin seems to pop up from a deep black background, surrounded by the reverberation of the recording hall. I particularly enjoy the slower phrases where the main violin notes stop slightly to let the reverberation rings out. The ability of Cantor to render those reverberation cleanly until the fade out does a great job of drawing me into the recording. Another area where Cantor impresses me is ability to convey dynamic variations and contrasts with many shades and gradations.

The final track on our timbre test is Synchro BOM-BA-YE by Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra. This track aims to test the tonal balance and timbre of the upper midrange and treble region. There are two cues I focus on in this track: the hand claps at the beginning, and the tonal quality of all brass instruments throughout the track. Cantor passed this treble timbre test without much difficulty. The hand claps at the beginning sounds natural and detailed. All brass instruments sound like how they should sound.



In summary, I find Cantor to have an impeccable tonal balance and timbre that does well across variety of musical content. It does not impose its will nor change the energy level of the recordings. Instead, it does the best job of getting out of the way of whatever audio content it reproduces. 5/5 - Outstanding.

Bass and perceived dynamic:

Many of us in our hobby tend to cringe when hearing the dreaded “BA bass”, which is generally rightfully so. I sometimes use the rather impolite term “BA fart” to describe the “classical” sound of BA woofers: clear attack but lacking any sense of “weight”, power, or rumble. In other words, bass notes sound like “poof”, the bassline feels hollow and truncated without proper texture or detail. Some tuners try to compensate by increasing the midbass, which, in my experience, only exacerbate the problem. Thus, I was skeptical when learning that Cantor relies on sophisticated tubes and crossover to improve BA bass rather than switching to dynamic drivers (DD).

It turned out my concern was unfounded, as the bass response and dynamic are the highlight of my experience with Cantor. Simply put, with Cantor, I don’t hear “BA bass” or “DD bass” but the actual percussive and bass instruments in the mix, if that makes sense to you. This impression is supported by two factors. Firstly, the bass attacks have crisp edge, as you would expect from a BA-based design. Where Cantor differs is its ability to provide the oomph to the bass attack, thanks to the subbass boost. As a result, Cantor’s presentation feels snappy, rhythmic, and dynamic. Or, simply put, it’s “toe tapping”.



Secondly, the subbass boost plays an important role in pulling the rumble, textures, and details in the bass line out. Perhaps thanks to the agility of BA drivers, Cantor does a great job at pealing the bass line apart and presents all of this information clearly. I particularly enjoy bass guitars, doublebasses, and lower strings of cellos with Cantor: the plucks of these instruments feel weighty and tactile, whilst their textures and decays are clearly presented in a way that not many dynamic driver woofers can convey.

The main limitation of the bass response to me is the amount of bass being presented. Simply put, Cantor has a strong vibe of “it is what it is” when it comes to the amount of bass you can hear. If a track is supposed to be thick and bassy, it will sound thick and bassy, and vice versa. Whilst this approach has merits, there are times when I simply want an excessive amount of bass for pure fun.



Let’s examine the bass and perceived dynamics of Cantor with some test tracks. The first one is A Reckoning in Blood from The Ghost of Tsushima OST. The crescendo at 01:10 highlights the ability to convey dynamic of Cantor. It’s like, there is no holding back. The energy level keeps rising steadily from the quiet section at 0:40 to the explosion at 1:10, which gets my blood pumping immediately. The subsequent beats from 02:50 are strong, snappy, and precise, conveying a great sense of rhythm.

The next track is Strength of a Thousand Men (Live) by Two Steps from Hell. This track highlights both strengths and weaknesses of Cantor’s bass response. Regarding bass quality, Cantor continues to shine as it can convey a sense of “grippiness” and texture in the bass region, making the bass line growl rather than low-pitched hum. Thanks to the control over the bass response, Cantor manages to keep the beats snappy and incisive on top of the rumble. However, the amount of bass of Cantor holds it back from a successful rendition of this track. Simply put, whilst I can make sense of the bass line with effort than usual, I don’t feel my blood pumping and toe tapping with this track with Cantor. To be fair to Cantor, few IEMs manage to well with this track in my experience.



So, what is my conclusion about the bass and dynamic of Cantor? I think there are many aspects that Cantor does exceptionally well, such as how it conveys dynamic swings, how it peels apart bass lines, and how it renders the textures and details of bass instruments. Where it tumbles is recordings that are not that punchy but we expect them to be punchy. Because Cantor does not boost the midbass significantly, these tracks end up sounding less energetic than what I expect. Still, tracks like these are far and few, and I find the pros to outweight the cons. 5/5 - Outstanding.

Resolution: To me, “resolution” can be broken down into three components: (1) Sharpness, incisiveness, or “definition” of note attacks (see the figure above). (2) The separation of instruments and vocals, especially when they overlap on the soundstage. (3) The texture and details in the decay side of the notes. The first two give music clarity and make it easy to track individual elements of a mix. The last provides music details and nuances.



Resolution is, without a doubt, the strongest aspect of Cantor. Transparent and effortless are the good adjectives to describe Cantor. Across tracks and genres, I find that Cantor always maintain a crystal clear clarity from bass to the treble without resorting to artificial sharpening of note attacks. The resolution on display here is what I call “true resolution.” What’s does that mean, you ask? It is the sense of effortlessness, when you listen to a dense and complex recording and find yourself able to separate and track individual parts with ease even whey they overlap on the soundstage. Moreover, when you zoom into individual element, you can hear minute details that lend those voices and instruments a great sense of realism.



Let’s elaborate on the resolution of Cantor with some test tracks. For the first track, we again listen to Ciaccona from Bach’s Violin Partita No. 2 in D Minor, performed by Kavakos. As a mentioned previously, Cantor does an outstanding job with this track. I like how the violin seems to pop up from a deep black background. The notes are not overly smoothened, but textured like how I hear my violin in real world practice sessions. I particularly enjoy how the reverberation extends out from the note and slowly fade into the background without being aruptedly cut off. In comparison against the venerable 64 Audio U12T, my benchmark for outstanding resolution, I found Cantor to be slightly more detailed and articulate. However, the gap is quite miniscule. Cantor also compares favourably against modern flagship-class IEMs such as the Canpur CP54E with an array of 4 electrostatic (EST) supertweeters from Sonion. When I listen closely, I find the CP54E to be half step ahead Cantor in terms of the definition and articulation of violin notes as well as the details of the reverberation and decay.

The next track is the “controlled chaos” ABC feat. Sophia Black by Polyphia. With this track, I focus on an IEM’s ability to not crumble under the complexity of overlapping layers in the mix. Cantor breezes through this track, making it easy for me to hear everything, down to the very faint overdub by Sophia Black on the side channels right from the opening of the track. As someone who loses attention quickly, I find Cantor turns these complex tracks into a game: what details can you pick out? Against the U12T, I found that Cantor is at least half step ahead. For instance, the busy section around 01:20 feels more veiled and congested with U12T. Interestingly, the CP54E does not out-resolve Cantor with this track. It’s likely that the V-shaped tuning of CP54E overshadows the advantages brought out by its quad EST array.

In summary, Cantor is an outstandingly resolving IEM that allows you to hear everything in the audio content. 5/5 - Outstanding

Stereo imaging and soundstage: Stereo imaging or “soundstage” is a psychoacoustic illusion that different recording elements appear at various locations inside and around your head. Your brain creates based on the cues in the recording, which are enhanced or diminushed by your IEMs, your DAC, and your amplifier. In rare cases, with some specific songs, some IEMs can trick you into thinking that the sound comes from the environment (a.k.a., “holographic”)



I’m surprised by how much I actually enjoy the soundstage and imaging of Cantor. Why surprise, you ask? It is because AFUL decides to stick to the same soundstage presentation as their previous flagship, the Performner8 (P8), a presentation that I did not enjoy. The best way to describe this soundstage shape of P8 is imaging having the foreground of the soundstage (i.e., singers, main instruments) pushed forward to your face. Because of this presentation, the soundstage can feel closed in and shallow, even if the IEM has great treble extension that can project the background elements far out (i.e., “large” soundstage in traditional sense). What surprised me is that despite sharing the same soundstage style, Cantor somehow manages to side step all of my previous criticism with the P8.

Precise and spacious are the best way to describe the soundstage and imaging of Cantor. The soundstage of Cantor can change readily between recordings rather than sticking to a particular shape. If a recording is supposed to sound intimate, Cantor can place the singer right up to the face or even inside the head. If a recording is supposed to sound like a live recording with a band or an orchestra, Cantor can place the voices and instruments as if they spread out in front of me. Depending on the recording, sometimes the height dimension of the soundstage is also used with instruments floating up and above the head. With most recordings in my library, Cantor can comfortably push the background elements of the mix out of the head. In fact, sometimes when I listen to Cantor on commute, I wonder whether other people around me can hear my music, due to how “out of head” the soundstage feels.



Cantor also makes excellent use of its large soundstage. It is quite adept at conveying the contrast between nearer and further elements of mix, creating a clear sense of layering. The imaging of Cantor is also tack sharp and precise. I’m particularly impressed by how this IEM reveals and convey minute shifting of the positioning of instruments, such as when the soloist moves slightly in front of a stereo mic. Needless to say, gaming is excellent with this IEM.

Let’s listen to some test tracks to assess the soundstage and imaging capability of Cantor. The first one is Original Sound Effect Track - Memory from Gundam Seed Destiny OST album. This track compiles all sound effects used in the show, arranged atmospherically and immersively. Cantor effectively utilizes this information to create a diverse soundstage, with sound elements appearing in all three dimensions, offering contrast between near and distant sounds. Many elements on the left and right channels will seem to originate outside the ears. Against the venerable 64 Audio U12T, my benchmark for outstanding soundstage and imaging, I’m surprised to find how much sharper the positioning of sound elements is with Cantor. Despite not having as much air vent as U12T, Cantor manages to do a similar job at extending the soundstage to outside the ears.

The next track is Shadow of Baar Dau. This one tests an IEM’s ability to convincingly convey the sense of distance of background elements, such as the string section at 00:20 on the front left and the vocal chants on the front right at 00:40. Cantor successfully conveys a spacious sensation and creates an illusion that some background elements come from outside the head. I also find that Cantor has sharper instrument positioning than U12T. However, the slightly blurry presentation of U12T some how make the sense of space and distance in this track more “real” to me.



In summary, Cantor does an outstanding job at conveying a precise and spacious stereo image. Even as a self-proclaimed soundstage connoisseur, there is not much I can fault Cantor. If I really nitpick, I would say the soundstage of Cantor lacks a certain “special sauce” that some IEMs with the so-called Bone Conduction Driver can convey. Perhaps Cantor II? 5/5 - Outstanding

---

Driveability​

Cantor has a moderate impedance of 20ohm and moderate sensitivity of 106dB/mW @ 1kHz. These specifications place it in the sweet spot of most portable DACs and amplifiers. To put in context, it is sensitive enough to avoid pushing amplifiers into current limit, yet insensitive enough to avoid hissing with most sources, even desktop devices like my FiiO K7 on high gain. I do hear an improvement when pairing Cantor with stronger source device, but I don’t feel like I sacrifice a lot of sound quality driving Cantor from smaller DAPs like HiBy R3. Alternatively, I can add a battery powered portable amplifier between my DX300 and Cantor to enjoy additional soundstage expansion and dynamic when I enjoy the IEM at home. Such versatility makes Cantor a candidate for a one-IEM setup.

---

ComparisonsPermalink​

AFUL Cantor vs AFUL Performer5: There were quite a few surprises when I compared Cantor and Performer5 (P5). My first surprise was the lack of volume difference. I can swap between these IEMs without changing the volume setting on my DAP at all.



The second surprise to me was how much more defined and rhythmic the Cantor feels compared to P5. For instance, whilst P5 can convey the dynamic swings such as the first beat drop at 01:10 in A Reckoning in Blood from The Ghost of Tsushima OST, the swings are not stronger than those of Cantor. Moreover, the attack of the drum beats are more loose and less incisive with P5. As a result, Cantor sounds more snappy and energetic than P5. To add a knock out blow, the bass texture and details of Cantor is also noticeably ahead of P5. I would say the performance showcased by these two IEMs flew in the face of the dogma of our hobby that DD woofers are automatically better than BA woofers.



The rest of the performance differences between Cantor and P5 were not surprising. For instance, Cantor is more resolving across the frequency spectrum. Imaging is more precise on Cantor. The best way I can explain the difference in the presentation of these IEMs is that P5 feels cloudy when I listen to it immediately after listening to Cantor: the background is not as dark, elements do not pop from the background as clearly. When instruments overlap, it is harder to separate them. That said, this cloudy sensation ceases to be that problematic after I listen to P5 exclusively for a few songs.

AFUL Cantor vs AFUL Performer8: When swapping from Cantor to Performer8 (P8), I immediate noticed four differences. Firstly, the P8 was louder than Cantor at the same volume level, though not significantly more so. To put in context, I need to drop the volume from 28 to 22 on my DX300.



The second difference was how much flatter the soundstage of the P8 feels. To be fair, both IEMs push the entire midrange forward to the listener in the same way. Moreover, both IEMs can separate the background elements (e.g., choral and string sections) from the foreground elements (e.g., main instruments and vocalists) and throw the background elements further into the background, away from the listener, thus both can sound spacious with the right track. The key difference is in the way these IEMs shape the foreground layers of the soundstage. Simply put, the foreground layers have more “thickness” on Cantor, meaning I can pin point nearer and further elements within the foreground of the mix (e.g., the singer is slightly closer whilst the main guitar is further back). On the other hand, P8 tends to compress the foreground layers into a relatively flat plane.



The third difference was how much more defined the outline and boundary of elements on the soundstage are with Cantor. For example, when I listen to soundtracks from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I found that Cantor can make every instrument on the stage crystal clear and well separated, as if they pop from a black background. Meanwhile, everything feels more “blobby”, less define, more cloudy, and the background feels more “gray-ish” with P8. As a result, it’s harder to track and focus on individual parts of the mix with P8. When I “zoom” into individual parts of the mix, I found that P8 reveals less details and nuances than Cantor.

The final difference was bass and dynamic. The difference was rather day and night when I listen to A Reckoning in Blood from The Ghost of Tsushima OST with both IEMs. The dynamic swings, such as the first beat drop at 01:10 was much more powerful and satisfying with Cantor. Every following beats are also more incisive with Cantor, giving the track stronger sense of energy and rhythm. The texture, details, and rumble of the drums are also noticeably better on Cantor. The difference persisted even when I turn the volume of P8 to be noticeably louder than Cantor to give it an advantage.

AFUL Cantor vs AFUL Magic One: Most of the differences between Cantor and other AFUL IEMs that I applied above apply to Magic One as well. For instance, Magic One sounds noticeably more cloudy and less detailed than Cantor. When the beats drop, Magic One does not sound as visceral as Cantor. However, I can hear the DNA of Magic One’s bass tuning in the response of Cantor with the emphasis on tight and crisp note attack to convey a strong sense of rhythm (a.k.a., the infamous term “PRaT”). Surprsingly, I also found Magic One to convey less information in the treble air region than Cantor, making Magic One a more mid-range centric performer compared to Cantor. Regarding sensitivity, Magic One is noticeably harder to drive than Cantor.



AFUL Cantor vs AFUL Explorer: This is the comparison that I look forward to the most, as Explorer is one of the most accomplished bass performer in AFUL line up before Cantor, in my opinion. So, how did Explorer fare?



Let’s put the obvious out of the way. Yes, Explorer sounds more cloudy with less details and poorer instrument separation than Cantor. Surprisingly, I have no problem with the sense of space of Explorer when listening to spacious recordings such as the Ghost of Tsushima OST or Samuel Kim’s epic covers.



What surprised me the most was the bass response. Given that Explorer is a bass-centric IEM, it was expected that Explorer has louder bass than Cantor. What’s interesting is how Explorer controls that bass response, ensuring that dynamic swings are well presented and bass attacks are snappy. More importantly, Explorer also manages to convey details and textures in bass instruments, not unlike Cantor. Whilst Cantor’s bass is ultimately more precise and refined, I can totally understand if you find a small loss in bass quality in exchange for more indulgent bass quantity presented by Explorer a better choice.

AFUL Cantor vs Juzear 61T Butterfly: You might be asking “why this comparison?” Well, one of the answer is “why not”, but the more accurate one would be curiosity. Given that 61T is an IEM that I consider a “unicorn”, I am quite curious how it fares against the Cantor, and I guess you do too.



The first difference between these IEMs was the tuning. If you consider 61T to be “neutral”, then you would find Cantor “cold” or “analytical”. Alternatively, you find Cantor “neutral” or “reference”, you would find 61T a bit too warm and muffled. Personally, I think both IEMs fall within the realm of “neutral” and both present the music in a quite natural manner. Resolution-wise, I find 61T to be quite cloudy after listening to Cantor. This difference is a combination of lower instrument separation and the masking of lower midrange. Regarding the bass, 61T has a larger bass amount, but the bass is not as snappy and detailed as Cantor. You can think of Cantor’s bass presentation as precise jabs whilst 61T’s bass is like being wacked on the head with a pillow. Your preference would determine which bass presentation is better. Regarding soundstage and imaging, I found that 61T and Cantor are quite close in terms of the shape and size of the stage, but Cantor is noticeably more precise with better layering effect (contrast between nearer and farther sounds in a mix).

AFUL Cantor (Stock tips) vs Sony IER-Z1R (Sony silicone tips): Z1R is a legendary IEM when it comes to bass quality and soundstage (and also the difficulty of getting a good fit). How does Cantor fare? Using my favourite test tracks, the Ghost of Tsushima OST album, I put Cantor and Z1R on the scale. The first difference I observed was loudness: Z1R required 33/100 whilst Cantor needed 30/100 to reach the same listening volume. I’m slightly surprised by how closed the volume levels were, given the reputation of Z1R as a difficult to drive IEM.



The second difference was the resolution, in terms of both instrument separation and micro details. Whilst Z1R was certainly capable, Cantor consistently out-resolved it. Simply put, whilst both IEMs can separate and reveal all main elements in a mix effectively, Cantor goes one step further in terms of the little details of those instruments and of the fainter background elements. In other words, there are more information to listen to with Cantor whilst I run into a “veil” earlier with Z1R. This different is especially evidenced in slower but more detailed section such as the flute and string section between 0:40 to the crescendo at 1:00 in A Reckoning in Blood from The Ghost of Tsushima OST.

The next two differences were rather surprisingly to me. The first one was in the bass response. For instance, let’s consider the penultimate track in the album, The Fate of Tsushima. This track has rather interesting bassline with a sequence of drum beats panning back and forth on the soundstage, accompanied by low pitch “growl” from what I assume some forms of acoustic bass. When it comes to the amount, or loudness, of the bass, Z1R wins hands down. It is simply more thumpy and satisfying, though I would argue that Z1R does not boost the bass that much so if the track is not bassy enough, this IEM would not change that. When it comes to bass quality the scale tips back towards Cantor, again, by a small margin. Both IEMs present the bass line with a great sense of rhythm and dynamic thanks to snappy note attacks. Both IEMs presents the low pitch information and texture very well, most notably in the low-pitched rumbles. So in some senses, Z1R is impressive by how tightly it controls its massive DD subwoofers, whilst Cantor is impressive how it manages to convey bass energy with plain old BA woofers.

The final difference, or rather lack of difference, between Z1R and Cantor was the soundstage. Both IEMs craft similarly spacious soundstage that expands in all three dimensions. Cantor pushes the main content at the center of the soundstage forward more, whilst Z1R pulls the midrange back a touch, so in terms of the structure of the soundstage, I prefer Z1R’s. However, Cantor takes back the lead when it comes to the incisiveness and precision of the placement of instruments on the soundstage.

AFUL Cantor vs Canpur CP54E: The first difference between these IEMs were sensitivity. AFUL consistently requires 5 to 8 more volume notches on my DX300 to reach the sound loudness level from the balanced output. The second major difference was tuning. AFUL is a neutral / flat IEM whilst CP54E is a V-shaped IEM. In practice, CP54E sounds more punchy and energetic with boosted bass punches and sharper note edges. On the other hand, this tuning also casts a warm “veil” over the midrange of most tracks, giving vocals a warm hue that might be you might consider “musical”. Another side effect of this warm veil is reducing the sense of separation between instruments in complex track, making CP54E seem less resolving than Cantor. It is really not the case since CP54E actually has sharper note definition and more detailed treble air than Cantor when both IEMs play a sparse recording, such as Bach’s violin partitas.

_____

Conclusions​

If it hasn’t been clear, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Cantor. It has been such a journey since the time AFUL teased the bass tube design of Cantor ages ago, and I’m glad the final result turned out as great as it is. Even though it does not break through the barrier of IEM performance set by the current state-of-the-art, it brings state-of-the-art sound to a much lower budget. The care and attention AFUL puts into the design and engineering of Cantor, the packaging that supports it, and, ultimately, the resulting sound quality firmly place Cantor in the pantheon of “TOTL”, in the humble opinion of this reviewer. Whilst we might never reach the “ideal” IEM, with Cantor and other IEMs that would inevitably emerge, I say we are getting closer and closer there, one release at a time. Seal of approval and recommendation without reservation.

Moving forward, there are but two questions. The first question is for you: how much do you need a highly technical IEM with a flat tunning in your collection?

The second question is for AFUL: What’s next, now that you are done with the full-BA topology?

What I like about this IEM:

• Ability to peel apart complex recordings
• Transparent, natural tonality that gets out of the way of music
• Vocals are realistic yet beautiful
• Clean and snappy bass transients
• Detailed and textured bass notes
• Large soundstage with laser sharp imaging
• Comfortable in long listening sessions
• Excellent accessories, especially the cable

What could be improved:

• Limited ear tips compatibility due to the built-in metal tube
• The bass quantity might be lacking with some tracks
• The soundstage lacks certain “special sauce” of IEMs with bone conduction drivers

Absolute Sonic Quality Rating: 5/5 - Outstanding

Bias Score: 5/5 - I love this IEM!



Updated: September 9, 2024

Preface:

I would like to thank HiFiGo for sending this unit as part of the review tour.

You can purchase Cantor at the following link (not an affiliate link):
https://hifigo.com/products/aful-ca...fgA1nP56YHQubwUIF7dh69aTNFsO5IkvMGoQAI0rBpGha

Also, I’m not a seasoned reviewer, so whatever I say is purely my observations and your results may vary.

I’m not the one to usually focus on specifications and numbers. I focus more on how happy I am with the equipment’s sound and that’s it.

Disclaimer: All impressions and opinions in this review are my own. I have not been paid or compensated by HiFiGo, Aful or any other entity for this review. My assessment is based solely on my personal experience with the product.

Sources used:

• D16 Taipan
• L&P W2 Ultra
• iBasso DX260
• RME ADI-2 Pro FS R
• Gungnir + XI Audio Broadway S

Introduction:

Aful has quickly become a brand I associate with exciting and innovative IEMs. After having thoroughly enjoyed their previous releases like the P5, P8, Magic One, and Explorer, I was eager to see what they'd achieve with their new flagship, the Cantor. Aful's dedication to research and development shines through in their products, consistently pushing the boundaries of audio quality in their respective price brackets. So, when the Cantor finally arrived, I was ready to be wowed.



Design and Build:

The Cantor is a stunner. The faceplates, with their deep, swirling blue resin and shimmering particles, are like miniature galaxies. The IEMs themselves feel solid and well-made, and the cable, has a nice aesthetic which is very flexible and durable, making it easy to manage and tangle-free.

I have to admit, I was initially intimidated by the long nozzle. I have fairly small ear canals, and I was worried about comfort. But to my surprise, the Cantor fit snugly and comfortably. The only catch is that I found myself limited to using the stock tips; any other tips I tried seemed to disrupt the seal and create an uncomfortable pressure.

I did however feel a little less confident changing the tips as I feared I might break the nozzle.



















Sound Analysis: A Symphony of Nuances

The Cantor's sound signature is a testament to Aful's dedication to sonic excellence, offering a refined and nuanced listening experience with a few minor areas for improvement.

Sub Bass:

While the sub-bass delivers a satisfying rumble, I found myself yearning for a bit more depth and visceral impact in certain tracks. Listening to the "Dune" soundtracks, the sub-bass, while present, lacked the earth-shattering rumble that I was hoping for to fully convey the grandeur and scale of the music. The deep, resonating notes that should have shaken my core felt somewhat restrained, preventing the soundtrack from reaching its full cinematic potential. Similarly, in "Defeated Clown" from the "Joker" soundtrack, the lower registers of the cello, which are crucial for creating the track's ominous and unsettling atmosphere, felt somewhat subdued. The lack of weight in this region prevented the track from fully conveying the emotional weight of the scene.

In contrast, the sub-bass performance in "Chameleon" by Trentemøller was more satisfying. The deep, pulsating bassline provided a solid foundation for the track, adding a sense of groove and movement without becoming overpowering. However, even here, I felt that the sub-bass could have benefited from a bit more extension and rumble to truly immerse me in the music.

Mid Bass:

The mid-bass is punchy and well-defined, adding a rhythmic drive to the music. In "Rosanna" by Toto, the kick drum provides a satisfying impact, driving the song's groove. However, the transient attack felt slightly softened, lacking a bit of the snap and immediacy that I was hoping for. This subtle rounding off of the transients took away some of the excitement and energy from the track.

In "Billie Jean" by Michael Jackson, the mid-bass performance was more impressive. The bassline was tight and controlled, providing a solid rhythmic foundation for the track while allowing the other elements to shine through. The kick drum hits with a satisfying punch, adding to the song's infectious groove.

Lower Midrange:

Male vocals are rendered with a natural warmth and fullness, but I noticed a subtle recession in this region, which occasionally pushed vocals slightly behind the instruments. This was particularly noticeable in tracks like "So What" by Miles Davis, where the trumpet solo, which should be front and center, lacked some of its presence and bite. The trumpet's timbre felt slightly muted, preventing it from fully expressing its dynamic range and raw energy.

Similarly, in "Hotel California" by the Eagles, the lower midrange recession slightly affected the presence of the guitars and vocals. While the overall presentation was still enjoyable, I felt that the instruments could have benefited from a bit more body and warmth to fully convey the song's emotional depth.

Upper Midrange:

Female vocals, on the other hand, are beautifully presented with a smooth and detailed clarity. In "Gravity" by Sara Bareilles, her voice soared with emotion and nuance, capturing the vulnerability of the song. The Cantor's ability to reproduce the subtle inflections in her voice added to the emotional impact of the performance. Similarly, in "Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap, the Cantor beautifully rendered the ethereal quality of her vocals, capturing the nuances of her layered harmonies.

Lower Treble:

The lower treble is well-extended, adding a crispness and definition to instruments like cymbals and hi-hats. In "Rosanna" by Toto, the hi-hat shimmers with detail, capturing the full spectrum of its sound, from the initial strike to the subtle decay. The sense of space and ambience around the instrument is also well-defined, creating a realistic impression of the hi-hat being played in a physical space.

In "Take Five" by Dave Brubeck, the lower treble performance was equally impressive. The delicate cymbal work was rendered with precision and clarity, adding a sense of airiness and shimmer to the track without ever becoming harsh or sibilant.

Upper Treble:

The upper treble extends well, contributing to a sense of airiness and sparkle. Cymbal crashes in tracks like "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins are rendered with a bright and shimmery quality without being harsh or splashy. However, I did find the upper treble to be a touch emphasized at times, which could lead to a slightly forward presentation in certain tracks, particularly those that are already bright or sibilant.

This emphasis was noticeable in "Baba O'Riley" by The Who, where the synthesizers and cymbals felt a bit too prominent in the mix, occasionally bordering on harshness. However, in well-recorded tracks like "Time" by Pink Floyd, the upper treble added a sense of air and sparkle without any unwanted sibilance.

Staging:

The Cantor's soundstage is impressively wide and deep, creating a realistic sense of space. In orchestral pieces like "Jupiter" from Holst's "The Planets," the instruments are spread out with a clear sense of positioning, creating an immersive listening experience. The soundstage extends beyond the confines of my head, giving the impression of listening to a live performance.

Layering and Separation:

Even in complex musical passages, the Cantor maintains excellent layering and separation. Instruments are clearly defined and easy to distinguish, allowing me to appreciate the individual elements within the music. In "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen, the intricate vocal harmonies and instrumental layers are beautifully separated, allowing me to appreciate the complexity of the arrangement.

Timbre:

The timbre of instruments is generally natural and realistic, although I felt some instruments, particularly in the lower midrange, lacked a bit of body and texture due to the slight recession in that area. In "Rosanna" by Toto, the toms sounded slightly thin and lacked some of their natural resonance and sustain, which detracted from the overall realism of the drum kit.

Detail Retrieval:

The Cantor excels at detail retrieval, uncovering subtle nuances in the music that often go unnoticed. This was evident in tracks like "Clair de Lune" by Debussy, where the delicate piano notes were rendered with exquisite detail and nuance. I was able to hear the subtle variations in touch and dynamics, adding to the emotional impact of the performance.

Conclusion:

The Aful Cantor is a remarkable IEM that delivers a refined and engaging listening experience. Its balanced sound signature, excellent detail retrieval and impressive technical performance make it a really compelling option for those who love details more than anything else. While minor shortcomings in the sub-bass depth, lower midrange presence, and upper treble emphasis prevent it from achieving absolute perfection, the Cantor undoubtedly offers exceptional value and sonic enjoyment.

This is a sample sent to me by Hifigo which I bought on discount. I try not to let that influence how I write my reviews but wanted to be honest and clean with how I got the set. This also has been a set that I’ve anticipated for over a year. At the beginning of the year, I looked forward to Crinacle dusk 2, and Aful Cantor the most. I enjoy Aful’s sets, and will strive to give you the best review that I can.

I’ve been a huge Aful fan since their P5. A huge headphone nut for years, the P5 made me do a switch to iems a few years ago and start reviewing about a year and a half ago. I love their products in general.

Let me share what music that I listen to:

Song Choice: Tidal list here:
I listen to a wide variety of music. I pick the songs because of various reasons. But I picture myself locked away like Andy Dufresne from Shawshank blasting music and shut off from the world. It’s a blissful image.
The Marriage of Figaro -The opera song from Shawshank Redemption, terrible recording but fun and gets me in the mood to listen to music.
O mio Babino caro -This is a modern less operatic version but a song with great female vocals.
Video Rigoletto - “La donna e mobile” Sung by one of the three Tenors, great song for high-performing male vocals. Pavarotti is the greatest classic singer maybe ever. Fight me!
Iron man - The sound at the beginning is hard to make sound great, great drums, and cymbals, and if done right it feels like an old-school band.
I Will Survive (1981 recording, I like her voice, and the old vocals, the drums, and various natural instruments really make this a favorite for me.
There is a light That never goes out - Smiths ( A classic, I just love it. It’s mellow, and I can tell a lot of the tuning if this song is done right.)
Jump (I like how the sound effects are in this!)
Star Child Someone recommended this song to me, and I like how funky it sounds and has nice vocals and a mix of music and things going on.
Dicke Titten Ramstein The beginning is amazing and the bass hits hard. Great song. I love rock and metal. The German language fascinates me
Master of Puppets: Very fast song. Helps me determine if the driver can keep up.


This is a newer version of my 10 favorite songs that also work for audiofile music.

This is a copy of a bunch of good audiofile music. Some are on my favorites, but all are great to test headphone tracks. (70+)

This is my favorite overall music. 300+ songs (needs to be edited a bit)

THE NOZZE!
This is going to be a contested issue. I like this nozzle. But it is unique and special. The metal tube makes it feel durable. I’ve had some nozzles break on me, unfortunately. I dont’ see that happening with the Aful Cantor.
The length of the nozzle is pretty long and worrisome. I honestly kinda like it. The end of the nozzle occasionally touches the insides of my ears on occasion. This isn’t an issue for me at all, but I wanted to mention that is the only negative that I feel with this design.

The faceplate.
Normally I don’t mention faceplates. Big shoutout to Starbucanners and anyone else who is on team Starynight. I know a lot of people myself included were in love of this faceplate. So this is an exciting thing that I feel the company has listened to the community. I love that about Aful. I think the design of the starrynight is very pretty. One of the coolest designs on any iem, which makes it special.

The CABLE!
The cable is a nice feeling cable, but I find it slightly microphonic. It’s one of those things that isn’t an add for me personally, but I’m kinda easy to please and prefer often cheaper cables. This cable feels premium and looks great. While not something that I would personally use or recommend, it’s fine. I don’t believe in cables, but I do find they affect comfort and are fun because they are pretty.

TIPS
There is a wide selection of tips. I ended up using Victor Spiral Dot Pro EP-FX 12 on them. But most tips work well on the Cantor. I tried many tips, and the big issue is getting them over the nozzle is the only issue.


View attachment IMG_3619.JPG


Bass (20-60 Sub Bass, 60-250 Hz Mid Bass)

The details of the bass is strong I feel like it has good quality, but I do find it to be slightly less impactful than what I might want out of an iem. The bass seems well-controlled and acceptable, almost tame. To my basshead ears it is fantastic and one of my favorite bassy sets and I am super excited about it. It’s almost as if the shell adds addition dynamics due to the deep fit of the iem.

Midrange (250 HZ to 800 HZ Low Mids, 600-200 Hz Mids, 2000-5000Hz Upper Mids)

The midrange of this set is fantastic and slightly energetic, but not overly so. I’m never feeling lost or lacking in details of the vocals and it has strong mids similar to popular iems like the crinacle dusk and Canpurr 622B.

Treble (5000- 10000 Trebble/Highs, 10000 ++ HZ Upper Trebble & Air)

The upper air is the best part impressive. It sounds fantastic and not harsh. The upper Treble from 5000-10000 is something that I normally don’t like too much of. But on the Aful Cantor I do find it acceptable and not perfect. The extension and overall impression of this iem is really strong.

Gaming

Gaming is great on this iem, as it has a nice tonal balance and is pretty relaxed. The stage isn’t too wide, but just right. Detail retrieval during fights is immaculate, and the imaging vertically and horizontally is fantastic. It has great imaging and a good sense of where I am.

This is a fine iem for gaming, and will do well. But if you are just a gamer I’d recommend something cheaper like the Aful Explorer for a much more reasonable cost.

Shell -
The shell is fantastic, and I love the Starrynight. There is another design

Case- The case is beautiful and premium. It’s basically a Pelican case, it’s simple but the iem fits inside, and it’s a case. I like the transparent cover, but it’s probably not something that I’d use, yet I do appreciate a case of this quality. The only other time I’ve seen a case like this is with the Hisenior MEGA5EST which is double the price of this iem.





Graph:


Sound - Final Impressions

This is a very good Midfi option that has a tuning that I fully endorse. Obviously, our opinions are always different, but with many iems I would give hesitant recommendations or weary recommendations. I’ve reviewed a lot of iems and keep a spreadsheet or ranking list, and this I feel this iem is a solid pick with the few caveats that I’ve mentioned. It has a nice price, and good value proposition.

Recommended EQ: I use Peace APO to EQ on the PC. This EQ is done to my preference. I recently set up a preference curve on My Squig. So for at least iems, I can use my own graphs now. Please feel free to use the measurements as you want.. Jaytiss.squig.link
Overall this is an amazing iem that could easily be a game for most. The goal for me with an iem is to have an iem that doesn’t need EQ. This iem, does sound better to me with this eq, more neutral and less colored. This iem is a bit off my target. This iem doesn’t need EQ, but I could see people wanting some EQ with it. This is a special target that I got from messing around with Squiglink a bit. The bass is incredible.

Preamp: -4.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 36 Hz Gain 3.0 dB Q 1.000
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 150 Hz Gain 2.0 dB Q 0.500
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1200 Hz Gain -1.4 dB Q 1.900
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2200 Hz Gain 1.1 dB Q 1.900
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3000 Hz Gain 2.8 dB Q 0.800
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3000 Hz Gain -0.7 dB Q 2.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 6200 Hz Gain -6.8 dB Q 2.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8300 Hz Gain -5.5 dB Q 2.000
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9500 Hz Gain 2.9 dB Q 2.000
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10000 Hz Gain 5.4 dB Q 2.000

For some that aren’t so bass-focused, they may not even need any EQ. While I don’t feel EQ is required, this EQ makes this a slightly better-tuned set. EQ is huge, you can salvage a lot of iems from average to fantastic.







Gifting/who is it for: I think this is a nice hifi iem to gift to someone, it’s just a nice package that it is beautiful and unique. It’s the prettiest shell, a good-looking cable. The case is world-class and just amazing. It’s just a lovely set, and product. I have almost no issues with it and love it, I would fully recommend this product to those with some money and who have bought an expensive iem before. I think this is a phenomenal iem at it’s price and it represents value for what it is due to the sound and overall great presentation and artistic faceplate.


Pairing: I used a Quidelix 5k for mobile, my dongle Dac iBasso DC04 for my laptop, and my JDS lab Atom 2 with a SMSL 6d-s for my Desktop PC. I also tried the iem briefly on the Apple dongle as well. This iem had no issues being driven. Typically I only find overears to have a hard time being driven and maybe some planar iems. (I am not a huge mmcx or planar fan.)

Summary-

This to me is a special iem that is beautiful. Not something that is always true. It doesn’t leave me wanting anything for detail. The tune is a little bit flat and neutral and I find with EQ it does sound better to my ears, yet stock it is a fun more neutral presentation. Great drivers and technical prowess. I love what it does to my music. I find female vocals are strong and clean. I love it.

The P8 was a fantastic set but lacked dynamics. Not a bad iem, but not on the level of the Cantor. The Cantor is the next version of that technology, and to my ears, it sounds fantastic, clean, clear, and crisp. The packaging is fantastic and worthy of an iem much more expensive. It’s a lot of money, but to my ears, it competes with any iem out there. Thanks for reading!


I am also releasing a video on YouTube at the same time. (Soon )


I'm adding this on 9/14/24 to clarify some feelings on Cantor:
Aful Cantor comment
I wasn’t able to articulate everything that I wanted to and now that Cantor has been out, I wanted to say a few things to augment my review and clarify my opinion after reading and watching a few other reviews.

Fit
The Cantor can require a deep fit. But this to me is nothing like Etomoymic iems where they go super deep. Certain reviewers have felt issues with the fit, I have not had an issue. First of all on fit, fit is always a potential issue with any iem. If you are worried about fit, it’s ok to not love an iem with interesting or challenging fit. That’s part of the hobby. But this iem doesn’t have a poor fit and is fact very small and slender for holding 14 BAs. I enjoy how it sounds in ear and feel when you can, and if you can it is a special iem. To describe the fit, it would be a regular iem that is fact feeling somewhat slender, it’s odd to me that others find the fit poor.

It might require a nozzle mod, which ToneDeafMonk has recommended. I used multiple different tips but didn’t have any issues using my normal tips or the stock tips provided. I was able to actually push on my ears and lie down for a nap with them on with no issues.

To summarize the the fit of the Cantor for me, it is actually small, I showed the size of the Canpurr in my video and find the Canpurr to be large and the Cantor to actually be fair in size, about the same size as something like the Truthear Nova, or the Truthear Red. Slightly larger but not bit. Its height is overall only 27.15 mm, which for comparison the Etymotic ER2XR is 22mm in total length and houses more drivers with a more standard shell. The inner nozzle is designed to fit snugly against the inner wall of the ear tip.



Cantor is on the right, Canpurr 6222B on the Left. Cantor has no issues fitting in my ear.





The nozzle sits flush with the end of the tip. You see the magic one on the right has some extra room at the end which could have a metal tubing there.

Nozzle looks longer here, but it’s also a little wider than the Magic one. Not as comfortable, but nothing to be concerned about in my humble opinion.



Cantor did create custom font specifically for Cantor. Having owned both, I find them both very unique and the comparison a little odd. Canpurr 622B is very expensive at 3500 and the Cantor is a lot more reasonable at 800. There was a copyright to their new font. It has a futuristic feel.




EQ
As far as headaches with this iem. It does have some higher 5-6k energy, than what I prefere. This range can provide headaches for some people. For those who want to use the Cantor for longer than 8 hours or more, you might like some slight eq, but you can say that about almost all iems that they need some eq. Sound is extremely preferential based. A universal iem that fits one person, can bother another person. And that is a valid concern. I’m never trying to marginalize fit or confort for you, or the sound quality for an iem for, just talk about my preference. I hope that I clarified my feeling on Cantor.

28 BadAss- BA's Worthy Of Flagship Status


Lots of folks were eagerly waiting for this release for good reason AFUL being the technology forward thinkers they are, really had thier engineers working long hours on this one.

- And it payed off!


I would describe the CANTOR as,
FUN, ENGAGING, ACCURATE, RESOLVING, BALANCED, EXTREMELY COHESIVE, IMMERSIVE SOUNDSTAGE, TRANSPARENT, TAKING NO PRISIONERS KIND OF IEM.



Overall I feel AFUL is fully justified to charge $799 for the CANTOR.

There is alot of R&D , testing and money required to put out such a complete tuning worthy of a flagship status IEM and AFUL did just that.

If you need to sell a few / all your other sets to afford this one then I don't think the Cantor will leave you wanting for anything.

Thank you AtFull & HiFiGo for faciliting the unit for review.