INTRODUCTION
My first real quality IEM was the Shure SE420 (many years ago) and as such I’ve always had a bit of a soft-spot for multi-BA based ear-phones. The SE420 led me to Shures SE315,425, 535, and later to multi-BAs like the Alclair Curve, 64 Audio U6 and U10, Earsonics ES series, and the Fearless S8 (just to name a few). I like their speed, their mid-range tonality, and generally their fit / comfort. Because I travel a lot, isolation is also important to me – and the Shures were master of that. Fast forward to present day and Australian company Audiofly have sent me their AF1120 Mk2 for review. Lets see how it stacks up against others I’ve tried.
ABOUT AUDIOFLY
Audiofly is an Australian audio company, founded in 2012 with the primary aim to design pro audio products for both musicians and also music lovers. Although their first products mainly centred around Inner Ear Monitors (for stage and personal use), they now have a comprehensive range of products including IEMs, wireless earphones, a full sized headphone and a range of replacement cables. Perhaps their website best explains their philosophy in their own words.
“BUILT FOR MUSIC
Audiofly is about our love of music and the relationship we have with music through gear.”
Audiofly’s website and Facebook page are each linked for those wanting more information
DISCLAIMER
The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 that I’m reviewing today was provided to me as a review loaner. It will be returned following the review. The retail price at time of review is ~ USD 699.
PREAMBLE
If you haven't read any of my reviews, I suggest starting here, as it will give you an insight into my known preferences and bias. This may be useful for interpreting my comments and applying them to your own preferences.
For the purposes of this review - I used the Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 straight from the headphone-out socket of many of my portables, but predominantly the M6, M9, M11, and R2R2000. I have also experimented with a variety of amplifiers including the FiiO Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and xDuoo XP-2. IMO they do not benefit greatly from additional amplification. In the time I have spent with the AF1120, I have noticed no change to the overall sonic presentation (break-in).
This is a purely subjective review - my gear, my ears, and my experience. Please take it all with a grain of salt - especially if it does not match your own experience.
THE PACKAGE
The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 arrived in a 156 x 167 x 58mm box and lid. The lid has a photo of the AF1120 on the front, and lists the specifications and accessories on the rear. Opening the box and lid reveals a pelican case (105x140x50mm) which contains the accessory selection. The AF1120 Mk2 are snugly encased in a custom foam enclosure.
- AF1120 MK2 in-ear monitors
- Dome silicone tips: S, M, L
- Tri-flange silicone tips: S, M, L
- Comply® foam tips: S, M, L
- Pelican type case
- 3.5mm to 1/4” adaptor
- Airline adapter
- Cleaning tool
- Cable clip
THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
MEASUREMENTS
The graphs I use are generated using the Vibro Veritas coupler and ARTA software. Ken Ball (ALO/Campfire) graciously provided me with measurement data which I have used to recalibrate my Veritas so that it mimics an IEC 711 measurement standard (Ken uses two separate BK ear simulators, we measured the same set of IEMs, and I built my calibration curve from shared data). I do not claim that this data is 100% accurate, but it is very consistent, and is as close as I can get to the IEC 711 standard on my budget.
I do not claim that the measurements are in any way more accurate than anyone else's, but they have been proven to be consistent and I think they should be enough to give a reasonable idea of response - especially if you've followed any of my other reviews. When measuring I usually always use crystal foam tips (medium bore opening) - and the reason I use them is for very consistent seal and placement depth in the coupler. I use the same amp (E11K) for all my measurements - and output is under 1 ohm. Measurements above 9-10kHz are generally problematic with any hobbyist set-up, and should be disregarded, but generally my measurements from 20Hz to 9-10kHz have proven to be relatively close to many of the measurements of the manufacturers who support me.
The graphs are provided merely as a point of discussion, and later in the review I've included comparisons to other IEMs for similar reference. Channel matching is very good and is consistent over the entire frequency range.
BUILD
External
The AF1120 Mk2 has a peanut/jelly-bean shape design. It is designed to ergonomically fit snugly inside your outer ear cavity, securely held inside the Concha with the front snugly fitting adjacent to your Intertragical notch.
Internally the AF1120 Mk2 uses an all Balanced Armature driver system. It uses 3 sets of dual BA per earpiece for low, mid-range and upper frequencies and a 3 way passive crossover with Butterworth filter. Internally there is also a custom sound chamber to assist with both holding the BA drivers in place, and also for assisting the desired tuning.
FIT / COMFORT / ISOLATION
Internal and external isolation is extremely good as you’d expect for a non-ported IEM. It does ultimately depend on tip choice and seal. I would rate passive isolation as well above average and usable on public transport. Although it does not completely block out aircraft drone, by the time you add music, you aren’t hearing cabin sounds.
Fit and comfort thoughts are very subjective, and will vary from person to person. My experience has been one of complete satisfaction – the AF1120 are so small and light-weight. It has been designed for an ergonomic fit (much like a custom monitor). For me they are a perfect, sit inside my outer ear, and basically disappear within a few seconds of wearing (I could forget they are in). I have slept with them intact, and woken hours later with them still there and no discomfort. The AF1120 is designed to only be used cable over ear.
SOUND QUALITY
Most of the testing at this point was done with my FiiO M11, no EQ, and Shire large Olive foam tips. I used the M11 simply because paired they gave me a very transparent window to the music with low impedance, and more than enough power.
For the record – on most tracks, the volume level on the M11 was around 40/120 on low gain (depending on the track) which was giving me an average SPL around 65-75 dB. Tracks used were across a variety of genres – and can be viewed in this list https://www.head-fi.org/f/articles/brookos-test-tracks.17556/
While testing I constantly switched with my Alclair Curve to give me a good reference base-line.
Relativities
- Sub-bass – In reasonable balance with mid-range but ultimately sitting below both mid-bass and upper mid-range. Extension is good and the sub-bass rumble is definitely audible (Lorde's “Royals), although a little subdued. The bass is typical of most BAs I’ve heard. It is quick with clean decay and good speed.
- Mid-bass – above sub-bass and about even with upper mids, and has medium impact. The bass timbre and definition is quite clean and clear, and this is bass quality and that most people should enjoy. Bass lovers may be missing some overall quantity, but I personally find it nicely balanced. With Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” there is sufficient impact whilst still maintaining clarity. Its not thumping – but its definitely there.
- Lower mid-range – very slightly recessed compared to bass and upper mid-range. Both male and female vocal fundamentals are excellent though. Male vocals still come across with good body, and I’ve really enjoyed the likes of Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam), Shaun Morgan (Seether) and Joe Bonamassa.
- Upper mid-range – There is a slow and shallow rise from the lower mid-range to a peak at 3-4 kHz, then a drop through 5kHz and extended progression to the lower treble. The transition from lower to upper-mids is cohesive, and there is enough presence to provide both detail and presence. There is some euphony with female vocals, but it never over-done. The upper and lower mid-range on the AF1120 Mk2 is definitely it’s strength.
- Lower treble has a peak at 7-9 kHz, and then drops away a little through 10 kHz. The peak at 7 kHz gives detail and brilliance with cymbals, although the decay on the cymbals “splashes/crashes” just a little more than actually ‘shimmering’. Its still really well done – but after listening to AMEs Argent recently and its electret treble extension, nothing will ever be quite the same for me again.
- Upper treble appears to extends quite well but is below the rest of the signature. It is difficult to capture properly on my measurement rig, and with my “aged” hearing I no longer notice much over 12 kHz anyway.
Resolution / Detail / Clarity
- Very good cohesion in the mid-range, and the slight progression through upper mid-range provides detail in the presence area with good clarity and texture especially around vocals and guitar.
- Good upper end detail (hi-hats/cymbals) with reasonable decay.
- Clean and clear signature with enough bass to compliment without losing any detail.
- Very clear directional cues, just at the periphery of my head space – so reasonably intimate feeling of width and depth.
- Imaging is clean and there is good separation of instruments without being clinical. No signs of smearing.
- Decent sense of immersion (applause section of “Dante's Prayer”) with an impression that the crowd is around you (you are sitting right in it). Nice sense of depth as well – although width seems slightly stronger.
- Live recording of Lakme's “Flower Duet” (Netrebko and Garanca) had good presentation of space – especially as the singers move from front to rear of stage. Not as good as the likes of 64Audios U10 – but still quite compelling.
- “Let It Rain” had fantastic sense of 3D (the way it is miked) and sibilance is present - I know it exists in the recording. Not enhanced or over-emphasised which is a good sign that the 7 kHz peak is not over emphasised.
- Speed and texture of both sub and mid-bass.
- Spherical sense of stage (a little left/right – but not excessive), and intimate rather than overly spacious
- Excellent mid-range which suits both female and male vocals.
- Slight euphony with female vocals in the upper mid-range
- Detailed and clear with no brittleness
- Sub-bass, while present, has very slight roll off
- Very slightly splashy in the cymbal presence area
The Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 doesn’t need amplification for overall volume – and because its impedance is a relatively low 11 ohms, a source with an output impedance of around 0-1.5 ohms (to meet damping requirements) should make the best match. Most good sources should easily sit in the 0-1 ohm range. I did try the AF1120 with a higher impedance source (3 ohms) and there was a subtle shift in tonality (it became slightly brighter).
Next up was amplification, which meant testing with the Q1ii, E17K, Q5, and XP-2. In each case I noted a slightly different tonality (especially with the XP-2) but noticed no real differences in dynamics on any of the additionally amped sources. The XP-2 (via bluetooth) added some extra warmth which was actually quite nice, but IMO the AF1120 can do perfectly well without additional amping.
RESPONSE TO EQ?
Personally I find the AF1120 pretty much aligned to my personal tastes with regard to default signature. To test EQ ability though, I used the M11’s built in EQ to give a slight boost to sub-bass and a small cut at 8kHz. The lower treble cut reduced some of the splashiness of the treble with cymbals, and the sub-bass boost definitely increased the audible rumble. However whilst I’d probably keep the small 8kHz drop – the sub-bass increase does hit the clarity a little, and to be honest I like the bass the way it is. Its nice to see what the drivers can do though, and if you like tinkering, you’ll enjoy fine tuning this IEM to your preferences (it responds well).
COMPARISON WITH OTHER IEMS
These comparisons were all done with the M11, (no EQ) – and volume matched using a calibrated SPL meter and fixed 1kHz test tone first. For this series of tests I’ve tried to look at both value and quality – pitting the AF11230 Mk2 against other similar BA based IEMs (with a hybrid thrown in for good measure). For comparison I’ve used FiiO’s FA7, FH7, Alclair’s Curve, Earsonic’s ES3, Fearless Audio’s S8F and 64Audio’s U10. This is pretty subjective, but the graphs do show relativity against the other IEMs for reference.
Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs Alclair Curve ($250)
The Curve is dual BA vs the AF1120’s six. Both have an extremely ergonomic shape and both fit perfectly. Both are well crafted from a plastic polymer and have well made replaceable cables – my preference would be for the two pin Curve (personal). In this comparison, its a tie on build quality comfort, and ergonomics.
Sound & Value
As you can see from the graphs, these are two very similar sounding monitors. The bass is practically identical, with the main difference in the upper mid-range and lower treble (and this is a different flavour rather than being a different sound). The Curve has slightly more euphony with female vocalists and a little less splash in the lower treble. The AF1120 has slightly better male/female vocal balance, but a little more emphasis in the lower treble. It also may have a slight edge in instrument separation and imaging – but its not a game breaker. Both are incredibly well balanced and a joy to listen to. For me personally, I’ll stick with the Curve but either are a good recommendation.
Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs FiiO FA7 ($300)
The FA7 is quad BA vs the AF1120’s six. Both have an ergonomic shape and both fit perfectly. Both are well crafted (from resin or plastic polymer) and have well made replaceable cables – with the AF1120 Mk2 cable being lighter and more pliable. In this comparison again its a tie on build quality comfort, and ergonomics.
Sound & Value
These are chalk and cheese. FiiO tried to add some warmth to their signature, and elevated the bass – a lot compared to the mid-range. The mid-range (if you cut the bass) is almost perfect, but in its default signature, it is overly warm, lacks definition, and is highly bass emphasised. The added bass bleeds into the mid-range, and it sounds cloyingly dark. The AF1120 Mk2 in comparison has balance and clarity, whilst still keeping a tonality which works well across most genres. A good example of tuning both bad FA7 and good AF1120 Mk2. Here the AF1120 wins by quite a margin and is well worth the additional cost.
Audiofly AF1120 Mk2 ($700) vs FiiO FH7 ($450)
This pits a 5 driver DD/BA Hybrid vs the 6 driver all BA AF1120 Mk2. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable for long term listening. Both also have replaceable cables. Comfort and build quality here is shared. Personally for me, fit is slightly better on the AF1120 Mk2 and it wins in terms of isolation. The FH7 has the better cable.
Sound & Value
There is some similarity with these two IEMs, but the differences shown in the frequency response don’t quite show the true story. The perceived bass of the FH7 DD is closer than the graphs show vs the AF1120 Mk2 BA delivery (the AF1120 Mk2 does have more overall mid-bass impact though, and is quicker). Mid-range is somewhat similar, but the main difference comes with the more forward mids of the FH7 vs the more classical slow rise of the AF1120 Mk2 (from lower mids to upper mids). Both are clean and clear though, and both very well balanced. The FH7 is a little leaner whilst the AF1120 Mk2 is a little fuller. My preference here is the AF1120 Mk2.
Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs Fearless S8 Freedom ($489)
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver BA vs the 8 driver Freedom S8. Both IEMs have extremely ergonomic shells and are superbly comfortable. Both also have replaceable cables, although the S8 Freedom’s is arguably better quality. Comfort, isolation and build quality here are shared.
Sound & Value
Somewhat similar overall tonality. The AF1120 has better end to end balance, and although the bass looks lighter, the balance with the rest of the signature doesn’t make it sound bass light to me. Everything in a signature is relative. Both have very quick transients and do detail really well. The S8 Freedom has more emphasis in the lower end and a smoother overall tonality. The AF1120 has the better end to end balance with a slightly brighter top end. I really like both, and the winner here depends on the tonality you’re looking for.
Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs Earsonics ES3 ($399)
The AF1120 mk2 is a 6 driver per side BA vs the 3 driver per side Earsonics ES3. Both IEMs have ergonomic shells and are very comfortable – but the nod would go to the Audiofly AF1120 for a slightly smaller and better fitting body. Both have very good build quality and replaceable cables, and my personal preference is for the 2 pin ES3 cable. Comfort, isolation and build quality here are comparable.
Sound & Value
These two have quite different tonality. The ES3 is very flat through the mid-bass, but has elevated sub-bass. So it is a very clean and clear monitor which sounds somewhat lean, but has some bottom end kick. Personally I find the ES3 can be a bit dry with male vocal fundamentals. The AF1120 may not have the bottom end kick – but it has a fuller mid-range, and ultimately sounds more natural. Both have very quick transients and handle detail really well. For my preferences, I much prefer the AF1120 despite the rather large price differential.
Audiofly AF1120 mk2 ($700) vs 64 Audio U10 ($1300)
The U10 is a 10 driver per side multi-BA IEM vs the 6 driver per side AF1120. Both are extremely well made with ergonomic shells and replaceable cables. The U10 is slightly bulkier, and the AF1120 does ultimately fit a little more comfortably. Both have replaceable cables, although I prefer the U10’s 2 pin model. The U10 has the advantage of changing modules to control tonality, but at the cost of some isolation.
Sound & Value
There is a large price difference here, and the reason for choosing this comparison was because both are incredibly natural sounding monitors – with very similar mid-ranges. The U10 has more bass, but it actually has about the same overall impact because of the Apex modules (they measure bassier than they actually are). The bigger difference is at the other end of the frequency where the U10 has a little less lower treble emphasis and consequently isn’t quite as splashy with cymbals. There is a little more decay. The U10 is also a lot more open sounding (again the Apex modules). What both IEMs have though is a wonderful balance in the mid-range, and excel with both male and female vocals. The fact that I can favourably compare two IEMs with this much difference in price is a testament to the AF1120. Ultimately the U10 is slightly better (IMO), but if you’re on a tighter budget, the AF1120 will give you a similar signature for almost half the price.
VALUE
Always hard to judge, and especially when an IEM starts sitting in the $500 - $1000 bracket. Ultimately the AF1120 Mk2 delivery an excellent overall tonality, and a very special mid-range which (IMO) does sit it above most IEMs in the under $500 bracket. Ultimately is it a screaming bargain? I think it meets its overall value position – good build, good accessories, good comfort and fit, and a really balanced sound. Its not a dead-set “sonic diamond” bargain – but it does justify its price point.
AUDIOFLY AF1120 MK2 – SUMMARY
This was my first experience with Audiofly, and I have to say – they know how to tune a monitor pretty well. The AF1120 Mk2 meets its target as their flagship universal. Add in a very good accessory package, extremely good build quality, overall design, and exceptional comfort and you have a great overall package. If I had one recommendation on build, it would be to rethink the cable. Control those tangles with a change in design and it would cease to be a potential issue.
The tuning is mature and balanced across the spectrum. It has good extension at both ends, although perhaps slightly lean in sub-bass, and slightly emphasised in lower treble. Neither tuning choice is a mistake though – as a whole, the AF1120 Mk2 really works. It has a very natural overall tonality, and sounds great with both male and female vocals. I’ve had the AF1120 mk2 for almost 3 months, and for me its been a slow burner (impressing me more and more as I’ve spent time with them). They aren’t an IEM which immediately grabbed my attention, but one where my appreciation of their strengths has increased as I’ve got to know them better. Ultimately for me, that generally indicates a longer term keeper. If I didn’t have the Curve and U10, I’d be very tempted to get a pair. I will (based on my experience with the AF1120 mk2) unreservedly recommend them. For $700 they are not cheap – but IMO they do represent reasonable value.
My sincere thanks to Michelle and also the team at Audiofly for allowing me to review the AF1120 Mk2. I will miss having them around.