Preamble:
Originally posted on my German audio review site, the "Kopfhörer-Lounge", here comes my review of the Australian Audiofly AF1120 6-BA flagship in-ear.
Introduction:
Audiofly, an in-ear and headphone manufacturer from Australia, is probably not the most widely spread or known name among audio and music lovers because the company that was founded in 2012 is not doing excessive advertisement and marketing. Nonetheless they have their products offered by many stores and distributors worldwide and have just recently established a European branch, Audiofly Europe (https://www.audioflyeurope.com/). Nonetheless the Audiofly brand does have a good reputation and is also known among musicians since their products also aim at stage monitoring purposes.
Currently, Audiofly’s most recent model and flagship in-ear monitor is the AF1120, a model with six Balanced Armature drivers per side that are divided by a three-way crossover. It continues the manufacturer’s line of multi-BA in-ears that were generally received positively by the press and worldwide customers, including the German audio community.
What Audiofly’s sextuple-BA in-ear sounds like and how it performs, also in comparison with other well-established multi-BA in-ears from other manufacturers, is what this very review will summarise.
Acknowledgement: Before I go on, I’d like to thank Audiofly Europe for supplying me with a sample of the AF1120 in-ears free of charge for the purpose of an, as always, honest as well as unbiased review and evaluation.
Technical Specifications:
MSRP: €699/£599/$699; street prices are lower
Drivers: Balanced Armature
Driver Count: 6x BA per side
Acoustic Ways: 3
Delivery Content:
I don’t know if people actually read this parts of a review anyway instead of just looking at the photos, since this is the least interesting and informative section as the sound is what is the most interesting and important, but no proper review goes without mentioning these things.
Anyway, the AF1120’s delivery content is definitely quite impressive: While a cardboard sleeve with nice information and photos is certainly not be new to you, along with a magnetically attached lid with a blue strap to open it more easily, a packaging that is canvas-coated likely is – and this is exactly what you get from Audiofly: an in-ear that comes in a packaging that is canvas-coated (how cool and unique is that?!).
Inside, you will find the in-ears with the cable already attached, three pairs of Comply Foam tips (one pair is already installed), three pairs of black single-flange silicone tips, three pairs of black triple-flange silicone tips, an airplane adapter, a 6.3 to 3.5 mm adapter, a cleaning tool, an Audiofly sticker and an extremely nice carrying case that I will talk about more in-depth in the “Looks, Feels, Build Quality” section of this review.
You really get a unique and premium overall package with the AF1120 with plenty of nice accessories.
Looks, Feels, Build Quality:
A true highlight is the carrying case – it is quite big but sturdy and looks and feels very premium. No, you don’t get a standard plastic, fabric or metal carrying case but instead a zippered storage wallet that is made of waxed canvas with a brown pleather Audiofly logo, along with an orange application that reads “AF1120” and “six drivers in-ear monitors” next to a white surface where the in-ears’ owner can sign with his or his band’s name (the AF1120 is also designed as a musician’s monitor after all).
Inside, there is plenty of room, a spare pocket and soft bolstering with synthetic velour-like material.
So even though the case is rather on the larger side, it is just gorgeous and I suspect that the percentage of people who would not like it is really small.
The silicone ear tips are nicely soft by the way and don’t show any build flaws.
The AF1120 has got transparent plastic shells that let you see the package of six Balanced Armature drivers in each shell. Those shells, while they are nothing really special compared to some other manufacturers’ offerings when it comes to design and material choice, appear just as sturdy as they can be and are no less well-built than Westone’s and Shure’s more premium models.
Inside the nozzle (that is not the most beautiful of most premium looking one but appears to be plenty sturdy), there is an acoustic filter.
On the shell’s outer side, there is a black Audiofly logo whereas one can find large side indicators on the inside, and, what’s an especially nice touch, the serial numbers, model number (“AF1120”) and a sign that says that the in-ears were designed in Australia.
Audiofly uses removable cables with the AF1120 that feature rotation-locked MMCX cables. The rotation lock is achieved by two notches on either side so the MMCX sockets and plugs are less prone to rotating and wearing out although they can still rotate without excessive force. The downside is that most aftermarket cables will likely not fit.
The cable is very flexible and has got twisted conductors above the large y-splitter, which is the common standard for most traditional high-end and professional in-ears. A transparent chin-slider is present as well.
Below the y-splitter however, the cable is nylon-/fabric-coated. While this looks nice and can help with reducing microphonics in some cases, it would not have been my personal first choice since that kind of coating can soak fluids such as sweat and may fray over time.
Comfort, Isolation:
The in-ear bodies’ shape reminds me of Shure’s and Westone’s models but is not exactly the same – Audiofly’s design is still unique in its own way.
Ergonomics are excellent nonetheless and the inside of the shells is also curved, resembling the ears’ natural shape and ergonomics.
Unless you have really small ears, fit will likely be no issue at all.
Unlike many in-ears, the cables don’t feature any memory wire in their ear guides that are still shaped/curved nonetheless. They bend nicely around the ears and automatically adapt to the ears’ radius. So even though there is no memory wire inside the ear guides, they still adapt to the ears’ radius easily and automatically.
Microphonics are close to being inexistent.
Noise isolation is really good, as it could also be expected from closed in-ears with this kind of shells.
Sound:
My main source for listening was the iBasso DX200 (AMP1 module that has got a very low output impedance).
The largest included single-flange silicone tips were used for the sound evaluation, comparisons and casual listening.
Tonality:
I am inclined to call the AF1120 neutral or neutral-ish, but this isn’t exactly what it sounds like. “Quite neutral bass with inoffensive and polite mids and middle highs” or “very smooth, relaxed, inoffensive and great for fatigue-free listening” are much better fitting descriptions but not really what entirely describes the Audiofly either, so let’s investigate this more in detail:
Its bass is practically neutral and just shows a mild hint of body in the fundamental range compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field flat in the lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR.
Compared to the Etys that are absolutely flat in the bass (some would say “lifeless” to which I would agree, however in a desirable way in their specific case), the AF1120 has got ca. 4 dB more in bass quantity, which makes its bass just as present as the also fairly neutral sounding Noble Audio SAVANNA that however shows some roll-off in the sub-bass unlike the AF1120. Compared to the also fairly neutral Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Audiofly has got just about 1 dB more presence in the lows.
Extension to the sub-bass is flat without any roll-off.
So calling the bass neutral and fairly flat is definitely what describes the Audiofly AF1120’s lower registers pretty well.
The midrange of the AF1120 is slightly heading into the darker direction, but definitely not into the warmer since the lower vocals aren’t really emphasised.
The highs, from there on, are more in the background and on the somewhat darker and especially smoother, pretty relaxed side.
The upper midrange/fundamental range between 2 and 3 kHz takes a moderate step back, followed by a dip centred around 5 kHz in the middle highs. Highs start climbing again afterwards towards 10 kHz where they are neutral again but don’t cross the ground line anymore but only barely touch it around 10 kHz, making the overall treble response rather relaxed, smooth and inoffensive with still correct levels around 10 kHz in the upper treble.
While the sine generator indicates flawless extension past 16 kHz, there is not that much subtle super treble sparkle audible with music, although one can hear that the Audiofly extends higher than the Shure SE846.
Overall, there are no sudden dips or peaks audible when doing sine sweeps. Instead, the highs are fairly even and smooth, however with a relaxed character, especially around 5 kHz in the middle treble. This relaxation and dip is definitely rather strong and even surpasses the Westone W4R’s level of smoothness and inoffensiveness in the middle highs – which definitely says something since the W4R already is an in-ear with a very smooth and relaxed middle treble tuning.
Upper treble response is quite soft – cymbals are never sharp and sibilants don’t exist either, however the highs and cymbals can come across as being a bit too polite/inoffensive at times and maybe a touch more bite in the upper range probably wouldn’t have hurt, along with a bit more vocal glare.
In terms of timbre, a bit less softness with cymbals would have been somewhat more realistic.
- - -
The AF1120 definitely portrays a rather unique sound signature that is relaxed, smooth, even, inoffensive and great for fatigue-free listening, and it is definitely nice to have an in-ear manufacturer that offers a different kind of sound signature that still sounds harmonious and pleasant.
What is nice about the Audiofly’s tonal tuning is that it makes less well mastered, mixed and recorded tracks more bearable because of its smooth but not analytical nature.
Resolution:
What is quite striking, in a positive way, is that the bass is tight and very quick – even for Balanced Armature standards. Decay is just as long as it needs to be and there is no hint of softness or slowness at all. Control is simply great as well.
In its character, along with its rather neutral quantity, the bass could definitely be described rather as “analytical” than as “euphoric” or “bodied and textured”.
Compared to the mids, I miss an ever so slight bit of details and layering in the lows, which is however criticism on a high level.
Speech intelligibility is really good and the level of details is as well – but it is probably not that striking upon first or quick listening, which is a side-effect of the polite and very smooth treble tuning. Due to the quite recessed 5 kHz rage, the AF1120 won’t have a “hey, I’m uber-revealing” kind of character.
Doing more extensive listening and comparisons, as well as listening to the Audiofly for a longer amount of time, then reveals that it actually has a nice, highly detailed presentation that is just not as striking.
This definitely fits well to the inoffensively smooth signature that is best-suited for fatigue-free listening and people who don’t like in-ears that have an aggressive treble tuning but don’t want to miss out the upper treble.
Midrange resolution without cheating with any emphasis really is a great strength the Audiofly has – it has got real details and resolution without needing to emphasis a specific frequency range to make the details appear more present.
That the AF1120 is a well-resolving in-ear does not solely become obvious when listening to it for a longer period of time, but also when reducing its middle treble recession with the help of an EQ.
Strangely though, even though tightness and speed are nothing the Audiofly lacks, its resolution seems to decrease slightly with faster recordings – not by much, but this effect is present to a slight degree.
Even though vocals could use somewhat more glare in the presence range and middle treble, minute details are excellently presented and not lacking at all.
The highs’ resolution is good as well but due to their rather soft character, separation in the treble lacks slightly behind the bass and midrange.
- - -
Summarising, one could say that all of the details and resolution are present but not especially highlighted. Is the level of details adequate for the price though? Yes, it is.
I am also very inclined to also say that the AF1120 is a perfect in-ear for background listening while maintaining a really high technical level without fatiguing.
Soundstage:
The Soundstage is fairly wide and has got a quite precise localisation and separation of tonal elements without reaching the spatially best in-ears in the four-digit price range.
There is some spatial depth so that the soundstage doesn’t appear flat, however it is (maximally) just half as present compared to the width wherefore the soundstage appears more oval and wide than three-dimensional and circular.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (€1149):
The Audiofly has only got 1 dB more bass quantity than the UERM, making it still very neutral in the lows.
The UERM have got the more neutral/flatter midrange timbre and don’t appear dark in the upper mids.
The UERM definitely carry more brightness in the highs and definitely not as recessed as the AF1120 is in the middle treble around 5 kHz. Both don’t have the perfect upper treble timbre – the UERM have got an emphasis in this area that can be a bit too bright at times whereas the Audiofly has got a slightly too soft upper treble response. The UERM are more accurate in the highs though.
The UERM are minimally tighter in the lows with slightly more details while the AF1120 is minimally faster sounding there.
Speech intelligibility and midrange resolution are almost on the same level with the AF1120 having an ever so slight, razorblade-thin edge over the UERM that however have a more revealing character in the upper mids due to their more neutral timbre and flatter midrange/upper midrange tuning.
Treble separation is more precise on the UEs’ side.
The UERMs’ soundstage will depend more on the recording but will be slightly sharper and more precise, with a more three-dimensional presentation.
Noble Audio SAVANNA ($499):
Both in-ears have got similar levels of bass quantity but the Audiofly does not have any roll-off in the sub-bass whereas the SAVANNA does have a moderate one.
Midrange timbre is comparable up until the central mids while the Noble is a little less dark in the upper midrange and middle treble range.
The SAVANNA is a rather smooth sounding in-ear in the highs as well, but certainly not as relaxed.
While the Audiofly is a smooth and relaxed, inoffensive sounding in-ear with a fairly neutral bass response, I would characterise the Noble as the more neutral and accurate monitor.
The Audiofly has got the slightly tighter and quicker bass response while resolution and control are definitely on the same level in the lows. The SAVANNA seems a bit more textured and layered though.
The Audiofly has got the slightly higher midrange resolution while both are almost on-par in the highs with the Noble being less soft in the upper treble.
The Audiofly has got the wider soundstage while the Noble’s is deeper and therefore creates a greater sense of three-dimensionality. Separation is just ever so slightly cleaner on the Audiofly’s side.
Westone W4R (~ €439):
The W4R has got the noticeably stronger and thicker bass response while both share a fairly similar midrange timbre (with the difference that the Westone’s lower midrange is somewhat warmer).
The W4R is already an in-ear that is quite smooth and relaxed in the highs, with a 5 kHz recession. The AF1120 is an even slightly more relaxed and smoother sounding in-ear, with the slightly stronger 5 kHz recession.
Upper treble levels are about comparable again.
The Westone’s highs sound a bit more realistic in comparison (cymbals are more direct compared to the Audiofly that reproduces them in a softer manner) while still maintaining a good level of smoothness.
The AF1120 has got the slightly faster appearing bass compared to the Westone, however the W4R has got the more pronounced texture in comparison while control is similar.
In terms of midrange details and speech intelligibility, the Audiofly holds a slight edge over the Westone.
When it comes to the treble, the W4R sounds more direct with the slightly better separation.
In terms of spatial reproduction, the AF1120 sports more spatial depth with slightly less width wherefore it doesn’t sound as spatially flat as the Westone, while the W4R has got the slightly more precise separation.
Shure SE846 (€999):
The Shure has obviously got noticeably more sub-bass quantity since it has got an emphasis in this area. The Shure’s midrange is more forward, with a thicker tone, but also with more presence in the upper midrange (it isn’t emphasised here but just shows more quantity compared to the AF1120 that is more relaxed in that area).
The Shure is already an in-ear with a rather relaxed middle treble, however the Audiofly is even a bit more relaxed and polite here. The AF1120’s upper highs appear softer compared to the Shure’s.
Treble extension past 10 kHz is where the Shure loses in comparison.
The Audiofly has got the quicker and somewhat tighter bass while control is on the same level. The Shure’s lows appear slightly more resolving though, but especially more textured and layered.
The AF1120 is ever so slightly more detailed in the mids (by a razorblade’s thickness).
The Shure has got the slightly superior treble separation.
When it comes to soundstage, the Audiofly renders the wider room while the Shure’s soundstage is narrower. Spatial depth is about similar with the Shure having the slightly cleaner separation and placement of instruments.
Conclusion:
The Audiofly AF1120 is an in-ear that features a detailed sound with great midrange details, high speech intelligibility and a fairly neutral and very fast bass response, but is overall tuned more for a relaxed, polite and inoffensive listening experience with a recessed 5 kHz range. It has a great and inoffensive tuning for fatigue-free listening, however I can definitely see some people who might find some bite and glare to be lacking.
Those looking for a very smooth, even and relaxed in-ear with a polite, never harsh, always inoffensive and gentle tuning, or an in-ear that is very detailed but well-suited for high quality background listening should be pleasantly satisfied with it.
Originally posted on my German audio review site, the "Kopfhörer-Lounge", here comes my review of the Australian Audiofly AF1120 6-BA flagship in-ear.
Introduction:
Audiofly, an in-ear and headphone manufacturer from Australia, is probably not the most widely spread or known name among audio and music lovers because the company that was founded in 2012 is not doing excessive advertisement and marketing. Nonetheless they have their products offered by many stores and distributors worldwide and have just recently established a European branch, Audiofly Europe (https://www.audioflyeurope.com/). Nonetheless the Audiofly brand does have a good reputation and is also known among musicians since their products also aim at stage monitoring purposes.
Currently, Audiofly’s most recent model and flagship in-ear monitor is the AF1120, a model with six Balanced Armature drivers per side that are divided by a three-way crossover. It continues the manufacturer’s line of multi-BA in-ears that were generally received positively by the press and worldwide customers, including the German audio community.
What Audiofly’s sextuple-BA in-ear sounds like and how it performs, also in comparison with other well-established multi-BA in-ears from other manufacturers, is what this very review will summarise.
Acknowledgement: Before I go on, I’d like to thank Audiofly Europe for supplying me with a sample of the AF1120 in-ears free of charge for the purpose of an, as always, honest as well as unbiased review and evaluation.
Technical Specifications:
MSRP: €699/£599/$699; street prices are lower
Drivers: Balanced Armature
Driver Count: 6x BA per side
Acoustic Ways: 3
Delivery Content:
I don’t know if people actually read this parts of a review anyway instead of just looking at the photos, since this is the least interesting and informative section as the sound is what is the most interesting and important, but no proper review goes without mentioning these things.
Anyway, the AF1120’s delivery content is definitely quite impressive: While a cardboard sleeve with nice information and photos is certainly not be new to you, along with a magnetically attached lid with a blue strap to open it more easily, a packaging that is canvas-coated likely is – and this is exactly what you get from Audiofly: an in-ear that comes in a packaging that is canvas-coated (how cool and unique is that?!).
Inside, you will find the in-ears with the cable already attached, three pairs of Comply Foam tips (one pair is already installed), three pairs of black single-flange silicone tips, three pairs of black triple-flange silicone tips, an airplane adapter, a 6.3 to 3.5 mm adapter, a cleaning tool, an Audiofly sticker and an extremely nice carrying case that I will talk about more in-depth in the “Looks, Feels, Build Quality” section of this review.
You really get a unique and premium overall package with the AF1120 with plenty of nice accessories.
Looks, Feels, Build Quality:
A true highlight is the carrying case – it is quite big but sturdy and looks and feels very premium. No, you don’t get a standard plastic, fabric or metal carrying case but instead a zippered storage wallet that is made of waxed canvas with a brown pleather Audiofly logo, along with an orange application that reads “AF1120” and “six drivers in-ear monitors” next to a white surface where the in-ears’ owner can sign with his or his band’s name (the AF1120 is also designed as a musician’s monitor after all).
Inside, there is plenty of room, a spare pocket and soft bolstering with synthetic velour-like material.
So even though the case is rather on the larger side, it is just gorgeous and I suspect that the percentage of people who would not like it is really small.
The silicone ear tips are nicely soft by the way and don’t show any build flaws.
The AF1120 has got transparent plastic shells that let you see the package of six Balanced Armature drivers in each shell. Those shells, while they are nothing really special compared to some other manufacturers’ offerings when it comes to design and material choice, appear just as sturdy as they can be and are no less well-built than Westone’s and Shure’s more premium models.
Inside the nozzle (that is not the most beautiful of most premium looking one but appears to be plenty sturdy), there is an acoustic filter.
On the shell’s outer side, there is a black Audiofly logo whereas one can find large side indicators on the inside, and, what’s an especially nice touch, the serial numbers, model number (“AF1120”) and a sign that says that the in-ears were designed in Australia.
Audiofly uses removable cables with the AF1120 that feature rotation-locked MMCX cables. The rotation lock is achieved by two notches on either side so the MMCX sockets and plugs are less prone to rotating and wearing out although they can still rotate without excessive force. The downside is that most aftermarket cables will likely not fit.
The cable is very flexible and has got twisted conductors above the large y-splitter, which is the common standard for most traditional high-end and professional in-ears. A transparent chin-slider is present as well.
Below the y-splitter however, the cable is nylon-/fabric-coated. While this looks nice and can help with reducing microphonics in some cases, it would not have been my personal first choice since that kind of coating can soak fluids such as sweat and may fray over time.
Comfort, Isolation:
The in-ear bodies’ shape reminds me of Shure’s and Westone’s models but is not exactly the same – Audiofly’s design is still unique in its own way.
Ergonomics are excellent nonetheless and the inside of the shells is also curved, resembling the ears’ natural shape and ergonomics.
Unless you have really small ears, fit will likely be no issue at all.
Unlike many in-ears, the cables don’t feature any memory wire in their ear guides that are still shaped/curved nonetheless. They bend nicely around the ears and automatically adapt to the ears’ radius. So even though there is no memory wire inside the ear guides, they still adapt to the ears’ radius easily and automatically.
Microphonics are close to being inexistent.
Noise isolation is really good, as it could also be expected from closed in-ears with this kind of shells.
Sound:
My main source for listening was the iBasso DX200 (AMP1 module that has got a very low output impedance).
The largest included single-flange silicone tips were used for the sound evaluation, comparisons and casual listening.
Tonality:
I am inclined to call the AF1120 neutral or neutral-ish, but this isn’t exactly what it sounds like. “Quite neutral bass with inoffensive and polite mids and middle highs” or “very smooth, relaxed, inoffensive and great for fatigue-free listening” are much better fitting descriptions but not really what entirely describes the Audiofly either, so let’s investigate this more in detail:
Its bass is practically neutral and just shows a mild hint of body in the fundamental range compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field flat in the lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR.
Compared to the Etys that are absolutely flat in the bass (some would say “lifeless” to which I would agree, however in a desirable way in their specific case), the AF1120 has got ca. 4 dB more in bass quantity, which makes its bass just as present as the also fairly neutral sounding Noble Audio SAVANNA that however shows some roll-off in the sub-bass unlike the AF1120. Compared to the also fairly neutral Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Audiofly has got just about 1 dB more presence in the lows.
Extension to the sub-bass is flat without any roll-off.
So calling the bass neutral and fairly flat is definitely what describes the Audiofly AF1120’s lower registers pretty well.
The midrange of the AF1120 is slightly heading into the darker direction, but definitely not into the warmer since the lower vocals aren’t really emphasised.
The highs, from there on, are more in the background and on the somewhat darker and especially smoother, pretty relaxed side.
The upper midrange/fundamental range between 2 and 3 kHz takes a moderate step back, followed by a dip centred around 5 kHz in the middle highs. Highs start climbing again afterwards towards 10 kHz where they are neutral again but don’t cross the ground line anymore but only barely touch it around 10 kHz, making the overall treble response rather relaxed, smooth and inoffensive with still correct levels around 10 kHz in the upper treble.
While the sine generator indicates flawless extension past 16 kHz, there is not that much subtle super treble sparkle audible with music, although one can hear that the Audiofly extends higher than the Shure SE846.
Overall, there are no sudden dips or peaks audible when doing sine sweeps. Instead, the highs are fairly even and smooth, however with a relaxed character, especially around 5 kHz in the middle treble. This relaxation and dip is definitely rather strong and even surpasses the Westone W4R’s level of smoothness and inoffensiveness in the middle highs – which definitely says something since the W4R already is an in-ear with a very smooth and relaxed middle treble tuning.
Upper treble response is quite soft – cymbals are never sharp and sibilants don’t exist either, however the highs and cymbals can come across as being a bit too polite/inoffensive at times and maybe a touch more bite in the upper range probably wouldn’t have hurt, along with a bit more vocal glare.
In terms of timbre, a bit less softness with cymbals would have been somewhat more realistic.
- - -
The AF1120 definitely portrays a rather unique sound signature that is relaxed, smooth, even, inoffensive and great for fatigue-free listening, and it is definitely nice to have an in-ear manufacturer that offers a different kind of sound signature that still sounds harmonious and pleasant.
What is nice about the Audiofly’s tonal tuning is that it makes less well mastered, mixed and recorded tracks more bearable because of its smooth but not analytical nature.
Resolution:
What is quite striking, in a positive way, is that the bass is tight and very quick – even for Balanced Armature standards. Decay is just as long as it needs to be and there is no hint of softness or slowness at all. Control is simply great as well.
In its character, along with its rather neutral quantity, the bass could definitely be described rather as “analytical” than as “euphoric” or “bodied and textured”.
Compared to the mids, I miss an ever so slight bit of details and layering in the lows, which is however criticism on a high level.
Speech intelligibility is really good and the level of details is as well – but it is probably not that striking upon first or quick listening, which is a side-effect of the polite and very smooth treble tuning. Due to the quite recessed 5 kHz rage, the AF1120 won’t have a “hey, I’m uber-revealing” kind of character.
Doing more extensive listening and comparisons, as well as listening to the Audiofly for a longer amount of time, then reveals that it actually has a nice, highly detailed presentation that is just not as striking.
This definitely fits well to the inoffensively smooth signature that is best-suited for fatigue-free listening and people who don’t like in-ears that have an aggressive treble tuning but don’t want to miss out the upper treble.
Midrange resolution without cheating with any emphasis really is a great strength the Audiofly has – it has got real details and resolution without needing to emphasis a specific frequency range to make the details appear more present.
That the AF1120 is a well-resolving in-ear does not solely become obvious when listening to it for a longer period of time, but also when reducing its middle treble recession with the help of an EQ.
Strangely though, even though tightness and speed are nothing the Audiofly lacks, its resolution seems to decrease slightly with faster recordings – not by much, but this effect is present to a slight degree.
Even though vocals could use somewhat more glare in the presence range and middle treble, minute details are excellently presented and not lacking at all.
The highs’ resolution is good as well but due to their rather soft character, separation in the treble lacks slightly behind the bass and midrange.
- - -
Summarising, one could say that all of the details and resolution are present but not especially highlighted. Is the level of details adequate for the price though? Yes, it is.
I am also very inclined to also say that the AF1120 is a perfect in-ear for background listening while maintaining a really high technical level without fatiguing.
Soundstage:
The Soundstage is fairly wide and has got a quite precise localisation and separation of tonal elements without reaching the spatially best in-ears in the four-digit price range.
There is some spatial depth so that the soundstage doesn’t appear flat, however it is (maximally) just half as present compared to the width wherefore the soundstage appears more oval and wide than three-dimensional and circular.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors (€1149):
The Audiofly has only got 1 dB more bass quantity than the UERM, making it still very neutral in the lows.
The UERM have got the more neutral/flatter midrange timbre and don’t appear dark in the upper mids.
The UERM definitely carry more brightness in the highs and definitely not as recessed as the AF1120 is in the middle treble around 5 kHz. Both don’t have the perfect upper treble timbre – the UERM have got an emphasis in this area that can be a bit too bright at times whereas the Audiofly has got a slightly too soft upper treble response. The UERM are more accurate in the highs though.
The UERM are minimally tighter in the lows with slightly more details while the AF1120 is minimally faster sounding there.
Speech intelligibility and midrange resolution are almost on the same level with the AF1120 having an ever so slight, razorblade-thin edge over the UERM that however have a more revealing character in the upper mids due to their more neutral timbre and flatter midrange/upper midrange tuning.
Treble separation is more precise on the UEs’ side.
The UERMs’ soundstage will depend more on the recording but will be slightly sharper and more precise, with a more three-dimensional presentation.
Noble Audio SAVANNA ($499):
Both in-ears have got similar levels of bass quantity but the Audiofly does not have any roll-off in the sub-bass whereas the SAVANNA does have a moderate one.
Midrange timbre is comparable up until the central mids while the Noble is a little less dark in the upper midrange and middle treble range.
The SAVANNA is a rather smooth sounding in-ear in the highs as well, but certainly not as relaxed.
While the Audiofly is a smooth and relaxed, inoffensive sounding in-ear with a fairly neutral bass response, I would characterise the Noble as the more neutral and accurate monitor.
The Audiofly has got the slightly tighter and quicker bass response while resolution and control are definitely on the same level in the lows. The SAVANNA seems a bit more textured and layered though.
The Audiofly has got the slightly higher midrange resolution while both are almost on-par in the highs with the Noble being less soft in the upper treble.
The Audiofly has got the wider soundstage while the Noble’s is deeper and therefore creates a greater sense of three-dimensionality. Separation is just ever so slightly cleaner on the Audiofly’s side.
Westone W4R (~ €439):
The W4R has got the noticeably stronger and thicker bass response while both share a fairly similar midrange timbre (with the difference that the Westone’s lower midrange is somewhat warmer).
The W4R is already an in-ear that is quite smooth and relaxed in the highs, with a 5 kHz recession. The AF1120 is an even slightly more relaxed and smoother sounding in-ear, with the slightly stronger 5 kHz recession.
Upper treble levels are about comparable again.
The Westone’s highs sound a bit more realistic in comparison (cymbals are more direct compared to the Audiofly that reproduces them in a softer manner) while still maintaining a good level of smoothness.
The AF1120 has got the slightly faster appearing bass compared to the Westone, however the W4R has got the more pronounced texture in comparison while control is similar.
In terms of midrange details and speech intelligibility, the Audiofly holds a slight edge over the Westone.
When it comes to the treble, the W4R sounds more direct with the slightly better separation.
In terms of spatial reproduction, the AF1120 sports more spatial depth with slightly less width wherefore it doesn’t sound as spatially flat as the Westone, while the W4R has got the slightly more precise separation.
Shure SE846 (€999):
The Shure has obviously got noticeably more sub-bass quantity since it has got an emphasis in this area. The Shure’s midrange is more forward, with a thicker tone, but also with more presence in the upper midrange (it isn’t emphasised here but just shows more quantity compared to the AF1120 that is more relaxed in that area).
The Shure is already an in-ear with a rather relaxed middle treble, however the Audiofly is even a bit more relaxed and polite here. The AF1120’s upper highs appear softer compared to the Shure’s.
Treble extension past 10 kHz is where the Shure loses in comparison.
The Audiofly has got the quicker and somewhat tighter bass while control is on the same level. The Shure’s lows appear slightly more resolving though, but especially more textured and layered.
The AF1120 is ever so slightly more detailed in the mids (by a razorblade’s thickness).
The Shure has got the slightly superior treble separation.
When it comes to soundstage, the Audiofly renders the wider room while the Shure’s soundstage is narrower. Spatial depth is about similar with the Shure having the slightly cleaner separation and placement of instruments.
Conclusion:
The Audiofly AF1120 is an in-ear that features a detailed sound with great midrange details, high speech intelligibility and a fairly neutral and very fast bass response, but is overall tuned more for a relaxed, polite and inoffensive listening experience with a recessed 5 kHz range. It has a great and inoffensive tuning for fatigue-free listening, however I can definitely see some people who might find some bite and glare to be lacking.
Those looking for a very smooth, even and relaxed in-ear with a polite, never harsh, always inoffensive and gentle tuning, or an in-ear that is very detailed but well-suited for high quality background listening should be pleasantly satisfied with it.