I assume it's the OG given that the Ultra had a very limited release.
Precog's IEM Reviews & Impressions
- Thread starter Precogvision
- Start date
Performer5 when?
I think Resolve is going to send that one over, so hopefully in the near future...
Hmm, I haven't really thought about it! I guess it's more fair to use the original because the Ultra was limited release. They sound pretty close anyways - the Ultra is just slightly better in general - but yes, I would say I prefer the Ultra overall.
I have a desk job so I mostly use wired IEMs. I definitely still use wireless, though, and my current TWS are the Airpods Pro 2. I guess I forgot to update here because I've been so busy, but here's some quick impressions I wrote about them. They're actually pretty nice for my preferences and the convenience is unparalleled. Most of the time I don't even bother taking wired IEMs for short trips anymore because of them!
We also did a roundtable about them recently too:
I just got some 7th Acoustics Supernova in today. Earlier than expected and perfect timing for me. I'm still taking some time to get fuller impressions of them, but very initial thoughts are that they are a very pleasant sounding IEM. I'd say they are worthy of their price tag, as long as you don't have issues with the waiting period since they're made to order.
Aful Performer 5 Impressions
Price: $220
Configuration: 1DD/4BA
Unit provided for review courtesy of HiFiGo: https://hifigo.com/products/aful-performer-5
No comments on the awful naming of this brand; let's dive right into the sound. The Performer 5 is more or less another rendition of the popular, neutral with sub-bass boost type of tuning that has taken over the mid-tier echelons market.
On first listen, I find the Performer 5’s bass response to be somewhat odd. And not necessarily in a good way: I could really mistake it for being closer to the better end of BA bass. Bass transients have a rounded edge to them, and they sound more “pillowy” than they do sharp or incisive. This isn’t outright bad - rather, I’d argue it’s more different than anything - but there’s a general sense of the Performer 5’s DD being pushed beyond its capabilities on quicker bass lines; they smear more than I’d expect. In tandem with the more plastic-y, smooth timbre, the Performer 5’s bass comes across about equally perplexing as it does unsatisfying.
The midrange of the Performer 5 begs less questions at least. It generally sounds correct with a slight tilt towards warmth by virtue of a more reserved pinna compensation region. Again, however, qualms arise moving into the Performer 5’s treble. Perceptively, it is heavily lower-treble oriented; it is just too clacky, too sharp for me at times on certain percussive hits. Oddly enough, a good reason for this mostly eludes my analysis of the Performer 5’s frequency response. I can only surmise that dampening at the usual ~8kHz resonance frequency increases perception of the 5-6kHz region. But having heard the 7th Acoustics Supernova - which graphs very similarly in these regions - I can say that the two IEMs sound dramatically different in A/B comparison.
Technicalities on the Performer 5 are a case of “good but not great”. On first listen, I placed it, blind, about what it retails for. I think the resolution of the Performer 5 would be enough to impress most listeners coming from ~$100 sets; at the same time, it would not be something that grabs my attention as someone who regularly daily drives much more expensive sets. The imaging and dynamics of the Performer 5 are fairly average in my book. It also has some timbral issues stemming from the lack of texture in the bass juxtaposed to the more gritty lower-treble, but these are nitpicks that I could level at most budget hybrid IEMs.
As for whether I’d recommend the Performer 5...maybe. I can’t say I like it very much in terms of my personal preferences: it’s hard to knock the feeling that it’s lacking both some inspiration and refinement. But from a more objective lens, there aren’t many good hybrids at $220, especially not with this type of more “balanced” tuning (the SeeAudio Yume Midnight comes to mind, but I hold both IEMs to be around the same level overall), so I suppose that the Performer 5 gets a pass at this time.
Bias Score: 5/10
Price: $220
Configuration: 1DD/4BA
Unit provided for review courtesy of HiFiGo: https://hifigo.com/products/aful-performer-5
No comments on the awful naming of this brand; let's dive right into the sound. The Performer 5 is more or less another rendition of the popular, neutral with sub-bass boost type of tuning that has taken over the mid-tier echelons market.
On first listen, I find the Performer 5’s bass response to be somewhat odd. And not necessarily in a good way: I could really mistake it for being closer to the better end of BA bass. Bass transients have a rounded edge to them, and they sound more “pillowy” than they do sharp or incisive. This isn’t outright bad - rather, I’d argue it’s more different than anything - but there’s a general sense of the Performer 5’s DD being pushed beyond its capabilities on quicker bass lines; they smear more than I’d expect. In tandem with the more plastic-y, smooth timbre, the Performer 5’s bass comes across about equally perplexing as it does unsatisfying.
The midrange of the Performer 5 begs less questions at least. It generally sounds correct with a slight tilt towards warmth by virtue of a more reserved pinna compensation region. Again, however, qualms arise moving into the Performer 5’s treble. Perceptively, it is heavily lower-treble oriented; it is just too clacky, too sharp for me at times on certain percussive hits. Oddly enough, a good reason for this mostly eludes my analysis of the Performer 5’s frequency response. I can only surmise that dampening at the usual ~8kHz resonance frequency increases perception of the 5-6kHz region. But having heard the 7th Acoustics Supernova - which graphs very similarly in these regions - I can say that the two IEMs sound dramatically different in A/B comparison.
Technicalities on the Performer 5 are a case of “good but not great”. On first listen, I placed it, blind, about what it retails for. I think the resolution of the Performer 5 would be enough to impress most listeners coming from ~$100 sets; at the same time, it would not be something that grabs my attention as someone who regularly daily drives much more expensive sets. The imaging and dynamics of the Performer 5 are fairly average in my book. It also has some timbral issues stemming from the lack of texture in the bass juxtaposed to the more gritty lower-treble, but these are nitpicks that I could level at most budget hybrid IEMs.
As for whether I’d recommend the Performer 5...maybe. I can’t say I like it very much in terms of my personal preferences: it’s hard to knock the feeling that it’s lacking both some inspiration and refinement. But from a more objective lens, there aren’t many good hybrids at $220, especially not with this type of more “balanced” tuning (the SeeAudio Yume Midnight comes to mind, but I hold both IEMs to be around the same level overall), so I suppose that the Performer 5 gets a pass at this time.
Bias Score: 5/10
DavidLovesIEMs
Head-Fier
I just got mine this evening! Think a few of us were part of the same batch. I'm loving it so far.
When I got an update earlier in the process, they sent a picture that included three sets of the Supernova. I'm assuming that was yours, Precog's, and mine. And it seems we're all in California so they probably shipped together.
DavidLovesIEMs
Head-Fier
I was thinking the same thing. Very cool. Really glad I ordered when I did. I think this is going to be my new "daily driver" set.
Yeah. The subtonic storm is a pricey one, eh?
hevelaoak
100+ Head-Fier
that tag for that kind of treble response... of course, we need to listen to them first before anything
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Posts
- 232
- Likes
- 1,113
The treble response is exactly what makes these so special, what do you mean by here?
that tag for that kind of treble response... of course, we need to listen to them first before anything
hevelaoak
100+ Head-Fier
I mean... it has too many dips and peaks. sure it may be "special" to some people.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Posts
- 232
- Likes
- 1,113
I mean a flat line isn’t possible and I definitely don’t think any iec711 coupler can measure treble accurately enough to see something without peaks and dips.
I was also surprised when I first heard the Storm prototype and then saw the measurements after, but I’d concur it’s part of what makes the Storm unique. If you think about it more, your ears don’t perceive the treble frequencies like they do lower frequencies; essentially, peaks and dips tend to be much less obvious. A good example of this is when people blast subwoofers to ear-shaking levels. If you this with tweeters at the same volume level, it would be ear-splitting.
In any case, when the peaks and dips are spaced like on the Storm - in quick succession and with subtle differences in amplitude - you won’t even perceive the overall treble as being uneven. Instead, it's perceived as a general, linear brightness. This is why I was surprised when I viewed the measurements after listening, and I suspect it‘s somewhat attributable to the sense of incredible dynamic contrast on the Storm. Additionally, trailing frequencies of instruments catch on those peaks, which creates the perception of more reverb, and it's the same idea with recording artifacts which I found popped a lot on the Storm.
On a driver configuration level, it‘s also very difficult to create a treble response like the Storm's. I don’t remember the specifics of my conversation with Leneo from Subtonic, but I think the gist was that each part of the Storm’s treble is handled by individual drivers that have been crossed over with minimal overlap. This creates those successive, small peaks and valleys. It's worth pointing out that are IEMs like the Moondrop Variations and 7th Acoustics Supernova that use "horns" which yield smoother treble responses on paper; however, this tuning method doesn't allow a manufacturer to exercise as much control over the resulting frequency response.
Basically, there is nothing on the market that has a treble response sounding like the Storm; it does not sound like either traditional BA or EST treble. Granted, I’d suggest the Storm’s treble is more different than better than the best treble responses I’ve heard (for example, I believe the Helios is actually subtly more extended past 16kHz), but it’s certainly nothing to scoff at and there’s actually a lot of intention behind the way it’s been tuned like that!
Last edited:
If you've ever heard a sine sweep on a good speaker system, the treble sounds highly jagged. If you've ever seen dummy head measurements of a good speaker system, the treble looks highly jagged. The idea that IEMs and headphones need to conform firmly to a smoothed target curve to sound good honestly isn't based in reality.
Users who are viewing this thread
