AFUL Cantor - Technically Savvy Flagship

3.5⭐️

+ Neutral bright tuning that is well balanced

+ Fantastic BA bass implementation

+ Instrument and vocal timbre

+ Strong technicalities

+ Airy treble for those that like it

- Treble too incisive and harsh at times

- Could use more body in the lower midrange

- Vocals somewhat recessed for my taste

- Lacks musicality 

thaslaya's star rating system:

☆☆☆☆☆ - Fantastic!

☆☆☆☆ - Recommended

☆☆☆ - There are buyers but not for me

☆☆ - Can't see the appeal

☆ - Product is a failure

Disclaimer: 

This product was loaned to me for review by a friend. I recieve no compensation and all thoughts and opinions are my own. A big thank you to @Jaytiss for the opportunity!

Non-affiliate link for those interested:

https://afulaudio.com/products/aful-flagship-cantor-iems

Gear used: 

●Samsung Galaxy s25 Ultra

●HiBy R1

●Various DAC/amps

Source:

●Listening was done through Amazon Music HD or Ultra HD, as well as local FLAC files.

Introduction: 

I'm a big fan of AFUL, having tried all of their IEMs except the Performer 8. I love the MagicOne, Explorer, and Performer 5+2, and have been itching to get an opportunity to hear their 14-balanced armature flagship IEM, the Cantor. All of AFUL's prior IEMs are priced under $400, making the Cantor's $800 price tag even more intriguing. Let's break down AFUL's flagship and see if it is worthy of carrying the company's banner.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

I cannot speak to the unboxing experience as this loan did not include the retail packaging, but Jaytiss was generous enough to include most of the stock accessories for me to evaluate. The Cantor includes the IEMs, a 3.5mm or 4.4mm terminated cable, twelve sets of tips, a zippered case, a cleaning tool, and a leather cable tie. The shell is available in two distinctly different but beautiful designs: Starry Night and Marine Echo. The strikingly blue Marine Echo version is not too far from the design of AFUL's Explorer model, but the Starry Night shell is quite unique and stunning. The design is an ode to the Van Gogh painting of the same name and it looks absolutely stellar. Now, if you have not seen pictures of the Cantor or heard people talk about the nozzle, it is also quite unique and different from the standard affair. There is a metal piece that protrudes out, and its appearance might look a bit scary. In practice, however, this piece is covered by the tips and the fit is very similarly to other IEMs, at least for me. The metal part's small size means tips can actually go flush against it. The insertion depth is only slightly above average, and the fit is less concerning than it appears without tips in place. A vent is located behind the flat two-pin connection of each shell to help alleviate pressure buildup. The stock cable is really great. It's made of 5N LCOFC copper and comes in a nice dark blue color. It is thick but easy to manage and has a soft fabric sheath that does not exhibit microphonics. Since the Cantor has a more unique nozzle, AFUL recommends using their stock tips, but I found that most tips work well enough as long as they are positioned correctly. In fact, I even tested it with the Coreir brass tips, which contain a metal core, and the Cantor's metal nozzle fits perfectly inside. The stock tips worked fine for me, but they did not provide quite the comfort and seal I was looking for. Instead, I opted to use my trusty Penon Liqueurs. The zippered case is made of soft leather and feels like a premium inclusion even at this price. However, it is on the larger side and not the most pocketable, which may be a downside for some.

Sound impressions:

I would describe Cantor's tuning as neutral-bright, and, as a lover of bass and warmth, it is not really my preferred sound signature. The note weight is maybe just on the thinner side of average, and I find it missing a bit of weight and oomph. That is not to say that things sound inherently thin, but I would appreciate a bit more fat on the bone, if you will. This set is easy enough to drive and get to loud volumes with just a simple dongle, but power and source synergy can also affect the sound. The Cantor's detail retrieval is very good. In fact, it is one of the standout features of the technicalities, along with a decently expansive soundstage, which has plenty of width and depth, and the impressively accurate imaging. The timbre of woodwind, strings, guitars, and piano is very natural and organic, but vocals sound a little less natural than I would have hoped. The dynamics sometimes lack a certain engagement factor and excitement with genres like orchestral and classical music, but fare better with more upbeat pop and rock. The separation and layering are good, but to my ear, the Cantor lacks a little bit of cohesiveness, which can happen when the separation is pushed a little too far.

Among the sources I have, I found the best synergy with the Letshuoer DT03. It helped tame the treble slightly and reduced the overall energy while preserving the great bass performance. A more analog-style sound signature or tube amplifier could also be a good match for the Cantor.

●Lows - Let me first say that the bass is definitely my favorite aspect of Cantor's tuning. It is more sub-bass focused, but the mid-bass presence is still good. It has a slightly drier texture and it doesn't have the absolute best extension, but it's plenty satisfying for the tuning it's going for. The bass is also well-separated from the midrange, and there is no bleed to my ear. The Cantor's low end defies some of the stigma of BA bass and raises the bar for other sets with a similar driver configuration. It is punchy, has appropriate rumble and reverberation, and a slightly slower decay that helps the notes linger just long enough to sound more natural. Some IEMs that utilize balanced armature drivers for bass decay too fast, but the Cantor avoids this pitfall entirely while still retaining the speed and resolution that BAs are known for. In fact, if I didn't know the driver configuration going into the review, I would have thought the Cantor contains at least one dynamic driver for the low end, which is, to me, a real testament to its quality.

●Mids - Moving from the bass to the mids, I find myself somewhat disappointed. That is not to say the midrange is bad, but it does not really hit me like the fabulous bass response. For starters, the lower midrange lacks representation for lower-registered instruments like cellos and horns. The upper mids, too, are not quite accentuated enough. Vocals are of good quality, but they do not stand out in the mix as much as I prefer, which, in fairness, could also be due to the elevated treble. Vocals are neither forward nor recessed, but sound just right in the Goldilocks zone for those who want a balanced presentation. The midrange could also use more weight, although this seems to affect female artists more than male. As a lover of a more forward vocal presentation, the Cantor's midrange does not quite do it for me, but I will say that the instrument's tonality and timbre are natural and are among the things the Cantor does very well.

●Highs - This is where Cantor's tuning goes awry for me. The bass is great, and the midrange is okay, but the treble definitely falls short of my preferences. While crisp, energetic, and well-defined, the treble can be too bright and zingy at times. It is most apparent on certain "s" and "sh" sounds to my ear, but it is also track-dependent, which is frustrating. Due to the inconsistent nature of this harshness, there are certain genres and songs that sound wonderful with the Cantor, but other more sibilant-prone tracks do test my tolerance. The extension is great, and the amount of air really helps the treble profile sound complete. Cymbals are crisp and clean without sounding metallic or splashy. Claps, snares, and hi-hats, too, are energetic and well-defined but never troublesome. My distaste for the treble really only comes down to the slight harshness on some notes, and because it happens intermittently, I am able to enjoy some tracks more than others.

Comparisons: Credit to Super Reviews and Tone Deaf Monk for the graphs.

● Unique Melody Stardust ($700) - Here we have the 14 BA drivers of the Cantor versus the 2DD, 4BA hybrid configuration of the Stardust. These two actually graph quite similarly up until the 3 kHz range, where the treble responses go in opposite directions. Both sets have really great cables and nice leather cases, but I prefer the Cantor's zipper-style case to the Stardust's circular case. The Cantor also includes many more tip options. These two have pretty strikingly different build qualities and overall designs, with the Cantor being made of resin and the Stardust of titanium. I personally prefer the Cantor's Starry Night faceplate to the more utilitarian-looking Stardust. The shell of the Stardust is a bit bigger and heavier, but both offer a comfortable fit for me. As for the tuning, the Stardust is more neutral-warm, where the Cantor tilts neutral-bright. The Cantor's bass is a little more resolving, but the Stardust has a bit more impact and mid-bass punch. Admittedly, the low end of the Stardust sounds a bit messier in comparison, but the dual DD has a more natural decay and reverberation that I prefer over a BA bass response. In the midrange, vocals are positioned slightly more forward on the Stardust and tend to sound more natural, especially without the added treble emphasis. The Cantor also does vocals well, but they can sound a bit too airy and ethereal at times. However, the Cantor has slightly better instrument timbre, which is one of its biggest strengths. At around 3 kHz, the differences in tuning become quite apparent, as the Cantor's treble offers much more extension and air. Unfortunately, for me, it can also come across as harsher and more bothersome, whereas the Stardust's more realxed treble better fits my preference. The Cantor comes across as the more technically capable IEM, taking an edge in detail retrieval, layering and separation, and dynamics. The Stardust is no slouch, though, and it has an expansive soundstage and an inherent musicality that I find lacking in the Cantor. Honestly, you couldn't go wrong picking either of these sets, but the matchup ultimately comes down to treble tolerances. For me, the Stardust is everything I hoped to find in the Cantor: a technically capable yet musical, neutral-warm tuning that is easy to listen to for hours. While the Cantor has impressive technicalities, the Stardust simply exhibits a smoother, warmer, and more enjoyable listening experience for me.

My pick: Stardust 

● AFUL Performer 5+2 ($240) - The graphs of these two are AFULly similar (sorry, I had to), but they do have some key differences. Their driver configurations are quite different, with the Cantor having 14 BAs and the Performer 5+2 being a tribrid consisting of 2 DDs, 4 BAs, and 1 micro planar driver. The 5+2's cable is fine, about what you'd expect for the price, but the Cantor's is the clear winner. Also, its leather case is much nicer than the metal puck case that comes with the Performer. Both have nicely made resin shells and fit comfortably for me, but the 5+2 is smaller and lacks the Cantor's metal nozzle insert. The 5+2 has a very unique and quite fetching aesthetic, but I really love the Cantor's Starry Night faceplate design. Though these two graph similarly, they do sound different in ear. The Cantor has a neutral-bright tuning, whereas the P5+2 is more U-shaped with elevated midbass and a slight dip in the midrange. The bass of the Cantor is cleaner and more resolving, whereas the bass of the 5+2 has a slightly bolder and somewhat "in-your-face" style, especially in the mid-bass. Unfortunately, it can come across a bit bloomy and unkempt, and the resolution is noticeably weaker than the Cantor's. In the midrange, vocals sound very similar, but they are a bit more forward on the Performer which is what I prefer. However, instruments sound much more realistic and natural on the Cantor. When it comes to the treble, the Cantor sounds a bit airier, but it is also brighter and peakier. The 5+2 has just the right amount of treble sparkle and air for me without crossing the line, and it doesn't have the same thinness on breathy vocalists like the Cantor. In the technicalities, the Cantor offers better detail retrieval, timbre, soundstage, and imaging, but I'll give the 5+2 the nod in dynamics. Overall, despite the Cantor's cleaner presentation, better bass performance, and superior technicalities, there is just something about the Performer that hits my ear right, and the increased midbass adds just the right amount of warmth.

My pick: Performer 5+2

● AFUL Explorer ($120) - Here we have a 1DD, 2BA hybrid versus Cantor's 14BA configuration. The Cantor includes a much nicer cable, and its leather case feels quite premium, but the Explorer's case is also nice and more pocketable. Both sets have well-made resin shells, but I have to admit the Cantor's Starry Night design is much better-looking than the Explorer's rather plain blue shell. The Explorer is quite a bit smaller and lacks a metal nozzle, although both fit me comfortably. The Explorer is somewhat L-shaped with a hefty bass shelf, though it is not without a hint of sparkle in the treble. The Cantor is more balanced, with less overall bass and much more treble extension and air. The Explorer is best known for its bass response, and for good reason. That dynamic driver puts out a very clean low end with plenty of rumble and reverberation. The Cantor's bass is no slouch, though, and displays a sense of resolution, speed, cleanliness, and maturity that the Explorer simply cannot match. In the midrange, the Cantor has a bit more energy and pushes both instruments and vocals more forward in the mix, which I sometimes find missing in the Explorer. However, the Cantor's lower midrange could borrow from the Explorer and add some heft to better represent lower instruments. The treble is where the biggest difference lies for me. While the Explorer has a nice, lower treble shelf to add some needed energy and sparkle, it rolls off fairly quickly in the air region, which still makes it enjoyable for me as a treble-sensitive listener. The Cantor, on the other hand, extends quite a bit further, making it much brighter and peakier to my ear. Technically, the Cantor has noticeably better layering, separation, imaging, dynamics, timbre, detail retrieval, and a more expansive soundstage. But with that hi-fi quality sound, it can sometimes feel like all the detail is being forced upon me, whereas it is much easier to just sit back and listen with the Explorer. It's hard to fault the technical performance and overall sound quality of the Cantor, but ultimately, it's just not a great match for my tuning preference. The Explorer, though, has a bassier and more relaxed tuning that I much prefer, making for easier listening for hours on end.

My pick: Explorer 

● AFUL MagicOne ($140) - Here we have the single BA of the MagicOne against 14 in the Cantor. The MagicOne includes a decent enough cable, but the Cantor's is superior, and the leather case is a drastic improvement over the metal puck-style case. The MagicOne is very similar in shape and size to both the Explorer and Performer 5+2; so it's safe to say the Cantor is larger in this matchup as well. Due to the lack of venting, I do get a bit of pressure buildup with the MagicOne, unlike the Cantor, but otherwise, both provide a comfortable fit for me. I really like both of their shell designs, but the Starry Night faceplate looks more unique and very premium. The Cantor has a well-balanced, somewhat neutral-bright tuning with a nice bass emphasis and a brighter, airier treble, whereas the MagicOne has a more mid-centric tuning that lacks extension on both ends. When comparing the bass response of these two, there is not really much of a fight to be had. The Cantor's bass has better extension, rumble, impact, and texture, and is overall much more enjoyable than the somewhat anemic low-end response of the MagicOne. Although, in the MagicOne's defense, there is a good amount of mid-bass to add warmth, and its overall bass response is actually impressive for a single BA driver due to AFUL's sound tube technology. The midrange is where the MagicOne scores many points for me. Vocals are front and center, clear, well-separated, and never shouty or harsh. The Cantor does not push vocals as forward as I like, but it does have the better balanced tuning. My treble sensitivity also means I prefer the MagicOne's rolled-off upper frequencies over the Cantor, which can be too incisive and energetic, especially with certain "s" and "sh" sounds. It should come as no surprise that the Cantor surpasses the MagicOne in almost every technical aspect, especially instrument timbre, though the MagicOne has a thicker note weight, which I prefer. Comparing the flagship Cantor to the budget-friendly MagicOne is interesting, and both can definitely coexist in a collection without being redundant. While the MagicOne lacks technical performance, it has a certain musicality and seductive charm that I find addictive. On the other hand, the Cantor offers a more balanced tuning and fantastic technical prowess; however, it can sometimes come across as too bright, energetic, and clinical for me.

My pick: MagicOne 

In conclusion:

Sure, the Cantor is good, but is it AFULly good? (OK, thats the last one, I swear). Honestly, the Cantor might just have the best BA bass implementation I've heard under $1,000. The instrument timbre is fantastic, and the treble has plenty of air and sparkle for those who want it. However, despite its great performance, I'm not sure the overall tuning holds up against the other AFUL IEMs in my collection, at least for my preferences. The detail and precision are multiple steps above the Performer 5+2. And the BA bass performance is leagues better than the single-driver MagicOne. But unfortunately, the Cantor's treble is quite incisive and quickly becomes fatiguing for me. Even if technically inferior, I much prefer the overall tuning of the Performer 5+2. The Explorer has the dynamic driver bass that I love, and even the MagicOne has smooth-as-velvet vocals that are intoxicating. Overall, the Cantor is a great set, and it is easy to see that it is the culmination of AFUL's R&D and experience poured into a single product. However, I do find that it's missing that little something special that the three other AFULs in my collection have, and at $800, it's their most expensive set to date. For that price, you could buy all three of the aforementioned IEMs, as well as the Performer 8, for just a little extra. In conclusion, the Cantor is a very detailed, articulate, and capable set, but ultimately, tuning is king. I find classical and orchestral arrangements fantastic, and I can see the appeal, but ultimately, I simply prefer AFUL's other IEMs. However, if you are looking for a well-balanced set with wonderful technical prowess and are not too treble-sensitive, the Cantor could easily be an endgame set.