AFUL Dawn-X - The Culmination of What Came Before

 5⭐️ 

+ Warm U-shaped tuning hits right in my wheelhouse 

+ Elevated bass response with great rumble and mid-bass impact

+ Smooth and emotive midrange with depth and clarity

+ EST treble is energetic and crisp without stealing the attention from the other frequencies 

+ Strong technical performance, particularly the detail retrieval, soundstage, and cohesiveness 

+ Just the right amount of BCD magic

- ESTs can be a little spicy without the proper source and tips; sounds best for me on tubes

- Cheap cable inclusion for a kilobuck 

- Faceplate design is a step down from other AFUL models

- Lame name

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 receive no compensation and all thoughts and opinions are my own. A big thank you to @AudioAmigo for the opportunity! 

Link to his stellar review for the DAWN-X:

https://youtu.be/GkQ-7peXcwU?si=5G9f5rnKQ0b78uPO

Non-affiliated product link for those interested: https://hifigo.com/products/aful-dawn-x

Gear used: 

●Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra

●HiBy R3 II

●Various DAC/amps

Source:

●Listening was done using Amazon Music HD/Ultra HD and local FLAC files. 

Introduction: 

AFUL is a Chinese-based IEM manufacturer that has seen quite a bit of success over the last three years. I've personally heard every one of their releases, save for the Performer 8. I also own and enjoy the Explorer, MagicOne, and Performer 5+2. The Dawn-X is AFUL's newest flagship IEM, and it features a quadbrid driver configuration with an impressive fourteen total drivers per side. There is one dynamic driver for lows, eight balanced armature drivers for mids, four electrostatic drivers for highs, and one bone-conducting driver for the midrange. This model is quite interesting as it marks not only the company's first time utilizing ESTs but also their first IEM with a BCD. Now, a flagship denomination is usually accompanied by an eye-watering price to match, and the Dawn-X has an MSRP of $1300, which is AFUL's first time breaking into the kilobuck pricing tier. While this one certainly costs more than any of their previous models, it's also much less expensive than other flagships I've seen. Without further ado, let's break down the new Dawn-X from AFUL and see what this quadbrid has to offer.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

While the Dawn-X's unboxing experience isn't anything to write home about, AFUL chose to keep things fairly simple, and all the essentials are here. Upon opening the box, there's not much to unpack other than the IEMs themselves and a case containing all of the accessories. One small detail that wasn't lost on me, though, is that the outside of the box has the same look and texture as the carrying case. It's these kinds of little attentions to detail that really help to elevate the experience for me. Also, the fact that the tips are housed within small plastic cases and not simple little baggies is another touch that I appreciate. The shells of the Dawn-X are made of black resin with a custom-stabilized wooden faceplate featuring the company name on the front. The model name Dawn-X is also printed on the side of each shell. The red is a striking color, and the design varies from unit to unit. This particular pair looks quite nice to me, but I've seen others posted online that weren't as pretty, so the luck-of-the-draw aspect may not appeal to some. Personally, I feel the design is a little underwhelming after such beauties as the green geometric pattern of the Performer 5+2 or the absolute work of art that is the Cantor's Starry Night faceplate. Due to housing 14 drivers per side, you would expect the shell of the Dawn-X to be on the larger side, and that's definitely the case here. While they definitely aren't the biggest I've come across, the shell size may be intimidating for those with smaller ears. The insertion depth is a little above average, and the nozzle measures 6.1mm in width. Like other AFUL models, the Dawn-X features a smooth nozzle that lacks a lip to help hold tips in place. Personally, I don't have a problem with this style of nozzle, but others may get annoyed if tips come off in their ears. Fit-wise, I find most other AFUL models to be quite comfortable, and the Dawn-X is no different. They fit snugly and securely and are easy to wear for extended periods. There is a single vent located behind the flat 2-pin connection to alleviate any pressure buildup. The high-purity 6N single-crystal copper stock cable comes in your choice of 3.5mm or 4.4mm termination. This cable is dark brown, features a nice, tight weave, and is a little on the heftier side, which I do prefer. While it's a fine cable, it's honestly underwhelming for the price. It would be nice to see modular terminations, or at the very least, a different color that better matches the shell design. I know AFUL can cable-match better than this; just look at the MagicOne and Cantor as evidence. Ultimately, I chose to sub out the stock cable for my Penon PAC480 cable instead. There are three pairs of tips included in four different silicone varieties, for a total of twelve pairs. I demoed each style and found that among the stock options, the black worked best for me, although I opted to use my own Final Type-E narrow-bore tips. The branded blue leather zipper case is a really nice inclusion, and it appears to be the same as the one that comes with the Cantor. It's soft to the touch and has plenty of room for the IEMs, plus extra tips and a small dongle DAC amp. The only other accessories of note are a branded leather cable tie and a cleaning tool, which are always appreciated. Overall, the Dawn-X's accessories are pretty decent, but I find the cable to be underwhelming, especially considering the flagship designation and price.

Sound impressions:

I would describe the Dawn-X as having a warm, U-shaped tuning with a decently accentuated bass, a low pinna gain rise in the upper midrange, and smooth treble that rolls off just a bit in the air. While it's certainly possible to reach high volumes with a simple dongle, I find that EST drivers in particular underperform unless properly powered, so I would definitely recommend amplification. The overall note weight is almost perfect for my preferences. It's not too thick or syrupy, but there's nary a thin or ethereal-sounding note anywhere in the mix, and my ears say thank you. The level of detail retrieval is impressive, though perhaps a bit more understated than what you might find in other kilobuck sets. It may require a slight attunement of the ears, but every subtlety and nuance is still on display for those who search for them. The soundstage has long been one of AFUL's Achilles' heels, but that problem has definitely been solved in the case of the Dawn-X. While it's not the absolute most expansive I've heard, the balance of width and depth, along with the orbital nature, easily makes it a standout feature. The timbre is quite natural and organic yet rich, though I have heard better in sets costing much more, so it's not at the absolute peak of performance. The imaging is very impressive with its pinpoint accuracy and distance detection. The dynamics may be one area of the Dawn-X's technical performance that doesn't instantly impress. I wouldn't personally call it a relaxed set, but I can understand if others hear it that way. That's not to say the presentation is dull or lifeless, but the tuning is on the smoother side, which inherently tones down the dynamics a bit until the volume is cranked to moderate levels, which is a minimum for me. Still, for my preferences, I find it to be more than satisfactory. The separation is also an area aspect of the technicalities that may not immediately impress upon first listen, but a deeper dive reveals more. This one has a sense of cohesiveness and superb layering that can sometimes mask certain transitions, but at the same time, the Dawn-X is perfectly capable of handling complex tracks without things becoming congested. So if you're looking for a more articulated edge to notes, you may not find it here, but for me, the sense of musicality far makes up for the lack of punctuation. Overall, the technicalities of the Dawn-X are among the best I've heard under $2,000, and I couldn't really ask for more, nor would I want to. If the Dawn-X is an amalgamation of previous AFUL releases, its technical performance is a direct callback to the Cantor. From memory, the $800 Cantor may be at the same technical level when it comes to pure detail and resolution, but the Dawn-X has a musical undertone and is able to convey a sense of depth that the Cantor's colder and more precision-based presentation can't hope to match.

The Dawn-X is not a super source-sensitive IEM, but there are some noticeable differences with a few of my pairings. The Questyle Sigma pushes technical performance to its best, especially in terms of separation and resolution, but it won't do much for the slightly sharper treble notes that hit just a little too hard for my ears. The iFi hipdac 3 sounds a little fuller, and the low end gets a nice little boost; however, the mids are recessed just a hair for me, and again, the treble is just a touch too sharp. The best source synergy I found is the Muse HiFi M5 Ultra in tube mode. The added note weight, fullness, and touch of warmth, along with the slightly toned-down treble, manage to elevate the entire musical experience to another level. I can still enjoy the Dawn-X with my other sources, but there's something about the combination of this IEM and tubes that is simply divine.

●Lows - Let me just start by saying that AFUL absolutely delivered on the bass here in the Dawn-X. It's basically everything I had hoped it could be and more! It has a deep-reaching sub-bass extension, full-bodied presentation, punchy impact, quick attack, and a very natural-sounding decay that is just the right speed. That's not to mention the nice resolution, nearly perfect texture, and no bleed into the midrange to boot. The balance of sub- and mid-bass is just right for my preferences. In fact, everything is really well done, but perhaps the thing that sticks out the most is the deep and satisfying rumble. It sounds quite natural to my ear and never becomes overbearing or gimmicky. It's also quite adaptive in that it manages to fit virtually any genre, from EDM to classical. It really is a true all-rounder in terms of the bass response for me. Now, if I'm likening the Dawn-X to be a compilation of past AFUL releases, it gets its inspiration from the Explorer, which is regarded as the bassiest AFUL until now. I'm sure the Dawn-X utilizes a better dynamic driver, which no doubt increases the spaciousness, immersiveness, and overall feeling in the low-end. Honestly, I really have no notes for the Dawn-X when it comes to the bass. It's elevated, impactful, enveloping, and, simply put—a joy to listen to!

●Mids - Moving from the absolutely remarkable bass to the midrange, my level of enthusiasm takes just a tiny step backward. That's not to say the midrange is bad by any means, but it is undoubtedly a little flatter than I would like. My usual preference for an emphasized upper midrange is a little bit subverted here, but there's no need to fret as this is where the BCD comes in to even the playing field. According to AFUL, this driver covers between 500 and 3000 Hz, and though the effect may be somewhat subtle, it does make a sizable difference. The real magic of the midrange, though, is how cohesive and immersive its presentation is. Simply put, nothing is out of place or elevated/recessed beyond my expectations. Vocals and instruments are intermingled and intertwined in a way that is a joy to experience. Vocals are both expressive and emotive, and they still present forward in the mix, but are simultaneously well-balanced and never take the spotlight away from the bass or treble. Ideally, I would like the upper midrange to be just a hair further emphasized, but it's a very minor nitpick. The lower-midrange is well-defined, and instruments that fall in this range have a nice presence. The instrument timbre and detail are also impressive. You can clearly hear the draw of the bow across the strings of violins and the pluck of guitar strings, but it's as if the level of detail is slightly hidden behind a thin screen. By this, I mean that all the details are there for the taking, but the pure musicality of the tuning is what stands out first, not the technical prowess. Some, like myself, prefer it this way, and others likely prefer it the other way around, with the details and minutiae pushed to the forefront. Back to my forced metaphor, I think the midrange of the Dawn-X is closest to that of the MagicOne. Perhaps not in the sense of pure frequency response measurement, but both are smooth, engaging, and emotive, with a bit of innate specialness that manages to draw me in. Overall, I may not find the midrange to be as perfectly in line with my preferences as the bass response, but for the targeted tuning the Dawn-X aims for, it's done incredibly well and is undoubtedly enjoyable.

●Highs - Now we get into the most interesting part of the Dawn-X's tuning—the real make-or-break for me as a treble-sensitive listener. And I'm happy to say that it seems AFUL learned some valuable lessons from the Cantor's top end that they, in turn, applied here. These two sets have a pretty similar-looking graph above 4kHz, but the Dawn-X aims for a smoother, less peaky treble response, which it accomplishes very well. There's still an innate crispness and a fine-grained texture, but it's much less incisive or spicy compared to the Cantor, though I'm sure the larger bass shelf also affects the overall presentation. The extension and air are more than sufficient for me, but I know some devout trebleheads will find the Dawn-X lacking a bit in these departments. To be honest, the 8kHz energy is just a touch overdone for me, but only by a decibel or two. It's still very much tolerable, just not ideal for listening at high volume levels. There are a few instances of over-sharpness and a tiny bit of harshness, but it primarily occurs with certain female vocal notes. This only affects a handful of my test tracks, though, leaving the vast majority of my library sounding fantastic. The way I managed to circumvent the issue is to use a warmer-sounding source and narrow-bore tips, which do wonders for me, but already sibilant-prone tracks aren't helped much, so listener beware. The good news is cymbal crashes, hi-hats, and snares all behave well enough, and there's no splash or metallic timbre to worry about. One thing to note is that the energy level in the treble may be a little toned down for some, but it's right on target for my preferences. Overall, I'm very happy with the treble response and find it thoroughly enjoyable, though not quite as much as the bass or midrange. I think AFUL managed to inject some of the Cantor's treble DNA into the Dawn-X, albeit with a few adjustments that make it much more tolerable. I might opt to bring down that 8kHz region just a smidge, but it's really just another minor nitpick among the heap of praise the Dawn-X deserves.

Comparisons: Credit to Audio Amigo for the graphs. 

● DUNU DK3001BD ($500) - This matchup pits the 1DD, 4BA, 4 microplanar tribrid of the BrainDance against the 1DD, 8BA, 4EST, 1 BCD quadbrid configuration of the Dawn-X. DUNU is known for its fantastic accessories, and for $800 less, the BrainDance definitely delivers. It has a great modular cable, just as many tip options, and a unique magnetic clasp case, though I prefer the Dawn-X's more premium leather zipper case. When it comes to build quality and design, these two sets are vastly different. The Dawn-X features the typical resin build that AFUL is known for, and the red faceplate is decent, if not a little boring-looking. The BrainDance utilizes a more durable ceramic-coated metal shell, and the cyberpunk-inspired design is fantastic. Fit and comfort, though, definitely go in favor of the Dawn-X thanks to its deeper insertion and better-contoured shell shape. As for the sound signature, these two share some commonalities but have quite different tuning targets. The Dawn-X is more U-shaped with a smoother bass-to-mids transition, while the BrainDance is more meta-tuned with a prominent mid-bass dip and increased accentuation in the upper-midrange and air. In the bass, the BrainDance is more sub-bass focused with a slightly deeper extension, and it has a noticeable mid-bass dip consistent with the meta-tuning target. The Dawn-X is much more balanced across sub- and mid-bass, as well as having more body, fullness, and a slightly slower and more natural decay. The BrainDance is a bit more articulate and nimble, but it doesn't convey the same feeling or sense of depth that the Dawn-X does. The midrange is interesting because the Dawn-X has a smooth, warm tonality that I love, but the BrainDance pushes vocals a bit more forward thanks to the extra upper-midrange emphasis, which I prefer. It also sounds cleaner and better separated, especially with lower-midrange instruments, but the Dawn-X is more cohesive and conveys more emotion and feeling. As for the treble, the BrainDance is definitely the brighter-sounding set due to the lack of mid-bass and an injection of top-end energy and air. The edges of notes are more delineated, and they can also be a touch ethereal at times, whereas the treble of the Dawn-X sounds a little smoother and more grounded. Technically speaking, both sets perform very well and trade blows, which is essentially a win for the BrainDance. It has a clean and somewhat clinical tuning that brings to light things like detail retrieval and separation, but the Dawn-X has better layering, more note weight, and a larger soundstage. For me, this matchup really comes down to personal preference. Both are incredibly well-tuned sets, yet they are so different, which makes comparing them a little difficult. The bass of the BrainDance digs deeper, and it has a nice, clean presentation that shines a spotlight on the technical performance possible at $500. As good as the BrainDance sounds, it can be a touch boring and lacks a little flavor or flair for my taste. The Dawn-X has a better-balanced bass for me, less airy and incisive treble, and a warm tonality that permeates the entire frequency response. There are absolutely times when I would pick up the BrainDance over the Dawn-X depending on the genre and my mood at the time, but generally speaking, the Dawn-X's warmer and bassier sound signature is more enjoyable, and it works great for just about everything in my library.

My pick: Dawn-X 

● DUNU Davinci ($300) - This matchup pits one of my absolute favorite mid-fi IEMs against a much more expensive competitor. The DaVinci features a 2DD 4BA hybrid driver configuration, in contrast to the quadbrid of the Dawn-X. Like the BrainDance, DUNU's accessory inclusions with the DaVinci are great. It has a nice modular cable and a decent zipper case, though both have plenty of tip options, and the Dawn-X has a larger, more premium leather case. As for build quality, both have resin shells, but the DaVinci features a metal nozzle. The Dawn-X is definitely larger in size, though it has a better contoured shell with a deeper insertion that offers a better fit for me. The designs of these two aren't vastly different, with both having colored faceplates, but I personally prefer the bolder red color of the Dawn-X compared to the more neutral light brown of the DaVinci. Tuning-wise, these two share some similarities, but the Dawn-X is a little flatter compared to the more V-shaped sound signature of the DaVinci. The low end of both these sets has a decent bass shelf that sets the tone for the entire tuning, and while the DaVinci may win in pure quantity, the Dawn-X offers more fullness, rumble, and depth. The DaVinci's decay is a touch faster, and the reverberation of the sub-bass cuts off a little earlier than I'd like it to, whereas the Dawn-X is more voluptuous and has better resolution and texture as well. In the midrange, the DaVinci has an added emphasis on the upper midrange, which helps vocals better separate themselves from the large bass shelf, especially female artists. But the overall balance of the midrange is more even-keeled on the Dawn-X, making it smoother and more emotive. It also lends more weight to lower-registered instruments. When comparing the treble, the DaVinci surprisingly sounds a little brighter, but the lack of air and extension becomes more obvious, especially in things like snares, which can sound a little blunted and incomplete. The Dawn-X definitely has more air and extension but also slightly tamer and more resolving treble with improved texture. Regarding technical performance, the Dawn-X has a clear advantage across the board, most notably in the soundstage, note weight, and detail retrieval, though the DaVinci is the more dynamic of the two. For me, this matchup ultimately comes down to the presentation and level of engagement. Essentially, I find these two sets to be more complementary than alike, and both have their merits. On one hand, the DaVinci's added mid-bass heft, upper-midrange emphasis, and slightly rolled-off treble make it one of my top picks, and the enjoyment I get from it makes it easier to overlook some of its technical deficiencies. The Dawn-X has better technical performance, improved bass and treble extension, and a warm, effortlessly sultry, and smooth presentation with a somewhat relaxed tonality, but it does cost $1000 more, which is nothing to scoff at. I would say if money were no object, I'd choose the Dawn-X as it's such a great all-rounder for my library. But since price doesn't exist in a bubble, the DaVinci may hold a slightly higher place for me when it comes to the price-to-performance ratio. Either way, you can't go wrong picking between these two incredible IEMs.

My pick: Tie

● AFUL Performer 5+2 ($240) - Here we have our first true face-off within the AFUL family. The 5+2 utilizes a 2DD, 4BA, 1 microplanar tribrid configuration against the 14-driver quadbrid of the Dawn-X. When it comes to accessories, the Dawn-X includes more tips, and its larger leather case is much better than the metal puck of the 5+2. However, the cables of both are comparable, which can be seen as a negative for the much more expensive Dawn-X. Like all of AFUL's releases so far, both sets have similarly shaped resin shells that fit me quite well, but the Dawn-X is much larger, which may cause fit issues for some. From a design standpoint, I like that both have colorful faceplates, but I prefer the green geometric pattern on the 5+2 to the red of the Dawn-X. When it comes to tuning, just look at the graph; these two sets have virtually identical U-shaped targets outside of a few minor differences along the frequency response. In the low end, both sets have a healthy dose of bass quantity, but the 5+2 is a little more linear while the Dawn-X has more sub-bass presence, which adds an extra layer of depth and skews the overall balance a little more towards my preferences. The 5+2, though, does sound a touch cleaner or maybe slightly less intrusive, but the resolution, decay, texture, and fullness are all improved on the Dawn-X. The midrange is where things deviate a little further. The 5+2 pushes vocals forward just a hair, and they are a touch more separated from the rest of the frequency response as well, but the Dawn-X exhibits a smoothness and warmth that can be quite intoxicating. I might prefer the mids of the 5+2 more since they are more forward, if not for the fact that they sound slightly cold and dry in comparison. Plus, the Dawn-X adds a layer of depth and emotion to vocals that the 5+2 cannot quite match. The treble is interesting because, despite using different driver types and the slight variations in the graphs, they sound basically the same. However, the Dawn-X does have noticeably better refinement, a crisper texture, and a slightly more natural-sounding air and extension. I know there are some who find the treble of the 5+2 to be a little bothersome (I'm not one of them), and I will say that the Dawn-X has a very similar sound and tuning, so it likely won't solve that issue for those sensitive to it. From a technical performance standpoint, the Dawn-X is an improvement in virtually every definable category. For me, this matchup ultimately comes down to tuning execution. I mean, it's really not a fair fight for the 5+2, since the Dawn-X is essentially a better version of the same tuning. Obviously, price is always a factor in any purchase, and I won't tell you that the Dawn-X is five times better since diminishing returns exist, but it is better without a doubt. Only each individual can say what a product is ultimately worth to them, but if I had the money to spend, I do think the Dawn-X is worth the extra cost. When I initially heard rumblings and rumors about AFUL's new unreleased quadbrid IEM, I simply wanted it to be a bassier 5+2 with better technical performance. Thankfully, that's essentially what the Dawn-X delivers, and needless to say, I'm a big fan.

My pick: Dawn-X 

● AFUL MagicOne ($140) - This matchup again pits two AFUL siblings against each other, but with vastly different driver configurations. The Dawn-X is a quadbrid and packs a whopping 14 total drivers against just a single BA in the MagicOne. As for accessories, the Dawn-X has more tip options and a much more premium leather zipper case compared to the MagicOne's metal puck-style case. I actually like the aesthetics of the MagicOne stock cable better, but the Dawn-X's feels a little nicer. Build-wise, both sets feature similarly shaped resin shells, but the Dawn-X is much larger, which is to be expected due to the discrepancy in the number of drivers. Surprisingly, both fit me quite comfortably, though the MagicOne will likely be better for those with small ears. From a design standpoint, the rich red color of the Dawn-X is nice, but my eye is more drawn to the clear resin and geometric patterned faceplate of the MagicOne. Regarding the sound signature, these two don't share much in common outside of their midrange responses. The Dawn-X is more U-shaped with a larger bass shelf and more extended treble, while the MagicOne has a much more mid-centric tuning with rolled-off extension on both ends. The bass may be where the biggest difference lies between these two, which is pretty obvious looking at the graph. The Dawn-X has much more sub-bass presence and a very satisfying, deep-reaching rumble. It also has a longer and more natural decay with better texture and resolution. The bass of the MagicOne is actually impressive when you consider it's handled by only a single full-range BA driver, but there's no argument that it lacks quantity, leading to somewhat of an incomplete tuning. The midrange is where the playing field becomes a little more even, but the gap in quality is still there. The MagicOne has a bit more upper midrange emphasis which, in combination with a low bass shelf, ensures vocals are pushed forward in the mix, yet they remain smooth and never sound shouty. The Dawn-X, though, takes some notes from its predecessor and manages to imbue a bit of that midrange magic, but in a more balanced way. Vocals are a touch recessed in comparison, yet still have plenty of presence, and the level of depth and accuracy in instrument reproduction is far superior. In the treble, the Dawn-X again shows that extension matters. The MagicOne rolls off pretty sharply in the air, which definitely affects the overall balance of the treble, making it sound incomplete. It has a sufficient amount of energy and sparkle for me, but compared to the Dawn-X, the missing air is very apparent. As for technical performance, what can I say other than that the Dawn-X makes a clean sweep in every category. I will add, though, that while the timbre of the MagicOne may not sound as natural, it does have a certain analog quality to it that is appealing in its own right. Ultimately, this matchup comes down to a lot of factors. Obviously, due to the vast difference in price, you would expect the Dawn-X to be the better technical performer, and that's absolutely true. However, what sticks out most to me is the difference in portraying a sense of completeness. The MagicOne's whole appeal is its smooth and emotive midrange, and in their effort to perform this tuning magic, AFUL sacrificed the extension on both ends of the frequency spectrum. When A/B testing against the Dawn-X, it's immediately clear just how much is missing. It's like using floodlights at night versus the natural light from the sun. Simply put, the Dawn-X is able to illuminate much more of the music. The MagicOne's lovely midrange holds a special place in my heart, but the Dawn-X takes some inspiration from its little sibling and manages to capture a bit of that magic as well. Add to that the leagues-better technical performance and an overall sense of completeness in the sound reproduction, and it's clear why the Dawn-X runs away with the victory here (to the surprise of no one, I'm sure).

My pick: Dawn-X 

● AFUL Explorer ($120) - And finally, we come to the last of the AFUL familial matchups. Here we have the Explorer's 1DD, 2BA hybrid configuration against the quadbrid of the Dawn-X. In terms of accessories, the Explorer includes a nice small zipper case and a quality cable, but the Dawn-X's are better, and it comes with more tips too. Both sets have similarly shaped resin shells that fit comfortably, but like the MagicOne, the Explorer is much smaller in size. From a design standpoint, I have to say I personally prefer the red faceplate of the Dawn-X compared to the blue sparkly aesthetic of the Explorer. When it comes to the sound signature, these two actually measure pretty closely outside of the treble extension, though the Dawn-X is a bit more U-shaped and the Explorer a bit more L-shaped. Both sets have a large bass shelf that colors the rest of the frequency response, but the Dawn-X's low end is more robust and impactful, with a longer-lasting rumble and reverberation. The Explorer manages to reach fairly deep, but it still lacks the sense of impact and depth that the Dawn-X is able to convey. It's not simply about the quantity, though, as the quality and presentation matter just as much. Just as the MagicOne's tuning feels somewhat incomplete due to the lack of bass and treble extension, I'm afraid the Explorer falls victim to this too, but more so due to the lack of upper midrange presence. Vocals have a nice timbre and a smooth presentation, but they simply aren't as forward as I want them to be and don't differentiate themselves enough from the bold bass. The Dawn-X already has a touch less vocal forwardness than I prefer, and the Explorer takes it even further, making vocals feel somewhat like an afterthought. In the treble, the most obvious difference is in just how much air and extension the Dawn-X has compared to the rolled-off Explorer. I've also always had some slight issues with the peekaboo style of treble in the Explorer. The slight dips and peaks mean some frequencies stand out more than others, and the peaks seem to occur at a few sensitive places for me. The Dawn-X's treble is not only smoother and more complete sounding, but it also has a crisper texture and a sense of precision that the Explorer can't match. Again, the disparity in technical performance is pretty wide, just as with the other AFUL comparisons, but I wouldn't expect anything else. I will say the Explorer does have good note weight and layering, though, just not on par with the more expensive Dawn-X. For me, this matchup really comes down to the midrange and the style of sound signature you're after. The Explorer is a great choice for a more relaxed listening session that allows the music to kind of fade into the background, but the Dawn-X simply has a much better overall balance for a vast majority of my library. I'm afraid that those who find the Dawn-X a bit lackluster may be too bored with the Explorer, as it is noticeably darker with less upper midrange emphasis and air. Honestly, these comparisons of lower-priced AFUL models were probably doomed from the start, but it really serves to reinforce my theory that the Dawn-X's sound signature is made up of pieces of AFUL's best tuning achievements. The Explorer obviously has more of an L-shaped tuning and competes in a much lower tier, but I think it's undeniable that the Dawn-x draws inspiration from the Explorer's bass. The real specialness, though, is that the Dawn-X elevates it several levels in quality and presentation.

My pick: Dawn-X 

In conclusion:

It's rare for an IEM to come along and tick basically every box on my audiophile wish list, but that is indeed the case with AFUL's new flagship, the Dawn-X. I truly believe this to be the culmination of lessons learned from their past models, poured into one of the best IEMs on the market today. Wait, before I go on, let's just take a moment to talk about that name, since I neglected to do so earlier in the review. I wouldn't say AFUL is a company recognized for its great naming conventions, but come on—Dawn-X? Why even include the X? Just name it Dawn, or even Risen Dawn would have been better. Dawn-X sounds like something an edgy preteen would come up with if forced to wake up too early on a weekend. Also, I usually associate the dawn with more orange and yellow hues, not a deep, rich red color, although Red Dawn is a rad '80s movie, but I digress. My fellow Disco Threader @Ozboyblu mocked up a Dawn-X design using the Cantor's Starry Night faceplate as inspiration with shades of orange and yellow, and it looks vastly better than this red version (I'll include it in a comment below for reference). Anyway, rant over, back to the opinion piece that is my review. I truly believe that AFUL successfully took pieces of what makes some of my favorite sets special and put them into something that's somehow more than the sum of its parts. There's a strong, deep, and bold bass response like that of the Explorer; a pinch of smooth and emotive midrange as seen in the MagicOne; and the Cantor's technical performance and slightly toned-down, crisp, and punctuated treble, all on top of the great balance and overall tuning target of the Performer 5+2. Now, I'm not naive enough to think my opinion means more than the next person in such a subjective hobby, but for what it's worth, I think Dawn-X makes a really great all-rounder, at least for my taste. It's able to seamlessly transition from classical and jazz to trance, pop, and classic rock. Also, if you're a bass and darkness enthusiast like myself, try adding an impedance adapter to add a bit more heft in the low end and tone down the treble. My only real small complaints about this model are the stock cable, which is disappointing for the price, and a few very minor gripes involving the upper midrange and treble, which seem to simply melt away once music starts playing. I don't know what AFUL is cooking up next in their little laboratory, but after a long wait, the sun has finally risen on the Dawn-X. It really is a fantastic set, truly deserving of the flagship designation, and I believe AFUL's future looks very bright.