AFUL Performer 8S - An Update Worth the Wait

 4⭐️

+ Familiar U-shaped tuning that AFUL does so well

+ Thick and impactful bass response adds a nice sense of weight and depth

+ Smooth and emotive midrange makes for great vocal presentation

+ Rolled-off treble is inoffensive yet still detailed and crisp

+ Natural timbre, accurate imaging, and great note weight

+ Eye-catching faceplate and comfortable shell design

+ Solid accessories package

- A bit unsure of what it wants to be; lies somewhere between musical and analytical

- Bass ventilation system feels like a gimmick and the low end could use more mid-bass 

- Instrument separation and detail not up to the level of vocals

- Treble lacking in air and extension 

- Soundstage and dynamics could be better

- A modular cable would be nice, or at least a better matching color

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 provided to me by HiFiGO in exchange for my impartial and honest review. I receive no compensation, and all thoughts and opinions are my own.

Non-affiliated link for those interested:

https://hifigo.com/products/aful-performer-8s

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: 

Chinese company AFUL may not be a household name, but audiophiles who frequent the mid-fi sector of the hobby are likely already familiar with the brand. They've had a fair bit of success their Performer series, as well as the Explorer and Cantor models. I was fortunate enough to review their recently released $1300 flagship, the Dawn-X, late last year, and it received an enthusiastic 5-star rating from me. I've actually tried every AFUL IEM save for the original Performer 8, though that was remedied for this review (thanks, Jon, for the loaner). Today, we will take a look at the new Performer 8S. AFUL is certainly not the first company to revamp and update a prior model into something fresh. The 8S is actually the second of their IEMs to receive such treatment after the original Performer 5 was updated to the 5+2, which remains one of my favorite mid-fi releases of the last couple of years. The new 8S features tribrid driver configuration consisting of one dynamic, one passive radiator, six balanced armatures, and a single microplanar driver. It comes with a price tag of $390 and is available through HiFiGO and other retailers worldwide. Let's break down this latest from AFUL and see if it is indeed an upgrade over the original.

Build, fit, ergonomics:

The Performer 8S comes in a medium-sized box with some really cool space/planetary imaging on the front. According to AFUL's marketing material, the faceplate takes inspiration from the planet Jupiter, and I think the design is done quite well. The faceplates feature streaks of red, black, and white, inlaid with abalone fragments, which make for a really eye-catching aesthetic, especially when the light hits them just right. The company name is also printed across the bottom of both shells in gold. The bands of color certainly bring to mind the gaseous streaks of our solar system's largest planet, and it's easy to see that Jupiter was a major aesthetic inspiration. However, the box art actually features a ringed planet more akin to Saturn than Jupiter, so there's a little disconnect there. The shells are done in the typical AFUL style—a black resin build of average size with a semi-custom shape. It appears that there's a window of sorts on the top of the shell that showcases the passive driver, which is a nice little detail. Like most of their other models, the nozzle is smooth and lacks a lip for tips. The insertion depth is about average, and the nozzles measure 5.7mm at their widest point, which should accommodate most ear sizes. Personally, I find that AFUL's shells fit quite well and offer a comfortable fit, but I know others dislike the smooth nozzle as tips are more likely to become dislodged. The Performer 8S features an interesting bass-venting system that supposedly offers two distinct bass tunings (more on that later). This vent hole is located just behind the flat 2-pin connection. By default, this vent is covered by a black sticker, but there are also small rubber plugs included in the accessories kit, as well as extra stickers. There's another vent hole located on the bottom of the shell, but this one is just for pressure relief. The cable is made of 4N single-crystal copper plus single-crystal copper with silver plating and is available with either 3.5mm or 4.4mm termination. The color is a sort of brownish-silver, and I think it does complement the faceplates, but it would have been much better in red/maroon with silver accents or even just plain black. It has a tight weave and is on the thicker and weightier side, but it's still pliable and feels good in hand. It does get a little stiffer after the Y-split towards the ear hooks, but overall it's a fine-quality cable. There are nine pairs of silicone tips in three different colors, though all three varieties appear to be nearly identical, so it may only offer the illusion of choice. They work decently well for me, but I ended up using the Penon Liqueur tips for the best fit and seal. The case is a black, leather-clad, hard-shelled style with a magnetic closure. It provides nice protection, feels good in hand, and the color is simple but still very on-theme. It's quite a step up from the metal puck-style case that accompanies other AFUL IEMs like the Performer 5+2, but it's also not quite as nice as the Cantor or Dawn-X cases. The only other accessory of note is a simple cleaning tool. Overall, the Performer 8S feels well-made, features a great design, and the accessories are more than adequate for the price, though I'd like to see more variety in the tip selection.

Sound impressions:

I would describe the 8S' tuning as a familiar, mildly U-shaped type of response that AFUL does well. The bass is elevated, yet not by a large amount, the upper midrange is slightly accentuated, and the treble is mostly linear until it rolls off around the the 10kHz mark. As far as drivability goes, the 8S is pretty efficient and able to get to high volumes without amplification, but a little extra power does go a long way in bringing out the best in performance. The note weight is in a particularly good place for my taste. There's a thickness that permeates throughout the entire frequency response, and notes feel heavy and grounded without having their wings completely clipped, so to speak. I will admit, though, that this style likely won't appeal to everyone. The detail retrieval is one area where I feel the performance could be improved. It's not bad by any means, but it's as if there's an extra layer or two that could be peeled back to expose more nuance in the music. The soundstage isn't the strongest either. It's not particularly wide, tall, or deep, but it's not quite claustrophobic or closed in. What it has going for it is its spherical nature and the way it fills each and every little space. There's a kind of fullness to the sound that's hard to characterize. It's like every piece of the music is crammed into the presentation, and every inch of the frequency response and soundstage is being utilized, leaving nothing to waste. Admittedly, it can begin to feel slightly overwhelming at times, like it's throwing too much information at you all at once, but there's also an addictiveness to it that keeps me coming back for more. This also ties into the layering and separation, in which the former is decent, but the latter could be more refined. It's not that it's incapable of handling complex tracks, but those seeking a more expansive and well-separated presentation will likely find the 8S a little convoluted or encumbered. For me, the timbre is something AFUL does well in most of their IEMs, and the 8S may be near the top of that list. There's a natural, almost effortless quality to it that makes longer listening sessions very easy and enjoyable without feeling the need to dissect the music into individual parts. The imaging has impressive accuracy and is one of the highlights of the technicalities, but I believe it could be pushed even further with a more expansive soundstage. Unfortunately, the dynamics are a bit lackluster—not terrible, but not great either. I find that music seems to hold firm at a certain energy level and is less flexible for notes that fall on either side of that line, though it does have a slightly relaxed tonality that I prefer. Overall, the 8S isn't likely to blow you away with its technical prowess. It doesn't have the best detail retrieval, separation, or dynamics, but it manages to perform admirably enough in just about every area to stay competitive with its peers. Ultimately, I think the 8S is undergoing a bit of an identity crisis. It doesn't lean fully into the musicality aspect, but neither does it offer the best in the way of technical abilities. It also fails to strike that perfect balance between the two, but where it absolutely excels is in conveying a smooth, natural, and musical experience that makes my favorite tracks a joy to listen to for hours on end.

Moving on to source synergy, I tried many DAC/amps with the Performer 8S and came away with the impression that it's not overly source-sensitive; however, there was one clear standout pairing that worked best for me. First, I started with the ddHiFi TC44Pro E3. This one added some bite, energy, and clarity to both the lower and upper ends of the frequency response spectrum, but it was a touch sharper and a little aggressive for my taste. With the next selection, I tried the NiceHCK Octave, which has a more mid-centric focus and rolled-off treble. Unfortunately, the bass extension also rolled off a bit too heavily, and the thinness in the midrange undermines the superb inherent balance of the 8S' sound signature. Next, I went with the iFi GO link Max, which injects a welcome bit of fun and dynamism, but the note weight loses some of its heft, and the soundstage gets a little narrower, which isn't ideal. The source I actually favored most was a surprise since it's one of my least utilized DAC/amps: the Kiwi Ears Allegro. I consider it to be on the slightly brighter and more analytical side, which is why I don't often gravitate toward it, but in the case of the 8S, the synergy works quite well. With the Allegro, the 8S adopts a bit more note definition and crispness in the treble without coming across brighter. Also, it doesn't really affect the midrange or the impact and extension of the bass. The soundstage width even gets a subtle boost, which only adds to the enjoyment. For me, the Allegro adds just the right touch of an analytical style to the innate musicality of the Performer 8S, creating something unique and special.

●Lows - Before we delve too deeply into the bass response, let's discuss the unique venting system in more depth. According to AFUL, the default bass tuning is with the vent blocked, and another slightly different tuning option can be achieved by leaving the vent open. The shells come stock out of the box with a small black sticker covering this vent. I personally heard no discernible change in sound between covering with a sticker, using the silicone plug, or leaving the vent completely open. Also, the plugs are incredibly difficult to install due to their small size, and they're more likely to fall out and be lost than using the sticker. This begs the question: what's the point of incorporating such a convoluted system in the first place? My recommendation would be to simply install the sticker and leave it alone, which is exactly what I did. With that out of the way, let's move on to my impressions. The bass is elevated a fair bit north of neutral, and there's more sub-bass focus over mid-bass. Personally, I'd like a bit more of the latter, but I think this style of bass response falls pretty comfortably within AFUL's wheelhouse. It has a certain boldness, weight, and depth that I quite like but can also come across as a bit aggressive at times in its delivery. Notes are full and grounded, yet not overly emphasized to where they detract from the rest of the frequency response. The impact is certainly accentuated and hard-hitting, though kick drums in particular could use a little more oomph, which may tie back into that less-than-ideal mid-bass response. The texture is clean but not sterile. I'd say it leans towards the drier side of the spectrum, but still sounds great. The resolution is decent enough, but I do think it could be a bit better for complex tracks. The sub-bass extension can reach quite low, but the 8S doesn't aim to be a bass cannon, so expectations should be tempered a bit. The rumble is one thing the bass does particularly well. Sustained bass notes are a joy to behold, but the decay is a touch quick for me. I'd really like that superb level of rumble and reverberation to last a bit longer. A couple of things to note are that there is some minor bass bleed to contend with, and the bass can sound a little boxy at higher volumes. Overall, I think the bass of the 8S is certainly one of its biggest draws. The bold, full-bodied nature, thicker weight, impactfulness, rumble, extension, and depth are enjoyable, to say the least. However, I wouldn't mind a bit more mid-bass presence for balance, and a slightly slower decay could lend a more natural presentation.

●Mids - The midrange of the 8S is quite good, but perhaps a bit underutilized in the tuning as a whole. I think it's decently balanced with both the bass and treble, but I'd actually like it pushed forward a hair more. Also, better separation would be nice as complex tracks tend to make the mids sound a little busy and cramped. As I stated earlier, the 8S has fantastic timbre, which is on full display here, particularly with vocals. Both male and female artists sound rich and natural, and some of my favorite vocal-focused tracks have never sounded so good. There's a sense of emotional weight and sincerity in their presentation that many other IEMs often fail to capture properly. They also have a slightly warm and relaxed tonality and are never shouty or thin. Both male and female artists are well represented, but I do think females could be brought forward just a hair for my preferences. As good as the vocals are, the instrumentation isn't quite up to the same standard. It's not as if they sound particularly unnatural, but they just aren't quite as organic and lovely as the vocals. They also aren't as clear or detailed as I'd like. Stringed instruments, including the violin and guitar, lack a certain edginess and bite, as if they've been tamed in an effort to sound more polite. It's almost like there's a bit of a veil over the entire midrange, but the vocal presentation seems immune to it. At least the lower midrange is in a great spot. There's ample weight and representation for instruments like the cello and lower brass. Overall, I really enjoy the midrange of the 8S, but with a few caveats. Instrument detail and timbre could be improved, and the separation could be better, but what it does exceptionally well is vocal balance and timbre, which helps to make up for some of its deficits in other areas.

●Highs - The treble is a bit of a conundrum for me. There are certainly aspects that adhere well to my preferences, but also some that feel a little out of place. I'd describe the treble as being a bit blunted, but I much prefer that to one that's overly bright, sharp, and piercing. Snaps and snares specifically feel like they have been ground to a dull edge. Cymbals don't sound blunted per se, but are a little recessed and don't quite have the right splash or energy that I have come to expect from a more natural presentation. This can be a blessing on some brighter, more cymbal-intense tracks, but others may feel slightly lackluster. Again, I will say that I much prefer this style to something bright and piercing, so I'm not complaining much. The 8S also has a somewhat aggressive nature across the frequency response, but only in the treble does it start to become a problem. Even if a note is not inherently bothersome, it can become that way when it's delivered with enough force, although it could be partly chalked up to listening volume. At a certain level, the energy is simply too much. It starts to feel like it's overcompensating, and in doing so, it comes across as artificial or at least less natural. Admittedly, it's not as much of an issue at lower volumes, but I tend to listen fairly loud, so I do find it a little bothersome. The air and extension could also use some work. As I said, the rolled-off nature of the treble is certainly appealing to me, but a little more in the upper echelons of the frequency response would help the tuning feel more complete. Overall, the treble is good, but there's definitely room for improvement. A bit of simple EQ may be enough to do the trick. I toyed around with it briefly, and some minor adjustments did fix most of the issues I have, but I'm not a fan of having to rely on EQ, and I never review gear with those changes made.

Comparisons: Credit to Super Reviews for the graphs. 

● AFUL Performer 8 ($370) - We'll jump right into this section with the most obvious matchup. Here we have the 1DD, 7BA configuration of the original P8 versus the 1DD, 6BA, 1 passive radiator, and 1 microplanar driver of the updated 8S. Since the P8 is on loan from a friend, I can't compare all the stock accessories, but luckily I do have the case and cable. The accessories aren't all that dissimilar, which makes sense considering they come from the same company, but the 8S does include a slightly thicker cable and a more robust case, though I think I prefer the leather-clad, puck-style case of the original. Regarding the build quality, these two are virtually identical in size, shape, and fit. The real difference is in their faceplate designs. They are still similar, but the original features thicker bands of varying earth tones that I actually like a little more. When it comes to the sound signature, it's no surprise that these two have similar U-shaped tunings, but there are some key differences, notably the 8S' emphasis on bass and slightly pulled-back mids and treble. Starting with the low end, the 8S features an increase in both sub-bass rumble and extension, as well as a fuller and richer presentation. The P8 has a cleaner and more articulate nature, and kick drums in particular have improved attack and impact, but I find myself wanting more overall bass quantity. In the midrange, the original model pushes vocals a bit more forward, which I prefer, but the 8S has a sweeter vocal timbre that I'm more drawn to. The P8 makes vocals sound a bit breathy, thin, and delicate, while the 8S has better weight and depth throughout the midrange, as well as a sense of warmth that's very enjoyable. The original does earn a point of favor when it comes to instrument timbre and detail, though, and its mids are better separated from the bass too. The treble may be the biggest deciding factor for me. I can deal with a slightly toned-down bass response, and as I said, the more forward midrange suits me just fine, but the treble of the 8 is too brittle and imbalanced. To its credit, it's not overly bright or sibilant, but the texture just sounds off. Cymbals are splashier than they should be, and there's no bass shelf to help lend that feeling of weight and balance that's missing. The P8 does have more air and sparkle for those who want it, but it also has a slightly artificial quality that's hard to describe. The treble of the 8S follows a similar curve but is much less incisive and better behaved, though I wouldn't mind a bit more air. When it comes to technical performance, the P8 has better detail retrieval and separation, whereas the 8S offers better note weight, layering, timbre, and a more expansive soundstage. For me, this one comes down to whether you're looking for a delicate yet detailed style of presentation or one that has nice weight and body. The original Performer 8 would be the former, as its bass-light tuning puts more emphasis on the mids and treble, allowing them to take center stage and showcase vocals and instruments quite well. The downside, though, is that the bass feels a bit imbalanced and incomplete due to the lack of extension, making the P8 less of an all-rounder and more of a specialist. The 8S sees the bass response remedied, but in doing so, it sacrifices some of that midrange prominence and instrument magic. The good news is it fixes some of my complaints about vocals, making them sound sweeter and more grounded. Generally, I prefer the 8S, as it's a better fit for my library, but the P8 certainly has its appeal, particularly for rock music. For me, the ultimate tuning of the Performer 8 line may actually lie somewhere between the two, but it's clear after testing that the added bass emphasis, revamped vocals, and tamer treble make the 8S a clear upgrade over the original.

My pick: Performer 8S

● DUNU 242 ($350) - This matchup features two tribrids with quite different driver configurations. The 8S features 1 DD, 1 passive radiator, 6 BA, and 1 microplanar, while the 242 has 2 DD, 4 BA, and 2 microplanar drivers. When it comes to accessories, both have a lot to offer, including nice modular cables and cases, though the 242's tip options are more varied. They do differ somewhat in build quality. The shell of the 8S is entirely made of resin, while the 242 has a metal nozzle. The former is also quite a bit smaller in both shell and nozzle sizes, and offers more comfort for me. Design-wise, both sets heavily feature the color red. Part of me likes the simpler look of the 242, but the more colorful design of the 8S draws the eye in more. Regarding the tuning, both sets have a U-shaped sound signature, but there are some key differences. The 242 puts more energy into the upper mids and treble, whereas the 8S is better balanced with a slightly larger dip in the lower mids and less upper mids and treble accentuation. In the bass, both have a similar quantity, but the quality and style of bass response are different. The 242 is a bit more mid-bass focused, with increased impact and slam. It also comes across as generally more energetic and dynamic. The 8S is a little better balanced between sub- and mid-bass and has a warmer, slower, and somewhat relaxed presentation. The 242's bass may be slightly more resolving and quicker, but the 8S has a slower, more natural decay that I prefer. The midrange is where these two start to deviate further. The 8S has more body, emotional weight, and engagement in the midrange, as well as a warmer and more relaxed nature. In contrast, the 242 is energetic and upbeat, with female vocals holding most of the power over their male counterparts. The 8S balances vocals much better, as well as lending more weight to lower-registered instruments. The 242, though, has better instrument separation, and vocal purists will likely prefer its forward, detailed presentation over the somewhat smoothed-over 8S. In the treble, neither set comes off as bright or fatiguing, but the trend from the previous sections of the frequency response continues here too. The 242 is airier, sparklier, and more energetic, while the 8S rolls off a bit more steeply, making it smoother and more relaxed, paving the way for the midrange to take more of the spotlight. Treble enthusiasts, though, are likely to prefer the 242's more complete-sounding top end. When it comes to technical performance, the 242 has better dynamics, separation, and detail retrieval, while the 8S has improved soundstage width, note weight, layering, and imaging. For me, this matchup comes down to the overall tuning balance and the style of presentation. Pretty much down the line, I prefer each segment of the 8S's tuning over that of the 242. Its bass is a little slower and digs deeper, the midrange is smoother and more emotive, and the treble is less peaky and airy. The 242 will likely attract those who favor dynamism, energy, and vocal forwardness. The 8S, on the other hand, are a little smoother and more relaxed, yet still very engaging. Honestly, both offer nice value for the price, but the X-factor in this matchup may be the 8S's level of engagement and emotional weight, which ultimately won me over.

My pick: Performer 8S 

● Kiwi Ears Orchestra II ($350) - Here we have the 2DD (1 passive), 6BA, and 1 microplanar tribrid configuration of the 8S versus the 10 BAs of the Orchestra II. Starting with the accessories, both sets come with plenty of tips, but the Orchestra II has a nicer modular cable and a more premium zipper case. Both sets also feature a full resin build, though the 8S is much smaller in size, and the nozzle lacks a lip. Their designs, aesthetics, and fit are quite different. The Orchestra II features clear resin and a more neutrally colored hexagonal faceplate, while the 8S' red, black, and gold design really draws my eye. Fit-wise, the Orchestra II's larger nozzle and pressure issues might cause problems, whereas the 8S is much smaller and more comfortable. When it comes to the sound signature, these two U-shaped tunings have much in common and follow a similar target, but the Orchestra II notably has a more prominent mid-bass tuck and more upper-midrange emphasis, while the 8S is slightly flatter across the frequency response. In the bass, both sets have a similar quantity, but the Orchestra II is more sub-bass focused with a cleaner, better-separated, and more impactful bass response. It also has better extension and more rumble, though it's a bit short-lived due to quicker decay. In contrast, the 8S has more mid-bass presence, added warmth, and a sense of naturalness thanks to the slower decay, though it doesn't sound nearly as clean. This matchup can be somewhat indicative of your typical BA versus DD bass situation, with the Orchestra II focusing on separation, tactility, and cleanliness, while the 8S puts the focus on musicality, warmth, and a more natural presentation, though the impact, in particular, is a bit lacking. In the midrange, neither set has a particularly forward style of presentation. The 8S is smoother, warmer, and more relaxed, yet it also has a certain engagement factor and musicality that I feel is missing in the Orchestra II, though the latter is much cleaner, clearer, and better separated. The Orchestra II also has improved instrument separation and detail, but the vocal presentation is a bit colder than I prefer. The treble responses are actually not so different. Both follow a similar curve, but due to the Orchestra II's extra emphasis on sub-bass and upper mids, it does come off a little darker in comparison. The 8S exhibits a slight edge with certain vocal notes, and it sounds a little airier and better extended. The Orchestra II again has a cleaner treble texture and better note definition (notice a pattern yet?) and is probably the safer choice for those who are treble-sensitive. As far as technical performance goes, the Orchestra II has improved detail retrieval, imaging, separation, and dynamics, while the 8S has better layering, more note weight, and a wider soundstage. For me, this one simply comes down to personal preference. These two may have similar tuning targets, but they differ in how they present that tuning—sort of a technical versus musical situation. The Orchestra II has more tactility, better separation, and a certain tightness or perfunctory quality across the frequency response that is certainly enjoyable; however, I'm typically more drawn to a warmer, smoother, and more relaxed style, which is what the Performer 8S does well. The bass in the Orchestra II is more impactful and has a deeper extension, which I really like, but the velvety vocals and level of engagement in the 8S are great too. Ultimately, I find these two sets to be quite complementary, and find it hard to choose one over the other. If my hand were forced, it would likely come down to the genre of music being played and my mood on that particular day. At the time of this writing, I'd likely pick the Performer 8S, as it seems to work better with a wider selection of songs in my library, but the Orchestra II certainly holds its own, and I might prefer its bass thump and overall cleanliness tomorrow.

My pick: Performer 8S

● Softears Volume S ($330) - This contest is interesting because both sets actually utilize passive radiator drivers. The 8S is a 1DD, 1 passive radiator, 6BA, and 1 microplanar tribrid, in contrast to the simpler 1DD, 1 passive radiator, and 2BA hybrid configuration of the Volume S. Also, as you may have noticed, they both feature an "S" in their names because they are both follow-ups to their respective original models, which is kind of neat. Starting with the accessories, both sets have decent inclusions, but the 8S has a nicer, non-microphonic cable, while the Volume S has more tip variability and a softer, more secure zipper case. When it comes to build quality, both feature resin shells and nozzles, but the Volume S has a carbon fiber faceplate, and it's a little larger in size too. Fit-wise, both are comfortable, but their designs are quite different. The Volume S is a bit plain-looking for my taste, and I prefer the much more colorful red, silver, and black stripes of the 8S. Moving on to the sound, it's worth noting that the Volume S has two tuning options, but the high-impedance option is divisive at best. For this review, I used the more universally praised lower-impedance tuning option. Both sets generally have U-shaped tunings, but the 8S has a more linear bass response and a flatter overall frequency response, while the Volume S features a more prominent bass shelf and upper midrange emphasis. In the bass, both sets have a similar quantity, but the sub-bass of the 8S digs a little deeper, and it also has a slight edge in impact, fullness, and depth. The Volume S offers more mid-bass, and with it, a bit of warmth and an improved balance between mid and sub-bass. It's also a touch slower in both attack and decay, which leads to a slightly more natural presentation. The 8S is better separated from the mids, though, and therefore has a cleaner and more intentional transition, as well as a touch better resolution. Moving to the midrange, these two are very similar despite the differences in the graph. Both have a somewhat laid-back style and a definitive smoothness and warmth, but the Volume S manages to sound a bit cleaner and more natural. The 8S does have a touch more energy and better separation from the bass, but it's also a bit thinner for female vocals, and lower-registered instruments are underrepresented for me. The treble is where I hear the biggest difference. Both have the rolled-off style that I like, but the 8S tilts a bit brighter and more energetic. There's an edge to the treble, and it has a higher propensity for harshness, but sibilance is still well controlled. The Volume S, on the other hand, is smoother and more agreeable, but is also a small step down in sparkle and air, so it may not suit everyone's taste. When it comes to technicalities, these two compete well against each other. The Volume S has superior layering and a touch more note weight, while the 8S has better detail retrieval, timbre, and a more expansive soundstage. For me, this matchup comes down to execution more than the actual tuning itself. Of course, there are audible differences across the frequency response, and I like the increased mid-bass and midrange emphasis of the Volume S. However, it's also a level above in both musicality and emotional engagement, whereas the 8S has a very naturalistic timbre and a smoothness that holds an appeal all its own. While I do enjoy the deeper sub-bass extension, I think the 8S loses me a bit in the separation and layering. The Volume S feels more coherent and deliberate in its decision to sacrifice top-tier technical performance in favor of coherence. The 8S seems to be stuck in a sort of limbo between favoring a more technical signature or a more musical one, and honestly, fence-sitting doesn't do it any favors. Ultimately, the Volume S simply sounds more sure of its tuning identity and doesn't try to be something it's not. The Performer 8S, while decent in its own right, doesn't quite have what it takes to unseat one of the mid-fi musicality kings.

My pick: Volume S

●AFUL Performer 5+2 ($240) - This is probably the most apt comparison to be made, other than the original Performer 8, of course, because the 8S and the 5+2 measure very closely. Starting with the accessories, the 8S feels like a slight step up since it offers a much nicer leather-clad case, though the cable and tips are comparable. These two also have nearly identical shells in both build quality, size, shape, and fit. As with the Performer 8 comparison, the only real discernible difference between these two is the faceplate design. I do like the red and black striped pattern of the 8S, but I'm more partial to the green geometric aesthetic of the 5+2 (I'm a sucker for green IEMs). Moving on to the sound, both have that typical AFUL U-shaped sound signature, though the 5+2 is slightly more V-shaped thanks to a more prominent lower-midrange dip and a very small boost in the treble. While the bass responses do measure very closely, they have different characteristics that make them unique. The 8S is a bit more sub-bass focused with a better sense of fullness, weight, and impact, whereas the 5+2 has a cleaner texture, better articulation, and a slightly quicker attack. The 8S feels more substantial in its delivery, while the 5+2 doesn't hit quite as hard or deep. In the midrange, the 5+2 has a slightly pulled-back vocal tonality and energy level, while the 8S comes across a bit more forward and in your face. The 5+2, though, has a tendency to sound more open and better separated, if not just a hair on the thin side. As with the bass, the midrange of the 8S is a bit meatier, thicker, and fuller, though it does have a slightly busier presentation that some may not prefer. The treble is one area where I feel the 8S has a distinct advantage. I've not been one to complain much about the 5+2's treble, but it's certainly a touch thin and tizzy for my usual preferences. However, there's no real harshness or sibilance of note, so I'm generally happy with it. The treble of the 8S, though, is definitely more my usual speed. Like the rest of the frequency response, it's well-grounded and agreeable, but also a touch more energetic. The texture is cleaner and detail stronger, but I wouldn't mind a bit more air, which the 5+2 does better. When it comes to technical performance, I think the 8S shows a clear advantage nearly across the board, but not by much. The 5+2 competes well in timbre, separation, imaging, and soundstage width, but the 8S has better depth, note weight, detail retrieval, layering, and dynamics. This matchup comes down to a few things for me, notably the type of presentation and the price-to-performance ratio. The 5+2 is a little more spacious and lighter on its feet, though there is an innate thinness that won't agree with everyone. The 8S, on the other hand, lands on the heavier, more grounded side with a busier presentation that attempts to fill the entire soundscape with information. Those who find the 5+2 missing a touch of bass and/or a bit tizzy or troublesome in the treble should get along just fine with the 8S. I also believe most would agree that the 8S has improved technical chops, but it's fairly marginal for the price difference. The heavier note weight in particular is one aspect I wish the 5+2 could incorporate, but I could do without the 8S' slightly aggressive and in-your-face nature. Personally, I go back and forth on which IEM I prefer, and it really depends on the genre of music, but ultimately the 5+2 came away with a small margin of victory. It has a softer touch that I find easier to listen to at higher volumes, though the 8S is certainly still good in its own right. With more exposure, my preference could eventually change to the 8S instead, but that's not quite the case at the time of this writing.

My pick: Performer 5+2

In conclusion: 

As I wrap up my thoughts on AFUL's latest IEM, it feels like a good time to look back and reflect on their entire lineup. With the release of the Performer 8S and the subsequent loan of the original Performer 8 (thanks again, Jon!), I've now had the opportunity to demo, own, or review every one of the company's IEMs. With that task completed, I must admit I'm left a bit perplexed as to where this newest model fits in with the rest of the lineup. Though I wouldn't quite call it the black sheep of the AFUL family (personally, I'd give that award to the original P8), the new Performer 8S might have a bit of an identity crisis. First, let's take a little trip through the AFUL's catalog. The Cantor is undeniably the analytical one of the bunch. The Explorer is the bassy endeavor, and I'd say the P5+2 is the generalist. The MagicOne is a kind of tech demo but also a midrange guru (I still can't believe it's just 1 BA driver), and I'd say the P8 is geared toward those who value a more technical and open sound profile. The flagship Dawn-X is a culmination of all the lessons AFUL has learned along the way, and of course, the P5 is the one that started it all. This brings us to the 8S. Despite much listening and testing, it's hard for me to pinpoint just what this one is trying to be. To my ears, it kind of sticks out in AFUL's lineup as the least purpose-driven of them all. I find it quite challenging to categorize or assign a particular identity. It has a somewhat darker tilted tuning, yet a certain aggressiveness in its delivery that I usually only see in brighter or more V-shaped tunings. At times I feel it's trying to adopt a bass-heavy persona, and at others it tries to be the company's new all-rounder. But maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong point of view. Maybe the real appeal of the 8S is that it can be adaptive and open to interpretation for each individual. Some may hear it as more bass-laden and relaxed, while others might isolate the great vocal timbre and say it's a midrange powerhouse. What I can say with accuracy, though, is that I enjoy it much more than its predecessor, the original Performer 8, and I do think it addresses many of its shortcomings. In my opinion, AFUL made enough not-so-subtle tuning changes that amount to the 8S being more of an offshoot rather than a direct descendant of the original model—closer to cousins than full siblings. 

When looking at the Performer 8S' faceplate, it's clear where AFUL drew its design inspiration. The stripes of color running across the faceplate are not unlike those that cover the surface of our solar system's largest planet. Like bands of wind across Jupiter's surface, the 8S layers music in an interesting way. Its tuning can also feel a little busy, almost chaotic at times, not unlike the planet's atmosphere from which it gets its inspiration. This can be a good or bad thing depending on your personal preference, but I find it kind of hit-or-miss. Much of my musical library sounds great on the 8S, and vocal heavy genres in particular are quite addicting. However, rock isn't always ideal due to the lack of kickdrum impact, and orchestral arrangements can lack a bit of polish. Overall, I'd say it's a serviceable all-rounder, but if you're looking for more of a lunar surface type of presentation with tons of micro-details and no atmosphere to obscure the sound, the 8S may not be for you. On the other hand, if you want your music set in an environment that's powerful and intriguing, with a mixture of musicality and technical prowess, the new Performer 8S is definitely worthy of consideration. To my ears, this latest offering from AFUL is not their strongest product, but neither is it their weakest. It's a solid mid-fi IEM from a reputable manufacturer, but also one that doesn't quite live up to its full potential, or maybe just not to my lofty expectations. Still, I think the 8S is easy to enjoy, and I can give it a solid recommendation. I would, however, like to see AFUL revisit the Performer 8 line again in the future, as I feel there's a sweet spot for me positioned somewhere between the tunings of the two current models.