AVG. Rating
7.9
IEM AIEM B
VS

Cantorvs.Performer 5+2 (Performer 7)

Sound & Specs Comparison

Change Focus:

94%
Cantor
Absolute Score: 82.3%
6%
Performer 5+2 (Performer 7)
Absolute Score: 70.1%

Total categories compared: 17

Winner:Cantor

( leads by 123.5% in direct comparison by points delta )

Information

Both IEMs are widely regarded in the audiophile community. See how they differ in terms of sub-bass response, upper mids, clarity, and overall tonality. Spider charts and rating breakdowns included.

Objective Comparison

Facts, details, stuff.

General InfoCantorPerformer 5+2 (Performer 7)
BrandAFULAFUL
CountryTaiwanTaiwan
IEM DescriptionThe AFUL Cantor combines technical precision with musicality in a hybrid design. Featuring a dynamic driver for powerful bass and multiple balanced armatures for clean mids and sparkly highs, it delivers a spacious soundstage with excellent separation. Tuning leans slightly toward a balanced-bright signature, making it a solid choice for detail lovers who still want some low-end punch.AFUL Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) delivers a dynamic and engaging listening experience with deep, controlled bass, clear mids, and airy treble. Its tuning strikes a balance between technical precision and musical enjoyment, making it a versatile choice for a wide range of genres. Crafted with precision acoustic design and a modern, ergonomic shell, it offers both comfort and performance in a sleek package.
Price Level500 – 1.000100 – 500
Housing & Driver
Driver ConfigMulti-BATribrid
Driver TypesBalanced ArmatureMicro Planar Tweeter + Dynamic Driver + Balanced Armature
Shell Material
Cable4Braid 5N OFC Cable
Technical
Freq Range
Impedance (Ω)20
Sensitivity (dB)106
CrossoverRLC Network Electronic Crossover
Platform Info
Comments11
Visit Count128264
External Reviews11

Meta Ratings

// Nothing to compare yet.

Sound Characteristics

Cantor produces sub-bass that is a more textured and present in cinematic or bass-heavy tracks (8.5 vs 5.5). It enhances basslines with n more energy and grip, giving them a livelier feel compared to Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (9 vs 6.3). Listeners may find the low-end impact on It s more engaging during high-dynamic passages (8.5 vs 7). Male vocals and lower instruments sound a richer and better defined on It, unlike Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) which can seem hollow (8.5 vs 7.3). It provides n more refined lower treble, resolving fine detail and air with greater finesse than Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8 vs 7). Listeners may notice that It presents sounds with s more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8 vs 7.5). It extracts low-level details a more effectively, helping subtle nuances emerge clearer than on Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8.8 vs 7.7). Track elements feel s more isolated and clean on It, offering clearer focus than Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8.3 vs 7.8). Notes played through It feel b weightier and fuller, giving a more satisfying impact than those from Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (7.5 vs 6.8). Percussion and quick attacks feel a more physical and punchy on It, adding excitement over Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8.5 vs 6.5). It handles sibilant sounds c more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8.5 vs 5.5). Timbre on It sounds a more realistic and natural, whereas Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) feels slightly more artificial or colored (7.5 vs 7). It achieves a better tonal neutrality, avoiding colorations present in Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8.8 vs 7.7). It portrays textures in vocals and strings with e more realism, enhancing emotional depth over Performer 5+2 (Performer 7) (8 vs 6.8).

CantorPerformer 5+2 (Performer 7)
Sub Bass
8.5
5.8
Bass
9.0
6.7
Bass Feel
8.5
7.0
Lower Mids
8.5
7.3
Upper Mids
8.0
7.5
Lower Treble
8.0
6.4
Upper Treble
7.5
7.8
Sound Stage Width
8.0
7.0
Detail
8.8
7.8
Layering
8.3
7.8
Masking
8.0
7.8
Note Weight
7.5
6.8
Slam
8.5
6.5
Sibilance
8.5
5.5
Timbre Color
7.5
7.0
Tonality
8.8
7.7
Texture
8.0
6.8

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.