AVG. Rating
7.9
IEM AIEM B
VS
AVG. Rating
6.6

Cantorvs.Project Meta

Sound & Specs Comparison

Change Focus:

100%
Cantor
Absolute Score: 82.3%
0%
Project Meta
Absolute Score: 65.2%

Total categories compared: 17

Winner:Cantor

( leads by 170.6% 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 InfoCantorProject Meta
BrandAFULCrinEar
CountryTaiwan
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.A debut IEM by Crinacle's CrinEar: a compact, full-aluminum flag­ship tuned to a “tilted Diffuse Field + bass boost” curve. Delivers vibrant mids, warm sub-bass, and clear treble—crafted for musical accuracy and comfort.
Price Level500 – 1.000100 – 500
Housing & Driver
Driver ConfigMulti-BAHybrid
Driver TypesBalanced ArmatureDynamic Driver + Balanced Armature
Shell Material
Cable4Braid 5N OFC Cable
Technical
Freq Range
Impedance (Ω)20
Sensitivity (dB)106
CrossoverRLC Network Electronic Crossover
Platform Info
Comments20
Visit Count144104
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 6.3). It enhances basslines with a more energy and grip, giving them a livelier feel compared to Project Meta (9 vs 6.3). It adds a more body and slam to bass hits, which makes it feel more physical than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.7). The lower midrange on It blends s more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.8). It strikes a s better balance between presence and smoothness in the upper mids compared to Project Meta (8 vs 6.2). Instruments like violins and brass are portrayed with b more brilliance on It, while Project Meta sounds slightly dull (8 vs 7.5). The highest frequencies on It feel a more natural and less rolled-off compared to Project Meta (7.5 vs 6.8). The stereo field on It feels d wider and more holographic, whereas Project Meta sounds more intimate (8 vs 6.3). With a higher resolution, It allows finer textures and room ambiance to shine more than Project Meta (8.8 vs 6.3). It separates instruments s more distinctly, helping complex passages remain coherent where Project Meta blends them (8.3 vs 6.7). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing m better handling of masking than Project Meta (8 vs 6). It adds n more body and density to musical notes, enriching the overall texture compared to Project Meta (7.5 vs 6.3). It delivers dynamic shifts with a greater impact, making Project Meta sound comparatively tame (8.5 vs 6). It controls harsh sibilant peaks d more effectively, making vocals smoother than on Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.5). It renders timbres with a better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Project Meta (7.5 vs 6). It achieves n better tonal neutrality, avoiding colorations present in Project Meta (8.8 vs 6.3). It renders texture m more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than Project Meta (8 vs 5.5).

CantorProject Meta
Sub Bass
8.5
6.5
Bass
9.0
6.5
Bass Feel
8.5
6.8
Lower Mids
8.5
7.0
Upper Mids
8.0
6.5
Lower Treble
8.0
7.5
Upper Treble
7.5
7.0
Sound Stage Width
8.0
6.5
Detail
8.8
6.5
Layering
8.3
6.8
Masking
8.0
6.3
Note Weight
7.5
6.5
Slam
8.5
6.0
Sibilance
8.5
6.5
Timbre Color
7.5
6.0
Tonality
8.8
6.5
Texture
8.0
5.5

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.