Cantorvs.PRX
Sound & Specs Comparison
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 Info | Cantor | PRX |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | AFUL | KZ Earphones |
| Country | Taiwan | China |
| IEM Description | The 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. | The KZ PRX is the brand’s first true fourth‑generation planar‑diaphragm IEM, engineered around a 14‑magnet matrix and an ultra‑thin, silver‑galvanized membrane for unparalleled high‑ and ultra‑high‑frequency extension (up to 40 kHz) with minimal distortion. Housed in a rugged alloy shell and paired with a detachable silver‑plated OFC cable and memory‑foam tips, it delivers precision tuning, a wide soundstage, and lasting comfort. Ergonomic curves and eco‑friendly packaging underscore KZ’s commitment to both craftsmanship and sustainability. |
| Price Level | 500 – 1.000 | < 100 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | Multi-BA | Planar Magnetic |
| Driver Types | Balanced Armature | Planar Magnetic Driver |
| Shell Material | – | – |
| Cable | 4Braid 5N OFC Cable | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | 20 | – |
| Sensitivity (dB) | 106 | – |
| Crossover | RLC Network Electronic Crossover | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 1 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 128 | 74 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 1 |
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). It renders bass with n greater punch and separation, where PRX sometimes feels bloated (9 vs 6.5). The bass in It feels c more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to PRX (8.5 vs 6). The lower midrange on It blends a more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in PRX (8.5 vs 7). It strikes a a better balance between presence and smoothness in the upper mids compared to PRX (8 vs 7.5). The treble on PRX is b more nuanced and refined, especially when it comes to cymbals and ambient elements (8.5 vs 8). The upper treble of It extends a further, offering more sparkle and openness than Cantor (8.5 vs 7.5). The note presentation is c fuller and more tactile on Cantor, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than PRX (7.5 vs 6.5). It delivers s stronger slam and physicality, making drums and transients hit harder than PRX (8.5 vs 7). It handles sibilant sounds a more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than PRX (8.5 vs 7.5). It presents instrument timbre with a more natural coloration, giving a realistic tone that PRX lacks (7.5 vs 6). Tonality on It is a more coherent and refined, yielding a more pleasing overall signature than PRX (8.8 vs 6). It renders texture a more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than PRX (8 vs 7).
| Cantor | PRX | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 8.5 | 6.0 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 6.5 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 6.0 |
| Lower Mids | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Upper Mids | 8.0 | 7.5 |
| Lower Treble | 8.0 | 8.5 |
| Upper Treble | 7.5 | 8.5 |
| Sound Stage Width | 8.0 | 8.0 |
| Detail | 8.8 | 8.5 |
| Layering | 8.3 | 8.0 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 8.0 |
| Note Weight | 7.5 | 6.5 |
| Slam | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | 8.5 | 7.5 |
| Timbre Color | 7.5 | 6.0 |
| Tonality | 8.8 | 6.0 |
| Texture | 8.0 | 7.0 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.