Cantorvs.SA6 Mk2
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 | SA6 Mk2 |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | AFUL | DUNU |
| 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. | – |
| Price Level | 500 – 1.000 | 100 – 500 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | Multi-BA | Multi-BA |
| Driver Types | Balanced Armature | Balanced Armature |
| 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 | 128 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 1 |
Meta Ratings
// Nothing to compare yet.
Sound Characteristics
Cantor delivers a deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than SA6 Mk2 (8.5 vs 6). It enhances basslines with a more energy and grip, giving them a livelier feel compared to SA6 Mk2 (9 vs 7). It adds a more body and slam to bass hits, which makes it feel more physical than SA6 Mk2 (8.5 vs 8). The lower midrange on It blends e more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in SA6 Mk2 (8.5 vs 7.3). Instruments like violins and brass are portrayed with a more brilliance on It, while SA6 Mk2 sounds slightly dull (8 vs 7.3). The upper treble of SA6 Mk2 extends a further, offering more sparkle and openness than Cantor (8.3 vs 7.5). Cantor paints a e broader sonic landscape, offering better instrument positioning across the stage (8 vs 7). It retrieves micro-details d more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in SA6 Mk2 (8.8 vs 7.3). In complex arrangements, It separates layers d more distinctly, preventing overlap that SA6 Mk2 occasionally suffers (8.3 vs 6.8). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing a better handling of masking than SA6 Mk2 (8 vs 7). It delivers a stronger slam and physicality, making drums and transients hit harder than SA6 Mk2 (8.5 vs 7). It handles sibilant sounds m more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than SA6 Mk2 (8.5 vs 6.8). Timbre on It sounds s more realistic and natural, whereas SA6 Mk2 feels slightly more artificial or colored (7.5 vs 7). It achieves a better tonal neutrality, avoiding colorations present in SA6 Mk2 (8.8 vs 7.8). The grain and surface of instruments are rendered a more vividly by It, while SA6 Mk2 feels flatter (8 vs 7.3).
| Cantor | SA6 Mk2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 8.5 | 6.0 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 8.0 |
| Lower Mids | 8.5 | 7.3 |
| Upper Mids | 8.0 | 7.8 |
| Lower Treble | 8.0 | 7.3 |
| Upper Treble | 7.5 | 8.3 |
| Sound Stage Width | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Detail | 8.8 | 7.3 |
| Layering | 8.3 | 6.8 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Note Weight | 7.5 | 7.3 |
| Slam | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | 8.5 | 6.8 |
| Timbre Color | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Tonality | 8.8 | 7.8 |
| Texture | 8.0 | 7.3 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.