Cantorvs.ZAS
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 | ZAS |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | – |
| Price Level | 500 – 1.000 | < 100 |
| Housing & Driver | ||
|---|---|---|
| Driver Config | Multi-BA | Hybrid |
| Driver Types | Balanced Armature | Balanced Armature + Dynamic Driver |
| Shell Material | – | Resin |
| Cable | 4Braid 5N OFC Cable | – |
| Technical | ||
|---|---|---|
| Freq Range | – | – |
| Impedance (Ω) | 20 | 24 |
| Sensitivity (dB) | 106 | – |
| Crossover | RLC Network Electronic Crossover | – |
| Platform Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comments | 1 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 128 | 27 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
// Nothing to compare yet.
Sound Characteristics
Cantor delivers overwhelmingly deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than ZAS (8.5 vs 4.5). It renders bass with overwhelmingly greater punch and separation, where ZAS sometimes feels bloated (9 vs 5). Listeners may find the low-end impact on It s more engaging during high-dynamic passages (8.5 vs 5.5). It achieves a better warmth and coherence in the lower mids, bringing more realism to guitars and cellos (8.5 vs 5). It strikes a m better balance between presence and smoothness in the upper mids compared to ZAS (8 vs 4.5). It offers a greater shimmer and nuance in the lower treble, revealing micro-details that ZAS misses (8 vs 5). It captures ambient cues and reverbs n more precisely through its upper treble, enhancing spatial perception over ZAS (7.5 vs 5). The stereo field on It feels m wider and more holographic, whereas ZAS sounds more intimate (8 vs 5.5). It retrieves micro-details m more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in ZAS (8.8 vs 5.5). In complex arrangements, It separates layers c more distinctly, preventing overlap that ZAS occasionally suffers (8.3 vs 5.5). It keeps competing frequencies under control m more effectively, reducing sonic congestion compared to ZAS (8 vs 6). Notes on It feel c more grounded and weighty, whereas ZAS can sound thin or hollow (7.5 vs 5). It delivers dynamic shifts with overwhelmingly greater impact, making ZAS sound comparatively tame (8.5 vs 4.5). It controls harsh sibilant peaks m more effectively, making vocals smoother than on ZAS (8.5 vs 5.5). It renders timbres with c better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than ZAS (7.5 vs 5). The overall tonality of It is n more balanced and cohesive, offering a sound signature that feels better tuned than ZAS (8.8 vs 5). Subtle ridges and granularity are conveyed a more clearly on It, adding life that ZAS doesn’t quite match (8 vs 4.5).
| Cantor | ZAS | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 8.5 | 4.5 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 5.0 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 5.5 |
| Lower Mids | 8.5 | 5.0 |
| Upper Mids | 8.0 | 4.5 |
| Lower Treble | 8.0 | 5.0 |
| Upper Treble | 7.5 | 5.0 |
| Sound Stage Width | 8.0 | 5.5 |
| Detail | 8.8 | 5.5 |
| Layering | 8.3 | 5.5 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 6.0 |
| Note Weight | 7.5 | 5.0 |
| Slam | 8.5 | 4.5 |
| Sibilance | 8.5 | 5.5 |
| Timbre Color | 7.5 | 5.0 |
| Tonality | 8.8 | 5.0 |
| Texture | 8.0 | 4.5 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.