Softears RSV 2025 Version VS Aful Cantor
IEM Comparison: Expert & Community Scores Side-by-Side
Softears RSV 2025 Version and Aful Cantor are in-ear monitors. Softears RSV 2025 Version costs $729 while Aful Cantor costs $800. Aful Cantor is $71 more expensive. Aful Cantor holds a slight 0.3-point edge in reviewer scores (7.5 vs 7.8). Aful Cantor carries a user score of 8.5.
Softears RSV 2025 Version Aggregated Review Score
Softears RSV 2025 Version Average Reviewer Scores
Aful Cantor Aggregated Review Score
Aful Cantor Average Reviewer Scores
Softears RSV 2025 Version Details
Driver Configuration: n/a
Tuning Type: n/a
Price (Msrp): $729
Support our free service! Buying through our affiliate links costs you nothing extra:
Aful Cantor Details
Driver Configuration: 14BA
Tuning Type: Vocal
Price (Msrp): $800
Support our free service! Buying through our affiliate links costs you nothing extra:
Softears RSV 2025 Version User Review Score
Softears RSV 2025 Version Average User Scores
Average User Score: n/a
Based on 0 user reviews
No user reviews yet. Be the first one who writes a review!
Aful Cantor User Review Score
Aful Cantor Average User Scores
Average User Score:
Based on 2 user reviews
8.5Excellent
Softears RSV 2025 Version Gaming Score
Gaming Score & Grade
- The gaming score is prioritizing technical capabilities of the IEM (Separation, Layering, Soundstage) and good value.
Gaming Score
7.7Gaming Grade
AAful Cantor Gaming Score
Gaming Score & Grade
- The gaming score is prioritizing technical capabilities of the IEM (Separation, Layering, Soundstage) and good value.
Gaming Score
8.3Gaming Grade
A+Softears RSV 2025 Version Scorings
Average Technical & Tuning Grades
Average Tunign Grade
S-- Highly polished technical execution. Excellent frequency synergy creates an immersive experience. Enhances musical content.
Average Technical Grade
A+- Very competent with articulate presentation. Well-defined layers and precise imaging. Soundstage is immersive and handles dynamics well.
Aful Cantor Scorings
Average Technical & Tuning Grades
Average Tunign Grade
A+- Well-executed tonal character. No major flaws with good technical control. Smooth presentation works with multiple genres.
Average Technical Grade
S- Outstanding resolution and control. Effortlessly retrieves micro-details, with holographic staging and fast transients. Handles complexity with poise.
Softears RSV 2025 Version Reviews
Softears RSV 2025 Version reviewed by: Jays Audio
2025-08-28
7.5
Reviewer Score
Clean, balanced, dark leaning, tame bass and treble/needs to be listened at higher-volume. Still a mid-range set, but vocals don't pop as much as OG RSV, aka the sauce is gone. Scales great if you want a clean vocal sound, but very pricey, maybe on sale. Jays Audio Youtube Channel
Aful Cantor Reviews
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Z-Reviews
8.5
* score normalized
This is AFUL’s flagship science project: the Cantor packs 14 BAs per side (28 total) and a heap of buzzword tech—Dual-Channel Acoustic Maze for sub-bass, non-destructive direct-drive topology, and multi-dimensional crossover trickery that reads like Star Trek schematics. The housing even extends a stainless-steel nozzle to the tip’s end to bypass tip coloration—smart for consistency, dicey for ears with wide-bore silicones. Stick to the stock silicones or better yet foams to calm treble and avoid any scrape-risk.
Sonically it’s a hyper-resolving analyzer: every band is so present that volume tends to go down, not up, and mediocre recordings get roasted on the spot. Imaging is precise but a bit less cohesive than simpler sets; stage stays as the track dictates, while separation feels like a mixing desk with 14 faders. The sub-bass dives shockingly deep for an all-BA—think whisper-low “whoomp”—yet it isn’t a bass-monster; overall balance leans revealing rather than lush.
Pairing matters: clinical amps make it razor-edged, while warmer sources (R2R, iFi, RME-ish) and foam tips smooth it into addictive detail. At $800 it isn’t the one IEM to rule them all; it’s the specialist tool for listeners who want to dissect space, mic technique, and mix decisions—more control room than mosh pit. Cable and case are solid (4.4 mm balanced), and a tuning switch would have been nice, but for the right kind of nerd this thing lets you become the squig.
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Super* Review
6*
* score normalized
It's super impressive but also really difficult to edge on comfort. It's not my favorite sound but good sounding. Competing well at it's price pointSuper* Review original ranking
Super* Review Youtube Channel
The AFUL Cantor lands as a flagship all-BA set with 14 balanced armatures at $800, packaged with a great-handling nylon cable and a handsome shell. The catch is fit: a very long nozzle with a metal insert demands a deep insertion, and comfort varies widely; AFUL’s stock tips are essentially required to keep that nozzle from poking and to restore some flex. Build and presentation impress, but the ear-fit can be fussy and the shells tend to stick out.
Tuning trends U-shaped: a lower-mid dip into a hefty sub-bass boost, relaxed upper mids, and noticeable upper-treble energy. When seated correctly, the set delivers crisp transients with a touch of “planar-like” pluck, good imaging, and clean BA bass that favors electronic thump over kick-drum slam; with the wrong tip or depth it swings to brittle/bright or muted. The midrange can read a bit thin, so the contrast comes more from bass/treble edges than from vocal saturation.
Compared with Symphonium Helios, both are all-BA and graph-adjacent, but Helios leans vocal-forward and smooth while Cantor is the more contrasty, fun listen that trades mid presence for excitement. Net: technically capable and competitive when dialed in, yet compromised by comfort and tip dependence. Final verdict: 3/5 stars—a better match for listeners with deep pockets and deep ears.
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Jays Audio
7
Reviewer Score
LOW VOLUME SET. Clean, airy, and highly resolving at its price with endgame separation and detail. Low-end is quick, but lacks impact and a bit of texture. Notes are on the lighter side, not very full, male vocals are a little thin and recessed. Not very dynamic but clean and balanced, but can be borderline clinical. NOT RECOMMENDED past 60dbs or so, gets too shrill and fatiguing in the treble with a slight metallic timbre in the treble depending on the song. Doesn't scale very well and not that immersive, but overall very technical IEM, probably the best tech wise under $1000. Jays Audio Youtube Channel
The Aful Cantor presents a complex and frustrating case, offering what might be some of the most detailed and resolving performance under $1,000. The clarity, separation, and sheer resolution are described as "pretty nuts," positioning the Cantor as a potential benchmark for technical ability. It delivers a clean, smooth, light, and airy sound signature with a bass that is very fast, lean, and features a tight sub-bass rumble. At lower volumes, this presentation is highly enjoyable and non-fatiguing, making it exceptionally good for critical, quiet listening sessions where its technical prowess can shine without drawback.
However, this technical marvel comes with a significant and unusual caveat: it is physically fatiguing to the point of causing headaches and a ringing sensation in the temples after only 15-30 minutes of listening at moderate volumes (around 70-80 dB). This is not a fit or nozzle issue, but rather an inherent property of the IEM itself. The problem manifests as a shrill and overly intense quality in the treble at higher volumes, accompanied by a metallic timbre on tracks with lots of cymbals, making it unsuitable for energetic genres like K-pop, J-pop, or EDM. This shrillness is not fully solved by EQ and is believed to be related to the driver design, nozzle, or venting rather than just the tuning.
When compared to peers, the Cantor is more resolving than the warmer, fuller, and smoother Letshuoer Supernova but falls short of its natural timbre. It also can't match the Monarch MK3 as an all-rounder, which offers a more impactful bass, better vocals, and a smoother, more engaging experience. The Cantor's vocals are also a weak point, being recessed, light, and borderline thin. The final recommendation is to definitely demo these first; they are only easy to recommend for those who listen at very low volumes (under 60 dB) and are not sensitive to treble intensity, as its scaling at normal listening levels is poor.
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Gizaudio Axel
8
Reviewer Score
One of the most resolving IEMs. It reveals details you’ve never noticed before. Exceptional detail, neutral tuning, and great bass quality. Very revealing. Could use more bass for my taste.Gizaudio Axel original ranking
Gizaudio Axel Youtube Channel
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Jaytiss
8.9
Reviewer Score
Maybe best detailed set, fit is extremely difficult. Jaytiss Youtube Channel
The AFUL Cantor delivers a balanced and neutral sound signature, praised for its exceptional upper air, treble extension, and pristine clarity. While the bass offers sufficient dynamics without being thunderous, and female vocals sound natural, some listeners might desire a touch more punch in the upper mids (around 2-3kHz) and find a slight peak in the 4-6kHz region occasionally noticeable. The premium build quality stands out, featuring a unique and stunning "star night" face plate, a thick but comfortable shell with a slender nozzle, and excellent accessories. These include a slightly microphonic but otherwise nice-looking flat two-pin cable and an exceptionally plush case typically found on far more expensive IEMs.
Graph comparisons reveal the Cantor's tuning shares similarities with models like the Moondrop Blessing 2: Dusk and the AFUL Explorer, but it distinguishes itself with superior detail retrieval and dynamics. It competes impressively against significantly pricier offerings like the Elysian Annihilator in technical performance, offering a smoother presentation with slightly less sub-bass focus. The overall sonic presentation is described as sophisticated, refined, and highly engaging, creating a sense of music surrounding the listener. Minor tuning preferences aside – wishing for a bit more upper mid presence and slightly less energy around 4-6kHz and 8kHz – the core sound quality is highly regarded.
Representing strong sonic value despite its price point, the Cantor earns a high ranking for its unique and beautiful design, premium feel, and exceptional technical performance. While acknowledging excellent cheaper options like the AFUL Explorer exist, the Cantor justifies its cost with its detailed, airy presentation and overall package. It's highly recommended for those seeking a neutral, high-performing IEM, though a demo is advised given the investment. Ultimately, the AFUL Cantor is considered a treasure, fulfilling over a year of anticipation with its beautiful aesthetics and uniquely engaging sound.
Aful Cantor reviewed by: Shuwa-T
8.3
Reviewer Score
Comment: A massive improvement over the prototype at canjam, a killer set for techs under US$1000, nothing else really comes close. Finally a true u12t competitor with better fit, cable, and accessories at a lower price. Crystal clear across all frequencies, extremely revealing set that slices apart the layers in the music; treble so nuanced yet pleasant that you cannot believe an all BA set is doing this Less midbass presence, overall tonality can come across as a little too lean especially with treble focus
Softears RSV 2025 Version User Reviews
"This is an example review"
Pros
- Example pro 1
- Example pro 2
Cons
- Example con 1
- Example con 2
Be the first to share your experience!
Aful Cantor User Reviews
Well-rounded flagship IEM with refined tuning and tech for the money.
Pros
Exceptional clarity and tonal balance that punches above its price bracket.Cons
Requires precise tip fit for best performance and subtle treble can be fatiguing at high volumes.Excellent overall clarity and imaging, though fit demands can be a deal-breaker