AVG. Rating
7.9
IEM AIEM B
VS
AVG. Rating
6.3

Cantorvs.Hype 4

Sound & Specs Comparison

Change Focus:

100%
Cantor
Absolute Score: 82.3%
0%
Hype 4
Absolute Score: 58.0%

Total categories compared: 17

Winner:Cantor

( leads by 242.9% 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 InfoCantorHype 4
BrandAFULThieaudio
CountryTaiwanChina
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.
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 Count13877
External Reviews10

Meta Ratings

// Nothing to compare yet.

Sound Characteristics

Cantor delivers n deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than Hype 4 (8.5 vs 6). It offers n stronger and more impactful bass response, adding weight and presence where Hype 4 feels less assertive (9 vs 6.5). It translates bass vibrations into a a more visceral experience, while Hype 4 lacks this tactile feedback (8.5 vs 5). The lower midrange on It blends a more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in Hype 4 (8.5 vs 6.3). It reproduces female vocals and strings with a more air and forwardness, while Hype 4 remains recessed (8 vs 6). The treble on It is a more nuanced and refined, especially when it comes to cymbals and ambient elements (8 vs 6.5). It extends c further into the upper treble, adding air and openness that Hype 4 lacks (7.5 vs 6.3). Listeners may notice that It presents sounds with a more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than Hype 4 (8 vs 5). It retrieves micro-details m more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in Hype 4 (8.8 vs 5). It organizes musical elements m better across depth, enhancing spatial realism over Hype 4 (8.3 vs 6). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing d better handling of masking than Hype 4 (8 vs 6). It adds a more body and density to musical notes, enriching the overall texture compared to Hype 4 (7.5 vs 7). Percussion and quick attacks feel m more physical and punchy on It, adding excitement over Hype 4 (8.5 vs 7). It handles sibilant sounds overwhelmingly more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than Hype 4 (8.5 vs 4). It renders timbres with a better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Hype 4 (7.5 vs 5). Across the frequency range, It stays a more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than Hype 4 (8.8 vs 5). It renders texture a more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than Hype 4 (8 vs 6).

CantorHype 4
Sub Bass
8.5
6.0
Bass
9.0
6.5
Bass Feel
8.5
5.0
Lower Mids
8.5
6.3
Upper Mids
8.0
6.0
Lower Treble
8.0
6.5
Upper Treble
7.5
6.3
Sound Stage Width
8.0
5.0
Detail
8.8
5.0
Layering
8.3
6.0
Masking
8.0
6.0
Note Weight
7.5
7.0
Slam
8.5
7.0
Sibilance
8.5
4.0
Timbre Color
7.5
5.0
Tonality
8.8
5.0
Texture
8.0
6.0

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.