Cantorvs.Tea Pro
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 | Tea Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | AFUL | XENNS Mangird |
| Country | Taiwan | – |
| 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 | – |
| Driver Types | 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 | 2 | 0 |
| Visit Count | 146 | 67 |
| External Reviews | 1 | 0 |
Meta Ratings
// Nothing to compare yet.
Sound Characteristics
Cantor delivers s tighter sub-bass response, controlling low-end rumble with more precision than Tea Pro (8.5 vs 6). The low-end on It is m more controlled and rhythmic, offering better definition than Tea Pro (9 vs 7). The bass in It feels a more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to Tea Pro (8.5 vs 7). It achieves d better warmth and coherence in the lower mids, bringing more realism to guitars and cellos (8.5 vs 6.5). Upper mids are a more resolving and expressive on It, revealing emotion and articulation better than Tea Pro (8 vs 6). It provides a more refined lower treble, resolving fine detail and air with greater finesse than Tea Pro (8 vs 7). Tea Pro extends a further into the upper treble, adding air and openness that Cantor lacks (8 vs 7.5). Listeners may notice that Cantor presents sounds with a more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than Tea Pro (8 vs 7). The retrieval of faint audio cues on It is m more convincing, while Tea Pro tends to gloss over them (8.8 vs 7). It organizes musical elements a better across depth, enhancing spatial realism over Tea Pro (8.3 vs 7). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing m better handling of masking than Tea Pro (8 vs 6.5). The note presentation is s fuller and more tactile on It, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than Tea Pro (7.5 vs 7). It delivers a stronger slam and physicality, making drums and transients hit harder than Tea Pro (8.5 vs 7). It controls harsh sibilant peaks m more effectively, making vocals smoother than on Tea Pro (8.5 vs 6). Timbre on It sounds s more realistic and natural, whereas Tea Pro feels slightly more artificial or colored (7.5 vs 7). Tonality on It is m more coherent and refined, yielding a more pleasing overall signature than Tea Pro (8.8 vs 6.5). It renders texture a more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than Tea Pro (8 vs 6).
| Cantor | Tea Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Sub Bass | 8.5 | 6.0 |
| Bass | 9.0 | 7.0 |
| Bass Feel | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Lower Mids | 8.5 | 6.5 |
| Upper Mids | 8.0 | 6.0 |
| Lower Treble | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Upper Treble | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Sound Stage Width | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Detail | 8.8 | 7.0 |
| Layering | 8.3 | 7.0 |
| Masking | 8.0 | 6.5 |
| Note Weight | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Slam | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Sibilance | 8.5 | 6.0 |
| Timbre Color | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Tonality | 8.8 | 6.5 |
| Texture | 8.0 | 6.0 |
Tonal Signature
// Nothing to compare yet.