Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the right channel of the AFUL Performer 5 placed into an artificial ear mold with the provided size M silicone ear tip installed. I have average-sized ears, and the ear mold above represents my own experiences well enough as a proxy. Size M silicone tips are my go-to for testing, since foam tips are not included with some IEMs such as this very product. The ergonomic shape and low-profile size of the Performer 5 shells was about perfect for my ears, depicted by the photo above, and I reckon most with average ears or larger will be plenty fine. Smaller conchas can potentially struggle with a snug fit, as would those with an antihelix that clashes with the shell protrusion here. The inner surface of the IEMs is a gentle slope and the subtle angle combined with the relatively smaller nozzle also contribute positively to a secure and comfortable fit. Helping further is a pressure relief system integrated in these IEMs that results in no pressure built-up in the ears either. The IEMs weigh under 5 g each to where there should not be any physical fatigue, and the pre-formed ear hooks in the cable also provide additional support points as necessary. I have no complaints here thus but this may not be a universally pleasing set of IEMs—especially given the lack of ear tip options that may prevent a good seal.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

There's quite a lot going on inside the AFUL Performer 5, so much so that I won't be able to do it all justice and would suggest reading through the product page. I mentioned before how the company won multiple patents and awards for its technologies, most of which have been implemented here. Indeed, a look inside reveals a massive PCB that almost entirely takes up the horizontal room inside the shells. The drivers themselves are underneath, however this does provide a closer look at what AFUL calls its RLC 3D frequency division technology, effectively an electronic set of filters to control the tonality of the IEMs in the higher frequencies that promises EST-like smoothness. This is attributed to the use of two custom balanced armature drivers for the highs and another two for the mids, which in turn are coupled with a dynamic driver for the bass. Unfortunately AFUL does not provide any details on the drivers either! Instead it decides to talk more about the use of 3D printed acoustic tubes for the drivers, as we saw on the previous page, including a 60 mm and another 30 mm long tube for the bass itself. There's also a bass filter in addition to the aforementioned treble filter system, with the aim of extending the frequency response in either direction. I mentioned the pressure relief system above, but that's also somehow fit into this concoction to make the AFUL Performer 5 one of the most engineered and intricate IEM designs I've used. All this comes together to produce a set of IEMs which is still quite easy to drive with an average rated impedance of 32 Ω and sensitivity of 110 dB/mW, to where the 3.5 mm single-ended connector paired with even a decent mobile dongle is enough to drive these well enough.

Frequency Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm-neutral signature with a slightly elevated bass, smooth treble range, detailed mids, and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that IEMs can feed into enough for decent isolation. The audio coupler connects to a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running, and the earphones connected to the laptop through the sound card. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/12th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen, unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. For IEMs, I am also using the appropriate ear mold fitted to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in a pinna geometry instead of just the audio coupler. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro, for easier comparison.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, especially those using a head and torso simulator (HATS). The raw dB numbers are also quite contingent on the set volume, gain levels, and sensitivity of the system. What is more useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the AFUL Performer 5. The left channel was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how the two channels are within +/-1 dB of each other all the way, until well past the coupler resonance where things have to be taken with a grain of salt. As such, if we were to go by this randomly picked retail sample, I would be left quite pleased. Measurements taken after 20 hours of testing, which included these playing a mix of various songs as well as white or pink noise and sine sweeps, showed no difference. There was no perceived burn-in effect thus, and none was measurable either. The response with the anthropomorphic pinna in place matched the ideal scenario in the coupler very well too, which is also an indicator of how good the seal was when installed in the artificial ear that could fit these.


Here is the average frequency response for both channels of the AFUL Performer 5 plotted against my personal target, taken from VSG.squig.link, which also gives you an idea of my personal preferences to better correlate any possible biases. The tuning of a set of headphones or earphones does not have to match my target, as long as it is tuned with some direction, makes sense, and is executed well. After all, no one set will appeal to everyone, and having different options is what makes this hobby so interesting, and difficult to quantify. AFUL Acoustics talks a lot about its tuning game here and overall I'd say it's done an excellent job.

The AFUL Performer 5's tonality would be best described as neutral with a bass-boost—almost a U-shaped signature as seen from the measurements. Indeed, I am glad the company went with a dynamic driver dedicated to the lower frequencies because it works out quite well. There's over 9 dB hike in SPL going from 500 Hz and lower, with excellent sub-bass extension. This could have been worrisome and potentially come off bloated if it wasn't executed well and I'd say AFUL's waveguides and acoustic tube usage helps make the Performer 5 a bassy set but pleasantly so. It's not the most resolving set of IEMs on the market, including in the price range it operates in, but you can certainly appreciate leading edges of tones with plenty of attack to them. Indeed, you can EQ things slightly up or down to your desire here to suit electronic music and/or instrumental impact more. I would have liked to see more contrast between similar tones however, and this is noticeable with drum kits in particular.

The mids are competent but end up being literally sandwiched between the impressive lows and the even more imposing higher frequencies. A good seal will get you forward-facing vocals that still stand out well from instruments. But BA timbre is immediately noticeable here which can make some instruments sound dry. There's also extensive damping in use here to where the overall sound is cramped and makes for a lean soundstage even for IEMs. It can work well with some music genres and general content consumptions, but this just adds to the list of reasons why the AFUL Performer 5 isn't ideal for purely instrumental music. Imaging can be a touch hazy in the central channel but is otherwise plenty acceptable. I'd also say female vocals generally sound better than male ones here, although you are immediately now led to that heavily filtered section in the upper mids and lower treble whose reception will be quite HRTF-dependent. I was mostly a fan of the intimate sound that made my jazz collection sound as if I was in a jazz club. At the same time, the lower order harmonics in the treble region come off artifically inflated, whereas higher order harmonic tones sound dark. I see there being plenty of scope for improvement here, as I'd overall rule out the use of the Performer 5 purely for orchestral/classical music.

Comparisons

Given the AFUL Performer 5 is from this unknown Chinese brand and there is a possibility of it getting lost in the shuffle of new IEM releases, I figured the best comparison would be against other such sets that may have not got their due share of market awareness. For example, here we have the Audio Hekili made by a single person and using a ridiculous 1 DD/7 BA configuration that sells for $299, the 1 DD/4 BA JQ 4Upro that reminds me a lot of the Performer 5 and sells for $240, and another 1 DD/4 BA hybrid in the form of the $349 Yanyin Canon. These are all more expensive than the AFUL Performer 5, so in that regard AFUL has helped ensure it won't be easily forgotten. I'd also say all four are tuned quite well and I'd even give the edge to Audio Hekili, whereas I'll also point out the Yanyin Canon comes with switches to customize tonality further. The issue is that the BA drivers chosen by both Audio and Yanyin aren't very good, to where the Hekili doesn't feel worth the cost in terms of instrument reproduction and resolution whereas the Yanyin Canon—at least to me—never ended up satisfying in any of the switch configurations, and this is before the higher cost comes into the picture. It's the JQ 4Upro that's the biggest competition to the AFUL PERFORMER 5 and ends up sharing similar weaknesses too in terms of detail retrieval and BA timbre. I'd give the edge to AFUL for a smoother upper mids and lower treble region in addition to better bass quality.


Then we get to the other possibility where the marketing machine of HiFiGo is going to get people to talk about the AFUL Performer 5 as if it was the best thing since sliced bread. It ends up falling into the feature of the month category then, so this time I am comparing it against some of my recommendations that were such FOTM sets but passed the test of time in the form of the 7Hz Timeless and the ThieAudio Elixir. I am also going to give a shout-out to the TangZu Audio Zetian Wu that I firmly believe is the best of these newer full-range planar magnetic IEMs on the market. Funnily enough both the Timeless and the Zetian Wu have collab versions already but that's a story for another time. I was also tempted to replace the Elixir with the MOONDROP KATO, but it's a deviation from this more bassy tonality to where the market is arguably a different one. This comparison is way tougher given the AFUL Performer 5 is more expensive than these three now that the 7Hz Timeless has been on sale more often than not. I'd also say AFUL loses out to the other three when it comes to the overall technical performance—especially given the overly damped and seemingly cramped sound signature—but it remains the best tuned set in my opinion. There's also the comfort factor where the Performer 5 wins out for me and I'd also give it the edge for the nice cable and aesthetics too.