Sound:
My main source for listening was the iBasso DX200 (AMP1 module that has got very low output impedance).
The largest included single-flange silicone tips were used for the sound evaluation, comparisons and casual listening.
Tonality:
I am inclined to call the AF1120 neutral or neutral-ish, but this isn’t exactly what it sounds like. “Quite neutral bass with inoffensive and polite mids and middle highs” or “very smooth, relaxed, inoffensive and made for fatigue-free listening” are much better fitting descriptions but not really what entirely describes the Audiofly either, so let’s investigate the tuning more in detail:
The bass is practically neutral and shows just a mild hint of lift in the fundamental range compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field flat in the lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR.
Compared to the Etys that are absolutely flat in the bass (some would say “lifeless” to which I would agree, however in a desirable way in their specific case), the AF1120 has got ca. 4 dB more in bass quantity, which makes its bass just as present as the also fairly neutral sounding Noble Audio SAVANNA that however shows some roll-off in the sub-bass unlike the AF1120 that remains flat even into the true sub-bass. Compared to the also mostly neutral Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Audiofly has got just about 1 dB more presence in the lows.
Extension to the sub-bass is flat without any roll-off.
Therefore calling the bass "neutral and fairly flat" is definitely what describes the Audiofly AF1120’s lower registers pretty well.
The midrange of the AF1120 is somewhat heading into the darker direction, but definitely not into the warmer since the lower vocal range isn’t really emphasised.
The highs, from there on, are more in the background and on the somewhat darker and especially smoother, pretty relaxed side.
The upper midrange/fundamental range between 2 and 3 kHz takes a moderate step back, followed by a strong dip centred around 5 kHz in the middle highs. Highs start climbing again afterwards towards 10 kHz where they become neutral again but don’t cross the ground line anymore but only barely touch it around 10 kHz, making the overall treble response generally relaxed, smooth and inoffensive with still correct levels around 10 kHz in the upper treble.
While the sine generator indicates flawless extension past 16 kHz, there is not that much subtle super treble sparkle audible with music, although one can hear that the Audiofly extends higher than the Shure SE846.
Overall, there are no narrow, abrupt dips or peaks audible when doing sine sweeps. Instead, the highs are fairly even and smooth, however with a relaxed character, especially around 5 kHz in the middle treble where the level drops. This relaxation and dip is definitely rather strong and even surpasses the Westone W4R’s level of smoothness and inoffensiveness in the middle highs (the W4R is also known for its quite prominent 5 kHz recession) – which definitely says something since the W4R already is an in-ear with a very smooth and relaxed middle treble tuning. As a result, some might find the AF1120's tuning to be too inoffensive and lacking some of the information present in the 5 kHz area.
The upper treble response is quite soft – cymbals are never sharp and sibilants don’t exist either, however the highs and cymbals can come across as being a bit too polite/inoffensive at times and maybe a touch more bite in the upper range probably wouldn’t have hurt, along with a bit more vocal glare.
My main source for listening was the iBasso DX200 (AMP1 module that has got very low output impedance).
The largest included single-flange silicone tips were used for the sound evaluation, comparisons and casual listening.
Tonality:
I am inclined to call the AF1120 neutral or neutral-ish, but this isn’t exactly what it sounds like. “Quite neutral bass with inoffensive and polite mids and middle highs” or “very smooth, relaxed, inoffensive and made for fatigue-free listening” are much better fitting descriptions but not really what entirely describes the Audiofly either, so let’s investigate the tuning more in detail:
The bass is practically neutral and shows just a mild hint of lift in the fundamental range compared to an in-ear that is diffuse-field flat in the lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/SR.
Compared to the Etys that are absolutely flat in the bass (some would say “lifeless” to which I would agree, however in a desirable way in their specific case), the AF1120 has got ca. 4 dB more in bass quantity, which makes its bass just as present as the also fairly neutral sounding Noble Audio SAVANNA that however shows some roll-off in the sub-bass unlike the AF1120 that remains flat even into the true sub-bass. Compared to the also mostly neutral Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, the Audiofly has got just about 1 dB more presence in the lows.
Extension to the sub-bass is flat without any roll-off.
Therefore calling the bass "neutral and fairly flat" is definitely what describes the Audiofly AF1120’s lower registers pretty well.
The midrange of the AF1120 is somewhat heading into the darker direction, but definitely not into the warmer since the lower vocal range isn’t really emphasised.
The highs, from there on, are more in the background and on the somewhat darker and especially smoother, pretty relaxed side.
The upper midrange/fundamental range between 2 and 3 kHz takes a moderate step back, followed by a strong dip centred around 5 kHz in the middle highs. Highs start climbing again afterwards towards 10 kHz where they become neutral again but don’t cross the ground line anymore but only barely touch it around 10 kHz, making the overall treble response generally relaxed, smooth and inoffensive with still correct levels around 10 kHz in the upper treble.
While the sine generator indicates flawless extension past 16 kHz, there is not that much subtle super treble sparkle audible with music, although one can hear that the Audiofly extends higher than the Shure SE846.
Overall, there are no narrow, abrupt dips or peaks audible when doing sine sweeps. Instead, the highs are fairly even and smooth, however with a relaxed character, especially around 5 kHz in the middle treble where the level drops. This relaxation and dip is definitely rather strong and even surpasses the Westone W4R’s level of smoothness and inoffensiveness in the middle highs (the W4R is also known for its quite prominent 5 kHz recession) – which definitely says something since the W4R already is an in-ear with a very smooth and relaxed middle treble tuning. As a result, some might find the AF1120's tuning to be too inoffensive and lacking some of the information present in the 5 kHz area.
The upper treble response is quite soft – cymbals are never sharp and sibilants don’t exist either, however the highs and cymbals can come across as being a bit too polite/inoffensive at times and maybe a touch more bite in the upper range probably wouldn’t have hurt, along with a bit more vocal glare.
In
terms of timbre, a bit less softness with cymbals would have been
somewhat more realistic.
- - -
The AF1120 definitely portrays a rather unique sound signature that is relaxed, smooth, even, inoffensive and therefore great for fatigue-free listening and/or people who prefer the middle highs around 5 kHz to be recessed.
What is nice about the Audiofly’s tonal tuning is that it makes less well mastered, mixed and recorded tracks more bearable because of its smooth but not analytical nature that is found in its declining level past the central mids, but then again some might miss some of the glare present in brighter vocals.
Resolution:
What is quite striking, in a positive way, is that the bass is tight and very quick – even for Balanced Armature standards. Decay is just as long as it needs to be and there is no hint of softness or slowness at all. Control is simply great as well.
In its character, along with its rather neutral quantity, the bass could definitely be described rather as “analytical” than as “euphoric” or “bodied and textured”.
Compared to the mids, I miss a bit of details and layering in the lows though.
Speech intelligibility is really good and the level of details is as well – but it is probably not that striking upon first or quick listening, which is a side-effect of the polite and very smooth treble tuning. Due to the noticeably recessed 5 kHz rage, the AF1120 won’t have a “hey, I’m uber-resolving” or analytical kind of character.
Doing more extensive listening and comparisons, as well as listening to the Audiofly for a longer amount of time, then reveals that it actually has a nice, generally detailed presentation that is just not as striking because the information present in this area is presented more quietly.
This definitely fits well to the inoffensively smooth signature that is best-suited for fatigue-free listening and people who don’t like in-ears that have an aggressive treble tuning but don’t want to miss out the upper treble, but the in-ear won't have the same analytical character as in-ears that are more neutral in this area, such as the Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or Etymotic's models, or the Sennheiser HD 800 that is even emphasised here. This (that upon closer listening, the details are presented finely in the middle highs) however also shows that the Audiofly doesn't need to cheat with elevations and peaks to achieve perceived "fake" resolution. The downside is however that the recession might come across as just somewhat too relaxed.
That the AF1120 is a well-resolving in-ear does not solely become obvious when listening to it for a longer period of time, but also when reducing its middle treble recession with the help of an EQ if you are not afraid of it.
Strangely though, even though tightness and speed are nothing the Audiofly lacks, its resolution seems to decrease slightly with faster recordings – not by much, but this effect is present to a mild degree.
Even though vocals could use somewhat more glare in the presence range and middle treble, minute details are not lacking at all.
The highs’ resolution is good as well but due to their rather soft character, separation in the treble lacks slightly behind the bass and midrange, at least subjectively.
Summarising, one could say that all of the details and resolution are present but not especially highlighted, and instead presented in a relaxed manner. Is the level of details adequate for the price though? Yes, it is.
I am also very inclined to also say that the AF1120 is a great in-ear for background listening while maintaining a really high technical level without fatiguing, but that of course ultimately depends on personal sound preference.
Soundstage:
The Soundstage is fairly wide and has got a quite precise localisation and separation of tonal elements without reaching the spatially best in-ears in the four-digit price range.
There is some spatial depth so that the soundstage doesn’t appear flat, however it is (maximally) just half as present compared to the width wherefore the soundstage appears more oval and wide than three-dimensional and circular.
Due to this feature, it can also be categorised below the 4-digit in-ears, where it is set anyway, in terms of pricing.
- - -
The AF1120 definitely portrays a rather unique sound signature that is relaxed, smooth, even, inoffensive and therefore great for fatigue-free listening and/or people who prefer the middle highs around 5 kHz to be recessed.
What is nice about the Audiofly’s tonal tuning is that it makes less well mastered, mixed and recorded tracks more bearable because of its smooth but not analytical nature that is found in its declining level past the central mids, but then again some might miss some of the glare present in brighter vocals.
Resolution:
What is quite striking, in a positive way, is that the bass is tight and very quick – even for Balanced Armature standards. Decay is just as long as it needs to be and there is no hint of softness or slowness at all. Control is simply great as well.
In its character, along with its rather neutral quantity, the bass could definitely be described rather as “analytical” than as “euphoric” or “bodied and textured”.
Compared to the mids, I miss a bit of details and layering in the lows though.
Speech intelligibility is really good and the level of details is as well – but it is probably not that striking upon first or quick listening, which is a side-effect of the polite and very smooth treble tuning. Due to the noticeably recessed 5 kHz rage, the AF1120 won’t have a “hey, I’m uber-resolving” or analytical kind of character.
Doing more extensive listening and comparisons, as well as listening to the Audiofly for a longer amount of time, then reveals that it actually has a nice, generally detailed presentation that is just not as striking because the information present in this area is presented more quietly.
This definitely fits well to the inoffensively smooth signature that is best-suited for fatigue-free listening and people who don’t like in-ears that have an aggressive treble tuning but don’t want to miss out the upper treble, but the in-ear won't have the same analytical character as in-ears that are more neutral in this area, such as the Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors or Etymotic's models, or the Sennheiser HD 800 that is even emphasised here. This (that upon closer listening, the details are presented finely in the middle highs) however also shows that the Audiofly doesn't need to cheat with elevations and peaks to achieve perceived "fake" resolution. The downside is however that the recession might come across as just somewhat too relaxed.
That the AF1120 is a well-resolving in-ear does not solely become obvious when listening to it for a longer period of time, but also when reducing its middle treble recession with the help of an EQ if you are not afraid of it.
Strangely though, even though tightness and speed are nothing the Audiofly lacks, its resolution seems to decrease slightly with faster recordings – not by much, but this effect is present to a mild degree.
Even though vocals could use somewhat more glare in the presence range and middle treble, minute details are not lacking at all.
The highs’ resolution is good as well but due to their rather soft character, separation in the treble lacks slightly behind the bass and midrange, at least subjectively.
Summarising, one could say that all of the details and resolution are present but not especially highlighted, and instead presented in a relaxed manner. Is the level of details adequate for the price though? Yes, it is.
I am also very inclined to also say that the AF1120 is a great in-ear for background listening while maintaining a really high technical level without fatiguing, but that of course ultimately depends on personal sound preference.
Soundstage:
The Soundstage is fairly wide and has got a quite precise localisation and separation of tonal elements without reaching the spatially best in-ears in the four-digit price range.
There is some spatial depth so that the soundstage doesn’t appear flat, however it is (maximally) just half as present compared to the width wherefore the soundstage appears more oval and wide than three-dimensional and circular.
Due to this feature, it can also be categorised below the 4-digit in-ears, where it is set anyway, in terms of pricing.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors:
The Audiofly has only got 1 dB more bass quantity than the UERM, making it still very neutral in the lows.
The UERM have got the more neutral/flatter midrange timbre and don’t appear dark in the upper mids at all.
The UERM are brighter in the highs and definitely not as recessed as the AF1120 is in the middle treble around 5 kHz. Both don’t have the perfect upper treble timbre – the UERM have got an emphasis in this area that can be a bit too bright at times whereas the Audiofly has got a slightly too soft upper treble response. The UERM are more accurate in the highs though.
The UERMs’ soundstage will depend more on the recording but will be slightly sharper and more precise, with a more three-dimensional presentation.
Noble Audio SAVANNA:
Both in-ears have got similar levels of bass quantity but the Audiofly does not have any roll-off in the sub-bass whereas the SAVANNA does have a moderate one.
Midrange timbre is comparable up until the central mids while the Noble is a little less dark in the upper midrange and middle treble range.
The SAVANNA is a rather smooth sounding in-ear in the highs as well, but certainly not as relaxed.
While the Audiofly is a smooth and relaxed, inoffensive sounding in-ear with a fairly neutral bass response, I would characterise the Noble as the more neutral and accurate monitor.
The Audiofly has got the wider soundstage while the Noble’s is deeper and therefore creates a greater sense of three-dimensionality. Separation is just slightly cleaner on the Audiofly’s side.
Westone W4R:
The W4R has got the noticeably stronger and thicker bass response while both share a fairly similar midrange timbre (with the difference that the Westone’s lower midrange is somewhat warmer).
The W4R is already an in-ear that is very smooth and relaxed in the highs, with a 5 kHz recession. The AF1120 is an even slightly more relaxed and smoother sounding in-ear, with the slightly stronger 5 kHz recession.
Upper treble levels are about comparable again.
The Westone’s highs sound a bit more realistic in comparison (cymbals are more direct compared to the Audiofly that reproduces them in a softer manner) while still maintaining a good level of smoothness.
In terms of spatial reproduction, the AF1120 sports more spatial depth with slightly less width wherefore it doesn’t sound as spatially flat as the Westone, while the W4R has got the slightly more precise separation.
Shure SE846:
The Shure has obviously got noticeably more sub-bass quantity since it has got an emphasis in this area. The Shure’s midrange is more forward, with a thicker tone, but also with more presence in the upper midrange (it isn’t emphasised here but just shows more quantity compared to the AF1120 that is more relaxed in that area).
The Shure is already an in-ear with a rather relaxed middle treble, however the Audiofly is even more relaxed and polite here. The AF1120’s upper highs appear softer compared to the Shure’s.
Treble extension past 10 kHz is where the Shure loses in comparison.
When it comes to soundstage, the Audiofly renders the wider room while the Shure’s soundstage is narrower. Spatial depth is about similar with the Shure having the slightly cleaner separation and placement of instruments.
Conclusion:
The Audiofly AF1120 is an in-ear that is overall tuned more for a relaxed, polite and inoffensive listening experience with a recessed 5 kHz range while heading into a generally more neutral direction otherwise. It has an inoffensive tuning for fatigue-free listening, however I can definitely see some people who might find some bite and glare to be lacking, which I also do sometimes even when I'm looking for a relaxed, fatigue-free listening session, so what it is missing is just a few dB more presence in its 5 kHz range (it really wouldn't have been necessary to make it even smoother/more relaxed here than the Westone W4R or Shure SE846).
Value-wise, you're neither overpaying nor getting an outstanding "bang for your buck" performer.