Round 12: Rhine Monitors 1.2, 2, 3, 4, 5; Cleartune Monitors 200, 300, 400; UERM; CustomArt Music One; Music Two; Pro 330v2. Updated scores for
1964 V6 and V6S as well as
Cleartune Monitors 500.
Rhine Monitors Stage 1.2 ($700)
The 1.2 had a clear sound, nonetheless with good warmth. The midbass was a bit light, and the subbass had better extension than slam. The lower treble is quite polite, lending to a smoother, non-fatiguing upper midrange. Actually this pretty much seems to be the Rhine Stage series sound, as you'll see. The high-end extension was okay, nothing to complain about. The mids are neither wet nor dry, and the whole midrange was relatively even, quite full, and energetic while not aggressive. Airiness was also quite good. Positioning-wise, the mids was recessed- by a hair. In terms of the presentation, the soundstage was above average in all three dimensions.
Rhine Monitors Stage 1.2 Score: 9.3
Rhine Monitors Stage 2 ($875)
The Stage 2 once again, married great clarity (more so than the 1.2) with a smooth sound. The midbass is a tad more punchy, but less detailed than on the more expensive ones in the lineup. Subbass extension was good, but not the best. The lower treble was- here's the last bit of that house sound- smooth and relaxed. There was no sibilance in the treble. One negative was that the upper treble, while well extended, was actually a bit peaky. The mids were wetter in character, and continued to be a bit recessed, although they were a bit less even and sustained than its bigger brothers- coming next.
Rhine Monitors Stage 2 Score: 9.4
Rhine Monitors Stage 3 ($1135)
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but let's hear it again. Warm signature; gentle lower treble. To add something new to the understanding, 'gentle' does not mean dipped. This was smooth- not boring. The middle treble here was a bit edgier, but not quite sibilant yet. Midbass continues to be quite polite, and subbass performance is again above average, maintaining reasonably good extension and slam. High end extension here was good- the upper treble presentation was spot on for my tastes. The mids here were definitely thick and wet, aided by a slightly bumped lower mids, while maintaining good airiness in the upper midrange. They were neither forward nor recessed. The depth and width was good on the Stage 3, although height was a bit less.
Rhine Monitors Stage 3 Score: 9.4
Rhine Monitors Stage 4 ($1410)
The Stage 4 had mids that were laid back and recessed, and a bit uneven because of a slight lower mids bloom. Their character was wet and a bit lush, although the airiness was quite okay. The soundstage on the 4 was very large but a bit diffused- in fact, I found the 4 to have the biggest soundstage of the Stage series, even more so than that on the new flagship 5. The soundstage height definitely improved on that presented in the 3. This time I kept the house signature comments till later, but they're still here. Warm, warmer than its siblings in fact, with a polite lower treble. Mid-treble on the 4 was harsher and edgier, though. The subbass had good extension but again could do with more slam. The midbass was punchier than on the 5. On the other end, the upper extremes were also well extension, and even slightly peaky. Overall, the balance and coherence on the 4 was better than in the smaller-numbered monitors, hence the slightly higher score.
Rhine Monitors Stage 4 Score: 9.4-9.5
Rhine Monitors Stage 5 ($1570)
The Stage 5 was outstanding. It had a clean, warm sound with great clarity. This was definitely a case where the balance and coherence of everything blended together beautifully. I wanted more midbass- it was fast with good detail, but could hit slightly harder. The subbass, while better in both slam and extension, also fell short of the best. The upper treble, again, while well-extended, was also a bit peaky. I've listed all the "bad" points first because again, it all works in-spite-of. Let's switch to the good parts of the technical performance- the lower treble continues to be gentle without being dipped. The middle treble was subtle, with no hint of sibilance. The mids here were dry, with subtle airiness, and an even character with no peaks. It was recessed by a breath. The presentation was also good- nice imaging with good coherence and soundstage, but a bit short of the best. Very large soundstage that gains air as it expands, yet with a nicely focused sound. This soundstage was very well done. Overall, though, delightful tuning with great balance is the name of the game here. This was an energetic, non-fatiguing listen with great rhythm.
Rhine Monitors Stage 5 Score: 9.6-9.7
Cleartune Monitors CT-200 ($400)
The 200 had a clean sound with very interesting imaging- a bit of a stereo 3D effect here. The soundstage was also naturally large with no problem of diffusion. The bass was strong, crisp and hard, but without much slam- think 'golf swing' here. The subbass was lacking somewhat in both slam and extension. The mids were a bit less even than the other Cleartune Monitors, but continued to retain great clarity. The midrange was also a bit forward and aggressive, with a very resonant sound. It did not lean any way in dryness or wetness. The airiness of the mids was strong, rather than subtle (opposite to the Rhines in this regard). The lower treble is very energetic here, and almost a bit edgy. The middle treble was controlled but not dipped; and the upper treble was rolled-off; although seemingly less than its brothers. Overall, I was very impressed by the 200s.
Cleartune Monitors CT-200 Score: 9.5-9.6
Cleartune Monitors CT-300 ($500)
The 300 was my least favourite of the series. The bass continues to be crisp and punchy, and the subbass is nicely extended with above average in slam- actually quite nice. The mids here are still clear, but are a bit warmer and richer, though still not wet in character. Unfortunately it seems to be a bit less even in the midrange. The mids airiness was above average. Details on the 300 was just average, not helped by clarity that was less than its siblings though still good. The lower treble was well balanced, sounding both smoothed and energetic at the same time, but the middle treble was edgy. The upper treble was nicely rolled off. More generally, the soundstage was quite large, but came at a cost of focus- it sounded a bit diffused.
Cleartune Monitors CT-300 Score: 9.4
Cleartune Monitors CT-400 ($600)
The stereo imaging effect in the 500 and 200 is also present here. Best of the series, in fact. The subbass extension is okay, although slam is only average. There is more punch down low here- it is crisp and with good slam, although some of the resonant mids magic seems muted as a result. The mids here are a bit more recessed, and lean slightly towards being dry. They have good airiness. The middle treble here is detailed without being harsh, and the upper treble is nicely rolled off with no peaks. Like the 300, the soundstage was large but a bit diffused. A friend of mine called this quite similar to the V6S and I can definitely see why.
PS, if you're interested and haven't already, do check out my
CT-500 brief review as well. After more auditioning, I have adjusted its score to 9.7.
Cleartune Monitors CT-400 Score: 9.6
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors ($999)
The first thing that struck me was the amazing clarity. This clarity was also very evident in the forward mids, which were relatively even in character- though not yet the absolute best in this regard. The midrange also had good airiness that was very naturally presented, neither too harsh nor too subdued. The midbass here was a bit lighter, but punchy and bouncy in character. It was very fast, with good detail. The subbass was a bit lacking in both extension and slam- more so in the latter. Switching gears, the lower treble is very detailed, clear and even. The middle treble is subtle and smooth while still clearly present, and the upper treble was well-extended without being peaky. More generally, the soundstage was large and naturally presented, and the imaging was also very good- the sound could be clearly placed, while still maintaining good coherence. Overall, this was a clean, refined sound that wasn't cold or lean, and had good, natural decay. I walked away thinking, this is what I believe neutral should sound like- not warm; not clinical; and while not smooth, not harsh either. Beautiful.
Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors Score: 9.7
CustomArt Music One ($215)
The CustomArt Music One had punchy, linear bass, with very light subbass that had better extension than slam. The mids were even, a bit dry and airy, although a bit recessed. The center of the midrange was more energetic than the Music Two, although the bottom of the mid-range was about the same. The upper mids were a bit peaky, as was the lower treble, although the upper treble was more gentle- yet not drastically rolled off. The clarity was a bit poorer on the One than on the Two. The One also seemed just a bit slower. In terms of presentation, the soundstage was deeper than wide or tall, although still doing alright on the other two dimensions.
CustomArt Music One Score: 9.4
CustomArt Music Two ($370)
The CustomArt Music Two had linear bass that was even a bit sharp in the midbass, and very light subbass. The sparkle in the upper mids and lower treble was immediately obvious- strong, and a bit hot. The middle treble was a bit edgy, and the upper treble was rolled off. In the midrange, the mids were dry, and every so slightly harsh. They were neither recessed not forward- which makes them more forward than those on the Music One- but they sounded less energetic than those on its Music family sibling. Generally speaking, the clarity was top-notch, the speed was very good, and the soundstage was average in size, and quite naturally presented. It was taller and wider though not as deep as on the Music One, although with that said the depth was still okay- never quite getting into 'intimate' territory.
CustomArt Music Two Score: 9.4
CustomArt Pro 330v2 ($570)
The CustomArt Pro 330v2 was less bright than the other two IEMs, while still being resolving. The mids had nice energy, though not quite veering into 'lush' territory. Their character was a bit wet, and they had average airiness and were also a bit recessed. The upper mids were still a bit hot, and thankfully there was no sibilance to be heard, although the sound seemed to get a bit stronger towards the start of the upper treble. There is a strong-roll off in the upper extremes, though. On the other end, the subbass was light, and there was very sharp mid-bass that could do with a bit more slam. Perhaps the biggest difference between the Pro 330v2 and the Music duo, though, was the soundstage. It was wide, tall, and deep, with really good imaging. In terms of speed, the Pro 330v2 was fast, though not the fastest.
CustomArt Pro 330v2 Score: 9.4-9.5
