Rhines Custom Monitors Stage 3 custom in-ear monitor review

COMPARISONS

Logitech Ultimate Ears In-Ear Reference Monitors (IERM): While both have reference underpinnings, the Stage 3 has more bass emphasis and is more mid-forward than the tonally brighter IERM.  Presentation size of the IERM is a bit larger with better imaging than the more up-front Stage 3. Detail levels are similar, although the IERM holds a very slight advantage, and clarity is about even.  The better coherence and dynamics of the Stage 3 helps it achieve better transparency.  Note attack and decay capability is similar, but the IERM has a thinner note on average that is more analytical, resulting in a more revealing/less forgiving sound overall.

Bass is quite different between the two as the Stage 3 has much more emphasis, presenting with more weight, punch, and rumble.  The IERM can’t keep up in bass-heavy songs even though the Stage 3 has better bass texturing.  The Stage 3 is warmer and the midrange also has a bit more body than the IERM.  Presenting mids more up-front, the Stage 3 sounds more intimate in comparison with the IERM, which has an open sound.  Upper midrange and treble are similar, but the treble of the IERM is more emphasized and a bit more analytical, with more bite.

The two are similar, but still different with the IERM offering a more airy and bass neutral presentation while the Stage 3 presents more up-front and personal while having more capability in the bass department.  Treble is close between the two, but the Stage 3 is slightly smoother.  Either is a good choice and it would come down to your desired presentation.

[divider]

Hidition NT-6: The clearer, colder NT-6 is quite a bit different than the thicker, warmer Stage 3.  Spatially, the NT-6 has a wider presentation, but the Stage 3 has more depth in relation resulting in more spacious sound with some tracks, even though the overall size is smaller.  The NT-6 images better, has better resolution, detail, focus, and articulation within the soundstage for a clearer and more concise presentation.  The NT-6 is more transparent and coherent with better dynamics and the attack/decay note capability is higher.  Average notes of the Stage 3 are thicker than the NT-6, but the boost in the treble of the Stage 3 makes them both similar in forgiveness of poorly mastered tracks.

The Stage 3 has more emphasis in the bass region throughout, but the NT-6 bass has a bit more deep bass capability, especially with reverberant bass notes.  The NT-6 bass is cleaner with better texturing and detail articulation as the warmer Stage 3 has a thickness to it that adds a comparative veil.  The midrange presentation of the two is quite different, as the more laid-back NT-6 has much better clarity and articulation of notes conveying more information and often giving a more intimate feel.  The Stage 3 can sound more enveloping due to the better depth/width ratio of the soundstage.  Both have a brightness to them, but the NT-6 brightness is integrated better within the sound signature and not peaky like the Stage 3 resulting in a generally higher quality presentation that is more detail and smoother.

If you want warm and fun, the Stage 3 will fit, with very good capability considering it has half the driver count of the colder, reference leaning NT-6.  The NT-6 has an advantage in technical performance, but can be too aggressive and cold/dry for long-term listening for many, making the Stage 3 a preferred choice with performance that is still excellent.

[divider]

Hidition NT-6 pro: With similar emphasis on both ends of the frequency spectrum, the NT-6 pro and Stage 3 differ in note presentation and overall emphasis of the frequency response.  The soundstage of the Stage 3 is smaller than the NT-6 pro, but both have similar proportions. Imaging of the NT-6 pro is superior, as is focus within the soundstage for a more coherent and transparent presentation.  Speed, detail, clarity instrument separation, and resolution are all higher on the NT-6 pro, in large part due to the quicker average notes that have better punch and note sustainment.  Detail levels are higher on the NT-6 pro, as is resolution and clarity.  Forgiveness of tracks was dependent on the track, as the NT-6 pro can reveal issues while the Stage 3 can be somewhat sibilant.

The bass of the Stage 3 is warmer and smoother in comparison with the NT-6 pro, which has much more oomph in the lowest registers, sustaining notes, punching harder, and providing a feel the flatter Stage 3 doesn’t have.  But, the NT-6 pro often sounds cold and a bit hollow in the mid-bass region in comparison with the fuller Stage 3.  This fullness continues up through the midrange where the Stage 3 is more forward and presents with a slight higher point of view in comparison with the more open sounding NT-6 pro.  The technical superiority of the NT-6 pro provides a much cleaner, clearer window into the music as the Stage 3 can sound congested and veiled in comparison.  The upper midrange of the Stage 3 is more forward, but not by much and the treble is more emphasized in general on the Stage 3, at least until the enhanced treble kicks in on the NT-6 pro.  Quality of the treble is higher on the NT-6 pro, which a more linear performance that is in general more forgiving as the Stage 3 can sound harsh with some tracks due to peaks in the treble.

With two different sound signatures, these two are quite different despite both having a V-shape to the sound signature.  The NT-6 pro is enhanced at the frequency extremes and is a detail/clarity freak that outclasses the Stage 3, as with most CIEMs, with oodles of detail that are well articulated.  The Stage 3 on the other hand offers a smoother, more musical and relaxing sound with a warmth the NT-6 pro lacks.  Both offer a different take on a fun sound, with the Stage 3 being the more neutral of the two.

[divider]

EarSonics EM4: The more laid-back EM4 has a smoother top-end in comparison to the brighter and more airy sounding Stage 3.  Spatially, the Stage 3 presents in a more up-front way, and while the EM4 presentation is larger overall, the perception is similar.  Presentation depth is slightly better from the EM4, as is imaging.  The EM4 is slightly more transparent than the more coherent Stage 3, which has a better focus within the soundstage resulting in better clarity.  Instrument detail levels are similar, but the Stage 3 defines the instruments better while the EM4 is better at recreating the ambiance of a performance.  Dynamics and note attack/decay are similar, but the EM4 is a bit more dynamic and much more forgiving due to differences in the treble region.

The EM4 pumps out more bass and is slightly warmer but the Stage 3 sounds a bit cleaner and deeper.  Note sustainment is similar, but different as the Stage 3 keeps up with most tracks, but loses steam sooner, especially in the deepest registers.  Within the midrange, the Stage 3 is cleaner and clearer, with the presentation being a bit more forward while the EM4 images better.  The upper midrange on up is less pronounced on the EM4 than the Stage 3.  Contrasting the two, the Stage 3 can sound harsh while the EM4 can sound dull.  Overall, both have very divergent treble regions and the overall quality of the EM4 treble is superior to the Stage 3.

These similarly priced solid acrylic shelled CIEMs share similarities in the low end but diverge in the high end, with the Stage 3 sounding quite a bit brighter and more airy in comparison with the more spacious and smoother EM4.  The choice should come down to sound signature and use, as the Stage 3 is more suited as a reference while the EM4 would be better for most on stage.

[divider]

Dream Earz AUD-8X: The brighter Stage 3 has a more depth to the presentation in comparison with the larger sounding 8X.  Spatially, the 8X has a wider, more airy presentation, but the superior imaging and focus within the soundstage gives the Stage 3 a more enveloping and involving sound signature.  The 8X is more dynamic and detailed while the Stage 3 is more transparent, coherent, and clear, resulting in a more natural sound from the Stage 3.  Note attack and decay capability is superior with the Stage 3, except in the treble, where the more linear and smoother 8X is more forgiving.

Bass of the 8X is more forward, prominent, dynamic, and capable, but the Stage 3 has better quality.  Emphasis depends on the track, as the Stage 3 has more quantity on tracks with less bass, but bass-heavy tracks get the 8X bass drivers really moving.  The 8X is warmer and thicker, and the thickness carries over to the more forward midrange while the Stage 3 is much more enveloping and involving.  Both have a brightness, but the Stage 3 is brighter in comparison with the smoother, yet still bright 8X in large part due to better treble note decay.

The 8X is about fun, dynamics, and capability while the Stage 3 is more about musical involvement with fun sound.  If you are treble sensitive, the 8X will be the better option, but the added thickness to the notes allows the Stage 3 to pull ahead in clarity, imaging, and spatial recreation quality.  Add better coherence and transparency and the Stage 3 is the superior buy of the two except if used solely for pop music.

[divider]

M-Fidelity SA-43: The Stage 3 is much more up-front with more emphasis on both ends in comparison with the spacious SA-43.  The differences are quite significant in the presentation, with the much more laid-back and expansive SA-43 making the Stage 3 sound “in-the-head.”  Imaging of the SA-43 is superior, focus within the soundstage is a bit better, and the overall presentation conveys the environment better while the Stage 3 is a bit more detailed, more dynamic, and clearer.  Transparency and coherence are better on the SA-43, and note capability is also a bit better.  With a slightly faster note on average and more up-front presentation, the Stage 3 performs a bit better with faster tracks.  The SA-43 is more forgiving due to a more laid-back, smoother treble presentation.

Bass quantity is close, but the Stage 3 has a bit more in general while they perform quite similarly in both quality and capability.  The SA-43 comes across as slightly warmer due to the lower treble quantity and slightly thicker note.  The midranges are very different, with the Stage 3 placing performers much closer to you, but at the same time not giving the sense of space and expanse the SA-43 provides.  Treble is also divergent in quantity and quality, as the laid-back SA-43 is smooth and refined while the more analytical Stage 3 treble is more enhanced leading to a sharper note that doesn’t render less than great quality tracks with as much finesse as the SA-43.

With diverging sound signatures, the SA-43 offers a very transparent, coherent, and expansive sound while the Stage 3 is more up-front with a U-shaped sound signature.  Fans of expansive headphone sound that don’t mind a laid-back treble will prefer the SA-43 while those that want a fun and immersive sound will prefer the Stage 3.

[divider]

ACS T1 Live!: The more up-front T1 offers similar performance to the brighter and warmer Stage 3.  Spatially, the T1 puts the listener closer to the performer, but the overall presentation is larger with a slight bit less depth to width ratio.  Focus and imaging are slightly better with the Stage 3, and adding the brighter sound results in more clarity.  The Stage 3 recreates a bit more detail, and accentuates the detail more while the T1 is better at recreating the ambiance within a track.  Dynamics of the Stage 3 are higher while coherence and transparency are a bit better on the T1.  The T1 is more forgiving of poor treble quality.

The bass presentation is quite different between the two, as the T1 has more emphasis and reverb capability in the deepest registers at the expense of control compared with the overall more capable Stage 3.  The T1 can convey more emotion from sub-bass notes. Both are warm, but the Stage 3 is warmer while the T1 has a thicker note on average.  The more forward midrange of the T1 places you a bit closer to the performance, yet allows it to expand more side-to-side while the Stage 3 is more enveloping.  Treble of the T1 is a bit on the laid-back side, but does has a bit of a bump in the lower treble while the Stage 3 has a bigger bump a bit lower, which can cause quality issues in comparison to the more naturally decaying T1 treble.

With somewhat similar sound signatures, the T1 Live! is suited more for stage use while the Stage 3 would be a better “fun” CIEM for those that want some additional brightness in their tracks.  The added bass capability of the Stage 3 is better suited for pop music while the T1 provides a more laid-back note that is less aggressive in comparison with the punchier and more dynamic Stage 3.

[divider]

EarSonics S-EM6: The brighter Stage 3 has sharper notes in comparison with the smooth and coherent S-EM6.  Soundstage proportions are different as the Stage 3 is wider than deep while the S-EM6 is deeper than wide sounding in comparison.  Focus with the soundstage is a bit better for the S-EM6, especially in the midrange, which is more prominent on the S-EM6.  While the notes of the S-EM6 are smoother, they also convey a bit more detail and the overall presentation has more resolution while being more forgiving of poor tracks.  The better coherence leads to superior transparency with the S-EM6, although the Stage 3 has better dynamics.

The bass presentation of the Stage 3 is more enhanced and forward, with more punch and reverb, however the S-EM6 sounds more neutral, controlled, and accurate in comparison.  Warmth is similar, while the midrange of the Stage 3 is a more forward overall, but recessed in relation to the bass and treble due to the further projection of the S-EM6.  Vocals on the S-EM6 stand out more and the entire presentation has a better balance.  The brighter Stage 3 is more analytical in comparison with the as detailed, always smooth, and more forgiving S-EM6.

Presentation differences separate these two, with the S-EM6 being the smoother of the two, and placing the listener further from the presentation, but at the same time having more focus on the midrange.  The Stage 3 is more analytical and has a V-shaped to the frequency response, with a more up-front presentation overall.  Both offer spacious presentations, but in different ways as proportions differ, and the Stage 3 is more reminiscent of a reference sound in the top end while the S-EM6 is more representative of a stage monitor that is more forgiving up top.

[divider]

Perfect Seal PS6: The Stage 3 has a more laid-back presentation and brighter treble than the more mid-forward PS6.  Spatially, the PS6 has a wider presentation, but the Stage 3 has a better depth of presentation to go with a more natural proportion between depth and width.  The Stage 3 offers a bit better clarity, detail, and resolution while the PS6 is more transparent, coherent, and slightly more dynamic.  Notes are thicker on average from the PS6 while the Stage 3 has a bit better attack/decay capability overall.  The PS6 is more forgiving in general, and especially with tracks that have less than good quality treble.

Bass quantity is similar with the Stage 3 being warmer while the PS6 is more capable of sustaining deep bass notes, and the difference between the two increases as the frequency drops.  The midrange of the PS6 is more up-front and prominent, making the Stage 3 sound a bit mid-recessed in comparison due to the projection.  Quality wise, the Stage 3 wins with better focus and better recreation of the nuances within the music as well as a bit more enveloping sound overall.  There is a bump in the upper midrange of the PS6, but at a much different spot than the sometimes harsh sounding Stage 3.  Quality of the treble is better in general from the PS6.

With a price tag of about half the Stage 3, the PS6 offers a similar but different feel.  The Stage 3 recreates small queues and nuances the PS6 doesn’t articulate as well, resulting in more immersion and realism even despite the better transparency of the PS6.  The more up-front PS6 is better suited for stage use while the Stage 3 wins out from an audiophile standpoint.

SOURCE MATCHING

Portable Sources, DAPs

Sandisk Sansa Clip+: The entry-level Clip+ offers decent sound with acceptable dynamics, but the overall sound is a bit congested with the Stage 3.  While there is a brightness due to the tuning, it doesn’t have the clarity in part due to spatial constriction. 1/10

Apple iPhone 5: The iPhone 5 offers a sound that doesn’t have the best clarity or smoothness, resulting in a sound that isn’t representative of the Stage 3 price.  It is less congested than the Clip+, but there is still some congestion and lack of detail. 2/10

Hisoundaudio Nova 3: The Nova 3 offers improved clarity compared with the iPhone 5 and Clip+, but is also a bit more sibilant with the Stage 3.  Depth of presentation is larger, and the overall space is bigger, which is the driving force in the clarity advantage.  Notes are not necessarily much smoother, but there is more detail present. Bass is similar to the iPhone 5, but a bit more prominent with better control and precision. 4/10

Fiio X3: The X3 pairs well with the Stage 3 and offers a sound that is a bit less bright than the Nova 3, iPhone 5, and Clip+ with added smoothness.  Bass is more prominent and well controlled, on par with the Nova 3.  The X3 presents with a larger space and more air.  Imaging is very good and the presentation has a cohesion to it that adds to the musicality.  The treble region doesn’t lack for detail but is smoother than the Nova 3 and the DX50, making for an overall better listening experience.  7/10

iBasso DX50:The DX50 performs well with the Stage 3, providing a bit more down low oomph compared with the X3, but also with a bit less control.  Clarity is a slight step behind the X3, and the treble region isn’t as refined or smooth.  Imaging and space are good, and the overall presentation is musical and convincing. 6/10

Astell & Kern AK120: The AK120 adds space and air to the very good presentation of the Fiio X3 with a bit more laid-back presentation that is less treble emphasized, resulting in a more refined sound with better overall balance across the spectrum.  Bass is present, but not quite to the level of the X3, and the overall sound isn’t quite as punchy.  This results in a sound that is easy to listen to for extended periods of time without fatigue, even though the treble of the Stage 3 is on the brighter, more revealing side. 9/10

iBasso DX100: The DX100 provides great space and a smooth presentation with finesse and refinement for the Stage 3.  The presentation is similar between the AK120 and the DX100, but the DX100 is a bit more refined and smoother while offering the same level of detail, but the AK120 is a slight bit clearer.  Bass has more power and dynamics are better with the DX100 than the AK120, resulting in a slight advantage to conveyance of power and emotion. 10/10

[divider]

Portable Sources, DAPs with Amps

DX50  ->

JDS Labs O2: The O2 output is similar to that of the DX50 headphone output, but the treble region of the DX50 is smother and more refined.  There is no benefit to this pairing. 5/10

Sunrise Dolphin: The Dolphin presents with a bit more mid-forward of a presentation, but has a bit better presentation depth and width compared with the DX50 headphone output.  The Dolphin has better low end control and quantity, and the overall presentation is a bit smoother.6.5/10

Leckerton UHA-6S MKII: The 6S sounds a bit more open in comparison with the headphone out of the DX50, smoothing the treble without reducing detail levels.  Bass is deeper with more power, pushing extension further. 7/10

Tube Amp TA-1: The TA-1 brings a smoothness and spaciousness while giving plenty of low end grunt and authority.  The presentation is airier and more spacious overall than the UHA-6S MKII, with a warmer tone resulting in a musical and enjoyable sound. Bass is also improved, with more weight and depth.  8/10

Lear FSM-02 V2 (class A): The FSM-02 V2 is very spacious and projects much further than DX50 headphone out, and is larger than the TA-1.  Layering is excellent and there is a good deal better instrument separation with more detail and black space.  The treble is toned down a bit and smooth, taking away most of the sharpness the Stage 3 can exhibit. 10/10

Portaphile 627: The 627 is spacious with good projection, but clarity isn’t on par with the FSM-02 V2.  The treble is also a bit sharper on the 627 for a presentation that isn’t as musical. While the 627 outperforms the TA-1 in spaciousness, the TA-1 is smoother and clearer.  7/10

[divider]

DX100-> Effect Studio Piccolino Mini -> ADL X1: Very nice combination that is better than using just the internal DAC in the X1.  The X1 amp circuit is a step up compared with the DX100 headphone out, with less bass emphasis, as the entire frequency spectrum is clearer and more concise.  The treble issues I have experienced with other sources are pretty much all gone while not losing detail, and the spaciousness is top-notch and might be pushing the limits of the Stage 3. This is an all-around excellent setup!  10/10

[divider]

DAC/AMPs

JDS ODAC -> O2: This combination pairs OK with the Stage 3, providing a spacious and detailed sound, but there is room for improvement.  The presentation isn’t the smoothest, and the treble can be a bit on the harsh side in large part due to the Stage 3.  Bass is powerful, but bested by both the Fiio X3 and ADL X1.  In direct comparison, the lower levels of detail and less refined sound are apparent.  5/10

Fiio X3: The X3 performs well with the Stage 3 as a DAP, and also does so as a DAC/amp.  While not as spacious or controlled as the ADL X1, the performance is still good and with many tracks that have average mastering, the differences are minimal as higher quality tracks are required to really hear a significant difference.  7/10

ADL X1: The X1 has good imaging and spaciousness with the ability to control the bass drivers and deliver a more visceral feel on the bottom end with bass-heavy tracks.  Quality tracks will reward the listener with an improved listening experience, and the sometimes harsh treble of the Stage 3 is a bit smoother and less offensive when fed by the X1 while not giving up detail. 9/10

Source Summary: Amp and DAC quality matter with the Stage 3, and not all amps will work well with the treble region, with an example being the Portaphile 627 amp, which was harsh and borderline sibilant.  While the Stage 3 benefits from a better DAC in detail retrieval, the real benefit is the added spaciousness.  Performance with lower end sources was relatively poor, holding the Stage 3 back from the spatial presentation it is capable of, which compounds the issues by making things somewhat congested.

SUMMARY

The Rhines Custom Monitors Stage 3 is a high-end triple driver custom in-ear monitor that combines reference qualities with a fun sound for an involving and rewarding experience.  The ample bass response, highlighted midrange, and treble presence respond well to all genres while the projection puts you in the audience for a great show.  Pair the Stage 3 with a great DAC/amp combo, and it will really shine.  Build quality is top-notch, and customer service is great.

There are limitations, as the lowest registers don’t have quite the thump as the rest of the bass range, and the revealing treble combined with the bump can lead to harshness with tracks that aren’t mastered well.  Despite these potential issues, the Stage 3 is a very enjoyable CIEM for both the audiophile as well as the musician, as long as you have a good source.

Pros

–       Excellent presentation depth, imaging, and instrument separation that result in an enveloping sound

–       Adds more warmth and smoothness to the “reference” type sound, appealing to tube lovers

Cons

–       Deepest bass registers don’t sustain notes quite as well as much of the competition

–       Treble bump can be problematic for those averse to harsh treble

Overall Score: 81.4

See the Rhines Custom Monitors Stage 3 in the CIEM list