Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread

18443 Views 65 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  Jon Lane
Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread​

Loudspeaker Subwoofer Sound box Audio equipment Electronics

Chane Music & Cinema has introduced the third evolution of their popular Arx series, now going by the alpha numeric '"Arx-c" designation. Using technologies not typically found at these prices, and utilizing an internet direct business model which allows customers to avoid paying dealer mark up, Chane looks to offer the public exceptional value for the money.

See less See more
1 - 11 of 66 Posts
Thank you for this informative and well written article.

You mentioned going through several iterations of setup to integrate the center channel. Jon Lane has remarked that using these MTMs in the vertical orientation can produce the best sound.

Have you decided if you are leaving the center speaker horizontal?
If you experimented with a vertical orientation, do you have any notes to share if there were noticeable differences between horizontal/vertical?
Chane speakers on Massdrop...

Yes Massdrop has had several rounds of sales for the A1rx-c & A2rx-c.
Massdrop did it several months ago and another sale just ended this month for both models. I ordered (2) A2rx-c's for my mom, they ended up being a total of $407/pair including shipping.
I also ordered another pair of the A1's through this latest drop.
A great combination: Chane & Massdrop (sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g, first comes love then....).

I use Chane A5rx-c's as my main L&R speakers. Temporarily using the A1rx-c as a center speaker. Contemplating on getting an A2rx-c for my center speaker.
My heart wants the A5rx-c but I heard the A3rx-c for some reason are the best for 2 channel music..
I'll do my best to relate what I've read and how I understand it. Disclaimer: Accuracy is not guaranteed.

Crossovers are necessary for most properly functioning multi-driver speakers (2 way, 3 way designs). Crossovers help to integrate the sound between different drivers but they also interfere with other aspects of proper audio reproduction. More complex designs and greater numbers of crossovers needed in a speaker can cause increasing amounts of audio degradation. A 2 way speaker is going to need fewer crossovers than a 3 way.

So, specifically relating to the Chane A3rx-c, the Chane A5rx-c, and the older ARX A5...
The Chane A3rx-c is a 2 way design, both of the A5's are a 3 way design.
Compared to the A3, both of the A5's 3 way design is said to ever so slightly hinder some of the audiophile characteristics of the sound. On the other hand, the A5's additional drivers help to deliver louder sound with less distortion.

The difference between the older ARX A5 and the Chane A5rx-c...
The newer A5rx-c received an updated tweeter. This new tweeter improved sound in at least two ways..
1) it is capable of handling more power with less distortion.
2) it has a different bottom end roll off which integrates better with the mid freq driver. This allowed for a redesign to a simpler crossover resulting in a more audiophile sound.
See less See more
...Once a speaker's mechanicals are exercised a little bit (<1 hour) it should be good to go.
There is no way I would have invested 30+ hours into "break-in", that is just ridiculous.
There is always the proposal that it's not the speaker changing its sound it's the listener's ears becoming accustomed to the speakers....
I've listened to several new speakers breaking in and agree with you that usually it only takes a few hours, some don't need any break in (or at least I couldn't hear any change).
But if you think this applies to the Chanes, then you haven't broken in one of these. It is absolutely not a case of becoming accustomed to the speakers, the speakers sound is changing.

Most people say they sound very good out of the box and just get better over the 40 hr break in. I think my A1's & A5's sounded terrible before break in (the A5's were noticeably worse). There is just something 'off' about the sound.

In a few weeks I should be breaking in my mom's new A2's before I give them to her. For break in, I set them up as my bed room speakers so I do listen to them, but instead of turning them off when doing something else, I leave them running with some complex audio at a moderate volume. They run continuous for a week.
Thank you for the feedback, I figured I wasn't completely botching it up but wasn't 100% sure on everything. And I didn't feel confident enough to get into the nitty gritty of explaining the details properly so I just gave general ideas.
I'll expound a bit concerning my earlier comments about break in.

This is why I believe the speakers were changing, and not that I was growing accustomed to the sound.
For me speakers can be divided into 2 main groups based on sound quality...
1) a speaker having a high quality sound but I just don't care for the sound signature. This speaker, I can get accustomed to over time.
2) a speaker that has low quality sound (or sound that is just 'wrong' or 'off') and I don't like it because it's wrong. This speaker, I can never get accustomed to over time.

Out of the box, my Chanes had an off sound that just doesn't sound right, it's a sound I know I couldn't learn to like. But over time I can hear the Chanes sound melding and getting more and more right.
Yes Bryan,
Your thinkings seem to reflect my thinking and most of what is in my post.
There are advantages and disadvantages to different designs. 3 ways can have advantages in enhanced sound characteristics, I'm not sure if standard thinking has it that the use of additional crossovers for that system would then mitigate those advantages, compared to a simpler 2 way design?
Hopefully Jon Lane can chime in here to substantiate what I have read...

But I understand that at first Jon didn't want to make anything bigger/more complex than the original A3 because his thinking was that the bigger 3 way design would hinder audiophile qualities. And Jon is about quality not quantity.
Jon only made the bigger A5 because of pressure from the audio masses.

Now maybe Jon has surprised himself and is more pleased with the A5's audio characteristics?
'superior' is a very vague term.
My understanding is that Jon (and others) considered the A3 to have superior audiophile characteristics. And the A5 to have superior power handling capabilities.
I think I'm remembering correctly that when pushed for a suggestion, Jon would recommend the A3 (over the A5) for people looking for musicality.

After breaking in my mom's A2rx-c's I will probably test one as my center speaker.

This is my concern about an A2 with my set up (A5rx-c main speakers)...
My main speaker is TMW vertical design. The A2 is WTW horizontal/vertical design, there is enough room under my tv that I would use a vertical speaker position. If there are noticeable differences in audio between my A5 & A2, is it mostly because of the different speaker designs, or because of other factors such as speaker location?

I have always been a big proponent of using the same design/model for the front 3 speakers. For my center I would greatly appreciate having a speaker similar to the A5 that would keep the TMW vertical design but the overall height would be a shorter ~34" (maybe having one less woofer driver than the A5 has).
^ I think base mass loading was only available on the older model ARX A3.
1 - 11 of 66 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.