Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread

18463 Views 65 Replies 17 Participants Last post by Jon Lane, Nov 16, 2015

tesseract

Discussion Starter · Jul 24, 2015

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.

Click here for full review

See less See more

Save

1 - 4 of 66 Posts

Blacklightning

· #17 · Jul 24, 2015

I'm really lost as to which ARX to choose for a small 13'x16'x10' room with a servo sub.
My heart wants the A5rx-c but I heard the A3rx-c for some reason are the best for 2 channel music.
I'm a music guys so it's a no brainier to get the A2rx-c for my side channels for the rare occasion I listen to SACD's. I will be running 3 of the same up front or maybe just 2 as I just have one LP.

Save

Blacklightning

· #21 · Jul 24, 2015

theJman said:
When you say 'servo' sub, are you referring to a Rythmik by chance?

I wish... Paradigm Servo 15 Version 1.

The end plan are 2 F12 or F12G's as long as the Canadian dollar gets better.

Save

Blacklightning

· #52 · Jul 27, 2015 (Edited)

bkeeler10 said:
Interesting. I am no expert, but it seems to me that a carefully-executed three-way design can potentially have advantages in sound quality as well as output. For one, the midrange driver in a three-way will not have to cope with the lower octaves and can be designed to excel with the midrange frequencies alone, instead of perhaps being slightly compromised in the midrange in order to handle bass. Also, it seems that a three-way has a better chance of having smooth off-axis response. A two-way speaker's woofer will have to operate up to a higher frequency, and may begin to "beam" (dispersion narrows quite a bit) as it approaches the crossover frequency. Then, when the tweeter takes over, the dispersion broadens quite a bit, making for choppy dispersion characteristics one octave or so on either side of the crossover frequency. But a three-way can keep this smoother by transitioning from the bass driver to the midrange before the bass driver starts to beam, and then from the midrange driver to the tweeter before the midrange starts to beam.

Of course crossover components do more than filter frequencies, and can be a source of distortion. It is my understanding that the A5rx-c crossover is as simple as it can be, which should help with this. Ideally a 3-way would be crossed over actively (digitally) which would mitigate many of the negative effects of a standard crossover using resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc, and give you more control over what is happening. Of course, this is more expensive to build and also to provide amplification for.

Sorry, just thinking out loud here.

gdstupak said:
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?

I think most people believe more is better and Bigger is better. So as a company trying to make money, if people are asking for more and bigger than make the people happy and market it as better.

bkeeler10 said:
I'm pretty sure the A5 (original version) was considered superior to the A3 (original version). Then the A3rx-c came out, and was proclaimed to be extremely close in character to the A5 (original). My understanding was that the goal with the A5rx-c was to make a significant improvement to the A5 (original); otherwise it was not going to be worth it to release an updated version.

Now that we've both speculated away :bigsmile: hopefully Jon will come back and set us all straight.

As stated below the A1rx-c can be said to be superior to the A5rx-c if you look hard enough. Jon does not need to set us all straight, just buy all his speakers test them out and sale the others. this will make the world a happier place.

gdstupak said:
Bryan,
'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.

This is what I keep hearing in indirect ways. I understand why it's not advertised as such.

Save

Blacklightning

· #59 · Aug 6, 2015

With kids I would go for the A3rx-c floor stand as you can mass load the base.

See less See more

Save

1 - 4 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.

Top Contributors this Month