Agreed. I understand the power-field argument for loading bass speakers with corners, but with stereo subs, getting them aligned in amplitude and phase with the mains pays real dividends. In other words, treat them like part of the mains instead of like parts of the room.
Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread
Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread
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.
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Thanks for the clarification and update. To me the most ringing endorsement a reviewer can give a piece of equipment is to decide it is what he wants for his own use, compared against all the other equipment that reviewer has heard (which is often extensive as you point out). Congratulations on having a great set of speakers!Thank you, Bryan!
I have to say, I labored over the wording of the Conclusions first paragraph. In a short, there is nothing wrong with the planar nor the resolution of the A2rx-c. The A2rx-c does come very close the best available. I'm just trying to remain objective and do not want people thinking they can buy a reference grade monitor for $229/each.
I have not experienced the level of realism and resolution the A2rx-c 5.0 set delivers in it's price range, though, and I have laid ears on many, many loudspeakers. I hope this perspective adds clarity and helps to answer your question.
Let me put it another way. The A2rx-c 5.0 does such a great job, not only in it's price range, but as an all around communicator of music and movies, that I am buying the review set.
Aren't the terms "OCD" and "audiophoo" -- wait -- "audiophile" more or less synonymous? :dumbcrazy:I'm more than a little OCD
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.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.
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.
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?
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?
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'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.
Now that we've both speculated away :bigsmile: hopefully Jon will come back and set us all straight.
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.
'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.
Yes, distance of the subs from the listening position and the mains is key to great blending. I do wish more AVRs allowed selectable crossover slopes. At least the Chane loudspeakers allow us a degree of flexibility.Agreed. I understand the power-field argument for loading bass speakers with corners, but with stereo subs, getting them aligned in amplitude and phase with the mains pays real dividends. In other words, treat them like part of the mains instead of like parts of the room.
I was referring to the audiophile capabilities, but good point that I didn't qualify the word "superior."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.
Tesseract, thanks so much for this review. I'm just getting back into Home Theater Shack, having changed phones and being busy with work and all.
Recently, I've started buying concerts on Blu Ray, and maybe it's me but my first Gen pioneer speakers left me unimpressed. I'm looking to upgrade, mainly for clarity and the A2rx-c seems to be the speaker I'm looking for. I'm hoping to purchase 3 of these for an lcr upgrade and your review convinced me. Thanks again.
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Recently, I've started buying concerts on Blu Ray, and maybe it's me but my first Gen pioneer speakers left me unimpressed. I'm looking to upgrade, mainly for clarity and the A2rx-c seems to be the speaker I'm looking for. I'm hoping to purchase 3 of these for an lcr upgrade and your review convinced me. Thanks again.
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Thank you, Steve!
I knew from all the other impressions I've heard and read that the A2rx-c would be a good speaker, but once in hand, they really exceeded my expectations.
I knew from all the other impressions I've heard and read that the A2rx-c would be a good speaker, but once in hand, they really exceeded my expectations.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
This is what I keep hearing in indirect ways. I understand why it's not advertised as such.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.
I'm doing the same thing. If you do end up upgrading to the A2rx-c from the A1rx-c, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the improvement.Chane speakers on Massdrop...
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.
@huja2,
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).
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).
Question for you experts here: How tall should the stands be for these speakers? I understand that you normally want the tweeter to be about ear height when sitting. Is that the case with these speakers as well? By my quick calculations, I would need a 30 inch stand. I would think that would be unusually tall. Am I off base in thinking this? All answers are very much appreciated.
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
The general consensus is the tweeter should indeed be around ear height, and I wouldn't deviate from that with the Chane's myself.Question for you experts here: How tall should the stands be for these speakers? I understand that you normally want the tweeter to be about ear height when sitting. Is that the case with these speakers as well? By my quick calculations, I would need a 30 inch stand. I would think that would be unusually tall. Am I off base in thinking this? All answers are very much appreciated.
Hey Jim,
Thanks for the reply. I will be buying a set of three in the near future, and saw stands tall enough but the speaker exceeds the weight limitations. I'm also concerned about stability. There are kids around from time to time, and they can be a bit rambunctious. Maybe a small bookcase would work? I have to give this some more thought. Thanks again.
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Thanks for the reply. I will be buying a set of three in the near future, and saw stands tall enough but the speaker exceeds the weight limitations. I'm also concerned about stability. There are kids around from time to time, and they can be a bit rambunctious. Maybe a small bookcase would work? I have to give this some more thought. Thanks again.
Steve R.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
A bookshelf would work, provided the face of the speaker is at the leading edge so there's no reflections.
^ Agreed, and they don't cost any more than a pair of A2 and a good set of stands cost either. That's the way I would go too. Stands built in! :T
41 - 60 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.
Home Theater Forum and Systems
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, home theaters, troubleshooting, projects, DIY’s, product reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
RobKnapp
9 Replies
briannarichardson2
8 Replies
Da Wiz
7 Replies
Recommended Communities
