# Chane A2rx-c 5.0 Loudspeaker Review Discussion Thread



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

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.


*Click here for full review*​


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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?


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

Good stuff Dennis! Thanks for the really thorough write up.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

theJman said:


> Good stuff Dennis! Thanks for the really thorough write up.


Thank you, Jim! I had a blast with these speakers.



gdstupak said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Glenn!

I only set the A2rx-c center up one way, as pictured. I have no other options without blocking the HDTV. Someone with an AT screen would indeed be best served by a vertical A2rx-c at the same height as the L/R. If nothing else, because the center would be further from the floor (or ceiling).

Judging by the 2 channel sound I heard, and based on what we know about MTM designs, I am confident that vertical orientation is best for the center, especially for off axis listeners.

If I have time this weekend, I'll rotate the tweeter, see if I can get the center elevated to the same height as the L/R, and listen to some hi rez 5.1 music. Being directly on axis with the center, I do not expect a vertical placement to make as big a difference as simply elevating the center, but it will be interesting to experiment with it.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Your impressive review is much appreciated! The Chane A2rx-c doesn't seem to have any wall-mount provision. Approaching 30+ pounds, I understand why unicorn mounts need not apply. Can you please share, or can you recommend a wall mount for surround purposes? Maybe something similar to Willis7469's clamp-type mounts (discontinued)? TIA!


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

Great read Dennis! Looks like the A2rx are for real!


----------



## Realtorx7 (Jun 17, 2015)

This was a great read. Made this Columbian Coffee much more enjoyable.


----------



## Jasonpctech (Apr 20, 2010)

I like the concept and size, prices? They certainly seem worthy of a audition after that review.
$229 ea as per Chane website. Not unreasonable at all...
http://www.chanemusiccinema.com/A2rx-c

Also notable Reddit posted a $189 price point that might be repeatable at MassDrop.com
MassDrop is a bulk buy community they maintain a request system to bring back past deals or perhaps we could re-create a mass buy here with enough interest as Chane has done this before.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hometheater/comments/3056iq/chane_a2rxc_on_massdrop_going_down_to_189_ea/


----------



## Jasonpctech (Apr 20, 2010)

Vogel clamp mounts. Those are neat, nothing out there anymore that uses a similar design (that won't cost more than the speakers)?


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

Great review, Dennis! I enjoyed reading it very much, and I'm glad to hear that the Chanes are living up to their reputation, especially the reputation they have on this forum.

It's interesting to note how at times, with some recordings, you thought perhaps the tweeter was held back just a smidge, but later on other recordings decided maybe it was right where it should be. Did you feel the slight lack of resolution was the result of a tweeter intentionally brought down in level as part of the design, or was the tweeter itself not quite capable of the last bit of resolution regardless of its level relative to the rest of the system?

Out of curiosity, is anyone at HTS getting a pair of A5rx-c for review soon? I know they were on the docket to be reviewed when they were released this past spring, but I also see that Chane is (already) out of stock on them. I'd be quite interested to read about how they compare to the A2, since the A5 is a three-way speaker. Also I'm interested to find out what sonic differences there are compared to the original A5.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Excellent review, Dennis. Thank you for bringing the A2 system to life for us. I got to listen to them for an hour on the 4th at Dennis's place, and can only offer a hearty _Amen_ to everything Dennis has said.



bkeeler10 said:


> Out of curiosity, is anyone at HTS getting a pair of A5rx-c for review soon? I know they were on the docket to be reviewed when they were released this past spring, but I also see that Chane is (already) out of stock on them. I'd be quite interested to read about how they compare to the A2, since the A5 is a three-way speaker. Also I'm interested to find out what sonic differences there are compared to the original A5.


We have been asking Jon Lane for a crack at the new A5 for awhile now. He has had the wonderful fortune of having such high demand for them that he has been unable to hold back a pair for us yet (which of you customers would have accepted a "Sorry, all out" for our sake?:rolleyesno. We would never wish for anything less than that for him, but will continue to hope he finds a way to send us a pair before too long for review.


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

Yep, getting reviews is and should be a bit lower on the priority list than getting them in customers' hands. Especially when they sell out faster that you can bring them in. Anyway, he is supposed to be stocked up "this summer" so hopefully that means there will be a pair for you guys in the next month or two. Fingers crossed . . .


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

I just emailed Dennis thanking him for his effort and commending him on a particularly clear and pleasant review. It's one thing to find favorable remarks about your product in the press, but it's another to see such a nicely written and presented piece. Thanks again, Dennis. This is genuinely good reporting.

To address another interest in this thread: Chane has undertaken a hopefully brief update program for the next - and likely to be final - A5 platform. Many of you know that we continually look for minor updates and improvements and this next cycle will be no different. I think we'll be very hard pressed to do better than _it_ without appreciable cost and price increases, but there are a few elements I'd like to try to pass on to customers as value adders for the A5.

Our new website should launch soon and will include more details. 

It's a pleasure to be a small part of a community of such dedicated, competent enthusiasts. Thank you again Dennis and HTS, and we look forward to more good things soon.


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

Thanks Jon. Just to be clear, are you referring here to an update to the most recent release of the A5rx-c, or the addition of a model to the A-series (for lack of a better term)?


----------



## Realtorx7 (Jun 17, 2015)

Jon Lane said:


> I just emailed Dennis thanking him for his effort and commending him on a particularly clear and pleasant review. It's one thing to find favorable remarks about your product in the press, but it's another to see such a nicely written and presented piece. Thanks again, Dennis. This is genuinely good reporting.
> 
> To address another interest in this thread: Chane has undertaken a hopefully brief update program for the next - and likely to be final - A5 platform. Many of you know that we continually look for minor updates and improvements and this next cycle will be no different. I think we'll be very hard pressed to do better than _it_ without appreciable cost and price increases, but there are a few elements I'd like to try to pass on to customers as value adders for the A5.
> 
> ...


If this update involves a "Atmos" module, I'm quitting my life.

Just kidding.. I really hope that's not going to be the case.. either way I'm a superfan of the A5rx-c's... I cant wait to see what's next.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

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.


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

Blacklightning said:


> 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.


With a room just a hair under 2100 ft^3 I think the A3rx would be more than sufficient for your needs. The bonus is they're in stock now, so you can get up and running immediately.

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


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

Jon Lane said:


> Chane has undertaken a hopefully brief update program for the next - and likely to be final - A5 platform.





bkeeler10 said:


> Thanks Jon. Just to be clear, are you referring here to an update to the most recent release of the A5rx-c, or the addition of a model to the A-series (for lack of a better term)?


To the next A5.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

Blacklightning said:


> 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.





theJman said:


> With a room just a hair under 2100 ft^3 I think the A3rx would be more than sufficient for your needs. The bonus is they're in stock now, so you can get up and running immediately


I agree with Jim. The 3 is really happy in a modest-sized room and with a good amp, can really energize the place.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

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.


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

Blacklightning said:


> I wish... Paradigm Servo 15 Version 1.


There's certainly nothing wrong with that subwoofer.




Blacklightning said:


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


Given what you have now, I'd suggest the E/F15HP instead. It would better match the capabilities of the Paradigm.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Lumen said:


> Your impressive review is much appreciated! The Chane A2rx-c doesn't seem to have any wall-mount provision. Approaching 30+ pounds, I understand why unicorn mounts need not apply.  Can you please share, or can you recommend a wall mount for surround purposes? Maybe something similar to Willis7469's clamp-type mounts (discontinued)? TIA!


Thanks for the kind words, Lou. Sorry, I do not know much about wall mounts, and would not want to be responsible for a 27 lb. brick falling on someones head! :whistling:



Todd Anderson said:


> Great read Dennis! Looks like the A2rx are for real!





Realtorx7 said:


> This was a great read. Made this Columbian Coffee much more enjoyable.





AudiocRaver said:


> Excellent review, Dennis. Thank you for bringing the A2 system to life for us.


Thanks, guys!



Jon Lane said:


> I just emailed Dennis thanking him for his effort and commending him on a particularly clear and pleasant review. It's one thing to find favorable remarks about your product in the press, but it's another to see such a nicely written and presented piece. Thanks again, Dennis. This is genuinely good reporting.


Thank you, Jon. It was my pleasure to review such a fine loudspeaker.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

bkeeler10 said:


> Great review, Dennis! I enjoyed reading it very much, and I'm glad to hear that the Chanes are living up to their reputation, especially the reputation they have on this forum.
> 
> It's interesting to note how at times, with some recordings, you thought perhaps the tweeter was held back just a smidge, but later on other recordings decided maybe it was right where it should be. Did you feel the slight lack of resolution was the result of a tweeter intentionally brought down in level as part of the design, or was the tweeter itself not quite capable of the last bit of resolution regardless of its level relative to the rest of the system?


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.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Blacklightning said:


> 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.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Thanks for the review.
And special thanks for detailing the whole experience.
Not being much of a believer in extended break-in periods I must say you have the patience of a saint too.
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.
In the end I am glad you had an enjoyable experience.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

chashint said:


> ...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.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

gdstupak said:


> I'll do my best to relate what I've read and how I understand it. _Disclaimer:_ Accuracy is not guaranteed...


Glenn, your assessment is a perfect description of the way I understand it, too.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

chashint said:


> Thanks for the review.
> And special thanks for detailing the whole experience.


You bet, thank you, Charlie.



> Not being much of a believer in extended break-in periods I must say you have the patience of a saint too.
> 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.
> In the end I am glad you had an enjoyable experience


It is hard for me to say how long break in will take, until I feel it is actually completed. The planar tweeter does not have a lot of excursion, perhaps like many low excursion drivers, it takes a bit of time to loosen up?

I do try to keep in mind that it could be me that is "breaking in", as well. Possibly a combination of the two. In my experience, the A2rx-c leaf tweeter is one smooth puppy after it and/or I have acclimated.

As an aside, I bought "The Incredible Hulk" on Blu-ray to exercise my system, and invited a friend over last night. I ran the whole movie at -2 dB, and we were both amazed how loud, while maintaining that smoothness, the planar could get. As I stated in the review, the dual woofers never seem to come anywhere near their limits, either.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

tesseract said:


> I ran the whole movie at -2 dB, and we were both amazed how loud, while maintaining that smoothness, the planar could get. As I stated in the review, the dual woofers never seem to come anywhere near their limits, either.


It's not easy to communicate this every time, but while _SplitGap_ (XBL2) may sound like just another trademark, when you can virtually double the midwoofers' linear excursion _and_ cut distortion about in half, it can be audible. 

The tweeter is comparable: Roughly four times the surface area of a conventional dome grants a proportional reduction in distortion. 

While the overall design is ultimately responsible for the presentation in the room, hopefully it's been given something important to work with.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

I will throw in my 2¢ worth on break-in.

_My own_ experience has been that new speakers go through so many adjustments, re-positionings, experiments with EQ or room correction, playing with room treatment, maybe trying a different amp, re-configuring other parts of the system... IOW, so many variables while deciding how to best use them and assess them, that I would have no way of isolating a subtle change and calling it break-in. I can't help but wonder if this might apply to most listeners.

On the other hand, I have learned to trust Dennis's ears more than just about anyone else's I know, so if he says they took awhile to break in......:huh:


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm more than a little OCD and am still turning over Bryan's question in my head. I've come to a conclusion that I can finally be happy with, and have edited it into the review. 

"Is the A2rx-c the greatest speaker in the world? No, but I feel it is one of the world's great speakers at its price."

Thank you for helping me come to that conclusion, Bryan. I think that is a fair assessment.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon Lane said:


> It's not easy to communicate this every time, but while _SplitGap_ (XBL2) may sound like just another trademark, when you can virtually double the midwoofers' linear excursion _and_ cut distortion about in half, it can be audible.
> 
> The tweeter is comparable: Roughly four times the surface area of a conventional dome grants a proportional reduction in distortion.
> 
> While the overall design is ultimately responsible for the presentation in the room, hopefully it's been given something important to work with.


The decision to move lots of air certainly does give the A2rx-c a marked advantage. The -2 dB setting for that particular movie is arbitrary, and as with most TV viewing I do, level is set to bring the volume level of spoken word up to a realistic level, around 70 dB or so. Whatever happens after that, explosions, gunfire, whispers, background sounds, should be rendered correctly as well, if the studio did their job right.

I've been living with the A2rx-c set for over 3 months now, and am still amazed at its ability to deliver proper, distortion-free dynamics. The huge soundstage presentation is icing on the cake.


----------



## red99 (Dec 10, 2014)

I would like to know how does the A2rx-c with a port plug sound and perform vs open ported. And could anyone post any measurements of ported vs plugged? 

The reason is my HT setup I have my TV mounted on the wall and the center is under it on the fireplace mantel. So the center speaker has to be up against the wall with just enough room for the wires. 

And if I plugged the center, would I have to plug all the others if I did a 5.2? (Running Dual 18 inch subs).


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

red99 said:


> I would like to know how does the A2rx-c with a port plug sound and perform vs open ported. And could anyone post any measurements of ported vs plugged?
> 
> The reason is my HT setup I have my TV mounted on the wall and the center is under it on the fireplace mantel. So the center speaker has to be up against the wall with just enough room for the wires.
> 
> And if I plugged the center, would I have to plug all the others if I did a 5.2? (Running Dual 18 inch subs).


If you are crossing a speaker over above the port's tuning, boundary reinforcement at lower frequencies will be greatly reduced, be it the center or the others.

I did try subjective 5.0 and 2.0 listening with ports plugged, then open. With movies, ports open (@ 60 Hz XO) sounded best. With music, ports closed (@ 50 Hz XO). This is _in my room_, yours will probably differ. Measurements will tell us little unless performed outdoors, and that will also change once brought indoors.

No, you would not necessarily have to plug all speakers should the center be plugged. My advise would be to plug the ports and let your subwoofers do their job. Of course, experimentation is key, and I value highly the ability to try both.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

red99 said:


> I would like to know how does the A2rx-c with a port plug sound and perform vs open ported.


Red, the difference between the two modes is that the bass reflex, open-port mode makes each of our four models relatively full-band speakers (lacking the bottom octave plus a little). The rolloff is the typical ~4th order function, meaning -24dB/octave. Deep(est) bass; fast roll-out.

Sealing the cabinet creates a somewhat overdamped classic 2nd order function, or -12dB at right about where you'd want it for a 80Hz standard subwoofer response. Less bass but a shallow roll-out. 

In-room effects are all but guaranteed to swamp these respective functions at a microphone to the point of unrecognizability, but what counts is that these inherent power functions remain and are important for effective, powerful subwoofer meshing. Either can work with a sub, but as I think Dennis found, you don't always want the speaker's full bass register to get there.

Try the ports plugged and play with the sub settings in both processor and active subwoofer. For the perfectionist there's more to it than that (and we've prepared a user guide going into a little more detail) but most users of the A1rx-c and A2rx-c are probably going to try them in sealed mode. 

The five channel A2rx-c system in the review, to me at least, sort of calls out for the standard 60-80Hz highpass and a good likelihood of not needing (or wanting) the extra bass extension and more abrupt roll-out used for larger models in 2.0 setups.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

Quick brush-up on subwoofers, crossovers, and power responses:

Assuming a standard 80Hz lowpass subwoofer frequency setting, and assuming a 4th order LR crossover function, the complementary satellite setting is naturally a symmetrical 80Hz 4th order LR _highpass_. A system arranged around this relatively standard function sums to flat response in both SPL (on axis) and power responses.

How do we get it? Subs are commonly able to be set this way - see the knobs on the amplifier plate. 

This leaves us with getting a 4th order highpass out of the _combination_ of acoustical and electrical functions in our satellite speakers and crossover. Simply put, just sum them up.

Plugging the ports renders the satellite speaker close enough to a 2nd order acoustical highpass at the desired frequency that we've gotten half of our target. We need only to find a 2nd order, 80Hz _electrical_ function in the processor.

That's really it. The biggest hurdle is, you guessed it, 2nd order highpasses in AVR and processor crossover control panels aren't standard. They're not rare, but you won't find them in everything. And, of course, the other exception is that in a world of affordable speaker and room correction firmware, you may not have to resort to a classic setup routine like this one at all. 

But if possible, try 1) a stopped-port or other 80Hz sealed satellite speaker system coupled with 2) a common 80Hz, 4th order, LR subwoofer setup and 3) a simple 2nd order electrical crossover to the satellites set around 80Hz. Tune to taste. 

Done well it can really add apparent acoustical power and a perfectly seamless, inaudible subwoofer transition to the system. (Years ago I set up a system involving big Acoustat electrostatic panels and twin custom bandpass subwoofers like this and we found the big panels sounded like they went all the way to 20Hz, which was an uncanny effect. Acoustically, the subwoofers just disappeared...)


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Another tool in the bag is moving the subwoofer(s) in time, physically or electrically. I love my passive-pre integrated amplifier, but the AVR's ability to let the subs grab that free front wall boundary reinforcement AND walk them forward electrically in the soundfield relative to the mains has proven invaluable. It can also help phase rotation a bit when high and low pass crossover slopes are disparate.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

tesseract said:


> Another tool in the bag is moving the subwoofer(s) in time, physically or electrically. I love my passive-pre integrated amplifier, but the AVR's ability to let the subs grab that free front wall boundary reinforcement AND walk them forward electrically in the soundfield relative to the mains has proven invaluable. It can also help phase rotation a bit when high and low pass crossover slopes are disparate.


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.


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

tesseract said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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!



tesseract said:


> I'm more than a little OCD


Aren't the terms "OCD" and "audiophoo" -- wait -- "audiophile" more or less synonymous? :dumbcrazy:


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

gdstupak said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Jul 13, 2010)

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?


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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?


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

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.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

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 (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon Lane said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

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.


I was referring to the audiophile capabilities, but good point that I didn't qualify the word "superior."


----------



## SRBoston (Jun 13, 2013)

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


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

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.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

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.
> ...


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.


----------



## huja2 (Nov 25, 2014)

gdstupak said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

@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).


----------



## SRBoston (Jun 13, 2013)

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


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

SRBoston said:


> 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.


The general consensus is the tweeter should indeed be around ear height, and I wouldn't deviate from that with the Chane's myself.


----------



## SRBoston (Jun 13, 2013)

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


----------



## theJman (Mar 3, 2012)

A bookshelf would work, provided the face of the speaker is at the leading edge so there's no reflections.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

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


----------



## bkeeler10 (Mar 26, 2008)

^ 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


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

^ I think base mass loading was only available on the older model ARX A3.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Nice review Dennis, I agree that Jon has done us solid on the speakers. I'm really enjoying mine.

Just for giggles...and if anyone is interested...I would let Sonnie et. al. put my pair of A5-rxc's through thier paces for review. I bet we could even talk Leonard into giving up his origional A5's for comparison. We would have to talk Wayne into listening to another set of speakers! We all know how much he hates that!!! Just a thought.


----------



## dgmartin (Oct 29, 2011)

theJman said:


> The general consensus is the tweeter should indeed be around ear height, and I wouldn't deviate from that with the Chane's myself.


This is specially true with symmetrical (2-way) MTM designs.


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

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.





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.





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.


All this is true, although the A3 > A3rx-c difference was probably more than the A5 > A5rx-c difference. 

Yes, the A5 was designed - in the reinforced, heavier shell of the A3 - because a local sound pro and associate talked me into it. I wanted it to be better than the A3 in every way and took a good half a year settling on the crossover. As these things generally go, it all fell together at once, late in the development, and the rest you can read about here and elsewhere - apparently it works fairly well.

Since then the A3rx-c replaced the A3 and the A5rx-c replaced the A5. All rx-c versions moved to the lighter, louder tweeter, which gives us a better crossover fit with more thermal protection after the treble is padded back down. The most recent A3rx-c and A5rx-c, due to stock in six weeks or so, feature slightly upgraded midwoofers. 

The whole aim of the line has always been to see how much real tech we can pack into a modest look and set of price points, so refinements can happen every few months.

2016 should bring us some new surprises. My datelines and projections are chronically wrong, but I own 100% of Chane and I'll expect that models like these stay on the leading edge of value in our class in as timely a fashion as I can.

(Oh, and Dennis, if you're interested, there may be something else of the MTM variety to interest you shortly.)


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon Lane said:


> (Oh, and Dennis, if you're interested, there may be something else of the MTM variety to interest you shortly.)


Absolutely. My interest in the A3rx-c has not waned, either. 

Thanks for the update, Jon!


----------



## Jon Lane (Oct 9, 2010)

tesseract said:


> Absolutely. My interest in the A3rx-c has not waned, either.
> 
> Thanks for the update, Jon!


Thank _you_, Dennis; more on this as soon as possible...


----------

