Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Chane A2.4 vs the market

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Chane A2.4 vs the market

    Hi All,

    Now that many dozens of Chane speakers are mysteriously appearing on your doorsteps across North America, I thought I'd offer a little perspective on one of them, the A2.4. I happened to find two MTM/LCR speakers on the market and averaged their specifications. They range from $50 less to $70 more than the A2.4 but at a substantial difference in style and heft.

    Average competing MTM/LCR speaker
    Frequency Response: 52.5Hz-25kHz (3dB)
    Sensitivity: 86dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
    Woofers: 5.25" (133mm) poly-mica [with single-vented motors]
    Tweeter: 1" (25mm) Fabric Dome [without decompression chamber]
    Crossover Frequency: 2,750 Hz
    Crossover: [lighter gauge coils, mylar and electrolytic capacitors, cement boat resistors]
    Impedance: 5 Ohms
    Dimensions: 20.25 W x 7.4 H x 9.25 D
    Weight: 19 lbs.

    Chane A2.4
    Frequency Response: 48Hz-32.5kHz (3dB)
    Sensitivity: 90dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
    Woofers: 5.25" (135mm) SplitGap XBL2 with double-vented motors
    Tweeter: 1.25 x 2.25" Planar Magnetic
    Crossover Frequency: 2,000 Hz
    Crossover: Aligned point source with extra-heavy gauge coils, 100% metalized film caps, NI audio resistors
    Impedance: 8 Ohms
    Dimensions: 19.7 W x 11.8 D x 7.1 H
    Weight: 27lbs. (12 kg)

    This is why we say we put a lot into our models - heavy build, high-grade components, smart design, and the hidden variable, lots of tuning.

    Thanks to so many of you who helped make this the most successful roll-out in our history. We do it all for you...

  • #2
    Comparing the Chane A2.4 to a popular 3-way center speaker

    The three-way concept is popular among center speakers, but not for reasons Chane has ever embraced.*

    I'd like to explain more why the A2.4 and its simper, symmetrical driver array is such an effective solution. Let's start with another comparison of two models and then look at why the 3 driver, 2-way A2.4 concept works so well.

    Average competing WTMW center-only speaker
    Frequency Response: 49Hz-28kHz (3dB)
    Sensitivity: 87.5dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
    Woofers: 5.25" cones
    Midrange: 3.25" cone
    Tweeter: 25 x 32mm folded ribbon / 1" dome
    Crossover Frequencies: 450Hz and 2.85kHz
    Crossover Slope: Unstated
    Impedance: 6 Ohms
    Dimensions: 19.6 W x 8 H x 8.75 D
    Weight: 19.4 lbs. (8.5kg)

    Chane A2.4
    Frequency Response: 48Hz-32.5kHz (3dB)
    Sensitivity: 90dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
    Woofers: 5.25" (135mm) SplitGap XBL2 with double-vented motors
    Tweeter: 1.25 x 2.25" Planar Magnetic
    Crossover Frequency: 2,000 Hz
    Crossover: Aligned point source with extra-heavy gauge coils, 100% metalized film caps, NI audio resistors
    Impedance: 8 Ohms
    Dimensions: 19.7 W x 11.8 D x 7.1 H
    Weight: 27lbs. (12 kg)

    In this comparison the A2.4 averages $50 less than the competing average center model. (The A2.4 also offers the option to establish a perfectly matched three speaker front system, where a pair of A2.4 are stood vertically as L and R speakers to flank a flat A2.4 center speaker. The asymmetrical 4 driver 3-way speaker is presumably not ideal as a vertical L or R speaker.*)

    A word about sensitivity, not to be confused with efficiency: Both speakers are rated using sensitivity, meaning when driven with 2.83v of voltage pressure. The 90dB A2.4 is also a true 8 Ohm speaker, meaning that when driven with one watt, it's actually 3dB louder than a 90dB true 4 ohm speaker driven at one watt, or twice as loud. A true 4 ohm speaker consumes two watts at 2.83v. This is a substantial difference and once again falls to the A2.4's favor.

    Once again the Chane A2.4 is also the far heavier speaker, and the rest of its feature list is at least as compelling even before we go under the hood. But it's under the hood where we find why Chane believes that high value and performance are features of the A2.4's symmetrical MTM (midbass-tweeter-midbass) LCR array as a 3-driver, 2-way symmetrical speaker.

    The single greatest advantage the symmetrical MTM speaker has is off-axis uniformity of sound. In other words, across the short driver axis almost any multi-way speaker has excellent dispersion simply because the smaller the width of the driver array the better the speaker's output approaches a 180 degree window.

    However, the A2.4 has another design advantage, which is seen in its acoustic uniformity along its long axis. Specifically designed for it, the MTM speaker's symmetry uses the opposing midwoofer to fill in the acoustic gap or cancellation naturally occurring between any non-coincident tweeter and midrange at some point along its long axis, in this case the opposite midwoofer and the shared tweeter. Flip to the other side of such a speaker and now the other midwoofer fills in the gap between the array's opposite midwoofer.

    We can see that when specifically arranged to do so, a symmetric MTM speaker has a more uniform sound window, not less. This is what drove the development of the A2.4 and to a significant degree the A2 and A2rx-c before it.

    Next, the A2.4 has a pair of 5.25" midwoofers which give it far more emitting area in the middle two octaves then a single 3" midrange - in Chane's view a 3" driver is an acoustically tiny device that cannot play nearly as dynamically as a pair of 5.25" drivers whose summed area is many times larger.

    To illustrate this simple phenomenon, below is the measured output of a truly state of the art 3.5" midrange costing nearly $150 apiece. Note that as predicted, physics prevents such a small driver from reaching either high efficiency or low frequency. Although larger still than a 3" driver, this 3.5" driver delivers only 87dB at a possible 550Hz crossover when driven by 2.83v/1w, confirming the view that to reach 90dB it must consume 2 Watts.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	3.5 mid.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	32.3 KB
ID:	78344

    Chane's A2.4 was specifically designed to feature excellent axial uniformity, relatively high dynamic output (for a compact, affordable model) and to at the same time fulfill the audiophile's need for superb musicality, solid depth of bass (with Chane's convertible bass system to assist with integrating home theater subwoofers), extraordinary soundfield and imaging, and the option to build a perfectionist's matched 3-speaker front stage.

    *We are looking at a much larger center, our A6.4 concept, which will use four drivers in an asymmetrical vertical tweeter/midrange array, but it's main focus is higher output and not the extraordinary acoustical symmetry and multi-channel flexibility of our extremely popular A2.4. The A6.4 concept would also use a full-sized 5.25" dedicated midrange driver - at least two whole classes larger - to exactly match our extremely successful model A5.4 tower.

    Comment


    • #3
      So, what you're basically saying is that using a single 3"-4" class driver to reproduce everything from 550hz to 2500+hz in the center channel speaker of a home theater (which reproduces something on the order of 70% of all sonic content) isn't the best idea for either distortion, perceived sound quality, or overall output?

      Ok gotcha. :cool:

      Comment


      • #4
        Curious about the Compared Speakers

        Maybe it's impolite to name the competitors but I'm very curious who they are. Before deciding to go with Chane I gave serious consideration to Emotiva, RBH XTZ and KEF. I got close with Emotiva but worried they'd require more than a decent receiver to drive them appropriately.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Vance View Post
          Maybe it's impolite to name the competitors but I'm very curious who they are. Before deciding to go with Chane I gave serious consideration to Emotiva, RBH XTZ and KEF. I got close with Emotiva but worried they'd require more than a decent receiver to drive them appropriately.

          Doing some google fu, I came up with the Emotiva C1 center as the center with the folded ribbon tweeter, and the RBH R-515 LCR for the one with the fabric dome. The C1 is $30 less, not $70 more. (current pricing)
          Last edited by CraigL; 07-15-2018, 06:38 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Vance View Post
            Maybe it's impolite to name the competitors but I'm very curious who they are.
            I'm not going to name names and I encourage others who research the topic to do it privately. This post is to show how we make the A2.4, more than it is about a specific other model or competitor. There are approximate representative classes in both the 3-driver 2-way category and the 4-driver 3-way category that compare approximately the same.

            This is one of the better ways to materially show that we put a lot into all of our models, which tends to lead to folks then hearing the difference. Chane's plan has always been to explore the alternatives out at the edge rather than just build a light, appliance store-grade loudspeaker.

            [7/15 Edited original posts to show an average of two models in each of the two categories.]

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post
              The three-way concept is popular among center speakers, but not for reasons Chane has ever embraced.*

              I'd like to explain more why the A2.4 and its simper, symmetrical driver array is such an effective solution. Let's start with another comparison of two models and then look at why the 3 driver, 2-way A2.4 concept works so well.

              Average competing WTMW center-only speaker
              Frequency Response: 49Hz-28kHz (3dB)
              Sensitivity: 87.5dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
              Woofers: 5.25" cones
              Midrange: 3.25" cone
              Tweeter: 25 x 32mm folded ribbon / 1" dome
              Crossover Frequencies: 450Hz and 2.85kHz
              Crossover Slope: Unstated
              Impedance: 6 Ohms
              Dimensions: 19.6 W x 8 H x 8.75 D
              Weight: 19.4 lbs. (8.5kg)

              Chane A2.4
              Frequency Response: 48Hz-32.5kHz (3dB)
              Sensitivity: 90dB (2.83V @ 1 Meter)
              Woofers: 5.25" (135mm) SplitGap XBL2 with double-vented motors
              Tweeter: 1.25 x 2.25" Planar Magnetic
              Crossover Frequency: 2,000 Hz
              Crossover: Aligned point source with extra-heavy gauge coils, 100% metalized film caps, NI audio resistors
              Impedance: 8 Ohms
              Dimensions: 19.7 W x 11.8 D x 7.1 H
              Weight: 27lbs. (12 kg)

              In this comparison the A2.4 averages $50 less than the competing average center model. (The A2.4 also offers the option to establish a perfectly matched three speaker front system, where a pair of A2.4 are stood vertically as L and R speakers to flank a flat A2.4 center speaker. The asymmetrical 4 driver 3-way speaker is presumably not ideal as a vertical L or R speaker.*)

              A word about sensitivity, not to be confused with efficiency: Both speakers are rated using sensitivity, meaning when driven with 2.83v of voltage pressure. The 90dB A2.4 is also a true 8 Ohm speaker, meaning that when driven with one watt, it's actually 3dB louder than a 90dB true 4 ohm speaker driven at one watt, or twice as loud. A true 4 ohm speaker consumes two watts at 2.83v. This is a substantial difference and once again falls to the A2.4's favor.

              Once again the Chane A2.4 is also the far heavier speaker, and the rest of its feature list is at least as compelling even before we go under the hood. But it's under the hood where we find why Chane believes that high value and performance are features of the A2.4's symmetrical MTM (midbass-tweeter-midbass) LCR array as a 3-driver, 2-way symmetrical speaker.

              The single greatest advantage the symmetrical MTM speaker has is off-axis uniformity of sound. In other words, across the short driver axis almost any multi-way speaker has excellent dispersion simply because the smaller the width of the driver array the better the speaker's output approaches a 180 degree window.

              However, the A2.4 has another design advantage, which is seen in its acoustic uniformity along its long axis. Specifically designed for it, the MTM speaker's symmetry uses the opposing midwoofer to fill in the acoustic gap or cancellation naturally occurring between any non-coincident tweeter and midrange at some point along its long axis, in this case the opposite midwoofer and the shared tweeter. Flip to the other side of such a speaker and now the other midwoofer fills in the gap between the array's opposite midwoofer.

              We can see that when specifically arranged to do so, a symmetric MTM speaker has a more uniform sound window, not less. This is what drove the development of the A2.4 and to a significant degree the A2 and A2rx-c before it.

              Next, the A2.4 has a pair of 5.25" midwoofers which give it far more emitting area in the middle two octaves then a single 3" midrange - in Chane's view a 3" driver is an acoustically tiny device that cannot play nearly as dynamically as a pair of 5.25" drivers whose summed area is many times larger.

              To illustrate this simple phenomenon, below is the measured output of a truly state of the art 3.5" midrange costing nearly $150 apiece. Note that as predicted, physics prevents such a small driver from reaching either high efficiency or low frequency. Although larger still than a 3" driver, this 3.5" driver delivers only 87dB at a possible 550Hz crossover when driven by 2.83v/1w, confirming the view that to reach 90dB it must consume 2 Watts.

              [ATTACH]15503[/ATTACH]

              Chane's A2.4 was specifically designed to feature excellent axial uniformity, relatively high dynamic output (for a compact, affordable model) and to at the same time fulfill the audiophile's need for superb musicality, solid depth of bass (with Chane's convertible bass system to assist with integrating home theater subwoofers), extraordinary soundfield and imaging, and the option to build a perfectionist's matched 3-speaker front stage.

              *We are looking at a much larger center, our A6.4 concept, which will use four drivers in an asymmetrical vertical tweeter/midrange array, but it's main focus is higher output and not the extraordinary acoustical symmetry and multi-channel flexibility of our extremely popular A2.4. The A6.4 concept would also use a full-sized 5.25" dedicated midrange driver - at least two whole classes larger - to exactly match our extremely successful model A5.4 tower.

              Love my A2.4 center.

              Jon, the A6.4 sounds like a beast. Curious how that concept relates to the L6 line. Do you see an L6.4 line in your crystal ball? I originally thought the L line's higher output wouldn't support splitgap technology.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kabin View Post
                Love my A2.4 center.

                Jon, the A6.4 sounds like a beast. Curious how that concept relates to the L6 line. Do you see an L6.4 line in your crystal ball? I originally thought the L line's higher output wouldn't support splitgap technology.
                Good questions, kabin. If we make an A6.4 it'll have two 6.5" that do not need SplitGap - the added surface area plus the typical 80Hz highpass home theater crossover makes the extra excursion with its lower distortion fairly moot. The asymmetry of the WT/MW layout also means the A6.4 would be a horizontal, center-only model, confirming the 80Hz highpass.

                The L6, on the other hand, is also a twin 6.5"-based flat center but it uses a pair of 4.5" midranges. Acoustically the two are in the same class but the L definitely has the L's design points while the A6.4 would be aimed at matching the A5.4 floor speaker as completely as possible.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Great Information

                  Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post
                  Good questions, kabin. If we make an A6.4 it'll have two 6.5" that do not need SplitGap - the added surface area plus the typical 80Hz highpass home theater crossover makes the extra excursion with its lower distortion fairly moot. The asymmetry of the WT/MW layout also means the A6.4 would be a horizontal, center-only model, confirming the 80Hz highpass.

                  The L6, on the other hand, is also a twin 6.5"-based flat center but it uses a pair of 4.5" midranges. Acoustically the two are in the same class but the L definitely has the L's design points while the A6.4 would be aimed at matching the A5.4 floor speaker as completely as possible.
                  The A6.4 sounds impressive though I don't think the size of my current home theater space would demand that much speaker. You know what would go well with these new speakers? A subwoofer; something beefy and powerful with tight, controlled output. What would the model designation be for that....?:scratchchin::D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Center Channel Clarity

                    Now that it's hooked up I'm very glad I chose the A2.4 as my center channel. Dialogue is exceptionally clear and nothing sounds compressed. The last few speakers I've watched movies on (a Vizio soundbar and Orb speakers) lack the weight and fullness of this bigger, better model.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Aural Observation

                      The other night I was watching MMA (UFC). I'd think of that as the least aurally demanding form of media I consume using Chane speakers. Even so I was struck by the clarity of the announcer's voices and the varied textures I could hear as the fighters maneuvered around the cage striking one another. I could even discern more detail in the instructions shouted from the corners and the sounds coming from the live audience. I think the lion's share was coming out of the A2.4 but likely the A5.4s were contributing as well (I don't have my rear channels hooked up yet and I believe it wasn't a surround broadcast). Good stuff!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Vance View Post
                        ...(I don't have my rear channels hooked up yet and I believe it wasn't a surround broadcast). Good stuff!
                        Even if broadcast in stereo, the signal may have surround sound cues which could send specific audio to the surrounds. So set up those surround speakers and check it out. Surround sound is awesome, and even awesomer when implemented through capable Chane speakers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Surround Sound

                          Originally posted by gdstupak View Post
                          Even if broadcast in stereo, the signal may have surround sound cues which could send specific audio to the surrounds. So set up those surround speakers and check it out. Surround sound is awesome, and even awesomer when implemented through capable Chane speakers.
                          You're preaching to the converted. I love surround sound so much I won't watch a movie I think will have a good (or intriguing) sound design without it.

                          The thing is right now I'm in the process of changing TVs and haven't yet ruled out a projector so I don't want to drill holes in the wall and mount speakers until I have that sorted so I know where they should be.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X