Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The New Chane 700 Series

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • That's good news! I'm looking forward to everyone's impressions.

    Comment


    • Jon, hopefully I can squeak a 740 question in before the rush of excited reviews.

      I can't recall, but did you say what tweeter style the 740 uses? I got the impression the 740 was too small for a horn. Any estimates on 740 dimensions/weight?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post

        Hopefully we'll even get a few user sound reports this weekend!
        I'll be living vicariously through everyone else's experiences. Mine won't be here until Wednesday.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kabin View Post
          Jon, hopefully I can squeak a 740 question in before the rush of excited reviews.

          I can't recall, but did you say what tweeter style the 740 uses? I got the impression the 740 was too small for a horn. Any estimates on 740 dimensions/weight?
          740s onwall speaker measures 330mm tall, 205mm wide, and 190mm deep without grille. A bass reflex port fires straight down through the bottom panel. 740s also uses a small aluminum horn and its design and tuning are right in line with the other two 700 models.

          740s does not have a production schedule yet, FYI.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chane M&C View Post

            Thanks mmhaskar. PRO numbers are PROgressive Numbers, which are tracking numbers. All but one of your customer accounts have been updated with these numbers as well as the contact point at your local shipping hub. Everything is in your account login, or you can contact us directly.

            All orders should have arrived or will arrive today. I base that on what we're told by the trucker, so I could be wrong. Again, check your account for the details and we're here by phone or email if you need anything more.

            Hopefully we'll even get a few user sound reports this weekend!

            I can almost bet I'm that one account haha, but I'm in Canada, so does this mean I'm the first Canadian to get the 753's :)

            Comment


            • This has probably already been answered, but I may have missed it. Things also change, so I’ll ask anyways.

              After this initial shipment of the 700 series, how long do we expect until round 2?

              I’m hoping someone is willing to take (and share) objective measurements. The lack of measurements has me worried, to be honest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gerry View Post
                This has probably already been answered, but I may have missed it. Things also change, so I’ll ask anyways.

                After this initial shipment of the 700 series, how long do we expect until round 2?

                I’m hoping someone is willing to take (and share) objective measurements. The lack of measurements has me worried, to be honest.
                Have a look at this post:
                https://forum.chanemusiccinema.com/f...e15#post116642

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gerry View Post
                  This has probably already been answered, but I may have missed it. Things also change, so I’ll ask anyways.

                  After this initial shipment of the 700 series, how long do we expect until round 2?

                  I’m hoping someone is willing to take (and share) objective measurements. The lack of measurements has me worried, to be honest.
                  Hi Gerry,

                  We'll know more about second production and subsequent production after that once we clear the first batches. It shouldn't be much longer before we know; probably within the next two weeks.

                  As for measurements, there's a long series of posts elsewhere in the forum on the problems with making assumptions about measured data. In short, they can't be mentally interpolated to real sound, they're deeply incomplete to gauge real sound by, they differ markedly by technique sometimes even to the point of irrelevance, and they can create a bad case of sighted bias. We always begin and end with measured data but we are perfectly willing to deviate from simple loudness linearity to get to better, more realistic, more authentic sound; sometimes hardly at all and sometimes significantly. I've yet to find any speaker design that sounds right when configured just by the microphone.

                  Frankly, like the great majority of brands we may not be the brand for the measurement-first ideology and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. There's far too much to a good speaker to predict its sound by a line on a chart and I can't say when - or even if - we'll turn toward marketing to the measurement mindset. I genuinely understand that it's a presumably valid instinct but with how it casually applies and infers from data, it's not been borne out to be sufficiently reliable or predictive in the field.

                  We're in the era of cheap, available data, and it naturally includes expectations and assumptions. I'm not slighting it at all; just using a 30-year perspective on where to use it and how it applies.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gerry View Post
                    I’m hoping someone is willing to take (and share) objective measurements. The lack of measurements has me worried, to be honest.
                    I'd like to add to what Jon said that even the leading guy/site in objective measurements, often deviates from pure data following his subjective listening tests. There have been numerous cases by now that measurements didn't come out impressive but he liked the sound. and vice versa This tells me something. His users hate when that happens, cause it breaks the 1+1=2 formula they were hoping measurements can provide.

                    Add that there are lots of different tastes and preferences for every thing. Some people like sharp highs, some like fuzzy midbass. I think leopard skin dresses look terrible but women still wear them :P
                    Last edited by wkrpic; 11-15-2020, 12:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • I had another one of those subjective 700 series experiences to share. The other evening we were watching a nature program on the Discovery channel where a bird chirped. It probably isn't something that would seem to be spectacular but it was. It was just a recording in nature but it sounded so clean and perfect. The realism was imaging the bird chirp along with the very brief delayed omnidirectional return from the surrounding tree canopy. It sounded like we were there under the trees with nature. I think I replayed it a half dozen times. There had to be multiple microphones placed near the bird to collect the environmental sounds so perfectly and the 700s were able to perfectly restore that sound. For me, it's all those little things like that make a speaker amazing.

                      Comment


                      • Honestly, this all just sounds very distracting. There seems to be more effort in not publishing objective measurements than to actually deliver them. Were these speakers designed, built, and tested without taking any measurements? If so, that’s alarming. If not, then what is there to hide?

                        I agree that some people may prefer some sound signatures to others, which may be all sorts of shapes and sizes, but that doesn’t discredit the validity of an objective measurement. For example, if someone knows that they enjoy the Chane A5.5 sound and can compare measurements between the A5.5 and the Chane 753, they’d be able to take an informed risk when buying the speakers, rather than a leap of faith. Whether or not dispersion characteristics are wide or narrow, frequency response is flat or curved, or cumulative spectral decay is lumpy doesn’t mean “good” or “bad”, it’s just a means of comparison.

                        All this anti-measurement rhetoric reminds me of something very familiar. There is a marketing company who so happens to also sell speakers. They go through great lengths to make it hard to compare their speakers to competitors’ products. Their speakers are also universally hated by audio enthusiasts. Here’s what they have to say about frequency response:

                        **** does not publish frequency specifications. The reason for this is that we believe that such statistics do not add very much to an understanding of an audio product's acoustic characteristics and, even worse, can be misleading. Audio manufacturers make these measurements independent of industry standards, and in varying conditions. Additionally, a single statistic is not a reliable measurement of a product's performance. One could, for instance, find a very expensive system with exactly the same specifications as a much less expensive system. On paper, the two would appear identical. The difference in performance, however, would be significant. A better approach, we feel, is to listen to the product.

                        Thank you for contacting **** Corporation.
                        But at least with this brand, you *can* listen to their product before purchasing. You can even purchase them and return them at zero cost to the purchaser, should they fail to meet expectations.

                        I apologize for sounding combative, but the combination of not publishing objective analysis and not allowing free returns makes this seem like there is a lack of quality control or confidence in the product. If one of those two things were reversed, it would be a different situation altogether.

                        Comment


                        • Gerry,

                          These purchases are not inexpensive and it's completely natural to want to predict or ensure that their acoustical output has some basis in what some call science, as abbreviated and limited as that usage very commonly is. Ideally we'd have an objective metric, as it's called, to verify the sound.

                          The problem is we do not. We have an abstract yardstick for some behaviors, none of which separately or together identify what the complex loudspeaker really sounds like.

                          We just can't cross between the acoustical, sensory domain and the intellectual, limited data domain. They're too different and I gave four valid reasons why so many companies might decline to use data to, whether intentionally or not, frame and present their products. I think it's actually unfair to a listener who has enough interest in the field to put real, experienced quality of sound before everything else, to interrupt it instead with abstracts. You have to hear the speaker. There are too many examples of average sound with excellent data and vice versa. Data use has become subjective.

                          An example: As tests sometimes I configure one speaker pair to two different design types. I reuse the same drivers, array, cabinet, and bass tuning in two different internal designs. The system is first designed to textbook standards then it's torn down and just the filter design is rebuilt to a different goal.

                          Given they're about as identical as two very similar speakers can be; the only place you can see the differences in data is in obscure reaches of secondary or tertiary behaviors. In other words, nobody would pick those differences from a complete data set and even if they could identify them there, neither set would be favored just by that data. There is no correlation between that data, in that place, and real sound.

                          The question is will they sound as similarly as they measure.

                          In some ways they do: Being nearly identical their acoustical size and class hasn't changed. Bass cutoff and damping is the same. Efficiency and sensitivity is the same, albeit with fairly minor changes to the speakers' impedance magnitudes. Driver dispersion hasn't changed. Treble extension is the same, and treble attenuation in the filter is virtually unchanged. They're as close as two speakers can be, physically sharing everything but filter type, without actually being identical. Same physical pair, two different setups.

                          We could leave the question unanswered as a thought experiment: Will they sound different? They are different, but how is sound affected? Judging by data how would we know without simply assuming it?

                          As a matter of common practice they do indeed sound different. One is mechanical, slower, more confined, dynamically less interesting, and has noticeably poorer image and sound stage, while losing tone color and increasing electronic grain. The other is better in those areas.

                          We just can't find those characteristics in the data, at least not in 1) casual data or 2) without having to make broad assumptions connecting that data to that sound. As it turns out the differences are real but we can't identify them.

                          It's like looking at race car lap telemetry and not knowing, at least without a lot of engineering experience, what to adjust to positively change it.

                          There's another thought experiment that follows, and it's probably the most important function in speaker design where neutral, natural, authentic sound is concerned. Where would you put the reference amplitude if you were to rely on data? Where would you arbitrarily put the line?

                          Given that there are probably ten thousand variations on just one set of drivers in just one acoustical alignment and cabinet, to which of all of those internal design types and which of all those thousands of traces would we assign musicality? It's not a trivial question but it's never addressed because it can't be.

                          Data is simply too abstract. And it's even less predictive. Industries may talk about what they can solve or demonstrate, but do they talk about what they cannot?

                          From there other assumptions arise about what eventually becomes a fruitless argument: What are you hiding. Reputable companies publish data and everybody else is inherently suspect. You sound defensive. No-data arguments are a diversion.

                          None of that follows from the prior points, and those points matter.

                          As for why a company making fifty or eighty pound products don't offer free shipping - although we flat-rate it - it's because delivery isn't free. No shipper delivers without cost and those costs absolutely accrue to the customer's price paid no matter how they're factored. Enormous Etailers may bend that curve as hard as possible but they're not offering specialty products like these and they too have to pay the drivers and buy the gas, every time.

                          These purchases are not inexpensive and it is completely natural to want to predict or ensure that their acoustical output has some basis in "objective science". We understand that. We also understand that we're not for everyone - like the next hundred brands - and that some folks will disagree with our position. If there were a way to comprehensively tie data to sound - and just as importantly, make all data technically universal, which it isn't - we'd be onboard. Until then listeners have only real world comparisons, while makers find it just as hard to justify your expense of trying six different models as they do not being able to provide predictive data.

                          Hopefully parties will understand these considerations and not misconstrue them as bad motive. The good news is that since audio is for hearing, audio for measuring is an academic matter we don't have to solve for everyone.

                          Comment


                          • Gerry

                            I am 61 and have been a speaker fan since i was 16. What is true in the past that is true today is that it does not matter what reviews and measurements say it how it sounds to you in your room. I cn have 2 speakers with almost identical measurements and one will be awesome to me and the other crap. I hear headphone and iem reviewers all the time talking about the harmon curve and they have 20 with the same curve and they all sound different. All you can do is listen to reviewers you trust who can give subjective info on how the image, depth of sound stage, if they are bright or warm. The only true measure is how they sound to you and to some degree sensitivity so you can get an estimate of efficiency and how much amp you realistically need to drive them,

                            Lets also be fair here Chane is not a huge speaker house. They are never going to have the funds of a harmon group or a PSB or BW. Testing in the chamber can get expensive and often needs to be done multiple times. Chane is not a Canadian company that has free access. Most of us are here because we have seen the success and value of the A series and even the value of the swans which Jon helped bring to this country, I wanted something next level and have been following the development of the L series since say 2014. I know Jons commitment to using great components and more importantly to tuning and matching them to each other and cabinet. I put more into the reviews from BTJ on the results and the sound than i do about a frequency response curve. Lets face with today's equipment and room correction you can make the curve what you want.. So most of use are here for the journey, the story and the faith in Jons capabilities. If you are uncomfortable with that its your right. There are hundreds of companies you can buy speakers from and if you need i can give you lists. I am here till I get my L's and have faith I will love them. If not I will sell them and move to the next dream.

                            Comment


                            • I would consider myself one of the ones that is more excited by the unknown than I am with the known when it comes to speakers, my last 4 purchases have been from internet direct companies, I'm done with the boxstore brands like Polk, Klipsch and the such and I'm not saying they are all bad but having owned many of them and owning the smaller less known companies I prefer the latter, way more value IMO, we are all different in this aspect. The gentleman I actually sold a pair of A5rx-c speakers to brought his 1970's Marantz integrated amp as that was what he need to hear them with as he has been using it for over 40 years and is very used to or accustomed to it's sound signature. Some need to play it safe and some are more adventurous maybe haha, not sure if that's the correct term but you know.

                              I can't wait to get these 753 in my room, I don't often worry too much on measurements but one thing that is important to me is sensitivity so one can at least have a better understanding on what would be considered sufficient power to properly amplify the speaker, even though from experience I am a firm believer in external amplification to yield the best results from a speaker, heck even my once owned Monitor Audio RX6 towers benefited from external amps compared to the Yamaha Receivers amplifier stage and at all volume levels not just when i turned things up.

                              *On a side note, has anyone else other than Kabin received their 752/753 speakers yet, mine can't ship yet so I need to live vicariously through others haha*.

                              Comment


                              • Of course small internet direct sales speaker companies are difficult if not impossible to compare to high production speaker companies. I would guess many of us waiting for the L/700 series have at least one previous Chane purchase and we feel more comfortable taking the leap on the next step-up in Chane performance but I can definitely understand wanting more info if I came in without that prior experience. At times it might even seem like some of us are shills but rest assured we pay full price for our Chane speakers and provide honest feedback whether good or bad. That's probably a necessity for online only internet direct businesses.

                                It's tough to be competitive when you don't build your own drivers and get bumped out of line when the big boys decide to use the same parts or use the same cabinet speaker builder. In the end it doesn't leave much profit margin so there isn't much flexibility to cover return shipment expense. Aside from shipping disasters, we can assume these monster speakers took a one way path to our homes as return freight shipment is prohibitively expensive unless you are a high quantity shipper with a negotiated discounted contract with a freight company.

                                For those getting cold feet, the next best bet might be waiting a little bit until more customers have them in-home and more feedback is available.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X