No announcement yet.

The New Chane 700 Series

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by creimes77 View Post

    *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*.
    Yes, I was thinking this weekend was it but gawd knows nothing is certain with freight shipments these days.


    • Originally posted by kabin View Post
      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.
      Agreed. My last sentence at #333 was meant to distinguish between reproduced sound as a sensory experience and specific data evidence as academic abstracts.

      We should ask ourselves why we do this. If it's to hear it, naturally the best metric is another user's reliable, real experience.


      • Everyone's path is different that has led them to this website. I was looking for an improvement to the Visio sound bar currently in use to hear subtle dialogue in movies. The reintroduction to music was also an exciting possibility. I would be considered Lamen in this field at best. My wife considers me a procrastinator given my endless need for data prior to decision making. Aeronautical engineering background dictates it. Research led me here. For me, research is important but at some point, I have to lay trust in someone to provide what I need. I needed some proof of ability to provide quality at an affordable price. Independent reviews on the A series won me for quality. BTJ's review deserves not just an A, but graduation with honors. Giving the little guy a chance in the current environment was also a consideration. Passion was the deciding factor. Jon's passion to provide quality sound in various products while still providing answers to questions in the forum and juggling the endless issues of running a small business shows a passion and open honesty that means quality more than a statement from a corporation. The other factor that I feel is hard to quantify is artistry. While a good understanding of the science is necessary, an ability to create with specific objectives in focus is much more difficult to quantify. Perhaps I have drank the cool-aid, I'm willing to take that risk.

        As for delivery: My speakers arrived at the local shipping location Friday afternoon. I am scheduled for delivery on Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps I didn't provide sufficiently on Sunday when the plate was passed around or an ex girlfriend works in the shipping office!

        I look forward to hearing about the new discoveries everyone makes with their new acquisitions!


        • I picked up my 752s from the shipping dock on Saturday morning and can offer a few thoughts based on my limited listening. I'm not an audiophile but have spent the last 6-8 months trying to figure out what type of sound works for my preferences and in my room. I can't weigh-in on the measurement debate because frankly, I don't understand the data and more importantly for me - the only valid way I've found to get a gauge is to bring the speaker into my room and listen.

          Over this time, I've gone through many brands to explore what I enjoy: KEF, Chane, Wharfedale, Aperion, Martin Logan, and Triangle. The only thing I can say with confidence is that they all sounded different from each other in my room and I appreciated aspects of each one, helping me to hone in on what type of compromises were important for me. Because, at the end of the day, there is always some trade-off required.

          This won't be an in-depth review but some initial observations:
          • OMG! They're HUGE. I expected big, and knew the measurements and still didn't get it until I set them up. Be prepared!
          • The source makes a meaningful difference when heard on these, which suggests they are very detailed.
          • I was expecting them to be louder at the same default volume as my old DefTechs based on their efficiency. Didn't measure but while they didn't sound "louder" at same volume, they are absolutely smoother and cleaner at same volume. -45 on a Denon 4500 which is usually something like 50-60 dB when I have measured using old gear.
          • Voice clarity is fantastic
          • Movies are immersive and the sound stage feels robust
          • I didn't understand BTJ's review describing the "dark" sound but I think I get it now. These aren't "airy" like the 2.4's or the Martin Logan but they are clear and distinct
          • The tone seems very natural for drums and voices
          • I had to remove my banana plugs and use bare wire b/c the binding posts wouldn't accomodate my Monoprice plugs. Didn't have this problem with any other speaker (including the 2.4). Media Bridge plug as well as the adaptor plug from my Sonos Amp worked fine though.
          • Audio memory is fickle but I think the 2.4 threw sound wider and into the corners more so than these but the 752s have a very full/robust sound
          • Bass is excellent (currently set to 40Hz cross-over to my sub)
          The size though - yikes! My wife is not thrilled about this at all so prepare your significant others if needed - you've been warned.

          Hope this helps.


          • Thanks for review.
            Now I'm ascared!
            With regards to your observation about the "wider sound" from the 2.4s perhaps it's related to placement. I think the 752s might be a bit more sensative to that.
            Have you tried any variations in wall/corner distance and toe in?
            Just a thought. Mine arrive Wednesday.
            Again, thanks for the quick review.


            • Awesome observations mmhaskar!

              The size takes some time to get use to but my wife is pretty understanding. :)

              I agree with the noticeably narrower horn sound. When I'm listening to stereo music while standing, walking, or working in the space between listening positions and the horns I notice sound level drop off. I was expecting that as it's a horn directivity/dispersion trait when the listener moves off-center axis at nearer, call it, mid-field. On the other hand, they sound great at listening positions and the slightly more focused sound is available at distances across the great room space which wasn't the case with the A series.

              It's curious the 752's weren't noticeably louder. I was struck by the increased sound level immediately (unmeasured) between a2.4 and 752 centers during HT/tv programming so maybe it's again related to the horn's tighter beam width/dispersion?

              I agree with the banana plug fitment. I'm not worried they will fall out but they aren't as snug as they could be. Maybe my banana plug connectors are nonstandard?


              • Originally posted by kabin View Post
                Awesome observations mmhaskar!

                I agree with the banana plug fitment. I'm not worried they will fall out but they aren't as snug as they could be. Maybe my banana plug connectors are nonstandard?
                You can also loosen the binding posts and insert the bananas where you would the bare wire and tighten the binding posts back down, one really does not need to remove the banana ends from their cables.


                • Originally posted by Gerry View Post
                  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:

                  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.
                  Bottom Line: You still cannot look at ANY suite of measurements and use them as a direct analog for comparison. There is still zero replacement for just hearing them (and measuring them, if one desires) in one’s own space.

                  Spinorama included. I’ve heard MANY Revel and JBL products. You can look at all the curves you want, but there are several speakers just in the current Harman lineup that measure nearly identically, but they clearly and obviously sound different.

                  With the recent revelations of other ID brands taking, shall we say, “liberties” with their historical bodies of published product data, even less bench racing can be done.

                  If the recognition of these realities makes you uncomfortable, then by all means avoid Chane. No sarcasm. Just buy what makes you feel comfortable.

                  But pretending that looking at a chemistry print out is the same thing as actually tasting the wine.... that’s not real. That’s not a thing. Amplitude and phase differences, along with the FR curves and such.... you gotta listen. The enormous differences I heard between the F226 and F226be were huge and could not be attributed to the simple changes of the design on paper. It could not be attributed to measurements (they were nearly identical between them). But the significantly cleaner, more open, and textured behavior of the Be model above 4khz literally redefined the entire experience of that loudspeaker. You could nearly overlay their entire Spinorama suites.

                  As a full voting AES member, retired professional Audio engineer, early adopter of Lake Processing RTA use in live venues, etc etc..... there’s more to it than the numbers that are currently being measured.

                  With great respect and no sarcasm or judgement, if that’s not your thing, by all means you should buy stuff that makes you feel confident. 100%. KEF, Revel, JTR, Seaton, etc. But I’ve been involved deeply enough in Audio research to peer behind the behind the curtain.... the body of AES is not as homogeneous as you might think on the current codification of measurement data. There are *MANY* engineers behind the scenes and in private discussions that do not think the science of Audio is settled at all. These would be individuals deeply involved in scholarly and scientific research on these topics right now.

                  Is a predictable first reflection curve and corresponding on/off-axis response preferable in a general sense? Sure! Does this preference necessitate predicating the myriad of loudspeaker design choices on simply speaking to those flat lines? Hardly.

                  From crossover topology to driver selection to impedance management to phase angle tolerated to stored energy management within the crossover (which gets MUCH worse using steeper crossover slopes), to BSC, to crossover component selection, to cabinet size decisions and bass damping. Everything is a tradeoff. You want to use hard diaphragm drivers? Cool beans; the breakup in a truly nasty manner so you’ll need to cross them pretty hard with an LR4 style slope (or acoustical equivalent if there is an inductance rise that causes an inherent pivoted roll off). This means you have to live with the unavoidable phase rotation that occurs within the passband. And you have to ensure that the various poles in the crossover don’t interact in watts that cause regions of being overly damped or high Q ringing.

                  And, being a skeptic, I question things that I am told not to question. Such as the unimportance of phase performance across a speaker’s operating range. We’re told that is unimportant, but that a -3dB aberration at 45 degrees off axis IS. Could it be that they both matter? Could it be that certain design schools dismiss issues that they cannot fix as “unimportant”? Wouldn’t be the first time this error has been made.

                  I’ve spent a lot of time around actual degreed acousticians with respect to pro studio room treatment and structure design. When introduced to some currently popular research about reflection curves, these PhD’d scientists (most business owners for acoustical design) invariably develop the strangest looks on their faces. Most approximating a kind of palsy. They cannot seem to escape the assumptions made about rooms, absorption coefficients across the frequency spectrum for various common building materials and geometries, room dimensions, etc. The first question I get (and with heaps of sarcasm) is “WHAT room are you talking about to generate these reflectivity curves?????” Every room is very, VERY different. Different absorption coefficients across different materials at different frequencies. 12” stud spacing? 18”? What kind of drywall? What thickness? Paint and primer or a combined product? Are there any outlets in the wall? What is behind the wall? Air seal present in the room or do the leaks around the door act as an aperiodic vent to a larger space? They typically get to bill THOUSANDS of USD to diagnose current rooms and lots more to work with architects to build new recording/monitoring/mastering spaces. These professionals don’t happen to agree with lots of the current accepted Audio “science”, even as codified within AES. And all are fairly tenured AES members.

                  Their primary point being that obsessing over linear output across the frequency range when far off axis (outside the listening window) is really tilting at windmills when one can make no such guarantee across the hugely disparate reflectivity coefficients of normal household building materials. I.e. when your room is +/-30dB (or more) for absorption across the frequency spectrum, what effect do minor deviations in amplitude (especially when far off axis) really, actually have on in-room performance? Answer: not much.

                  Dynaudio has recently completed a massive Audio research facility and they are currently doing some amazing science there. KEF has also made significant investments in this area.
                  Last edited by BufordTJustice; 11-16-2020, 10:02 PM. Reason: For clarity


                  • Originally posted by kabin View Post
                    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.
                    That's worth highlighting (and it could be simple stereo mikes to credit). It's hard to retrieve but when it happens it's worth it.

                    (And at the risk of overdoing it, it doesn't appear in the graph work, and it isn't a function of the space or strictly of the speaker's spectral balance.)

                    While BTJ mentions rooms in the comment above this comment, I think he also had an experience recently where an unusual, expensive speaker produced an uncanny 3D experience in the same average room that demoed a few more modest speaker designs. Nothing in that expensive speaker would show evidence of this sound other than to the ear. I'm guessing listeners were even surprised to hear sound like that from a speaker like that.

                    I've experienced similar designs in the worst imaginable rooms and they too acoustically knocked the walls down. They're the reason we asked ourselves what the minimum cost of entry for a similar sound might be. 20 years later the 700 series is our first answer.


                    • Not wanting to hijack this thread but wanted to bring it to anyone's attention that I posted a question about Chane speakers for an upcoming HT build over in general discussion. 700 series is what I'm thinking but am certainly open to suggestion. Thanks.



                      • Folks, I'd like to add some context to what we're doing. If you've read this far down the thread, this is a perspective on how to view our various models. These remarks apply as much or more to the 700 series as our others, and some of this relates to standard setup and some relates to what's going on under the speaker's hood and how that interacts with your system, space, and experience.

                        All of our models have a very specific design goal. They share a lot of attributes. None of them are simple designs we're just twisting parts together for until they give some semblance of uniformity to either microphone or ear. We're going for a conscious, global design goal and then we're tuning each model extensively to find the most optimized version of it. Remember that there are thousands of variables in every multi-way speaker and our typical model undergoes tens or even hundreds of thousands of theoretical permutations. Our job is to find where we think the center point lies and produce it.

                        As we put a model through this process we strive to create a neutral design profile and a musical, engaging, realistic sound, the latter being primary after the former is established. That sounds vaguely like marketing but I'm referring to the range between the classically neutral "audiophile" design and the ramped-up, let-out, rising response some home theater designs go to. (That latter style may be thought to be objectively neutral but may need a subwoofer to balance it, creating a dished tonal response where strong external bass counteracts a brightened treble.)

                        In brief, we believe in authentic sound and we achieve our best form of it in a speaker that does not first subscribe to a forward or bright response profile. I'm happy to deviate from dead-flat tonal response too - because it's not primary to a good-sounding speaker - but we're also not making HT-oriented or HT-specific designs with dramatic, affected responses.

                        What we are doing, however, is optimizing a lot of things in the design, and that's what gives us what user remarks earlier in the thread point out.

                        That's all more abstract than the next part, which applies it to real use and setup. I wanted to point out that if you're depending on either what you think is an objectively flat amplitude response 1) you may not actually be getting it out in the general market and 2) there's far, far more to a musically neutral, accurate sound than just an amplitude function, even assuming it's actually as objectively flat as we may assume.

                        PS: Here's a partial list, some of it subjectively worded and some of it more commonly technical, of what enters into how these things work.

                        Acoustical size - little speakers aren't big speakers and vice versa.
                        Damping, transient response, stored energy, self-noise, etc. - the speaker is as much or more an acoustical on-off switch as it is a simple harmonic generator.
                        Fundamental highpass function, damping, and power behaviors - relating to where we set the fundamental efficiency of a complicated speaker, the acoustical foundation everything else is built on.
                        Distortion, type, and distribution - enormously variable in all related terms
                        Harmonic distribution - ditto
                        All pass, minimum phase, linear phase, and transient relationships - there are many, many ways to configure a multi-way speaker.
                        Time offset, group delay, step response, etc. - with that complexity and with the speaker being a switch comes how it all inter-relates.
                        Interdriver transfer function Q - somewhat like the fundamental highpass function, only here in the inter-driver behaviors.
                        Bandwidth - how high and how low and with what balance.
                        Intermodulation and distribution - involving acoustical size again and where in the band and to what degree.
                        Vertical symmetry - we already accept that asymmetrical vertical driver arrays cannot sum to flat but what does that sound like.
                        Excess power deviation and location / spatial uniformity - axial versus power field responses.

                        And finally - with this list already being incomplete - academic versus empirical, meaning technically ideal versus real sound in a real space.



                        • Let's talk about setup and use. This is much easier but it follows from the above. I don't review the models we make but I'll include some remarks that follow from the combination of design front end and your individual setup environments.

                          If you don't have one of our user guides, send an email and we'll send one back. In them we discuss the basics:

                          1. Set up the main stereo pair in your system in an approximately 3:4 to 4:5 ratio. For each three or four units between the speakers, place your MLP at four or five units from that baseline. If you can manage it, the triangle shouldn't be equilateral and it shouldn't be excessively narrow. Too wide and the image fragments and too narrow and it falls into a tunnel. Just right and with your speakers driven by a good-sounding system, and you'll get soundstaging out to twice the distance between the speakers with depth to ten or fifteen feet beyond the plane of the speakers. With good input. Remember that good speakers are chameleons.

                          2. Pull these main speakers out until there is at least 2' or even 3' from their face to the back wall. In my experience you cannot get either a tonally balanced or a properly dimensional sound with less. Get them into the room per standard audiophile practice - the same applies to most or virtually all free-standing speakers.

                          3. Experiment with toe angle. We design each model with a tunable feature where when the speakers are square to each other and square to the room they may be a little too dark and the focus diminished. Pointed right at you and they may be too bright and overly pulled into left and right audible sources. This is by design. Somewhere these two extremes, and when placed in a good triangle and given enough space to large boundaries and they'll open up and disappear. Systems and tastes may alter this angle.

                          4. Break your speakers in. Depending on model and internal tech they'll have varying amounts of mechanical greenness and some will take appreciable time to settle in while others may get there in a week or ten days of cumulative use.

                          5. Give yourself time to acclimate too, especially as you dial in these variables. If you really want the best, you'll want to give yourself the time and opportunity to get there. Don't short-change the process, and if you're coming from a more aggressively-tuned design, note that that contrast will evidence itself when you revert to it after a week or two with one of ours. This is especially true for the 700 models because they have a lot of useful headroom that smaller, cheaper speakers cannot match, and because they do not have the "always-on" sound in the treble of an average consumer brand dome tweeter. The treble system in the 700 model is far, far more capable and has a controlled directivity that doesn't constantly paint the space in treble artifacts. It's real treble.

                          Every model will, which goes back to the post above and the internal design basics that together with these setup essentials delivers what we're looking for. It's all parts of a whole.

                          From there, and after you've dialed things in, run room correction. While it's never a substitute for inherently solid initial wavelaunch from the speaker - which is our job - if you are sensitive or think you are sensitive to tonal, spectral or harmonic tilt, whatever you call it, simply make small, electronic adjustments to that balance to accommodate your individual interior space. Here again the 700 models, with their more theater-oriented set of attributes, may benefit from this, especially in the larger spaces they tend to make home.

                          Also, expect that average electronics naturally sound average. Very good electronics, typically separates, will work hand in glove with the above. Recordings will vary. And every little thing throughout the system, depending on your acuity, will affect the sound. Remember that we're not trying to add anything - excess highs to exaggerate apparent detail or excess presence to add artificial excitement. We want those aspects to come from the recording, which is why users commonly mention that they hear such differences across their libraries.

                          This is the wordier version of what we've published in our user guides for years. If you're looking for a genuinely optimized experience from a product we work to optimize in the first place, you should reap benefits. There's a big potential difference between a haphazard setup and one that you've adjusted for the benefit of real sound in your space. You've invested in it.


                          • Let's see some pics in the wild! And first impressions.
                            Sill love my 2.4s. They're fantastic as near field.


                            • Still experimenting with stand options and location of sub so please excuse the mess. There is a wall of beautiful sound with this setup and the bass response is stunning in my opinion. I will echo one of the setup tips from prior posts - room correction made a big difference in my space. For my setup, I'm waiting on some 18" stands to show up which keeps the three tweeters roughly at the same height and also close enough to ear height at MLP. Really pleased with these so far.


                              • Originally posted by mmhaskar View Post
                                Still experimenting with stand options and location of sub so please excuse the mess. There is a wall of beautiful sound with this setup and the bass response is stunning in my opinion. I will echo one of the setup tips from prior posts - room correction made a big difference in my space. For my setup, I'm waiting on some 18" stands to show up which keeps the three tweeters roughly at the same height and also close enough to ear height at MLP. Really pleased with these so far.
                                The two speakers near the ceiling are for front height atmos?