No announcement yet.

Chane and Emotiva Airmotiv?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chane and Emotiva Airmotiv?

    Has anybody had a chance to listen to both Chane and the Emotiva Airmotive speakers? Ideally at the same time or in the same room. I'm not asking which is better, just what are some differences people have noticed. They seem to be very similar concepts.

    I'm specifically looking at the Chane 1.4 and Airmotiv B1, but any info is appreciated.


  • #2
    That's a good question, and I would like to know this as well. If you go by weight alone, then the Chanes wins!:D


    • #3
      Emotiva came out with their new T2 towers and C2 center :eek: I wonder how they sound compared to Chane's A5rx-c and A2rx-c. :)


      • #4
        The emotiva's look to be 4 ohms vs chane's 6ohms (A5) or 4 ohms (A1)
        So they may not be as easy to drive. They do look to have a slightly higher response range than the older A1/A5s..(up to 25khz whereas emotiva is at 28khz) and the emotiva's look like they might go lower... to 35hz... but I kind of question that.

        that said the current A1.4 / A2.4 look to be superior. (going up to 31.5khz)

        (I only have the older A1B, A2rxc and ARX A5s as a reference though).

        also the emotiva's design is kinda fugly for the living room IMHO.

        I don't know enough to be able to compare the planar tweeter vs AMT or the woofers they use vs the ones used on the ARX on technical merits although IMHO the split-gap woofers ought to play louder without distortion.. and the emotiva's woofers don't appear to be anything special.


        • #5
          Non issue since we don't hear that high. Just remember that what is important is how the sound in your room. Always make sure you can return them once you get a good listen to them. Best to compare them at the same time, then keep the ones you like the best. There is so much more to great speakers that specs! Jon knows that better than anybody.


          • #6
            Any other insight on Chane vs Emotiva?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Torque View Post
              Any other insight on Chane vs Emotiva?
              Without disparaging a competitor, the drivers and cabinet quality (in acoustic terms) of the Emotiva lag behind the Chanes.

              The AMT tweeter, though it appears to be similar in layout, functions on an entirely different principle than the Chane Magnetic Planar. I've heard truly excellent German-made versions of AMTs and many sub-par units from the far east (which is most of them).

              And, nobody is licensing XBL2/SplitGap tech, or anything comparable to it, at this price point.

              The closest analog I've found is the Martin Logan Motion 60XT tower or Motion 35XT bookshelf. Sounded similar to the A5s/A2.4's/A1.4's, but only at lower to moderate volume levels. Due to the manner in which most AMT's are driven (and to the magnetic field strength/saturation in the gap, or lack thereof), the diaphragm is not controlled as tightly at higher output levels as compared to a magnetic planar (or even many dome/ring-radiator drivers). This flat derivation of the original AMT "butterfly" magnet design is also not uniformly driven across its face (Heil admits this in the original AMT patents). Even the original enormous "butterfly" AMT design wasn't 100% uniformly driven (with this weakness being harnessed to control horizontal directivity and off-axis performance), but the "flattened" versions that came later are significantly different and require large N48-N52 neodymium bar magnets along the sides in order to adequately saturate the film in the gap. German sourced AMT style drivers, as commonly found now, are essentially lined with these large neo magnets on either side. This coupled with very large diaphragms in the vertical domain (which helps broadband distortion but harms frequency response above 10khz) and I think one begins to see the inherent tradeoffs in such a design.

              The limitations of the current "AMT style" tweeter drivers means that the soundstage and imaging tend to collapse toward the center (and compress front-to-back) as volume rises. Also, some sibilant cues will begin to emerge from undamped resonances and other sources (inadequately damped rear chambers?) as spl increases. This sibilance, ragged response, and listener fatigue has been reported in several prior GoldenEar Tech models by their owners (and even a few driver failures). And GE makes high quality speakers, mind you. It's just an unavoidable tradeoff. Only time I haven't heard these issues in an AMT was in some Legacy models and they source some very expensive German-made AMT drivers last I checked. But those German-sourced AMT's were very large and used a TON of neo magnets. I hesitate to guess at the unit price for those...several hundred each, I'd imagine. But that's what it costs to rectify the issues highlighted above. There's no shortcut.

              The other ML Motion Series models utilize a smaller AMT style tweeter that is even less capable and for that I would not call it an analog for a Chane product.

              But, those are the closest that I could advise which you could demo at a local Best Buy Magnolia Store. Truthfully, the A5rx-c (and certainly even more so the A5.4) provide better texture, imaging (width, height, and depth), slightly less dynamic-compression in the bass region, and slightly better bass control than the Motion 60XT towers. Increase volume to approach reference level and the differences are magnified. The 60XT's go for $2995/pair at retail, as a data point.
              Last edited by BufordTJustice; 06-25-2018, 04:28 PM.


              • #8
                I heard some cheaper Martin Logans and was not blown away at all by the sound. I was comparing them to a pair of B/W speakers and I preferred the B/Ws but Chane's I believe are on another level all together.