AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I recently finished a few speaker reviews, one of the Chane A1rx-c's, one of the WaveCrest HVL-1's and decided to try an on-camera shootout between the two using my good stereo mic. Then I figured "if two is a crowd, three is a party" so I threw the extra set of Teac LS-H265's in the mix just to make things really hard. All 5" drivers, All two way ported boxes, Decent swing in cost and tech used but nothing insanely different or unfair.

I think my goal of showing off the strong and weak points came out pretty damn clear. The Tascam DR44 recorder performed admirably as well with only slight adjustments needed in post.

NOTE: This is 35 minutes long and I went hand-held so if you get sick easily DON'T watch fullscreen. Other than that, Set 720p and enjoy the sounds of budget speakers!:D

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I do my written's on the fly. The Chanes had the "worst" vocal representation of the bunch. When I say worst I mean understated against the others. The Wavecrests literally state that they are aimed at accurate midrange and the teac's are just warm in general so in that comparison they sound a bit cold and calculated. They did the low end (sub 80hz) stuff the cleanest but that also makes them the hardest to drive. WHICH makes that beautiful, detailed panel tweeter scream like a dying lamb when you turn it up (mostly in the best way that can happen). So for some music (pop, edm, compressed) the chanes stands out and for surround sound fronts or straight gaming fun they are winners. I'd take the softer more mid-focused wavecrests with a sub if you wanted a pure music setup and the teac's as a very close third for equal amounts of music and movie and gaming at the loss of max volume or flat response.

OR you could just watch the Chane and Wavecres only review if you like.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
I agree from the test in your video the Wavecrest did sound much fuller and the Chanes lacking in the mids. Given all three were being played a good distance from the rear wall, I would expect a front ported speaker to sound fuller over a rear ported speaker with no reinforcing surface behind it.

The reason I mention this is I just purchased the Chanes. I haven't made up my mind about them yet. One reason is they haven't been fully broken in. I first connected them to my living room system on a TV stand about 2' from the wall. To me they were too bassy requiring the use of the optional port plug. But I also didn't hear the lacking mids noted in your tests, so believe they are placement sensitive.

After a few days if put them on my main system in the family room with more air around them. I mix was much better with less pronounced low end, but still not lacking in the mids. I also note they don't draw attention to themselves and seem to disappear into the soundstage which to me denotes better than average imaging.

I do appreciate your mini shootout of affordable speakers, but don't feel you went far enough. You didn't state whether you adjusted the levels for the difference in efficiencies. More often than not, a louder speaker will always be perceived as better. In your test I didn't hear any comments on imaging or soundstage and depth, mostly just power handling and freq response accuracy. To most, those you feel would probably buy the TEACs, imaging and accuracy may not be that important. However to me and many others it does make a difference if I can place different elements within the soundstage, drums in the rear, singer front and center, guitar and bass on either side.

From as far as your test went, I can guess the Wavecrests would sound good and probably project a decent soundstage. I would also guess the TEACs would sound mushed, distorted and undefined. FYI their website stated their power handling as 125w "music power" and not sure if your stated 50w is RMS, or other. Although I haven't made up my mind on the Chanes, I believe your test did them some injustice from your setup. Try them again with some room reinforcement for the rear port and allow some break in. I would be interested to hear your comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I went over the setup where I described how I was switching speakers and leveling everything within 0.5db (C weighted) in another video as to not stretch this video out any further.

I also did my soundstage and imagine descriptions in the separate review videos although I should have repeated those assessments in this video. I go off the cuff in all my reviews so sometimes things do just fly out of my brain and end up under the fridge. Luckily that stuff can usually be added with a blurb of text in the description of the video or written out in post formVV.

Depth on the Chanes is good, great if you are off axis which is how I believe they are suppose to be used all the time. They also have the most defined center image of the bunch with almost artificial precision. The wavecrests image softer in the middle but that is not unwelcome. Depth improves with the close-ness of those speakers and I maintain the WC's are the best speakers for on-the-desk, near field use I have used in a long while. The Teac's on the other hand sound out of phase with their imaging (to the point I reversed the wires to check them) which sounds not "bad" but very different. They exaggerate almost all aspects of the sound field and that too can be a desirable trait if you have not reason to want stern accuracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Thanks for the update and explanation. Bayou location looks almost academic. Your profile doesn't suggest background. What is your experience/qualifications/background. You don't sound like just another enthusiast. You talk the talk.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
Thanks for the thoughts on the Chane A1rx-c, F12Bwth. You have an interesting style and the review format gives the viewer good hands-on experience. There's a real world element to this format that isn't present in standard text reviewing and I wish you well with it. I look forward to seeing more.

I would like to add some thoughts as well because a few important points stand out, most or all of which are addressed in our previous material on the Chane A1rx-c. (We have a dozen-plus page user guide that goes into intended use and best setup and it defines what the A1rx-c and its companion models are about.)

Frankly, the review format here is well suited to the desktop monitor, a condition I believe you tell the viewer and one clear from the review setups. The nearfield or desktop monitor is designed differently than the far field, main channel, and/or stand monitor is, which I'll go into.

The A1rx-c is decidedly not a nearfield desktop speaker, at least not as its primary, intended use. This starts to become clear just from its size, which is not exactly what folks gravitate to when adding compact audiophile 2.0 channel sound to small spaces. Scores of folks with sufficient room to situate a 12 or 14 liter cabinet certainly do use the A1rx-c as a fairly nearfield speaker, but as our user guide and general audio convention require, then need to treat the speaker accordingly.

In the nearfield, and on axis, the stand monitor is generally not going to acquire a number of the important setup features a main speaker simply needs to come into its design center.

1. Diffraction compensation. Notice how low the A1rx-c goes? In order to balance the bass wrapping around the cabinet with far more directional midrange and highs, a main speaker not designed for boundary reinforcement includes its own equalization. The A1rx-c is no exception. None of these stand monitor or main channel speaker types really like excess wall proximity, floor or desktop reinforcement, and they especially disagree with use in a baffle, like flanking them with lots of furniture or boxes. The stand monitor really wants to see some fairly open space so its design tuning can reach its center.

2. Axial alignment. Also discussed in our user guide, the stand monitor requires that toe angle be adjusted. Too closely focused at the listener, and the sound brightens while the image suffers. Too broad an axis, such as square to each other, and the soundstage fragments and the speaker dulls and loses its balance above roughly 1500Hz. Speaker toe is an important user tuning aid and has been for about as long as the speaker type has existed. Rooms will have a significant effect too, so use toe as in-room EQ before you try any other type.

We strongly advise that in the classic 3:4 listener triangle, the A1rx-c be rotated in about halfway between square and pointed at the listener. My experience over the past decades confirms that this is fairly conventional for the stand monitor class. Speakers generally come into their own when you find this sweet zone and when you do, that start disappearing.

3. Flat response and rooms. Design philosophies vary, and even if they didn't, most designers will make fairly radical adjustments between near-field and far-field, in-room intended uses. While the use of a textbook flat response can be initially compelling, the effects of the room, of flight length on frequency response, and of axial adjustments will alter what happens at the listener versus what's measured at any one arbitrary point in space. I'll come back to this in another post.

4. Ports and their loading (which is less germane to these reviews but relevant for users). Ports are tuned to replace cone motion at one central very low frequency with air motion in the port itself. At the tuned frequency the port and cone operate in phase to lower distortion, raise bass output, and increase bass efficiency. Bass reflex tuning imparts a cost, however, which is that once it is exceeded on the low end, bass response falls at roughly double the rate of the sealed equivalent. The port does not need a lot of air or space to operate as intended, The port on the back therefore adds no penalty for fairly close spacing to a wall, and any location capable of allowing the stand monitor, in this case, to work and sound as intended is more than enough space for the port to work too. The A1rx-c's port is on the back simply to minimize what's really just a hole in the box at midrange frequencies from bleeding internal midrange into the main signal.

5. Efficiency, loudness, impedance, and bass cutoff. The A1rx-c is a true 8 ohm speaker. At any given volume setting on any capable modern amplifier it will play softer than it would if it were a 4 or even a 6 ohm speaker. This is not strictly an inefficiency, but reflects the amplifier's output into the higher impedance, among other things - the amplifier's initially lower power output into the higher impedance simply asks for a simple adjustment in gain, which for any one amplifier is to say, in volume control setting.

Bass response also factors heavily into a speakers efficiency. With the Chane A1rx-c's obviously deep response, even its large net internal volume may not recover more efficiency or loudness, especially with the diffraction step compensation applied, as noted above. That large internal volume may go entirely to the extended bass, and give us no net change in efficiency. As they say, your results may vary across any dozen different speakers because they're all juggling bass extension, bass damping, enclosure size, efficiency, and driver area.

6. Convertible design. Some speakers can be converted to a closed box system by simply stopping their ports. The bass will roll out maybe an octave higher, but can do so at roughly half the rate. The result is a speaker more friendly with subwoofers, with close boundaries, and with lots of nearby furniture. We discuss this in the user guide too. Try it.

I'll post some other facts and observations a little later, including examples of how responses are both calculated for and influenced by the speaker's use in its environment.

Every speaker will "like" a best setting and setup, and in the case of the A1rx-c, it's as a stand monitor. A lot of them are used in a lot of other applications, but users generally apply the same rules they would for any fullrange monitor as they adapt its use.

Great reviews and thanks again for the service to the viewer. A lot of work goes into these reviews and my hat's off to anyone for having that much dedication and talent. Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,498 Posts
Would have liked to have seen the HTD Level 3s in the mix as well! Two equally priced ribbons going head to head?

Compliments on the review.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Thanks for the update and explanation. Bayou location looks almost academic. Your profile doesn't suggest background. What is your experience/qualifications/background. You don't sound like just another enthusiast. You talk the talk.
Worked with my father years back on some larger commercial installations (bowling alley's and churches) and did a few private residences done up with audio/video before I got a degree in Computer networking (which is a depressing job and I hope anyone reading this line has a full and rich life outside the soul crushing, unappreciated 99.9999% uptime). I really started this journey as a hobby but mostly just wanted to steer people away from the bad decisions like plastic Logitech speakers and Soundbars and Home theater's in a box. That took me to reddit where I spend most of my day and eventually the dedicated reviews on youtube. Now that brings me here a few years later with something I am pretty certain is unique as far as comparisons go. I have avoided major forums since I didn't WANT know everything and I think my subscriptions appreciated a semi-laymen's explanation of things but now I don't think I need to talk down to people like they just figured out bose is not a good brand and beats are overpriced. I can get messy with details which people like Jon below are absolutely willing to dish out on a place like this.

You should pick up the RBH r5 bookshelf to throw in the mix
They are on my short list. I think I messaged them for demo units but got no response. I will have to try again.

Thanks for the thoughts on the Chane A1rx-c,

Great reviews and thanks again for the service to the viewer. A lot of work goes into these reviews and my hat's off to anyone for having that much dedication and talent. Thank you.
I appreciate the chance to to throw my unique style at the chanes. I think from the initial private messages and video comments I have received on the individual video and this three-way comparison that people are equally interested in all the speakers which is what I was hoping for. I maintain the Chanes are the right choice for a big room with home theater applications in mind (and also the one my pretty female neighbor that has seen them said they looked the best because of "the pattern" on the front ?.?.? ) so my thoughts that the WAF would be low on them was incorrect apparently.

As for the actual setup of the comparison there is absolutely and obviously some improvements that can be made and I invite all of AVSforums to go into detail on how they think something like this could be better performed in the future. Would a few inches between speakers have helped or would a shuffling of the speakers been beneficial putting some on the outside that were inside etc etc. I do plan on adding some SOME acoustical treatments to the room and possibly a bass trap or two in the corners but that is a factor that has to be discussed with my current room-mate.


Posting this video here is sort of my way of accepting entrance into the big leagues of reviewing and I want to up my game for the next season. Batter's up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,486 Posts
I invite all of AVSforums to go into detail on how they think something like this could be better performed in the future.
Ship all pairs directly to me for further investigation :D If you were close I'd lend you my r5's. They're a very solid bookshelf for the money. It's actually really weird how low priced they are when you hear them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,019 Posts
I recently finished a few speaker reviews, one of the Chane A1rx-c's, one of the WaveCrest HVL-1's and decided to try an on-camera shootout between the two using my good stereo mic. Then I figured "if two is a crowd, three is a party" so I threw the extra set of Teac LS-H265's in the mix just to make things really hard. All 5" drivers, All two way ported boxes, Decent swing in cost and tech used but nothing insanely different or unfair.

I think my goal of showing off the strong and weak points came out pretty damn clear. The Tascam DR44 recorder performed admirably as well with only slight adjustments needed in post.

NOTE: This is 35 minutes long and I went hand-held so if you get sick easily DON'T watch fullscreen. Other than that, Set 720p and enjoy the sounds of budget speakers!:D
It's good to see you on the forum.

Thank you very much for the individual reviews of the speakers, as well as the shootout. As Jon mentioned, it takes a lot of work...and you see that it is appreciated.

We think your thoughts reinforce what we wanted to accomplish with the HVL-1, and that was to provide great sound from a well rounded, versatile, easy to use speaker, and to make it accessible to those on a budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,542 Posts
An interesting review and thanks for it.

However in the end all reviews are subjective, and I never put
all my eggs in one basket for my decision making.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,019 Posts
Those are in a higher price bracket so maybe a different shootout in that class?
That's a good question.

In my opinion, the value proposition is very convoluted in the audio world. So separate comparisons based on price, most times, do not give much value information to the customer/reader.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,572 Posts
Great review, your videos are very entertaining. I listen to a lot of the "smooth jazz" genre and I will say the HVL-1's sound amazing with it. In my opinion, for the most part, smooth jazz recordings are of high quality and a good judge of a speakers strengths and weaknesses. The only "weakness" in the HVL's is with bad recordings, but in my case, I could care less about that.


As far as HT goes, as you stated in the review the HVL's are excellent at reproducing dialog / vocals. I will also add that running them "small" and crossed over at 80hz with a good subwoofer, they sound very dynamic and are an easy load for any decent AV receiver. In this fashion, the HVL's will play very loud and distortion free.


Keep up the great reviews!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
That's a good question.

In my opinion, the value proposition is very convoluted in the audio world. So separate comparisons based on price, most times, do not give much value information to the customer/reader.

Not sure I understand your logic. If I have X amount of dollars to spend knowing what is available in that price range and how they compare would be incredibly valuable information would it not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,019 Posts
Not sure I understand your logic. If I have X amount of dollars to spend knowing what is available in that price range and how they compare would be incredibly valuable information would it not?
I think we are saying the same thing.

There a $300 speakers that are better than $500 speakesr, but if you separate them by cost, you'll never know how the two compare, and if the $500 speaker is any better.

Do you want to spend $500 when the $300 speaker is better for you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
I think we are saying the same thing.

There a $300 speakers that are better than $500 speakesr, but if you separate them by cost, you'll never know how the two compare, and if the $500 speaker is any better.

Do you want to spend $500 when the $300 speaker is better for you?
Gotcha. In that case though, I think that there are so many speakers out there that trying to compare without some way of stratifying your test becomes unwieldy. Perhaps separating by cost then pitting the best of each class against each other. It becomes an issue too because speakers are, of all components, the most subjective and (until you get to the very expensive) the least accurate piece of equipment.

I've always found it a bit disappointing that the most expensive part of a good system is also, on the whole, the most likely to be inaccurate. With my current setup,I have now spent more on speakers than I ever have in over 35 years of this hobby and what I have is best considered entry level speakers.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top