Canton Vento vs Chrono SL (models with ceramic tweeters)

Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Is there another thread being referenced or were there a bunch of posts deleted?
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Ninja
It does in room though. Fv15hp can sound better in a corner of the room where the psa xv15se didn’t. Or it could be other way around. Or it could be the same. Room dependent
Different subs the room doesn't play the same way, it's not due to the port per se but the design.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
So when I say things like I liked the fv18 better than cap2400 in my room and had better results it shouldn’t offend anyone. Just what I experienced and doesn’t take anything away from the jtr.
I don't think that would offend anyone! What offended people was your saying:
I even had more output at 10hz with fv18. Cap2400 was fun though but made some unpleasant noises at times and wasn’t nice enough looking to justify keeping.
You were asked:
You have any REW graphs to back that up?
Your response:
I knew that would be asked and I’ll look for them when I get a moment. Definitely the age we live in, if you don’t take a picture it never happened right? Lol
So you indicated you had measurements that proved the FV18 had more output than the Captivator. Most here would recognize that either you don't have such measurements or they were done in a totally bogus manner. You never again mentioned/presented your measurements and diverted the conversation away from low frequency output.
 
Last edited:
P

PENG

Audioholic Overlord
I agree it’s definitely my opinion, and some might like the denon or marantz better.
Good to know..

Yamahas all aluminum front plate with an avr that weighs over 40lbs and h frame design is similar to denon 4500?
This could be misleading to some readers. When comparing Yamaha's to Denon/Marantz's, how about compare their top models to top models, mid to mid and entry level to entry level, or at least compare corresponding models at similar price points (even just manufacturer's list price would be better than without any reference)?

The 4500 is great for some applications but is meant for using with small speakers or adding a power amp. I’d probably love the 8500 denon but it’s hard to buy something like the 4500 for so much money. I think at $549 it would be more interesting. The plastic front plate and small chip amp that turns into a space heater is worrisome.
The first part is mostly a matter of opinion. The part about "....small chip amp........." should not be stated as though it was a fact. To be clear, the Denon AVR-X4500H's amp section is not based on "chip amp", or "chip amps"

I tried to put mostly facts in there but had to give my opinion a little. Haha
I think it would be good that we all do, sometimes I have to go back and edit my posts after, when I realized I stated something incorrectly that may be misleading to others, again ymmv..
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Here we go again and nothing you just said matters and is your opinion. I don’t own the cap2400 and can’t go and test it. I don’t keep old rew graphs to show something that I experienced first hand. I did look and couldn’t find them and it didn’t matter to anyone at that time.

the jtr did make bad noises and wasn’t super impressed by it. Definitely a great sub but I wanted something better for me. I’ve even heard jtr cap4000 subs and was great when pushed but 99% of the time it wasn’t any better to me.

I doubt I bothered any jtr owners by my comments. They already know they aren’t the prettiest speakers and they have limits. Like anything

so congratulations you got me:p
I don't think "getting you" is the goal so much as it is separating fact from fantasy. I don't think it's too much to ask someone to provide evidence for a given statement...
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Wow. Lol.

Well, on this forum we actually care about stuff like facts and accuracy, so...
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
It is at the top of the page:



I have not seen anyone try to stop you from giving your opinion!
What I (and others) have done is looked at where you have given opinions about factual matters so as to correct them and highlight how readily you make false statements!
"The FV18 has more output than the Captivator 2400 at 10Hz" is specific, especially when you say you measured it (Josh Ricci measured Captivator 2400ULF at 101.8dB and the FV18 is 94dB).
If anyone else on this site said "the Denon 4500 has a chip amp" I would expect (and hope) they would also be corrected. If not corrected, your post would have spread misinformation - and it surely seems deliberate!

Simple question - if you knew better, why did you say the Denon has a chip amp?


There are far too many people that come to this site to learn to have people deliberately provide false information.
 
Last edited:
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Opinions aren’t allowed?
Opinions aren't allowed to be challenged?
Really hard to communicate completely through the written word. Without writing a 5000 word essay on how something works with factual proof.
And btw, one of us is typing up some pretty wordy replies and it ain't me. How about instead of all the verbal gymnastics you just post up some evidence for your claims? That'd take way less effort, less typing and be easier to read than your last few posts...
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
which one?
Well for starters this is just dead wrong.
just because a speaker is 2 way. 2.5 way. 3 way or even 4 way doesn’t mean it has to have one crossover point or even 3.
The number of crossover points is most definitely part of what determines the type of speaker it is. You're casually passing off inaccurate info and getting upset when someone questions it. There's other stuff I caught too, but this thread has grown long enough and your posts are on the wordy side so I don't wanna go back through and quote every single one.
Maybe you guys are better off without me here. Makes it easier to control without people having something real to add.
Maybe. Most of us here are adult enough to admit when we're wrong and can have mature disagreements without resorting to a victim pleas, disliking posts and personal jabs. There are plenty of other fish in the sea, right?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Here is the crossover from the Vento 820.2:

Vento XO.jpg


Here is the crossover from the Chrono SL-526.2 (unfortunately, I could not access through the woofer as I did with the Vento):
Chrono 526.2 1.jpg

As you can see, while some colors have changed, all visible part numbers are a match. The rest of the part numbers required a mirror.

Chrono 526.2 2.jpg

Using inspection mirror to push back fibersl

Chrono 526.2 3.jpg

I was trying to get a shot of a part number in the inspection mirror, but holding the flashlight and camera while keeping the mirror on target and getting the image in the mirror in focus proved impractical. However, I could read the numbers of all components on the board and they were a match.

It is disappointing that I do not have access to a Vento 826.2 (which has the trim rings) so I could determine whether or not the drivers are the same. However, usually the crossover is a pretty good indicator as you would not typically change drivers (other than cosmetics like the trim ring feature) without changing the crossover.
 
Last edited:
Trell

Trell

Senior Audioholic
I wasn’t taking anything personal at all. I was attacked personally way before I said anything. I just disagreed with the difference between two speakers.
...
You mean where he replied to a post by you (deleted just now) where you wrote

"seems like you’re on a mission to try and prove me wrong and you right."​

by

...
Sorry, I can understand why you feel that way, because I guess I am, if I am right!
However, if you are right, I'm on a mission to prove myself wrong!
So, you see, my mission is to find out what real differences there truly are!
That is a personal attack? Really?
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
You could technically do what ever you want with multiple drivers and layering xover many ways. You could have multiple mids dealing with different areas and can do the same with tweeters or even woofers. So when I said xover points varies and it can be done numerous ways I wasn’t wrong.
I can agree with this statement as reasonable; however, these designs depart from convention and would not properly be called a 2-way or 2.5-way, etc.
However, you said:
just because a speaker is 2 way. 2.5 way. 3 way or even 4 way doesn’t mean it has to have one crossover point or even 3.
And that is quite wrong.
Whether a speaker is 2-way, 2.5-way, 3-way (etc) is specific to the number of crossover points.
You might be interested in learning more about it, but instead you are interested in attempting to delete and rephrase your statements and claim that you were right. :rolleyes:
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
What the hell..? Did he go back through and delete a bunch of posts? Now that's just dishonest. Way to wreck thread continuity...
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Warlord
Side note: This thread shrunk by 2 pages that were all his posts... lolol.
 
Trell

Trell

Senior Audioholic
Canton typically percolate down technology from higher end speaker series after some time, and combine that with frequent refreshes it is not surprising that components are reused. I think I've earlier posted a picture from a review of a Vento speaker where the crossover was marked with the previous models number.
...
Found it where the Vento 836 using a crossover labled Vento 830.2, and now shown inline instead as an attachment:

 
John Parks

John Parks

Senior Audioholic
What the hell..? Did he go back through and delete a bunch of posts? Now that's just dishonest. Way to wreck thread continuity...
Darn it - this was the most entertaining (non-political) thread I have read in a long time!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Found it where the Vento 836 using a crossover labled Vento 830.2, and now shown inline instead as an attachment:

And to avoid any confusion, that crossover is very close. but not identical because it has a 7" woofer (the ones I posted were for 6").
@Trell I appreciate your making the point that the crossover stayed the same between the 830.2 and the later 836 models. I have speculated via PM with @snakeeyes that the Titanium woofer is likely a cosmetic rather than functional difference (it does look cool). The fact that they continued to use the same crossover with the new woofers seems to reinforce that (but is not definitive).
Aluminum is a great woofer material and it is difficult to understand what the translation from German to English means when they say:
titanium cone membranes are used in the midrange and woofer area
but I do wonder if "membranes" might mean "anodized".
As a tweeter material, aluminum can have some serious breakup issues in the audible range and the ceramic coating makes a substantial performance difference by pushing that break-up mode into frequencies well above 20kHz (as well as stiffening the dome to make it more pistonic)!
 
Last edited:
afterlife2

afterlife2

Audioholic Spartan
When did this train get off its track? Dang what a fun informative read. ;)
 

Latest posts


newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top