Cube Audio or Charney

I've heard both a Charney with Voxativ drivers and a Charney with AER drivers and the Cube Audio Nenuphar.  I much prefer either Charney speakers.  The bass and midbass are much more complete and rich sounding on the Charney speakers.  I like the Nenuphar speaker, but, in addition to the bass deficiency, it has a more prominent midrange peak that makes it sound more like typical fullrange systems than the Charney speakers.  The Charney speakers are amazingly "normal" sounding while retaining the liveliness and vivid qualities of full/extended range driver systems.

The AER driver, in particular sounds fantastic.  It has more extension at the top than the Voxativ and is very smooth for a full range driver.  In my opinion, it is a worthwhile upgrade.

At a fraction of the price of either, there is the Rethm Bhaava (full range driver with a built in powered woofer).  This is one of the better $3,000 speakers I've heard.

What you get, above all else, with high efficiency single driver systems is explosive dynamics, a vivid and lively sound that engages the listener.  But, that often comes with the tradeoff of frequency response peaks, un-natural tonal quality of instruments, bass deficiency and a "rough" sound.  Similar problems are common to horn-based systems as well.  I like the sound of these types of high efficiency systems enough to live with these trade-offs (I have a horn-based system).  The trick is to find designs that minimize the trade-off while still being able to deliver the goods.  What represents the best balance of trade-offs is a matter of taste.  To me, the Charney speakers are shockingly good because they do a great job of minimizing problems while still delivering the excitement. 

The Cube Audio speakers deliver the dynamics and are reasonably devoid of some of the extreme peaks I've heard with other full-range systems, but, they are not at all close to the Charney speakers in terms of tonal balance, smoothness, and suitability for all types of music.  They are also more efficient than the Cube Audio speakers, making them more suitable for use with very low-powered amps (my favorite kind).

I think anyone in the market for these types of speakers should hear both and make their own decision; certainly, they are both contenders.

David_ten,

I heard both the Charney Audio and Cube Audio speakers at the Capital Audiofest, although not in the same year.  I've heard the Charney speakers at two such shows, in both showings the company used a low-cost 300B SET amp.

At the latest Capital Audiofest, I heard the Cube Audio speakers with the 10" woofer.  I don't recall what electronics were being used, but, I believe it was solid state.  

I've heard quite a number of full range systems with drivers ranging from cheap Tangband drivers to systems with very costly Feastrix fieldcoil drivers and Western Electric fieldcoil drivers.  I've heard systems with Lowther drivers (permanent magnet and fieldcoil), Voxactiv systems, AER systems, Jensen fieldcoils, and a few others I don't recall the specifics.  For my taste, the Charney was the first fully satisfying single-driver system.  But, that is not to say that I didn't like what I heard from Cube Audio and Voxativ, and I can see how these two, and others, can be favored by someone over the Charney.

I've heard a number of systems that utilize fullrange drivers in multi-way systems and that approach can be quite satisfying.  I particularly liked a system with an old Jensen M10 fieldcoil fullrange driver (13" cone) and a simple high-pass first order crossover to a Jensen RP302 tweeter in an open baffle configuration.  

I really like the Charney speakers, and I also like the Nenuphar speaker too.  I don't think I can attribute what I like to the lack of a crossover, but, that certainly is a possible reason why they both sound so good.  I think I could live with the Charney, particularly with one of the better AER drivers in it.  

But, I own a three way system that, on balance, I like even more than either of the speakers mentioned above.  Yes, it costs far more than either speaker (the midrange horn/compression drivers alone cost more than either systems), and it is certainly not better in all respects and I can easily understand why someone would prefer either of the two models under discussion.  My system is 99 db/w efficient, so it has not suffered too much from loss of efficiency from having a crossover.  A friend has a three way horn system that is 107 db/w efficient.  A crossover does soak up some power, particularly if it is complex and it is used to correct phase/timing and to correct frequency response anomalies, but, utilizing drivers optimized for performing over a limited frequency range has its pluses.