Foreword / YouTube Video Review
These speakers were loaned to me to review by a viewer who purchased them directly from Chesky Audio. I was not paid nor did I receive any other form of compensation for this review.
All my reviews are done on my own time with great care to give you all the best set of data and information I can provide in order to help you make a well-informed purchase decision. I offer this for free to all who are interested. In return, if you want to support this site please see the bottom of this review for ways you can help. It is greatly appreciated.
The review on this website is a brief overview and summary of the objective performance of this speaker. It is not intended to be a deep dive. Moreso, this is information for those who prefer “just the facts” and prefer to have the data without the filler. The video below has more discussion with respect to the technical merits and subjective notes I had during my listening sessions.
- Wide-dispersion 1” dome tweeter surrounded by tessellation diffraction control technology
- High-resolution 6.5” bass/midrange driver with polypropylene cone.
- Dual inertially balanced 8-inch fluid coupled subwoofers for robust, extended deep bass
- Breakthrough technology multi-layer high-mass non-resonant cabinet.
- Frequency Response: 50Hz - 20kHz, catering to a wide spectrum of sounds
- High-end audiophile internal wiring
- Passive Hardwired silver soldered precision crossover with High Quality film capacitors.
- Sensitivity 86 dB at 2.83V/1m
- Weight: 18 Pounds
- Measurements: 10"depth x 8” width x 10” height (inches)
- Built by hand in the USA to exacting standards
- Warranty: 1-year coverage on all parts
As of this writing MSRP is approximately $996/pair.
CTA-2034 (SPINORAMA) and Accompanying Data
All data collected using Klippel’s Near-Field Scanner. The Near-Field-Scanner 3D (NFS) offers a fully automated acoustic measurement of direct sound radiated from the source under test. The radiated sound is determined in any desired distance and angle in the 3D space outside the scanning surface. Directivity, sound power, SPL response and many more key figures are obtained for any kind of loudspeaker and audio system in near field applications (e.g. studio monitors, mobile devices) as well as far field applications (e.g. professional audio systems). Utilizing a minimum of measurement points, a comprehensive data set is generated containing the loudspeaker’s high resolution, free field sound radiation in the near and far field. For a detailed explanation of how the NFS works and the science behind it, please watch the below discussion with designer Christian Bellmann:
IMPORTANT SETUP INFO: This speaker was measured with the reference point at the tweeter. Speaker was broken in. No grille was used.
Measurements are provided in a format in accordance with the Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers (ANSI/CTA-2034-A R-2020). For more information, please see this link.
CTA-2034 / SPINORAMA:
The On-axis Frequency Response (0°) is the universal starting point and in many situations it is a fair representation of the first sound to arrive at a listener’s ears.
The Listening Window is a spatial average of the nine amplitude responses in the ±10º vertical and ±30º horizontal angular range. This encompasses those listeners who sit within a typical home theater audience, as well as those who disregard the normal rules when listening alone.
The Early Reflections curve is an estimate of all single-bounce, first-reflections, in a typical listening room.
Sound Power represents all of the sounds arriving at the listening position after any number of reflections from any direction. It is the weighted rms average of all 70 measurements, with individual measurements weighted according to the portion of the spherical surface that they represent.
Sound Power Directivity Index (SPDI): In this standard the SPDI is defined as the difference between the listening window curve and the sound power curve.
Early Reflections Directivity Index (EPDI): is defined as the difference between the listening window curve and the early reflections curve. In small rooms, early reflections figure prominently in what is measured and heard in the room so this curve may provide insights into potential sound quality.
Early Reflections Breakout:
Floor bounce: average of 20º, 30º, 40º down
Ceiling bounce: average of 40º, 50º, 60º up
Front wall bounce: average of 0º, ± 10º, ± 20º, ± 30º horizontal
Side wall bounces: average of ± 40º, ± 50º, ± 60º, ± 70º, ± 80º horizontal
Rear wall bounces: average of 180º, ± 90º horizontal
Estimated In-Room Response:
In theory, with complete 360-degree anechoic data on a loudspeaker and sufficient acoustical and geometrical data on the listening room and its layout it would be possible to estimate with good precision what would be measured by an omnidirectional microphone located in the listening area of that room. By making some simplifying assumptions about the listening space, the data set described above permits a usefully accurate preview of how a given loudspeaker might perform in a typical domestic listening room. Obviously, there are no guarantees, because individual rooms can be acoustically aberrant. Sometimes rooms are excessively reflective (“live”) as happens in certain hot, humid climates, with certain styles of interior décor and in under-furnished rooms. Sometimes rooms are excessively “dead” as in other styles of décor and in some custom home theaters where acoustical treatment has been used excessively. This form of post processing is offered only as an estimate of what might happen in a domestic living space with carpet on the floor and a “normal” amount of seating, drapes and cabinetry.
For these limited circumstances it has been found that a usefully accurate Predicted In-Room (PIR) amplitude response, also known as a “room curve” is obtained by a weighted average consisting of 12 % listening window, 44 % early reflections and 44 % sound power. At very high frequencies errors can creep in because of excessive absorption, microphone directivity, and room geometry. These discrepancies are not considered to be of great importance.
Horizontal Contour Plot (normalized):
Vertical Contour Plot (normalized):
Additional Measurements
Impedance
Response Linearity
Horizontal Frequency Response:
Vertical Frequency Response:
Step Response
Standard anechoic for sample 1:
Gated Step Response Comparison:
Nearfield Driver Measurements
Standard anechoic for sample 1:
Group Delay
Burst Decay
This data is full anechoic where most spectral decay type graphics are created using quasi-anechoic data. For more information on the differences between Burst Decay and Cumulative Spectral Decay (CSD) graphics please see Section 6.5 of the ARTA User Manual linked below. I would like to extend a professional "thank you" to Ivo Mateljan for this software.
Harmonic Distortion
Harmonic Distortion at 86dB @ 1m:
Harmonic Distortion at 96dB @ 1m:
Dynamic Range (Instantaneous Compression Test)
The below graphic indicates just how much SPL is lost (compression) or gained (enhancement; usually due to distortion) when the speaker is played at higher output volumes instantly via a 2.7 second logarithmic sine sweep referenced to 76dB at 1 meter. The signals are played consecutively without any additional stimulus applied. Then normalized against the 76dB result.
The tests are conducted in this fashion:
- 76dB at 1 meter (baseline; black)
- 86dB at 1 meter (red)
- 96dB at 1 meter (blue)
- 102dB at 1 meter (purple)
The purpose of this test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) instantaneously.
Multitone Distortion
The following tests are conducted at (4) approximate equivalent output volumes: 70/79/87/96dB @ 1 meter. The (4) voltages listed in the legend result in these SPL values. This test signal is dense, similar to pink noise and excites the entire spectrums listed below at the same time. The test signal lasts 30 seconds. This is different than the sine wave test signal used to measure frequency response. The purpose of this distortion and compression test is to illustrate how much (if at all) the output changes as a speaker’s components temperature increases (i.e., voice coils, crossover components) over time.
Given the test signal is similar to pink noise and exciting the entire spectrum at the same time I also include compression results, which is captured at the same time distortion is captured. Sometimes these results differ from the compression results you see above (namely with powered designs incorporating DSP-based limiting).
Note: The KLIPPEL software shows compression in the positive scale.
The test was conducted in (3) manners:
- Full bandwidth (20Hz to 20kHz)
- 80Hz to 20kHz
The reason for the two measurements is to simulate running the speaker full range vs using a high-pass filter at 80Hz. However, note: the 2nd test low frequency limit at 80Hz is a “brick wall” and doesn’t quite emulate a standard filter of 12 or 24dB/octave. But… it’s close enough to illustrate the point.
- Full bandwidth (20Hz to 20kHz)
- 80Hz to 20kHz
Parting / Random Thoughts
See video linked above for full subjective and objective analysis. An AI-generated summarized transcript is provided below:
- Overview
- Review of the Chesy Audio LC1, a ~$996/pair bookshelf speaker
- Loaned by an owner, not sponsored by the manufacturer
- Speaker features include:
- 1” dome tweeter with “tessellation diffraction control”
- 6.5” polypropylene mid-woofer
- Dual 8” passive radiators
- First-order crossover using film capacitors and silver solder
- Specified sensitivity: 86 dB (measured: ~81.4 dB)
- Claimed frequency response: 50 Hz – 20 kHz
- Build & Design Notes
- Build quality internally is solid; crossover appears to use first-order slopes with a Zobel network
- Aesthetic flaw noted: visible gap around the tweeter cutout
- Passive radiators installed on the sides
- Cabinet described as “multi-layer high-mass non-resonant”
- Listening Impressions
- Overall subjective impressions were poor:
- Sounded dull, hollow, and flat
- Vocals (male/female) sounded thin, recessed, and lacked weight
- Soundstage lacked center focus even after repositioning (attributed to pair-matching concerns)
- Bass was virtually non-existent until pushed against a wall — even then, it was limited
- Specific tracks used:
- Michael Jackson – Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’
- Shaker stood out but hand claps were dull
- Vocal lacked body; background click was recessed
- Norah Jones – Chasing Pirates
- Center focus not achieved; background vocals grainy
- Norah Jones – Waiting
- Lacked air and low-end room-fill; dull upper range
- Michael Jackson – Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’
- Overall subjective impressions were poor:
- Setup Recommendations
- Position close to a wall to gain some lower midrange/bass reinforcement
- Aim directly at the listener
- Be cautious of excess 100 Hz region due to rapid bass rolloff
- Data & Measurements (All from Klippel NFS)
- Frequency Response
- F3: 71 Hz
- F10: 49 Hz
- Sharp rolloff below 100 Hz
- Dip in midrange (~300–700 Hz) explains weak vocals
- Rising upper midrange region (~1.5–3 kHz) can sound forward but unbalanced
- Average sensitivity: ~81.4 dB
- In-Room Response Estimate
- Accurately matches subjective impressions — recessed mids, rising 100 Hz bump, weak bass extension
- Dip and rise pattern creates uneven tonal balance
- Spinorama (CTA-2034)
- Poor linearity
- Sample mismatch between L/R speakers; likely cause of poor imaging and focus
- Blue (early reflections) and red (sound power) plots highlight dips in midrange
- Burst Decay
- Looks okay — no severe ringing
- Horizontal Dispersion
- Wide (±60–70°), but narrows rapidly with frequency
- HF beaming limits room interaction
- Vertical Dispersion
- Severe lobing and cancellation just below tweeter axis — likely due to first-order crossover overlap
- Must be listened to on or slightly above tweeter axis
- Distortion
- 86 dB: Relatively clean, but midrange cone edge/surround resonance appears
- 96 dB: Distortion increases, particularly in lower mids
- Multi-tone distortion shows cone edge resonance
- Crossing over at 80 Hz with sub lowers midrange distortion only slightly
- Compression
- Long-term SPL max: ~95 dB
- Instantaneous dynamic range ~20 dB
- Not ideal for dynamic or high-output listening
- Impedance & Resonance
- Min impedance: 8.4 ohm; EPDR: 5.4 ohm — easy to drive
- Impedance trace shows resonances at ~300, ~700, and ~1,000 Hz
- Frequency Response
- Issues Identified
- Sample mismatch — L/R response discrepancies hinder imaging
- Concerns over parts quality/consistency yielding differing speaker responses
- Midrange dip and HF imbalance make for inconsistent tonality
- Bass rolls off too early — subwoofer required for full-range use
- Crossover lobing creates poor vertical consistency
- Marketing claims (e.g., “tessellation diffraction”) read as audiophile fluff
- Passive radiator system ineffective below ~80 Hz in-room
- Sample mismatch — L/R response discrepancies hinder imaging
- Strengths
- Wide horizontal dispersion (at least at midrange)
- Easy amplifier load
- Subjectively clean-sounding upper midrange for background listening
- Internal crossover layout and wiring appear clean
- Conclusions & Recommendations
- Objectively and subjectively disappointing
- Lacks vocal clarity, imaging precision, and low-end extension
- Not recommended unless EQ and subwoofer are used
- Setup must be carefully optimized (on-axis, wall boundary)
Note: When listening to these speakers I found the imaging to be quite unstable. For this reason I measured both speakers. I have provided meaurements of both speakers in some instances (CEA-2034 and Step Response) to highlight these differences.
If you look at the step response of both samples you’ll see they share the same initial trends; tweeter peaking up, coming down to meet the midrange and the midrange peaking up. If either sample had a driver wired out of phase (polarity, in this case) then the up/down/up trends would not be the same for both speaker. Therefore, it is without question both speakers are indeed wired up correctly. However, the nearfield components’ measurements show the two midwoofers have a different response in this 1-3kHz region; sample 2 exhibits a larger dip ~1.2kHz and a peak around 3kHz that sample 1 does not quite have. Based on these findings, my hunch is the poor speaker matching resulted in poor imaging/focus and is an issue with the quality of the drive units used (and not necessarily the crossover itself).
Support / Contribute
If you find this review helpful and want to help support the cause that would be AWESOME! There are a few ways you can do so below. Your support helps me pay for new items to test, hardware, miscellaneous items needed for testing, new speakers to review and costs of the site’s server space and bandwidth. Any help is very much appreciated.
Join my Patreon: Become a Patron!
Shopping
If you are shopping at any of the following stores then please consider using my generic affiliate links below to make the purchase through.
Purchases through these links can earn me a small commission - at no additional cost to you - and help me continue to provide the community with free content and reviews. Doesn’t matter if it’s a TV from Crutchfield, budget speakers from Audio Advice or a pair of socks from Amazon, just use the link above before you make your purchase. Thank you!