• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Arendal 1961 Center/Monitor Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 5 2.2%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 20 9.0%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 112 50.2%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 86 38.6%

  • Total voters
    223

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
That looks like a very easily EQ'able frequency response, should be perfect anechoic flat with EQ! Of course you'd combine with subs. Not too expensive, and a good showing for an MTM......I like it but I'd have to do some research to see how it would compare against similarly priced bookshelf speakers that could potentially be used in a similar setup.

EDIT: I'm not answering the post above mine, this is just my comment on Amir's review - haven't read any of the comments yet.
 

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
605
Likes
409
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
Hello,

i tried to add an EQ to see if the speaker would react well to it. Score increases from 3.5 to 5.0. You see that 2 Peaks are really useful
the others are really small and can be skipped. The EQ degrades the on axis a bit too much for my taste but the Listenting Window
is significantly flatter. The EQ is limited to 3 dB and cannot match the target exactly.

Thanks for the work you do with spinorama compilation. Couple of items:
1) Will you be posting the Monitor results from ASR on your site as well? I am interested in the preference scores etc. when orientated vertically instead of horizontal.
2) The price for the center is listed as $1100, its actually $600 (its the monitors that are sold as pairs only at $1100)

Thanks.
 

Timcognito

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,349
Likes
12,545
Location
NorCal

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
605
Likes
409
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
That looks like a very easily EQ'able frequency response, should be perfect anechoic flat with EQ! Of course you'd combine with subs. Not too expensive, and a good showing for an MTM......I like it but I'd have to do some research to see how it would compare against similarly priced bookshelf speakers that could potentially be used in a similar setup.

EDIT: I'm not answering the post above mine, this is just my comment on Amir's review - haven't read any of the comments yet.
You've pretty much got the same conclusion as I do, especially the nice DI/EQability. Please post here if you find something that offers reference level output with low distortion and low compression at volume, in as small a form factor as the 1961 Bookshelf/Monitor/Center. I've been researching for months, this was the only such candidate I could find, so I sent it in for review for verification (EAC already NFS verified the 1961 Bookshelf a while back).
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,874
Likes
6,672
Location
UK
You've pretty much got the same conclusion as I do, especially the nice DI/EQability. Please post here if you find something that offers reference level output with low distortion and low compression at volume, in as small a form factor as the 1961 Bookshelf/Monitor/Center. I've been researching for months, this was the only such candidate I could find, so I sent it in for review for verification (EAC already NFS verified the 1961 Bookshelf a while back).
I'm not actually looking though, I was just "playing devil's advocate" for what I'd do if was looking for a centre speaker. But, what you could do is take a small'ish bookshelf that measures well in terms of frequency response and directivity, then cross it with subs at the same 100Hz (I guess) that you would with the Arendal MTM speaker being reviewed here - that way you're removing the bass distortion that bookshelf's can suffer from, so you'd just have to look at 100Hz+ distortion in that good directivity small'ish bookshelf. That's the approach I'd take for trying to find a bookshelf that fits the bill vs this MTM being reviewed.

EDIT: & kudos to you for sending it to Amir!
 

Steve Dallas

Major Contributor
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,201
Likes
2,784
Location
A Whole Other Country
@amirm the PIR chart is missing from the review.
 

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
605
Likes
409
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
I'm not actually looking though, I was just "playing devil's advocate" for what I'd do if was looking for a centre speaker. But, what you could do is take a small'ish bookshelf that measures well in terms of frequency response and directivity, then cross it with subs at the same 100Hz (I guess) that you would with the Arendal MTM speaker being reviewed here - that way you're removing the bass distortion that bookshelf's can suffer from, so you'd just have to look at 100Hz+ distortion in that good directivity small'ish bookshelf. That's the approach I'd take for trying to find a bookshelf that fits the bill vs this MTM being reviewed.
Sorry, I didn't explain it correctly. Bass distortion is not the problem, as I will be using four subs already.

Most all smaller bookshelves (and a surprising number of larger format speakers) I found have fairly large dips due to compression, and peaks due to distortion, when playing dynamic content (many far worse than this example). From EAC website:

Here's what the 1961 bookshelf/monitor/center behave like, and in a smaller form factor to boot:

I do have one small sealed DIY candidate that can handle reference level 105dB peaks, but can't find any info on the compression/distortion of it at those levels (plus it costs almost as much to build as the Arendal costs to buy). I have built all my speakers the past 20 years or so, going to be weird to actually just buy them lol.
 

alont

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Messages
98
Likes
181
Location
Seattle, WA
I am honestly shocked this got a golfing panther. Truth be told - the directivity issues are a big deal, and the polar response graph in Arendal's website is incredibly misleading and a huge red flag. They also have this ridiculous "50 hour break-in for optimal performance" recommendation in the product spec sheet which is just a huge turn off for me.
 

Nuyes

Active Member
Forum Donor
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 8, 2022
Messages
218
Likes
3,569
Location
South Korea
I just realized I meant to, but forgot to ask you:
What capacity are you using the 1961 monitors in (music, HT, with or without sub, horizontal or horizontal/vertical mix, room size, seating distance, etc.). And your subjective experience with it? Thanks.
I'm using it in a (WDH) 3x5x2.5m room with a listening range of about 1m.

I also use two DIY subwoofers (L26RO4Y).
(Front and rear)

I use these mainly for orchestral music compositions.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
@amirm the PIR chart is missing from the review.
That’s arguably an improvement. If anything’s going to be deleted from the battery of charts, the most overrated one is a good choice!

As for the speaker, looks great for the size/price…when oriented correctly. It also shows yet again that toppled MTMs have no place.
 

norman bates

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
202
Likes
184
Location
Iowa, US
Distortion looks a squeek better than revel m106's 6" vs arendal 2 x 5.5"

I'm not thrilled with its distortion 600hz and up..........

1679624846834.png


1679624873162.png
 

MacCali

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,122
Likes
535
Really like what Arendal is doing, I have very little time for home theater. I hardly have time to get an hour of music in.

Also feel my room is a bit small for the 1723s. Also with lack of true audio experience or foundation. I really do enjoy the Elac Unifi 2.0, definitely not the best measuring speaker but it’s a true joy in home theater. I have all 5 channels

Also when I get Dolby TruHD it’s far better experience
 

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
962
Likes
3,045
Location
Switzerland
Thanks for the work you do with spinorama compilation. Couple of items:
1) Will you be posting the Monitor results from ASR on your site as well? I am interested in the preference scores etc. when orientated vertically instead of horizontal.
2) The price for the center is listed as $1100, its actually $600 (its the monitors that are sold as pairs only at $1100)

Thanks.

I swapped the measurement and added the Monitor. I corrected the price too. Thanks.
 

pos

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
572
Likes
718
I don't get the benefit of HP filter. If you are going to use a subwoofer and who wouldn't use that in a HT set-up, for which speaker is designed for, then the AVR's bass management will add that HP filter anyway. Technically, the inbuilt HP filter is in fact messing up the bass management of the AVR.

On the contrary I think Arendal's implementation is very sound.

Even without an additional high pass filter you still have to take the natural roll-off of the speaker (bass alignment) into account when building a crossover to a sub.
It is 12db/oct (sealed) or 24dB/oct (BR) of high pass filtering after all, the phase shift of which has a large impact even one or two octaves above where the crossover typically takes place.
Adding an electrical 24dB/oct high-pass filter in an AVR and hoping that it will produce a nice acoustical filter that will complement the low pass filter of a subwoofer is wishful thinking. This is exactly why integrating a subwoofer is a difficult task.

Here you have a loudspeaker with what looks like a 18dB/oct high-pass filter which looks well defined and right where it should be.
Adding an additional 1st order electrical filter and maybe a bit of EQ is all that is needed to form a 4th order LR crossover with a sub for example.
This would be trivial to do, even without measurements if the characteristics of the high pass is known and well chosen.
 
Last edited:

Music707

Active Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2022
Messages
177
Likes
207
Surely, but not matching to the center one and also the center loudspeaker is according to most experts the most important loudspeaker in a multichannel setup. Unfortunately everything in this world is a compromise.

Is this statement equally valid for pure music surround audio (e. g. 5.1 mixes) and for movie sound reproduction? I could imagine that the center is more important/critical in the second use case but I could be wrong, of course.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,737
Likes
16,159
Is this statement equally valid for pure music surround audio (e. g. 5.1 mixes) and for movie sound reproduction? I could imagine that the center is more important/critical in the second use case but I could be wrong, of course.
Would say depends how the surround audio is mixed, unfortunately have heard only few BRs with such till now.
 
Top Bottom