Arendal 1723 Speaker Review

[Haint]

IMO Arendal needs to step out and send something in that has not already been 3rd party tested (since the 1723 monitor already has)....and make a 3-way center channel as well. I'd buy in a heartbeat as Arendal's are a very good price/perf value proposition.

Huh? Their speakers are broadly more expensive than than the competing Kef, Revel, Etc... Do they frequently run some 50% off sale or something I'm unaware of?

 

[amirm]

Weird that on the speaker itself they print 8Ω but the spec sheet and Amir's measurements show 4Ω

Actually, there are two numbers: 8 ohm on top which you see in the picture and 4 ohm on the bottom which you can't in that picture. I take it that if you remove the coupling clips then the high side has nominal impedance of 8 ohm and the lower section, 4 ohm. Here is a better shot:

 

[Jon AA]

(And 96dB for one speaker at 1m is loud enough right & the limit of Amir's distortion measurements.)

It's just not though. To stay under that level, if you allow for +20 dB dynamic peaks, you're limited to average listening levels of ~69 dB in a relatively small 3000 ft^3 room (using Grimani's rule of thumb shortcut of -7 dB for that room size). While they're not public, my understanding is for THX Ultra (3000 ft^3) certification they measure distortion at 114 dB @ 1m (I have no idea how much is allowed though).

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why Amir doesn't test at higher levels and that's fine. But I think in many of these discussions (also bookshelf vs tower, etc) some underestimate how much volume is required for those with decent sized rooms/listening distances to be able to listen at a moderately loud volume and still hit those peaks.

 

[Spocko]

Huh? Their speakers are broadly more expensive than than the competing Kef, Revel, Etc... Do they frequently run some 50% off sale or something I'm unaware of?

Getting them THX Ultra certified is expensive for 2 reasons: (1) you have to pay THX labs to certify them and (2) "Ultra" certification means they can handle a specific SPL for a specific distance/room size. If you're listening at 78dB with maximum transient volume no grater than 84dB, then the Arendal 1723 is over kill. But if you're comparing them to "competing" Kef and Revel, you have no confirmation that the competing products can do what the1723 has already been confirmed to accomplish short of doing comparison testing yourself.

Edit: Remember these are designed for home theater use so you are paying a bit more for specific metrics that may not be important to non-HT applications.

 

[Spocko]

It's just not though. To stay under that level, if you allow for +20 dB dynamic peaks, you're limited to average listening levels of ~69 dB in a relatively small 3000 ft^3 room (using Grimani's rule of thumb shortcut of -7 dB for that room size). While they're not public, my understanding is for THX Ultra (3000 ft^3) certification they measure distortion at 114 dB @ 1m (I have no idea how much is allowed though).

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why Amir doesn't test at higher levels and that's fine. But I think in many of these discussions (also bookshelf vs tower, etc) some underestimate how much volume is required for those with decent sized rooms/listening distances to be able to listen at a moderately loud volume and still hit those peaks.

But also, since these monitors are designed for HT application, it is assumed you'd have subwoofers taking over below 100Hz, which means it should get more than loud enough for such dynamic peaks when you eliminate the burden of those lower frequencies from the equation. Also, at above 92dB, the loudness masks distortion significantly that you are unlikely to notice the slight increase in distortion of explosions that would be hitting these dynamic peaks - I don't imagine dialogue ever hitting +20 dB peaks without accompanying noise/concussive sounds which would render any slight distortion a moot point. Again, not talking large orchestral symphony movements but home theater applications like the rocket launch scene from Interstellar.

 

[jbattman1016]

1723 Center THX

FREE Shipping10 Years Warranty60 Days Audition Period100%

arendalsound.com

In developing the 1723 Series, part of the reason for using a waveguided tweeter was that it offered controlled dispersion, plus a lower crossover point than a traditional tweeter flat mounted on a baffle. Lowering the crossover point, removed concerns about turning the 1723 Monitor on it’s side for use in the horizontal format under a screen. As such, the 1723 Center is the same speaker as the 1723 Monitor but sold separately and with the grill badges moved for aesthetic purposes. Tonally, it is a perfect match for The 1723 Monitor and 1723 Tower.

Hm...

View attachment 296595

What does theam mean for the beamwidth vs the RSL CG25? Is this only 13 degrees? I'm not too sure how to read this.

I'm wondering is the CG25 (with EQ) is even CONSIDERED competition for this speaker.

 

[Spocko]

What does theam mean for the beamwidth vs the RSL CG25? Is this only 13 degrees? I'm not too sure how to read this.

I'm wondering is the CG25 (with EQ) is even CONSIDERED competition for this speaker.

It's all about handling the SPL loudness for larger rooms - unless the CG25 is certified to handle such loud peaks you won't know - this is why "high performance" speakers for large rooms get THX certified (Ultra or Dominus). No amont of EQ can increase the SPL capability of your speakers - in other words, can your monitors keep up with dual opposing 14" 1200 watt Subwoofers? That's unlikely as the CG25 were designed to match the 400 watt 10" Speedwoofer (a relative lightweight for smaller rooms).

 

[Robbo99999]

It's just not though. To stay under that level, if you allow for +20 dB dynamic peaks, you're limited to average listening levels of ~69 dB in a relatively small 3000 ft^3 room (using Grimani's rule of thumb shortcut of -7 dB for that room size). While they're not public, my understanding is for THX Ultra (3000 ft^3) certification they measure distortion at 114 dB @ 1m (I have no idea how much is allowed though).

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why Amir doesn't test at higher levels and that's fine. But I think in many of these discussions (also bookshelf vs tower, etc) some underestimate how much volume is required for those with decent sized rooms/listening distances to be able to listen at a moderately loud volume and still hit those peaks.

Well, I see that as a very good argument for it to be useful to test some products above 96dB, assuming they didn't fail miserably at 96dB - because if fairly common use case (or particular to that product) is above 96dB then it makes sense to test it above that.

(I use my JBL 308p Mkii speakers (2.1 channel) at 3.8m, for a max of 84.5dB at 1kHz (0dBFS) for two speakers (measured with UMIK from frequency sweep)......I think I once worked out what that would equate to for 1m for 1 speaker but I can't remember the result, I'm pretty sure it was less than 96dB though, but I don't listen crazy loud.)
EDIT: 2 lots of doubling distance from 1m = 12dB effect. 2 speakers vs 1 speaker = 3dB effect; therefore 84.5dB at 4m is equivalent of 96.5dB at 1m, then decrease that by 3dB due to having 2 speakers, so 93.5dB at 1m for 1 speaker seems to be what my speakers have to do at my max listening volume - in this case I agree with you that 96dB at 1m can be easily passed in terms of how loud a person would want a speaker!

 

[HighFutility]

Preference Rating
SCORE: 4.9
SCORE w/ sub: 7.0

Sensitivity: 89.8dB (300Hz-3kHz ; spec: 89dB)
Frequency response: +/- 6.2dB 34Hz-20kHz ; +/- 2.4dB 80Hz-20kHz

View attachment 296596
View attachment 296597View attachment 296598View attachment 296599View attachment 296600View attachment 296601​

The preference score is .1 lower vs Erin's review but the subwoofer is.6 points worse? Sample to sample variation or resolution of the measurements?

 

[rynberg]

If that were true, all the Revels would sound bright in-room. Which is not something I have seen in the many reviews.

Revels have slightly decreasing directivity throughout the frequency range, not constant, at least as far as I have seen.

 

[rynberg]

Really? Perhaps consult the Loudspeakers Design Cookbook if you want a deep dive on the topic. They do thing other speaker designs can't. All designs have tradeoffs. MTMs have a consistent horizontal radiation pattern and a controlled vertical dispersion.

But they don't have a controlled vertical dispersion...they have a huge dip in a narrow frequency range (in the heart of the midrange) and then rough response outside of that range -- meaning they have much different off-axis response vertically than on-axis. This is really no better than a traditional 2-way, and in some cases, worse (and always worse than a well-designed 3-way). Luckily we respond less to vertical oddness but this trait certainly shouldn't be regarded as a positive one.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Well, I see that as a very good argument for it to be useful to test some products above 96dB, assuming they didn't fail miserably at 96dB - because if fairly common use case (or particular to that product) is above 96dB then it makes sense to test it above that.

(I use my JBL 308p Mkii speakers (2.1 channel) at 3.8m, for a max of 84.5dB at 1kHz (0dBFS) for two speakers (measured with UMIK from frequency sweep)......I think I once worked out what that would equate to for 1m for 1 speaker but I can't remember the result, I'm pretty sure it was less than 96dB though, but I don't listen crazy loud.)
EDIT: 2 lots of doubling distance from 1m = 12dB effect. 2 speakers vs 1 speaker = 3dB effect; therefore 84.5dB at 4m is equivalent of 96.5dB at 1m, then decrease that by 3dB due to having 2 speakers, so 93.5dB at 1m for 1 speaker seems to be what my speakers have to do at my max listening volume - in this case I agree with you that 96dB at 1m can be easily passed in terms of how loud a person would want a speaker!

But the 96 dB test is mono with one speaker. In pairs, the output would be much higher (6 dB?) Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Beave]

The preference score is .1 lower vs Erin's review but the subwoofer is.6 points worse? Sample to sample variation or resolution of the measurements?

Erin's review? I know he reviewed the 1723 S bookshelf, but did he also review this 1723 THX Monitor? They are different speakers.

 

[Newman]

Revels have slightly decreasing directivity throughout the frequency range, not constant, at least as far as I have seen.

Which of the above two DI plots do you characterise as “slightly decreasing” and which are you calling “constant”?

Although they are not the same, I don’t think one deserves the title more than the other.

M16 is top.

cheers

 

[Ron Texas]

Here is a speaker with a modest preference score of 4.9 but it makes the recommended cut. The message is preference scores are real, but they are not the alpha and omega of loudspeakers. This one could also be improved some with a little EQ.

Thank you @amirm for another great review.

 

[HighFutility]

Erin's review? I know he reviewed the 1723 S bookshelf, but did he also review this 1723 THX Monitor? They are different speakers.

You are right god these naming conventions.

 

[rvsixer]

IMO Arendal needs to step out and send something in that has not already been 3rd party tested (since the 1723 monitor already has)....and make a 3-way center channel as well. I'd buy in a heartbeat as Arendal's are a very good price/perf value proposition.

Huh? Their speakers are broadly more expensive than than the competing Kef, Revel, Etc... Do they frequently run some 50% off sale or something I'm unaware of?

The Arendal 1723 monitor reviewed here costs $1250 USD shipped, with free return shipping before the audition period ends (as an aside it's the most expensive monitor in their lineup, their least costly is $550 and has also been favorably reviewed here).

Please do tell which Kef, Revel, etc. broadly compete performance-wise with this speaker at the broadly fifty percent price point being suggested (i.e. around $600-700USD). I'd be most interested, thanks.

 

[Beave]

You are right god these naming conventions.

Yeah, their naming scheme for their various models is quite confusing.

 

[Jon AA]

in this case I agree with you that 96dB at 1m can be easily passed in terms of how loud a person would want a speaker!

Yup. FWIW, both Dolby and THX specs are for individual speakers. Dolby has different requirements for LCR, surrounds, height, as only makes sense. I don't know if THX does. Both are 105 dB at the listening position (at least for LCR) and 115 dB for subs.

But also, since these monitors are designed for HT application, it is assumed you'd have subwoofers taking over below 100Hz, which means it should get more than loud enough for such dynamic peaks when you eliminate the burden of those lower frequencies from the equation.

That'll certainly be the case sometimes, but certainly not for others. Here's an example (not my measurement):

You want to look at the RTA measurement (the purple line). In this example the third highest peak (almost as high as the second) is at about 130-190 Hz (certainly not from LFE). That's going to be murder on most bookshelves at high volumes.

 

[tw 2022]

Yeah, their naming scheme for their various models is quite confusing.

The models in general are named for important dates in their local history...Unless you know their history it's not supposed to make sense to you...