Arendal 1723 Speaker Review

[Haint]

The best reported sales on Revel speakers have been only 25%. (What they usually do twice a year for the Concerta2 models, and the last few years a shorter runs for the Performa3 models. And apparently the past few days, and only for a short duration, they are also doing it for the PerformaBe models.) 10% off is the usual sales price for most Revel speakers in B&M stores, outside any sales events.

That's because they're MAP (minimum advertised price) controlled, you're quoting Harman's officially sanctioned national sales. B&M dealers however are free to sell them for whatever prices they wish (at the expense of cutting into their own margins), they simply can't advertise or sell them online. These prices are offered in store or call-ins only, you will never see them posted for purchase on websites or linked to on deal aggregator sites. Most of the big Audio Video forums don't even allow this to be spoken about at all, cause they're sponsored by an army of dealers trying to protect their margins.

 

[rvsixer]

This is a 400W 27 Kg huge monitor

I'm not sure comparing it with little bookshelf like R3 or M106s is right.

Exactly. The compression of most all bookshelves at 102db can be high (for instance, I could not find data on the R3, but the KEF R3 Meta is down -2db at ~120Hz relative to the baseline FR). I have only found one small compact bookshelf with minimal compression measurements at 102dB (-0.5db at ~150Hz)...and guess what it's another Arendal (1961 bookshelf).

Not important for some, but if you want to meet Dolby headroom requirements and maintain decent FR flatness....

 

[rvsixer]

Even ignoring the fact that their high output distortion appears to be worse than the "little bookshelves"....

Both the KEF R3 and the Arendal peak at about 1.8% THD @ 96dB, with the rest of the FR range well below that on both, as tested on Klippel NFS (again, when used in the FR range intended for the Arendal).

 

[375HP2482]

I'm sure there are plenty of bookshelves with low distortion above 100Hz (at 86dB & 96dB), fortunately or unfortunately I don't have time right now to dig up the examples from Amir's reviews, but I'm sure I've seen plenty. (And 96dB for one speaker at 1m is loud enough right & the limit of Amir's distortion measurements.)

You mean like this?

Versus this Arendal 1723:

At 86 dB you get nicer extended bass with this Arendal 1723.

At 96 dB the inexpensive JBL Stage A130 holds its own against this speaker, especially in the speech range. Using an electrolytic crossover capacitor, no less.

 

[jbattman1016]

You mean like this?

Versus this Arendal 1723:

At 86 dB you get nicer extended bass with this Arendal 1723.

At 96 dB the inexpensive JBL Stage A130 holds its own against this speaker, especially in the speech range. Using an electrolytic crossover capacitor, no less.

The Studio 580s are only $299 right now, so we can you go all in and cry about how small our rooms are.

 

[Robbo99999]

You mean like this?

Versus this Arendal 1723:

At 86 dB you get nicer extended bass with this Arendal 1723.

At 96 dB the inexpensive JBL Stage A130 holds its own against this speaker, especially in the speech range. Using an electrolytic crossover capacitor, no less.

That is a good showing for the A130, but since the post of mine that you quoted (later in this thread) I came to the conclusion that 96dB at 1m still wasn't enough for THX, so I'm not sure what the A130 would do at 106dB for instance.....mind you we don't have a 106dB distortion measurement for the Arendal 1723 speaker either!

 

[Snoopy]

These or the R3 meta?

 

[iNetRunner]

These or the R3 meta?

You might need to make that decision by yourself. Both are certainly good. (Note that Amir hasn’t yet measured the R3 Meta, but Erin has.)

 

[nonametofame]

These or the R3 meta?

If it's going to ge used in an HT, R3s since you can complement with the R6 meta or another R3 for the center speaker

 

[rvsixer]

These or the R3 meta?

R3 if you listen to HT at below reference levels (see previous post about compression measurements). Arendal if you want dynamic relatively uncompressed reference level output...but only if you are okay with their toppled MTM center channel solutions.
Always compromises involved...

 

[nigio]

Can someone please explain a possible cause that this difference in distortion measurements between the 1961 and 1723 at 96db(1m) exists? I cannot understand how dual 8'' woofers with thx certification can measure worse than dual 5.5'' woofers non THX. I already own 2 pairs of 1961 bookshelves and was thinking to upgrade to 1723 monitors for L R and use the 2 pairs for surround / atmos purposes but now I am rethinking it..

 

[Laika2]

I can not answer your question other than with my ears, I have taken the same route as you, 1961 Towers, 1723 S Towers, 1723 non S Monitors, 1723 THX non S Towers. The jump to 1723 THX Monitors blow the 1961s away and the 1961s are fine speakers. I would call the 1723 THX Monitors and the 1723 S Towers about even with a slight but solid edge to the 1723 S Towers. My understanding, take it with a grain of salt as it was a random internet comment but it was said the 1961 was not submitted for THX certification to keep the price point low but we're designed to meet the standard.

My current setup after playing with the line is 1723 S Towers and 1723 non S THX Center up front with 1723 non S towers doing surround duty, other brands cover the rest for a 7.2.4 Setup.

 

[amirm]

Can someone please explain a possible cause that this difference in distortion measurements between the 1961 and 1723 at 96db(1m) exists?

The dual woofers in 1723 are producing less bass distortion. That is their advantage. As we get close to the crossover, they get more distorted so there is a trade off there.

 

[phamgia]

I can not answer your question other than with my ears, I have taken the same route as you, 1961 Towers, 1723 S Towers, 1723 non S Monitors, 1723 THX non S Towers. The jump to 1723 THX Monitors blow the 1961s away and the 1961s are fine speakers. I would call the 1723 THX Monitors and the 1723 S Towers about even with a slight but solid edge to the 1723 S Towers. My understanding, take it with a grain of salt as it was a random internet comment but it was said the 1961 was not submitted for THX certification to keep the price point low but we're designed to meet the standard.

My current setup after playing with the line is 1723 S Towers and 1723 non S THX Center up front with 1723 non S towers doing surround duty, other brands cover the rest for a 7.2.4 Setup.

Did you compare the 1723 S center with the 1723 non S center directly? Thank you for you inputs.

 

[Robbo99999]

Can someone please explain a possible cause that this difference in distortion measurements between the 1961 and 1723 at 96db(1m) exists? I cannot understand how dual 8'' woofers with thx certification can measure worse than dual 5.5'' woofers non THX. I already own 2 pairs of 1961 bookshelves and was thinking to upgrade to 1723 monitors for L R and use the 2 pairs for surround / atmos purposes but now I am rethinking it..

View attachment 299570

Yep, assuming you're gonna use a subwoofer.

 

[Laika2]

Did you compare the 1723 S center with the 1723 non S center directly? Thank you for you inputs.

Yes, Still have both, the S is playing center in my mixed usage room. Plan to replace it with a non S 1723 soon.

 

[nigio]

Yes, Still have both, the S is playing center in my mixed usage room. Plan to replace it with a non S 1723 soon.

Is it night and day difference in comparison? I assume that both are crossed over usig subs. Aren't they? Thanks for your inputs.

 

[Laika2]

Night and day, maybe that's a bit much but it's immediately noticeable mainly at the bass and tactile impact levels. This I believe is the ability to use lower crosses on the 1723 non S. Im crossing at 60 in my dedicated room. In my mixed room with the S I am at 80.

In the main room with the non S. I tried 80 many times just to lower the demand on amps, 60 always sounds fuller. I quit worrying about preserving amp power. In my case it's not a real factor, all speakers are powered by 300 watt monoblocks with a Denon 6700 head unit (overkill) really only need the monoblocks for the 5 Arendals, the rest could run off the receiver and I expect I would hear no difference.

 

[rvsixer]

The Arendal 1723 monitor, next to the Revel M105 at the recent MWAVE blind turntable test (as well as some other small bookshelves being touted in this thread as better and less expensive than the DUT here). I think the side by side speaks volumes about which might be better for what application.

 

[duce]

At MWAVE during the blind listening tests in which all speakers were level matched and had a steep 70hz highpass filter, the Martin Logan XT B100 and SVS Ultra Bookshelf had the best scores with the 1723 monitor in 3rd place.

To my understanding, not only did the cheaper speakers out due more costly rivals, but the poorer measuring speakers scored subjectively higher.