• 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 daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Arendal 1723 Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 32 12.5%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 144 56.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 75 29.4%

  • Total voters
    255

iNetRunner

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
37
Likes
27
Location
Finland
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.
…And there’s a reason why entry level speakers often have an elevated treble response: they sound more exciting, and are there more likely picked up from a showroom lineup. (Though the SVS Ultra only had a minor elevated treble response, at least compared to the B100 that Erin measured.) And why they might have a bump in the bass response, as the SVS Ultra has.

Anyway, it’s always interesting if someone goes to the trouble of organizing a blind listening test.
 

ExPerfectionist

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2023
Messages
104
Likes
106
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Yes, that is a custom SEAS high excursion woofer, very capable. Ranks #1 passive (w/eq&sub) at spinorama.org. I plan to go audition them (and the rest of the Ascend lineup) within the next couple of months.

Did you end up getting to listen? A few months ago I upgraded my front LCR speakers to Sierra-LXs. They sound fantastic and I couldn't be happier. I'm moving soon and looking to add a Rythmik F12-400 sub to my setup as well.
 

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
602
Likes
408
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
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.

I have the scores, but did not post, simply due to the listening environment(s) throughout the venue (including speakers, room correction brand comparisons, etc.) did not lend themselves to the task at all. So naturally most ears turned to what sounded "different", which is not to be confused with better imo. Generally the poorest measuring speakers placed at the top, best measuring speakers in the bottom.

It was amazing how people, spread throughout the room, picked the "best sounding" subs and were basing purchase decisions on this (hey, there's no such thing as nodes and nulls :D).

But all of it was fun and engaging, and got people talking, so all was good.
 

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
602
Likes
408
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
Did you end up getting to listen? A few months ago I upgraded my front LCR speakers to Sierra-LXs. They sound fantastic and I couldn't be happier. I'm moving soon and looking to add a Rythmik F12-400 sub to my setup as well.

Hey let me finish painting my new media room first...and its a 1700 mile trip for me lol. Great the LX's seem to follow their measurements !!!
 

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
I have the scores, but did not post, simply due to the listening environment(s) throughout the venue (including speakers, room correction brand comparisons, etc.) did not lend themselves to the task at all. So naturally most ears turned to what sounded "different", which is not to be confused with better imo. Generally the poorest measuring speakers placed at the top, best measuring speakers in the bottom.

Everyone knows the sub comparisons was flawed, but the speaker shootout was one of the the most scientific experiments done on the subject despite it's imperfections. People at MWAVE didn't have the industry bias that Dr Toole's subjects had. I'm not saying MWAVE all up was a better designed experiment, but I don't think it should be discounted entirely either.

You clearly have expressed an interest in Adrenal speakers and if they would have came out on top, you would likely be singing a different tune. There's also the anecdote that the ML sounded great on-axis, but people did not like it off-axis, so how would it still have come out on top if the listening positions invalidated the whole experiment?

Don't get me wrong as I agree there are shortcomings of experiments as I personally believe in using DSP and I could careless what speaker in that lineup "sounded the best" if it could not get loud enough for my preferences for example. I too am eyeing Adrenals, but they don't provide as much value as a lot of people give them credit for IMO.
 

JAJDACT

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2023
Messages
88
Likes
129
I too am eyeing Adrenals, but they don't provide as much value as a lot of people give them credit for IMO.
I can see that. I like Arendal for the simple fact that they offer speakers designed specifically to pair with subwoofers,and put their focus on dynamic range capabilities,all while making their speakers attractive vs big ugly duratex coated PA style home theater speakers. Nowadays most speaker companies will sacrifice sensitivity and spl capability for bass extension so they will appeal to home theater and HI-Fi 2 channel consumers that won't use subs.
 

rvsixer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
602
Likes
408
Location
Somewhere at the base of the Rockies....
Everyone knows the sub comparisons was flawed, but the speaker shootout was one of the the most scientific experiments done on the subject despite it's imperfections. People at MWAVE didn't have the industry bias that Dr Toole's subjects had. I'm not saying MWAVE all up was a better designed experiment, but I don't think it should be discounted entirely either.

You clearly have expressed an interest in Adrenal speakers and if they would have came out on top, you would likely be singing a different tune. There's also the anecdote that the ML sounded great on-axis, but people did not like it off-axis, so how would it still have come out on top if the listening positions invalidated the whole experiment?

Don't get me wrong as I agree there are shortcomings of experiments as I personally believe in using DSP and I could careless what speaker in that lineup "sounded the best" if it could not get loud enough for my preferences for example. I too am eyeing Adrenals, but they don't provide as much value as a lot of people give them credit for IMO.

1) I stated people were making purchase decisions based on the sub test....so clearly not everyone knew the tests were flawed
2) This speaker test was one of the most scientific experiments done on the subject, even with its imperfections?
3) Pure conjecture that if Arendals came out on top, that I would be singing a different tune. Not me. In fact for all my praise, in this thread I also pointed out where they come up short for my intended use case such that it keeps me from purchasing (to reiterate I need a horizontal center that covers +/-25 degres within +/- 3db...they don't have one).
4) Your statement on the ML, is exactly what I meant about poorer measuring speakers coming out on top in the aforementioned test environment
5) I love DSP as well, but it is only useful for speakers that have good DI. So certainly not a blanket fix.
6) As I mentioned before, Arendal having great value depends on your use case. If anyone here can find another commercial offering that can hit reference levels with less than 1-1.5dB compression at Arendal's price point (along with excellent FR, DI, etc.)....please point me in that direction. I have been unable to find other non-horn/skinnier speakers that don't compress like crazy much above 96dB.

I guess we can just agree to disagree, back to regularly scheduled thread.
 

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
I can see that. I like Arendal for the simple fact that they offer speakers designed specifically to pair with subwoofers,and put their focus on dynamic range capabilities,all while making their speakers attractive vs big ugly duratex coated PA style home theater speakers. Nowadays most speaker companies will sacrifice sensitivity and spl capability for bass extension so they will appeal to home theater and HI-Fi 2 channel consumers that won't use subs.
I completely agree. They do have a good product and I think they're marketing is going to pay off, but what gets me is all the reviewers are repeating each other stating "it punches above its weight" without directly compare it to anything relevant or above it's price point. It's obvious Adrenal is sending out units to be review left, right, and center, and spamming social media everywhere. I don't fault them for that as it does what's intended, builds hype and drives sales, and they've done such a good job it's seemed to have swayed a few objectivists.

The Outlaw LCRv2 looks to be comparable to the 1723 Monitor's performance at less than half the price.

2) This speaker test was one of the most scientific experiments done on the subject, even with its imperfections?
3) Pure conjecture that if Arendals came out on top, that I would be singing a different tune. Not me. In fact for all my praise, in this thread I also pointed out where they come up short for my intended use case such that it keeps me from purchasing (to reiterate I need a horizontal center that covers +/-25 degres within +/- 3db...they don't have one).
5) I love DSP as well, but it is only useful for speakers that have good DI. So certainly not a blanket fix.
6) As I mentioned before, Arendal having great value depends on your use case. If anyone here can find another commercial offering that can hit reference levels with less than 1-1.5dB compression at Arendal's price point (along with excellent FR, DI, etc.)....please point me in that direction. I have been unable to find other non-horn/skinnier speakers that don't compress like crazy much above 96dB.

I guess we can just agree to disagree, back to regularly scheduled thread.

I think we agree on a great deal, but you didn't address the meat of comment which was your quick dismissal of the shootout results as if it has no value.

Do you currently have a speaker lineup in mind that meets all your requirements and budget? I'm personally okay with compromising on a 2-way horizontal MTM because ultimately I need to compromise on budget.

EQ works best with good DI, but it's not useless otherwise. That's rather black and white thinking. DI fluctuates over frequency as well.

Yeah, there aren't a lot of options with high output capability that have been reviewed-measured, especially without horns, but that's another aspect you could compromise on (horns.) If you subscribe to idea that the perceived loudness \ reference level for typical HT sized rooms is ~79dB rather than 85, there are a lot more options like Paradigm Founders series. Part of my problem with the Founders is the same as the Adrenal, I don't want to pay their nice aesthetic tax because I'm looking to do 15 channels and they all look the same with the lights off. Adrenals are also very power hungry to get to reference levels for most rooms.
 

montyliam

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
111
Likes
69
I completely agree. They do have a good product and I think they're marketing is going to pay off, but what gets me is all the reviewers are repeating each other stating "it punches above its weight" without directly compare it to anything relevant or above it's price point. It's obvious Adrenal is sending out units to be review left, right, and center, and spamming social media everywhere. I don't fault them for that as it does what's intended, builds hype and drives sales, and they've done such a good job it's seemed to have swayed a few objectivists.

The Outlaw LCRv2 looks to be comparable to the 1723 Monitor's performance at less than half the price.



I think we agree on a great deal, but you didn't address the meat of comment which was your quick dismissal of the shootout results as if it has no value.

Do you currently have a speaker lineup in mind that meets all your requirements and budget? I'm personally okay with compromising on a 2-way horizontal MTM because ultimately I need to compromise on budget.

EQ works best with good DI, but it's not useless otherwise. That's rather black and white thinking. DI fluctuates over frequency as well.

Yeah, there aren't a lot of options with high output capability that have been reviewed-measured, especially without horns, but that's another aspect you could compromise on (horns.) If you subscribe to idea that the perceived loudness \ reference level for typical HT sized rooms is ~79dB rather than 85, there are a lot more options like Paradigm Founders series. Part of my problem with the Founders is the same as the Adrenal, I don't want to pay their nice aesthetic tax because I'm looking to do 15 channels and they all look the same with the lights off. Adrenals are also very power hungry to get to reference levels for most rooms.
How is the Outlaw model you linked comparable to the Arendal monitor here??
 

montyliam

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
111
Likes
69
Both are MTM designs with similar sensitivity and power handling.
And the similarites end there. MTM layout, senstivity and power handling are not good indicators of how similar/different these models will be from one another. I'm willing to bet the smaller woofers, non waveguided tweeter, diffraction unfriendly metal grill, cabinet (no ports) and crossover are likely to make significant differences between these models. It is also unmentioned, albeit very important, how Outlaw have derived that sensitivity spec (I'm willing to bet, again, its a lot lower irl than advertised).
 

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
Not even close I gather. Again comparing a smaller speaker (and not objectively tested afaik) to a much larger speaker/drivers with proven/measured dynamics etc.

The BLSv2 and LCRv2 were largely designed by the same engineers who created the originals; Snell Acoustics R&D group. Snell Acoustics was a very highly-regarded loudspeaker manufacturer who were famed for their tight manufacturing tolerances and tonally neutral sound


And the similarites end there. MTM layout, senstivity and power handling are not good indicators of how similar/different these models will be from one another. I'm willing to bet the smaller woofers, non waveguided tweeter, diffraction unfriendly metal grill, cabinet (no ports) and crossover are likely to make significant differences between these models. It is also unmentioned, albeit very important, how Outlaw have derived that sensitivity spec (I'm willing to bet, again, its a lot lower irl than advertised).

I wouldn't say 1 dB is a lot lower than seems the status quo which is to add 3 dB for in-room response. My understanding is in years past when Audioholics tested it that far more manufactures were fudging that number so Outlaw was demonstrating integrity in my eyes.
 

montyliam

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
111
Likes
69

The BLSv2 and LCRv2 were largely designed by the same engineers who created the originals; Snell Acoustics R&D group. Snell Acoustics was a very highly-regarded loudspeaker manufacturer who were famed for their tight manufacturing tolerances and tonally neutral sound



I wouldn't say 1 dB is a lot lower than seems the status quo which is to add 3 dB for in-room response. My understanding is in years past when Audioholics tested it that far more manufactures were fudging that number so Outlaw was demonstrating integrity in my eyes.
Regardless of sensitivity spec differences, the two speakers are still wildy different attributed to the points I made earlier. I'm not saying the Outlaw is a bad performer, just that the Arendal is clearly better and the two are not directly comparable at all, so it doesn't make much sense to make price comparisons for products that aren’t comparable.
 

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
Regardless of sensitivity spec differences, the two speakers are still wildy different attributed to the points I made earlier. I'm not saying the Outlaw is a bad performer, just that the Arendal is clearly better and the two are not directly comparable at all, so it doesn't make much sense to make price comparisons for products that aren’t comparable.

Allow me to backup and state that I assume most people interested in the 1723 Monitor are looking for reference or near reference levels and there's been a lack of speakers in this category measured in recent years. If you haven't heard them and don't have the NFS data, I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself. There's several ways to control directivity for example and I personally think a sealed speaker is a better design than ported.

HSU CCB-8 has a very different design. Audioholics tested it at ~88 dB so with 400 RMS rated power, it's in the same category as the 1723 Monitor regarding ability to hit reference. It's design has some advantages over MTM and its $389 right now. 1/3 of the price of a 1723 monitor.

What would you compare the 1723 Monitor too? I'd say more directly it compares to the likes of offerings from JBL, PSA, Chane, but some people will make fuss that they are horns. They requirement less than half the power of the Arendals to open up and their designs lend more toward narrow directivity which is good for home theater applications.

 

montyliam

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
111
Likes
69
Allow me to backup and state that I assume most people interested in the 1723 Monitor are looking for reference or near reference levels and there's been a lack of speakers in this category measured in recent years. If you haven't heard them and don't have the NFS data, I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself. There's several ways to control directivity for example and I personally think a sealed speaker is a better design than ported.

HSU CCB-8 has a very different design. Audioholics tested it at ~88 dB so with 400 RMS rated power, it's in the same category as the 1723 Monitor regarding ability to hit reference. It's design has some advantages over MTM and its $389 right now. 1/3 of the price of a 1723 monitor.

What would you compare the 1723 Monitor too? I'd say more directly it compares to the likes of offerings from JBL, PSA, Chane, but some people will make fuss that they are horns. They requirement less than half the power of the Arendals to open up and their designs lend more toward narrow directivity which is good for home theater applications.

Exactly my point, if YOU haven't seen the NFS data how can you be sure the speaker you linked is comparable. There are several ways to control directivity, but an MTM design with a non-waveguided tweeter is not one of them.

If you are basing performance on merely SPL specifications and reference levels, we have different views on what we consider important. What use is hitting reference levels without any information of distortion levels at these volumes for example. Just because a speaker is rated at Xrms power, does not mean that it will be comfortable at these power levels in terms of distortion.

Again, the price comparison is not at all relevant if the performance is not similar, I don't know why you think it is. I could name many speakers cheaper than the 1723 and say X speaker is so much cheaper than the 1723, but how is this at all relevant?
 

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
Exactly my point, if YOU haven't seen the NFS data how can you be sure the speaker you linked is comparable. There are several ways to control directivity, but an MTM design with a non-waveguided tweeter is not one of them.

If you are basing performance on merely SPL specifications and reference levels, we have different views on what we consider important. What use is hitting reference levels without any information of distortion levels at these volumes for example. Just because a speaker is rated at Xrms power, does not mean that it will be comfortable at these power levels in terms of distortion.

Again, the price comparison is not at all relevant if the performance is not similar, I don't know why you think it is. I could name many speakers cheaper than the 1723 and say X speaker is so much cheaper than the 1723, but how is this at all relevant?

I used terms like similar and comparable, but you used more extreme terms like wildly different and significantly different. Audioholics did measure the LCRv2 and it's got a pretty neutral response, modest sensitivity, and high power handling... similar to the 1723 Monitor. As I previously pointed out, there's horn MTMs with more controlled directivity.

Please go ahead and list some speakers (I asked this of you in my previous post) if even on paper, they can get 105dB at like 9 ft. There are not many which is why I personally am not restricted to only purchasing something that's been recently reviewed. Hell, it's not even about purchasing, it's just having an open mind.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,215
Likes
232,384
Location
Seattle Area
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.
The "showroom" sound can be captivating. Those extra highs will give the impression of more detail and it is sometimes hard to convince yourself to not have it. I go through that with many speakers like that.
 

montyliam

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
111
Likes
69
I used terms like similar and comparable, but you used more extreme terms like wildly different and significantly different. Audioholics did measure the LCRv2 and it's got a pretty neutral response, modest sensitivity, and high power handling... similar to the 1723 Monitor. As I previously pointed out, there's horn MTMs with more controlled directivity.

Please go ahead and list some speakers (I asked this of you in my previous post) if even on paper, they can get 105dB at like 9 ft. There are not many which is why I personally am not restricted to only purchasing something that's been recently reviewed. Hell, it's not even about purchasing, it's just having an open mind.
But your terms of similar and comparable mean nothing between these designs other than the fact they are both MTM and are both advertised to handle decent amounts of power, the similarities end there. I would not call this response anything close to ‘pretty neutral’.

Again, 105db at like 9ft means nothing without published distortion measurements. Just because a speaker is advertised at being able to hit X spl at X distance does not mean it also has acceptable distortion in doing so.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9453.jpeg
    IMG_9453.jpeg
    561.2 KB · Views: 52

duce

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
2
But your terms of similar and comparable mean nothing between these designs other than the fact they are both MTM and are both advertised to handle decent amounts of power, the similarities end there. I would not call this response anything close to ‘pretty neutral’.

Again, 105db at like 9ft means nothing without published distortion measurements. Just because a speaker is advertised at being able to hit X spl at X distance does not mean it also has acceptable distortion in doing so.

Funny that you only included the horizonal orientation while pushing your objective agenda... Anyway, I could careless if it's not neutral enough for you and for the third and final time, welcome you to provide comparable products.

You continue to throw the baby out with the bath water as I understand (enough) the importance of measuring distortion and that manufacture provided specifications can be misleading, but it's not true sensitivity and power handling mean nothing because they have value in being starter points when one is looking for high output speaker. I'll spell it out to be as pedantic; it would truly mean nothing to compare these sort of speakers to those with 79dB sensitivity and 50w RMS.
 
Top Bottom