Arendal 1961 Bookshelf review (by Erin)

[rvsixer]

This is not a Arendal or speaker issue. Maybe get AVR setup help in the AVR processor forums....

 

[Haint]

I just put a movie on Netflix where the original format was 5.1

I Set 3 speakers to avr configuration . So the dialogues were set to the center, using the original format but for only 3 speakers. After that I just switched to stereo from surround mode settings and the dialogue seemed to sound better.

After that I just moved the second pair to surround duties set to 4.1 , using the original format but for 4 see peakers now.the dialogues seemed to sound better than 3.1

Seems very strange. I will try to reach out to Arendal . I am curious to hear their thoughts on this.

I'm assuming you've re-run Dirac? You're not still using the calibration from your old speakers are you?

 

[Benedium]

I just put a movie on Netflix where the original format was 5.1

I Set 3 speakers to avr configuration . So the dialogues were set to the center, using the original format but for only 3 speakers. After that I just switched to stereo from surround mode settings and the dialogue seemed to sound better.

After that I just moved the second pair to surround duties set to 4.1 , using the original format but for 4 see peakers now.the dialogues seemed to sound better than 3.1

Seems very strange. I will try to reach out to Arendal . I am curious to hear their thoughts on this.

I've tried a couple of times using bookshelf speakers as center as well... and you are right, it always sounds odd, unsatisfactory or just different for some reason.

Could it be the tv just behind and above? Or could be power or impedance related as dedicated MTM center speakers are usually more sensitive? I would try to experiment with LR Toe in, speaker to wall and listener distance or tilting.

Also possible that you just have to turn up the playback volume or turn off/on settings like Dyn EQ and loudness mgmt. Great if we could see some measurements to compare. Have fun.

 

[Schwa83]

I know I'm late to the party here ... but I recently purchased Kef LS50 metas (got a used-like new deal for $1100). They are really nice, but before I pulled the trigger on the KEFs these Arendals were on my shortlist. I have that lovely nagging wondering... "Would these Arendals be better?" Anyone with experience between these two have thoughts they can share?

 

[thewas]

I know I'm late to the party here ... but I recently purchased Kef LS50 metas (got a used-like new deal for $1100). They are really nice, but before I pulled the trigger on the KEFs these Arendals were on my shortlist. I have that lovely nagging wondering... "Would these Arendals be better?" Anyone with experience between these two have thoughts they can share?

The 1961 bass output is tuned to be used with subs, so without they are quite lacking.

 

[rvsixer]

I know I'm late to the party here ... but I recently purchased Kef LS50 metas (got a used-like new deal for $1100). They are really nice, but before I pulled the trigger on the KEFs these Arendals were on my shortlist. I have that lovely nagging wondering... "Would these Arendals be better?" Anyone with experience between these two have thoughts they can share?

These are both good, but two different animals imo. Do you want accuracy, polite listening levels, with decent low end extension; or do you want a compact loud little rocker best used with subs? For me the 1961's are perfect as atmos/surrounds (hit 102dB with little compression).

 

[Schwa83]

These are both good, but two different animals imo. Do you want accuracy, polite listening levels, with decent low end extension; or do you want a compact loud little rocker best used with subs? For me the 1961's are perfect as atmos/surrounds (hit 102dB with little compression).

I currently use the LS50 meta's as main speakers, with KEF Q150's as surround. Currently have an entry-level Klipsch sub but expecting a new SVS sub today actually.

 

[rvsixer]

I currently use the LS50 meta's as main speakers, with KEF Q150's as surround. Currently have an entry-level Klipsch sub but expecting a new SVS sub today actually.

If you are satisfied with the volume/dynamics you are getting out of the KEF's for HT, and like the sound, no need to move onto the 1961's imo. I just found that in targeting Dolby HT output requirements as close as possible, I no longer run out of headroom.

 

[Schwa83]

If you are satisfied with the volume/dynamics you are getting out of the KEF's for HT, and like the sound, no need to move onto the 1961's imo. I just found that in targeting Dolby HT output requirements as close as possible, I no longer run out of headroom.

Thanks for the feedback. Any specific thoughts regarding music performance?

 

[rvsixer]

Thanks for the feedback. Any specific thoughts regarding music performance?

Same. My simplified thoughts if your playback *system* can handle your max SPL requirements while maintaining decent FR/distortion from your specific sources, good to go imo ymmv.

 

[Schwa83]

Same. My simplified thoughts if your playback *system* can handle your max SPL requirements while maintaining decent FR/distortion from your specific sources, good to go imo ymmv.

Thanks, appreciate it!

 

[balor1eye]

Would the SBIR be mitigated if these were truly flush mounted, not mounted on-wall?