Okay, someone compares two equally priced speakers, finds the on-axis response of one of the speakers to be flatter, and assumes it must without the shadow of a doubt be a better speaker than the other one.
-
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 Bookshelf review (by Erin)
- Thread starter sweetchaos
- Start date
Okay, someone compares two equally priced speakers, finds the on-axis response of one of the speakers to be flatter, and assumes it must without the shadow of a doubt be a better speaker than the other one.
While you can find an occasional example of somebody doing that here (typically by those who are new to the site), I'd say it happens dramatically less here than on other audio boards (where 1/2 the people will argue no measurements of any type are meaningful--only "listening" is and those who refer to spins or off axis measurements in any way are accused of being in a "science cult"). So I think it's really misplaced to attribute that criticism as being something common or unique to ASR--much less caused by it.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,115
- Likes
- 1,402
Yes exactly.
One of the simple but stupid reasons that many began repeating "measures good, sounds bad" is because the dominant way of presenting speaker performance was one on axis measurement alone, going back as early as the 40s, maybe earlier. Rank insufficiency at best.
Until TS parameters became widely known in the late 70s and research about off axis response was accepted in the 80s it seems like most designers were doing a complicated but largely random version of guessing.
I've been reading D'Appolito book on loudspeakers recently. Published in 1999. He begins it by saying that all the book really is at its core is a compendium of knowledge scattered in patents, journal articles and other places. Back then I imagine most audiophiles relied almost exclusively on hearsay. Bred a culture of rumormongers, if you ask me.
I really like what's going on now, like the availability and demand for information.
I'd buy a Klippel if I could just to add to the "library" online.
This was the wrong thread for me to bring this up anyway, so I will let you have the last word on this for now.
I kind of agree, partialy. New to forum should not and does not really mean anything special, or does it, to you?
Measuring something is one part of the story, understanding it is a totaly different thing. I am sure sometimes even reading causes difficulties to someones.
Guess my posted picture caused many of the replies later, but as I see just few read my words and even less understood what was written.
Quoting some other reply "pricier speaker does not necessarly mean flatter response, less distorsion, nicer sounding etc." should explain everything to at least the "other 1/2 of people".
Cheers.
In this case it does, for a very practical reason. Anybody who made a habit of comparing speakers in the manor outlined by sigbergaudio on ASR is going to have it pointed out to him pretty quickly that such a comparison is not adequate for reaching the conclusions stated. So he would stop doing that...here. On some other forums that wouldn't necessarily happen.
What is the point of your reply? I said by myself "Of course we should compare apples to apples, same test procedure and equipment, but on the first look..." Understand this exactly as read. If you understand in any way different as is intended, then it is a problem. This quote also confirms that I agree 110% with what @sigbergaudio said, hopefully you too.
The same can be asked of your original post. You knew your comparison was inadequate and thus meaningless, so why make it?
You asked a question, I answered. Also note above I was speaking in more general terms--not about your post in particular. Personally I didn't think your post quite rose to the level of Sigbergaudio's example. Regardless, people started giving you some guidance immediately and I think that would have continued had the subject not been changed. That was my point.
That is exactly why I have written what I have with no conclusions and just one of my own personal thought, but few people are still having an issue to read and understand it as is and make conclusions of theirs own. If you think the result is inadequate, yes, I agree it is more incomplete that inadequate, that is what I said in the first place, but misleading... You can think what ever you want, it is democracy. And I do not think the AA 1961 is bad speaker.
I would get new ones I am OCD!Thanks!
Correct, I need to get quite up close to see it. Thanks for the advice, I'll keep them and try to stop thinking about it.
About 50/50 music/movies. Awesome sounding setup for both, everything sounds really tight and clean and it can really shake the room if i want to!
Hello guys . I just bought 2 pairs of arendal 1961 bookshelves and I break them in. One pair has more hours playing. In stereo music they are fantastic. Today I tried to set the one speaker from the second pair as center and I was not so impressed. Actually , the stereo downmix sounded better to my ears than direct sound (LCR). The dialogues did not sound crisp . It sounded like there was a blanket in front of the center speaker. I don't know if it is an avr issue or something else. I have the nad t778.
Ps: I have not run room correction yet, but I cannot understand how 2 channel stereo /stereo downmix sounds so good and LCR not. Any suggestions?
Ps: I have not run room correction yet, but I cannot understand how 2 channel stereo /stereo downmix sounds so good and LCR not. Any suggestions?
Last edited:
rvsixer
Addicted to Fun and Learning
1) The speaker was oriented vertically, yes? If its laid over horizontal like a typical center channel, you can expect it to sound bad (not a problem with Arendal, but happens most ALL speakers of this driver configuration, see dispersion characteristics in Erin's testing).
2) If it was vertical, do the other 1961's that sound fine in stereo also sound poor as a center? If so, you likely have some type of AVR or AVR setup issue. If not....????????
Last edited:
rvsixer
Addicted to Fun and Learning
...on the wall is also a problem for speakers lol, again see Erin's review video. Sounds like an AVR setup issue to me, I'd start by resetting to factory defaults and go from there.
Haint
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2020
- Messages
- 347
- Likes
- 453
Could also be the lack of (or significant reduction to) side wall reflections from being positioned in the center of the room. The 1961's have a somewhat narrower than average horizontal dispersion. How close was your listening distance in the test?
Last edited:
Listening distance is 2 meters. Guys I just switch to 4.1 configuration. I cannot explain it but I like it more without center channel. Maybe it is that distance between Left and right speaker is small (1.9 meters) so the center speaker is very close to left and right causing cancelations? These speakers have a very strong center image that I don't feel the need for a center. Any opinions of other users using phantom center?
Last edited:
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
Your dimensions seem OK with the information we have. Is this stereo content that is being upmixed to include the center? If so, it could have something to do with the quality of the upmixer.
OTOH, when I purchased my F206s, the center channel was out of stock. The family and I used the system for many months without the center, and the phantom center was more than fine for us. When the center was finally delivered, we shrugged at its presence. I use it since I have it, but I am not sure we need it.
OTOH, when I purchased my F206s, the center channel was out of stock. The family and I used the system for many months without the center, and the phantom center was more than fine for us. When the center was finally delivered, we shrugged at its presence. I use it since I have it, but I am not sure we need it.
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 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.
Similar threads
