Arendal 1961 Center/Monitor Speaker Review

[sarumbear]

Here you have a loudspeaker with what looks like a 18dB/oct high-pass filter which looks well defined and right where it should be.
Adding an additional 1st order electrical filter and maybe a bit of EQ is all that is needed to form a 4th order LR crossover with a sub for example.
This would be trivial to do, even without measurements if the characteristics of the high pass is known and well chosen.

It seems to me that you are not familiar with the bass management systems and the filters employed in AVR/AVP devices.

 

[pierre]

It seems to me that you are not familiar with the bass management systems and the filters employed in AVR/AVP devices.

Can you explain why? pos@ is very knowledgeable, he may not know but that's unlikely.

 

[Rewind]

My friend has a movie theater with Arendal using towers with dual 8 inchers. The tweeter is crossed at 1600Hz, and I think that is a bit low for such a small driver. But it does sound quite nice overall, just that the tweeter is a bit stretched out. The tweeter is a bit grainy in the upper midrange and treble. Bass is very good even without a subwoofer. But his double 12” subwoofers helps! So, his Arendal towers are great for movie theater, but not so much for music. Here I prefer horns.

 

[sarumbear]

Can you explain why? pos@ is very knowledgeable, he may not know but that's unlikely.

The slope of crossovers offered on AVRs are not freely adjustable. You cannot add a 1st order filter for starters, as in normal cases such a filter will not help a speaker's power handling capability, which is the main reason of bass management on an AVR (the cone excursion is not reduced enough); not to mention the phase reversal of a 3rd order filter will cause a havoc.

Allow me to repeat. I am commenting on practical AVR integration of this particular speaker, not on crossover science.

 

[cavedriver]

I don't really see where this speaker deserves a "recommended" review. Bright, uneven response, beam width still too narrow, without enough bass extension to even reach the THX cutoff at 80 Hz. Yes, I understand so many other center channels do worse, but are we that desparate?

Edit- ok, checked the review compilations, and yes, almost all the other center channels in this price range suck just as much. Cutely the Pioneer CS22 does a little better despite having a horribly narrow beam constriction at 1-2k. Despite that, at $80 purchased I guess I'll stick with that speaker for now. Would be nice to see either the new R2 or R6 Meta reviewed.

 

[montyliam]

The slope of crossovers offered on AVRs are not freely adjustable. You cannot add a 1st order filter for starters, as in normal cases such a filter will not help a speaker's power handling capability, which is the main reason of bass management on an AVR (the cone excursion is not reduced enough); not to mention the phase reversal of a 3rd order filter will cause a havoc.

Allow me to repeat. I am commenting on practical AVR integration of this particular speaker, not on crossover science.

All Denon recievers offer the ability to freely select and change crossover slopes for individual speakers and subs within the MultEQX desktop app. Not sure about other AVR software systems.

 

[rvsixer]

I'm not sure why many don't realize this test is for both a vertical MTM monitor, and a toppled MTM.

Complaints all around on how "bad" it is as a center under general use cases (instead of realizing in limited use cases it can fill the bill), and yet from those same complainers no comments on how the same things that make it a bad center - make it a pretty good monitor.

 

[sarumbear]

All Denon recievers offer the ability to freely select and change crossover slopes for individual speakers and subs within the MultEQX desktop app. Not sure about other AVR software systems.

I like to see the screen where you see those settings, if I may.

Here is the service manual of the middle of the range Denon AVR. Can you point me where the slope setting is? As far as I know the web access is the same as the device menus.

 

[cavedriver]

I'm not sure why many don't realize this test is for both a vertical MTM monitor, and a toppled MTM.

Complaints all around on how "bad" it is as a center under general use cases (instead of realizing in limited use cases it can fill the bill), and yet from those same complainers no comments on how the same things that make it a bad center - make it a pretty good monitor.

If I wanted a good monitor I could of course buy any of many. It's the center channel scenario that creates the more specific use case- a speaker with a short vertical aspect, wide horizontal dispersion, and enough bass range to reach the THX crossover. Certainly we could flip any of these centers on end and call it a monitor with good dispersion but then it really wouldn't be different from hundreds of other speakers. The specific use case is the challenge and in this case this speaker (and many others) are still inadequate because in the home theater application you really want moderately wide and smooth horizontal dispersion. Maybe 25 degrees is enough for many setups but for smaller rooms where audience members are likely to sit fairly far off axis, I think you need more.

 

[rvsixer]

If I wanted a good monitor I could of course buy any of many. It's the center channel scenario that creates the more specific use case- a speaker with a short vertical aspect, wide horizontal dispersion, and enough bass range to reach the THX crossover. Certainly we could flip any of these centers on end and call it a monitor with good dispersion but then it really wouldn't be different from hundreds of other speakers. The specific use case is the challenge and in this case this speaker (and many others) are still inadequate because in the home theater application you really want moderately wide and smooth horizontal dispersion. Maybe 25 degrees is enough for many setups but for smaller rooms where audience members are likely to sit fairly far off axis, I think you need more.

Thanks, good points and all covered here already (in particular my own small room use case scenario, trig shows the even narrower +/- 20 deg, +/- 3dB dispersion window covers the seats).

 

[amirm]

I don't really see where this speaker deserves a "recommended" review. Bright, uneven response, beam width still too narrow, without enough bass extension to even reach the THX cutoff at 80 Hz. Yes, I understand so many other center channels do worse, but are we that desparate?

You will be desperate if you want a super compact speaker to put under your TV and want it to a) have huge dynamic playback ability b) not have super narrow horizontal directivity.

(a) comes courtesy of dual woofers. But with it, it screws up the directivity (b). Arendal has managed to optimize parameters so that they can achieve almost both directives.

If you have room under your TV/screen for something bigger, then sure, get a 3-way speaker like my monster Revel C52.

This speaker also sounds superb. As I noted, it only plays bass that it can play super cleanly. And has better dynamics than just about any bookshelf speaker I have tested.

Ultimately it is a very well engineered speaker designed against physics that put huge constraints on it. And that is the core of my reviews: how well engineered a product is.

 

[cavedriver]

Thanks, good points and all covered here already (in particular my own small room use case scenario, trig shows the even narrower +/- 20 deg, +/- 3dB dispersion window covers the seats).

good point - so I checked and my worst case seat is at 34 degrees although most of the audience is at 27 degrees or less. Still outside the -6 dB cone so too narrow. Shared use space so I can't move the seating back. But laying a Genelec on it's side, or any of a number of KEF's, should produce a wider dispersion than this speaker.

 

[rvsixer]

good point - so I checked and my worst case seat is at 34 degrees although most of the audience is at 27 degrees or less. Still outside the -6 dB cone so too narrow. Shared use space so I can't move the seating back. But laying a Genelec on it's side, or any of a number of KEF's, should produce a wider dispersion than this speaker.

Whoa 34 degrees out each side of MLP, what's the MLP/listening distance to screen size relationship like ?

But as long as you have at least 20dB headroom from a smaller Genelec/KEF (keeping this apples to apples instead of everyone fitting optimal gigantic 3-way centers into a 1961 sized small room) is enough go for it.

 

[cavedriver]

You will be desperate if you want a super compact speaker to put under your TV and want it to a) have huge dynamic playback ability b) not have super narrow horizontal directivity.

(a) comes courtesy of dual woofers. But with it, it screws up the directivity (b). Arendal has managed to optimize parameters so that they can achieve almost both directives.

If you have room under your TV/screen for something bigger, then sure, get a 3-way speaker like my monster Revel C52.

This speaker also sounds superb. As I noted, it only plays bass that it can play super cleanly. And has better dynamics than just about any bookshelf speaker I have tested.

Ultimately it is a very well engineered speaker designed against physics that put huge constraints on it. And that is the core of my reviews: how well engineered a product is.

yes, I think for this price I acknowledge that there isn't much better. The Elac Unifi UC52 plays bass a bit lower and has slightly less clean reproduction at 96 dB, but also has similarly choppy horizontal dispersion, which is disappointing considering how much of its frequency range is being handled by the concentric drivers. Interestingly, though, the preference score on the Elac is 4.7 while this speaker's is 3.5 before EQ. So I wonder where that difference is coming from? I would assume a combination of better bass range and comparable uniformity. The Elac's uniformity for reference:

 

[cavedriver]

Whoa 34 degrees out each side of MLP, what's the MLP/listening distance to screen size relationship like ?

But as long as you have at least 20dB headroom from a smaller Genelec/KEF (keeping this apples to apples instead of everyone fitting optimal gigantic 3-way centers into a 1961 sized small room) is enough go for it.

yeah, the movie room is deep but shared so the audience is on a wide couch 8 feet from the center speaker and 9 feet from the screen. The room is about 14 feet wide and over 20 deep. The lateral distance from the center person to either end person on the couch is 4 feet. The "worst case" is someone sitting on the forward-extending part of the sectional- as I said not ideal enough that I really need to worry about that last person. The 4/8 people are the 27 degree people.

 

[amirm]

Interestingly, though, the preference score on the Elac is 4.7 while this speaker's is 3.5 before EQ. So I wonder where that difference is coming from?

I suspect big chunk of it is bass output. 30% of the score comes from that. With the high pass filter here, it is going to rank low.

 

[montyliam]

I like to see the screen where you see those settings, if I may.

Here is the service manual of the middle of the range Denon AVR. Can you point me where the slope setting is? As far as I know the web access is the same as the device menus.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, its a computer program available on the microsoft store for Denon AVR owners that allows full optimisation of setup.

 

[rvsixer]

In-room real world response test of toppled MTM:

Time for some science

I have seen a lot of discussion about horizontally positioned MTM centers, with many consumers pointing to off-axis lobing issues that are clearly revealed in contour plots. Contour plots, as generated by the Kippel NFS, are true anechoic measurements. They display each *individual* off-axis...

forum.ascendacoustics.com

I was always wondering just how much the swapped side and vertical reflections of a toppled MTM, really affected people sitting within their usual +/- 20 deg, +/- 3dB listening window lobe, in a real world reverberant field (where reflections account for over 50% of the total sound power).

Matches my own experience well. As soon as this speaker is in my hands, I will try it for myself in both vertical and horizontal orientation.

 

[jhaider]

In-room real world response test of toppled MTM:

Do you have a source supporting the assumption that we primarily hear the “steady state in room response” in the statistical region?

There are some very heavy hitters whose research suggests otherwise.

 

[pseudoid]

You will be desperate if you want a super compact speaker to put under your TV and want it to a) have huge dynamic playback ability b) not have super narrow horizontal directivity.

I have had few negative experiences in attempts to wean myself off of 2-channel (stereo).
I have become averse in attempting to further open my audio horizons.
This Arendal 1961 "Center"could have measured/scored much better (even a majority '4.GolferPanther') and could have been fully EQ to compensate for room/etc.

But the whole topic gets much more complicated for proper imaging this Center with other speakers which will make up any multi-speaker (5.1 ++) entertainment system... if not impossible.

Please correct me if I am mistaken when I make the assumption that even any 4-digit (competent) floor-speakers will get negatively impacted in their audio/sound characteristics by any center speaker that they were NOT designed/intended to be used (collocated) with (even w/EQ).