Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Yes, $6K is a chunk of money, but is there anything else out there at that price that will be a better option for a 50/50 mix of two channel music/5.1 movies? I was close to picking up a set of Martin Logan Motion XT F200 on sale, but after hearing the 1528's in videos, I may be sold on them.
But where to get some capable stands for these that are not as wide as the Arendal stands?
From an impartial point of view, 6k passive big monitors from the other side of the pound does not seem rational.
p.s.
-Said by E. European habitant with Kali audio
Maybe the KEF Q Concerto Meta? These speakers you have are thinking about have not been comprehensively measured in spinorama, and so I wouldn't purchase them personally. Some other Arendal models have been but their results seem pretty mediocre. So my guess is that this around 1000 bucks speaker pair could actually beat your 6000 bucks option. To arrive at this, I glanced at this listing: https://www.spinorama.org/?quality=high&page=1&power=passive&sort=score&priceMax=3000 and anything with more bass than is typical at bookshelf size jumped out at me as a possible candidate. KEF appears to have been killing it lately with this Q series.
Maybe the KEF Q Concerto Meta? These speakers you have are thinking about have not been comprehensively measured in spinorama, and so I wouldn't purchase them personally. Some other Arendal models have been but their results seem pretty mediocre. So my guess is that this around 1000 bucks speaker pair could actually beat your 6000 bucks option. To arrive at this, I glanced at this listing: https://www.spinorama.org/?quality=high&page=1&power=passive&sort=score&priceMax=3000 and anything with more bass than is typical at bookshelf size jumped out at me as a possible candidate. KEF appears to have been killing it lately with this Q series.
Maybe the KEF Q Concerto Meta? These speakers you have are thinking about have not been comprehensively measured in spinorama, and so I wouldn't purchase them personally. Some other Arendal models have been but their results seem pretty mediocre. So my guess is that this around 1000 bucks speaker pair could actually beat your 6000 bucks option. To arrive at this, I glanced at this listing: https://www.spinorama.org/?quality=high&page=1&power=passive&sort=score&priceMax=3000 and anything with more bass than is typical at bookshelf size jumped out at me as a possible candidate. KEF appears to have been killing it lately with this Q series.
Yes, I was keen on the KEF Q Meta series but it turns out they are too rolled off in the highs, relative even to the KEF R series. With my age-related high frequency hearing loss, I don't need that. That tweeter on the 1528 is seriously good.
Yes, I was keen on the KEF Q Meta series but it turns out they are too rolled off in the highs, relative even to the KEF R series. With my age-related high frequency hearing loss, I don't need that. That tweeter on the 1528 is seriously good.
You can just turn the treble up in equalizer. In general, to the degree you trust spinorama results, you should also trust the automatic equalizer. You could even enhance the treble further and just dial something like high shelf starting at about 2000 Hz and adding +3 dB by 10000 Hz.
Personally I like the look of the bookshelf 8 more. Of course, more woofers gets louder ability.
Not as smooth as a coaxial can be, but it's generally even overall all the way to 20kHz.
Those mountain charts really seem to accentuate any unevenness compared to the standard dispersion chart.
The way I read these dispersion charts is that I mentally draw a line through 45 degrees position across the chart and imagine that this becomes part of the room response that sums with the direct sound. That line doesn't seem very good due to rather complicated and uneven off-axis behavior with this speaker. It might be the case of having to use side wall absorbers to mitigate an issue, and equalization to straighten out some of the loss of level on-axis which seems to be the case around 1300 Hz and 3000 Hz (crudely estimating). The tweeter in waveguide also shows problems around 9000 Hz which is a somewhat low for tweeter to be having directivity problems.
Overall, I guess this is decent enough and has the makings of being a usable speaker, particularly if you use absorbers and little bit of equalizer to help these identified problems, but for the cost you could purchase other stuff without this kind of problems, so why would you choose these.
The way I read these dispersion charts is that I mentally draw a line through 45 degrees position across the chart and imagine that this becomes part of the room response that sums with the direct sound.
Not to take it too seriously, optimizing directional behavior has now become a sport. Don't exaggerate with the weights ... .
Early reflections result in boosts and cancellations, depending on the frequency. This results in a rollercoaster anyway depending on the exact sitting position. A few dB from the side of the speaker do: nothing.
For the diffuse field, in addition to the familiar jittering, there are also focal points where the peaks are all slightly higher or lower. That's simple statistics. Here, too, the speaker has no major influence. If the box is not particularly bad, it works. This box is not particularly bad. Don't exaggerate.
Some people say that the early reflections are important for the stereo effect. I can't understand that. They come from the speakers, not from the virtual sound sources in the stereo panorama. Well?
Another somewhat more difficult question. When I measure the in-room frequency response, I get pretty much the same results for left and right individually. But if I measure both at the same time with a correlated mono signal, then it looks different - not only in the treble (travel time). This means that a signal panned to one side produces a different diffuse field than one in the middle. Is that good or bad?
Pretty sure I saw the same videos the OP saw, and yes they seem impressive and the review was impressive, BUT, I thought to myself.............
1 They cost quite a bit.
2 Nothing can beat physics
3 I could build a better sounding system with 2 subs and some nice book shelf speakers for even less.
The video, sorta makes them seem too good to be true, but that is why I would wait for concrete measurements on them or hear in person. Sure against a small bookshelf speaker they can play louder and have better bass, but they are still limited by enclosure size and Hoffmans Iron law.
These monitors could potentially be the most interesting offering from the 1528 series. Based on their dimensions they are approaching tower size, and based on their weight they are as heavy as "big" towers (80.8 x 29.0 x 44.8 cm / 31.8 x 11.4 x 17.6 in; 47kg / 104 lbs). Their most distinguishing specs on paper at SPL and low end reach (114dB peak, 108dB RMS and F3 35hz). Otherwise, there are other linear speakers in that price range.
Thus far they have been reviewed well - James Larson's reviews are usually on the spot.
We reviewed the Arendal Sound 1528 Monitor 8 ($5,900/pr), a 3-way standmount loudspeaker with dual 8" woofers, 5" mid, and a 1" dome. With subwoofer-like bass and high output, is it the best in its class?
www.audioholics.com
Is this worth 6 grand? Could one do better with Revel 226 towers for the same price (when on sale) or similar tower offerings? Will probably depend on what people want. Low end extension of the speaker has been controversial and lots of people shortcut this by going to subs at 80hz instead of paying additional cash to get usable response from towers/monitors below say 60hz. SPL is individual and these speakers can really take the punishment, but that is relevant only if one is pushing them that hard. Reviewers praise built quality beyond this price range, which might explain the pricing.
Just to be clear, this is the video that most piqued my interest in the 1528's. Yes, I understand that you, in general, can't go by YT videos and, yes, this is a subjective comparison with no measurements. But the recording quality seems decent and it seems pretty level-matched to me.
When I first listened to the comparison of the two speakers over my audio system, I could not tell any difference between the KEF's and the 1528's. However, upon listening via my ear buds, the difference between the two was quite apparent, with the 1528's being much more to my liking, especially for a 50/50 mix of music/movies. Make of it what you want.
Listening live in dealer's room will still be not listening live in your room. Listening through the mic and then youtube will give you much less, but agreed that some clues might be heard. Not sure what are your ear-buds, but I would rather trust to my calibrated system for that purpose.
The only speaker I bought without listening was my current center Revel 426, but given the charts, size, raving reviews, 50% discount, and 30 day return policy, I gave it a shot - and did not regret it.
So, talk you out of them? That's hard to do, they are good, but I'll try.
...
Have you considered all the options at $6k, because there are a lot of options. Some already provided.
Have you considered what you could do with $4k for AV and $2k for stereo listening? Or 3k and 3k?
Do you need speaker that will play that loud?
Do you gain anything in your room from these + stands compared to towers (same floor footprint, really, generally play louder)?
Will you want to move the speakers for music, because that's going to take some doing! Hefty things.
Do you like how they look? Will looking at those make you happy? Those circle grills, bleh!
....
Can you do equal to them or better for less money, all issues considered?
...
My advice, such as it is, is to compile a list of 3 other options, then compare. If you still have the Arendal at the top, go for it and never look back.
www.audioholics.com
