I was deciding between R3 Meta or Sierra-LX, but then a half off Arendal 1961 Tower deal popped up

[jmunjr]

I'm setting up a quasi home theater in a 16ft 9in x 10ft 3in room w/9ft ceilings. The seating/TV are on the long walls, so not ideal but only choice. I was deciding between the R3 Meta(and R2 Meta Center) or the Sierra-LX x 3. I have an SVS SB-3000 sub. Anyway, a local guy has some barely used Arendal 1961 Towers he's selling for $950. I would think that's a no brainer, but I have not listened to any of these speakers. I was considering getting both the R3s and the Sierra-LX to test and keep what I like, but now.... The 1961s are a great deal. I can afford more, but unless more is really going to make a huge difference, there's no point. I also am wondering if I should go with an Arendal center or a different, 3-way. I really like the Monoproce 356C in my family room.
My question is, what would you do?

PS - here's a schematic of my room - HERE oh, and I won't be listening at deafening levels. Thanks!

 

[kemmler3D]

The 1961s look pretty darn good for that money. The Sierra LX is a little better in some ways, but for home theater I think the Arendals probably make more sense. The compression test from Erin's review is pretty appealing for that use case.

 

[Battlebeast]

As for the center go with the Kef or for half the price the SVS Ultra seems like a good choice.

 

[holbob]

I think the sierra lx would be better for audio and the R3 better for seat to seat variance for movies. I think the arendal is limited in volume which may impact movies

 

[staticV3]

Thick rug and ceiling cloud recommended for the Arendal.

The Ascend would help cover a large seating area.

The KEF controls its directivity the nicest, but as kemmler mentioned, loses out in dynamic range to the 1961:

Source

The LX's party trick is its deep bass extension, which won't really come into play since you're using a sub.

 

[Matias]

LX would get my vote. Crazy value.

The bass extension is not needed with sub(s) but it probably correlates with better power handling, which is nice to have in a HT.

 

[kyuu]

LX would get my vote. Crazy value.

The bass extension is not needed with sub(s) but it probably correlates with better power handling, which is nice to have in a HT.

Did you look at Erin's review of the Arendal 1961 tower? Based on the response linearity up to 102dB and harmonic distortion graphs, I don't think power handling is a problem for it. It's pretty great how well it does considering its relatively diminutive size. It is basically an MTM though with 2 extra woofers.

So for me, trying out those Arendal 1961s for that price is pretty much a no-brainer. For the center, keeping the Monoprice should be totally fine I think. Arendal does have 3-way centers, though unlike the 1961s they're pretty stinking large.

 

[jmunjr]

Thanks guys, looks like some mixed reviews! For the money though, I'll get the 1961s. If I don't like em, I can use them in another room or sell them.

 

[Palmspar]

Thanks guys, looks like some mixed reviews! For the money though, I'll get the 1961s. If I don't like em, I can use them in another room or sell them.

Nice i have the 1961 series in 5.3.2 atmos, monitors, center, height, and surrounds with 3 diy subs
Go also for the 1961 center for lrc its better to have the same speakers.
Arendal tower woofers are intern crossed extreme low to blend beter with their center, with has most of the time a 80hz crossover.
Only if you sit more then 25 degrees off axis the mtm design center sound not as good as an good 3 way.
But more then 25 degrees off axis every home theater wil sound bad, it gives also problems with the fronts when you sit there.

 

[kyuu]

Only if you sit more then 25 degrees off axis the mtm design center sound not as good as an good 3 way.
But more then 25 degrees off axis every home theater wil sound bad, it gives also problems with the fronts when you sit there.

I agree with this, but this is not a popular viewpoint around here. Horizontal MTM designs for center channel use are considered "broken" due to the horizontal dispersion issue.

 

[Palmspar]

I agree with this, but this is not a popular viewpoint around here. Horizontal MTM designs for center channel use are considered "broken" due to the horizontal dispersion issue.

Indeed Arendals mtm design is one of the best mtms, with the waveguide and the big 1.1 inch tweeter crossed intern low @1500hz

 

[jmunjr]

Indeed Arendals mtm design is one of the best mtms, with the waveguide and the big 1.1 inch tweeter crossed intern low @1500hz

The 1961 center is so...small. What about the 1723/1723S center? I really prefer a 3-way. I already have a 3-way in the family room, the Monoprice THX-365C and my LR speakers are Philharmonic Audio HT Towers. That 365C is fantastic and was under $400 which is nuts. I don't hear any mismatch with the HT Towers at all, but I didn't do any A/B testing with other speakers.
Frankly, I think as long as you have good speakers and you calibrate your system it will all sound pretty good, generally speaking. Timbre matching isn't that big of a deal to me.
Unfortunately, the 365C has not been available for several months. The R2 Meta is enticing and on sale right now, but still pricey compared to the 365C. There are other options too, but not many centers are as good as the mains.

 

[kyuu]

What kind of budget are you looking at for the center?

 

[jmunjr]

What kind of budget are you looking at for the center?

I could go up to $2K but only if was massively better than cheaper alternatives. I think my $350 THX-365C sounds great so.... Also, the max width my center can be is 22.9 inches. It's also going inside a media console (open front) so cannot be rear ported and preferably should be sealed. The R2 and R6 meta are options. I could maybe get the Philharmonic Audio HT Center and put it in the family room with the HT Towers and move the THX-365C to my TV/Guest room. I've seen a few other 3-ways that a said to perform well. What are your recommendations?

 

[kyuu]

Only option that comes immediately to mind that might be a worthwhile upgrade and fit your space, besides the Philharmonic, is the Ascend ELX Horizon V2 (width is listed as 23"... just get a mallet and make it fit).

 

[jmunjr]

Only option that comes immediately to mind that might be a worthwhile upgrade and fit your space, besides the Philharmonic, is the Ascend ELX Horizon V2 (width is listed as 23"... just get a mallet and make it fit).

Hah, I almost mentioned that one, but the width... Were you referencing the RAAL Ribbon or the Titan Dome tweeter? Also, being squeezed in So tight, could that cause some vibration problems? Aren't you supposed to isolate speaker cabinets as best possible, lol?

 

[kyuu]

Hah, I almost mentioned that one, but the width... Were you referencing the RAAL Ribbon or the Titan Dome tweeter? Also, being squeezed in So tight, could that cause some vibration problems? Aren't you supposed to isolate speaker cabinets as best possible, lol?

Well either is good, though I would prefer the Titan Dome because I'm not fond of the behavior of those ribbon tweeters (that's just my opinion though, plenty of people seem to like them). Plus, your other speakers will be using domes. Plus plus, saves a good bit of cash.

I don't think there would be any issue with the fit being tight. I suppose there's a small possibility of something in the TV cabinet resonating, but if you find that's an issue that can be resolved with a few adhesive rubber bumpers.

 

[jmunjr]

Well either is good, though I would prefer the Titan Dome because I'm not fond of the behavior of those ribbon tweeters (that's just my opinion though, plenty of people seem to like them). Plus, your other speakers will be using domes. Plus plus, saves a good bit of cash.

I don't think there would be any issue with the fit being tight. I suppose there's a small possibility of something in the TV cabinet resonating, but if you find that's an issue that can be resolved with a few adhesive rubber bumpers.

Thanks, the width in my space is definitely under 23" so I'll need to check with Ascend about their specs.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I have the LXs, run them with no sub. Love them. They were the lowest price option for a "no compromise on the measurements I am looking for" 2 channel system, and I am happy to recommend them. As are many on ASR, Ascend and Philharmonic are popular here for very good reason.

Three would make a good HT set up with a sub for under 100dB levels (guessing on that level btw). If I was not told that our current HT mains were not only never being sold, they are never being moved, I might be doing that right now. No, I would be doing that right now and just pulling them out for music.

I would go Arendal at that price + sub for home theater without a second thought. I would likely skip a matching center, I don't care for the treble rise in the center Arendal. I might go with Ascend's center with a RAAL tweeter, given long wall set up in a room. I would look for something with wide dispersion, and ideally a pretty close match in frequency response to the Arendals in the vocal region.

If I were going with Ascend for mains and center, long wall set up, I would definitely to with one of their options with the RAAL tweeter. Given a sub, no need for the extra extension of the LX, that would be my thinking. And honestly, they look a lot nicer than the Arendals to my eye, which is not a deal breaker, but it is a nice bonus.

You really can't go wrong here, the options are all good.

 

[Biblob]

Thick rug and ceiling cloud recommended for the Arendal.

Why the the thick rug and ceiling cloud reccomandation? If see the vertical response, it radiates less vertically up and down in these angles (45 degrees). So because of it's narrow dispersion, wouldn't it be less in need of a rug or cloud?