Good evening to you all.
Having checked the forum guidelines and because I'm going to be clear about who I am and where I'm from, I don't think I'm breaking any rules by posting on here.
I was a frequent contributor on the UK forum AVForums.com, before being coopted into contributing as a reviewer of speakers, subwoofers and the occasional amplifier (didn't really like doing those, though) which I did so happily for about 4 years. Latterly, L-Sound invited me to join them, as they are the European distributor for Ken Kreisel ATi Amplifiers & SVS (to name but three) and my 'journalism' background gave them a 'known' face in the UK.
It also paid a bit (which helps) but let me make this clear; it is not even close to being my full time job. That is in an industry that is about as far removed from AV as it is possible to get. I'm certainly not the beneficiary of any PR training, but I can write, mostly because I like words a bit. That's me, in a nutshell.
Arendal Sound was born out of a late night Skype three-way. There was bemoaning surrounding the fickle nature of manufacturers that either chopped and changed your territory at will, or just failed to pony up products that either suited our markets, on time and crucially, our own personal desires. No names, no pack drill, before you ask!
I suggested that the obvious way to circumvent such annoyance was to roll our own. Long story short: we drew on our own experience of what products sold best for us (we are a business, after all) what our customers were asking us for (which was a more coherent list of suggestions than might be imagined) and then set this against a list of what we (three) wanted from speakers and subs. Most of this is on the website and in the handbook, but the key points I labour are that we wanted to base the designs around established electro-acoustic principles, be built to last and have no plastic, except where it was completely unavoidable. that last one, is just because we don't like it- end of!
Obviously, we're the money and the drive behind Arendal Sound and as is completely usual (if you can afford to) we have a design/manufacturing partner who is one of those surprisingly large manufacturers, that nobody has ever heard of. Despite their size and technical capability and as the Kurt Muller tweeter diaphragm demonstrates, there is no point in trying to reinvent something that somebody else already does spectacularly well. Of course, a diaphragm does not a tweeter make, any more than a fancy pants motor, but we did have the in-house capability to custom build every other component specific to our application. This could also be claimed by any number of known-worldwide manufacturers, so we're not trying to kid anybody that we're different - Just that the end result is not off-the-shelf. we are not box stuffers.
We spec'd it, they made it, we listened to it, stuff was redesigned, back and forth for a couple of years, etc, etc. We know we've got something we're very happy to own, your ears can decide for you.
That's the nuts and bolts, but there are a few points raised in the thread that bear technical clarification:
A waveguide absolutely does allow a tweeter to be crossed much lower AND lower distortion AND smooth dispersion over it's entire pass-band AND provide a smoother power response - the latter is the sum of the frequency responses over a wide vertical and horizontal listening window. It is absolutely key to how room independent a speaker is and how well off-axis listeners are served. Don't take my word for it (Or that of KEF, Genelec, Amphion, Earl Geddes, etc) have a look at the decade old experiments done by the estimably independent John 'Zaph' Krutke
here and then what he did with it
here.
Note how a tweeter and waveguide (they're not horns) that were never designed with each other in mind perform together. With the crossover in place and despite the lower crossover point used, you could add a nought the the price of that tweeter and still not achieve those levels of distortion at the bottom end. Bear in mind that virtually all of a tweeters character (not that I think character is desirable) is dictated by it's distortion profile, which is most prominent and audible, at it's bottom end. Also note that as the tweeter is set back to approximately the same acoustic off-set as the partnering mid-bass driver, off axis integration is simplified and as a result, so is the crossover.
Now, imagine you can make your own much larger tweeter (increases output) with a custom made waveguide to suit (thus dealing with the narrower dispersion) and it was, in our book, a no brainer. the more you look at it, the more you question why anybody would ever stick a tweeter flat on a baffle.
I hope that sheds some light on why you can't judge a tweeter by it's look, visually apparent materials, cost, who makes it, who designed it and why established hi-fi/AV dogma isn't necessarily a good reason to continue doing anything! Others can and will make their own choices, but this is what we arrived at with a clean sheet and no 'heritage'.
Regarding subwoofer break-in. I didn't really believe in it either. I always assumed the running in process was as much about the user getting used to and optimally tuning the positioning of a new subwoofer. Thus, the running in was a combination of factors.
But having used, reviewed, measured (and built) 40+ subwoofers, along the way I've met a few designs/drivers that definitely do loosen up and it's nearly always to do with the spider, rather than the roll surround. Some are stiffer than others and do take a bit more of a hammering to ease off. It's neither good nor bad. It just is.
One final point - As we seem to be getting a lot of enquires from your side of The Pond (appreciating there are plenty of EU contributors on here) we are currently trying to sort out US pricing.
Like I say, I hope I haven't contravened any forum rules and this is OUR take on what we wanted a speaker range to do - It's not a comment on how others want to, or should do theirs. That's what makes speakers so interesting; the differences between speakers are orders of magnitude greater than any other component. There's far greater room for personal taste, not to mention what your room does with the 50% of the sound that doesn't travel directly to your ears.
Cheers,
Russell Williams
Arendal Sound (and speaker nut)
