Arendal Sound 1723 Monitor THX Loudspeaker Review

[Eppie]

Thank you all for your thoughts and yes the idea of having them vertically has, of course, crossed my mind.
The thing is, it doesn't look that good to be honest and there are not that much more space to use in my setup.
If I would move the screen (100 inch) more to the left the couch might come to close to the fireplace that are on the left hand side of the couch, not seen in the attached picture but you can see the logs.
The room is a living room and the back wall is also covered in black scene fabric when watching movies, but not in the included picture.

Yes, I might have to try out to have the speakers vertically and hear the difference.
It seems to be the consensus and I appreciate the input.

View attachment 49002

Thanks for posting the photos. That's a nice room. In the last photo it looks like you may have just enough room to place stands beside the table. Even a stack of books will work ok for a trial. Hopefully you will find a setup that is pleasing both visually and sonically.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thank you all for your thoughts and yes the idea of having them vertically has, of course, crossed my mind.
The thing is, it doesn't look that good to be honest and there are not that much more space to use in my setup.
If I would move the screen (100 inch) more to the left the couch might come to close to the fireplace that are on the left hand side of the couch, not seen in the attached picture but you can see the logs.
The room is a living room and the back wall is also covered in black scene fabric when watching movies, but not in the included picture.

Yes, I might have to try out to have the speakers vertically and hear the difference.
It seems to be the consensus and I appreciate the input.



View attachment 49000
View attachment 49001
View attachment 49002

To cut a long story short, all speakers have a lobing pattern. That is the pattern of coverage vertically and horizontally. The MTM configuration is designed to have a nice coverage in the horizontal plane, but a very narrow one in the vertical plane to reduce ceiling and floor reflection. The problem is that if you make an MTM horizontal, rather than vertical, then you have the worst of all worlds. This is a severe limitation of most center speakers.

Really the answer for center speakers, is a full range driver, a coaxial driver, a three way center with the mid and tweeter in vertical alignment, or no center.

In my theater I use the coaxial solution even though its is a vertical speakers. A coaxial design has significant advantages over other solutions in a center speaker.

In my wife's system in the great room it is the three way solution.

So that is the driver configuration. The 10" driver is the sub in a TL, the port is by the power amps on the right.

The last point, is that having speakers too close together is a common fault. Mains should be 8' apart, ideally 10' to 14' apart. In the above, this is not possible, for architectural reasons.

What I have found out, is that program material that is mixed as multichannel, and has a center channel recorded as such, is fine. However if you use an upmixer to make 2 channel three, it does not work, as there is too much lower frequency reinforcement due to the proximity of the three speakers. Fortunately the left and right also have good speech clarity.

 

[Pogre]

The thing is, it doesn't look that good to be honest and there are not that much more space to use in my setup.

I don't know about you, but for the amount of money I've spent on my speakers and gear I want it to also sound as good as possible. We see this so often here and I just don't understand the point of buying high performance gear only to handicap it right out of the box. If you truly want great sound you have to optimize the gear. Orientation and placement are really important when it comes to speakers. I would argue moreso than the electronics.

Isn't that a theater room? It kinda looks like a theater room. Is it more important how the speakers look when the lights are up or having an immersive movie experience with theater quality sound?

 

[arcspin]

Of course Pogre, you are correct.
I'm not arguing in regards of not having speakers vertically. That is the best performance orientation, period.

But my thinking is since after reading the review and I understand the paragraph correctly the 1723 has a similar performance both vertically and horizontally as stated in this paragraph if the MLP is on axis. Perhaps the 1723 is more forgiving when placed horizontally?

https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/arendal-1723/conclusion#:~:text=The above graph shows the vertical,axis angle for a full sound.

 

[ryanosaur]

Perhaps the 1723 is more forgiving when placed horizontally?

No. Assuming I am following your line of thought correctly... the vertical plot is what your horizontal plot would look like with any MTM laid on it's side. You get massive lower frequency cancellations from the interference and lobing between to two mid-woofs. this is unavoidable.

 

[arcspin]

Ok, thank you for clearing that out.
I do not fully comprehend how to interpret the included graphs.

 

[Eppie]

Ok, thank you for clearing that out.
I do not fully comprehend how to interpret the included graphs.

You are not alone but there are articles on Audioholics on how to interpret various sound measurement graphs if you are interested in following up.

 

[ryanosaur]

Ok, thank you for clearing that out.
I do not fully comprehend how to interpret the included graphs.

Shady did some great articles, which he links in his reviews:

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part I

Audioholics’ speaker reviews often contain detailed measurement graphs. In this article, we explain frequency response and the set of curves known as the 'Spin-O-Rama' to help you pick better product.

www.audioholics.com

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II

The waterfall plots and polar maps often seen in Audioholics' speaker reviews are colorful and visually interesting, but what can they really tell us about a loudspeaker's performance?

www.audioholics.com

 

[Pogre]

Of course Pogre, you are correct.
I'm not arguing in regards of not having speakers vertically. That is the best performance orientation, period.

But my thinking is since after reading the review and I understand the paragraph correctly the 1723 has a similar performance both vertically and horizontally as stated in this paragraph if the MLP is on axis. Perhaps the 1723 is more forgiving when placed horizontally?

https://www.audioholics.com/bookshelf-speaker-reviews/arendal-1723/conclusion#:~:text=The above graph shows the vertical,axis angle for a full sound.

I believe that's your speaker, right? It's what's known as a MTM design, which can work really well vertically but just doesn't do as good a job horizontally. You can get away using it as a center channel, but a WTMW 3 way design with a tweeter mounted above a midrange driver is definitely more preferable. I'm starting to step outside my area of understanding here so I might end up getting corrected, but my understanding is having your l/r oriented that way, coupled with being crowded together like that is a recipe for lobing, comb filtering and poor off axis response.

It wouldn't take too much effort to run the experiment and see what you think. Set them up more optimally, get some distance between the speakers and see how you like it. If the improvement isn't enough to justify repositioning then you can always put it back. In my experience, getting my speakers positioned and toed in correctly was almost like a whole speaker upgrade. Ymmv. You might decide the improvement isn't worth the effort, but it's free to find out!

 

[Pogre]

No. Assuming I am following your line of thought correctly... the vertical plot is what your horizontal plot would look like with any MTM laid on it's side. You get massive lower frequency cancellations from the interference and lobing between to two mid-woofs. this is unavoidable.
View attachment 49004

I downloaded both charts to make this post and you beat me to it! Ha ha!

Yes, the difference in performance is pretty remarkable. Much better performance vertically.

 

[TLS Guy]

Ok, thank you for clearing that out.
I do not fully comprehend how to interpret the included graphs.

There is no MTM around that can work well on its side. That is a physical impossibility. Speakers are the most difficult item to set up. There are lots of snake pits!

 

[arcspin]

It wouldn't take too much effort to run the experiment and see what you think. Set them up more optimally, get some distance between the speakers and see how you like it. If the improvement isn't enough to justify repositioning then you can always put it back. In my experience, getting my speakers positioned and toed in correctly was almost like a whole speaker upgrade. Ymmv. You might decide the improvement isn't worth the effort, but it's free to find out!

Thank you for the advice and yes I will try and experiment, as this is my first day of my vacation so I have plenty of free time ahead.
It will be interesting and educational to hear the difference between vertical vs. horizontal positioning.

 

[D Murphy]

There is no MTM around that can work well on its side. That is a physical impossibility. Speakers are the most difficult item to set up. There are lots of snake pits!

That's certainly true in terms of listening fairly far off axis. But you can perform an experiment with an MTM on its side to test the current gospel-according-to-Amir that its ragged off axis response dooms it as a credible speaker on its side from a normal listening position. The theory is that you will hear the woofer cancellation modes as room reflections, and that will color the sound. That certainly sounds reasonable. But it ignores the relative importance of early sound arrivals in shaping what the brain processes. Anyone can test this for yourself by listening to the MTM vertically listening on axis or a little off axis. Now flip the MTM on its side (on top of some books or whatever to get the tweeter up to where it was when positioned vertically). Can you really hear a significant difference? You should--but do you? Try it sometime. Of course, this isn't a stereo experiment and therefore doesn't judge the impact on imaging. But part of the Harman-Amir gospel is that mono listening is a better test of speaker voicing and coloration than stereo listening......

 

[shadyJ]

That's certainly true in terms of listening fairly far off axis. But you can perform an experiment with an MTM on its side to test the current gospel-according-to-Amir that its ragged off axis response dooms it as a credible speaker on its side from a normal listening position. The theory is that you will hear the woofer cancellation modes as room reflections, and that will color the sound. That certainly sounds reasonable. But it ignores the relative importance of early sound arrivals in shaping what the brain processes. Anyone can test this for yourself by listening to the MTM vertically listening on axis or a little off axis. Now flip the MTM on its side (on top of some books or whatever to get the tweeter up to where it was when positioned vertically). Can you really hear a significant difference? You should--but do you? Try it sometime. Of course, this isn't a stereo experiment and therefore doesn't judge the impact on imaging. But part of the Harman-Amir gospel is that mono listening is a better test of speaker voicing and coloration than stereo listening......

I have done tests like you described, although not in mono. I have messed around with three Hsu HC-1 mk2s to hear the difference between horizontal vs vertical MTMs. I also played around with that when I had the RSL CG5 and CG25 speakers. I set them up so that the MTM was the center with the MTs as left and rights, and I tried that vs the MT as center and MTMs as left and rights. In my experience, the difference is subtle and I really only ever heard anything (or thought I heard anything) at off-axis angles where cancellation lobes would start to affect the response. I didn't hear the difference on-axis. Even as a pretty strong advocate of three-way centers that eliminate this problem, I tend to agree with you that the problem might be overblown. Although I have to concede that there may have been factors in my experience that isn't true for others, like my room's acoustic properties, or my own biases affecting my perception. I still recommend a three-way center when they can be accommodated because horizontal MTMs can sometimes have a very narrow angle of a good response before the lobes take their toll, and that can degrade the sound for off-axis listeners, but if you are the lone listener sitting dead ahead of the center, I think a horizontal MTM can be just fine, but then again you would be in a spot where a phantom center would be good as well and would scarcely need a physical center.

 

[D Murphy]

I have done tests like you described, although not in mono. I have messed around with three Hsu HC-1 mk2s to hear the difference between horizontal vs vertical MTMs. I also played around with that when I had the RSL CG5 and CG25 speakers. I set them up so that the MTM was the center with the MTs as left and rights, and I tried that vs the MT as center and MTMs as left and rights. In my experience, the difference is subtle and I really only ever heard anything (or thought I heard anything) at off-axis angles where cancellation lobes would start to affect the response. I didn't hear the difference on-axis. Even as a pretty strong advocate of three-way centers that eliminate this problem, I tend to agree with you that the problem might be overblown. Although I have to concede that there may have been factors in my experience that isn't true for others, like my room's acoustic properties, or my own biases affecting my perception. I still recommend a three-way center when they can be accommodated because horizontal MTMs can sometimes have a very narrow angle of a good response before the lobes take their toll, and that can degrade the sound for off-axis listeners, but if you are the lone listener sitting dead ahead of the center, I think a horizontal MTM can be just fine, but then again you would be in a spot where a phantom center would be good as well and would scarcely need a physical center.

Glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority. I was kind of cranky when I posted that because I've spent 3 straight days trying to achieve Spinorama-worthy measurements for a premium 3-way monitor I'm designing using Accuton drivers. A flat on-axis response always produces an off-axis mid-treble flare, and getting rid of that produces a screwed up on-axis response. The midrange is only 2" ($660 retail) and you would think its dispersion would match the tweeter's in the crossover region. Anyhow, in the good old days I could just publish listening window measurements and let people enjoy the speakers. You can't really hear the off-axis "problem," but seeing is believing these days. i think I've found a solution, although I doubt that what I've come up with will sound any better than the hopelessly flawed prior edition. I do agree that MTM's are not a great idea as a center channel if people will be listening far off-axis. My point is simply that, for whatever speaker in whatever application, it's the early arrival response that really makes or breaks the design.

 

[gene]

That's certainly true in terms of listening fairly far off axis. But you can perform an experiment with an MTM on its side to test the current gospel-according-to-Amir that its ragged off axis response dooms it as a credible speaker on its side from a normal listening position. The theory is that you will hear the woofer cancellation modes as room reflections, and that will color the sound. That certainly sounds reasonable. But it ignores the relative importance of early sound arrivals in shaping what the brain processes. Anyone can test this for yourself by listening to the MTM vertically listening on axis or a little off axis. Now flip the MTM on its side (on top of some books or whatever to get the tweeter up to where it was when positioned vertically). Can you really hear a significant difference? You should--but do you? Try it sometime. Of course, this isn't a stereo experiment and therefore doesn't judge the impact on imaging. But part of the Harman-Amir gospel is that mono listening is a better test of speaker voicing and coloration than stereo listening......

Yep the horizontal MTM doom is overstated. If you stay within a +-20deg window of a well designed MTM, you will be fine.

see: https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/center-channel-speaker

 

[Pogre]

Yep the horizontal MTM doom is overstated. If you stay within a +-20deg window of a well designed MTM, you will be fine.

see: https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/center-channel-speaker

How about when using 2 of them turned sideways as l/r stereo pairs?

 

[ryanosaur]

How about when using 2 of them turned sideways as l/r stereo pairs?

My guess is that some of the issues may become more prevalent… I also suspect that there is an element of required training; learning to hear the distortion.
I’ve seen it written many times now that everything from an Amp clipping to Comb Filtering and other such woes, while audible, you also have to know what to listen for. Consider that Poes, Shady, and now Dennis and Gene have all said something similar and how that lines up with Harmon training their test panels.
In some way, there is a certain amount of “ignorance is bliss,” which comes into play. After all, if you don’t know what Comb Filtering sounds like then what does it matter? How many people are the same with poorly designed subwoofers [read; one note wonder or fartbox], until they hear a proper one in use?

While I agree that having 3 horizontal MTMs across a narrow front is absolutely not ideal, the level of audibility of the academic problem is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[Pogre]

My guess is that some of the issues may become more prevalent… I also suspect that there is an element of required training; learning to hear the distortion.
I’ve seen it written many times now that everything from an Amp clipping to Comb Filtering and other such woes, while audible, you also have to know what to listen for. Consider that Poes, Shady, and now Dennis and Gene have all said something similar and how that lines up with Harmon training their test panels.
In some way, there is a certain amount of “ignorance is bliss,” which comes into play. After all, if you don’t know what Comb Filtering sounds like then what does it matter? How many people are the same with poorly designed subwoofers [read; one note wonder or fartbox], until they hear a proper one in use?

While I agree that having 3 horizontal MTMs across a narrow front is absolutely not ideal, the level of audibility of the academic problem is in the ear of the beholder.

That's what I was thinking, that the inferior off axis response would be more noticeable when trying to create a proper stereo image. I'm wondering how that affects soundstage as well.

 

[D Murphy]

That's what I was thinking, that the inferior off axis response would be more noticeable when trying to create a proper stereo image. I'm wondering how that affects soundstage as well.

I've never tried this for an MTM, but I have for a pair of BMR's, which will have a sharp null at the mid-tweeter crossover point off axis if played horizontally. A couple of people have been forced to place their BMR's that way to avoid covering up artwork. I was dubious, but they sounded fine. Let's see now. Which speakers were supposed to be the subject of this thread? How quickly we forget.