Arendal 1723 S Tower THX Speaker Review

[vladimir]

Silly question...

Your review states; The four 6.5” woofers of the 1723 Tower S speakers...

But the manufacturer's web site shows; WOOFER 4 x 8"

Is the item that I linked to above for a different speaker? Or which spec is correct?

 

[ryanosaur]

Silly question...

Your review states; The four 6.5” woofers of the 1723 Tower S speakers...

But the manufacturer's web site shows; WOOFER 4 x 8"

Is the item that I linked to above for a different speaker? Or which spec is correct?

The “s” version is 6.5.
The 1723 tower is 8” woofers

 

[vladimir]

Apparently I need to have my glasses checked again. I didn't initially see the 'S' model on their website!

 

[GalZohar]

Any ideas how those compare to the 1723 monitor S, when used with a subwoofer and 80Hz crossover? Seems like the extra woofers are crossed at 100Hz (although from the graph in the video they seem like they contribute a up to ~150-200Hz). Wouldn't having 2 crossovers at very close frequencies be problematic when integrating the subwoofer? What would be the practical contribution of the extra woofers?

In the video the 1723 monitors are mentioned but I'm missing a comparison to the 1723 S monitors, although I asked about that in the 1723 monitor thread:

Arendal Sound 1723 Monitor THX Loudspeaker Review

Did you get your Arendals? What are your thoughts? I did get the Arendal 1723s for the front stage. I was nervous about not being able to audition them before purchase but I’m glad I did. They sound great, super impressed with the detail in sound even at low volume listening. Wether I’m...

forums.audioholics.com

 

[shadyJ]

Any ideas how those compare to the 1723 monitor S, when used with a subwoofer and 80Hz crossover? Seems like the extra woofers are crossed at 100Hz (although from the graph in the video they seem like they contribute a up to ~150-200Hz). Wouldn't having 2 crossovers at very close frequencies be problematic when integrating the subwoofer? What would be the practical contribution of the extra woofers?

You are correct that having two crossovers at such a close frequency can lead to integration problems. It's not ideal. That is why I say to use a lower crossover frequency for the sub, or to use the speakers full-range along with the subs, although that does take some work to get right.

If you plan on crossing over the bass to the subs, just make it easy on yourself and get the 1723 S Monitors (or regular 1723 monitors).

 

[GalZohar]

You are correct that having two crossovers at such a close frequency can lead to integration problems. It's not ideal. That is why I say to use a lower crossover frequency for the sub, or to use the speakers full-range along with the subs, although that does take some work to get right.

If you plan on crossing over the bass to the subs, just make it easy on yourself and get the 1723 S Monitors (or regular 1723 monitors).

Thanks!
I have also been searching about effective ways to use "double bass" but found very little practical information, and no actual comparisons with using a regular crossover.

 

[TLS Guy]

You are correct that having two crossovers at such a close frequency can lead to integration problems. It's not ideal. That is why I say to use a lower crossover frequency for the sub, or to use the speakers full-range along with the subs, although that does take some work to get right.

If you plan on crossing over the bass to the subs, just make it easy on yourself and get the 1723 S Monitors (or regular 1723 monitors).

Shady, that is exactly why I would not design a speaker that way. Measurements are in many ways steady state. That crossover will have changed the Q alignment of the driver, but I suppose they might have corrected the tuning for that. Even so, when you listened to it critically, was the bass really tight? Somehow I have to doubt it. I abandoned that approach many years ago. I have to admit though, I am a much more critical listener than the norm. I still maintain that is not the best design approach. If you are going to do that, then in my view an active design is the far better approach. That is the high road to that type of design.

 

[Chromatischism]

Great review, as usual. We have a lot more great choices than we used to...

Speaking of, if the choice were between Arendals and Paradigm Founders, what differences should I be aware of? I use subs and like a neutral speaker.

 

[ryanosaur]

Great review, as usual. We have a lot more great choices than we used to...

Speaking of, if the choice were between Arendals and Paradigm Founders, what differences should I be aware of? I use subs and like a neutral speaker.

My knee-jerk reaction is that the Paradigm Towers will be easier to integrate. Would be interesting to see a full spin on them...
Neither are perfect, but both look good paper.

Eager to see what @shadyJ might have to say!

 

[shadyJ]

Great review, as usual. We have a lot more great choices than we used to...

Speaking of, if the choice were between Arendals and Paradigm Founders, what differences should I be aware of? I use subs and like a neutral speaker.

Which Founders would you be using exactly?

 

[Chromatischism]

Which Founders would you be using exactly?

The 80F is the closest to the Arendal 1723 S towers. Crossover is stated to be 2nd order at 1.8 kHz to the tweeter, and 2nd order at 500 Hz to the two bass drivers.

Just from that alone it looks like the Paradigms might be more subwoofer friendly, but what else is there to consider? Does one of these have the edge in sound quality? They seem to have a similar design approach but the Paradigms as you know have a few fancy tricks up their sleeve.

Also the Tweeter height could be different.

 

[shadyJ]

The 80F is the closest to the Arendal 1723 S towers. Crossover is stated to be 2nd order at 1.8 kHz to the tweeter, and 2nd order at 500 Hz to the two bass drivers.

Just from that alone it looks like the Paradigms might be more subwoofer friendly, but what else is there to consider? Does one of these have the edge in sound quality? They seem to have a similar design approach but the Paradigms as you know have a few fancy tricks up their sleeve.

Also the Tweeter height could be different.

It's hard to say who would have the edge in sound quality. They would both be relatively neutral speakers, I would think. Without subs, the Arendal's would be the easy choice, but with subs, that changes things.

Something else you could do is get the 1723 THX Monitors. That will get you more headroom from the woofers.

 

[Chromatischism]

Comparing your measurements and looking at the pictures, I wonder if I'm seeing baffle edge diffraction on the Paradigms due to the smaller waveguide.

 

[shadyJ]

Comparing your measurements and looking at the pictures, I wonder if I'm seeing baffle edge diffraction on the Paradigms due to the smaller waveguide.

Baffle diffraction wouldn't be a serious problem with either speaker. What you are seeing is probably waveguide issues. Perhaps the waveguide could use a bit more optimization with that tweeter.

 

[Hdkeith]

Thanks. Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question. I was asking for the differences in sound characteristics between them.

I have been auditioning the Martin Logan 60XTi and the Monitor Audio Gold 300 and Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G. The Arendal 1723 Towers/center are on my list as well. The Monitor Audio Gold 300 was amazing the smoothness of their ribbon tweeter made highs and strings so smooth and beautiful. The Martin Logan 60XTi AMT tweeter was a tad more forward than the Monitor Audio Gold, but was extremely clean and accurate, maybe a tad brighter than the The Silver 500s were actually extremely impressive for the price, ht the highs were ever so slightly harsh to me,but that is because I was A/B direct with Gold and that tweeter was just so smooth.

I do mostly home theater, but some hi-res music so musicality and accuracy are important to me alsong with dynamics for home theater. I nitoeced that James in his review pointed out a few things on the 1723 Monitors that appealed to me about the vocals on the acoutics and sounds of plucking strings. That has me hoping the Arendal would be a great all around solution.

 

[Hdkeith]

The Polk R700s will have a more neutral, accurate sound. The MartinLogans will have a much wider dispersion in the tweeter's frequency band. If you want something that has great bass, a neutral tonality, and wide high-frequency dispersion, check out the Philharmonic BMR Towers.

For musicality and dynamics would you put the Polk R700 up against the Arendale? I get the Polks sound good, but they look cheap especially next to the Logan’s or Arendal. The Arendale looks to punch way above its class, I would think other than the 2.5 way design I would expect the Arendal 1723 Towers to hang with the Kef R11 or maybe even best it.

 

[Hdkeith]

View attachment 56805​

From my first encounter with Arendal’s speakers and subs, I have been greatly impressed by their performance and build quality. I was so delighted by the 1723 THX Monitors last year (Arendal 1723 THX Monitor Review) that I had been eager to see what their other speakers were capable of. I opted to review the 1723 Tower S THX, the subject of this article, because I wanted to see what they could do as a tower speaker, but not merely as an extension of the 1723 THX Monitors which I already had experience with. The 1723 S THX series scales back the regular 1723 THX speakers for a smaller size and lighter weight but keeps the same basic design cues. In theory, this should give us a similar sound qualitatively at the cost of dynamic range versus the regular 1723 series. This is probably a worthwhile trade-off for most people since few users of the 1723 series are likely to take full advantage of their dynamic range. Outside of comparisons to Arendal’s other speaker lines, what does the 1723 Tower S THX deliver on its own? $3k is not an insignificant sum for most people, so what does Arendal deliver with this particular model? Does it keep the same value that Arendal has rapidly become known for? Read our in-depth review to find out...

READ: Arendal Sound 1723 S Tower THX Loudspeaker Review

James, I really enjoy reading and watching your reviews. So much attention to details and providing the most accurate review possible both objectively and subjectively. I noticed in the review your wrote “If the 1723 Tower S were to be summed up in a single sentence, I would call it a 2.5-way floor-standing speaker using four 6.5” woofers and a horn-loaded tweeter.” You also mention on this and the 1723 Monitor reviews a tendency toward being bright. I have life with Klipsch RP line for years and find the horn loaded tweeter fatiguing. I realize the Arendale measure far better than the Klipsch and that the Klipsch has a natural several db higher top end, that I don’t see in the Arendale. You have great comments on the Monitor version about how good they were for your music listening and gave them 5 bars across the board, so that said, does this come across like a typical horn loaded tweeter? Would the Polk R700, or even Martin Logan 60XTi be a better all around speaker for someone that does HT and critical music listening?

PS, you should, offer a speaker recommendation service say $50-$100 for a consultation as you have so much knowledge and experience.

 

[Danzilla31]

James, I really enjoy reading and watching your reviews. So much attention to details and providing the most accurate review possible both objectively and subjectively. I noticed in the review your wrote “If the 1723 Tower S were to be summed up in a single sentence, I would call it a 2.5-way floor-standing speaker using four 6.5” woofers and a horn-loaded tweeter.” You also mention on this and the 1723 Monitor reviews a tendency toward being bright. I have life with Klipsch RP line for years and find the horn loaded tweeter fatiguing. I realize the Arendale measure far better than the Klipsch and that the Klipsch has a natural several db higher top end, that I don’t see in the Arendale. You have great comments on the Monitor version about how good they were for your music listening and gave them 5 bars across the board, so that said, does this come across like a typical horn loaded tweeter? Would the Polk R700, or even Martin Logan 60XTi be a better all around speaker for someone that does HT and critical music listening?

PS, you should, offer a speaker recommendation service say $50-$100 for a consultation as you have so much knowledge and experience.

Totally agree on the speaker consultation service. I'd pay up on that before I make a new purchase. James knows just about any speaker you can think of and even if not if you can get him the right data on a speaker. I'm betting he could make you a great recommendation based on your room and listening habits. I'd pay that on the spot

 

[Danzilla31]

@shadyJ the more I look at this company the more I'm going to buy something from them down the road. It's hard to beat there performance and aesthetics they offer at these price points. And they check off just about everything I look for in a speaker. I'm really glad you reviewed this company and put them on my radar.

 

[CajunLB]

@shadyJ the more I look at this company the more I'm going to buy something from them down the road. It's hard to beat there performance and aesthetics they offer at these price points. And they check off just about everything I look for in a speaker. I'm really glad you reviewed this company and put them on my radar.

Good lord you have it bad huh ? Didn’t you just get new ports I mean new towers for the bedroom?