Arendal 1723 S Tower THX Speaker Review

[Danzilla31]

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

Yes I did but I'm a hopeless audioholic with no chance of recovery!

I blame every single one of you!

 

[CajunLB]

I would expect nothing less from a true Audioholic.

 

[shadyJ]

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?

I don't think many generalizations can be made for horn-loaded tweeters. I think they get the reputation for being hot or treble heavy, but that mainly comes from Klipsch. In other words, Klipsch is giving them a bad reputation. Also, there are a lot of PA speakers that are very harsh which also does not help matters. But the harshness is a matter of voicing, not the horn. A designer could choose to attenuate the tweeter band frequencies thereby giving it a warm sound. So if you are asking if the voicing of the Arendals is like Klipsch, I would say no.

Regarding comparisons to the Polk R700, there are some things that speaker does better than the Arendals and some things that the Arendals do better. The Polks are a bit more neutral but the Arendals have a wider dynamic range. Regarding the MartinLogan 60Xtis, I don't think they are bad speakers, but I wouldn't trade some Arendals for them.

 

[ryanosaur]

I don't think many generalizations can be made for horn-loaded tweeters. I think they get the reputation for being hot or treble heavy, but that mainly comes from Klipsch. In other words, Klipsch is giving them a bad reputation. Also, there are a lot of PA speakers that are very harsh which also does not help matters. But the harshness is a matter of voicing, not the horn. A designer could choose to attenuate the tweeter band frequencies thereby giving it a warm sound. So if you are asking if the voicing of the Arendals is like Klipsch, I would say no.

Regarding comparisons to the Polk R700, there are some things that speaker does better than the Arendals and some things that the Arendals do better. The Polks are a bit more neutral but the Arendals have a wider dynamic range. Regarding the MartinLogan 60Xtis, I don't think they are bad speakers, but I wouldn't trade some Arendals for them.

Shady! <3

When it comes to Horns, especially using compression drivers... (I know I'm speculating here...) How much may have to do with where a person is in relation to the Speaker?

A well designed PA should give great coverage but will no doubt still have hot spots, for example. It's been a while since I saw any charts of JTR, but I suspect you don't want to be right down the throat of one of those horns, either... even the better RT options. In my mind, that's why Time Intensity Trading works because you have them aimed completely off from where any main seat is. (IIRC, you said even the Hsu CCB8 can be hot on axis(?).)

What are your thoughts, please?

This is why I like to see a spin plus a polar map, for example. I know I am still learning, but at least with that info, you can gauge a bit more on placement and toe in. Likewise, it helps understand where extra energy may come from.

Always appreciate you, my friend. Hope you are doing well!

 

[shadyJ]

Shady! <3

When it comes to Horns, especially using compression drivers... (I know I'm speculating here...) How much may have to do with where a person is in relation to the Speaker?

A well designed PA should give great coverage but will no doubt still have hot spots, for example. It's been a while since I saw any charts of JTR, but I suspect you don't want to be right down the throat of one of those horns, either... even the better RT options. In my mind, that's why Time Intensity Trading works because you have them aimed completely off from where any main seat is. (IIRC, you said even the Hsu CCB8 can be hot on axis(?).)

What are your thoughts, please?

This is why I like to see a spin plus a polar map, for example. I know I am still learning, but at least with that info, you can gauge a bit more on placement and toe in. Likewise, it helps understand where extra energy may come from.

Always appreciate you, my friend. Hope you are doing well!
View attachment 57410

The person's listening position in relation to the speaker will always make a difference, and this is usually more true of horn-loaded compression driver speakers which tend to have a narrower coverage. Some speakers have hot treble on-axis in order to get an overall smoother response over other listening window angles. The CCB-8 is one such speaker. See also Earl Geddes' designs. On the other hand, some speakers go for a flat response on-axis at the cost of lower treble energy at off-axis angles. I would say there is merit to both approaches, and the most important thing in either case is for the user to understand the speaker's behavior so they can position them accordingly.

Agreed that the spin-o-rama graphs alone can miss any prescription on optimal placement, at least if the on-axis response is not ruler flat. This is why giving a clear look at individual responses at listening window angles is useful. It can show you exactly how to position the speaker for the best possible sound.

 

[Hdkeith]

I don't think many generalizations can be made for horn-loaded tweeters. I think they get the reputation for being hot or treble heavy, but that mainly comes from Klipsch. In other words, Klipsch is giving them a bad reputation. Also, there are a lot of PA speakers that are very harsh which also does not help matters. But the harshness is a matter of voicing, not the horn. A designer could choose to attenuate the tweeter band frequencies thereby giving it a warm sound. So if you are asking if the voicing of the Arendals is like Klipsch, I would say no.

Regarding comparisons to the Polk R700, there are some things that speaker does better than the Arendals and some things that the Arendals do better. The Polks are a bit more neutral but the Arendals have a wider dynamic range. Regarding the MartinLogan 60Xtis, I don't think they are bad speakers, but I wouldn't trade some Arendals for them.

Thanks for this info. I hear what you are saying Klipsch has hurt horn reputation. I appreciate this reply, that is helping me. You saying the Polk some some things better than the Polks is really impressive especially when you look at the price delays. Polk really did put the money into sound quality over better cabinet build. Considering all the praise the Arendales get seems like the Polks can hang above their class to keep up with the Arendales. Disappointing about the Logan’s as I was liking their AMT ribbon. As good as the BMRs review I wish Ascend Acoustics would send you some speakers as their following is almost cult like in how much their owners rave about the RAAL tweeter.

 

[Hdkeith]

I don't think many generalizations can be made for horn-loaded tweeters. I think they get the reputation for being hot or treble heavy, but that mainly comes from Klipsch. In other words, Klipsch is giving them a bad reputation. Also, there are a lot of PA speakers that are very harsh which also does not help matters. But the harshness is a matter of voicing, not the horn. A designer could choose to attenuate the tweeter band frequencies thereby giving it a warm sound. So if you are asking if the voicing of the Arendals is like Klipsch, I would say no.

Regarding comparisons to the Polk R700, there are some things that speaker does better than the Arendals and some things that the Arendals do better. The Polks are a bit more neutral but the Arendals have a wider dynamic range. Regarding the MartinLogan 60Xtis, I don't think they are bad speakers, but I wouldn't trade some Arendals for them.

Of the Arendal, Polk and Logan’s which is the most musical and has smoothest, cleaners, articulate highs? I love smooth clean strings where you hear ever pluck or stroke. Sounds like, thr Arendales are the best all around answer since the have the dynamics of home theater and can be good for music.

 

[shadyJ]

Of the Arendal, Polk and Logan’s which is the most musical and has smoothest, cleaners, articulate highs? I love smooth clean strings where you hear ever pluck or stroke. Sounds like, thr Arendales are the best all around answer since the have the dynamics of home theater and can be good for music.

Regarding high frequencies, it depends not only on the speaker but how the speaker is placed. The treble region is most affected by placement, so angling the speaker will make a big difference. If you are listening on-axis with the Arendals, the treble might be a bit elevated but listen to them at a 20-degree angle, and it softens the treble a bit. The Polks will be smoother on-axis, and if you listen to them at an angle, they will be a lot warmer as the treble is reduced. The AMTs in the ML speakers are pretty well-behaved both on and off-axis, but the crossover circuit is a bit weird. Remember you can also EQ any of these speakers to taste, so they can acclimate any kind of spectral tilt you are going for. EQing almost makes their native voicing a moot point.

 

[Hdkeith]

Regarding high frequencies, it depends not only on the speaker but how the speaker is placed. The treble region is most affected by placement, so angling the speaker will make a big difference. If you are listening on-axis with the Arendals, the treble might be a bit elevated but listen to them at a 20-degree angle, and it softens the treble a bit. The Polks will be smoother on-axis, and if you listen to them at an angle, they will be a lot warmer as the treble is reduced. The AMTs in the ML speakers are pretty well-behaved both on and off-axis, but the crossover circuit is a bit weird. Remember you can also EQ any of these speakers to taste, so they can acclimate any kind of spectral tilt you are going for. EQing almost makes their native voicing a moot point.

I was watching your time intensity trading video and thinking the Arendals are great for that. I have a Denon x7200wa, but my plan is next year go Amtem AV70 with ARC or Arcam with Dirac as Audyssey really has done me no favors. Truly appreciate your comments.

 

[Hdkeith]

OK, I finally pulled the trigger. I ordered 1723 towers and center for the front and then 1961 heights to use as surrounds (side/rear) becasue my sides are too close to a bay wall I did not want to have the normal surround side speakers bouncing all over pointed at a wall 12 inches away. I did order 1723S heights to try as ATMOS elevation (yes Gene's bouncy house" type) to see how they work otherwise they will go on the front wall as front heights. My second choice was the Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G as I had listened to them a few times, but they came across a tad harsh, but that could have been becasue I was A/Bing them right next to the Gold 300 with that silky smooth AMT style ribbon. While I have 2 subs I did not want to screw around with stands becasue my towers actually hide some stuff behind them that stands would not. I will probably run them sealed for now until I have time to really integrate them well and cross them at 70-80 to prevent the lower woofers form being too much of a headache. Or maybe as James suggests running them full range and let Audyssey suggest a cross over. Some experimentation will be needed.

 

[shadyJ]

OK, I finally pulled the trigger. I ordered 1723 towers and center for the front and then 1961 heights to use as surrounds (side/rear) becasue my sides are too close to a bay wall I did not want to have the normal surround side speakers bouncing all over pointed at a wall 12 inches away. I did order 1723S heights to try as ATMOS elevation (yes Gene's bouncy house" type) to see how they work otherwise they will go on the front wall as front heights. My second choice was the Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G as I had listened to them a few times, but they came across a tad harsh, but that could have been becasue I was A/Bing them right next to the Gold 300 with that silky smooth AMT style ribbon. While I have 2 subs I did not want to screw around with stands becasue my towers actually hide some stuff behind them that stands would not. I will probably run them sealed for now until I have time to really integrate them well and cross them at 70-80 to prevent the lower woofers form being too much of a headache. Or maybe as James suggests running them full range and let Audyssey suggest a cross over. Some experimentation will be needed.

I would suggest running the towers full range with no crossover to the subwoofers. Calibrate the system accordingly. I don't know how well Audyssey handles that, but Dirac can do the job if Audyssey can not.

 

[GalZohar]

The problem with Audyssey (and most "common people" room correction systems) is that it would EQ the speakers to flat down to their F3, and EQ the subwoofers to flat, but will not EQ their summed response to flat, nor will it try to compensate for possible cancellations in any other way. I'm not sure but I think the minimum for properly handling that is DLBC. I suppose you might get lucky with minimal cancellations, although I'm not sure what's the chance for that.

Also, any idea what kind of amp would you need to run them full range vs being crossed at 80Hz?

 

[Hdkeith]

I would suggest running the towers full range with no crossover to the subwoofers. Calibrate the system accordingly. I don't know how well Audyssey handles that, but Dirac can do the job if Audyssey can not.

I will try that, would you seal them? I am also going to try your time intensity trading trick to see how that sounds. Keep up the great reviews, I wish I had 1% of the speaker knowledge you had. I know I speak for many people that owe you a great deal of gratitude as you have taught me and others so much and helps us with are decision process. The only 2 people I trust for speaker review are you and Erin from Erin’s Audio Corner.

 

[shadyJ]

I will try that, would you seal them? I am also going to try your time intensity trading trick to see how that sounds. Keep up the great reviews, I wish I had 1% of the speaker knowledge you had. I know I speak for many people that owe you a great deal of gratitude as you have taught me and others so much and helps us with are decision process. The only 2 people I trust for speaker review are you and Erin from Erin’s Audio Corner.

I don't think that sealing the speakers would matter much. I might seal one port just for lower bass extension. The phase rotation from the port would kick in way too low to cause any integration issues. The thing I would try to achieve is for the speakers to act like points of low-frequency emission as though they were also subs, and this could help smooth out room mode effects on the frequency response. The speakers have enough extension and dynamic range to have subwoofer-level performance. Especially if you give them enough power. The only hitch is that you need a system that tames the overall response so that you don't get way too much bass.

 

[shadyJ]

Also, any idea what kind of amp would you need to run them full range vs being crossed at 80Hz?

There wouldn't be that much difference. They would be able to use a lot of amplification either way. The limiting factor would be thermal dispersion, and low subwoofer-band frequencies aren't what really heats up a coil. In fact, high excursion motion can help to cool a coil.

 

[potetgull]

New user here.

Just purchased the Tower 1723 S used, and I'm really worried the lower two woofers aren't working as they should and that I've been screwed. I've tried a few Youtube test tones from 5-200Hz, and while I'm getting alot of vibrations/activity from the upper two woofers, the lower ones seem dead to both speakers.

When barely touching the outer rubber side "rings" of the elements with clean hands at say 60Hz I can clearly feel vibrations on the upper ones, while the lower two are so slight I'm not sure if it's the upper two affecting them.

Is this normal?

EDIT: one of the tests I used was this youtube video if this helps:

 

[shadyJ]

New user here.

Just purchased the Tower 1723 S used, and I'm really worried the lower two woofers aren't working as they should and that I've been screwed. I've tried a few Youtube test tones from 5-200Hz, and while I'm getting alot of vibrations/activity from the upper two woofers, the lower ones seem dead to both speakers.

When barely touching the outer rubber side "rings" of the elements with clean hands at say 60Hz I can clearly feel vibrations on the upper ones, while the lower two are so slight I'm not sure if it's the upper two affecting them.

Is this normal?

EDIT: one of the tests I used was this youtube video if this helps:

My bet is that the jumpers aren't in place. There are some polished metal pieces that connect the binding posts. Make sure they are in place.

 

[potetgull]

They're in, well and proper. Also tried connecting directly to the bottom without them; no difference (other than no tweeter).

 

[shadyJ]

They're in, well and proper. Also tried connecting directly to the bottom without them; no difference (other than no tweeter).

If the binding posts are working properly, it is very strange that both sets of lower woofers are not working right. If you are looking at a crossover problem or a woofer problem, it will be a real nuisance to try to fix that. It is not easy to dig into these speakers. They are very tightly put together. But I think the problem is probably still a connectivity issue given those symptoms. At this point, I would break out a multimeter and see if the circuit is intact from both terminals.

 

[potetgull]

If the binding posts are working properly, it is very strange that both sets of lower woofers are not working right. If you are looking at a crossover problem or a woofer problem, it will be a real nuisance to try to fix that. It is not easy to dig into these speakers. They are very tightly put together. But I think the problem is probably still a connectivity issue given those symptoms. At this point, I would break out a multimeter and see if the circuit is intact from both terminals.

Did a continuity test with a multimeter:

1. With the jumpers (bridge) I get instant beep on the multimeter (continuity) for top + and - (High), and bottom + and - (Low).
2. Without the jumpers I do not get continuity for the top + and -, but do get continuity for the bottom + and -.

If I can barely feel them vibrating, maybe that's the way they're designed? Lower in volume than the upper two? I wouldn't know as I have no reference. Do I have to crank up the volume really high for them to be effective? Maybe I could use a MiniDSP UMIK-1 in front of the woofers.

Man, I'm confused. Do appreciate the help though, and Audioholics in general (long time lurker).