Arendal 1723 Tower THX vs. Wharfedale Aura 4

[Robert-HiFi]

I'm looking around for new speakers and the two options that attracts me the most are the Arendal 1723 THX Tower and the Wharfedale Aura 4.
Visually my preference goes to speakers with a full-length grill from top to bottom (I'm a grill guy), but both are totally different concepts (visually and sonically).

The Arendal 1723 Tower THX is well reviewed and measured, is a 2,5 way design with a waveguided tweeter in a MTM configuration for controlled directivity.
While the Wharfedale Aura 4 is a 3-way design with a large AMT tweeter, dedicated midrange drive and two rather small woofers.

Not everybody seems to think the Arendal's are great for music, it's that due to the controlled directivity with a narrow radiation pattern of about 30-40 degrees?
And some say the low crossover point of 120Hz makes it less easy to integrate with a subwoofer due to the phase rotation with a passive crossover that low in the frequency range.
The Wharfedales Aura 4's have a large and tall AMT which should have a very restricted vertical dispersion, but what about the horizontal dispersion?
It looks to be more refined in the treble and the mids having a AMT and a dedicated midrange driver compared to the Arendal's.

I've auditioned the Wharfedale Evo 4.4 in my room and the smaller AMT was dropping off pretty fast above 5kHz going off-axis making the sweet spot very small.
The Arendal's are 3500 euro (until the price increase on November 27th) while I can get the Aura 4's for 2400 euro (MSRP is 4000 euro).

Which one would be the better choice for 50/50 use for music and movies?
Any thoughts, opinions or better options? JBL HDI-3800?

 

[shadyJ]

I would swing for the Arendals. They are a proven, known quantity.

Wharefedale can be hit or miss, and I don't know of any tangible data on the Aura 4s.

Having an AMT tweeter and a midrange driver certainly does not guarantee more refined treble. In fact, it can often do the opposite by creating more opportunity for error. AMTs definitely do not have an edge in treble refinement over dome tweeters. AMTs can be hard to control, and there are more bad ones than good ones.

 

[Robert-HiFi]

Thank you for the input, shadyJ.

I also didn't find any objective data on the Aura series, only two German reviews (Aura 2 and Aura 4) without measurements.
Maybe I'm just too focussed on the Arendal's being only a 2.5-way design.

What I don't know is if the narrow dispersion is my kind of thing, since I never heard a design like this.
The other thing that worries me is the bass extension of the Arendal's.
My current speakers are very bass heavy down to 30Hz and the German HiFi Test review mentioned this:

"Just the somewhat limited bass depth does not meet the expectations. Below approximately 65Hz, the response starts falling down, although it does reach the deepest bass regions with its rather gentle roll-off. "

Original PDF review with measurement is up on the Arendal website:

https://arendalsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/original-hifitesttvvideo_6_2017_-1.pdf

Their measured bass roll-off doesn't seem to fit the sealed or 3 ports vented measurement from Arendal.
But Arendal doesn't show the measurement for 2 ports vented which should provide the deepest bass extension according to their specs.

Would the Arendal's be full-range enough to play music without the need for a subwoofer?

 

[shadyJ]

Thank you for the input, shadyJ.

I also didn't find any objective data on the Aura series, only two German reviews (Aura 2 and Aura 4) without measurements.
Maybe I'm just too focussed on the Arendal's being only a 2.5-way design.

What I don't know is if the narrow dispersion is my kind of thing, since I never heard a design like this.
The other thing that worries me is the bass extension of the Arendal's.
My current speakers are very bass heavy down to 30Hz and the German HiFi Test review mentioned this:

"Just the somewhat limited bass depth does not meet the expectations. Below approximately 65Hz, the response starts falling down, although it does reach the deepest bass regions with its rather gentle roll-off. "

Original PDF review with measurement is up on the Arendal website:

https://arendalsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/original-hifitesttvvideo_6_2017_-1.pdf

Their measured bass roll-off doesn't seem to fit the sealed or 3 ports vented measurement from Arendal.
But Arendal doesn't show the measurement for 2 ports vented which should provide the deepest bass extension according to their specs.

Would the Arendal's be full-range enough to play music without the need for a subwoofer?

The Arendal speakers don't have extremely narrow dispersion but rather more narrow than typical dome tweeters set on a flat baffle. That means there won't be quite as much side-wall reflectivity -- if you toe them in to face the listening position directly. You can angle them to generate more side-wall reflections to your taste. I definitely wouldn't get hung up on the beamwidth of the Arendal speakers, because the end result is mostly just modest changes in the soundstage, at least concerning traditional tweeter configurations. You would need to have dramatically differing speakers to have a major change in the soundstage. A lot of talk in some quarters of social media for audio in this regard is completely overblown.

I think the Arendals would definitely have adequate bass extension without the assistance of a sub. Their low end is a bit rolled off, because most rooms boost bass, and speakers that have a flat response down to their port tuning tend to sound way too bass-heavy, at least in typical rooms. And if you like heavy bass, you can just EQ it; the 1723 could certainly take it.

 

[Danzilla31]

Looking at the Wharfedales like @shadyJ said I'd go for the Arendal. They are going to have way more output and dynamics and your going to want that both for movies and music.

The JBL HDI-3800 you mentioned is a great option too and I think they are on sale right now

Yeah I think you are reading into the 2way vs 3 way too much. I've heard 2 way speakers that trash supposedly better 3 way speakers.

It's all about the design and how well it was implemented

 

[aoaaron]

If you're based in the UK, I'm selling a lot of Arendal kit for a bargain price!

 

[Robert-HiFi]

Looking at the Wharfedales like @shadyJ said I'd go for the Arendal. They are going to have way more output and dynamics and your going to want that both for movies and music.

The JBL HDI-3800 you mentioned is a great option too and I think they are on sale right now

Yeah I think you are reading into the 2way vs 3 way too much. I've heard 2 way speakers that trash supposedly better 3 way speakers.

It's all about the design and how well it was implemented

For me, the Arendal's have the edge when it comes to fit and finish.
And Satin Black is a lot easier on the eyes than the piano gloss black of the JBL's or Wharfedale's.
The JBL's are 4200 euro compared to the 3500 euro of the Arendal's, but the Arendal's are already expensive enough for me.
I got to draw the line somewhere when it comes to my budget.

If you're based in the UK, I'm selling a lot of Arendal kit for a bargain price!

Unfortunately not, I'm located in the Netherlands.

 

[aoaaron]

For me, the Arendal's have the edge when it comes to fit and finish.
And Satin Black is a lot easier on the eyes than the piano gloss black of the JBL's or Wharfedale's.
The JBL's are 4200 euro compared to the 3500 euro of the Arendal's, but the Arendal's are already expensive enough for me.
I got to draw the line somewhere when it comes to my budget.



Unfortunately not, I'm located in the Netherlands.

Damn. I'm selling an entire Arendal package (4x Monitor, 1x center, 2x heights, 2 x surrounds all in 8'' woofer) for 35% off RRP.

 

[Robert-HiFi]

The Arendal speakers don't have extremely narrow dispersion but rather more narrow than typical dome tweeters set on a flat baffle. That means there won't be quite as much side-wall reflectivity -- if you toe them in to face the listening position directly. You can angle them to generate more side-wall reflections to your taste. I definitely wouldn't get hung up on the beamwidth of the Arendal speakers, because the end result is mostly just modest changes in the soundstage, at least concerning traditional tweeter configurations. You would need to have dramatically differing speakers to have a major change in the soundstage. A lot of talk in some quarters of social media for audio in this regard is completely overblown.

I think the Arendals would definitely have adequate bass extension without the assistance of a sub. Their low end is a bit rolled off, because most rooms boost bass, and speakers that have a flat response down to their port tuning tend to sound way too bass-heavy, at least in typical rooms. And if you like heavy bass, you can just EQ it; the 1723 could certainly take it.

My room is 3.75m wide, 4.75m long and 2.35m high with my current speakers 55cm from the back wall and 45cm from the side wall.
You think that would give me enough room gain for the bass?
I would be driving the Arendal's with the Denon AVC-X4800H, given their 92dB sensitivity and 4 ohm load it should be sufficient enough?

I'm new to REW and made a couple of measurements a year ago with my old Onkyo TX-NR906 with Audyssey Dynamic EQ enabled.
I don't know if the scale is good, but it's from the front right channel which has the smoothest response.

 

[shadyJ]

My room is 3.75m wide, 4.75m long and 2.35m high with my current speakers 55cm from the back wall and 45cm from the side wall.
You think that would give me enough room gain for the bass?
I would be driving the Arendal's with the Denon AVC-X4800H, given their 92dB sensitivity and 4 ohm load it should be sufficient enough?

I'm new to REW and made a couple of measurements a year ago with my old Onkyo TX-NR906 with Audyssey Dynamic EQ enabled.
I don't know if the scale is good, but it's from the front right channel which has the smoothest response.

View attachment 64201

I think the Arendals would work well in your situation. And if you end up wanting a bit more bass, all you need to do is move the speakers a bit closer to the back wall-- that tends to load the bass more. Angling the speakers to face inward or outward will change the soundstage somewhat as well, so you do have room to experiment.

 

[Bobby Bass]

I agree with trying the Arendals. They are built like tanks, have the strongest grills I’ve tested and look beautiful in the satin black. They weigh 111 lbs each and have a 10 year warranty. I have the towers in black listening to music and they beat the other 2 and 3 way speakers I auditioned in my listening room. I Haven’t heard those Wharfedales so can’t comment on them. My 1723 towers are a foot off the front wall and a foot off the side walls with a slight toe in and they sound great. I run with all 3 ports open in the back and the bass is excellent for music. I listen to mostly classic rock and am sensitive to any sharp or shrill high end sound With No problem. They can play incredibly loud without distortion but also sound good at lower volumes. The overall component and build quality is excellent. Arendals customer service is also excellent from my experience. Suggest getting them before the price increase.

 

[Robert-HiFi]

I think the Arendals would work well in your situation. And if you end up wanting a bit more bass, all you need to do is move the speakers a bit closer to the back wall-- that tends to load the bass more. Angling the speakers to face inward or outward will change the soundstage somewhat as well, so you do have room to experiment.

Those are indeed things worth experimenting with. And the fact that they can be EQ'ed more easily, matching the desired target curve is also nice.
But putting them too close to the wall might limit their soundstage depth?

 

[Robert-HiFi]

I agree with trying the Arendals. They are built like tanks, have the strongest grills I’ve tested and look beautiful in the satin black. They weigh 111 lbs each and have a 10 year warranty. I have the towers in black listening to music and they beat the other 2 and 3 way speakers I auditioned in my listening room. I Haven’t heard those Wharfedales so can’t comment on them. My 1723 towers are a foot off the front wall and a foot off the side walls with a slight toe in and they sound great. I run with all 3 ports open in the back and the bass is excellent for music. I listen to mostly classic rock and am sensitive to any sharp or shrill high end sound With No problem. They can play incredibly loud without distortion but also sound good at lower volumes. The overall component and build quality is excellent. Arendals customer service is also excellent from my experience. Suggest getting them before the price increase.

I agree that their build quality, fit and finish is top-notch which results in proud of ownership for me.
Their understated monolitic appearance is also something I appreciate.
Good to hear you don't find them sharp, shrill or fatiguing and that they are also good at lower listening volumes.
That's one of the reasons why I like higher sensitivity speakers, they are easier to get going.

My current speakers are Infinity Reference 61 Mk II's (I know, don't laugh).
They're budget speakers which are now 23 years old and the first speakers I bought since starting with this hobby in the late 90's.
I'm so accustomed to their sound that I know it will take some time to get used to new speakers and their different sound.

But it's a long-term investment for me and the positive feedback on them is huge.
And the thing we can all agree on is that the Arendal's are a good product.
If I'm buying them, who is going to help me get them up the stairs? Any volunteers?

BTW, I had to cut it up into two posts (something about spam). No idea what the issue was.

 

[Bobby Bass]

Good question you’ll find out who your friends are. My buddy helped me set mine up. I got the delivery guy to bring them in the house. The rest was up to us. Fortunately we brought them down into the basement and I don’t plan on ever bringing them back up.

 

[Robert-HiFi]

Good question you’ll find out who your friends are. My buddy helped me set mine up. I got the delivery guy to bring them in the house. The rest was up to us. Fortunately we brought them down into the basement and I don’t plan on ever bringing them back up.

I clearly underestimated their shipping box size and weight.
Getting them up on the stairs (including a narrow turn) looks to be nearly impossible without breaking your back.
Back to the drawing board to see if there's another way. The way I see it now it's probably better to have some professionals do it, but that's probably not cheap.

I'm in the same boat as you, once they're upstairs they won't go back down.
That raises the stakes even more on the Arendal's. They have to sound freaking awesome, because failure is not an option.

 

[shadyJ]

I clearly underestimated their shipping box size and weight.
Getting them up on the stairs (including a narrow turn) looks to be nearly impossible without breaking your back.
Back to the drawing board to see if there's another way. The way I see it now it's probably better to have some professionals do it, but that's probably not cheap.

I'm in the same boat as you, once they're upstairs they won't go back down.
That raises the stakes even more on the Arendal's. They have to sound freaking awesome, because failure is not an option.

Get a healthy friend to help, and use a shoulder dolly. That will make it pretty easy.

 

[TLS Guy]

Get a healthy friend to help, and use a shoulder dolly. That will make it pretty easy.

You haven't seen Dutch staircases! Many houses have lift hooks under the eves to allow furniture to be got in through the windows.

I do have one concern about those speakers though Shady. I did a passive crossover at 120Hz once. It seemed to sound OK at first, but the bass just was not as tight and firm as I wanted. So I designed an electronic crossover for it, and made it an active crossover. The speaker was markedly improved. I learned a lesson not to do a passive crossover in that region again. You end up with massive inductors with a crossover that low. So you have hysteresis issues in the core, especially at power. Even with high cost inductors the series DC resistance is to my mind unacceptable. So I have made a personal choice not to do it again.

 

[shadyJ]

I do have one concern about those speakers though Shady. I did a passive crossover at 120Hz once. It seemed to sound OK at first, but the bass just was not as tight and firm as I wanted. So I designed an electronic crossover for it, and made it an active crossover. The speaker was markedly improved. I learned a lesson not to do a passive crossover in that region again. You end up with massive inductors with a crossover that low. So you have hysteresis issues in the core, especially at power. Even with high cost inductors the series DC resistance is to my mind unacceptable. So I have made a personal choice not to do it again.

There are a lot of factors that could be at play if your crossover didn't work out. It could be the alignment, the slopes, or the way they play with the enclosure. It could be the way the drivers took to something in that circuit. With a 120Hz low-pass, the top half is essentially sitting on a sub. And what is more, as a 2.5-way design, the upper two woofers are playing low bass too. I haven't heard these particular speakers, but I did hear their little brother which shares much of the same design, and I thought they sounded good.

I don't completely disagree with you, however, but only in the case that a subwoofer will be used, especially if the speaker is being bass-managed with a high-pass filter, thereby putting two filters right next to each other. If the user feels the need to use subs with these speakers (and they really shouldn't, what with four 8"s), the speakers should be run full-range with the subwoofer calibrated accordingly.

 

[TLS Guy]

There are a lot of factors that could be at play if your crossover didn't work out. It could be the alignment, the slopes, or the way they play with the enclosure. It could be the way the drivers took to something in that circuit. With a 120Hz low-pass, the top half is essentially sitting on a sub. And what is more, as a 2.5-way design, the upper two woofers are playing low bass too. I haven't heard these particular speakers, but I did hear their little brother which shares much of the same design, and I thought they sounded good.

I don't completely disagree with you, however, but only in the case that a subwoofer will be used, especially if the speaker is being bass-managed with a high-pass filter, thereby putting two filters right next to each other. If the user feels the need to use subs with these speakers (and they really shouldn't, what with four 8"s), the speakers should be run full-range with the subwoofer calibrated accordingly.

A sub is active though. It is an active crossover. You may remember in the early days of subs, there were passive designs. They were very poor. I am not the only one who feels that low frequency passive crossovers are bad idea. I have now long set my acceptable lower limit for a passive crossover at 400Hz, and actually that is plenty low enough for a passive crossover. You really need to hear these ultra low Hz passives with the active equivalent. I guarantee the difference is not subtle. The inductors and caps are massive, which actually makes these designs costly.

 

[Bobby Bass]

I clearly underestimated their shipping box size and weight.
Getting them up on the stairs (including a narrow turn) looks to be nearly impossible without breaking your back.
Back to the drawing board to see if there's another way. The way I see it now it's probably better to have some professionals do it, but that's probably not cheap.

I'm in the same boat as you, once they're upstairs they won't go back down.
That raises the stakes even more on the Arendal's. They have to sound freaking awesome, because failure is not an option.

I hear you. Have you considered the 1723 S towers? They are smaller and lighter so it should be easier to get them upstairs.