Arendal Sound 1723 THX Tower Review!

[gene]

The Arendal Sound 1723 Tower is an imposing loudspeaker with an array of four 8" woofers and a tweeter nested in a large metal waveguide. It is THX Ultra certified and looks it. In our review, we take a deep dive into Arendal's flagship speaker to see what is involved to design a tower speaker that achieves THX Ultra certification. James discussed the strengths and weaknesses on the Arendal Sound 1723 Tower speaker. How do they fair against the new SVS Ultra Evolution, MartinLogan Motion XT and JBL HDI series speakers? You'll have to read our review to find out and watch our Youtube Review discussion.

Read: Arendal Sound 1723 THX Tower Review

 

[ryanosaur]

Thanks @shadyJ for another great review!

…did the Speakers and your back survive the ordeal?

 

[Oddball]

These are really great speakers in that price range. I enjoy them in my friend's HT occasionally and have nothing but praise for them.

They discontinued lower-end series of speakers and the buzz out there is that new series is coming. Not many details, but some speculate that it could be higher end offering than 1723. On it's face not consistent with their prior line-up, but potentially could be true if the lower end series did not attract a lot of buyers.

 

[gene]

 

[Danzilla31]

@shadyJ another fantastic review!

I have a question with these that maybe you can help me with

I'm really struggling with understanding this trait that some of these bigger companies are doing with their flagship towers of using such a low crossover point on their towers that they rely can't be paired with a sub or not very easily and really should be run full range?

@shadyJ why are they doing this? It seems to cause more issues then it would solve the new SVS flagship in your review do this as well.

I would much prefer in a massive tower the ability to let the subs handle all the heavy lifting 40 to 60 to 80 hz down below and then use those towers and all those drivers more for midbass and for better midrange and highs with the strain being taken off the low end and then freeing the towers up for other areas that take up a lot of Powe for example one such area is the bandwidth for voices - dialogue and speech intelligibity surprisingly take up a lot of power)

In my fairly large theater room where ideal listening sweet spot is in the second row my listening distance to the front 3 is about 13 to 14 feet

To run 3 full range towers as my L C R that would take a massive amount of power to allow them to keep up with the subs dynamic range at higher listening levels and that's considering if they could even manage it without starting to give out with compression or distortion

That's not even factoring in house curves and eq and how that can impact your headroom as well

I have no inclination to EVER give up my RBH SV-831 R's but if I were ever so inclined to do so this issue with these new towers pairing with subs would be a complete no go for me

@shadyJ why do you feel these companies are making this design choice. Have they given you any type of explanation for why they feel it was necessary?

 

[ryanosaur]

@Danzilla31
I agree. Seems silly.

Frankly both these and the SVS Ultra Evolution Pinnacle have an interesting directivity mismatch, too, which is slightly more concerning to me. The SVS is a little narrower than what we see on the Arendal here, but both occur between 1-2kHz.

Both show some rather intriguing decisions by the designers. I do wish we could be informed of why these choices are being made. Sadly, neither seem to really address the focus on implementing better engineering at a time in this hobby where people have access to very detailed measurement suites courtesy of many reviewers, including our good friend @shadyJ .

While I'm not arguing necessarily that every FR must be ruler smooth, I do think that such basics of matching Drivers and getting a good XO network designed seem to be taking a back seat to "wow-factor." Adding to that is the fact that in many HT setups, adding Subs for LFE is fairly common, and not giving a good match for a cross to the Sub is easily considered another design 'error.'

Sadly for these guys... I can think of a certain ID company (which may feature prominently in my signature) whose Speakers truly look to outperform anything in this price point and also compete well above. But that's another story for other threads.

 

[Danzilla31]

@Danzilla31
I agree. Seems silly.

Frankly both these and the SVS Ultra Evolution Pinnacle have an interesting directivity mismatch, too, which is slightly more concerning to me. The SVS is a little narrower than what we see on the Arendal here, but both occur between 1-2kHz.

Both show some rather intriguing decisions by the designers. I do wish we could be informed of why these choices are being made. Sadly, neither seem to really address the focus on implementing better engineering at a time in this hobby where people have access to very detailed measurement suites courtesy of many reviewers, including our good friend @shadyJ .

While I'm not arguing necessarily that every FR must be ruler smooth, I do think that such basics of matching Drivers and getting a good XO network designed seem to be taking a back seat to "wow-factor." Adding to that is the fact that in many HT setups, adding Subs for LFE is fairly common, and not giving a good match for a cross to the Sub is easily considered another design 'error.'

Sadly for these guys... I can think of a certain ID company (which may feature prominently in my signature) whose Speakers truly look to outperform anything in this price point and also compete well above. But that's another story for other threads.

I love your speakers

 

[shadyJ]

Thanks @shadyJ for another great review!

…did the Speakers and your back survive the ordeal?

Yes, both speakers and my back are OK.

@shadyJ another fantastic review!

I have a question with these that maybe you can help me with

I'm really struggling with understanding this trait that some of these bigger companies are doing with their flagship towers of using such a low crossover point on their towers that they rely can't be paired with a sub or not very easily and really should be run full range?

@shadyJ why are they doing this? It seems to cause more issues then it would solve the new SVS flagship in your review do this as well.

@shadyJ why do you feel these companies are making this design choice. Have they given you any type of explanation for why they feel it was necessary?

I think they are focused on the designs of the individual speaker, and so they set out with the criteria of how to execute a full-range tower. So they aren't really considering how the addition of a sub factors in here. They may say, if you want to high-pass to a sub, get the stand-mount speakers. Or they may not consider all the phase rotation and pinched badwidth a big deal when high-passing these towers to a sub.

 

[shadyJ]

Frankly both these and the SVS Ultra Evolution Pinnacle have an interesting directivity mismatch, too, which is slightly more concerning to me. The SVS is a little narrower than what we see on the Arendal here, but both occur between 1-2kHz.

Both show some rather intriguing decisions by the designers. I do wish we could be informed of why these choices are being made. Sadly, neither seem to really address the focus on implementing better engineering at a time in this hobby where people have access to very detailed measurement suites courtesy of many reviewers, including our good friend @shadyJ .

While I'm not arguing necessarily that every FR must be ruler smooth, I do think that such basics of matching Drivers and getting a good XO network designed seem to be taking a back seat to "wow-factor." Adding to that is the fact that in many HT setups, adding Subs for LFE is fairly common, and not giving a good match for a cross to the Sub is easily considered another design 'error.'

Sadly for these guys... I can think of a certain ID company (which may feature prominently in my signature) whose Speakers truly look to outperform anything in this price point and also compete well above. But that's another story for other threads.

I think too much weight is being put on perfect directivity matching between drivers in some quarters of this hobby. What is being thrown around of based off of the research of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, etc, but the speakers they used to show how consistent directivity improved the percived sound quality had severe directivity mismatches, not the mild ones in some of the speakers that you are talking about. And what some people might miss is that the compromises seen in these graphs may be done for a strength in some other respect. In other words, there are trade-offs that aren't obvious to layman. Believe me, the people who made these speakers have a very deep understanding of the science, and they are trying to factor a whole bunch of design goals for a well-balanced end product.

 

[Danzilla31]

Yes, both speakers and my back are OK.

I think they are focused on the designs of the individual speaker, and so they set out with the criteria of how to execute a full-range tower. So they aren't really considering how the addition of a sub factors in here. They may say, if you want to high-pass to a sub, get the stand-mount speakers. Or they may not consider all the phase rotation and pinched badwidth a big deal when high-passing these towers to a sub.

So in a room like mine sitting 14 feet back from 3 of these as my L C R with 4 Rythmik FV18's in the room

How would you recommend to properly implement these?

It's a theoretical question but I feel it holds value because a lot of us here on audioholics that have been in the hobby for awhile have serious subs already in our rooms if some of us would want to purchase these and not the stand mount how would we integrate these into our setups

Your article may attract potential buyers and if they browse this thread I thought it might be nice to have you answer that question if you don't mind Shady

How does one go about integrating a full range tower like this into a more serious theater with heavy duty subs if they don't want to use a high pass filter?

 

[lovinthehd]

Just watched the video too. These are very attractive speakers! If I only "needed" something

 

[Danzilla31]

Yes, both speakers and my back are OK.

I think they are focused on the designs of the individual speaker, and so they set out with the criteria of how to execute a full-range tower. So they aren't really considering how the addition of a sub factors in here. They may say, if you want to high-pass to a sub, get the stand-mount speakers. Or they may not consider all the phase rotation and pinched badwidth a big deal when high-passing these towers to a sub.

One last question as you said they set out to execute a full range tower

Does one need to crossover the bottom woofers that low to pull this off? As you said maybe their are advantages to crossing the woofers so low to achieve this goal?

 

[Danzilla31]

Just watched the video too. These are very attractive speakers! If I only "needed" something

They are really beautiful looking speakers Lovin

If I still had my JBL 590 in that room and hadn't gone with RBH as my upgrade these most likely would have been the one

 

[lovinthehd]

They are really beautiful looking speakers Lovin

If I still had my JBL 590 in that room and hadn't gone with RBH as my upgrade these most likely would have been the one

There's still time?

 

[Danzilla31]

There's still time?

For you to buy these!!!!

 

[lovinthehd]

For you to buy these!!!!

Nah probably at this point just not going to happen.....just sort of fantasy type tempting along with quite a few others

 

[lovinthehd]

Nah probably at this point just not going to happen.....just sort of fantasy type tempting along with quite a few others

Which is why it's up to you now

 

[ryanosaur]

I think too much weight is being put on perfect directivity matching between drivers in some quarters of this hobby. What is being thrown around of based off of the research of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, etc, but the speakers they used to show how consistent directivity improved the percived sound quality had severe directivity mismatches, not the mild ones in some of the speakers that you are talking about. And what some people might miss is that the compromises seen in these graphs may be done for a strength in some other respect. In other words, there are trade-offs that aren't obvious to layman. Believe me, the people who made these speakers have a very deep understanding of the science, and they are trying to factor a whole bunch of design goals for a well-balanced end product.

I absolutely get where you are coming from and largely agree with everything you wrote. Much to the same point I made about FR not needing to be ruler smooth, I will say the same about Directivity. However, a 3-4dB dip between 1100-1600Hz is bordering on a little much, in my opinion, especially as it does not correct any with the angle of dispersion.

Conversely, You can see in the Sigberg designs, just as an example, where there may be too much energy on axis but he chooses that evil for a smoother off-axis response which also aligns with his recommended placement and listening angle.

Anybody following your reviews, as well as your peers on different channels, should understand the balancing of tradeoffs. This is a good example of one that I don't fully understand.

(And I'm comfortable saying that! I still am highly interested and am pursuing my own DIY goals. However, even now several years invested in studying and dabbling with this, I would never claim to be an expert and certainly am not doing so above. Questioning a design decision is certainly reasonable if learning can be achieved from it.)

 

[Danzilla31]

Which is why it's up to you now

I would if I hadn't upgraded to the RBH SV-831R's

Ive listened to a LOT of speakers Lovin and those RBH are some of the absolute BEST I have ever heard

They do everything superb but that 4.75 inch AMT tweeter RBH uses is amazing. I am curious about these but I feel Lovin that except for the extra bass extension these as good as they are would just be a lateral move

 

[lovinthehd]

I would if I hadn't upgraded to the RBH SV-831R's

Ive listened to a LOT of speakers Lovin and those RBH are some of the absolute BEST I have ever heard

They do everything superb but that 4.75 inch AMT tweeter RBH uses is amazing. I am curious about these but I feel Lovin that except for the extra bass extension these as good as they are would just be a lateral move

Yeah the RBH are up there if I chose new speakers but my dream speakers are more the JBL M2/4367....