Arendal 1723 2V Subwoofer Review

[shadyJ]

​

We were pleasantly surprised at our first encounter with an Arendal Sound product when they sent us the 1723 Monitors earlier this year, and maybe “pleasantly surprised” is a bit of an understatement; “blown away” is more apt. It wasn’t the least expensive speaker out there but we found it to be a serious bargain for what Arendal priced it at. That is why, when Arendal asked us if we were interested in reviewing their flagship subwoofer, the mammoth 1723 2V, we leaped at the opportunity, despite the eye-watering 132 lbs. weight. Today, we go over what we found out in our time with the 1723 2V subwoofer. Is it on the same level of value and performance as the 1723 Monitors?

READ: Arendal 1723 2V Subwoofer Review

 

[lovinthehd]

One quick note you've got manufacturer misspelled on the review page as Aerendal....

 

[jeffca]

I don't want to throw any shade on the Arendal sub because it's a quality product that's not astronomically priced, but there is better to be had for a few less bucks. Kudos to Arendal, though.

I've seen reviews of a bunch of subs that cost around $8K that are not better than this one or the one I'll bring up. Hell, I've seen glowing reviews of single driver, 10" subs with 7.5kW amps that cost $6K. Of course, forget about the fact that no woofer on the planet is rated for more than 800W continuous so why do you need amps that beefy? It's a waste of money.

As to the better, Rythmik Audio makes a sub almost identical to this that can be had for $300-500 less (depending on finish and that includes shipping) that will edge this one out. Why?

• The cabinet is sealed so it's smaller
• It uses 15" drivers so it has a touch more radiating area (yeah, I know this isn't huge)
• This is big: it uses a proprietary servo system that controls the driver better than any standard sub. This cannot be downplayed.
• I don't have the stats on it's uncrated weight, but it would seem to be about 10-20lbs. heavier so, for a smaller cab, I would assume that means it's even denser than the Arendal. Not a bad thing.

The DSP controls on the Arendal are nice, but, if you have a pre/pro with Dirac or something like it, you don't need them. Also, if you have a really great room, you won't need them as well.

Being ported, the Arendal will offer more output than the Rythmik, but at the cost of more temporal distortion as well as more distortion in general. That being said, I don't think the Arendal is a dog, just an 8.5 to 9 against a 10.

Being a bass player, I'm hypersensitive to any type of bass distortions. That's just me.

 

[ryanosaur]

Nice, Shady!

 

[shadyJ]

I don't want to throw any shade on the Arendal sub because it's a quality product that's not astronomically priced, but there is better to be had for a few less bucks. Kudos to Arendal, though.

I've seen reviews of a bunch of subs that cost around $8K that are not better than this one or the one I'll bring up. Hell, I've seen glowing reviews of single driver, 10" subs with 7.5kW amps that cost $6K. Of course, forget about the fact that no woofer on the planet is rated for more than 800W continuous so why do you need amps that beefy? It's a waste of money.

As to the better, Rythmik Audio makes a sub almost identical to this that can be had for $300-500 less (depending on finish and that includes shipping) that will edge this one out. Why?

• The cabinet is sealed so it's smaller
• It uses 15" drivers so it has a touch more radiating area (yeah, I know this isn't huge)
• This is big: it uses a proprietary servo system that controls the driver better than any standard sub. This cannot be downplayed.
• I don't have the stats on it's uncrated weight, but it would seem to be about 10-20lbs. heavier so, for a smaller cab, I would assume that means it's even denser than the Arendal. Not a bad thing.

The DSP controls on the Arendal are nice, but, if you have a pre/pro with Dirac or something like it, you don't need them. Also, if you have a really great room, you won't need them as well.

Being ported, the Arendal will offer more output than the Rythmik, but at the cost of more temporal distortion as well as more distortion in general. That being said, I don't think the Arendal is a dog, just an 8.5 to 9 against a 10.

Being a bass player, I'm hypersensitive to any type of bass distortions. That's just me.

Rythmik is down market with respect to Arendal. If you want the most raw SPL for your dollar, sure, it is a viable alternative. But you don't get the build quality, feature set, aesthetics, or protection that you do with Arendal. And even then, there are better alternatives to Rythmik if all you care about is SPL. Yes, a Nissan Sentra will get you to the supermarket just as well as a BMW M5, but the people shopping for these cars are looking at different attributes rather than just mere transportation.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I don't want to throw any shade on the Arendal sub because it's a quality product that's not astronomically priced, but there is better to be had for a few less bucks. Kudos to Arendal, though.

I've seen reviews of a bunch of subs that cost around $8K that are not better than this one or the one I'll bring up. Hell, I've seen glowing reviews of single driver, 10" subs with 7.5kW amps that cost $6K. Of course, forget about the fact that no woofer on the planet is rated for more than 800W continuous so why do you need amps that beefy? It's a waste of money.

As to the better, Rythmik Audio makes a sub almost identical to this that can be had for $300-500 less (depending on finish and that includes shipping) that will edge this one out. Why?

• The cabinet is sealed so it's smaller
• It uses 15" drivers so it has a touch more radiating area (yeah, I know this isn't huge)
• This is big: it uses a proprietary servo system that controls the driver better than any standard sub. This cannot be downplayed.
• I don't have the stats on it's uncrated weight, but it would seem to be about 10-20lbs. heavier so, for a smaller cab, I would assume that means it's even denser than the Arendal. Not a bad thing.

The DSP controls on the Arendal are nice, but, if you have a pre/pro with Dirac or something like it, you don't need them. Also, if you have a really great room, you won't need them as well.

Being ported, the Arendal will offer more output than the Rythmik, but at the cost of more temporal distortion as well as more distortion in general. That being said, I don't think the Arendal is a dog, just an 8.5 to 9 against a 10.

Being a bass player, I'm hypersensitive to any type of bass distortions. That's just me.
View attachment 50261

I couldn't find CEA2010 measurements of G25HP, but its much bigger cousin FV25HP while more powerful in terms of SPL, the actual distortions on lower bass is much higher than Arendal .
Source: https://data-bass.com/#/systems/5ac87f9b9f7cce0004b8ad4e?_k=7kypg7

 

[EBN]

I don't want to throw any shade on the Arendal sub because it's a quality product that's not astronomically priced, but there is better to be had for a few less bucks. Kudos to Arendal, though.

I've seen reviews of a bunch of subs that cost around $8K that are not better than this one or the one I'll bring up. Hell, I've seen glowing reviews of single driver, 10" subs with 7.5kW amps that cost $6K. Of course, forget about the fact that no woofer on the planet is rated for more than 800W continuous so why do you need amps that beefy? It's a waste of money.

As to the better, Rythmik Audio makes a sub almost identical to this that can be had for $300-500 less (depending on finish and that includes shipping) that will edge this one out. Why?

• The cabinet is sealed so it's smaller
• It uses 15" drivers so it has a touch more radiating area (yeah, I know this isn't huge)
• This is big: it uses a proprietary servo system that controls the driver better than any standard sub. This cannot be downplayed.
• I don't have the stats on it's uncrated weight, but it would seem to be about 10-20lbs. heavier so, for a smaller cab, I would assume that means it's even denser than the Arendal. Not a bad thing.

The DSP controls on the Arendal are nice, but, if you have a pre/pro with Dirac or something like it, you don't need them. Also, if you have a really great room, you won't need them as well.

Being ported, the Arendal will offer more output than the Rythmik, but at the cost of more temporal distortion as well as more distortion in general. That being said, I don't think the Arendal is a dog, just an 8.5 to 9 against a 10.

Being a bass player, I'm hypersensitive to any type of bass distortions. That's just me.
View attachment 50261

Arendal has 1723 2S model if you are looking sealed model. It has the same dual opposite 13,8" drivers and 1200w amplification. Sure it won´t be cheap as sent from Europe.

1723 Subwoofer 2S

arendalsound.com

 

[Danzilla31]

It's a great sub no doubt. But for 1400 dollars less the Monolith 13 holds up against it. Honestly once I start going into the 2000 to 3000 dollar range I do want as much performance for dollar as I can get. That just how I feel

Maybe the Arendal plays with less distortion but as Shady points out distortion numbers in subs are different as most times you won't hear the distortion once it gets down to a certain number.

I doubt I'd hear the distortion differences between SVS Arendal Rhythmik Monoprice. But I will hear a difference in output capability. Depending on the room size

And if output and distortion capability isn't a factor if all things are equal with whichever sub I drop in my room then the least expensive makes sense

So the game changer seems to me to be customer service reliability ease of user options sometimes for some buyers aesthetics but even then that can fluctuate

I mean the screen and dsp capabilities of these and SVS is nice but you can do the same if not better with a mini dsp and the right eq software.

So I guess it boils down to what matters to each individual. For me once it gets $2000 and above I want a sub that can do a lot of SPL for the buck as well. But that's just my individual preference

Great review Shady!!!!

 

[Eppie]

Another nice review Shady. I appreciate that you take the extra time to remove the side panel and show the internal structure. One thing I would like to see is a photo with something next to the sub for reference. It's hard to judge the size of the sub without some frame of reference. The photo with the side panel does help as it has the connectors and jacks but it would be nice to see this in a room setting. Arendal only seems to have one photo for the 1723 series so there's no reference for the other models but I assume this features their top speakers including the 2V.

 

[shadyJ]

One thing I would like to see is a photo with something next to the sub for reference. It's hard to judge the size of the sub without some frame of reference.

There are a pair of inspection gloves that come with the sub on top.

 

[Eppie]

Thanks.

 

[kernelpanic]

Great review @shadyJ ! Very impressive! I've had my eye on Arendal. Any chance you have group delay measurements from the sub in sealed mode? How about burst tests in sealed mode?

 

[ryanosaur]

Why get a ported sub and seal it?

 

[Verdinut]

Had Arendal used Baltic Birch plywood for that subwoofer, it would have even been slightly lighter than MDF but a lot sturdier than even HDF.

My argument is that the birch plywood also has a higher resonance than the MDF and way higher than the subwoofer driven frequencies.

 

[shadyJ]

Great review @shadyJ ! Very impressive! I've had my eye on Arendal. Any chance you have group delay measurements from the sub in sealed mode? How about burst tests in sealed mode?

I didn't do burst testing in the sealed mode, sorry. It takes a lot of time to test these subs, so I mainly just do burst testing in the primary operating mode.

 

[kernelpanic]

I didn't do burst testing in the sealed mode, sorry. It takes a lot of time to test these subs, so I mainly just do burst testing in the primary operating mode.

Got it, thanks. Is that the same for group delay?

 

[kernelpanic]

Why get a ported sub and seal it?

Flexibility? But mainly interested in how their sealed subs perform so was hoping to get an idea by testing in sealed mode.

 

[ryanosaur]

Flexibility? But mainly interested in how their sealed subs perform so was hoping to get an idea by testing in sealed mode.

Plugging ports in a ported sub will never be analogous to a true Sealed design. This is just simple physics. While one can take the ports out of play, it comes with it's own costs.

 

[shadyJ]

Got it, thanks. Is that the same for group delay?

No, group delay is an intrinsic component of the frequency response and phase, so if you take a frequency response sweep, you also get group delay with it. It doesn't have to be measured separately.

 

[shadyJ]

Plugging ports in a ported sub will never be analogous to a true Sealed design. This is just simple physics. While one can take the ports out of play, it comes with it's own costs.

I don't quite agree. Once you have stuffed the backside of the driver into an airtight compartment, it is truly a sealed subwoofer. And making airtight seals around ports is making the enclosure into a sealed subwoofer. You no longer have any of the advantages or disadvantages of the ports. The onus is entirely upon the driver to produce sound. The only problem with sealing the ports of a subwoofer that was intended to be run in ported operation is that the enclosure and electronics were geared for ported operation, so the configuration wouldn't be optimal for that alignment with that driver. But acoustically speaking, it is a true sealed subwoofer.