Arendal 1723 S Tower THX Speaker Review

V

vladimir

Audiophyte
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

ryanosaur

Audioholic Warlord
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
 
V

vladimir

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

GalZohar

Enthusiast
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:
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
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).
 
G

GalZohar

Enthusiast
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

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
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.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top