NEWS: Arendal announces its 1961 speaker range

Great info... I'll hold off on the surrounds (which I was dubious about anyway) and keep an eye out for 1961 heights. The 1723 ones are way too big for my small room.


I had a spare pair when you were at my place mate. Sister has taken them now. :rotfl:
Might have another pair available in a few months dependant on a few stars aligning. If you're still looking, I'll give you a shout.
 
I had a spare pair when you were at my place mate. Sister has taken them now. :rotfl:
Might have another pair available in a few months dependant on a few stars aligning. If you're still looking, I'll give you a shout.
I did spot them in your front room :D
 
Bipole/tripole at least is still very popular option for smaller rooms when the speakers are mounted very close by. Many finds the monopoles too directional/annoying if they are literally behind your ears as lot of members here at AVF seems to have couch against rear wall and if they have atmos system then you can´t get the extra distance by placing them higher either.

Harman / Floyd Toole gave green light for bi-poles too as did Dolby for Atmos. Dipoles won`t get much love anymore!

2015-second-day-room-acoustics-dipole-jpg.2342566


"Normal monopole speakers will struggle to create a sense of space in close proximity, as they need some distance to give you the sound stage you expect."

 
I have the 1961 surrounds and the 1961 height speakers, I have switched them back and forth, as a surround speaker I prefer the surrounds. The vast majority of the sound come from the front, with the side speakers filling in and making the sound more enveloping, if you get my drift, when I placed the heights in the surround location, the sound was very direct, I didn't like it.
 
I have the 1961 surrounds and the 1961 height speakers, I have switched them back and forth, as a surround speaker I prefer the surrounds. The vast majority of the sound come from the front, with the side speakers filling in and making the sound more enveloping, if you get my drift, when I placed the heights in the surround location, the sound was very direct, I didn't like it.


They direct sound is Atmos and what Dolby recommend.

I find a lot of detail is then lost. You also get a false sense of spaciousness when the director probably didn’t want it to feel that diffuse.

Our processors are quite smart. They know the speaker distance, level, delay etc to be able to ensure sound gets to your ear when it’s meant to.

Did you have the speakers set to the right height ? (Slightly high to minimise head occlusion)

With the height, the tweeter sits lower. You get better sound quality. With the surround, the tweeter is higher, you are off axis so get worse sound quality.
 
They direct sound is Atmos and what Dolby recommend.

I find a lot of detail is then lost. You also get a false sense of spaciousness when the director probably didn’t want it to feel that diffuse.

Our processors are quite smart. They know the speaker distance, level, delay etc to be able to ensure sound gets to your ear when it’s meant to.

Did you have the speakers set to the right height ? (Slightly high to minimise head occlusion)

With the height, the tweeter sits lower. You get better sound quality. With the surround, the tweeter is higher, you are off axis so get worse sound quality.

but processors can't compensate for room size, or lack of it, or short distance to the speaker (to allow the sound from the cone to spread out) If my sofa was smack against the rear wall I'd be using bipoles.

I think when it comes to speaker selection there are black and white rules and some that are grey. Diffuse speakers are probably in the gray area. I wouldn't recommend dipoles

I saw someone use a pair of bipoles as Atmos heights. I guess it's a worthwhile experiment- probably could work well in for room with low ceiling, for multiple seating? You could also try bipole orientation, do the drivers fire to you in front of your head and behind, or to the left or right shoulder? ie is your multi seating a three seater sofa, or say two rows of two? Could the orientation help depending on seating layout? ie if only going for 2 ceiling speakers.

If there was a "quick release" ceiling/wall system where you could try multiple speakers..and you own a AV store so large choice- would be worthwhile having a play.
 
but processors can't compensate for room size, or lack of it, or short distance to the speaker (to allow the sound from the cone to spread out) If my sofa was smack against the rear wall I'd be using bipoles.

I think when it comes to speaker selection there are black and white rules and some that are grey. Diffuse speakers are probably in the gray area. I wouldn't recommend dipoles

I saw someone use a pair of bipoles as Atmos heights. I guess it's a worthwhile experiment- probably could work well in for room with low ceiling, for multiple seating? You could also try bipole orientation, do the drivers fire to you in front of your head and behind, or to the left or right shoulder? ie is your multi seating a three seater sofa, or say two rows of two? Could the orientation help depending on seating layout? ie if only going for 2 ceiling speakers.

If there was a "quick release" ceiling/wall system where you could try multiple speakers..and you own a AV store so large choice- would be worthwhile having a play.


With a 1723S or 1723 surround you just remove the jumper so people can compare themselves.
However the tweeter will still be too high which means you're listened to OFF AXIS sound. This is NOT good for detail retrieval or clarity. Just check the speaker measurements. I'm no sure how thats really up for debate.

The 1961 surround does not allow you to switch modes, hence why I'd never recommend that speaker. Its essentially only good for one thing and not a versatile speaker.
 
With a 1723S or 1723 surround you just remove the jumper so people can compare themselves.
However the tweeter will still be too high which means you're listened to OFF AXIS sound. This is NOT good for detail retrieval or clarity. Just check the speaker measurements. I'm no sure how thats really up for debate.

The 1961 surround does not allow you to switch modes, hence why I'd never recommend that speaker. Its essentially only good for one thing and not a versatile speaker.

Yes if using those tripoles as heights you'd need to angle them with brackets. And I'd be concerned of such a heavy speaker that isn't flush against the wall (something like 18kg?
 
Yes if using those tripoles as heights you'd need to angle them with brackets. And I'd be concerned of such a heavy speaker that isn't flush against the wall (something like 18kg?
The surround speaker should have some degree of angle regardless so the tweeter is pointing sound towards the ear unless its designed to have an off axis vertical response (the Arendals aren't, I remember them being around 20-25 degrees)

A surround speaker needs to:
1. Minimise head occlusion effects (do this by mounting it higher)
2. Not provide clear localisation (processors and setting the right levels can normally do this but some people like to try tripole/dipole; maybe benefits tiny rooms?)
3. Provide accurate sound to how it was designed by either being designed to be really good sounding off axis vertically or angle the sound to the ear (most speakers would clearly benefit from an angled baffle or a tilt via bracket)
4. Still provide excellent detail to embody the surround track (you can do this by being in the sweetspot for the best on axis response vertically and horizontally)

It's actually really easy to do.
Sit down with a speaker where the tweeter is higher than it means to. Then just lift your seating position so you are now in line with the tweeter. You'll most likely get a much more clearer, accurate sound. It's really not rocket science.

The bigger the room, the bigger the dispersion if you're far from the surround speaker which means being on/off axis is maybe a bit more irrelevant. Its very easy to make the case that actually the smaller your room, the MORE Important you should be on axis re: sound because the dispersion is going to be far more limited re: angle to your MLP.
 


This guy really sums it up well.

Retailers are going to say different. If their speaker manufacturer does speakers with dipole, tripole, they'll suggest that obviously and some people are just stubborn - before Atmos, they probably had more of a role to play but now by modern day standards, tracks are made and designed for a bed layer of 7 speakers and for monopole design. It's all taken into account. Or maybe its just their experience. A bipole/tripole also is harder to place - you're up against a wall.. well where is the adacent wall? are you pointing that small driver into a wall for even MORE reflections?

In a small room - you need to be as close to the tweeter as possible as otherwise you will be outside of the response window and get a poor sound.
In a large room, you don't need diffusion of sound - you actually need them to be direct.

It's an interesting experiment. I did it with a 1723S height speaker and a 1723 surround speaker.

It also mirrors Dan Roemer's design philosophy with Perlisten. If he thought a triaxial or tripole design was important, he'd have done it but there isn't a single design in the entire Perlisten ecosystem (which seems to have everything) because he clearly doesn't think its good.
 
I played around with both, I preferred the 1961 surround to the height as a surround speaker. I'm not bothered by what the director thinks, it's what works best in my room that counts. This entire hobby is subjective.
 
I played around with both, I preferred the 1961 surround to the height as a surround speaker. I'm not bothered by what the director thinks, it's what works best in my room that counts. This entire hobby is subjective.
How high are your surrounds mounted in relation to the tweeter and your ear?
Any photos? Would be interesting to see.

Off axis sound is just not going to sound as good as on axis sound but maybe if the numbers and measurements line up, you could be fine. I'd be surprised though. Its an easy test. Just listen to the speakers when they're above your head (with EQ disabled) and when they're at tweeter height.

As long as you're happy at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
I played around with both, I preferred the 1961 surround to the height as a surround speaker. I'm not bothered by what the director thinks, it's what works best in my room that counts. This entire hobby is subjective.

I'd love to see some photo's of your setup if possible?
 
I'd love to see some photo's of your setup if possible?

You can see photos here. The height speakers are missing, I had them on the wall above the L&R speakers. I'm now going to move them to the ceiling.


The end goal is to split the basement in half, half for my office and the other half for the cinema. The wood paneling will be banished to the dump, i'll bump the tv up to 83/86 inch. 65 works ok for me at the moment.
 
I have a wanted ad in the classifieds for for 1961 Bookshelf Speakers if anyone is considering selling some.

 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom