Right. If I understand it as SBIR, a 4in absorber around the speaker could effectively mitigate the dip.Damping panel behind speaker.
Yes, but also a thinner one and air gap would help some.Right. If I understand it as SBIR, a 4in absorber around the speaker could effectively mitigate the dip.
The Revel S16 specs show a low end of 70hz at -3db whereas the Arendal 1961's low end specs are 73hz at -3db, so the Revel does have a slightly better lower end response.I'm looking for a wall mount LR pair of speakers for my listening area. At the $1000 price point, does anyone have experience with the Arendal 1961 MONITORS or the Revel S16 wall mount bookshelves? The 1961 bookshelves and M16 bookshelves both measure well and seem well liked. I like the form factor of the 1961 monitor (slimmer and taller) but I suspect the S16 would perform better without a sub with the larger cabinet and driver and being a purpose built wall mount speaker.
Eventually I'll add a center channel and sub, but the sub is lower priority due to having a small child and less opportunities to listen to loud bass heavy music. So for now I'm prioritizing 2.0/3.0
I've owned the Arendal 1961 Monitors for a while now, sounds really good. My plan was to wall-mount them but to me they didn't sound as good flush against the front wall as with a 10 cm gap behind them on stands.I'm looking for a wall mount LR pair of speakers for my listening area. At the $1000 price point, does anyone have experience with the Arendal 1961 MONITORS or the Revel S16 wall mount bookshelves? The 1961 bookshelves and M16 bookshelves both measure well and seem well liked. I like the form factor of the 1961 monitor (slimmer and taller) but I suspect the S16 would perform better without a sub with the larger cabinet and driver and being a purpose built wall mount speaker.
Eventually I'll add a center channel and sub, but the sub is lower priority due to having a small child and less opportunities to listen to loud bass heavy music. So for now I'm prioritizing 2.0/3.0
Thanks, too bad to hear but I suppose you can't design a speaker for every situation. Being that the Revel is specific for wall mount makes me think it's the way to go.I've owned the Arendal 1961 Monitors for a while now, sounds really good. My plan was to wall-mount them but to me they didn't sound as good flush against the front wall as with a 10 cm gap behind them on stands.
Eventually I switched to use them as surrounds and ordered 1723 Monitor S instead as fronts.
I do wonder if the S16 would also have that dip around 400hz due to the front and back wall reflections canceling each other out, since revel does advertise it as an on wall speaker.
But like Erin said not a lot of manufacturers specifically engineer their speakers to account for that dip, so I doubt revel accounted for the peak when designing the crossover, or else the speaker would sound weird on a normal speaker stand
Thanks, too bad to hear but I suppose you can't design a speaker for every situation. Being that the Revel is specific for wall mount makes me think it's the way to go.
Distance (in) | Distance (m) | SBIR Frequency |
6 | 0.1524 | 558 |
7 | 0.1778 | 478 |
8 | 0.2032 | 418 |
9 | 0.2286 | 372 |
10 | 0.254 | 335 |
11 | 0.2794 | 304 |
12 | 0.3048 | 279 |
13 | 0.3302 | 257 |
14 | 0.3556 | 239 |
15 | 0.381 | 223 |
16 | 0.4064 | 209 |
17 | 0.4318 | 197 |
18 | 0.4572 | 186 |
19 | 0.4826 | 176 |
20 | 0.508 | 167 |
21 | 0.5334 | 159 |
22 | 0.5588 | 152 |
23 | 0.5842 | 145 |
24 | 0.6096 | 139 |
25 | 0.635 | 134 |
26 | 0.6604 | 129 |
27 | 0.6858 | 124 |
28 | 0.7112 | 120 |
29 | 0.7366 | 115 |
30 | 0.762 | 112 |
32 | 0.8128 | 105 |
34 | 0.8636 | 98 |
36 | 0.9144 | 93 |
Great to hear, thanks for that. Got any pictures?I have been listening to the 1961 bookshelf speakers in my main system for the past few weeks and am thrilled with these speakers. The 1961 subwoofer was ordered at the same time, however delivery was delayed for over a month. Just received the sub the other day and now in the process of integrating it into a 2.1 system.
My prior system was a 5.2 setup with Kef R500s. It was a fantastic system, however I decided I wanted to simplify and not have as much stuff in the living room. Once I removed the 5.2 setup it was like a whole new living room. I rarely have time for critical music listening these days and most of the time the system was being used for watching tv or movies.
The appeal of the 1961's is their size and appearance. In a living room these diminutive white speakers with no visible screws on the contrasting black drivers disappear much better than towers or larger monitor speakers plus they are super easy to move when needed. I looked at active speakers however decided for my use case the 1961's offered incredible value even when adding an amp and preamp to the cost of the system. The depth of these speaker is only 6 inches, which makes placement in all kinds of spaces a snap.
While no bass monsters, I could easily live with these speakers without a sub. Cranking the volume on my PA5 amp these speakers can hit peaks of 95 dBA at the seating area which is 13 feet from the speakers with no strain. They do a credible job with bass material. Of course with a 5.5" woofer my bass expectations are modest. My listening levels rarely exceed 75 - 80 dBA these days and having a subwoofer or two subwoofers is just not a priority anymore. As the system is in a wide open living room it does look much cleaner without subs.
Well done Arendal!
Maybe you are target customer for an SVS 3000 Micro in white. Small, still affordable, and will complement the bass of your speakers and hide away without calling attention to it.I have been listening to the 1961 bookshelf speakers in my main system for the past few weeks and am thrilled with these speakers. The 1961 subwoofer was ordered at the same time, however delivery was delayed for over a month. Just received the sub the other day and now in the process of integrating it into a 2.1 system.
My prior system was a 5.2 setup with Kef R500s. It was a fantastic system, however I decided I wanted to simplify and not have as much stuff in the living room. Once I removed the 5.2 setup it was like a whole new living room. I rarely have time for critical music listening these days and most of the time the system was being used for watching tv or movies.
The appeal of the 1961's is their size and appearance. In a living room these diminutive white speakers with no visible screws on the contrasting black drivers disappear much better than towers or larger monitor speakers plus they are super easy to move when needed. I looked at active speakers however decided for my use case the 1961's offered incredible value even when adding an amp and preamp to the cost of the system. The depth of these speaker is only 6 inches, which makes placement in all kinds of spaces a snap.
While no bass monsters, I could easily live with these speakers without a sub. Cranking the volume on my PA5 amp these speakers can hit peaks of 95 dBA at the seating area which is 13 feet from the speakers with no strain. They do a credible job with bass material. Of course with a 5.5" woofer my bass expectations are modest. My listening levels rarely exceed 75 - 80 dBA these days and having a subwoofer or two subwoofers is just not a priority anymore. As the system is in a wide open living room it does look much cleaner without subs.
Well done Arendal!
I don't know...1,000 euros for Chinese manufactured bookshelf speakers that are cheap looking just screams profiteering to me
No way I could justify it tbh.
LOL! I have not heard them but it's one of the models I'm considering for my desktop. How do you think they would do in the nearfield?Unfortunately no nice pics at this time.
I paid USD699 - got them just before the prices went up. I hear the Norwegian government have launched a probe into Arendal over the billions of dollars they have "profiteered" off these $700 bookshelf speakers. LOL. Value and beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Have you heard and seen these speakers in person?
Yes, the SVS 3000 Micro would have been a perfect fit as would the more expensive KC62.
Well yeah,those prices for small Chinese cheaply made speakers is a rip off IMHO.Drivers are cheap,cab is cheap,covering is cheap and it looks cheap so if it looks like a duck....Oh and a speaker company that actually states a "50 hour break in for optimal performance" in their technical specs section.Maybe that's to get you used to the the fact that the bass rolls off @ 75hz...Maybe you are happy with no sub but i sure can't see myself being happy with it.As always YMMVUnfortunately no nice pics at this time.
I paid USD699 - got them just before the prices went up. I hear the Norwegian government have launched a probe into Arendal over the billions of dollars they have "profiteered" off these $700 bookshelf speakers. LOL. Value and beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Have you heard and seen these speakers in person?
Yes, the SVS 3000 Micro would have been a perfect fit as would the more expensive KC62.