I know Arendal now has the higher 1528 Series out, but I have yet to review those. So if you want to know which I think are better, I don't have the answer at this time.
Thanks for the review. I had the 1723 S towers and upgraded to the 1723 towers. They both are excellent but the 1723 had a larger soundstage and sound scale. Great dynamics. Sound good at low volume and can go louder than is safe for listening without breaking a sweat. Built like tanks at 111 lbs. each. I added 2 subs and the sound is amazing. The best towers I’ve heard in my listening room. They now have the 1528 series which look cool and measure well but they’re $10K for the towers. I got mine about 2 years ago for $3,600 in black satin. Black beauties. I’m set for towers. They have excellent customer service. Buy with free delivery with 60 days to return free of charge if you’re not satisfied in the US. Definitely worth a listen. Highly recommend.
@@joentell Sonus Faber Concertinos the some Kef Q350s. Both were great but the 1723s just fit. Maybe it's my system. I know synergy is a trial and error thing.
Great review. I have to admit, I remain a huge fan of Fritz Heiler's Carbon 7 SE Mk. 2. He's a small maker and uses high quality Scanspeak drivers and a very elegant crossover. Music sounds positively intimate and live -- no harshness but plenty of details. Much better than speakers 3x the price in my experience.
I have 3 Arendal 1723 Monitor S THX (L,R,C) and 2 1723 Surround S THX. Really great! Especially the Monitor S are the best value what you can get. Also now always some outlet pieces available. And 2 XTZ 1x12 Edge Subs (Arendal Subs are too expensive imho, i had one for testing).
Joe I'm confused, looking at the estimated in-room response (from Erin), the curve clearly shows a bright speaker with a flat in-room response. Does not follow the natural sloped response that has been shown to be pleasing to most people.
a solid review, Arendal sound speakers have have something special i think, the 1723 series i have not heard myself. but i do own something from the cheaper 1961 and the flagship 1528. the first production units should be arriving in people homes about now.
Thanks for your comments about the 1723 Triaxial surround. I wish someone would publish Klippel data on them in triaxial and monopole mode. I'm about to install several of them in my room for surrounds and atmos (using the 1723 monitors for LCR) but I'm kind of jumping in blind. I did temporarily hook one up as a center speaker in monopole mode and it sounded great so hopefully it will work out.
I measured each driver nearfield in-room. It seemed to have a similar response to the bookshelf. The in-phase and out of phase speaker were lower in level.
Hey Joe, are the 1723s towers as good if you look at their measurements? The also have the 6.5 inch line up... The directivity line is not as straight/smooth but is it still top notch? Also top 10 like these bookshelves according when you compare them to all the others??
Why is the phantom center catching so many channels off guard? How can you speak in terms of stage and imaging without it? It all begins with the center image.
I hear what you're saying. Some speakers are better than others and when it's locked in, it's always a cool effect. Sound stage can sound wide without the center being focused because that's more dependent on how the speakers interact with side walls. But yes, they're typically interrelated, especially imaging and phantom center focus.
Defentily 1723S serious is a win.. Been loving mines for about three years now.. All Blue Jean Cables Denon 3700.. Monolith 7 * 200.. Emotiva basx4 for atmos.... 7.2.4 Arendel 1723s LFC.. Arendal 1723s surrounds.. Arendal 1961s heights.. 2 Arendal 1961s Subwoofer.. Equals 😁😁😁
Joe, quick question bro. For surround duty. If you can choose between the 1723 s surround speakers or the bookshelves to be used as surrounds, which one you go with? If both types go on stands, which one do u choose and the same if both get mounted on the wall ? Thank you in advance
On stands, you could go with the bookshelf and aim it backwards 30° and get a similar result. The advantage of the triaxial is it achieves that while being mounted on a wall so it doesn't stick out as far
I went from klipsch rf8000 to 1723 thx and I feel the sound is flat and not as exciting as the rf8000 for movie. Not sure what you guys would call it, but it’s missing what draws you into a movie. The clarity is there but there is also too much treble. Am I missing something? Im running Yamaha cxa5000 preamp, Rotel rmb1095, and SVS ultra pb16. All calibrated through YAO.
Love this review Joe. Got their purpose perfectly. Good neatrality, distortion, compression, etc just not good extension so just add a sub. Which in most home theaters, you add a a sub anyway. I have the 1723 s monitors for the LCR and 2 monolith subs. My HT sounds great. Im debating getting the 8" monitors. Do you think i would gain anything in maybe dynamics or anything else
I think the 6.5" driver in the S series is what makes the directivity better. The 8" woofers require the width of the speaker baffle to be wider. The waveguide is the same on both versions, which is why I say it seems like the 6.5" woofer pairs better with that waveguide.
@@joentell Ah that makes sense. If you get a chance to review the new series that would be great. Thanks for the reply, looking forward to more great videos!
I almost ordered these bookshelves but am going to try out the new SVS evolution bookshelves. If I don't like them I'll order these. I had the 1961 monitors and they were pretty good and a 1723 1S sub which I preferred over the SVS Sb3000 and Rel HT 1205 mk2.
@@mddawson1 initial listening impressions of the EVO bookshelves aren't that promising. The vocals are thin and shouty, I've tamed that a little with EQ by pulling down at 4khz and 1 khz. I'll give them an honest try for a couple days, but as of now, I'd easily take my Kef Q7 meta or even my Dynaudio Emit 20 over them. I have a feeling I'll have a pair of 1723 bookshelf or Monitor S at the house in the near future.
@@Mclay34 Your description is pretty much what I have read in most reviews. I was looking for new speakers last year and thought the SVS Pinnacle Towers looked good. However they were quickly removed from my short list due to the poor reviews and the price here in OZ being over $11,000aud due to importer and dealer charges. I got the Arendal 1723 Tower THX for $7200aud and the are fantastic. The build quality alone is worthy of speakers twice the price.
I can answer that for you, I have a complete 5.1.4 SVS ultra evolution line(bookshelf, nano bookshelf, center, and evo elevation). And im currently selling them to replace them for a complete 1723 bed layer lay out. Currently own a pair of 1723 monitor s speakers and wow ! Much better than the evo bookshelf and nano bookshelf that I currently own. why? Sound is warm and organic. its like what your hear is what is intended. I understand folks have certain preferences. I do like the evo line still. however I felt in the short run the bookshelf were bright enough to have fatigue and needed to turn the volume down to give my ears a break. you'll never need to with Arendal. Iam keeping the four ultra evo elevation for atmos. like Joe said, I don't want to mount large heavy speakers that high just for atmos mix. don't think I need to.
I heard the SVS Evo line at Mwave 2024. I've never heard any Arendals, but many of the big players at Mwave; Ascendo, RBH, Grimani, JTR. They did not sound much different than each other. SVS was playing at a lower volume, but they cranked it up at my request. There are guys who may return a Porsche to replace them with Ferrari because of fickle reasons... The area SVS and Arendal both fall short compared to others is output if you have a large room. In which case it makes little sense to throw 400w at Arendal because of the cost of that kind of amplification when you could just buy more sensitive speakers.
The Evolution was one of my options for the trade show event where I demonstrated Magic Beans. I used the Arendal 1723's based on the directivity measurements.
The 1723 line consists of speakers that are all THX Ultra certified meaning they can hit reference level in rooms up to 3000 cubic feet from a distance of 12 ft with minimal distortion. So in most residential systems, they'll be fine. To give others reading this an idea, a 22ft x 15ft x9ft space is 2970 cubic feet. I have a similarly sized home theater and these play louder than I would ever want to play them and they do it with ease. If you have a larger theater, then you may want larger commercial style speakers.
That PIR would be far too hot far me unless I toed them out significantly. IMHO, the Ascend Acoustics Sierra and Kef Concerta seem like they have the more ideal response.
There is no ideal dispersion width, so there's no ideal PIR slope that I know of. So, what is your reference? An omni-directional speaker with a perfectly flat response would have a PIR that is a straight line. Do you know for sure that you and others wouldn't prefer the sound of that?
Huh? You certainly inferred and took liberties with what I wrote. Firstly, I never stated what I thought others would prefer; only “I,” “me,” and “IMHO.” Secondly, while a generally preferred horizontal radiation pattern is up for debate, a preferred EIR is not, at least if you believe in Floyd Toole’s research, as I do. Thirdly, I’m not following your comment on omni directional speakers. I referred to two specific speakers at similar pricing that are objectively superior to the Arendal. Neither are omni directional. The bottom line is that Erin’s measurements indicate this speaker’s treble will be hot unless toed out. Erin confirms this, subjectively, in both his written comments and his video. I am not a fan of bright speakers. To each their own.
@@RMW1982 this speaker does have a slightly lifted treble response. I said that in my video. I saw your comment as two separate sentences, one saying your preference, and another mentioning an ideal response. You can understand what I might mistakenly think you were speaking in general terms regarding ideal response. I've read Dr. Toole's book and spoke with him numerous times. I don't recall them saying anything about a specific PIR, just that they found that people preferred a neutral direct sound and a smooth directivity leading to a downward sloping response in most rooms. An example of why I don't believe there is an ideal PIR is if you look at the PIR for the KEF Blade2 Meta and the new Q11 Meta. They have very different slopes. Which is correct? I mentioned an omni-directional speaker as an example of an extreme case. The opposite end of that is a speaker that is highly directional. That will have a steeper slope. My point being that what's correct for one speaker isn't necessarily correct for another. The radiation pattern and PIR are interrelated.
Hi @joentell, I'm a Magic Beans user. I immediately purchased the Polk XT20s after your video about them. I currently have 3 pairs (only £189 a pair in the UK) and I am going to setup a 7.4.4 home theater and assess how they sound (I expect they will sound great after Magic Beans). But these Arendals are now my realistic end game. I was going to mess about with some omnidirectional speakers which are a similar price to the Arendals but I think I will get the Arendals instead.
🤑🤑💵💵🤑🤑💵💵🤑🤑 *sigh* My whole system doesn't cost this much and I have 2 sets of stereo speakers and a Velodyne powered sub. Very nice speakers if you can afford them.
I have the center S and it's less of an upgrade than what I was expecting but it does hold together at higher volumes better than the previous speaker. Having said that, these are deffo home theater speakers NOT hi-fi speakers. I'm thinking of getting a pair of fronts and I'm looking elsewhere.
I don't differentiate between the two personally. Movies have lots of music, so the speaker doesn't know the difference. With subs, I would happily put these up against some of the most esoteric "HiFi" stuff if all we're comparing is sound quality and nothing else.
@@joentell Nah. High volume doesn't necessarily translate well to airy highs etc, etc. There are compromises In any speaker design. This is where those who stick too closely to measurement can get lost IMO.
@Roof_Pizza I mentioned the Philharmonic BMR which I would consider more music-focused by design. I still don't know exactly what you're referring to when you say "airy highs". The Philharmonics have a wider dispersion pattern with their ribbon tweeter. It trades off an extremely wide sound stage for a more solid center image. That's why I think measurements are important. It allows us to make sure we're talking about the same things. The other thing about the Philharmonic BMR's is they have way more bass extension. Down to around 35Hz vs 80Hz for the Arendal 1723 Bookshelf S. The BMR's I could use without a sub and have a good listening experience for both music and movies.
@@joentell Yeah, no. Some speakers excel at low volumes whereas others don't. There is more than one reason to choose a hifi speaker over a home theater speaker. At the extreme end I wouldn't get a commercial theater speaker dor home hifi and I wouldn't get a commercial record mixing speaker for a home theater,
@Roof_Pizza as I said before. I like measurements so we can point to aspects of sound that we like/dislike. If we're just using subjective terms, I just have to trust you like what you like and I like what I like. Objective measurements can be used to find common ground. Right now, I have no idea what you're saying.
I have a 7.4.4 Atmos system,1723 thx monitor LCR,1723 thxs surrounds,SVS ultra surrounds,4 1961 heights,4 SVS sb3000 subs,calibrated with DLBC with magic beans true target curves and let me tell you it sounds fantastic for movies and music.
Almost in the same boat 😅😅 All Blue Jean Cables Denon 3700.. Monolith 7 * 200.. Emotiva basx4 for atmos.... 7.2.4 Arendel 1723s LFC.. Arendal 1723s surrounds.. Arendal 1961s heights.. 2 Arendal 1961s Subwoofer.. Equals 😁😁😁
I know Arendal now has the higher 1528 Series out, but I have yet to review those. So if you want to know which I think are better, I don't have the answer at this time.
Thanks for the review. I had the 1723 S towers and upgraded to the 1723 towers. They both are excellent but the 1723 had a larger soundstage and sound scale. Great dynamics. Sound good at low volume and can go louder than is safe for listening without breaking a sweat. Built like tanks at 111 lbs. each. I added 2 subs and the sound is amazing. The best towers I’ve heard in my listening room. They now have the 1528 series which look cool and measure well but they’re $10K for the towers. I got mine about 2 years ago for $3,600 in black satin. Black beauties. I’m set for towers. They have excellent customer service. Buy with free delivery with 60 days to return free of charge if you’re not satisfied in the US. Definitely worth a listen. Highly recommend.
I’ve had mine for 4 months. Absolutely love the sound and quality. Very happy with my decision
Congrats! What did you have prior?
@@joentell Sonus Faber Concertinos the some Kef Q350s. Both were great but the 1723s just fit. Maybe it's my system. I know synergy is a trial and error thing.
I'm glad you noticed the excellent quality of the Arendal brand product.
Great review. I have to admit, I remain a huge fan of Fritz Heiler's Carbon 7 SE Mk. 2. He's a small maker and uses high quality Scanspeak drivers and a very elegant crossover. Music sounds positively intimate and live -- no harshness but plenty of details. Much better than speakers 3x the price in my experience.
Great sharing. Seems like Arendal has been receiving quite a lot of good reviews.
I have 3 Arendal 1723 Monitor S THX (L,R,C) and 2 1723 Surround S THX. Really great! Especially the Monitor S are the best value what you can get. Also now always some outlet pieces available. And 2 XTZ 1x12 Edge Subs (Arendal Subs are too expensive imho, i had one for testing).
I enjoy them immensely. I have tried a lot of speakers. These are the best. I have 2 subs to pair them, arendal 1961 1s.
Hi very interesting review Why not instead two centers used as L and R above one sub per side ?
Joe I'm confused, looking at the estimated in-room response (from Erin), the curve clearly shows a bright speaker with a flat in-room response. Does not follow the natural sloped response that has been shown to be pleasing to most people.
a solid review, Arendal sound speakers have have something special i think, the 1723 series i have not heard myself. but i do own something from the cheaper 1961 and the flagship 1528. the first production units should be arriving in people homes about now.
1528s did you get the monitors or towers? How do you like them
@@AllAccessConstruction i got the smallest one they make, slim 8's.
i like the a lot, doing testing at the moment, these things can do anything :)
@sudd3660 I have the 1528 center already, should have slims this week and towers end of feb. Cant wait.
Thanks for your comments about the 1723 Triaxial surround. I wish someone would publish Klippel data on them in triaxial and monopole mode. I'm about to install several of them in my room for surrounds and atmos (using the 1723 monitors for LCR) but I'm kind of jumping in blind. I did temporarily hook one up as a center speaker in monopole mode and it sounded great so hopefully it will work out.
I measured each driver nearfield in-room. It seemed to have a similar response to the bookshelf. The in-phase and out of phase speaker were lower in level.
Hey Joe, are the 1723s towers as good if you look at their measurements? The also have the 6.5 inch line up... The directivity line is not as straight/smooth but is it still top notch? Also top 10 like these bookshelves according when you compare them to all the others??
Why is the phantom center catching so many channels off guard? How can you speak in terms of stage and imaging without it? It all begins with the center image.
I hear what you're saying. Some speakers are better than others and when it's locked in, it's always a cool effect. Sound stage can sound wide without the center being focused because that's more dependent on how the speakers interact with side walls. But yes, they're typically interrelated, especially imaging and phantom center focus.
Defentily 1723S serious is a win.. Been loving mines for about three years now..
All Blue Jean Cables
Denon 3700.. Monolith 7 * 200.. Emotiva basx4 for atmos.... 7.2.4 Arendel 1723s LFC.. Arendal 1723s surrounds.. Arendal 1961s heights.. 2 Arendal 1961s Subwoofer.. Equals 😁😁😁
Joe, quick question bro. For surround duty. If you can choose between the 1723 s surround speakers or the bookshelves to be used as surrounds, which one you go with? If both types go on stands, which one do u choose and the same if both get mounted on the wall ? Thank you in advance
On stands, you could go with the bookshelf and aim it backwards 30° and get a similar result. The advantage of the triaxial is it achieves that while being mounted on a wall so it doesn't stick out as far
Thank you
I went from klipsch rf8000 to 1723 thx and I feel the sound is flat and not as exciting as the rf8000 for movie. Not sure what you guys would call it, but it’s missing what draws you into a movie. The clarity is there but there is also too much treble. Am I missing something? Im running Yamaha cxa5000 preamp, Rotel rmb1095, and SVS ultra pb16. All calibrated through YAO.
Love this review Joe. Got their purpose perfectly. Good neatrality, distortion, compression, etc just not good extension so just add a sub. Which in most home theaters, you add a a sub anyway. I have the 1723 s monitors for the LCR and 2 monolith subs. My HT sounds great. Im debating getting the 8" monitors. Do you think i would gain anything in maybe dynamics or anything else
I think the 6.5" driver in the S series is what makes the directivity better. The 8" woofers require the width of the speaker baffle to be wider. The waveguide is the same on both versions, which is why I say it seems like the 6.5" woofer pairs better with that waveguide.
@@joentell Ah that makes sense. If you get a chance to review the new series that would be great. Thanks for the reply, looking forward to more great videos!
I almost ordered these bookshelves but am going to try out the new SVS evolution bookshelves. If I don't like them I'll order these. I had the 1961 monitors and they were pretty good and a 1723 1S sub which I preferred over the SVS Sb3000 and Rel HT 1205 mk2.
Check out GR Research's video on the SVS Evolution bookshelves.
@mddawson1 I saw Erin's Audio corner measurements on the tower version. Too much conflict of interest in what GR does.
Go to spinorama.org and compare the ERDI early reflections directivity index to these speakers I just reviewed.
@@mddawson1 initial listening impressions of the EVO bookshelves aren't that promising. The vocals are thin and shouty, I've tamed that a little with EQ by pulling down at 4khz and 1 khz. I'll give them an honest try for a couple days, but as of now, I'd easily take my Kef Q7 meta or even my Dynaudio Emit 20 over them. I have a feeling I'll have a pair of 1723 bookshelf or Monitor S at the house in the near future.
@@Mclay34 Your description is pretty much what I have read in most reviews. I was looking for new speakers last year and thought the SVS Pinnacle Towers looked good. However they were quickly removed from my short list due to the poor reviews and the price here in OZ being over $11,000aud due to importer and dealer charges. I got the Arendal 1723 Tower THX for $7200aud and the are fantastic. The build quality alone is worthy of speakers twice the price.
Curious how these compare to SVS evolution bookshelf?
I can answer that for you, I have a complete 5.1.4 SVS ultra evolution line(bookshelf, nano bookshelf, center, and evo elevation). And im currently selling them to replace them for a complete 1723 bed layer lay out. Currently own a pair of 1723 monitor s speakers and wow ! Much better than the evo bookshelf and nano bookshelf that I currently own. why? Sound is warm and organic. its like what your hear is what is intended. I understand folks have certain preferences. I do like the evo line still. however I felt in the short run the bookshelf were bright enough to have fatigue and needed to turn the volume down to give my ears a break. you'll never need to with Arendal.
Iam keeping the four ultra evo elevation for atmos. like Joe said, I don't want to mount large heavy speakers that high just for atmos mix. don't think I need to.
I heard the SVS Evo line at Mwave 2024. I've never heard any Arendals, but many of the big players at Mwave; Ascendo, RBH, Grimani, JTR. They did not sound much different than each other. SVS was playing at a lower volume, but they cranked it up at my request. There are guys who may return a Porsche to replace them with Ferrari because of fickle reasons... The area SVS and Arendal both fall short compared to others is output if you have a large room. In which case it makes little sense to throw 400w at Arendal because of the cost of that kind of amplification when you could just buy more sensitive speakers.
The Evolution was one of my options for the trade show event where I demonstrated Magic Beans. I used the Arendal 1723's based on the directivity measurements.
The 1723 line consists of speakers that are all THX Ultra certified meaning they can hit reference level in rooms up to 3000 cubic feet from a distance of 12 ft with minimal distortion. So in most residential systems, they'll be fine. To give others reading this an idea, a 22ft x 15ft x9ft space is 2970 cubic feet. I have a similarly sized home theater and these play louder than I would ever want to play them and they do it with ease. If you have a larger theater, then you may want larger commercial style speakers.
@@joentell What's the cost of amps to hit 400w PER CHANNEL @ 4 ohms to be able to hit 105dB peaks \ reference at 12 ft though?
That PIR would be far too hot far me unless I toed them out significantly. IMHO, the Ascend Acoustics Sierra and Kef Concerta seem like they have the more ideal response.
There is no ideal dispersion width, so there's no ideal PIR slope that I know of. So, what is your reference? An omni-directional speaker with a perfectly flat response would have a PIR that is a straight line. Do you know for sure that you and others wouldn't prefer the sound of that?
Huh? You certainly inferred and took liberties with what I wrote. Firstly, I never stated what I thought others would prefer; only “I,” “me,” and “IMHO.” Secondly, while a generally preferred horizontal radiation pattern is up for debate, a preferred EIR is not, at least if you believe in Floyd Toole’s research, as I do. Thirdly, I’m not following your comment on omni directional speakers. I referred to two specific speakers at similar pricing that are objectively superior to the Arendal. Neither are omni directional. The bottom line is that Erin’s measurements indicate this speaker’s treble will be hot unless toed out. Erin confirms this, subjectively, in both his written comments and his video. I am not a fan of bright speakers. To each their own.
@@RMW1982 this speaker does have a slightly lifted treble response. I said that in my video.
I saw your comment as two separate sentences, one saying your preference, and another mentioning an ideal response. You can understand what I might mistakenly think you were speaking in general terms regarding ideal response.
I've read Dr. Toole's book and spoke with him numerous times. I don't recall them saying anything about a specific PIR, just that they found that people preferred a neutral direct sound and a smooth directivity leading to a downward sloping response in most rooms.
An example of why I don't believe there is an ideal PIR is if you look at the PIR for the KEF Blade2 Meta and the new Q11 Meta. They have very different slopes. Which is correct?
I mentioned an omni-directional speaker as an example of an extreme case. The opposite end of that is a speaker that is highly directional. That will have a steeper slope. My point being that what's correct for one speaker isn't necessarily correct for another.
The radiation pattern and PIR are interrelated.
Hi @joentell, I'm a Magic Beans user. I immediately purchased the Polk XT20s after your video about them. I currently have 3 pairs (only £189 a pair in the UK) and I am going to setup a 7.4.4 home theater and assess how they sound (I expect they will sound great after Magic Beans). But these Arendals are now my realistic end game. I was going to mess about with some omnidirectional speakers which are a similar price to the Arendals but I think I will get the Arendals instead.
Let me know how it goes. The XT20 's can sound surprisingly good considering their price when you use the proper EQ.
🤑🤑💵💵🤑🤑💵💵🤑🤑
*sigh*
My whole system doesn't cost this much and I have 2 sets of stereo speakers and a Velodyne powered sub. Very nice speakers if you can afford them.
I hear ya!
I have the center S and it's less of an upgrade than what I was expecting but it does hold together at higher volumes better than the previous speaker. Having said that, these are deffo home theater speakers NOT hi-fi speakers. I'm thinking of getting a pair of fronts and I'm looking elsewhere.
I don't differentiate between the two personally. Movies have lots of music, so the speaker doesn't know the difference. With subs, I would happily put these up against some of the most esoteric "HiFi" stuff if all we're comparing is sound quality and nothing else.
@@joentell Nah. High volume doesn't necessarily translate well to airy highs etc, etc. There are compromises In any speaker design. This is where those who stick too closely to measurement can get lost IMO.
@Roof_Pizza I mentioned the Philharmonic BMR which I would consider more music-focused by design. I still don't know exactly what you're referring to when you say "airy highs". The Philharmonics have a wider dispersion pattern with their ribbon tweeter. It trades off an extremely wide sound stage for a more solid center image. That's why I think measurements are important. It allows us to make sure we're talking about the same things. The other thing about the Philharmonic BMR's is they have way more bass extension. Down to around 35Hz vs 80Hz for the Arendal 1723 Bookshelf S. The BMR's I could use without a sub and have a good listening experience for both music and movies.
@@joentell Yeah, no. Some speakers excel at low volumes whereas others don't. There is more than one reason to choose a hifi speaker over a home theater speaker. At the extreme end I wouldn't get a commercial theater speaker dor home hifi and I wouldn't get a commercial record mixing speaker for a home theater,
@Roof_Pizza as I said before. I like measurements so we can point to aspects of sound that we like/dislike. If we're just using subjective terms, I just have to trust you like what you like and I like what I like. Objective measurements can be used to find common ground. Right now, I have no idea what you're saying.
I have a 7.4.4 Atmos system,1723 thx monitor LCR,1723 thxs surrounds,SVS ultra surrounds,4 1961 heights,4 SVS sb3000 subs,calibrated with DLBC with magic beans true target curves and let me tell you it sounds fantastic for movies and music.
🙌🙌🙌
Almost in the same boat 😅😅
All Blue Jean Cables
Denon 3700.. Monolith 7 * 200.. Emotiva basx4 for atmos.... 7.2.4 Arendel 1723s LFC.. Arendal 1723s surrounds.. Arendal 1961s heights.. 2 Arendal 1961s Subwoofer.. Equals 😁😁😁