he there everyone, I'm new to this. I'm looking for a pair of speackers for a small size room. (9'x 18')
Has anyone compared the active SBL and the ARC?

Yes. I'm not a fan of WB speakers and own active SBLs so my view is biased.

One thing is sure, they are very, very different in presentation

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Yes. I'm not a fan of WB speakers and own active SBLs so my view is biased.

One thing is sure, they are very, very different in presentation

Tom
Actively enjoying it all

---

Tom, would you explain the difference btw the presentations from your view?

Hi,

I presently enjoy WB Arc's 202, 200, HC, snaps and CDX 2, in a similar room. It is one of the most satisfying setups I ever had, free from cabinet coloration and unnecessary vibrations. The WB finish is also as good as it gets. I would listen, and make your own decision.

In the past I owned, Espek, ProAc 1.5, Royds and Kef.

Eventually, I may be upgrading to Fraim, XPSII and 250II, but the speakers will stay for a while.

Jerry

I tried ARCs against Allaes (similar presentation to SBLs) a long time ago when I was first putting my sistem together(CDX/102/180/Hicap).

The imaging from the ARCS was better than the allaes and they were altogether smoother sounding and more comfy to live with. What turned me off was that the bass response really exacerbated the room nodes in my 12x12 lounge and was somewhat uncontrolled. The ARCS do have the "wow" factor: such scale and sound from such small boxes! They are also beautiflly finished.

The allaes had tighter, faster bass and were more exciting to listen to. They had a similar level of detail, but were a little less smooth sounding. I ended up going with the Allaes and they have improved (less rough edges) as the front end has got better. I think I could have lived with ARCS if the bass issue could be resolved (maybe the 135s I have now would do this).

quote:

---

Originally posted by the-light:

Tom, would you explain the difference btw the presentations from your view?

---

Well Fozzy has summed it up very well.

I would add that the bass from the WB is superb and a lot more full on than the SBLs which doesn't mean the SBLs are bass-light. The thing I don't like about WB speakers is a tendancies to squawk in the mid -upper range. Really grates my ears. The SBLs are considerably faster but lighter in presentation. They aren't quite as good at scale but are IMO more musical. Certainly if you listen to small ensemble groups.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the-light:

Tom, would you explain the difference btw the presentations from your view?

---

Well Fozzy has summed it up very well.

I would add that the bass from the WB is superb and a lot more full on than the SBLs which doesn't mean the SBLs are bass-light. The thing I don't like about WB speakers is a tendancies to squawk in the mid -upper range. Really grates my ears. The SBLs are considerably faster but lighter in presentation. They aren't quite as good at scale but are IMO more musical. Certainly if you listen to small ensemble groups.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

---

I'm a former owner of active SBLs, current WB Arc owner: agree with Tom except for "squawk" reference which i've not heard. I found the active SLBs had better DEEP bass than the Arcs, whereas the Arcs are more "full bodied" overall.

The biggest issue is cost and accessibility if you ask me: remember that going active with SBLs means two amps, two sets of wire, an active crossover and another power supply for the active crossover! That's a lot of money. And you really cannot "dem" an active SBL system properly to see if YOU like it (unless you have a friend or a dealer with a setup - pretty rare here in the US of A). The Arcs, while not available everywhere, are usually on display somewhere for your listening needs.

Hope this helps a bit.

j