• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,214
I don't think much art went into the design of the LRS -- it's engineering, pure and simple, with just a touch of dark art.
No worries, I didn't mean with that phrase the LRS, just the concept of high fidelity.

This is not something you can get just from measuring some dynamic speakers or from a textbook -- the relationship between measurement and sound is a lot fuzzier than some believe, particularly when you step beyond the well-known world of dynamic speakers.
I fully agree there, our classic spinorama and Harman score interpretation aren't optimal for such implementions, although it should be also said that the listening test of Amir confirmed some of the flaws shown in the measurements.

But, you know, ask someone what planars sound like and they'll say "amazing sense of space and detail without a boxy sound." Also, "the bass sucks" or something like that. :) And "amazingly natural." And that's basically what they *do* sound like.
On the first part "sense of space" I kind agree which is obviously a result of their very high directivity, although many peope don't like this kind of extreme projection to the listener of high directivity loudspeakers.
The second "without a boxy sound" I have more doubts as I think its part due to the optic prejudice and also comparison to poor loudspeakers with significant box colorations.

They do some things worse than dynamics and some things better, and, in general, they have better bang for the buck because they're cheaper to make.
In the EU country I live most planars are rather in the price region above 5k€ per pair, so I can't really confirm a better bfb ratio. I know that in USA Magnepans have quite impressive low prices though.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,244
Likes
11,479
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Have you ever seen what happens to the response of a dipole when you lift it a few feet off the ground? That's like drilling a hole in the side of a sealed subwoofer. Seriously. The measurement has nothing to do with how they will measure or sound in your living room. It's just wrong.

Here are two response measurements -- compare the bass. Curve 1:
View attachment 83799
Oh my god, way too much midbass, that speaker must sound boomy!

Curve 2:
View attachment 83800

Oh no, no bass at all, *that* speaker must sound really tinny!

Except that they're the same speaker. They're both the LRS. And both were carefully measured by reputable reviewers, John Atkinson in the first case and Amirm in the second.

In both cases, the measurements were invalid, pretty much in opposite ways. Neither has much to do with what you'll hear in your room, which is pretty flat down to 60 Hz.

Comparing the results and methodologies of the two reviews is I think a very informative exercise and again, a lesson in the limitations of measurements in reviews! Compare for example the measurements of vertical dispersion. Totally different scale -- but which *has more to do with what you hear in the room*? I'm guessing Stereophile's, unless you're a spider or a mouse.

Graphs and numbers can fool us into thinking that something is more reliable than it is. How can numbers lie? But if you look at the two graphs above, you'll see that they can, that these two measurements of the same speaker differ from one another more than methodologically consistent measurements of two entirely different speakers would.

I hope everyone who thinks you can "listen with measurements" sees this. That's a dangerous trap to fall into, almost as dangerous as complete subjectivity.
Atkinson uses a close-mike response which shows what the bass would look like if close to the front wall, a bit exaggerated from what most people will get in their room. Amir does show a close-mic measurement where the bass is more prominent.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
No worries, I didn't mean with that phrase the LRS, just the concept of high fidelity.


I fully agree there, our classic spinorama and Harman score interpretation aren't optimal for such implementions, although it should be also said that the listening test of Amir confirmed some of the flaws shown in the measurements.


On the first part "sense of space" I kind agree which is obviously a result of their very high directivity, although many peope don't like this kind of extreme projection to the listener of high directivity loudspeakers.
The second "without a boxy sound" I have more doubts as I think its part due to the optic prejudice and also comparison to poor loudspeakers with significant box colorations.


In the EU country I live most planars are rather in the price region above 5k€ per pair, so I can't really confirm a better bfb ratio. I know that in USA Magnepans have quite impressive low prices though.
I think that Amirm correctly identified some very real limitations. The LRS won't play loud, it won't do bass in a large room. It has poor treble dispersion, poor vertical dispersion (for whatever that matters), no deep bass response, and it has lateral image spread as well as lateral XO lobing issues. So no argument with any of that, except with the midbass rolloff that doesn't appear in other measurements, and some questions about his listening setup and also any preconceptions, because the general reaction, including mine, is "Wow, these are $650?" not "I can't recommend them."

RE the boxy sound -- I've always assumed it refers to those cheap loudspeakers with box colorations. Which is what you get for $650, though cheap dynamics like the Elacs have gotten a lot better in recent years.

Sadly, once they're imported from the US to the EU, Maggies cost a lot more because of the distributor's overhead. And the European planar mfrs (Analysis, etc.) don't operate at Magnepan's price points or have the economy of scale to do so. And the Chinese don't even bother, because there isn't a large enough market for planars!
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
Atkinson uses a close-mike response which shows what the bass would look like if close to the front wall, a bit exaggerated from what most people will get in their room. Amir does show a close-mic measurement where the bass is more prominent.
Dipole bass rolls off at 6 dB/octave because of front/back cancellation, and so dipole woofers use dipole compensation -- a 6 dB octave boost with decreasing frequency to compensate for the cancellation.

Anyway, when you measure the bass response of a dipole close the baffle, you don't see the dipole cancellation because close to the baffle, the wave hasn't yet diffracted around it. Your measurement approaches the measurement of the driver in an *infinite* baffle, and you see the dipole equalization without the dipole cancellation

Rather, it measures the bass close to the baffle, where dipole cancellation hasn't occurred because the back wave hasn't diffracted around it. So it's a near field measurement when you want a medium or far-field one, and it approximates an infinite baffle measurement. But the driver is actually in a finite baffle, and since the woofers are tuned with 6 dB/octave acoustical dipole equalization, it looks like they have a rising bass response when they don't.

I hope I didn't explain that too wretchedly. :)
 

mac

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
94
Likes
314
Location
Seattle Area
Maybe @amirm can comment about how he listened to these for his subjective evaluation (or maybe he did and I missed it). Two speakers instead of one, as he usually does? Experimentation with placement from front wall? This might clue us in to why he heard no bass in his listening session.
 

tjf

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
109
Likes
91
Location
Silicon Valley, CA, USA
Dipole bass rolls off at 6 dB/octave because of front/back cancellation, and so dipole woofers use dipole compensation -- a 6 dB octave boost with decreasing frequency to compensate for the cancellation.

Anyway, when you measure the bass response of a dipole close the baffle, you don't see the dipole cancellation because close to the baffle, the wave hasn't yet diffracted around it. Your measurement approaches the measurement of the driver in an *infinite* baffle, and you see the dipole equalization without the dipole cancellation

Rather, it measures the bass close to the baffle, where dipole cancellation hasn't occurred because the back wave hasn't diffracted around it. So it's a near field measurement when you want a medium or far-field one, and it approximates an infinite baffle measurement. But the driver is actually in a finite baffle, and since the woofers are tuned with 6 dB/octave acoustical dipole equalization, it looks like they have a rising bass response when they don't.

I hope I didn't explain that too wretchedly. :)



Look no further than Bob Carver's "amazing" ribbon speaker with it's multiple dipole loaded bass drivers -- with intentionally poor damping/high "Q" motors to extend their bass via low damping factor "EQ" to negate the dipole cancellation and get extended response down to the sub 30hz range -- using this approach for extended bass in a dipole configuration....and their blatant rip-off of the Apogee speaker trapezoid panel shape...Bob had/has no shame when it comes to marketing....
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,515
Location
Seattle Area
For those that are still questioning the results here.....the basic speaker here (the MMG/LRS) has been shipping since 1997. Earlier versions of a smallish Magnepan speaker have been shipping since well before that.
There are literally thousands of pairs of these in the field all over the world providing enjoyable music reproduction. You might want to consider that before labeling these speakers "not a product finished and fit for use by a consumer."
Sales numbers are no indication of quality or fidelity. If it were otherwise, then we would have to crown all the budget speakers like Polk, Klipsch, etc. that sell in far higher volume and close our doors.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,515
Location
Seattle Area
Maybe @amirm can comment about how he listened to these for his subjective evaluation (or maybe he did and I missed it). Two speakers instead of one, as he usually does? Experimentation with placement from front wall? This might clue us in to why he heard no bass in his listening session.
One speaker was used as always. I explained in the review that I experimented with positioning but did not spend a lifetime on that. I noted in the review that you can mess with them and likely get a different result.
 

Reed

Active Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
111
Likes
153
I got mine a month ago and I'm extraordinarily satisfied with them today. I was *not* when I got them, haha. I'd never experienced "break in" before this, but you could actually hear the bass panel "waking up" over the course of the first few hours of play. So, it went from, "where's the bass?" to "holy shit, EQ that shit down a bit, I can't hear the vocals" by the third day.

I didn't want to EQ it without first figuring out where the speakers sounded the best to me without EQ. Ultimately, settled on a slightly isosceles triangle where I am a bit closer to the speakers than they are to each other, with the tweeters on the outside, 29 inches from the back wall, toed in 1.5in.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun positioning them and re-positioning them for a few days. Gave me an excuse to hang out in the living room actively listening to music I liked. Once that was dialed in, the mids were still being sucked out, though I believe that's more the result of the room than the speaker, since I could move them closer to me and further from the walls and get them back at the expense of bass clarity.

Once I was able to do room correction with Dirac, they were perfect. I dialed in about 5db more bass and didn't let it correct anything above 10k. It's been ceaselessly impressive. It being a dipole means that it's absolutely filling the space with sound like nothing else I've heard. I'm not adding a sub to this setup, it simply isn't necessary in my room.

They don't sound as good as my first impression of them in-store, but that makes sense. In any case, I chose them over the Harbeth and Vandersteen speakers I also auditioned, not because they were less expensive, but because I absolutely enjoyed them more. Plus, they're monstrous monoliths th
 
D

Deleted member 2944

Guest
Sales numbers are no indication of quality or fidelity. If it were otherwise, then we would have to crown all the budget speakers like Polk, Klipsch, etc. that sell in far higher volume and close our doors.
I feel like I'm talking to a twelve year old here.
People that buy Polk, Klipsch, etc, speakers are shopping at the local Best Buy and populating their junk HT system with five/seven speakers.
People that buy Magnepan speakers are into hi-fi and likely much more serious about their two-channel systems.
If you can't grasp that distinction, I'm not sure what to say.

Dave.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
One speaker was used as always. I explained in the review that I experimented with positioning but did not spend a lifetime on that. I noted in the review that you can mess with them and likely get a different result.
A couple of issues there. One is that you need the output from both bass panels because they are asymmetrical (as you observed) and the acoustic dipole equalization is designed to interleave (two segments on one side, three on the other). So the bass response won't be smooth if you listen to only one speaker.

The other I think is that with one speaker, you'll miss one of the main reasons people love planar line sources, despite their limitations -- the awesome imaging.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
Look no further than Bob Carver's "amazing" ribbon speaker with it's multiple dipole loaded bass drivers -- with intentionally poor damping/high "Q" motors to extend their bass via low damping factor "EQ" to negate the dipole cancellation and get extended response down to the sub 30hz range -- using this approach for extended bass in a dipole configuration....and their blatant rip-off of the Apogee speaker trapezoid panel shape...Bob had/has no shame when it comes to marketing....
Heh, well, yes, that was an attempt to apply the Magnepan dipole EQ patent to dynamics speakers. Never thought about the trapezoid -- I guess I saw it as half of Olsen's truncated pyramid. :)
 

Boomzilla

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
13
If the initial photo was representative of the test conditions, the "tests" are worthless. The speakers were designed to have space behind them, and for the two speaker locations to be symmetrically placed in the listening room. Ignore those conditions at your peril.

Now the questions that SHOULD be asked are:

Why are measurements so poor for a design that has been celebrated for decades as one of the best sounding speakers in the world? The apparent answer would seem to be that the speakers are fine - the measurements are wrong.

If the LRS measurements are so misleading, what veracity should be placed on all the OTHER measurements of the "Audio Science Review" website? Again, the answer would seem to be that if the measurements in this "review" are so flawed (or else so misleading), then great caution should be applied when assessing ANY measurements from this site.

Truth hurts?
 

xykreinov

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
424
Likes
678
Wow, what a review.
The whole thing supports the notion of audiophiles listening to their equipment rather than their music
Owners might be attracted to the nuanced design and sound. But, because they are not actually trained well in speaker listening, they get a giant kick out of how "different" the speaker sounds, and laud it as better without understanding it's just their preconceived biases telling them so.
 

Attachments

  • quote-audiophiles-don-t-use-their-equipment-to-listen-to-your-music-audiophiles-use-your-music...jpg
    quote-audiophiles-don-t-use-their-equipment-to-listen-to-your-music-audiophiles-use-your-music...jpg
    64.1 KB · Views: 165
Last edited:

tjf

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
109
Likes
91
Location
Silicon Valley, CA, USA
A couple of issues there. One is that you need the output from both bass panels because they are asymmetrical (as you observed) and the acoustic dipole equalization is designed to interleave (two segments on one side, three on the other). So the bass response won't be smooth if you listen to only one speaker.

The other I think is that with one speaker, you'll miss one of the main reasons people love planar line sources, despite their limitations -- the awesome imaging.


You're fighting an uphill ideological battle here....arguing for an "in-room/typical use" scenario response test instead of NFS testing...
-- not sure this is the forum for the argument you're trying to make...but you've made some headway!
-- however -- in my opinion, it'd be cool to see in-room measurements, especially with/without room correction, etc., etc....kinda like Amir's testing of Room Perfect and Audyssey... but this scenario would be unworkable for the qty. of products he tests, unless a well heeled audio fanatic would bankroll a facility and staff for such an endeavor???? Any takers? No? Just sayin....
 

Reed

Active Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
111
Likes
153
I have MMGs in a 10’x11’ dedicated room. I use a Vidar for power and I have a REL T5i. The soundstage is really big and for me that gives me a satisfying experience at lower volumes than what I had with my KEFs. I also use stands from Robert Raus that lift them about 4” and keep them vertical. I sit in a chair to listen. And if I stand up the image and levels fall apart. It took a long time to get the setup right. Placing the tweeter slightly behind the bass panel for any given toe in is the key. I also have them approx 36” from the front wall. I tried putting the KEFs back in the system and I couldn’t take it. They weren’t bad, they just sounded small. And the sidewall reflections became an issue.

I had Home Audio Fidelity do some filters for me to use in Roon. The fellow who does the service commented about taming the treble. I agreed, and the setup sounds great. That why the comment of bad high end always mystifies me. Just goes to show, every situation is different. Bass does drop like a rock but is also a function of the amp you use. When I switched from my NAD to the Vidar it made a huge difference, even without the sub.

A final note on what music sounds good on Maggies. Good recordings sound good but if you have a poorly engineered recording you’ll know it. They don’t homogenize. I listen to a lot of electronic, future soul, jazz and some rock. Across the board, bad recordings are magnified and good recordings are amazing. These aren’t what you want if you have folks over for a get together. In some ways, they are the best headphones you’ll ever own. BTW, I plan on upgrading to the LRS or .7 in the near future.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,244
Likes
11,479
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
If the initial photo was representative of the test conditions, the "tests" are worthless. The speakers were designed to have space behind them, and for the two speaker locations to be symmetrically placed in the listening room. Ignore those conditions at your peril.

Now the questions that SHOULD be asked are:

Why are measurements so poor for a design that has been celebrated for decades as one of the best sounding speakers in the world? The apparent answer would seem to be that the speakers are fine - the measurements are wrong.

If the LRS measurements are so misleading, what veracity should be placed on all the OTHER measurements of the "Audio Science Review" website? Again, the answer would seem to be that if the measurements in this "review" are so flawed (or else so misleading), then great caution should be applied when assessing ANY measurements from this site.

Truth hurts?
The truth is you have subjective reviews that are varying, just like with any speaker. And just like any speaker, there are pros and cons, a major con would be the horrid vertical performance, where you can’t even slouch or recline without the tonality changing.

Like, not the same technology, but I went with my father to an audio show and in one large room they had the MartinLogan Neoliths, I sat centered with my father to my side, and he asked why only one speaker was playing, we switched seats just to show him what a difference horizontal seating matters with those, which is similar to how important vertical positioning is with these. Another con would be power handling and sensitivity, if I am reading it right, Amir couldn’t get the speaker to measure 86dB at 1kHz for the distortion test, so that means the speaker can’t even handle 10W.

And come on, you are claiming that people are saying the LRS is one of the best speakers in the world? Maybe some people would say that about their higher end models, but those are a different story than this $650 model.
 
Last edited:

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,697
Location
Adelaide Australia
The measurements also predicted how I heard the speaker. Bass was non-existent despite having a real floor contrary to what you stated. Indeed, measurements tell us the effect of the floor reflections just as well:

A nitpick, but an important one.
The effect of the floor being talked about is not a floor reflection. It is the effect of closing the edge of the speaker on the bottom. Bounce or no bounce isn't the question. It is the dipole cancellation, and 6dB lift when on a floor.
Klippel almost certainly produces the data needed to model this, but it clearly isn't modelled in the post processing of these measurements.

As noted above, Sigfried Linkwitz has a significant amount of information on dipoles, and really, anyone weighing in on this should minimally read what he has to say.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/models.htm
Of note is this summary of a presentation he made to the AES. One might note another presenter at the same meeting.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES'89/AES'89.htm

OTOH, Linkwitz pretty much says that dipoles need significant active correction to work through their particular issues. And they cannot be fully charaterised without modelling the room placement, as they are designed from the outset with assumptions about the manner in which they will interact in a room. It isn't enough to simply model the effect of notional reflections from surfaces between the speaker and the listener. In a veryreal way, the room is forming part of the speaker in a manner it does not with conventional speakers.

I'm not convinced the Maggies here would pass muster with Sigfried. There are a lot of other problems. The only Maggies I'm familiar with are the huge tri-panel beasts. Friend of mine had them, and I had them at home for three months many years ago. Huge room dominanting things. They could sound very good. But I was happy to give them back.
 
Top Bottom