Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[BYRTT]

Thanks do and share those in room examples @Blumlein 88 & @RayDunzl, think it would help the research understanding or scientic proof if we had some of the speaker systems Amir had analyzed, that is because how different the impulse/step responses in the spray depend on smoothness in directivity curve and probably also how directive same curve is, LRS is very directive from very lows but not very smooth in directivity curve and probably why member Vasr cant reconize LRS in room curves at higher frequencies because move microphone some degree and we get another new response from it as seen in pink panther show post 726, myself havent any of Amir's tested systems so cant help for the moment other than he down the road test KEF Q150 or i send him mine and i then could go buy say some M16 to get a feel on in room verse anechoic. That said into CAD software modeling its looks be sensitive stuff these acoustics, below is example sum two identical perfect omni transducers with BW2 stopbands @20Hz/20kHz, for column left side only difference the two summing transducers is one have a 300uS pure delay and reason the comb filtering that happen be close to HRTF left/right ears, at right side column we have same 300uS delay but now set via a longer Z axis of 103mm, that gives 0,5dB less magnitude for that transducer @CEA/CTA2034 2 meter distance standard and verse left column where any of curves is tight overlaid upon each other we get a spread around anything at right column..

 

[Blumlein 88]

I could share mine. The speaker I posted results of was a Revel F12 made according to the Harman guidelines. I have some LSR305s, but mine are 1st gen and not mk II's.

I don't know that we can learn very much unless we can get in room responses for those Amir has tested. Dipoles are going to be a different thing. I don't know the results from Amir are contrary to expectations. For instance on the LRS tilt, anyone with Maggies knows tilts of a few degrees can radically alter the midrange balance of them.

 

[Vasr]

I don't know if this thread pollution or not.

Perhaps a new thread for these kinds of experiments would be better. Since you don't label any of your graphs with what speaker was used, they can cause confusion with results for the LRS for people pouring through this. Entire-post-is-one-sentence poster is already filling up this thread with more eye-candy charts than anyone can stand or understand. These kinds of tests and results apply for any speaker.

For those wondering about sweeps vs pink noise used in MMM I present this.

In theory there should be no difference between the two other than small artifacts introduced by the electronics/speaker/mic in how they behave in the two scenarios. For example, a speaker cone issue (or a delaminated wire or ribbon in a Magnepan like design buzzing in some frequencies can show a difference between the two because of damping differences). So, not different for practical purposes unless something is broken/problematic in the reproduction and detection chain.

But these will get swamped by the much larger variations in response and smoothing will remove those as you found out.

 

[Vasr]

Here is a result that might surprise you.

...

So spatial averaging works to uncover something close to the underlying response of the speaker at the LP above Schroeder frequencies, MMM works to the same effect, but you really aren't gaining very much versus a single point sweep at the LP as the octave based smoothing is having much the same effect as spatial averaging or moving microphones anyway.

The surprising thing is the false generalized conclusion you are drawing from one test. This is very bad science. More precise if you weren't ambiguous and said in this particular test for this particular speaker, you couldn't detect a difference between X and Y. But you cannot generalize from that the way you have intentionally or not to say there will not be a difference between the two (smoothing or not). Smoothing and spatial averaging aren't related except by coincidence. These kinds of conclusions (as most people don't have the time or too lazy or confirms their bias to look at the details carefully) creates bad understanding that can propagate.

There are two primary variables that affect the measurement - room characteristics and the speaker's dispersion pattern. Spatial averaging will average over the effects of both but its results will depend on the variance between locations. As a thought experiment, if the speaker has a very wide even dispersion, then that parameter will not contribute much to the variance between locations. Similarly if the room characteristics do not lead to localized variances, spatial measurements do not cause much variations and therefore will be fairly close to the average. So, in this case, a measurement at any one location might be close enough to the average of multiple location. Smoothing in this case is operating on the almost same data-set to contribute anything.

Or it could be a false indication. It is possible that the different locations have a wide variation but on the average they happen to coincide with a specific single location measurement (the drunk walking cartoon I posted earlier). In this case, it is just a coincidence as a measurement at a different location, could be very different because of the variance. Just smoothing in the latter is not going to help because the information content in the two is very different. Smoothing has no information about the location-dependent variance so if it happens to coincide with spatial average, then it is just that a coincidence. But asymptotically you would be correct, if you smooth enough that those location-dependent variances disappear (you lose location information entirely), then it would be indistinguishable from smoothing in any one location. However, smoothing and spatial averaging should not be conflated not seen as replacements for each other.

When you do a speaker measurement, you don't really know which of the above is the case with your speaker/room setup and whether you have large local variances. This is why you do spatial averaging. It is a trade-off not a perfect solution for room-eq. If you do few locations, your may do over-corrections from local variances. If you do many locations, then it may under-correct for any one location. So, you have to depend on some kind of engineering thumb rule rather than theory.

Not looking at the implication of variances when doing any kind of averaging is the most common problem in number-crunching. Investing strategies (e.g., using technical trading) also suffer from this exact issue to give bad indicators that can cost you money.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The surprising thing is the false generalized conclusion you are drawing from one test. This is very bad science. More precise if you weren't ambiguous and said in this particular test for this particular speaker, you couldn't detect a difference between X and Y. But you cannot generalize from that the way you have intentionally or not to say there will not be a difference between the two (smoothing or not). Smoothing and spatial averaging aren't related except by coincidence. These kinds of conclusions (as most people don't have the time or too lazy or confirms their bias to look at the details carefully) creates bad understanding that can propagate.

There are two primary variables that affect the measurement - room characteristics and the speaker's dispersion pattern. Spatial averaging will average over the effects of both but its results will depend on the variance between locations. As a thought experiment, if the speaker has a very wide even dispersion, then that parameter will not contribute much to the variance between locations. Similarly if the room characteristics do not lead to localized variances, spatial measurements do not cause much variations and therefore will be fairly close to the average. So, in this case, a measurement at any one location might be close enough to the average of multiple location. Smoothing in this case is operating on the almost same data-set to contribute anything.

Or it could be a false indication. It is possible that the different locations have a wide variation but on the average they happen to coincide with a specific single location measurement (the drunk walking cartoon I posted earlier). In this case, it is just a coincidence as a measurement at a different location, could be very different because of the variance. Just smoothing in the latter is not going to help because the information content in the two is very different. Smoothing has no information about the location-dependent variance so if it happens to coincide with spatial average, then it is just that a coincidence. But asymptotically you would be correct, if you smooth enough that those location-dependent variances disappear (you lose location information entirely), then it would be indistinguishable from smoothing in any one location. However, smoothing and spatial averaging should not be conflated not seen as replacements for each other.

When you do a speaker measurement, you don't really know which of the above is the case with your speaker/room setup and whether you have large local variances. This is why you do spatial averaging. It is a trade-off not a perfect solution for room-eq. If you do few locations, your may do over-corrections from local variances. If you do many locations, then it may under-correct for any one location. So, you have to depend on some kind of engineering thumb rule rather than theory.

Not looking at the implication of variances when doing any kind of averaging is the most common problem in number-crunching. Investing strategies (e.g., using technical trading) also suffer from this exact issue to give bad indicators that can cost you money.

This was in the context of a listening position. I consider that to be about the size of someone's head plus or minus a bit about equal to head size. If you are thinking of sweeps in one spot or multiple spots around the head position or moving mic results around the size of your head I think you will generally not have to worry about a distinction. There could be extremes that don't fit. I'd think the Magnepan LRS with its very touchy vertical directionality would be one of them perhaps. But I think looking at the speakers available the times my generalized conclusion won't work will be quite a rarity. I also think it shows you could do a spot sweep augmented with a single MMM measurement to confirm. The times these won't be almost the same will be rare and would be sufficient to get you to investigate further. Doing two measures to confirm which will usually prevent you doing 7 more seems like a good deal. In the few times you might encounter an anomaly, doing oval MMM with a vertical and then horizontal orientation would tell you quite a bit more. I've a more engineering oriented way of approaching things. Quite often engineering seems like dirty science. Science can seem like it gets in the way of getting things done.

Back when I did these other measures I also investigated differences from one end of a large couch vs the other end. Again at least with these smoothly dispersive speakers either method was fine and showed very similar results. But the results from one end of a couch to the other were not so highly similar. So one needs to measure in the general location where one will listen.

 

[BYRTT]

I usually have the 'A' "tweeter" side on the inside layout. I have liked the tweeter on the outside 'B' with some other panel Electrostatic speakers though in the past ... just depends on the speaker layout/room. (I think the manuals have the same sort of pictures sometimes)

As far as listening to two different speakers for my L/R main speakers for an entire week now for about 8-10 hours a day: One thing to point out - Maybe it's just random or possibly has to do with the speakers... but my left ear (B1+) is fatigued usually every day but my right ear (Magnepan) hasn't been at all (Levels are matched) It's not terrible or anything: just noticeable/annoying. *Oddly the worst ear fatigue I've ever had was with the Mini Magnepans ... but I was also comparing Magnepans + ESL's + JBLS's that week in the same room probably louder than normal: so that probably didn't help things.

Here's my paint skills ... Not sure if those are arms or antennas for the person :/ View attachment 85665

.....I got my LRS back and compared in stereo this time.....

Great you got it back enjoy, if you like down the road try the -30º rotate thing from post 830 took me together make visuals for tweeter on inside and outside comparisons and their patterns for relative spray on side wall or direction of backwaves are different, rotation should be relative to a center down Amir's red cross that probably is the stacked tweeter line, should you like hear the EQed version and have no DSP to set the 12 times filters then if you have some few copyright free tracks it should be doable i can convolute them for test.

 

[Vini darko]

Great you got it back enjoy, if you like down the road try the -30º rotate thing from post 830 took me together make visuals for tweeter on inside and outside comparisons and their patterns for relative spray on side wall or direction of backwaves are different, rotation should be relative to a center down Amir's red cross that probably is the stacked tweeter line, should you like hear the EQed version and have no DSP to set the 12 times filters then if you have some few copyright free tracks it should be doable i can convolute them for test.

View attachment 85972

View attachment 85973

The face should change expression with each change of response

 

[Frank Dernie]

Great you got it back enjoy, if you like down the road try the -30º rotate thing from post 830 took me together make visuals for tweeter on inside and outside comparisons and their patterns for relative spray on side wall or direction of backwaves are different, rotation should be relative to a center down Amir's red cross that probably is the stacked tweeter line, should you like hear the EQed version and have no DSP to set the 12 times filters then if you have some few copyright free tracks it should be doable i can convolute them for test.

View attachment 85972

View attachment 85973

Super to see the animation and the vast differences

 

[Joppe Peelen]

Great you got it back enjoy, if you like down the road try the -30º rotate thing from post 830 took me together make visuals for tweeter on inside and outside comparisons and their patterns for relative spray on side wall or direction of backwaves are different, rotation should be relative to a center down Amir's red cross that probably is the stacked tweeter line, should you like hear the EQed version and have no DSP to set the 12 times filters then if you have some few copyright free tracks it should be doable i can convolute them for test.

View attachment 85972

View attachment 85973

nice animation !!! !!!! ill try that !

why does it changes twice , in each rotation ? witch one is what ?

 

[BYRTT]

The face should change expression with each change of response

.. thanks the good inspiration have edited them with a cautious increasing smile, and when at it will ask member @Maiky76 if he happy and have time look at the rotated Magnespan LRS spindata attached in below zip-folders and related to post830 and 922, to check for if that bad smile and preference score of -0,25 is improved in the -30º horizontal rotated spindata with or without EQ, also would love see his optimizer run on the spindata set without EQ would be nice and educating..

nice animation !!! !!!! ill try that !

why does it changes twice , in each rotation ? witch one is what ?

Thanks think lookup post 830 for details, but in short the -30º rotation cleans up the cross over region as seen in directivity index so it begin look like have better alligment in horizontal plane so the crossover region lobe points strait forward and a okay much better +/-20º window than before where it had huge trouble lean the ear a hair to the left minus sector side, like a bookshelf systen have for its vertical plane, the second -30º rotation is added the EQ example from post 830 to tame crossover section magnitude boost for the first and when we were at it make it smoother including a known low end stopband to integrate to subs in a 4th order Linkwitz Riley slope @60Hz. For your own panels have fun, but maybe talk to Amir if he could be interested analyze it down the road or search the web for Klippel scanner sevices in your area, at least our good neighbor country Germany has some services and its that quality acoustic analyze that base predictions in CAD software, and hey maybe you interested investigate LRS in CAD yourself, its freeware and here is link to how to read the spindata that Amir share into post one for acoustic reviews, link is https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-vituixcad-using-amirs-shared-spindata.13136/.

 

[Vasr]

I am going to stop after this.

I've a more engineering oriented way of approaching things. Quite often engineering seems like dirty science. Science can seem like it gets in the way of getting things done.

This is an astonishing response from a member of a site where members act like feral cats when someone mentions hearing different throwing every science jargon there is to demand precision, accuracy and your first-born in the test before being able to make any claim and yet feels science comes in the way when it does not allow them to make pet claims unsupported by even mildly rigorous evidence. Substitute engineering with spirituality in your statement and you have every religion.

The problem I think is that we are mixing up a discussion of what one hears from a specific location (subject to local issues that will vary from one location to location) perhaps to make corrections for that location from the earlier context of trying to use measurements to arrive at a corroborating evidence for what the speaker behavior is like by eliminating as much of the localized conditions as possible to combine multiple data points. You have made comments on both so it isn't clear which discussion your generalizations are aimed at.

What you have said has some validity for the former but not the latter as I pointed out and which you confirm from your couch end-end anecdote.

 

[Vasr]

On a different note, has anyone done experimentation on an observed differences in measurements with the mic pointed at the speaker vs pointed up (as typically done in room eq procedures)?

Can I assume the Klippel measurements here are the equivalent of the former?

I am just wondering (without evidence) if this can explain the "bi-polar behavior" (in the medical sense) of the LRS as measured by Amir with Klippel and later in-room. Just to eliminate another variable to explain the discrepancy.

 

[Blumlein 88]

On a different note, has anyone done experimentation on an observed differences in measurements with the mic pointed at the speaker vs pointed up (as typically done in room eq procedures)?

Can I assume the Klippel measurements here are the equivalent of the former?

I am just wondering (without evidence) if this can explain the "bi-polar behavior" (in the medical sense) of the LRS as measured by Amir with Klippel and later in-room. Just to eliminate another variable to explain the discrepancy.

I have indeed. As a religious feral cat, I'll have to preserve that knowledge only for the faithful.

 

[Juhazi]

Most mics have two calibration files. I do all measurements with the mic pointed to spraker.

 

[amirm]

On a different note, has anyone done experimentation on an observed differences in measurements with the mic pointed at the speaker vs pointed up (as typically done in room eq procedures)?

Can I assume the Klippel measurements here are the equivalent of the former?

Yes, it is pointed toward the speaker as are my in-room measurements. This also minimizes reflections from the microphone in the case of Klippel (not an issue for in-room).

 

[Vini darko]

.. thanks the good inspiration have edited them with a cautious increasing smile, and when at it will ask member @Maiky76 if he happy and have time look at the rotated Magnespan LRS spindata attached in below zip-folders and related to post830 and 922, to check for if that bad smile and preference score of -0,25 is improved in the -30º horizontal rotated spindata with or without EQ, also would love see his optimizer run on the spindata set without EQ would be nice and educating..
View attachment 85998


Thanks think lookup post 830 for details, but in short the -30º rotation cleans up the cross over region as seen in directivity index so it begin look like have better alligment in horizontal plane so the crossover region lobe points strait forward and a okay much better +/-20º window than before where it had huge trouble lean the ear a hair to the left minus sector side, like a bookshelf systen have for its vertical plane, the second -30º rotation is added the EQ example from post 830 to tame crossover section magnitude boost for the first and when we were at it make it smoother including a known low end stopband to integrate to subs in a 4th order Linkwitz Riley slope @60Hz. For your own panels have fun, but maybe talk to Amir if he could be interested analyze it down the road or search the web for Klippel scanner sevices in your area, at least our good neighbor country Germany has some services and its that quality acoustic analyze that base predictions in CAD software, and hey maybe you interested investigate LRS in CAD yourself, its freeware and here is link to how to read the spindata that Amir share into post one for acoustic reviews, link is https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-vituixcad-using-amirs-shared-spindata.13136/.

Wow you go above and beyond sir , respect.

 

[shumi]

Guys,
I let Stereophile know that their review of the LRS speakers is way off!!!! Told them next time, wait for amirm's review before committing to a recommendation!!!!

 

[Thomas savage]

Guys,
I let Stereophile know that their review of the LRS speakers is way off!!!! Told them next time, wait for amirm's review before committing to a recommendation!!!!View attachment 86342

I take it this is sarcasm and your poking fun at what we are doing .

If I'm wrong I apologise.

please if you don't value what we do just don't come here.

cheers

 

[Juhazi]

TS, I think you misunderstood, just the opposite!

 

[Sancus]

TS, I think you misunderstood, just the opposite!

4 posts in this thread; none of them useful let alone conveying basic respect.