• 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

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,581
Likes
2,281
Magnepan can't build LRS fast enough to fulfill demand. I suspect that means that the used market will show elevated prices.

I seriously doubt that. I sent my LRS back as they sounded awful. I took $120 loss on that test drive. I would never buy anything remotely related to that speaker design again. Sounded fuzzy and added reverb to the sound. Just about any quality speaker beats it by a mile.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
Milosz is correct: they fell something like two months behind at some point and were thinking of suspending sales as a result.

Others, including me, have a very different take on the LRS, something that I find interesting. For example, while it's true that dipoles add reverb, so do monopoles; in the case of dipoles, it's in the rear, and of monopoles, to the sides. But it's also true that dipoles dump 4.8 dB less reverberant energy into the reverberant energy of the room, which suits them to use in the live acoustic of an untreated room. It's true as well that they require careful placement to reach their potential. At their best, they're like a window onto the original acoustic space. I've never heard monopoles do that.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
I seriously doubt that. I sent my LRS back as they sounded awful. I took $120 loss on that test drive. I would never buy anything remotely related to that speaker design again. Sounded fuzzy and added reverb to the sound. Just about any quality speaker beats it by a mile.

Whether or not you liked them, they really are on back order and take many months to get. I tried to order one awhile back.
 

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,581
Likes
2,281
Whether or not you liked them, they really are on back order and take many months to get. I tried to order one awhile back.

I waited 2 months for my LRS. Not saying the wait isn't there. Just saying, if I had heard them before buying, I would have realized they don't have the definition or clarity I expect from a decent speaker. That's why I'm sure LRS will not sell well in the after market. Most people that buy them are doing so based on positive on-line claims that don't match the fuzzy, lack of definition I experienced once my LRS arrived. I really tried to like them. They might even sound OK with a few of the Diana Krall tracks, but every time I switched back to my Sierra Towers the LRS sounded like a cheap speaker with a blanket over it. While the Sierra Tower was crystal clear. It's the difference between sitting in the balcony versus the front row. You either like that low-resolution reverb sound or absolutely hate it.

Check out the LRS distortion measurements and other issues in the ASR review. Wish I could have read it before placing my order. It could have saved me over $180 in lost shipping charges. I think Amir's LRS review should be required reading before ordering. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/magnepan-lrs-speaker-review.16068/
 

milosz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
583
Likes
1,643
Location
Chicago
Sounds like an awesome setup. How high do you run the paper cone subs?
Any measurements of your setup?

The crossover to the panels is 45 Hz at 96 dB per octave, linear phase topology. (I actually have 2 DEQX's- the system is triamped for the MG 3.6's and an additional DSP crossover using the 2nd DEQX for the subs. I don't use the crossovers or EQ in the Rhythmik servo amps at all, all filtering is done in the DEQX's. FYI I did not attempt a measurement of the subwoofers to create a "correction filter" for them, it's too hard to measure these frequencies indoors. I just have crossovers and some room correction EQ down in the bass frequencies.)

The open baffle subs closely match the "panel sound" of the Magneplanars, the transient performance of the open baffle subs is close to the sound of the panels- there's no vibrating box structure or internal air in an enclosure to store energy. Because the open baffle subs are dipoles you get a fair amount of cancellation so you need a large cone area to provide reasonable sound output. There are four 12 inch subs in my setup and the bass is deeply extended, tight and clean but it's not the sort of thing that can move the building off it's foundations from the low frequency explosion effects in action movies. It's musical, not theatrical.

The other - and perhaps more useful- advantage of having the subs is that I can play the whole system louder. If I push just the panels without the subs to high volumes, low bass will cause the woofer panels to slap the magnets resulting in a buzzing complaint from the poor things. I assume this could also damage the diaphragms if I cranked like this for a long period of time. By taking the below-45 Hz range out of the Magnepan panels they can play much louder before getting into trouble. Excursion in those woofer panels is fairly limited and you need big excursion to get low bass.

I'll post curves later I need to make some new ones.
 
Last edited:

milosz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
583
Likes
1,643
Location
Chicago
I waited 2 months for my LRS. Not saying the wait isn't there. Just saying, if I had heard them before buying, I would have realized they don't have the definition or clarity I expect from a decent speaker. That's why I'm sure LRS will not sell well in the after market. Most people that buy them are doing so based on positive on-line claims that don't match the fuzzy, lack of definition I experienced once my LRS arrived. I really tried to like them. They might even sound OK with a few of the Diana Krall tracks, but every time I switched back to my Sierra Towers the LRS sounded like a cheap speaker with a blanket over it. While the Sierra Tower was crystal clear. It's the difference between sitting in the balcony versus the front row. You either like that low-resolution reverb sound or absolutely hate it.

Check out the LRS distortion measurements and other issues in the ASR review. Wish I could have read it before placing my order. It could have saved me over $180 in lost shipping charges. I think Amir's LRS review should be required reading before ordering. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/magnepan-lrs-speaker-review.16068/

Amir's method for measurements isn't really valid for dipole speakers. His method assumes a point source- a box speaker.

The LRS is also quite small for a panel speaker, and given that diaphragm excursion is quite limited in any panel speaker, I would think that high distortion below 200 Hz would have to be one of the design compromises made for the small size of the diaphragm. If you listen mostly to orchestral or chamber music, or acoustic blues or jazz, the levels the speaker is pushed to may not exceeded it's limits. Some orchestral music certainly has lots of content below 200 Hz but when this is true in orchestral music there is usually a lot of content above 200 Hz that will mask the harmonics being spuriously generated. In addition, I think the smaller Magneplanar speakers need even more attention to position, room treatment and so on than their larger models.

the ONLY used pair I could find for sale was offered at $750, $100 over the retail price. I'm not sure that this fact supports your assertion that "LRS will not sell well in the after market."
 
Last edited:

stevenswall

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
1,366
Likes
1,075
Location
Orem, UT
Amir's method for measurements isn't valid for dipole speakers. His method assumes a point source- a box speaker.

His method assumes an "average room" for a listening window, and I'd say the dipole speakers I've heard aren't meant for any rooms people put them in, or most genres besides a solo vocalist and maybe an accompanist.

I would be curious how they would measure in a room purpose made for them though. Maybe flush mounted in a wall, extremely tall, and tilted towards the listener, with plenty EQ and open baffle woofers near each channel crossed over around 200-300hz, and a dentists bite stick and chin rest to be sure I'm in the right listening position.

My hypothesis is that being out of the sweet spot is so bad that the dramatic change once you're in it feels euphoric, and once you hear something without lots of distortion and dynamics that can be handled that it's such a relief that people love it.
 

Sound86

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
60
Likes
37
Location
Germany
From my experience with used market planars, and that goes for all planar speakers, is that they have rather high prices compared to conventional designs. I dont see why that would be any different with the LRS and for now in Europe the LRS prices are around ~1000 USD.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
That's not true.
It absolutely is true. See Davey's comment way back in the thread. You *do not* measure a dipole line source in free space. You measure a dipole line source in a room, at the listening position. That's because a dipole requires proximity to room surfaces for adequate bass response. If you designed it to have flat bass response in free space, the bass would blast your ears off.

Another common mistake made when measuring dipoles -- Stereophile is known for doing this -- is to take a quasi-anechoic measurement close to the planar. Then, you have the opposite problem, excessive bass.

In general, the size of a dipole's baffle has to be matched to the room for flat bass response. That's beyond the output and extension advantages of a larger baffle.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
His method assumes an "average room" for a listening window, and I'd say the dipole speakers I've heard aren't meant for any rooms people put them in, or most genres besides a solo vocalist and maybe an accompanist.

I would be curious how they would measure in a room purpose made for them though. Maybe flush mounted in a wall, extremely tall, and tilted towards the listener, with plenty EQ and open baffle woofers near each channel crossed over around 200-300hz, and a dentists bite stick and chin rest to be sure I'm in the right listening position.

My hypothesis is that being out of the sweet spot is so bad that the dramatic change once you're in it feels euphoric, and once you hear something without lots of distortion and dynamics that can be handled that it's such a relief that people love it.
Bad hunch! You'd get an insane rise in the bass if you did that, because a dipole is designed to compensate for the 6 dB/octave dipole rolloff in the bass:

1623404675380.png

This is John Atkinson's up-close measurement of the 3.6R, which shows the woofer's output without the dipole cancellation. Needless to say, it doesn't measure or sound like that in the far field. For an interesting discussion of this by Siegfried Linkwitz:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-magneplanar-mg36r-loudspeaker-more-comments

In any case, you're overlooking the main advantage of dipole bass, without which a sealed woofer would make much more sense -- namely, its suppression of the X and Y axial room modes. To achieve similarly smooth bass response with sealed woofers you have to use four subwoofers, which would rather overwhelm the cost of a $600 speaker even if you could get your spouse to agree!

Re the room, they'll work fine in a room of appropriate size -- an LRS will not work in a ballroom, and a large planar panel in a small room will sound, in the words of Magnepan's Wendell Diller, like a trumpet in a phone booth. Wendell has also pointed out that an LRS in a large room turns into a midrange, and that it goes to pieces if you drive it too hard. Without a sub, this is not a rock speaker! It's for those who want realistic reproduction of acoustical instruments, or who put a sub on it.

"His method assumes an 'average room' for a listening window, and I'd say the dipole speakers I've heard aren't meant for any rooms people put them in, or most genres besides a solo vocalist and maybe an accompanist."

As several of us have pointed out, his method assumes point source monopoles. I doesn't work for line source dipoles, one of the reasons being that the point at which a dipole starts to roll off at 6 dB/octave in the bass depends on effective baffle size, and the floor reflection alone makes the baffle twice as large. Given knowledge of the baffle size, a bit of math would make the results useful. Well, more than a bit, actually, because you'd have to account not just for floor and ceiling proximity but for sidewalls and acoustic coupling between the baffles, and for the way the resonant sections are allocated within the woofer.

Otherwise, it seems you've listened to some tiny dipoles. My Tympani IVA's have flat response below 30 Hz and cruise at 115 dB SPL. Like the other true ribbon Maggies, they have almost perfect dispersion out to 20 kHz -- something a speaker with conventional drivers can't match owing to the diameter of the tweeter.

People with small Maggies generally put subs on them. If you want to maintain the smooth response of dipole bass with a sub, the GR Research H-frame dynamic dipole subs are by all accounts amazing.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,779
Location
Oxfordshire
IME all speakers are very sensitive to room (and listener) location but panels are particularly sensitive.
I think over the last 10 to 15 years people have got used to putting speakers anywhere that suits their room layout and masking any poor performance this causes using some sort of room compensation software.
IME having the speaker optimally placed before doing a room correction is well worthwhile and based on my experience with Apogee panels probably essential.
 

Shazb0t

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
643
Likes
1,230
Location
NJ
It absolutely is true
No, it's not. The Klippel NFS does a 360° measurement of a speaker to measure it's sound field. It doesn't matter where the sounds are coming from. It then uses those measurements of the sound field sphere to generate the speakers anechoic response on and off axis. These plotted frequency responses are just as accurate for the LRS as they are for any type of speaker. You don't have to like the measurement, and you could argue that it's designed to look the way it is, but this point source/dipole argument doesn't matter.

As far as reflections, they are calculated by mathematically taking that generated 360° sound field and calculating how the sound would propogate outwards and interact with walls, ceiling, floor in an "average" room as defined in the standard. You can argue that you don't like how the average room is defined, but again the method to determine this response is not wrong and has nothing to do with a point source or dipole bass.
 

raindance

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
1,037
Likes
968
I have had 3 sets of MMG's, a set of MG1.6QR's and a set of .7's. Compared to the MMG and the 1.6, the .7 sounded (and measured) like it had a blanket thrown over it, plus it had an additional bass "hump" I did not experience with my other Maggies.

I'd say the 1.6's were my all time favorite speaker. They recently died of old age after many, many years of daily use.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
No, it's not. The Klippel NFS does a 360° measurement of a speaker to measure it's sound field. It doesn't matter where the sounds are coming from. It then uses those measurements of the sound field sphere to generate the speakers anechoic response on and off axis. These plotted frequency responses are just as accurate for the LRS as they are for any type of speaker. You don't have to like the measurement, and you could argue that it's designed to look the way it is, but this point source/dipole argument doesn't matter.

As far as reflections, they are calculated by mathematically taking that generated 360° sound field and calculating how the sound would propogate outwards and interact with walls, ceiling, floor in an "average" room as defined in the standard. You can argue that you don't like how the average room is defined, but again the method to determine this response is not wrong and has nothing to do with a point source or dipole bass.
No, the 360 degree sound field of a dipole measured in free space will *not* correspond to the sound field of a dipole sitting on the floor.

What you are apparently overlooking is the role of effective baffle side in dipole cancellation.

Fequal is determined by effective baffle size and shape. The effective baffle size and shape of a dipole in free space is not the same as the effective baffle size and shape of a dipole adjacent to one or more room boundaries. A small dipole on the floor, for example, will have twice the effective baffle area as a small dipole in free space, and that means Fequal will be higher and there will be significantly less dipole cancellation. The Klippel's sound field measurement has nothing to do with this phenomenon, and the calculations for room interaction for a monopole will fail when applied to a dipole, for more than one reason.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
No, the 360 degree sound field of a dipole measured in free space will *not* correspond to the sound field of a dipole sitting on the floor.

What you are apparently overlooking is the role of effective baffle side in dipole cancellation.

Fequal is determined by effective baffle size and shape. The effective baffle size and shape of a dipole in free space is not the same as the effective baffle size and shape of a dipole adjacent to one or more room boundaries. A small dipole on the floor, for example, will have twice the effective baffle area as a small dipole in free space, and that means Fequal will be higher and there will be significantly less dipole cancellation. The Klippel's sound field measurement has nothing to do with this phenomenon, and the calculations for room interaction for a monopole will fail when applied to a dipole, for more than one reason.

the Klippel is perfectly capable of handling complex radiation patterns, it's things like the Olive preference score that cannot.
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
the Klippel is perfectly capable of handling complex radiation patterns, it's things like the Olive preference score that cannot.
Sure, but a dipole can't work properly in free space, so I'm not sure what the Klippel is measuring other than a dipole with most of its baffle removed.

To use an analogy, it would be like measuring a sealed woofer with the back of the cabinet removed. You'd get an accurate radiation pattern, but would it be useful without a fair amount of math?
 

DHT 845

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Messages
498
Likes
436
I'm curious whether it is a good idea to use LRS just for midrande 200 Hz - 2000 kHz in DIY project speakers and what tweeter to use for best integration... ?
 
Last edited:

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Sure, but a dipole can't work properly in free space, so I'm not sure what the Klippel is measuring other than a dipole with most of its baffle removed.

To use an analogy, it would be like measuring a sealed woofer with the back of the cabinet removed. You'd get an accurate radiation pattern, but would it be useful without a fair amount of math?

I think people expect designs that just work out of the box, that behave nicely in the majority of rooms.

Also Amir has been quiet transparent with which part of the measurements are accurate.

So to say that the Klippel is 'wrong' is just garbage because it is measuring what's coming out of the speaker.

If the room will significantly alter the frequency response of the speaker to the point where anechoic measurments don't matter then that's not a great design either way.
 

No. 5

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2019
Messages
144
Likes
121
No, the 360 degree sound field of a dipole measured in free space will *not* correspond to the sound field of a dipole sitting on the floor.

Yes, and a monopole measured in free space will not correspond to the sound of a monopole sitting on the floor either. The point of measuring any speaker in free space is not to give you some kind of absolute ruling of what a speaker will sound like, but to tell you what the speaker's raw contribution is to the room/speaker sound field.

Sure, but a dipole can't work properly in free space, so I'm not sure what the Klippel is measuring other than a dipole with most of its baffle removed.

To use an analogy, it would be like measuring a sealed woofer with the back of the cabinet removed. You'd get an accurate radiation pattern, but would it be useful without a fair amount of math?

What is it about a dipole that "doesn't work properly" in free space? Isn't the shortest panel dimension of more relevance than the longest?
 
Top Bottom