• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

GR Research LGK 2.0 Speaker Review (A Joke)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 344 88.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 34 8.7%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 6 1.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 7 1.8%

  • Total voters
    391

More Dynamics Please

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
562
Likes
719
Location
USA
The failure of any speaker to measure up to marketing claims is guaranteed to generate some level of negative comments with the degree of negativism related to the historical credibility of the speaker's source. Dogged defense of any such underperforming speaker is only going to generate escalating negative comments as might be expected. No surprises here at all.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,133
Likes
3,812
Location
Germany
As I said previously, if I were to try and build a speaker system with a driver that handled the entire frequency range (obviating the need for a crossover), I would try and put as many of them together in parallel as I could in the same box, but taking into account the impedance issues involved when wiring speakers in parallel.

Maybe you learn at least a littel about speakers? Than you would learn what
problems with solutions like this come up.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
Suggest you spend a bit more time reading more on ASR and this thread and get a handle on how ASR operates. If you had done so on this thread, you would know that have a LGK2 cabinet because I acquired and built the speaker for Amir to test. He only listens to one, so I have the spare parts. If you want to know more, see my build thread that he references in the initial post.

Am not here to endorse or defend Danny except on facts. Not only did he not publish all the LGK driver parameters originally, as I mentioned earlier, he lowered Xmax significantly. This occurred right around the same time as Amir's review. Since you apparently know speaker design, you can draw own conclusions. Just in case you had not seen, here is my exchange with Danny from earlier this year...

View attachment 218292

If you check the GR website, here are the params now:

Sd: 30.78 sq. cm
Diameter: 62.61 mm
X-Max 1 mm
Max peak power full range: 30 watts.
Max peak power with first two octaves removed: 60 watts

Xmax has been lowered and, in case you missed, he added a conditional power rating (that as not posted originally either). In any case, both through Amir's testing and Bassbox Pro modeling, we have shown that the driver is not able to handle anything close to 30 watts.
I don't understand why the circumstances surrounding who built the test unit has anything to do with what I said. I am not, nor have I ever, defended the the LGK 2.0. There is no way I would consider a speaker system with a single 3" full range driver. I did, however, suggest that using multiple identical 3" drivers (as many as feasible) without any crossover, might perform at an decent level of performance. That might be true for the LGK 2,0 driver, or some other similar driver. But that is speculation on my part, and I could not say for certain without trying it out.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
Maybe you learn at least a littel about speakers? Than you would learn what
problems with solutions like this come up.
I don't understand your comments. What solutions are you talking about? If you are saying that I didn't know that cabinet volume should be matched to the bass driver to obtain maximum performance, that is not correct, because I do know that. There are ways around that problem if turned out to be audibly objectional such as changing the port size, plugging the port, or using an external subwoofers. I have listened to some great speakers that had no baffles for midrange or tweeters, but obviously some other solution might have to be done to address the lower bass.

It wasn't my idea to build a speaker system with a single full range 3" driver, and I find that concept to be far-fetched, and not surprised it didn't work.
 
Last edited:

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
The failure of any speaker to measure up to marketing claims is guaranteed to generate some level of negative comments with the degree of negativism related to the historical credibility of the speaker's source. Dogged defense of any such underperforming speaker is only going to generate escalating negative comments as might be expected. No surprises here at all.
Are you claiming that I defended the LGK 2.0 speaker system? That is categorically untrue.

I think a speaker system with a single full-range 3" driver (regardless of driver manufacturer) would be very unlikely to succeed. I did speculate that the LGK 2.0 bare driver might work in a system with multiple identical drivers (without crossover), but of course the success or failure of that would have to verified by testing it.
 

Mr. E. Guy

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
38
Likes
83
It wasn't my idea to build a speaker system with a single full range 3" driver, and I find that concept to be far-fetched, and not surprised it didn't work.

I wonder how Danny's silly speakers would fare against a pair of Creative T60 that cost $70 and are active speakers, with a built-in DAC. They have 2.75" full-range drivers, so almost the same.

 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
I wonder how Danny's silly speakers would fare against a pair of Creative T60 that cost $70 and are active speakers, with a built-in DAC. They have 2.75" full-range drivers, so almost the same.

I have no idea. I am not really interested in bottom fishing to find the smallest, cheapest speakers for music. I would go with headphones instead.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
2,416
Likes
4,451
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
I don't understand your comments. What solutions are you talking about? If you are saying that I didn't know that cabinet volume should be matched to the bass driver to obtain maximum performance, that is not correct, because I do know that. There are ways around that problem if turned out to be audibly objectional such as changing the port size, plugging the port, or using an external subwoofers. I have listened to some great speakers that had no baffles for midrange or tweeters, but obviously some other solution might have to be done to address the lower bass.

It wasn't my idea to build a speaker system with a single full range 3" driver, and I find that concept to be far-fetched, and not surprised it didn't work.

Thanks for your clarifications and will try to ensure you are given more context next time.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,133
Likes
3,812
Location
Germany
I don't understand your comments. What solutions are you talking about? If you are saying that I didn't know that cabinet volume should be matched to the bass driver to obtain maximum performance, that is not correct, because I do know that. There are ways around that problem if turned out to be audibly objectional such as changing the port size, plugging the port, or using an external subwoofers. I have listened to some great speakers that had no baffles for midrange or tweeters, but obviously some other solution might have to be done to address the lower bass.

It wasn't my idea to build a speaker system with a single full range 3" driver, and I find that concept to be far-fetched, and not surprised it didn't work.

",..,,As I said previously, if I were to try and build a speaker system with a driver that handled the entire frequency range (obviating the need for a crossover), I would try and put as many of them together in parallel as I could in the same box, but ,....."

Dont you know what you write?
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
",..,,As I said previously, if I were to try and build a speaker system with a driver that handled the entire frequency range (obviating the need for a crossover), I would try and put as many of them together in parallel as I could in the same box, but ,....."

Dont you know what you write?
I don't understand what your comment is complaining about. Is there some problem or inconsistency in what I said? Please clearly and explicitly explain what your concern is.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,133
Likes
3,812
Location
Germany
I don't understand what your comment is complaining about. Is there some problem or inconsistency in what I said? Please clearly and explicitly explain what your concern is.

You can not just add another fullband. It changes overall FR thru comp filtering and directivity.
 

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
3,472
Likes
3,005
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
",..,,As I said previously, if I were to try and build a speaker system with a driver that handled the entire frequency range (obviating the need for a crossover), I would try and put as many of them together in parallel as I could in the same box, but ,....."

Dont you know what you write?

I don't understand what your comment is complaining about. Is there some problem or inconsistency in what I said? Please clearly and explicitly explain what your concern is.

You can not just add another fullband. It changes overall FR thru comp filtering and directivity.
Many drivers in a line. Common in PA:


The same principle CAN be used as/for home HiFi speakers. Big advantages of reducing floors and roof reflections (if they are built so they go from floor to ceiling) BUT this design principle also means big challenges, which tomtoo is talking about. It has to do with directivity, how sound from speaker elements radiates, at different frequencies. FR must be checked, leveled. It can be done but it requires work, see page 5, # 81 and onwards. Posts from Wesayso are clearly interesting. He is a well known DIY of line speakers, he addresses the challenges in that thread, after # 81:)


A pair of line speakers with, for example, 25 drivers in each speaker is something completely different than a pair of GR Research LGK 2.0.It's really like comparing apples and pears.:D
 
Last edited:

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
You can not just add another fullband. It changes overall FR thru comp filtering and directivity.
Well yes, one can add additional drivers that are all the same. Whether that creates any obviously audible problems due to reflections and sound arriving at different times is debatable. A speaker with 3 identical LGK 2.0 3" drivers isn't going to be a great speaker by any count, but it would most likely be a lot better than just the single 3" driver. I never said just adding multiple drivers would result in a great speaker.

Besides, I never said that filters were not needed to adjust the FR. I believe that the LGK 2.0 speaker system design includes a notch filter, but it does not have a crossover.

There are lots of speakers systems that use multiple drivers that are identical and play the same frequencies.
 
Last edited:

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,133
Likes
3,812
Location
Germany
Well yes, one can add additional drivers that are all the same. Whether that creates any obviously audible problems due to reflections and sound arriving at different times is debatable. A speaker with 3 identical LGK 2.0 3" drivers isn't going to be a great speaker by any count, but it would most likely be a lot better than just the single 3" driver. I never said just adding multiple drivers would result in a great speaker.

Besides, I never said that filters were not needed to adjust the FR. I believe that the LGK 2.0 speaker system design includes a notch filter, but it does not have a crossover.

There are lots of speakers systems that use multiple drivers that are identical and play the same frequencies.

But if you at the size of 3* 3inch you could use a 5inch and a tweeter with much better results. And no, there is no reputable desktopspeaker that uses multible fullrange speaker? Or you can show?
Thats why i say its not a good idear. If it would be a good idear, genelec or neumann or focal would do this for sure. Couse its cheap.
 
Last edited:

DanielT

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
3,472
Likes
3,005
Location
Sweden - Слава Україні
LGK 2.0 is what it is. Danny blow it upp , puff steam (has he puffed on the magic dragon?Given the strange exaggerations, the bragging:)) so it seems to be the best created thing since sliced bread does not change that. It will be as it will be with a small broadband element.

LGK 2.0 is also expensive. There are other, better cheaper, small broadband drivers.:)
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
But if you at the size of 3* 3inch you could use a 5inch and a tweeter with much better results. And no, there is no reputable desktopspeaker that uses multible fullrange speaker? Or you can show?
Thats why i say its not a good idear. If it would be a good idear, genelec or neumann or focal would do this for sure. Couse its cheap.
This line of discussion started when Rick Sykora (who built the test unit for Amir) posted previously in this thread that he was going to replace the LGK 2.0 driver with a Peerless NE123-8 in the LGK2’s cabinet. It is advertised as a 4" driver and Rick said it is is twice the price of the LGK 2.0 driver (although on sale at the moment). I replied that it might be better to just add another LGK 2.0 driver ($40). I find the concept of a single driver speaker system (that is not a coaxial driver) to be dubious at best.

I was not trying to design an optimal desktop speaker, just suggest that two full range drivers might be better than one full range driver, even if Peerless is a little larger. I don't know whether my idea would work out better than the Peerless or not. One problem with just adding one more LGK 2.0 driver (6 ohms) is that if hooked in parallel, that would be 3 ohms total for the two drivers, and if hooked in series that would be 12 ohms (if I am wrong about that, please let me know).

One could certainly turn the existing box into a real two way system, with crossover, etc. Or one could add a subwoofer.

I don't do any serious music listening on my desktop speakers. For music, I either use my regular system with floor standing speakers, or my headphone system (separate DAC, headphone amp, and Sennheiser HD 660S).
 
Last edited:

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,133
Likes
3,812
Location
Germany
This line of discussion started when Rick Sykora (who built the test unit for Amir) posted previously in this thread that he was going to replace the LGK 2.0 driver with a Peerless NE123-8 in the LGK2’s cabinet. It is advertised as a 4" driver and Rick said it is is twice the price of the LGK 2.0 driver (although on sale at the moment). I replied that it might be better to just add another LGK 2.0 driver ($40). I find the concept of a single driver speaker system (that is not a coaxial driver) to be dubious at best.

I was not trying to design an optimal desktop speaker, just suggest that two full range drivers might be better than one full range driver, even if Peerless is a little larger. I don't know whether my idea would work out better than the Peerless or not. One problem with just adding one more LGK 2.0 driver (6 ohms) is that if hooked in parallel, that would be 3 ohms total for the two drivers, and if hooked in series that would be 12 ohms (if I am wrong about that, please let me know).

One could certainly turn the existing box into a real two way system, with crossover, etc. Or one could add a subwoofer.

I don't do any serious music listening on my desktop speakers. For music, I either use my regular system with floor standing speakers, or my headphone system (separate DAC, headphone amp, and Sennheiser HD 660S).

The best thing to do with this speaker is just dont buy it. There are much better options for the price.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
14,838
Likes
14,565
Location
Canada
This line of discussion started when Rick Sykora (who built the test unit for Amir) posted previously in this thread that he was going to replace the LGK 2.0 driver with a Peerless NE123-8 in the LGK2’s cabinet. It is advertised as a 4" driver and Rick said it is is twice the price of the LGK 2.0 driver (although on sale at the moment). I replied that it might be better to just add another LGK 2.0 driver ($40). I find the concept of a single driver speaker system (that is not a coaxial driver) to be dubious at best.

I was not trying to design an optimal desktop speaker, just suggest that two full range drivers might be better than one full range driver, even if Peerless is a little larger. I don't know whether my idea would work out better than the Peerless or not. One problem with just adding one more LGK 2.0 driver (6 ohms) is that if hooked in parallel, that would be 3 ohms total for the two drivers, and if hooked in series that would be 12 ohms (if I am wrong about that, please let me know).

One could certainly turn the existing box into a real two way system, with crossover, etc. Or one could add a subwoofer.

I don't do any serious music listening on my desktop speakers. For music, I either use my regular system with floor standing speakers, or my headphone system (separate DAC, headphone amp, and Sennheiser HD 660S).
@Mark_A that MOD for the Little Giant Killers would be a waste of time, resources and money. Have you seen what is available in a JBL or a Infinity for the expense of the Little Giant Killers? They make the Little Giant Killers look like rubbish. :D
 

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
479
Likes
337
@Mark_A that MOD for the Little Giant Killers would be a waste of time, resources and money. Have you seen what is available in a JBL or a Infinity for the expense of the Little Giant Killers? They make the Little Giant Killers look like rubbish. :D
Right? Let's take a driver that apparently has no QC and stick another in the cabinet. Also, I wholeheartedly believe these were a buyout purchase, no more new ones to be had.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,406
Likes
1,793
This line of discussion started when Rick Sykora (who built the test unit for Amir) posted previously in this thread that he was going to replace the LGK 2.0 driver with a Peerless NE123-8 in the LGK2’s cabinet. It is advertised as a 4" driver and Rick said it is is twice the price of the LGK 2.0 driver (although on sale at the moment). I replied that it might be better to just add another LGK 2.0 driver ($40). I find the concept of a single driver speaker system (that is not a coaxial driver) to be dubious at best.

I was not trying to design an optimal desktop speaker, just suggest that two full range drivers might be better than one full range driver, even if Peerless is a little larger. I don't know whether my idea would work out better than the Peerless or not. One problem with just adding one more LGK 2.0 driver (6 ohms) is that if hooked in parallel, that would be 3 ohms total for the two drivers, and if hooked in series that would be 12 ohms (if I am wrong about that, please let me know).

One could certainly turn the existing box into a real two way system, with crossover, etc. Or one could add a subwoofer.

I don't do any serious music listening on my desktop speakers. For music, I either use my regular system with floor standing speakers, or my headphone system (separate DAC, headphone amp, and Sennheiser HD 660S).
and that I remember was from someone saying the LGK is one of the best single driver one can get and cheaply, so then the LGK somewhat makes sense..

Forget about the whole arguement, but anyway this LGK is really a joke level product is for sure
 
Top Bottom