• 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

Mr. E. Guy

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
38
Likes
83
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.
That was a strictly rhetorical question! Just making a point, anyone who wants a pair of speakers that rely upon a small full-range driver can explore the fabulous world of desktop computer speakers.

Based on what I have seen, possibly even a pair of Bose Companion 2 Series III ($150) would “kill” the LGKs. I'd love to see someone do a YT video of a blind test.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
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
Are you saying that I said that? Not even remotely accurate. Please provide a quote if you are attributing that to me. I wouldn't even waste my time evaluating such a small speaker system. I am baffled (no pun intended) as to why there are so many comments on this product.

My original interest in the review of the LGK was to ask if the problems noted by Amir (when playing a music track that had both deep bass and female vocals played at the exact same time) could be turned into some kind of objective instrument measurement test that could be used against all speaker systems. Every time I suggested it, he said he didn't think it was practical to come up with such an objective test, and that a listening test was needed.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
5,714
Likes
9,394
Location
Netherlands
My original interest in the review of the LGK was to ask if the problems noted by Amir (when playing a music track that had both deep bass and female vocals played at the exact same time) could be turned into some kind of objective instrument measurement test that could be used against all speaker systems. Every time I suggested it, he said he didn't think it was practical to come up with such an objective test, and that a listening test was needed.
I’d say we don’t need any other tests. The almost 10% THD at < 200 Hz at 86 dB are a dead giveaway. Even if your average playback level is only something like 76 dB, you’ll have peaks of more than 90 dB. Distortion will be even higher then.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
2,409
Likes
1,797
Are you saying that I said that? Not even remotely accurate. Please provide a quote if you are attributing that to me. I wouldn't even waste my time evaluating such a small speaker system. I am baffled (no pun intended) as to why there are so many comments on this product.

My original interest in the review of the LGK was to ask if the problems noted by Amir (when playing a music track that had both deep bass and female vocals played at the exact same time) could be turned into some kind of objective instrument measurement test that could be used against all speaker systems. Every time I suggested it, he said he didn't think it was practical to come up with such an objective test, and that a listening test was needed.
well, no, it's you only thinking I am meaining you said that, it's too long a thread to dig back where is the source, that's why I said I remember someone said those, I also remember faintly that another poster said something like you must listen to this particular speaker to comment, not from those tests. from all my posts in this thread I am only sure for one thing: this LGK is a joke product at it's complete package price, and even at flat pack price it's a waste of money. period
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
@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
I only mentioned that because Rick already had one he built for the evaluation and said he was going to switch out the LGK driver with a Peerless driver to see if performed any better. I merely speculated that the only way to noticeably improve the system (that needed no crossover) was to have two identical full range drivers, rather than one driver. I don't know if that would work out or not. I certainly am not recommending that anyone purchase a LGK kit to try that out.

Whether the idea a full range speaker system without need for a crossover has any merit, I don't really know for certain. But I am quite sure that if it did have merit, then more than one full range driver would be needed for decent music listening.

I personally am not interested in owning a speaker system the size of the LGK or similar so I don't know what else is available. I only listen to music with my regular system in the living room. or with my headphones in my den.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
well, no, it's you only thinking I am meaining you said that, it's too long a thread to dig back where is the source, that's why I said I remember someone said those, I also remember faintly that another poster said something like you must listen to this particular speaker to comment, not from those tests. from all my posts in this thread I am only sure for one thing: this LGK is a joke product at it's complete package price, and even at flat pack price it's a waste of money. period
OK, thanks for the clarification. I just want to emphasize that even though I did talk about the idea of speaker system with a full range driver and no crossover needed, I don't think it would work unless multiple drivers were used in some kind of line array. Even if the LGK system did have multiple full range drivers (at least 3), I couldn't comment on it without hearing it.
 

Mark_A

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2022
Messages
129
Likes
25
Based on what I have seen, possibly even a pair of Bose Companion 2 Series III ($150) would “kill” the LGKs.
Is it allowed to say the word "Bose" on an audiophile forum? :oops:

Actually, in 1972 I heard the Bose 901 speaker system at Audio Concepts in Austin TX. The 901 had nine 4" full range drivers. One driver facing forward, and the other 8 drivers facing to the rear for reflecting off the rear walls. I am pretty sure it had no crossover, but it did have an active equalization system in a separate box. Even though a lot of people thought highly of the Bose 901 at the time, I didn't care for it.
 

Joe Smith

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
437
Likes
430
Back in the 70s, the Bose 901s were the 'Eames Lounge Chair' of speakers...definitely seen as a "serious" if very design-forward speaker choice.
Just thinking about having to refoam all of those drivers though...ergh...apart from sound, ownership today not for the faint of heart.
 

mhardy6647

Master Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
6,702
Likes
13,839
Going to drop this here again ..just for contrast, maybe generate some interest as well.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dmax-audio-super-cubes.17590/
$800 pr
aiyeeeee... 21st Century Horrortones. ;)

horrortones.jpg
 

ooheadsoo

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
78
Likes
49
That was a strictly rhetorical question! Just making a point, anyone who wants a pair of speakers that rely upon a small full-range driver can explore the fabulous world of desktop computer speakers.

Based on what I have seen, possibly even a pair of Bose Companion 2 Series III ($150) would “kill” the LGKs. I'd love to see someone do a YT video of a blind test.
I recently bought a pair of the Bose used for much much less than msrp, and I think it actually sounds quite nice after EQ with MMM. Before EQ... Not so much.
 

Paul Serat

New Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2022
Messages
1
Likes
0
While this is a great review by Amir, and a great service to the society, I don't think anything will change sustainably, sadly. He will either ignore this, or dismiss the results as inaccurate/the methodologies are faulty/we can hear things that are not in measurements etc., and hist followers/believers will believe what he said.

Sometimes it's sad to be reminded about the world we live in, but well,
(to delta 76) : The fact that you see behind visible marketing strategies, will probably complexifiy your choice of newer equipment, but insure that you will get the quality you pay for, instead of following the always “best choice” of many so-called “reviewers”; your ears and logic mind will guide you better, I think. Amir does a great job at demonstrating what is, and what is not.
While this is a great review by Amir, and a great service to the society, I don't think anything will change sustainably, sadly. He will either ignore this, or dismiss the results as inaccurate/the methodologies are faulty/we can hear things that are not in measurements etc., and hist followers/believers will believe what he said.

Sometimes it's sad to be reminded about the world we live in, but well,

While this is a great review by Amir, and a great service to the society, I don't think anything will change sustainably, sadly. He will either ignore this, or dismiss the results as inaccurate/the methodologies are faulty/we can hear things that are not in measurements etc., and hist followers/believers will believe what he said.

Sometimes it's sad to be reminded about the world we live in, but well,
 

dsnyder0cnn

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2019
Messages
476
Likes
649
I purchased the LGK 2.0 kit with flatpack months before Amir reviewed these speakers. A kind (and talented) friend offered to complete the build for me, including finishing the cabinets in a natural walnut veneer. Here's a photo of the cabinets just after the second coat of polyurethane:

LGK 2.0 - two coats - edit.jpg


I will use these as nearfield monitors for my work setup. I purchased IsoAcoustics ISO-130 stands to get them to the correct height and point the drivers at my ears. The stands are great for this application because they have a couple of different height options and five different tilt angles to choose from:

20220820_213848-01.jpeg


I've positioned them in the nearfield...I can easily touch each cabinet with the tips of my fingers. Speakers are 38 - 40% of the way into my 11 ft 7 in x 11 ft 11 in room. My head is less than 2 ft from the wall behind me, which does a nice job of reinforcing the lows. I'm using the Topping E50 + L50 + PA5 "stack." Headphones are the HiFiMan HE400se. It's nice to have independent volume controls for headphones and speakers. :cool:

PSX_20220821_081236-01.jpeg


I've hung a green screen on the wall behind me, which works well for adding virtual backgrounds on Zoom calls.

PSX_20220821_131354-01.jpeg


I realize that the value proposition of the LGK 2.0 relative to alternatives is head-scratching, especially if one opts for the $1,038 finished version instead of the (at the time of purchase) $413 kit option that I selected. But using speakers that a dear friend put a lot of time into building for me is meaningful beyond their cost and relative value.

I've found the sound quality to be more than enjoyable...certainly a dramatic upgrade from the $350 IK Multimedia iLoud Micro Monitors they replaced. Soundstage depth would be better if I didn't have that 27-inch 4k display sitting between them, but I need that for work, so it must stay. Vocal clarity is delightful. Dynamics are surprisingly good for a 3-inch wideband driver.

For my average playback levels of ~75 dB (C-weighted, slow integration), I'm unable to detect any hints of distortion or buzzing. The drivers are nowhere near the 1 mm excursion limit for the music I typically play. They may struggle with EDM or hip-hop as there's little output below 100 Hz. Not sure, but for my intended purpose, they are consistently putting a big smile on my face. They look beautiful too!

At some point, I may add a small subwoofer, but I could live with the sound I've been getting from these for a long time without one.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Amir's review or measurements. The numbers don't lie. I was a bit worried about how these would actually sound when I read what he had to say, but now that I have them (just arrived last week), I have no regrets. I'm also not suggesting that everyone should rush out and buy these, but if your application is similar to mine, I would not completely rule them out based on Amir's review.
 

Joppe Peelen

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
92
Likes
70
Location
Den Haag , Netherlands
i think you made a mistake here:

index.php


you say it should be below 50 dB, but you lowered that treshold by 4 dB in the 90 dB measurement. the opposite of what you would do normally. or at least keep ik at 50 dB ? so now you created more distortion then actauly is there. (you demand now the speaker does lower distortion while paling louder.... thats never gone happen with any speaker.) by the presentation ? either 4 or 8 dB not sure if you want it to be below 50 when using 90 dB. if so you scewed this result by 4 dB... else 8dB, maybe does not matter all that much but... at least its incorrect and 4 db is something in distortion
 
Last edited:

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
482
Likes
337
i think you made a mistake here:

index.php


you say it should be below 50 dB, but you lowered that treshold by 4 dB in the 90 dB measurement. the opposite of what you would do normally. or at least keep ik at 50 dB ? so now you created more distortion then actauly is there. by the presentation ? either 4 or 8 dB not sure if you want it to be below 50 when using 90 dB. if so you scewed this result by 4 dB... else 8dB, maybe does not matter all that much but... at least its incorrect and 4 db is something in distortion
How? The measurement is the same regardless where the line was "drawn".
 

Joppe Peelen

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
92
Likes
70
Location
Den Haag , Netherlands
How? The measurement is the same regardless where the line was "drawn".
? no its not if you state 50 dB and draw the line left to right.. but change the scale... it is not . the right one has a different scale... the 50 db point (red line)end up at 46

only if you do not use that line and look at the scale.. but thats not what i get from the video

here:
 
Last edited:

Everett T

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
482
Likes
337
The test was run at 90db, which he stated wasn't the normal 96db. The minus 50db is still minus 50db, regardless of the line. You still see where the distortion lay regardless of any line. Move the graph to make the 50db point line up changes the look not the distortion. It can be confusing if you're just looking at the line and not the actual level.
 

Joppe Peelen

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
92
Likes
70
Location
Den Haag , Netherlands
The test was run at 90db, which he stated wasn't the normal 96db. The minus 50db is still minus 50db, regardless of the line. You still see where the distortion lay regardless of any line. Move the graph to make the 50db point line up changes the look not the distortion. It can be confusing if you're just looking at the line and not the actual level.
thats not how it is presented. watch that piece i posted. yes its high yes i would not want one... but there it is mispresented. distortion will be higher, there is no system that shows lower distortion at a higher volume that i know off. keeping the line the same... but actually 4dB lower is misleading. no offence. but thats what it is
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom