• 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

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,926
Location
North Alabama
Awesome review @amirm. Very cool stuff here. I look forward to having the time to come back and trying to make more sense of it, as some of the data with this one is not intuitive like it is with a "normal" speaker.

Thanks, again, for taking the time to do these reviews and going the extra mile to make sure things are accurate when it doesn't look "right".

f8ce39769359522e24a1f24055558f15.gif
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,806
My 1.7is don't sound even remotely the same sitting down or standing up, this is one of my main complaints about them. I haven't heard the 3.7i, but this effect did seem less on the 20.7, though honestly I only heard them once and I could be remembering wrong.

3.7's don't change much when you stand up
 

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,926
Location
North Alabama
Yes, I've seen his and commented favorably on them. That is the version I'd really like to see used.


I just don't have the time to take Amir's file and split the Horizontal and Vertical into separate files myself. But, if someone wants to do that for me, I can make the graphics.

My inputs call for a separate file for 0/10/20/etc. (that's how I output them when I make my measurements). Frequency, SPL (I don't need phase).

Naming convention for Horizontal:
0_H.txt
10_H.txt
.
.
.
180_H.txt


For vertical:
0_V.txt
10_V.txt
.
.
.
±180_V.txt


If you only care about horizontal, that will save you time. NBD if you guys don't want to bother, though.
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,457
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
Thanks a great acoustic review as always Amir and a bow for use of 3 days research work to put light on how this speaker actual perform, based Amir's spindata for Magnespan LRS radars with multiple overlays, first verticals then horizontals..

Radar_1a.png

Radar_1b.png
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
8,020
Likes
16,959
Location
Monument, CO
Excellent, and massive, job @amirm ! I found no surprises and the measurements match the ones I took decades ago (not nearly as extensive) and since (ditto). The true ribbon tweeter does much better than their panels, one of the things that steered me to the 3 and 20 series rather than the 1 and 2 series decades ago, and anyone who thinks they do great bass is fooling themselves. Even the large panels distort heavily when driven by high-level bass signals. They need a sub (back then I DIY'd a servo sub; now it's Rythmik and there are a myriad of options available). I figured that out ca. 1980, after having my (used) MG-I's for a year or so. And yes they take a lot of fiddling with placement and room treatment to get happy. Back then their low distortion at higher frequencies and the fairly seamless transition from lows to high (with the right setup) was much better than almost all speakers available. Always loved their sound, but am quite satisfied with my (gasp!) conventional replacement speakers.

The "dots" on the panels are to break up panel modes by tying down the panels at "key" points. To help make them less audible, the tie-down points are different for left and right panels. More exotic means are used by ESLs that have the same issue.
 
Last edited:

AudioTodd

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2019
Messages
195
Likes
280
My 1.7is don't sound even remotely the same sitting down or standing up, this is one of my main complaints about them. I haven't heard the 3.7i, but this effect did seem less on the 20.7, though honestly I only heard them once and I could be remembering wrong.
My 1.7is in one system largely sound the same standing or sitting.

My .7s, however, sound VERY different standing than sitting when powered by my Pass XA25 but NOT when powered by a Benchmark AHB2 either in stereo mode or a bridged pair. I’ve been looking for an objective reason for this stark, but not blind confirmed, difference. It was something I just thought was inherent to the speaker until the effect was totally or nearly absent with the AHB2.

My current theory is a change in the spectral output of the speaker caused by the particular power/impedance/frequency/distortion characteristics of the XA25 and the impedance and dispersion characteristics of the .7s. The AHB2 has a much more textbook perfect transfer function than the designed-for-character XA25.

I am not equipped to do a double blind test on this, but I have accumulated enough measurement information on the amps and very similar Magnepan models (I can’t find good .7 impedance, etc. measurements) that I can conceive of effects that should be audible even if the WAY they are audible is actually surprising.

I know a bit off topic, but the Maggie comments kinda opened the door.
 

A.West

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
81
Likes
133
I owned Magnepan 2.6 speakers from about 1993 to 2002. I liked them as a single guy listening to classical music in an apartment. No very low bass to upset neighbors. Everyone asked what they were. But they were too big, had some flaws. My wife was happy when I replaced them with PSB Stratus Silveri and they stopped looming darkly over our living room. Stereophile showed them measuring much better than these small speakers.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-mg26r-loudspeaker-measurements
 

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,451
Likes
3,414
Location
.de
Then I played something with bass and it was as if the speaker was drowned under water again. It wasn't just absence of deep bass but rather, quietness on top of that.

Even when the speaker sounded "good" you would hear these spatial and level shifts that was really strange. As the singers voice changed tonality, it would sometimes shift left and right.
That sounds like severe intermodulation. SMPTE intermod testing (or even multitone) might have been revealing in this regard...

I guess you really should cross these over to something capable of decent bass output from about 300 Hz down. They are called the Little Ribbon Speaker after all. Those adventurous enough might try adding some more baffle towards the non-tweeter side, too.
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,457
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
I just don't have the time to take Amir's file and split the Horizontal and Vertical into separate files myself. But, if someone wants to do that for me, I can make the graphics.....

Thanks :) 72 txt-files of directivity data in below zip-folder..
 

Attachments

  • Steps_x72_Magnespan_LRS.zip
    132.4 KB · Views: 120

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,926
It also strikes me that this kind of measurement doesn't show what the actual heard result would be. Because it isn't going to include the reflected backwave from the room correctly is it? Or does it. It would have to account for the delayed and reflected backwave as part of the front wave and it can't do that the way the Klippel operates as the device is giving you anechoic results. I don't think the PIR function works correctly for a dipole. Or am I wrong?

I am wondering that myself. As I was reading the review, I was trying to imagine what that might imply in what one hears. I don't know these speakers but have lived with the old SMGa for decades. I have probably tried every possible orientation and placement and can probably predict what happens for a particular placement. The thing that struck me in both measurements and hearing test is that it was exactly what one is likely to observe if these were placed flat against a wall (especially coming from inside a well description). Not that they were that way here but I do wonder what the measurement captured and if that was the sonic equivalent of that. If the first picture was the placement for listening, I can certainly see that it wouldn't be optimal but it wouldn't be that bad.

This is already a very long sequence of tests and so I don't expect more but if one wanted to verify the validity of the measurements for reflections, it could be measured at a couple of different placements - not different tilt or toe-in but the distance away from the stuff behind it. This makes the most obvious changes both in bandwidth and tonality for any Maggie. If the measurements were the same for each one of those then it would confirm that somehow measurements were not capturing the listening characteristics. If they did change, then one could triangulate from a few positions what exactly was contributing to the results. This is more of a measurement calibration testing for the setup used than anything else.

Small Maggies have a narrow bandwidth. I had my SMGa crossed over at 100hz based on REW measurements as they dipped steeply below 100hz. The highs also fell off after about 12khz and that is part of what made the small Maggies bad for certain genres of music but great for some. But in short, as you have mentioned, it is the reproduction between about 500hz and 6khz (and the stage imaging inherent in that range) that appeals the most to people who like them. I have listened to setups that people were very happy with until I found their speaker fuses had blown and effectively, the tweeters weren't playing at all.

Their inefficiency also mutes some of the hissing sounds or low level noises (especially in the recording) making the music/dialog popout. Ground loops are never a problem with these. :)
 
Top Bottom