Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Wseaton]

I used to own MMGs and while the LRS is a different design the concept is the same and the review matches the problems I heard with the MMGs. Biggest issue i had was the inverted U shaped response and bus off a cliff treble response.

Midrange was OK, and with the right source material could deliver a ginormous soundstage with good clarity, but lacked any tonal weight. A few years prior I heard a pair of Definitive Technology BP 20s and was gobsmacked at their massive bi polar Soundstage, but unfortunately those speakers lacked refinement. DT only wanted mass retail and their later designs got even worse to my ears.

I had several audiophile friends with bigger Maggie's one of which drove a pair of 1.6s with what I recall were Sunfire monoblocks. That system was in an entire different league producing a focused and properly balanced Soundstage as big as the area between the panels. Total sonic immersion....with the power meter on the side of the house spinning madly

The LRS could likely be vastly improved by also cutting its width and opting for a curved panel like ML reducing all that weird phase swiss cheese phase issue. Perhaps some patent issues prevent Magnepan from doing this?

Speaking of Martin Logan, I've heard many of their electrostats and they all seem to lack the extreme variability of Magnepan set ups and have much cleaner mid range. MLs don't scale like the bigger Maggie's though.

Somebody mentioned di poles above and I agree. The BP 20s I heard years ago were mediocre 2 ways at best but in bi pole mode got my attention. I just wish DT had gone in a higher end direction because they accomplished to some degree what planers do with a lot less fussing around.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

It sounds like you have a planar bass-friendly room. Room vary amazingly in what they do with planar bass. Actually, they vary amazingly with all speakers, but they seem to vary more with planars. Anyway, the complaint I usually hear is that the LRS's lack bass and highs, not midrange.

OK, so there are a few reasons for that. One is that these are small room speakers. As Wendell Diller at Magnepan put it, if you put them in a large room, they turn into a midrange. (In general, the *size* of a planar woofer has to match the room, not just the frequency response.) That's because of the way the baffle interacts with the room -- the larger the planars panels, the more they approach an infinite baffle. Re the highs, the speakers have to be aimed at you vertically because the highs beam vertically. So basically you angle them up so that they aim at your ears when you're in the listening seat.

What Danny did with the XO was to increase the slope from 6 dB/octave. It's always a compromise -- the woofer and tweeter blend better with a gentle transition. Also, the time domain response is correct. It's said that this can be heard with test signals -- it's usually said that it isn't audible on music, but who knows. At best, the effect is subtle.

If you move the XO frequency up, the tweeter will indeed be less heavily loaded, so there's a real argument for using a higher order crossover.
Finally, I believe that Danny equalizes these speakers flat. But flat isn't real with two channel stereo -- accurate reproduction requires a "house curve" which has diminishing power response. The LRS is designed to have a house curve rather than to be flat. But if you're listening off the vertical axis, I imagine that a flat response is better!

I think you're confusing electrical transfer functions with acoustic slopes. A first order topology won't yield a 6 dB acoustic slope with real world drivers. And I think there's also confusion between a "house curve" and the naturally declining response that will occur in a room if the speaker is voiced flat anechoically. You don't have to start with a house curve to achieve the declining room response. Rugs and curtains and Golden Retrievers will do that for you.

 

[josh358]

I used to own MMGs and while the LRS is a different design the concept is the same and the review matches the problems I heard with the MMGs. Biggest issue i had was the inverted U shaped response and bus off a cliff treble response.

Midrange was OK, and with the right source material could deliver a ginormous soundstage with good clarity, but lacked any tonal weight. A few years prior I heard a pair of Definitive Technology BP 20s and was gobsmacked at their massive bi polar Soundstage, but unfortunately those speakers lacked refinement. DT only wanted mass retail and their later designs got even worse to my ears.

I had several audiophile friends with bigger Maggie's one of which drove a pair of 1.6s with what I recall were Sunfire monoblocks. That system was in an entire different league producing a focused and properly balanced Soundstage as big as the area between the panels. Total sonic immersion....with the power meter on the side of the house spinning madly

The LRS could likely be vastly improved by also cutting its width and opting for a curved panel like ML reducing all that weird phase swiss cheese phase issue. Perhaps some patent issues prevent Magnepan from doing this?

Speaking of Martin Logan, I've heard many of their electrostats and they all seem to lack the extreme variability of Magnepan set ups and have much cleaner mid range. MLs don't scale like the bigger Maggie's though.

Somebody mentioned di poles above and I agree. The BP 20s I heard years ago were mediocre 2 ways at best but in bi pole mode got my attention. I just wish DT had gone in a higher end direction because they accomplished to some degree what planers do with a lot less fussing around.

I think that a lot of this may be that people are using it in too large a room. As Wendell Diller of Magnepan put it, if you put the LRS into a large room, it turns into a midrange, which is basically what you're describing. This is a consequence of listening to the short tweeter in the far field, and of inadequate bass reinforcement from boundaries -- the area of any dipole baffle has to increase as the room size does.

That said, were you centered vertically on the panel? The LRS is acoustically "wrong" in that it's neither a point source or a true line source (e.g., long enough so that you're in the near field at the listening position). That means it beams vertically and you have to tilt it back so it hits your ears. The measured high end response is good until 19 kHz, where it drops like the proverbial rock.

Also, remember that the LRS is designed for accurate HF reproduction. Most speakers are flat in the treble, which gives people a distorted picture of what live music sounds like (J. Gordon Holt's famous imitation of an audiophile at a concert -- "Where are all the highs?"). The LRS, like other Maggies, is designed with a house curve. All speakers should be designed that way so that they sound right where EQ isn't available.

It's certainly a bass limited speaker, but should be reasonably satisfying in a smaller room, particularly one that favors dipoles. Imaging would be a function of placement -- no reason it won't produce the immense soundstage of a larger panel, in act, the time I heard it, it was doing so.

Martin Logan -- Magnepan could curve the panel, but it would have no benefit in the larger speakers and would be expensive in the smaller ones -meaning that you'd be better off buying the larger speaker. For technical reasons I won't go into (but that as a geek I find interesting, LOL) curves are more beneficial in ESL's than in planars. The midrange of an ESL will be better than the midrange in a large Maggie (and anything else). The only planars that come close are the Apogees, with their true ribbon midrange, but those suffered from metal fatigue and proved impractical; and the 30.7, which has Magnepan's new high quality midrange and a midbass coupler but costs $30,000. The thing about the Logans is that they use dynamic woofers that don't blend at all with the panels. ESL's in general can't match planars in output (unless they do what ML has done and compromise the bass, or they're yuge like the Sound Labs) because excursion is limited by arcing. Also, planar magnetic speakers have better bang for the buck, which is why Jim Winey invented them in the first place.

Finally -- remember that the LRS is a promotion. It's designed to give people a taste of the Maggie sound so that some will move up the line. But that makes it a real bargain for a second system or people on a budget, who will usually put a sub on them. I don't know of any speaker that comes close at that price, for acoustical music, anyway. If you're only using it for rock or pop, and can't afford a sub, a dynamic could be a better choice. Because it's a promo, they sell it at cost, but if you want more performance, you have to give them a bit of a profit and get a bigger model!

 

[josh358]

I think you're confusing electrical transfer functions with acoustic slopes. A first order topology won't yield a 6 dB acoustic slope with real world drivers. And I think there's also confusion between a "house curve" and the naturally declining response that will occur in a room if the speaker is voiced flat anechoically. You don't have to start with a house curve to achieve the declining room response. Rugs and curtains and Golden Retrievers will do that for you.

Planar magnetic drivers aren't real world drivers in the sense that I think you intend. They have a very wide frequency response -- think flat to 8 kHZ for the woofers -- and the fundamental resonance of the tweeter segment is all the way down in the bass range. This means that there is no significant phase or amplitude discrepancy for several octaves above and below the crossover point, at which point the response of the filter will be the required -20 dB. A first-order Butterworth filter will behave pretty much like a first order Butterworth filter.

The response of Maggies is chosen to yield the proper balance on axis as well as off, something that even golden retrievers can't do. A similar effect can be achieved on speakers that have a flat response only with equalization. That said, point source speakers interact differently with the room than dipoles, with the room making -4.8 dB less of a contribution, so the relationship between on-axis and power response would be somewhat different in a point source and the curve would presumably have to be different.

 

[Jim Matthews]

You don't have to start with a house curve to achieve the declining room response. Rugs and curtains and Golden Retrievers will do that for you.

Is this because sound travels at different rates through different games?

My dogs exude "Domestic Tranquility" which is similar to cabbage.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Planar magnetic drivers aren't real world drivers in the sense that I think you intend. They have a very wide frequency response -- think flat to 8 kHZ for the woofers -- and the fundamental resonance of the tweeter segment is all the way down in the bass range. This means that there is no significant phase or amplitude discrepancy for several octaves above and below the crossover point, at which point the response of the filter will be the required -20 dB. A first-order Butterworth filter will behave pretty much like a first order Butterworth filter.

The response of Maggies is chosen to yield the proper balance on axis as well as off, something that even golden retrievers can't do. A similar effect can be achieved on speakers that have a flat response only with equalization. That said, point source speakers interact differently with the room than dipoles, with the room making -4.8 dB less of a contribution, so the relationship between on-axis and power response would be somewhat different in a point source and the curve would presumably have to be different.

It's certainly true that the flat impedance profile of planars will aid in moving the acoustical slope closer to the electrical transfer function. However, I've worked with many planars and haven't encountered one that is essentially flat out to 8 kHz. I can't tell from Amir's nearfield measurement exactly what the inherent response of the woofer panel is, but it certainly doesn't look flat. But even if we assume that there is some listening axis at which the Maggie is transient perfect, the slightest movement will undue it and it's more an academic question than a practical one. As for a "house curve," I'm still not clear on what you think the Maggie engineers were after. We all try to design speakers with as even a power response as possible, but that doesn't mean we start with any particular house curve in mind.

 

[josh358]

It's certainly true that the flat impedance profile of planars will aid in moving the acoustical slope closer to the electrical transfer function. However, I've worked with many planars and haven't encountered one that is essentially flat out to 8 kHz. I can't tell from Amir's nearfield measurement exactly what the inherent response of the woofer panel is, but it certainly doesn't look flat. But even if we assume that there is some listening axis at which the Maggie is transient perfect, the slightest movement will undue it and it's more an academic question than a practical one. As for a "house curve," I'm still not clear on what you think the Maggie engineers were after. We all try to design speakers with as even a power response as possible, but that doesn't mean we start with any particular house curve in mind.

The bass panels on my old Tympanis measure flat out to 5.5 kHz or a bit more, and my understanding is that they've improved that since. The 8 kHz figure is from memory -- I'd have to ask them for verification.

My point about the transient performance was merely that it's what I'd expect from a first order Butterworth. I wouldn't expect it to make much of an audible difference, if any, based on what I know of the literature (audible on test tones, not on music). Like house curves in general, Magnepan's curve was developed empirically: it's what produces a subjectively neutral tonal balance in a typical room. It's no different than a house curve applied with an equalizer or DSP, except that it has to assume an average room -- only the tweeter level can be adjusted to accommodate room acoustics.

 

[mfb]

Does anyone have a schematic or a pic of the back of the binding post plate. Trying to find the stock wiring that incorporates the fuse and jumper.

Thx.

 

[boonips]

They haven't arrived yet . I ordered them like 4 weeks ago, 6-8 week ETA.

I’ve had mine for a few years and like them, but there are a few select albums I listen to on them. I don’t use them as my everyday speakers.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Amir wrote, “…the designers solved 30% of the physics of building a speaker, and threw you in there to solve the rest! You take on the job of spending what must be a lifetime messing with location, tilt, EQ, etc. to get sound that is good for more than a few select tracks.”

This precisely describes my 30+ years of ownership and daily use of various Magnepans, from SMGs up to the 1.6Q/R and its timbre-matched center and surround companion Magnepans of that era (c. 2000) in a 7.2 system. I did an exhaustive amount of experimentation over the years, settling on the combination of very careful room treatment and the construction and positioning of some free-standing, acoustically reflective and absorptive passive flat baffles directly behind the speakers, to dial-in decent coherence and imaging at the listening position. Once there, I could enjoy the ultra-low distortion afforded by them as compared to most speakers of the day, which was my whole point in getting interested in using them in the first place, having been spoiled by Quad ESL57 ownership.

It was quite a chore getting the Quads and the Maggie’s to play nice with the room and attenuate the multitude of little reflections/delays/echoes, etc. to approach an acceptable degree of focus, at least if I were sitting in head-in-a-vice posture.

Thank the Lord for the modern, controlled directivity approach by JBL, et. al. and newer, cleaner conventional drivers.

 

[bikall]

Does anyone have a schematic or a pic of the back of the binding post plate. Trying to find the stock wiring that incorporates the fuse and jumper.

Thx.

Blue = tweeter minus
Green = tweeter positive
White = mid positive
black is mid negative
yellow = minus source
red = positive source.
Brown=is connecting the jumper and fuse to the red positive source. Just loosen this one and stick it together with the red on the positive binding post. Now you have eliminated the jumper and fuse. 5 min work and you can hear the highs improve.

The new XO has a 2.5 Mh air coil 1.3 mm wire first order for the bass and a 20 micro fahrad sonicap with an 0.47Mh air coil as a second order filter for the highs.

The response is now flat and the subs are reaching lower +/- 60 hz. due to the better air coil. ( i measure with REW and a mic).

I am now building two subs with both two 8 inch drivers and one mini dsp plate amp (2 x 125 W two channel). Now i can match the LRS from 80 down to 17 Hz at 75dB. This is loud enough in my room.

I now know the volume of these subs and i am in the process of making those fancy to look at. I ordered stuff to make "vibration absorbing curved" panels and industial noise absorbing bitumen for the inside to try to get the box "noise free" as possible.

 

[josh358]

Amir wrote, “…the designers solved 30% of the physics of building a speaker, and threw you in there to solve the rest! You take on the job of spending what must be a lifetime messing with location, tilt, EQ, etc. to get sound that is good for more than a few select tracks.”

This precisely describes my 30+ years of ownership and daily use of various Magnepans, from SMGs up to the 1.6Q/R and its timbre-matched center and surround companion Magnepans of that era (c. 2000) in a 7.2 system. I did an exhaustive amount of experimentation over the years, settling on the combination of very careful room treatment and the construction and positioning of some free-standing, acoustically reflective and absorptive passive flat baffles directly behind the speakers, to dial-in decent coherence and imaging at the listening position. Once there, I could enjoy the ultra-low distortion afforded by them as compared to most speakers of the day, which was my whole point in getting interested in using them in the first place, having been spoiled by Quad ESL57 ownership.

It was quite a chore getting the Quads and the Maggie’s to play nice with the room and attenuate the multitude of little reflections/delays/echoes, etc. to approach an acceptable degree of focus, at least if I were sitting in head-in-a-vice posture.

Thank the Lord for the modern, controlled directivity approach by JBL, et. al. and newer, cleaner conventional drivers.

Looks like you were after a very "dry" sound?

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Looks like you were after a very "dry" sound?

As much as possible, I want to hear what’s in the signal, not what my room has to say about it.

 

[josh358]

As much as possible, I want to hear what’s in the signal, not what my room has to say about it.

I've gone back and forth over the years and it seems to me that a dry sound seems to flatter smaller venues while a wet sound seems more realistic for larger ones. But I've found that with two channel anyway, more realistic isn't always better. A dry sound has more precise localization than music does in real life, but I like that effect.

 

[MaxBuck]

I've gone back and forth over the years and it seems to me that a dry sound seems to flatter smaller venues while a wet sound seems more realistic for larger ones. But I've found that with two channel anyway, more realistic isn't always better. A dry sound has more precise localization than music does in real life, but I like that effect.

What on earth is a "dry" or "wet" sound?

 

[DonH56]

What on earth is a "dry" or "wet" sound?

In the recording studio or for live sound "dry" means the raw (mic or instrument) feeds without any processing and "wet" is after processing (e.g. EQ and reverb).

In the audiophile world the terms have morphed into synonyms for "dead" and "live" rooms. Thus "dry" = "dead" implying a room with lots of absorption and little reflected sound vs. "wet" = "live" is a highly-reflective room. No idea why or when they decided to change the terminology but I have read that a few times. Having a bit of recording and live sound background I prefer dry/wet and dead/live in their original sense but not losing sleep over it.

In my own system I prefer a dead'ish room with any ambiance present in the source vs. having my room add it's own signature on top of the playback. I am in the minority, however, best I can tell. Part of that is probably my recording background (albeit very limited) and part is due to the small'ish very live listening rooms I have had over the years so I prefer to damp (not dampen) them.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I've gone back and forth over the years and it seems to me that a dry sound seems to flatter smaller venues while a wet sound seems more realistic for larger ones. But I've found that with two channel anyway, more realistic isn't always better. A dry sound has more precise localization than music does in real life, but I like that effect.

That’s either the intent or “the fault,” depending on how you look at it, of the recording. I’m a retired broadcast audio engineer, so I lean toward neutrality in reproduction. But, home audio is part of the entertainment industry, and the bottom line is to do whatever makes YOU happy, so carry on!

 

[MRC01]

... In my own system I prefer a dead'ish room with any ambiance present in the source vs. having my room add it's own signature on top of the playback. I am in the minority, however, best I can tell. ...

You ain't the only one - I resemble that!

 

[josh358]

That’s either the intent or “the fault,” depending on how you look at it, of the recording. I’m a retired broadcast audio engineer, so I lean toward neutrality in reproduction. But, home audio is part of the entertainment industry, and the bottom line is to do whatever makes YOU happy, so carry on!

Well, again, two channel stereo is limited in its ability to imitate a live performance. Which is to say it needs help if it is to sound a bit like the real thing. My personal preference is near field listening with delayed diffuse reflections, which is closest to what you hear at a live event and approximates an RFZ rather than a zero environment room. At its best, it can be pretty spookily natural! And you can't do that without the help of the room, because the ear can tell that the reverberation is coming from the same direction as the direct sound. But one size fits all can't work for venues of different size, and -- departing from naturalism for a moment -- I think there are charms in detail at one extreme and envelopment at the other, which is why I don't always find it easy to choose!

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Well, again, two channel stereo is limited in its ability to imitate a live performance. Which is to say it needs help if it is to sound a bit like the real thing. My personal preference is near field listening with delayed diffuse reflections, which is closest to what you hear at a live event and approximates an RFZ rather than a zero environment room. At its best, it can be pretty spookily natural! And you can't do that without the help of the room, because the ear can tell that the reverberation is coming from the same direction as the direct sound. But one size fits all can't work for venues of different size, and -- departing from naturalism for a moment -- I think there are charms in detail at one extreme and envelopment at the other, which is why I don't always find it easy to choose!

My last all-Maggie system was 7.1.