Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Newman]

And there are very good reasons not to do it. Measuring the speaker as a single unit is perfectly fine, and I absolutely understand you can pick apart distortion much easier, but if it's already born out in the data, and no one listens to a single speaker, why do it?

That is a fairly rudimentary observation.

No, they're absolutely valid. I did not deny the efficacy of measuring a single speaker. I am absolutely stating that no one listens to single speakers when they listen to music, it's half of what the consumer purchased and therefore, is not representative of what someone would experience in their home.

It is therefore not a test 95% of consumers would consider valuable.

If you cannot get off your high horse to understand that basic argument, then that's your issue.

Nonetheless, from this point onwards, several members, including the esteemed Dr Toole himself, have made you sufficiently aware of the science behind the single speaker evaluation, that your choice to focus on the validity of your analogy instead of the substance of the issue at hand, makes you look denialistic.

cheers

 

[Blumlein 88]

And there are very good reasons not to do it. Measuring the speaker as a single unit is perfectly fine, and I absolutely understand you can pick apart distortion much easier, but if it's already born out in the data, and no one listens to a single speaker, why do it?

That is a fairly rudimentary observation.

Because it has been learned that one is more discerning of loudspeaker difference listening to one speaker. So in a review or evaluation that is the better way to listen. Your rudimentary observation seems right until you learn that someone researched the matter and surprisingly found otherwise.

 

[Newman]

...Welcome to audio science, where assumptions are put to the test.

What kind of asinine comment welcomes someone to a forum they've been reading for years?

I didn't welcome you to the forum, I welcomed you to audio science.

No you didn't. And it's quite pathetic to think you did.

Good grief. Read my words in bold above. Quoted verbatim.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I just discovered Techno a few months ago......I'm 58. I can't get enough of it. Why....? Because some of it has crazy complex tones & all levels of bass & real 100 ish slam . Reason I bring this up is it might not be the music your comfortable with that is a test of what ya got going on.

If you're diving into that style, I recommend checking out for example, Lane 8, Kygo, Ben Böhmer, and NTO.
Many people are quick to dismiss EDM and techno as simplistic or inferior, but the reality is quite the opposite. A lot of it will truly put your system to the test and is really well produced with many layers.

 

[PGansz]

Good grief. Read my words in bold above. Quoted verbatim.

I didn't reference the forum, I referenced audio science.

 

[dedobot]

I just discovered Techno a few months ago......I'm 58. I can't get enough of it. Why....? Because some of it has crazy complex tones & all levels of bass & real 100 ish slam . Reason I bring this up is it might not be the music your comfortable with that is a test of what ya got going on.

~ 15yrs ago at local audio show I was able to play CD#1 from the bellow mix set (gorgeous epitome of techno) from start to end (it's 1 track):

....through Sonus Faber Fenice speakers
The room quickly become full of crowd, there was even clapping at the end
74 minutes of Laurent Garnier at Sonus F beghemonts , surealistical

 

[Jaxjax]

If you're diving into that style, I recommend checking out for example, Lane 8, Kygo, Ben Böhmer, and NTO.
Many people are quick to dismiss EDM and techno as simplistic or inferior, but the reality is quite the opposite. A lot of it will truly put your system to the test and is really well produced with many layers.

Yes,... I dismissed it my entire life for the above reasons.. That was mistake. better late then never though. I'm glad I stumbled onto Fatima Hajji..thats what got me started. I will check out what you recommend. !!!!

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Yes,... I dismissed it my entire life for the above reasons.. That was mistake. better late then never though. I'm glad I stumbled onto Fatima Hajji..thats what got me started. I will check out what you recommend. !!!!

And plenty of beautiful melodies too. I don't pay much attention to genres -if a new track resonates with me and I instinctively want to hear it again, it goes on my playlist, no matter the genre.

 

[Vuki]

A forum member has just alerted me to this discussion, and my name is being circulated, so I have decided to add some clarification. The topic of sound quality is of fundamental importance, and stereo soundstage and imaging are undeniably key factors in our entertainment. However, the factors affecting all of these perceptual dimensions interact with each other, sometimes in destructive ways. Adding enormous complications is the fact that much of what matters to all factors, especially soundstage and imaging is determined by recordings. Stereo is a directionally and spatially deprived format, and since its inception listeners have sought to "fill in the blanks" with imaginative loudspeaker designs, electronic processing, and audio jewelry of various kinds. There is no "hardware" solution, no "perfect" loudspeaker or wire or amplifier that will suddenly bring "reality" to the listening room. But, audio forum activity indicates no end of trying. In this context, the notion of evaluating loudspeakers in mono sounds ludicrous - or is it?

The manuscript of the 4th edition of my book is now with the publisher, anticipating publication around September. In it this subject is, I would like to think, exhaustively examined and explained, using scientific evidence. Long story short, human listeners are increasingly less sensitive to sound quality degradations in loudspeakers as the channel count is increased from one to two and two to five. The overall result of adding channels is more spatial and directional information, which can be highly entertaining, but the end result is that the binaural hearing system has difficulty separating the spatial cues in the recordings, from the spatial cues in the listening room. Increasing channel count increases the persuasion of the recorded space. As a result listeners are unable to discern timbral errors caused by resonances in loudspeakers with the same sensitivity as in mono/single-loudspeaker comparisons.

The reality is that most stereo and multichannel recordings include isolated, hard-panned, sound images providing instances when the true character of the loudspeakers can be heard. In simple stereo recordings instruments often appear in left and right loudspeakers - mono. All phantom images are double mono. This explains why loudspeakers that win monophonic comparison tests always win stereo and multichannel tests, The reverse is not always true. So, to determine how good your loudspeakers are, do comparison listening tests in mono. Then, if they are good, impress your friends in stereo and multichannel - but choose the recordings carefully: they are a major determinant of what is heard.

Here is something I wrote a couple of years ago - it is long but still not the complete story, as it is currently understood.

If we used 12 speakers, would all the speakers sound the same? Or would even superb loudspeakers sound average?

 

[Newman]

If we used 12 speakers, would all the speakers sound the same? Or would even superb loudspeakers sound average?

I think the idea is that the more speakers used, the harder it is to spot their flaws, so they sound better, not dumbed-down to 'average'.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Question is should I put together a pair of Genelec 8361a speakers or 5 channels of 8331a speakers or 32 channels of LSR 305s (and one big sub)?

Genelec thinks I should go for a 32.4 or 40.2 channel immersive rig of course. But I'd have to sell my house and listen outdoors. That does solve the room acoustics issue.

Genelec advances multichannel sound at the University of Greenwich’s SHIFT facility - Genelec.com

New £1 million facility fuses heritage with cutting edge technology.

www.genelec.com

I do think their suggestion is a bit of cop out or cheap out. They didn't use all 8361a speakers on every channel. I guess that would intrude on the WAF which is off the charts.

 

[amirm]

And there are very good reasons not to do it. Measuring the speaker as a single unit is perfectly fine, and I absolutely understand you can pick apart distortion much easier, but if it's already born out in the data, and no one listens to a single speaker, why do it?

That is a fairly rudimentary observation.

Do you want the reviewer to accurately analyze the tonality of the speaker or not? If the answer is the former, then mono testing is a must. As is, non trained listeners are poor in reliably finding these colorations. Test the system in stereo and all hope is lost.

Besides, the test will never represent your situation. Reviewer's room is likely to be wildly different than yours so what they hear as far as spatiality in stereo is not going to represent your use. They also don't listen to your music.

 

[Newman]

Question is should I put together a pair of Genelec 8361a speakers or 5 channels of 8331a speakers or 32 channels of LSR 305s (and one big sub)?

I once put a similar question to Floyd Toole. Here is his reply, link

 

[Blumlein 88]

I once put a similar question to Floyd Toole. Here is his reply, link

Well good information. Then again what he described as his choice was a 7.4.6 system. Even 17 speakers becomes challenging to put into a room. I currently run a 5.3 setup.

 

[Newman]

Well good information. Then again what he described as his choice was a 7.4.6 system. Even 17 speakers becomes challenging to put into a room. I currently run a 5.3 setup.

His answer to the question was actually 5.2 or 5.4. Pretty close to your current setup.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

If we used 12 speakers, would all the speakers sound the same? Or would even superb loudspeakers sound average?

You can get away with objectively lower-quality speakers in a surround setup compared to a stereo setup. Simply put, your brain's processing power is divided among the number of sound sources. With 11 sources, each one gets only a fraction of your attention. With two, the focus is much sharper. With just one, there’s nowhere to hide -your full attention is on that single source.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

You can get away with objectively lower-quality speakers in a surround setup compared to a stereo setup. Simply put, your brain's processing power is divided among the number of sound sources. With 11 sources, each one gets only a fraction of your attention. With two, the focus is much sharper. With just one, there’s nowhere to hide -your full attention is on that single source.

I dunno. 11 crappy speakers at a movie theater still sound crappy.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I dunno. 11 crappy speakers at a movie theater still sound crappy.

That's not what I said though.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

That's not what I said though.

I know. I was thinking about my last experience. Only worst earache was Brickyard 400.

 

[john65b]

Seems like a proper Speaker test incorporates an Objective component and Subjective component.

The Objective component would be analyzed with one speaker only. Two speakers on mono test signal would be moot.
The Subjective component would be analyzed by listener with two speakers in stereo.

Is it possible for a Speaker to fail miserably on Objective analysis, but pass favorably on Subjective analysis?

I am leaning No.