Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Petrushka]

Just for clarity for anyone reading this, the LRS wasn’t available until 2019. It was likely the MMG model you had, a different design.

I had a pair of MMGs, bought at an estate sale. I played with the for a while and passed them on for about what I paid.

I mostly listened up close, probably near field. I liked them, but my wife hated them.

 

[Saturn94]

A company called Theoretica led by Dr. Edgar Choueiri is doing some very very exciting stuff in the two channel world.

In this picture, you see a pair of underwhelming desktop ribbon speakers with a sub. But it is doing complex DSP processing to apply advanced acoustical physics theories to emulate a 3D sound with only 2 channels.


View attachment 491255

It’s amazing what DSP can do.

 

[Sal1950]

I've heard a number of panels over the decades and some of them could offer some amazings sound qualities but I never seen a panel I wouldn't have blown up within a few weeks, at least in my younger years for sure.

 

[Floyd Toole]

A company called Theoretica led by Dr. Edgar Choueiri is doing some very very exciting stuff in the two channel world.

In this picture, you see a pair of underwhelming desktop ribbon speakers with a sub. But it is doing complex DSP processing to apply advanced acoustical physics theories to emulate a 3D sound with only 2 channels.


View attachment 491255

The basic processes involved in this are well known, and before Dr Choueiri discoverd binaural audio, it had been done by others, including Harman. In the early 1990s. It is described in the binaural audio section of this article:
Toole, F. E. (1998). “Direction and Space – The Final Frontiers. Multichannel and Binaural Audio Systems for Music, Movies and Games.” Available at: https://www.harman.com/documents/HowManyChannels_0.pdf

It worked very well, but at that time DSP was limited in speed, capabilities, and was expensive. A simplified version was incorporated into many Compaq computers, where through two small computer speakers a full 5 channel surround sound system was possible for movies. Other versions appeared in Harman-Kardon receivers. But the real pleasure was in the uncompromised, expensive, version. It was ahead of its time. I recall thinking that stereo played back through phantom left and right loudspeakers at +/- 30 deg (the real loudspeakers were much closer together) was perhaps the best stereo I had ever heard. The senses of space and distance were uncanny. Of course simple crosstalk cancellation allows playback of dummy head binaural recordings, and they were also impressive. But that is history, Harman wasn't interested in selling software. Now DSP is fast and cheap, and so are algorithms.

 

[MattHooper]

I recall thinking that stereo played back through phantom left and right loudspeakers at +/- 30 deg (the real loudspeakers were much closer together) was perhaps the best stereo I had ever heard. The senses of space and distance were uncanny. Of course simple crosstalk cancellation allows playback of dummy head binaural recordings, and they were also impressive.

Dr. Toole, could you remind me/us why stereo is inherently flawed in terms of realistic sound reproduction? I am zeroing in on the phantom images themselves, which tend to have something of a phasey/ghostly “see through” quality. Sort of like a hologram where you can see the images, but also have the distinct impression they are not dense and corporal, and you could swipe your hand through them.

Throughout the years, I’ve often done some live versus reproduced comparisons. Sometimes it would be playing a recording of my guitar, and comparing it to somebody playing that same guitar in the same spot in the room between the speakers.
Or even sometimes if I’m just listening to what seems like an extremely well recorded
“ realistic” vocal, I will have somebody stand in the same spot where I perceived that vocal to come from, and simply have them speak on and off as I close my eyes and compare it to the impression of the phantom vocal. (I’ve sometimes done this by recording that same person’s voice and doing this).

This simply establishes for me the main difference between the Phantom image and the real person speaking, where the real person’s voice sounds present - like a solid dense, corporal sound source moving air from that position, vs the less physically-there sounding stereo phantom image vocal.

(and this is also why adding more speakers to stereo such as a centre channel can bring back some of that solidity to sounds in the middle of the sound stage)

This isn’t simply about issues like crosstalk in stereo, correct? The deficiencies go beyond that?

 

[NTK]

This isn’t simply about issues like crosstalk in stereo, correct? The deficiencies go beyond tTwo channel at?

Two channel stereo only works when the listener sits in the line bisecting the 2 loudspeakers. That means, usually, there can be only one audiophile (listening) in the house at one time. The (enjoyment of the) music cannot be shared. Some see this as a problem.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Dr. Toole, could you remind me/us why stereo is inherently flawed in terms of realistic sound reproduction? I am zeroing in on the phantom images themselves, which tend to have something of a phasey/ghostly “see through” quality. Sort of like a hologram where you can see the images, but also have the distinct impression they are not dense and corporal, and you could swipe your hand through them.

Throughout the years, I’ve often done some live versus reproduced comparisons. Sometimes it would be playing a recording of my guitar, and comparing it to somebody playing that same guitar in the same spot in the room between the speakers.
Or even sometimes if I’m just listening to what seems like an extremely well recorded
“ realistic” vocal, I will have somebody stand in the same spot where I perceived that vocal to come from, and simply have them speak on and off as I close my eyes and compare it to the impression of the phantom vocal. (I’ve sometimes done this by recording that same person’s voice and doing this).

This simply establishes for me the main difference between the Phantom image and the real person speaking, where the real person’s voice sounds present - like a solid dense, corporal sound source moving air from that position, vs the less physically-there sounding stereo phantom image vocal.

(and this is also why adding more speakers to stereo such as a centre channel can bring back some of that solidity to sounds in the middle of the sound stage)

This isn’t simply about issues like crosstalk in stereo, correct? The deficiencies go beyond that?

This is a topic that is, I think, well covered in the 4th edition. Of course interaural crosstalk is part of the problem - comb filtering at each ear is not a good idea.. So is the fact that the sound is arriving from +/- 30 deg, not 0 deg so the HRTFs are wrong. A couple of figures from the 4th edition set the stage: This is Figure 5.12, which I have posted in one of the forums here not long ago. I lose track of which one I am in.

As for why a real voice sounds "real", because it is. And, why a real centre channel loudspeaker sounds more real than a phantom centre. The directivity of the human voice is not very different from a cone and dome loudspeaker which makes it even more credible. Here is Figure 12.9.

All this without touching on how stereo fails at delivering credible spatial envelopment. Stereo is a compromised delivery system, but fortunately humans are adaptable.

If you want more, I guess you need to read the new book. These ideas are discussed in previous editions too.

 

[MattHooper]

This is a topic that is, I think, well covered in the 4th edition. Of course interaural crosstalk is part of the problem - comb filtering at each ear is not a good idea.. So is the fact that the sound is arriving from +/- 30 deg, not 0 deg so the HRTFs are wrong. A couple of figures from the 4th edition set the stage: This is Figure 5.12, which I have posted in one of the forums here not long ago. I lose track of which one I am in.
View attachment 491321

As for why a real voice sounds "real", because it is. And, why a real centre channel loudspeaker sounds more real than a phantom centre. The directivity of the human voice is not very different from a cone and dome loudspeaker which makes it even more credible. Here is Figure 12.9.


View attachment 491325

All this without touching on how stereo fails at delivering credible spatial envelopment. Stereo is a compromised delivery system, but fortunately humans are adaptable.

If you want more, I guess you need to read the new book. These ideas are discussed in previous editions too.

That’s plenty to chew on, thanks very much!

 

[norman bates]

or

or

My concern is that mixing engineers don't have a divider, so they are mixing with this natural hrtf.............

vs

I had an ambiophonic barrier, worked great, impossible to watch movies though, lol

It seems the ambiophonics website (ralph glasgal) is long gone...........

 

[Newman]

A company called Theoretica led by Dr. Edgar Choueiri is doing some very very exciting stuff in the two channel world..

There are numerous threads on ASR discussing this. Search for BACCH in titles. Without end-to-end integration, it becomes a sound effect generator.

 

[Willem]

I could say the same about my Quad ESL57s, but they remain my favorite speakers after 30 years of living with them. Maybe the difference is “they’re magical if you keep your head in a vice”

I still have them, after some fourty years. I also have a pair of 2805s, and those are much better: more bass extension, more power handling, and a much better stereo image across a wider area. More recently I also added three subwoofers with MSO equalization, for even better bass below the now high passed 2805s.

 

[Floyd Toole]

View attachment 491370

or

View attachment 491371

or

View attachment 491375

My concern is that mixing engineers don't have a divider, so they are mixing with this natural hrtf.............

View attachment 491372


vs


View attachment 491376

I had an ambiophonic barrier, worked great, impossible to watch movies though, lol

It seems the ambiophonics website (ralph glasgal) is long gone...........

Whether the acoustical crosstalk is cancelled electronically or eliminated mechanically with a barrier, the result is the same: the left speaker talks to the left ear and the right speaker to the right ear. This is what is required for reproducing binaural, dummy head, recordings. If listening to stereo the soundstage is expanded to +/- 90 deg, which is entertaining to some, but absolutely not what is intended by any normal stereo recording. It definitely should not be used for monitoring stereo recordings.
The acoustical interference dip is actually about an octave wide and can be very deep if one is in a dominant direct sound field. Room reflections soften the effect. This is explained in all my books, using the following illustration - Figure 4.4 from the new 4th edition of "Sound Reproduction". It exists only for the listener in the sweet spot, and therefore cannot be equalized - it is also a non-minimum-phase phenomenon.

 

[MattHooper]

For entertainment purposes only!

I found this a fun YouTube video. A track played on a variety of different types of speakers, including Magnepan.

Obviously, the YouTube is not translate the actual sound of the speakers, but I always find it fascinating to hear how the relative sound of the speakers change in such recordings.

It reminds me of long agowhen I took a camcorder with a stereo mic to a CES show and wandered from room to room. When I came home and I watched it in stereo on my computer I was surprised at the experience - the way the microphone at least seemed to capture some of the relative Sonic differences between the different rooms. (and often in ways I remember them sounding in terms of their relative differences).

It’s probably a visual or bias effect, but it’s still interesting that the Magnepan presentation changes from other traditional speakers like the Harbeth. Again, probably a bias effect, but it almost feels like I can hear that Magnepan character translate vs other speakers. Again for anybody who might find it a bit entertaining to check out:

 

[Frank Dernie]

For entertainment purposes only!

I found this a fun YouTube video. A track played on a variety of different types of speakers, including Magnepan.

Obviously, the YouTube is not translate the actual sound of the speakers, but I always find it fascinating to hear how the relative sound of the speakers change in such recordings.

It reminds me of long agowhen I took a camcorder with a stereo mic to a CES show and wandered from room to room. When I came home and I watched it in stereo on my computer I was surprised at the experience - the way the microphone at least seemed to capture some of the relative Sonic differences between the different rooms. (and often in ways I remember them sounding in terms of their relative differences).

It’s probably a visual or bias effect, but it’s still interesting that the Magnepan presentation changes from other traditional speakers like the Harbeth. Again, probably a bias effect, but it almost feels like I can hear that Magnepan character translate vs other speakers. Again for anybody who might find it a bit entertaining to check out:

Fun to hear the difference.
As you say depends on the recorder and my (Verum 1) headphones but, to my surprise the Harbeth sounded the lowest colouration of these to me.

 

[LTig]

Fun to hear the difference.
As you say depends on the recorder and my (Verum 1) headphones but, to my surprise the Harbeth sounded the lowest colouration of these to me.

Same here. The Maggie appears to be louder than all others, at least in the lows.

 

[MattHooper]

Fun to hear the difference.
As you say depends on the recorder and my (Verum 1) headphones but, to my surprise the Harbeth sounded the lowest colouration of these to me.

That was my impression too.

 

[norman bates]

me 3rd.
yg was real close though.
maggy more bass but perhaps too much room reverb from behind.

Can't say as I'd kick either of the three out of the room...................

 

[Floyd Toole]

For entertainment purposes only!

You said it correctly, Matt. There are no "facts" to be learned from this exercise.
Problems:

• Everything heard is coloured by what one is listening through - a large fixed bias is introduced, invalidating any thoughts of making absolute judgments about sound quality. Differences are heard, but there is no anchor in reality for the differences that are heard.
• We don't know how it was recorded - almost certainly not using a dummy head which would necessary to deliver the sounds through headphones as they might have existed in the room where the comparisons were done.
• This is a stereo recording of a stereo recording -double stereo - and we know that important differences between loudspeakers are best revealed in mono comparisons.
• The room looks and sounds quite reflective, which makes the comparisons even less valid - two ears and a brain in the same situation would experience very different perceptions because of binaural hearing being able to separate direct and reflected sounds.
• The recording matters, so a valid comparison needs evaluations through several recordings, some of which are known to be revealing of loudspeaker flaws.

It is disappointing that so many people don't realize that this is not a useful indicator of the relative merits of these loudspeakers, and that the providers of the video, the authors of a book on "high end" audio, think it is.

One message is clear: high end audio exists in a world of its own, separated from facts, wandering in a fog of unreliable subjective opinions. It continues to be profitable for some.

Unfortunately, I don't find this entertaining. The art itself is the entertainment as best enjoyed through neutral loudspeakers. This kind of exercise cannot reliably identify neutral loudspeakers. Properly conducted blind subjective evaluations and proper measurements can. It has been known for decades.

My current motto:

 

[Newman]

Thank you Floyd. I wish we could put a 'QED' on this, but the sighted listening proponents don't show any signs of letting up.

...Unfortunately, I don't find this entertaining. ...

I found it so unentertaining, even prospectively, that I couldn't bring myself to watch it.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Thank you Floyd. I wish we could put a 'QED' on this, but the sighted listening proponents don't show any signs of letting up.

cheers

“ For entertainment purposes only!”

Seems everybody else understood that.