Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Jim Creek]

I used to own a pair of Magnepan MMGs which preceded the LRS. They sounded great with certain types of recordings. “Kind Of Blue” sounded amazing thru them, but they did more poorly on orchestral music and many rock recordings. Eventually I sold them.

 

[drewdawg999]

I still love my Magnepan MMGs, in fact they are my main speaker now that I upgraded the stands to Magna Risers. Really opens up with fine detail, even on orchestral music, resolving power is strong. I think you lose some bass with the stands, but makes for easier sub integration which is needed for this speaker.

Yes the sweet spot is small, but I make sure to sit in it to maintain moments of wonder. And they need gobs of power, I'm using NC502MP for 500 watts. I've bought loads of stuff that Amir has recommended but have to differ from him in this case. Wish he could hear them on proper stands, I think it could make a difference. I love Maggies very much, they easily best my Vandersteen 2ce Sigs, and I'm afraid I'm currently priced out of recommended speakers. I'm stuck with my Maggies and that's just fine with me.

 

[Observer]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't understand how the Klippel NFS works instead of purposedly misrepresent Amir's question (link to his thread)

How to Measure Magnepan LRS

Hello everyone. I am getting close to measuring the Magnepan LRS and wanted to get some feedback on how to stand it up for testing. It normally tilts back: It is easiest to measure it as picked as the legs can be horizontal on measurement stand. Second question is what the "tweeter...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Amir had little experience with how typically people setup their Magnepans. He was asking how the LRS should be stood up on his NFS and at what angles people usually listen to their Magnepans, so he can set the appropriate reference axis for his measurements. And he also wondered if he needed to install the tweeter resistor(s).

Amir's questions were not about if the NFS can measure panel speakers.

I don't need "benefit of the doubt" or link, I read post long time ago.
Thera are also doubts in this post about measurement and planar speakers.... anyway, I can understand your POV.
How Klippel NFS works? It seems not at it's best with the planars/LRS. If result fully cope with reality, this thread will have maybe 5-6 pages, not 80. And LRS(+) will be long gone .... out of production.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

There is nothing wrong with LRS, if you follow simple guidelines. LRS is not for very big room (then you need a bigger panel). It works nice in 26 m2 room if you setup them right and at least 70cm from front wall. Setup need some time and clean good power, but is not flawed speaker( as the author of review claim ).
... Here is REW measurement of LRS in the room from listening position, nothing is wrong there.

Room is very big factor, I have done many measurements in many customers rooms, while changing speaker positions in a search for the best frequency response at the listening position. But in many rooms, despite all efforts, results were not satisfactory, even with DSP (or software) correction. Room acoustic is a b**ch.
My friend had MG 0.6 (very similar to LRS), no guidelines helped in any way, we tried every possible position in the room (while measuring), but the results were nothing like your room measurements (they were very similar to Amir's measurements - bass sucks). LRS indeed are flawed, but you are very lucky to have such LRS-friendly room.
In despair, my friend ditch the MG 0.6 speakers in the attic, but I have very fond memories about their clean midrange and holographic sound stage.

 

[Observer]

Room is very big factor, I have done many measurements in many customers rooms, while changing speaker positions in a search for the best frequency response at the listening position. But in many rooms, despite all efforts, results were not satisfactory, even with DSP (or software) correction. Room acoustic is a b**ch.
My friend had MG 0.6 (very similar to LRS), no guidelines help in any way, we tried every possible position in the room (while measuring), but the results were nothing like your room measurements (they were very similar to Amir's measurements - bass sucks). LRS indeed are flawed, but you are very lucky to have such LRS-friendly room.
In despair, my friend ditch the MG 0.6 speakers in the attic, but I have very fond memories about their clean midrange and holographic sound stage.

I am maybe lucky with the room, but I am not the only one.
At first I use AB class amp(190W/4 ohms) then I was thinking about the sub. Later I try XTZ amp (less heat for summer) D Class which works well under 4ohms (>400W/2.7 ohm). Bass response is to me better with XTZ, similar to what you got from medium bookshelf speakers - but cleaner. I don't think much about the sub anymore.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Amplifiers have nothing to do with the frequency response of the loudspeaker (with tone controls on flat, of course). Measure the frequency response of LRS in your room with different amplifiers and you will get exactly the same frequency response.

 

[Observer]

Doubts are coming only from Magnepan cult followers (like you). Many owners (and listeners like me, too) of smaller Magnepan models are not completely satisfied.
If you are in doubt how Kilppel NFS works with planar speakers, look at this graph which adds floor reflection to the Klippel measurements:



Then, compare it with the real world LRS measurements in a room different of yours:


So how this is not sufficient to Magnepan cult followers to see that the LSR are flawed? Well, that is exactly the definition of cult followers.

People in their nature are almost never fully satisfied. I am not Magnepan fan or follower, I bought LRS out of curiosity and my plan was to try it and sell it. My second speaker was Sonus Faber GP (3.500 $), but after few moths of listening I sold Sonus Faber because I like LRS more.

 

[Observer]

Amplifiers have nothing to do with the frequency response of the loudspeaker (with tone controls on flat, of course). Measure the frequency response of LRS in your room with different amplifiers and you will get exactly the same frequency response.

Yeah I know, all amps sound the same
Here is comparison graph in bass region (both amps got no tone control) - result not "exactly the same"

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Sonus Faber Grand Piano has elevated high-frequency band and other problems in the critical 2-4 kHz range, so there is no wonder why you like LRS more - your in-room response is very good, indeed.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Yeah I know, all amps sound the same
Here is comparison graph in bass region (both amps got no tone control) - result not "exactly the same"

View attachment 321282

No, all amplifiers do not sound or measure the same - especially if one of them (Audio Analogue Verdi Cento) is a hybrid amplifier (with 10 years old tubes ).
Anyway, I will call one of your amplifier suspicious, measurement-wise. Difference of 3 dB is too much, it is on the border of broken. You should take it to some good technician to repair it. Then do the measurements again.

 

[Observer]

No, all amplifiers do not sound or measure the same - especially if one of them (Audio Analogue Verdi Cento) is a hybrid amplifier (with 10 years old tubes ).
Anyway, I will call one of your amplifier suspicious, measurement-wise. Difference of 3 dB is too much, it is on the border of broken. You should take it to some good technician to repair it. Then do the measurements again.

Tubes are new, don't worry. No need to take every line so serious, Hi-fi should be entertainment.
There are other factors, temperature in room (mylar), maybe how long Amps and Magnepan plays before measurement ...etc.

 

[dominikz]

Yeah I know, all amps sound the same
Here is comparison graph in bass region (both amps got no tone control) - result not "exactly the same"

View attachment 321292

These kinds of differences seen in in-room measurements can usually be explained by one (or all) of the following:

1. Difference in output impedance of two amplifiers: high output impedance amplifiers' FR will be modulated by the impedance of the connected loudspeaker due to voltage division (see post #25 here for a more detailed explanation).
   Low output impedance amplifiers therefore show much less variation. However even in case of high output impedance such FR modulations can easily be counteracted by PEQ to make both amplifiers measure the same.
2. If the measurement method is a single-point sweep then there can be significant variations in the measured response if the microphone is even slightly moved between takes, and even when otherwise nothing else changes in the system.
3. If room layout/furnishings are changed or windows/doors are opened or closed between takes significant differences can be seen in the measured response even when nothing else changes in the system (see this example).

Hope this helps!

 

[mlee]

A number of the in room responses shown in this tread for the magnepan speakers have been pretty good. Take a conventional speaker in a random room and you will see variations/deviations from flat as well. Regardless of speaker type each model and topology has compromises. Depends on the user if they can live with the compromises or not.

For myself I do not like elevated bass, nor do I like room boom bass. I'd rather live with less bass than to much. So dipole or smaller driver sealed/vented work best for my preferences in MY room.

Calling the LRS severely flawed might be a stretch based on the in room responses presented in this thread. But also individual preferences should not be pushed on others. Obviously that is like saying red wine is the ONLY wine.

If the LRS is not your cup if tea then that is ok. But a lot of this thread has been about personal preference debate not the tech. The LRS is the entry model. Due to its size and limits on physics, the bass is a bit lower than "perfect" ect.. Looking at the intended target consumer with specific tateses, that might be an ok set of compromises. I don't see too much difference between the magnepan brand and entry level bookshelf vs the flagship tower model of other brands. The bookshelf will have less bass extension and won't go as loud. The bookshelf might have compromised radiation pattern compared with its tower bigger brother.

Sure the differences are more sever with the LRS dipole compared with an average bookshelf, but the LRS also presents differently than a direct radiator. Maybe the LRS should be compared with a similar type commercial dipole to see how magnepan is doing in the dipole world.

I have no skin in this game as I do not own an LRS but I do have eclectic tastes. It hurts my ego a bit to see such strong arguments against the LRS based on the in room responses provided. For what it is and it's price point........seems not sooo bad, but I don't like bass or loud music and I got a soft spot for dipoles.

 

[Newman]

.......seems not sooo bad

I don’t think I can recall a worse off-axis response. Let’s not be overly apologetic about calling bad bad.

 

[Hayabusa]

I don’t think I can recall a worse off-axis response. Let’s not be overly apologetic about calling bad bad.

I assume you mean the vertical pattern of 10 degrees?
It is measured as an angle at 4 meter distance.
But for a line source this is a bit misleading.
The vertical radiation is not a beam with a constant angle, but with a height of approximately 80cm at a distance of 4 meters.
Its vertical dispersion is its feature! It makes sure ground and ceiling reflections are reduced.

 

[Newman]

I was actually looking at the horizontal. That’s bad.

BTW this speaker does not behave as a line source in the vertical, either. Look at Amir’s notes on its vertical performance…all of them. So, one would not want to tout theoretical benefits of perfect line sources as if they apply to this, relatively seriously flawed, loudspeaker.

 

[Hayabusa]

I was actually looking at the horizontal. That’s bad.

BTW this speaker does not behave as a line source in the vertical, either. Look at Amir’s notes on its vertical performance…all of them. So, one would not want to tout theoretical benefits of perfect line sources as if they apply to this, relatively seriously flawed, loudspeaker.

that graph shows it behaves pretty much like a line source at 4 meter distance...

 

[Newman]

…and that’s a bad thing.

Look at the other graphs further down in Amir’s review: it behaves like a number of point sources interfering with each other.

Look, you should stop referring to this speaker as a line source. The only thing it behaves “pretty much like” is a truncated line source, aka coitus interruptus linesourcicus. A true line source isn’t intended to present the vertical dispersion that this thing does. A true line source would behave more like this at 4m:

Ref: Keele and Button, Ground-Plane Constant Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Loudspeaker Circular-Arc Line Arrays, 2005

If you care to try and transfer from Amir’s LRS 4m vertical directivity plot to the above plot, it will get real ugly real fast. Not good.

People thinking “line source, line source, yay”, need to understand better what is meant when people tout the advantages of a (true) line source in the home: they are not referring to the far field. So, when we get a short, truncated-line source in the home, it delivers a mish-mash of near and far field behaviour, and does so in a way that is quite undesirable. That is why Keele went to a lot of trouble to develop his CBT with a curved and shaded driver array: because when he left it straight and unshaded (like the LRS), it’s bad.

cheers

 

[Hayabusa]

…and that’s a bad thing.

Look at the other graphs further down in Amir’s review: it behaves like a number of point sources interfering with each other.

Look, you should stop referring to this speaker as a line source. The only thing it behaves “pretty much like” is a truncated line source, aka coitus interruptus linesourcicus. A true line source isn’t intended to present the vertical dispersion that this thing does. A true line source would behave more like this at 4m:
View attachment 321630

Ref: Keele and Button, Ground-Plane Constant Beamwidth Transducer (CBT) Loudspeaker Circular-Arc Line Arrays, 2005

If you care to try and transfer from Amir’s LRS 4m vertical directivity plot to the above plot, it will get real ugly real fast. Not good.

People thinking “line source, line source, yay”, need to understand better what is meant when people tout the advantages of a (true) line source in the home: they are not referring to the far field. So, when we get a short, truncated-line source in the home, it delivers a mish-mash of near and far field behaviour, and does so in a way that is quite undesirable. That is why Keele went to a lot of trouble to develop his CBT with a curved and shaded driver array: because when he left it straight and unshaded (like the LRS), it’s bad.

cheers

You are clearly in your 'it's bad' mode...
A truncated line source is still a line source, it just limits the area where it behaves like a line source.
I don't like a conversation in the style "you should stop". So for me this is the end of this conversation.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

I tried MMG and liked them coupled with emotiva xpr beast. Different kind of sound. Went back to 3 way JBL 2 years later. MMG dialog was intelligible in stereo. Infinity 3 way center is effotless. Would only ditch Infinity for Revel C208.