Chalk me up as another person who doesn't exist then; an owner who is also critical of them. Look, it's obvious by your posts that you're deeply biased in favor of Magnepan. You've even
admitted in the past to some level of professional relationship with them. You shouldn't make up these strawmen that "hearing them means you'll praise them". Amir heard them, he didn't praise them. And this review is far from the only time he's heard them.
There's always a wide range of excuses put forward by defenders when you criticize Magnepans. Oh, your room isn't right, oh your placement isn't correct, they're only good with acoustic music, yeah the bass is a terrible mess but just ignore that and enjoy the soundstage.
I agree that they produce an interesting spatial quality to the sound, but the idea that this is inherently "natural" doesn't sit very well with me. Because it is a fixed effect, it's always the same no matter what type of music you're hearing. It's fairly appropriate for orchestral classical, but with a lot of types of music it isn't. The thing is, this method is far from the only method of improving soundstage effects. IMO, properly recorded surround classical does a much better job than any artificial stereo effect. And that's exactly what Magnepans produce. It's a sometimes-pleasant, sometimes-not artificial effect.
Is that effect worth the many issues? It clearly is for some, yes, and that's totally fine! I'm glad that people enjoy these speakers. I also enjoy them sometimes! Just not all the time. They are a very poor generalist speaker and that contributes to their other issues to make them pretty impractical.
Personally, this review makes me curious to see reviews of other dipoles, like MartinLogans and especially the Linkwitz LX-521. But also larger Magnepans too, though I don't know if it's possible to fit the 65" tall 1.7i in Amir's setup, let alone the 71" 3.7.
Well, first of all, I think I've made it clear that I don't think Maggies are the best speakers for every application. Sure, I like them, which is why I own them. But I listen to a lot of classical music and realistic reproduction of acoustical music is my primary goal. I've also chosen specific Maggies that are suited to classical, pop, and home theater -- namely, really big Tympanis -- and modified the hell out of them, replacing the midrange with BG Neo 8's. So they meet my specific needs -- more output capable than ESL's, more transparent than dynamics, and with dipole line source imaging that is well suited to the reproduction of acoustical music in large venues. Most people wouldn't even consider them, because they're humongous and need a dedicated room. They suit my needs, not theirs.
I think the fact you call those things "excuses" may indicate bias or at least misapprehension on your part. Any loudspeaker is a compromise and they are suited to different applications. I have a friend who has a pair of Acoustats that he uses for everyday listening, and a pair of Voice of the Theaters that he hauls out for parties. I don't think you'd want to use the Acoustats for parties, and I don't think you'd want to use Voice of the Theaters for everyday listening! Pointing either of those facts out wouldn't be making excuses. Fact is, anyone who has ever had dipoles will tell you that they need more careful setup than monopoles. It's a disadvantage of dipoles. Set them up wrong, and yeah, they'll sound bad, where monopoles will merely sound mediocre. Set them up right, and they'll knock your socks off. Assess imaging
by listening to one channel, and yeah, I'm going to call into question the validity of that. Try unplugging one channel of your Maggies and I think you'll see why. I don't think it's making an excuse to suggest that a speaker that is so abused in an audition is not being fairly judged.
If someone wants to make a meaningful evaluation of dipoles, put them at least three and preferably five feet from the wall, space them and toe them in properly, and listen to both of them! I find it mind boggling, frankly, that people are asking here whether I've done a blind A/B test even as they accept a review in which imaging was judged *based on only one speaker.*
I agree with you that multichannel is a better way to improve soundstaging. Unfortunately, we're stuck with mostly two channel recordings, and we have to make the best of them. It's widely acknowledge that good two channel playback requires some contribution from the room. Since your setup is fixed, you have to compromise for the kind of music that you care about. I find that line source dipoles have the most realistic spatial rendition with acoustical music, whether it's a string quartet or a symphony. I get a palpable sense of the musicians being "out there" behind the front wall, and with a natural size. I've always loved planars since I first heard a friend's KLH-9's in college. I had a pair of AR-11's, and thought they were pretty good (they were, for the day). But when I heard his 9's, it was a whole different experience -- a full sized orchestra was sitting out there in space and I could hear every sound. So it suited me, as it suits many others, particularly those who listen to acoustical music. (When I listen to rock on them, the image is typically nonsense, but it will be on any speaker that can reproduce depth because of the way the recordings are made.)
BTW, I've always had Tympanis -- originally a pair of 1D's, now a pair of IVA's -- precisely because they are generalist speakers in the way that the smaller Maggies aren't. They have plenty of slam and bass for rock, they can be stunningly realistic with classical.
Personally, I'd love to hear the LX-521 -- I've never had a chance. Martin Logans impress few -- there are more serious ESL's out there (Quad, Sanders, Sound Labs, etc.). All except the hybrid Logans would present at least some of the measurement challenges that the little LRS did, and all would require careful setup, except maybe the Sanders, which beam like a laser. (The Sanders would undoubtedly get flamed for that reason, and I tend to agree, but I'm a distinct minority here. It's true that if you want to listen to headphones without the headphones on and without the sound in the middle of your head effect the Sanders will do an amazing job.)
Anyway, yeah, I think we could all list drawbacks of Maggies. They're huge. The smaller ones don't have much bass, and even the larger ones don't have the slam of a pair of Wilsons. The large ones play loud, but not super loud (my Tymps are comfortable at 110 dB); the smaller ones don't play loud at all. They tend to be very unforgiving in that they expose distortion and studio gimmickry (but ESL's are worse, you hear every splice go by, LOL). They require careful setup and have to be out from the wall. They're power hungry. The small ones have poor tweeter dispersion (the larger ones have amazing tweeter dispersion). They aren't the best party speakers (but they're great for not disturbing the neighbors). Their lateral imaging is vague.
Not recommending the LRS? I can't agree, and neither I think can most of the people and reviewers who have heard them -- I don't think I've ever seen a speaker that produced such an enthusiastic response in those who heard it (keeping in mind the $650 price). I know of nothing comparable for that kind of money -- which isn't to say that they're the best choice for everyone. I don't think Amir, in his subjective listening, gave them a chance to show their stuff -- perhaps he wrote them off on the basis of measurements. And as for those who criticized them without hearing them -- do I even have to respond to that? Whereas I'm glad to hear the impressions of someone like you who has
actual experience, and find myself in general agreement with your observations.