• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
I wonder how many people have owned Maggies - or small Maggies - and gotten rid of them for a cone based speaker?
Me - from 1.6 to K&H O300D. And although I liked them (had them for 13 years) I will never ever go back. I listened later to a pair of 3.6 at a colleague's home and would not take those as well.
 

Feanor

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
382
Likes
496
Location
southwestern Ontario
I wonder how many people have owned Maggies - or small Maggies - and gotten rid of them for a cone based speaker?
Me for another. I replaced Magneplanar MG 1.6QR's with Zaph Audio ZRT's, (see ... http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZRT.html).

But it wasn't dissatisfaction with the Magneplanar sound but a desire to (a) build a high-quality DIY speaker that might (b) take up a bit less space and be less intrusive in my living/listening room.
 
Last edited:

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
Hey relax, we have the pleasure to have a outstanding nice hobby. And @amirm some kinde of the god of our hobby, feeds us with information.
So after that information? Would i use this speaker to feed a party? No!
But if someone likes there sound? Why not?
Hey it's audio, it's about music, it's all about fun.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
You're still hiding the response below 240 Hz.

I'm just comparing the portion of the bandwidth that is dipole on the ML with the same range on the JBL, as stated with the graphic.

---

Magnepan made an appearance at the Florida Audio Expo last February.

Displayed were the .7, a little bigger (not much) than the LRS, maybe the next step up, $1450, but I suspect largely the same tech.

Maybe it has more "buttons" dividing and tuning the panels.

Unfortunately, the room existed to demonstrate DS Audio E1 Optical Phono Cartridge System ($2750). a cartridge that creates an analog signal by wiggling the stylus in light and reading the result with photodetectors. The representative in the room had no clue about speakers.

Here is a photodetection of the business end of the room. I would assume the speaker dealer set up the speakers, and not the cartridge salesman, since they are appropriately placed.

1600628697979.png


https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020...ndings-amg-ds-audio-rogue-magnepan-flax-2020/


Audio Buddy and I both liked the sound, we also both have antique Martin Logans, mine hybrids, his the all-panel CLS with Rythmic subs appended, driven by the big Parasound amp.

The picture above show three "buttons" on the panels, which appear to be symmetrical between the two, and dividing the panels into four differently sized sections.

The buttons weren't visible in person, I suppose the flash photo illuminates them (as well as the normally invisible outline of the panel) through the fabric covering.

Both of us were favorably impressed by the brief listen to the (don't remember) jazzy acoustic program. Audio buddy became lustful and wants to investigate more, I would not be averse to such a field trip. I didn't get any sense that they would be inappropriate for some other genre. But what do we know?

Measurements? Don't have any, only a small earful. My ears are faulty, Audio Buddy's less so, maybe close to "normal". We tend to agree on things, subjectively, so, ???

---

There were only three speakers that caught my ear this year at the show - big Magico in a banquet room, Almost-too-tall-to-fit-in-a-room RBH, and the Magnepans.

Didn't hear everything, didn't listen to Mr Fremer demonstrate the multi-million (asking prices) Von Schweikert big banquet room draped with multi-thousand per meter cables and racks of bulky sources and preamplification and tuberiffic amplification.

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2020/02/von-schweikert-audio-at-2020-florida.html

1600631327721.png

So, I thought the .7 were in good company as far as what interested me that day. Certainly a bit more affordable.

Most everything else, despite whatever their goodness was, didn't particularly stand out, or we passed them by, or just flat didn't care, for whatever reason.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
Maybe we just have to understand that different people have more bias to different parts of the sound. "Audio Buddy" i like. Me is a brutal audio person, two 15 inch woofers, and 2kw to feed them makes me nearly happy, ok two 18 inch woofers with 4kw makes me more happy. Have fun buddys. ;)
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
The MMG had only some of that because it was tilted back and I assume the LRS is the same in that regard, but the LRS still had some remarkable imaging when I heard it at AXPONA.
Ah... that favorite word among audiophiles: "imaging." It seems everything is about imaging. If that word doesn't get mentioned for description of audio gear, it must suck.

No, it is not about imaging. First and foremost a speaker has to have faithful tonality. Sit in a blind test of speaker and this is by far what you brain attempts to analyze. Only when you have great and accurate tonality does imaging come in play.

Then there is the issue of artificial imaging. Much of studio recordings is not about imaging. It is about great and accurate tonality. Fantastic recording. Great dynamics. Where something lands between speakers can almost be secondary. It is artificially created anyway.

Reminds of a story I have told before along these lines:

----
At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year, Blue Coast music had some of their artist come and play live. After one of the performances finished, I asked Cookie Marenco (owner of the labels) if she "sweetens" the mix with reverb and such. She said of course. The signer was shocked. She said that she hated that and wanted the sound to be as we were hearing it there (dead). Cookie then asked for the audiophiles in the room to raise their hand on which way they wanted it, and all said with the reverb!

---

What you cherish is not supposed to be there all the time. It is this "sameness" that wore me off from panel speakers. Everything is not supposed to sound large and have diffused sound and "imaging."

I guess when stereo was new people fell in love with phantom imaging. I know I did back in 1960s when I was young. For people who are stuck playing music of that era maybe that is all there is. But for someone like me that lets Tidal subscription rip through album after album, I want to experience as is and not with artificial "imaging" added to it all. It gets tiring.

I know shaking the addiction to imaging is hard but if you are to enjoy all types of recorded music, you need to get there. Don't sacrifice so many other things in the name of imaging.
 

TheGhostOfEugeneDebs

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
62
Likes
66
I wonder how many people have owned Maggies - or small Maggies - and gotten rid of them for a cone based speaker?

Lots of reason to do that, haha. These things are *big* and have to sit virtually in the middle of the room, haha! Let me tell you, it's way easier to have a couple little monitors or some skinny floorstanders than these 19" wide monsters flanking the couch. If I was going to have people over for a party or something (coronavirus notwithstanding), I'd move them to the bedroom and pull the Klipsch RP600m out just to free up the space. Coincidentally, another speaker I love the sound of despite Amir's scathing review - maybe I'm just a weirdo, that likes what a "broken" frequency response sounds like, haha! It would also explain my Grado love...
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
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.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
Any loudspeaker is a compromise and they are suited to different applications.
We really need to put this relativist and fallacious truism to sleep once and for all:
1) Prove it. We live in a time where speakers like the Genelec Ones or D&D 8C exist, it's hard to find any faults related to reproduction performance with them.
2) Once that's done, prove the underlying joke of an implication that all compromises are more or less equal. Once again, talking about reproduction performance, not preference.

Sorry to get a little vehement, but I see this feelsgood-soundsgood bullshit all the time.
 

TheGhostOfEugeneDebs

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
62
Likes
66
We really need to put this relativist and fallacious truism to sleep once and for all:
1) Prove it. We live in a time where speakers like the Genelec Ones or D&D 8C exist, it's hard to find any faults related to reproduction performance with them.
2) Once that's done, prove the underlying joke of an implication that all compromises are more or less equal. Once again, talking about reproduction performance, not preference.

Sorry to get a little vehement, but I see this feelsgood-soundsgood bullshit all the time.


The compromise there is that you could buy 2 sets of Maggie 3.7i's for the price of of those D&Ds and the Genelec Ones (also expensive!) are the ugliest looking speakers I'd never want in my home, lol. I don't know what your definition of compromise is, but those would be compromised purchases for me. For $10k, I don't care how neutral the D&D's are, I'm getting a Quad 2812 system. :p
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
Many have gone in both directions. They're different different speakers and people typically go through several kinds of speaker over the years, often depending on circumstance. I have one friend who owns a pair of Maggies -- 3.7i -- and a pair of dynamics, and knows he should sell one, but can't make up his mind! One is better in some regards, the other in other regards.

I agree with that. I compared Maggie 1.5's to Vandersteen 2's for several months in an apt. I had - no TV, listening every night. The Vandies had better bass but I ultimately sold them and kept the Maggies.

I now have 3.7i's which are much better than the 1.5s. I've never heard anything smaller than the 1.5's or 1.7's.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
The compromise there is that you could buy 2 sets of Maggie 3.7i's for the price of of those D&Ds and the Genelec Ones (also expensive!) are the ugliest looking speakers I'd never want in my home, lol. I don't know what your definition of compromise is, but those would be compromised purchases for me. For $10k, I don't care how neutral the D&D's are, I'm getting a Quad 2812 system. :p
Never said the speakers near perfection were cheap, nor that they were suited to most people's taste; personally, I love the look of Genelec's sci-fi items and 8c's studio version's discretion as much or even more than the big Magnepans.
Anyway, I was clearly talking about audio performance. The Ones, at least, objectively approach perfection of the point source concept.
 

TheGhostOfEugeneDebs

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
62
Likes
66
I agree with that. I compared Maggie 1.5's to Vandersteen 2's for several months in an apt. I had - no TV, listening every night. The Vandies had better bass but I ultimately sold them and kept the Maggies.

I now have 3.7i's which are much better than the 1.5s. I've never heard anything smaller than the 1.5's or 1.7's.


I compared maggie 1.7 to Vandersteens too, is this a common a/b that audio stores do? I wish I had the space for 3.7s.
 

CDMC

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,172
Likes
2,321
Just some comments in general:
  • I do not understand the attack on Amir's measurements. They are quasi anechoic. He used the same methodology and equipment he uses for every other speaker test. The measurements are what they are.
  • I am big Maggie fan. I owned 6 pairs over the last 25 years and just painfully sold my 3.5s last month. Why painfully? They do some things so amazingly well. The true ribbons have this amazing openness, they are so clean in the midrange, instruments sound real sized. But I also listen to mostly studio recorded music, where there is no real natural atmosphere. They also perform poorly in many aspects, dynamics, efficiency, maximum output, bass extension, the occasional panel resonance. Most Magnepan owners realize and accept that there are these very real tradeoffs, just as horn speaker fans accept there are tradeoffs of that design.
  • It took me years to find a pair of speakers that I could live with instead of my 3.5s, despite their shortcomings, as other aspects were so much better to me. Vandersteen 3a Sigs and the Salk Song 3 came close. Ultimately the Revel F208 made it. I wish it was the Salk's they looked much nicer to me.
  • Speaker design has evolved a lot in the past 50 years. 50 years ago you had dynamic speakers with limited transparency and output capability, horns with high dynamic capabilities, but directivity issues and that horn sound, and planars (both Magnepan and electrostatic) with limited dynamics, power hungry, beaming, and that ohh so magical transparent midrange. Over the past 50 years the weakness of each design has been decreased to where all perform far better than their ancestors.
It seems to me that rather than arguing about who is deaf, why these are terrible, or why they are best $650 speakers in the world, we should be discussing:
  • What shortcomings do quasi anechoic measurements have when applied to dipolar radiators versus monopole?
    • How do quasi anechoic measurements differ in their translation into in room listening position measurements for dipolars versus monopole speakers?
    • How do these correlate to other speakers when measured in room at the listening position?
  • What is the "magic" that makes many love these speakers and willing to overlook their severe flaws?
  • What measurements could there be that we can't do, or don't understand that could help us understand the disconnect between the quasi anechoic measurements and subjective reviews?
 

TheGhostOfEugeneDebs

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
62
Likes
66
Never said the speakers near perfection were cheap, nor that they were suited to most people's taste; personally, I love the look of Genelec's sci-fi items and 8c's studio version's discretion as much or even more than the big Magnepans.
Anyway, I was clearly talking about audio performance. The Ones, at least, objectively approach perfection of the point source concept.

I know you were. As a real response though, I know my own perception and I'd like to hear the Genelecs just to see what a true neutral sounds like in speaker form. I have found from my headphones obsession, that I am *not* a fan of the objective neutral (or at least, the Harman neutral in headphones) and I think that may carry over to speakers too. I like some coloration of my audio and keep different kinds of headphones and speakers around so I can mix it up from time to time. Keeps the hobby fun and makes me rediscover music over and over.
 

tjf

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
109
Likes
91
Location
Silicon Valley, CA, USA
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.




Josh, dude...

Statements like:

1) "Martin Logans impress few -- there are more serious ESL's out there (Quad, Sanders, Sound Labs, etc.)" -- alienating ML fans a bit -- yes? Ray, want to weigh in here?

2) " Fact is, anyone who has ever had dipoles will tell you that they need more careful setup than monopoles." -- I bet the folks at Wilson Audio might take issue with this one...

3) "more transparent than dynamics," -- again, your opinion, and one that a number of specialist/audiophile Dynamic speaker designers (not to mention end users) would not agree with....

4) "It's widely acknowledge that good two channel playback requires some contribution from the room." -- "good two channel playback" requires treating/correcting for the room, in order to negate -- or at least minimize, the negative effects of the room's acoustic "contribution"...full stop.

5) "They (Maggies) tend to be very unforgiving in that they expose distortion and studio gimmickry" -- I think we all expect well designed speakers of any type to do this, but your implication is that dynamic designs cannot do this -- or at least not as well as panels/dipoles....(Oh, wait, I hear the phone -- I think it's Daryl Wilson calling)

Aren't helping your cause here...

BTW, still waiting to hear about Magnepan's "Dipole EQ Patent" ???
 

Dialectic

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,738
Likes
3,091
Location
a fortified compound
I do not understand the attack on Amir's measurements. They are quasi anechoic. He used the same methodology and equipment he uses for every other speaker test. The measurements are what they are.

Simple butthurt. Certain forum participants spread butthurt every time Amir measures a product with an enthusiastic owner base and the measurements are construed as being less than excellent.

Conversely, when Amir gives a product an 'A', every owner of that product seeks to spread his 'A'-ness far and wide.
 
Last edited:

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,866
Likes
5,953
They DO have quite a following—“Maggie” owners are fervent in their devotion. I knew these would be hard to measure but even given that, the results were startling—startling that they were so bizarre yet so many people seem to enjoy their sound.

What is interesting is that while “fervent” JBL owners will talk about the difference between old JBL sound and new JBL sound (and characterize it as different not better/worse, i.e. K2 S9900 vs M2) or at least a more consistent "the newer ones are better", there is more polarization among Magnepan owners about things like front vs. rear magnets.

People will spend money on shipping to restore/refurbish these Magenpans with new aftermarket enclosures, etc. instead of simply buying a new setup.

20 years ago I reviewed Magnepan MG12 for Croatian HiFi magazine. Did a quasianechoic measurement with some nearfield low freq splicing/merging. It resembeled in room response quite good.

The MG12’s were very good.

I wonder how many people have owned Maggies - or small Maggies - and gotten rid of them for a cone based speaker?

I don't think the small Magnepans are capable of generating the performance required by the magneplanar design. It's informative that the smaller panels really came about in the era of sub/sats, but that the MG 1.x and 3.x sizes are really what are needed.

I have the Magnepan MG-III and JBL S/2600 (baby Everest DD55000) as my premium systems and the JBL 4319 for a modern system. The Magnepan's do very well with acoustic guitars and vocals. There is an immediacy and speed to the guitars or violins that makes it sound hyper real. Hyper-real is a good example because you hear what seems like a pleasant shrill-ness of a Stradivarius on the Magnepan which isn't reflective of what it sounds like in a real concert hall. It makes you feel as if you are closer to the performer. Even something like Disney's All is Found from Frozen II sounds like it's something from a Chesky audiophile disc. The soundstage is large though the imaging is diffuse. In-room, large Magnepans make things sound larger than life. It's not accurate, but again, a really pleasant sound.

However, if you wanted to play something like the soundtrack from A Star is Born, there is too much compression (at least with my gear). You don't get the energy or SPLs need for the concert level volumes. Here, the JBLs sound much better. Both of my speakers are potentially subject to comb filtering. I must not be sensitive to it. The S/2600 sounds great for A Star is Born, but that same Disney sound track sounds more like a standard recording rather than an audiophile recording. Where the S/2600 does surprisingly well is for intermodulation distortion effects.

I do not doubt that you can find better speakers that work with every type of music. That said, the larger-than-life soundstage of the Magnepans is not something I've heard from Genelec's. Neither of my speakers are perfect for every type of music, which is annoying, but with the freedom to switch between speakers based upon content, I am sure I am getting more bang for the buck.

But the only Magnepan's I would buy/recommend are MG 2.5R, or the MG-III to 3.3R. After that, I think efforts to improve the sound has led to stuff like the LRS.

The very highest end Magnepans have magnets in front and behind the panel. The older magnets-in-front generate the great EQ effect. As the mylar membrane moves toward the magnets, the field flux density increases, which increases efficiency (even more excursion). That mechanism creates the acoustic "peaks" not found in the electronic signal. This is why the classic large Magnepan speakers can be so intoxicating for specific music. With larger panels, you get more bass and with true aluminum ribbons, you get more extension.

Later, Magnepan moved the magnets to the rear so that there is nothing "blocking" the mylar and it's more "transparent." This is great for audiophile advertising, but the Magnepan geometry (as seen with this LRS test) is not a low diffraction setup anyway. With rear magnets, the field flux decreases so you don't have the same "speed/attack" as before.

Whereas the front models are adding extraneous EQ, the rear magnets are also generating an attenuating EQ.

Put another way, the classic Magnepans can make bad recordings sound better. The newer ones are still very good at the premium end, but the small ones no longer have that capability to make bad recordings sound better at which point, it may make more sense to get a regular cone speaker.

For what it's worth and real-world opinions, Magnepan is still one of the oldest speaker manufacturers to rely on nearly the same fundamental technology. They have been able to maintain manufacturing in the United States and clearly the market supports the colorations of Magnepan.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Ah... that favorite word among audiophiles: "imaging." It seems everything is about imaging. If that word doesn't get mentioned for description of audio gear, it must suck.

No, it is not about imaging. First and foremost a speaker has to have faithful tonality. Sit in a blind test of speaker and this is by far what you brain attempts to analyze. Only when you have great and accurate tonality does imaging come in play.

Then there is the issue of artificial imaging. Much of studio recordings is not about imaging. It is about great and accurate tonality. Fantastic recording. Great dynamics. Where something lands between speakers can almost be secondary. It is artificially created anyway.

Reminds of a story I have told before along these lines:

----
At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year, Blue Coast music had some of their artist come and play live. After one of the performances finished, I asked Cookie Marenco (owner of the labels) if she "sweetens" the mix with reverb and such. She said of course. The signer was shocked. She said that she hated that and wanted the sound to be as we were hearing it there (dead). Cookie then asked for the audiophiles in the room to raise their hand on which way they wanted it, and all said with the reverb!

---

What you cherish is not supposed to be there all the time. It is this "sameness" that wore me off from panel speakers. Everything is not supposed to sound large and have diffused sound and "imaging."

I guess when stereo was new people fell in love with phantom imaging. I know I did back in 1960s when I was young. For people who are stuck playing music of that era maybe that is all there is. But for someone like me that lets Tidal subscription rip through album after album, I want to experience as is and not with artificial "imaging" added to it all. It gets tiring.

I know shaking the addiction to imaging is hard but if you are to enjoy all types of recorded music, you need to get there. Don't sacrifice so many other things in the name of imaging.


I could comment on every sentence in the above, and started to, but, instead, I'll just ask one question:

Why did you waste your money on a pair of speakers?

---

Ok, now for the truly ridiculous thought for which I can't quite phrase an appropriate query:

1600642356018.png
 
Top Bottom