• 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

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,171
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.
And interestingly even imaging strongly depends on the tonality which I long knew from the theory but was the last days impressed to see how big the influence is. I recently engineered some 3-way loudspeakers for myself and was listening to them EQed to the usual listening position target I use and the image was completely flat, stuck on the loudspeakers that I even worried that it was due to the problems in the vertical directivity as they are non-coaxial. Then I changed the correction target and my jaws dropped as not only they sounded much better but also suddenly the soundstage became at least 2-dimensional (X,Y) and I could "listen into" some well made recordings.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
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?

Folks like what they like and don't like what they don't like.

Blue, or Red?
 

Boomzilla

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
13
Every room is different, and placement also effects it. So, unless you get 100 people who own these speakers to do the exact measurement and average them, getting an anechoic measurement is the next best thing.
It is NOT.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
And interestingly even imaging strongly depends on the tonality which I long knew from the theory but was the last days impressed to see how big the influence is. I recently engineered some 3-way loudspeakers for myself and was listening to them EQed to the usual listening position target I use and the image was completely flat, stuck on the loudspeakers that I even worried that it was due to the problems in the vertical directivity as they are non-coaxial. Then I changed the correction target and my jaws dropped as not only they sounded much better but also suddenly the soundstage became at least 2-dimensional (X,Y) and I could "listen into" some well made recordings.
Because directivity changes with frequency, it naturally changes imaging as well as you observed.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,739
Likes
16,171
Because directivity changes with frequency, it naturally changes imaging as well as you observed.
Even with constant directivity or listening in the free field (only direct sound) our sense of direction is influenced by the tonality as I linked above from the Blauert bands (another link, but unfortunately also in German http://www.sengpielaudio.com/DieBedeutungDerBlauertschenBaender.pdf ) due to the adaptation/learning to reflection dips and different HRTFs from different directions, which is also how binaural recordings and systems like the Smyth Eealiser work.
These EQ bands are also used by sound engineers and corresponding mixing/mastering tools.
 
Last edited:

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
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.
But isn't that a matter of personal preference? To use examples with whom everyone is familiar, J. Gordon Holt didn't care about imaging, while Harry Pearson was so obsessed with it that he coined the term "soundstage."

Personally, I find it an important component of realism, though I'd give tonality the nod overall. But in practice, when I make a subjective evaluation of a speaker, I don't make it on the basis of any one criterion -- rather, my main criterion is whether it sounds *real* to me on acoustical music, and that depends on a number of factors of which imaging and tonality are two.

The one size fits all issue is real, but then, is there any way around that with conventional two channel stereo? Two channel stereo requires support from the room, otherwise it sounds dry and dead, and dipoles actually put less reverberant energy into the room than monopoles do. So it's mostly a question of where they put most of that energy: dipoles put more into the front wall, while monopoles put more to the sides above the baffle step frequency.

So dipoles tend to increase the sense of depth, monopoles of width. I don't think either is going to be realistic with all recordings, but if you suppress that room reverb by putting absorption at the first reflection points, you end up in a sonic mortuary.

Anyway, I don't personally have to choose between tonality and imaging, since I built a system that can do both and have pretty good slam as well. But few can accommodate such a system, so they have to choose what's important to them, and if you listen mostly to rock or rap or Gregorian chants I think that's going to influence the kind of speaker you choose.

Finally, there's another element that I find an important component of realism, which is to say transparency. And I'm probably going to get flamed for this, since I can't point to any one measurement that says "transparency" on it; rather I can think of several that probably affect it in varying degrees. But some speakers have it in spades, while others sound like mush. One of the things that I've always liked about the planar sound is this quality of transparency, which, IMO, adds immeasurably to the sense of realism, and the LRS certainly has it -- people commented on its "stat like" sound.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Unrelated yet somehow related question, considering the tangents being explored, such as "Imaging is unimportant":


Home Theater

I should think that folks who have adopted a penchant for an advanced case of big screen and placing speakers all around, occasionally under, and now even above, the listeners, particularly when playing talkies of more modern vintage, are showing some concern for Imaging, both visual and sonic?


9FIP2-1463066305-3957-list_items-perry_nimoy_freakout.gif
 

mac

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
94
Likes
314
Location
Seattle Area
Personally, I'd love to hear the LX-521 -- I've never had a chance.

You're welcome to come hear mine but you'll have to listen to two of them at once. You know, for that "audiophile listening experience" that most of us refer to as imaging.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,150
Location
Winnipeg Canada
Imaging isn't unimportant. It's just not a magical component of a specific speaker design. Good imaging is what happens when a good set of speakers is properly set up in a room.
 

Coffee_fan

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
52
Likes
62
Now I regret paying $2390 with tax for my 1.7i. The Kef R3 cost less and probably sound better.
FWIW: Don't. I had MG1.6QR for some 4 years and enjoyed them very much. I ended up selling them because the tweeter was a bit strong for me.

From then on, I try to stick to silk dome tweeters, but that is a different story.

What I needed at the time was a very fast sub-woofer if you are into bass because bass is not their forte and the panels, because they have very little mass are extremely fast. I am thinking at some point I may buy another set. I like having a great box speaker, like one of the Revels M105 Amir has reviewed and another different speaker, like a Maggie or a Vandersteen.
 

mac

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
94
Likes
314
Location
Seattle Area
Imaging isn't unimportant. It's just not a magical component of a specific speaker design. Good imaging is what happens when a good set of speakers is properly set up in a room.

And I would wager the term, imaging (i.e. how well a speaker "images'), is relative for most, foreign to some, and unimportant to few.
 

Coffee_fan

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
52
Likes
62
... I would love to see some proper measurements of Quads...
Quite possibly you would not like their measurements, there are some speakers which we "subjectively" tend to like "because" of their flaws or in "spite" of them. However you want to spin it. Objective measurements are great in that you know you will get a top notch product that likely will satisfy you, but there are some speakers (things) that you just choose subjectively. The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car. Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?
 

AudioTodd

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2019
Messages
193
Likes
278
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.
Once again this is why I have multiple speakers, front ends and amps. Sometimes I want the effects some equipment adds and sometimes I want the absolute clarity and unadulterated truth of the particular recording as it exists. Some people find an as-close-to-totally-neutral-as-possible system boring and lacking in ALL of the audiophile buzzwords, but I find getting close to the real recording very instructive and fascinating if not always “euphoric.” Sometimes I want to enjoy a few effects, like the “space” of my panel speakers or the tone control and distortion add-ons of tubes (especially SETs) and then sometimes I just want to goof around with the sound.
In the end, I recalibrate my ears with a very neutral, extremely low noise and distortion combo - validated by trusted measurements from sources like ASR.
 

AudioTodd

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2019
Messages
193
Likes
278
Quite possibly you would not like their measurements, there are some speakers which we "subjectively" tend to like "because" of their flaws or in "spite" of them. However you want to spin it. Objective measurements are great in that you know you will get a top notch product that likely will satisfy you, but there are some speakers (things) that you just choose subjectively. The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car. Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?
Can’t imagine why somebody buys a Mercedes - just a car - but a Ferrari is a different animal... :)
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car.

<-- 2019, Guilty as charged.

But only because my '95 Maxima manual had an "accident".

Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?

Audio Buddy inherited a '92 318i from our friend who is still trapped on an idle cruise ship (keyboard musician, musical director when it has to be).

I enjoy hearing about the stupidity discovered while maintaining the thing when something breaks or just wears out as much as he enjoys telling me. It's his wife's car.

He drives a '00 Civic.
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,760
Likes
9,442
Location
Europe
[..] 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.
I'm not totally sure. For a few very good recordings my K&H O300D throw a bigger (and much more convincingly) soundstage than I ever remember my MG 1.6 were able to.
[..] 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.
I don't think this explanation is correct. With magnets on one side of the foil you should get 2nd order THD because the magnetic flux increases when the foil moves towards the magnets, and decreases when it moves back.

If there are magnets on both sides of the foil the increase of the flux due to the movement to the front magnets should cancel the decrease of the flux due to the movement away from the back magnets. Then the foil moves within a constant flux field, resulting in lower 2nd order THD.
 
Top Bottom