• 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

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
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.
Well, you could say that of any positive speaker quality. What's interesting are the engineering trades that affect imaging, and there are quite a few. You can properly set up two good pairs of speakers in a room and they will image quite differently as a consequence of polar pattern, phase (dipole vs. monopole, etc.), frequency response, baffle diffraction, enclosure resonances, line source vs. point source, array symmetry, crossover lobing, dispersion, the acoustical size of the transducer array, the width of the baffle, and the height of the transducers, off the top of my head.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,150
Location
Winnipeg Canada
Well, you could say that of any positive speaker quality. What's interesting are the engineering trades that affect imaging, and there are quite a few. You can properly set up two good pairs of speakers in a room and they will image quite differently as a consequence of polar pattern, phase (dipole vs. monopole, etc.), frequency response, baffle diffraction, enclosure resonances, line source vs. point source, array symmetry, crossover lobing, dispersion, the acoustical size of the transducer array, the width of the baffle, and the height of the transducers, off the top of my head.

The point is it's entirely possible to get great imaging out of any good speaker (actually the speaker doesn't even have to be all that good really) without having to go the Maggie way. Particularly considering it's likely very easy to ruin that great imaging by not having them set up just right anyway (like most any speaker).
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
The point is it's entirely possible to get great imaging out of any good speaker (actually the speaker doesn't even have to be all that good really) without having to go the Maggie way. Particularly considering it's likely very easy to ruin that great imaging by not having them set up just right anyway (like most any speaker).
Well, agree with that last! But otherwise, I guess it depends on what kind of imaging you're after. I don't now of anything like a line source for recreating a large space like a concert hall. And I don't think that's something that can be changed with room acoustics -- the HRTF and floor bounce allow us to localize the height of a point source, but not of a line source. But a point source might be better for reproducing a small ensemble. There are other considerations as well, such as how much reverberant energy is dumped into the room, and where. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong here, but the speakers will sound different.
 

Vasr

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,409
Likes
1,922
Well I think it helps to put the general speakers performance into a more genuine light, as a ridiculously huge 160dB y-axis makes the speaker look quite smooth rather than a dogs dinner!

My point was different. The conversation you barged into was whether there was a low frequency roll-off inherent to Maggies or not, smooth or not wasn't the point being made. I posted two different examples of one without a roll-off until about 100hz so if this LRS really rolled off at 300hz as interpreted (incorrectly in my opinion for reasons I have explained many times), then it would be a worse speaker than the 25 year old SMGa. I also posted another Maggie that did have an early roll-off and that is the smallest one.

The scale wasn't relevant to the above but since you insinuated, I posted the second scaling. It has nothing to do with the point you are making and I am not interested in that discussion.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
It seems to me that the philosophy behind these speakers is that the reverberant sound field in creates in the room adds to the listening experience in a way that makes up for the shortcomings.

But even if so, there is one particular design flaw that cannot be overlooked or denied, which to my way of thinking makes these speakers non-starters. The tweeter is located beside the woofer, and the crossover point, judging from the graphs, is around 1 kHz. The wavelength at this frequency is 13.5 inches. How wide is the speaker? What is the horizontal separation distance between the horizontal midpoint of the woofer and the horizontal midpoint of the tweeter? In order for there not to be nulls at the crossover frequency, somewhere in the forward-radiation space of the speaker, this wavelength needs to be at least twice greater than the width of the speaker. There are 3-way studio monitors where the woofer is located to one side of the midrange-tweeter stack. In these speakers, the crossover from the woofer to the midrange is typically 300 to 400 Hz, such that the wavelength is about one meter, which is probably more than 3x the horizontal distance separating the woofer from the midrange. So with that type of 3-way studio monitor that rests on its side, there isn't a problem. But with this speaker, this is a very big problem, especially if the crossover filters aren't very steep. In order to correct this problem, the crossover point would need to be moved much lower. But then the issue would be with whether the tweeter side is able to play as low as would then need to play. So to fix that, the tweeter side has to be made bigger, which means wider, which affects the directivity. There isn't any way to fix it. Anyone who desires this type of listening experience, where sound energy reflected from the wall behind the speaker contributes very greatly to what you hear, would likely find the Linkwitz approach much better, where conventional drivers are used to achieve the same class of radiation pattern.
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
Sure - even amirm's nearfield measurement is much closer to his in-room measurement than Kippel's pir.
assuming the nearfield is in the same room as the in-room measurement, isn't that to be expected? my simple understanding is that given the myriad of room types, the PIR gives a baseline that then ultimately differs across use experiences based on user rooms.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,834
Likes
16,496
Location
Monument, CO
I don't follow the comments re. magnets and efficiency. Front or rear, the panel rests a set distance from the magnets, and for all models but the 20's and 30's there is only one set of magnets. The panel when driven by a signal moves back and forth, e.g. closer and further from the magnets, relative to its resting position. Yes the magnetic field increases as the panel moves closer to the magnets, but then it should ideally move an equal distance away as the signal changes polarity, so whether the magnets are mounted front or rear the efficiency/sensitivity/distortion/etc. is the same given the panel moves to and fro in response to an AC signal.
 

shumi

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
63
Likes
29
This is so funny...pages of measurements which do not mean squat and just a few sentences on listening impressions probably based on a non-ideal set up. Your non-recommendation is the lonely negative review of such a bargain set of speakers. Many reviewers have praised these speakers. Put down your voltmeter and learn to appreciate music reproduction using listening skills and proper set up. That is the problem with these kind of sites....
 

matt3421

Active Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
132
Likes
167
This is so funny...pages of measurements which do not mean squat and just a few sentences on listening impressions probably based on a non-ideal set up. Your non-recommendation is the lonely negative review of such a bargain set of speakers. Many reviewers have praised these speakers. Put down your voltmeter and learn to appreciate music reproduction using listening skills and proper set up.
^ lol
 

xarkkon

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
228
Likes
338
This is so funny...pages of measurements which do not mean squat and just a few sentences on listening impressions probably based on a non-ideal set up. Your non-recommendation is the lonely negative review of such a bargain set of speakers. Many reviewers have praised these speakers. Put down your voltmeter and learn to appreciate music reproduction using listening skills and proper set up. That is the problem with these kind of sites....
check out the latest edifier review by amir. he actually has recommended speakers with poor measurements before
 

shumi

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
63
Likes
29
If amir had done a better job setting these speakers properly he would have been blown away...but he did not. I have owned many speakers in my life, including the Dunlavy SCVs (please research them). I presently own Maggies 3.6s which are a freaking miracle in terms of reproducing music. Yes, it takes a long time to find the sweep spot and most Maggies will require sub augmentation. But please do not end a review of the LRS with a non-recommendation...it undermines the whole ASR effort. This was a blown review, pure and simple.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
do you have specifics on how it was 'blown'??
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
do you have specifics on how it was 'blown'??
Let's not encourage him to curse me more in one day! Let's ration it across a few days....
 

Boomzilla

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
13
I would really appreciate if you did elaborate!
The crux of the matter is the design intent. For any dipole or bipole radiator, the ROOM IS PART OF THE DESIGNER'S INTENDED SOUND. By discarding the room sounds and measuring only the anechoic response, you discard almost half of the expected acoustic. That's why dipole and bipole radiating speakers come with specific instructions as to room placement. If the speakers are to be measured, both the distance from the speaker and the distance from the speaker to reflecting walls, ceilings, and floors are critical. To measure a panel speaker near field or in an anechoic environment is the equivalent of placing a "bookshelf" speaker in a corner and on the floor for measurement.

For any planar-magnetic or electrostatic panel, the width of the radiating surface is also an issue. Although Amirm uses multiple averaged measurements across the panel dimensions, this (again) ignores the designer's intent. Specific peaks and dips in the frequency response ARE inherent in the physical geometry of the panel, but those irregularities are also taken into account (by the designer) in the room placement. To measure the panel characteristics in isolation (ignoring the effect of the room, again) distorts the design intent of the speaker.

And finally, the distortion characteristics of the panel speaker have been measured in isolation. In the case of the LRS, yes, the distortion may rise precipitously above 10 watts, but the average listener uses the speaker at one or less watts. Want lower distortion at higher power levels? Buy bigger panels with more radiating area!

I concede that Amirm's measurements are accurate within their (gross) limitations, but I strongly dispute, due to the way that they were taken, that the measurements are at all useful in evaluating the actual sound of the speaker in situ. Any conclusion drawn from these measurements is a disservice to any reader trying to understand the speakers' sound. You're free to argue this if you wish, but the designer would almost certainly agree with me - the ROOM is an inherent part of the design and any attempt to measure the speaker in acoustic isolation is grossly misleading.
 

LDKTA

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
181
Likes
230
These results are far worse than I expected but I cannot say I'm surprised. I've always found the Magnepan loudspeakers to be immensely flawed designs.
 

StefaanE

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
528
Likes
929
Location
Harlange, Luxembourg
... the ROOM is an inherent part of the design and any attempt to measure the speaker in acoustic isolation is grossly misleading.
Which ROOM?
 

Boomzilla

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
15
Likes
13
Which ROOM?
And therein lies the question - Ideally, a room with symmetrical right and left halves, and one where a minimum of four or five feet of clearance is available from the back wall. But the speakers will ABSOLUTELY sound differently in different rooms (of course, this is true of ALL speakers, but far more so for bipole or dipole radiators).
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,049
The crux of the matter is the design intent. For any dipole or bipole radiator, the ROOM IS PART OF THE DESIGNER'S INTENDED SOUND. By discarding the room sounds and measuring only the anechoic response, you discard almost half of the expected acoustic. That's why dipole and bipole radiating speakers come with specific instructions as to room placement. If the speakers are to be measured, both the distance from the speaker and the distance from the speaker to reflecting walls, ceilings, and floors are critical. To measure a panel speaker near field or in an anechoic environment is the equivalent of placing a "bookshelf" speaker in a corner and on the floor for measurement.

For any planar-magnetic or electrostatic panel, the width of the radiating surface is also an issue. Although Amirm uses multiple averaged measurements across the panel dimensions, this (again) ignores the designer's intent. Specific peaks and dips in the frequency response ARE inherent in the physical geometry of the panel, but those irregularities are also taken into account (by the designer) in the room placement. To measure the panel characteristics in isolation (ignoring the effect of the room, again) distorts the design intent of the speaker.

And finally, the distortion characteristics of the panel speaker have been measured in isolation. In the case of the LRS, yes, the distortion may rise precipitously above 10 watts, but the average listener uses the speaker at one or less watts. Want lower distortion at higher power levels? Buy bigger panels with more radiating area!

I concede that Amirm's measurements are accurate within their (gross) limitations, but I strongly dispute, due to the way that they were taken, that the measurements are at all useful in evaluating the actual sound of the speaker in situ. Any conclusion drawn from these measurements is a disservice to any reader trying to understand the speakers' sound. You're free to argue this if you wish, but the designer would almost certainly agree with me - the ROOM is an inherent part of the design and any attempt to measure the speaker in acoustic isolation is grossly misleading.
A load of malarkey born of wishful thinking in this post.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
And therein lies the question - Ideally, a room with symmetrical right and left halves, and one where a minimum of four or five feet of clearance is available from the back wall.
Precisely the distance I had it from my back wall: 55 inches or 4.6 feet. The manual says this however: " Locate the speakers 2 feet or more in front of a wall." There is no mention of any symmetry requirement. Here is a sample image from Magnepan's own site for 30.7:

IMG_0539.jpg


Not symmetrical at all.
 

mac

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
94
Likes
314
Location
Seattle Area
Top Bottom