Maybe we all need to take our own opinions (and vested interests) less seriously. I love the sound of the LRS but that doesn't mean that any of the criticisms and flaws of them pointed out here are false. Especially in the case of Amir's test results. He obviously knows what he's talking about. (he is a HE, isn't he? I mean, the image isn't actually him, right?) I once brought home a pair of very highly rated B&W speakers, listened to them for three days, hated the way they sounded (metallic, harsh, bright, and opaque) and returned them. The guy who had recommended and sold them to me was real annoyed (actually pissed off). He took it personally that I didn't agree with his opinion. Same thing going on here.
Well, I think there are two things going on here.
One is whether the objective test results are applicable, or whether the experimental methodology doesn't yield meaningful results. And I suppose you could include the subjective listening test as well, since I don't think you can judge dipoles unless they're properly set up. Personally, I think that the test results are *partially* meaningful -- I don't think anyone would claim that the LRS plays down to 20 Hz! -- but that overall, they don't do justice to the in-room measurements or the sound of the speaker. In particular, they fail to capture the reaction of most people who have actually seen the LRS -- these are $600 a pair? Because I don't know of anything that matches them on bang for the buck, with acoustical music, anyway (rock I think requires a sub).
The other I think does get down to personal preference and the type of music you prefer. Beyond bang for the buck, the strengths of the LRS are its elecrostatic-like transparency -- something you don't find in inexpensive dynamics, it's spectacular imaging, and its wonderful midrange. Its weaknesses are poor bass extension and the upper octave issues that Amir noted. So again, better for naturally balanced acoustical music, not so good for rock -- though there are people who love Maggies for rock because they like being able to hear the detail on the recording, however artificial and pasted together it may sound -- and of course they add that sub.
Anyway, I think what got some people here hot and bothered were all the dismissive comments by people who, not coincidentally, had never even heard it. Say what you like about the shortcomings of non-blind listening, they don't compare to the shortcomings of not listening at all. Whereas Amir's measurements and conclusion, however valid you think they are, make for an interesting discussion. And the other discussion here from people who have heard the LRS or are speaking about other dipoles they've owned.
My personal interest, which I had mentioned to Amir before the review, is in why planar dipoles sound so good even though they don't measure very well. And I think there's been an interesting discussion of that, even if it's not entirely settled in my mind. It's easy to point to some factors, e.g., lack of the "boxy" resonances of inexpensive dynamics, 4.8 dB less off-axis contribution, rejection of x- and y-axis modes and floor and ceiling reflections, good transient and power response. Not to mention the high bang for the buck of a loudspeaker without a costly enclosure. The contribution of the front wall first reflection as opposed to the side wall reflection of wide dispersion dynamics seems to be more controversial. My sense is that neither is natural, but that both are necessary for a reasonably convincing two-channel reproduction of acoustical music, and that the ideal setup is in effect a poor man's RFZ room, in which in the latter case reflections are suppressed within the first 20 ms and ambiance is provided by diffusion at the rear. But there's no question that directional speakers like horns or many ESL's are closer to what's on the original recording. Dipoles and wide dispersion monopole/cardioids use what is in effect artificial reverb.