Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[Burning Sounds]

I think all of these dipole/panel speakers create high level of spaciousness that audiophiles tend to love and associate with hi-fi/realism. I too used to be there but the effect wore out for me and then became a liability. I did not like that everything played on them sounded big and spacious regardless of the original intent of the recording.

So the psychoacoustic is clear.

If Amir is conflating all dipole and panel speakers here then I think that is a mistake. In my experience well designed dipoles using dynamic drivers (Linkwitz LX521) can render scale correctly. Poor tonality with a dipole is only an issue if the reflected sound has different tonality to the direct sound. Large panels (Maggies) on the other hand do have a tendency to make everything sound larger than life - I have more than 30 years experience with them. I can still enjoy my Maggies though, and a couple of my friends actually prefer them for their easy going nature.

 

[josh358]

If Amir is conflating all dipole and panel speakers here then I think that is a mistake. In my experience well designed dipoles using dynamic drivers (Linkwitz LX521) can render scale correctly. Poor tonality with a dipole is only an issue if the reflected sound has different tonality to the direct sound. Large panels (Maggies) on the other hand do have a tendency to make everything sound larger than life - I have more than 30 years experience with them. I can still enjoy my Maggies though, and a couple of my friends actually prefer them for their easy going nature.

I think the conventional wisdom is that line sources are better for recordings of large venues like auditoriums and point sources are better small ensembles in a small space. I'm not sure whether this is actually the case, though it seems to be when I compare my little Monsoon dipoles to full-size dipoles, and I think it has to do with whether you're listening in the near or far field. But I've heard some stunningly realistic portrayals of small jazz ensembles, e.g., "Topsy" on one of the Stereophile test discs. Often, I think, the exaggerated size phenomenon is a consequence of close miking. As someone pointed out above, the size of the speakers may also alter our perception of size.

 

[richard12511]

If Amir is conflating all dipole and panel speakers here then I think that is a mistake. In my experience well designed dipoles using dynamic drivers (Linkwitz LX521) can render scale correctly. Poor tonality with a dipole is only an issue if the reflected sound has different tonality to the direct sound. Large panels (Maggies) on the other hand do have a tendency to make everything sound larger than life - I have more than 30 years experience with them. I can still enjoy my Maggies though, and a couple of my friends actually prefer them for their easy going nature.

This! I’m still very interested in seeing other panels and open baffles measured. Especially the larger models that have good bass. Actually, if you’re willing to lose a bit of headroom to EQ down the 300Hz peak, these little ribbons can have a pretty decent response. Combined with the polar map(which is like nothing else we’ve seen), I can see how these differentiate themselves.

Had a chance to hear the LRS recently. They sounded interesting, for sure, though for $600, I think there are much better speakers out there. If your willing to wait a bit for the inevitable Infinity sale, the Infinity R263 is a much better sounding speaker than the LRS, and 33% cheaper. That’s just my opinion, of course, and I could definitely see where some might really like the LRS for the spatial presentation it displays.

 

[MattHooper]

As to the idea that dipole/panel speakers give everything a similar sonic/spacious signature....

I found the opposite to be the case at least when it came to my old Quad ESL 63s. When I first encountered them aside from the "boxless" sound one of the strongest impressions was how chameleon-like they were with recordings. I'd never heard a speaker produce such an acute difference in the sound of different recordings. The exact nature of the reverbs, instrument positions, timbral character, "wetness" or "dryness" of the recording, seemed so well revealed. In contrast even really good box speakers had a lingering boxy signature (and often some room interaction) that seemed more consistent among recordings.

 

[Vasr]

I most definitely haven't heard any sound stage "larger than life" in any speaker - planar or box that would be bigger than sitting in good seats of a concert or a blues club. Usually smaller in a typical home setting. Nor have I heard any recording that is intentionally created to reduce the sound stage to less than those even for studio recordings. So, I really don't know what people are talking about and how that affects perception of quality in a typical home setting of these speakers.

The open airiness of dipoles doesn't necessarily imply larger.

The closest to an unsighted opinion (not comparison) which I am sure anyone especially with small Maggies has encountered given enough time is visitors who have expressed how good the sound is (and I think here the reaction is more to the airiness and soundstage than just tonality) and didn't have a clue that those were speakers (or had a fixed image of what a speaker should look like) and asked where the speakers were. So, there is something to the dipole soundstage that isn't entirely explained by visual sighting of the planars.

I haven't ever listened to the largest Maggies so don't know what happens there but that would not, in any case, apply to these tiny LRS Maggies.

If your standard of reference is live concerts sitting in the furthest cheap seats without good PA, than the soundstage from any speaker would likely seem larger than life.

 

[Newman]

Except that they do great in blind listening tests. Magnepan is big on blind listening tests.

Just thought I'd point to some actual facts. .

Show me one single, published, blind listening test of a Maggie, done by Maggie, or, better, by an independent body.

Until then, they can join the list of audio companies who verbally claim to do blind testing, but it’s just marketing trickery to fool those who want to be fooled. They wouldn’t be the first or last to disrespect their customers this way.

Just thought I’d point to the difference between actual facts and marketing facts.

 

[richard12511]

I definitely plan to setup a blind with the LRS and a few other similarly priced options in the somewhat near future. Will be fun to see what people think when they have no idea what they’re listening to. I’ll certainly post the results here.

 

[Newman]

This thread strengthens my thoughts on how some brands, especially name brands, have their Defenders of the Faith, a kind of thought police who cruise the internet, constantly searching for new discussion of ‘their’ brand.

And when they find it, these Defenders either luxuriate in the glow of yet another positive review, “you go ‘bro”, “welcome to the club”, etc, or if it is a negative review, come down hard on it from every possible angle in order to disrespect it, or at least to dismiss it as ‘your ears vs my ears’. Every. Single. Time.

If the negative review is subjective, the thought police descend with “break-in time can take months or years”, “partnering equipment is critical and sometimes only the best (read expensive) partnering gear will get them to sing”, or for speakers, “they are monumentally sensitive to room positioning, speaker and listener both, and you need to just keep ‘tweaking’ for as long as it takes, again this can take months or even years, but when you get it right they instantly transform from okay-ish to the best thing ever”. If all else fails, it’s “your ears vs my ears”. Ring any bells?

If the negative review is objective, then heaven help the poor reviewer, because the Defenders instantly feel fully justified to go on the attack about how hopelessly broken is the link between measurements and sound quality. “You can’t measure ‘xxx’: organic integration, liquidity, depth, transparency...” The list is infinite. Or, “A simple listen with your ears proves that the measured flaw is irrelevant, or you must be measuring the wrong things (i.e. things that don’t matter).” The fact, that listening with their ears, in the manner that they invariably did when forming their opinions, is completely proven to be dominated by things other than the actual sound waves, doesn’t seem to be a fact that the Defenders will allow to get between them and their story. The other fact, that the link, between measurements and how the sound waves are liked or not, is stronger today than before, and so strong as to be described as reliable, gets brushed aside with a dismissive “listen with your ears”. Well sure, but do it in a controlled manner that makes the subjective comments actually be about sound waves, for a change. Until then, the SOTA measurements are the best, most reliable indicator of how the sound waves will be rated by listeners. Casual, sighted listening is a broken gauge of sound waves.

This speaker and brand seems to have more than its fair share of Defenders of the Faith. Attempts to discredit the measurements started long before the review was even published, going back to when Amir first announced that a review is in the pipeline. Guys, let it go. You have come to the wrong forum if the above paragraphs describe your defence. It’s okay to still like/love a speaker that has significant flaws (that are correlated with lower subjective appeal of the sound waves). And it’s also okay for you to admit that those flaws exist and have relevance. It won’t hurt the speaker’s feelings. After all, it can speak, but it cannot hear.

Cheers

 

[shumi]

I definitely plan to setup a blind with the LRS and a few other similarly priced options in the somewhat near future. Will be fun to see what people think when they have no idea what they’re listening to. I’ll certainly post the results here.

Please make sure the LRS are set up correctly for the test...would be very much interested in the results.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This thread strengthens my thoughts on how some brands, especially name brands, have their Defenders of the Faith, a kind of thought police who cruise the internet, constantly searching for new discussion of ‘their’ brand.

And when they find it, these Defenders either luxuriate in the glow of yet another positive review, “you go ‘bro”, “welcome to the club”, etc, or if it is a negative review, come down hard on it from every possible angle in order to disrespect it, or at least to dismiss it as ‘your ears vs my ears’. Every. Single. Time.

If the negative review is subjective, the thought police descend with “break-in time can take months or years”, “partnering equipment is critical and sometimes only the best (read expensive) partnering gear will get them to sing”, or for speakers, “they are monumentally sensitive to room positioning, speaker and listener both, and you need to just keep ‘tweaking’ for as long as it takes, again this can take months or even years, but when you get it right they instantly transform from okay-ish to the best thing ever”. If all else fails, it’s “your ears vs my ears”. Ring any bells?

If the negative review is objective, then heaven help the poor reviewer, because the Defenders instantly feel fully justified to go on the attack about how hopelessly broken is the link between measurements and sound quality. “You can’t measure ‘xxx’: organic integration, liquidity, depth, transparency...” The list is infinite. Or, “A simple listen with your ears proves that the measured flaw is irrelevant, or you must be measuring the wrong things (i.e. things that don’t matter).” The fact, that listening with their ears, in the manner that they invariably did when forming their opinions, is completely proven to be dominated by things other than the actual sound waves, doesn’t seem to be a fact that the Defenders will allow to get between them and their story. The other fact, that the link, between measurements and how the sound waves are liked or not, is stronger today than before, and so strong as to be described as reliable, gets brushed aside with a dismissive “listen with your ears”. Well sure, but do it in a controlled manner that makes the subjective comments actually be about sound waves, for a change. Until then, the SOTA measurements are the best, most reliable indicator of how the sound waves will be rated by listeners. Casual, sighted listening is a broken gauge of sound waves.

This speaker and brand seems to have more than its fair share of Defenders of the Faith. Attempts to discredit the measurements started long before the review was even published, going back to when Amir first announced that a review is in the pipeline. Guys, let it go. You have come to the wrong forum if the above paragraphs describe your defence. It’s okay to still like/love a speaker that has significant flaws (that are correlated with lower subjective appeal of the sound waves). And it’s also okay for you to admit that those flaws exist and have relevance. It won’t hurt the speaker’s feelings. After all, it can speak, but it cannot hear.

Cheers

Maggie thought police..........hahaha. You need a t-shirt.

A now departed friend used to tell people how:

The 2nd happiest day of my life was the day I acquired my Magnepan speakers. They were so cool and I wanted them so badly.

The happiest day of my life was when I sold my Magnepan speakers. They made everything sound plasticky and the same. If you liked the sound of the Maggies great, but if you wanted to really hear the recording over the speaker coloration too bad.

 

[Shazb0t]

Please make sure the LRS are set up correctly for the test...would be very much interested in the results.

Already laying the groundwork...

 

[richard12511]

Lots of discussion about what the measurement data doesn't capture the "magic" of these speakers, but I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the measurements do full encapsulate the speakers performance, but perhaps our interpretations are off.The erratic frequency response can be EQed very well(due to the amazing directivity), especially if you're willing to give up headroom. I think the key to this speakers strength lies in that horizontal beam width graph, which is arguably the best of any speaker measured so far.

Comparing it directly to the recently reviewed KH310:

Keep in mind that the 700-2,000Hz blip will be balanced out by the other speaker. Is it just me, or does the LRS look way more well controlled up until the top octave(at least out to -18)? It's basically a straight line up until 2kHz. At the very least, it's very different than anything else we've seen, and probably explains why some people love this speaker so much.

Having finally listened to the speaker, I agree that the imaging is not very "realistic", and tends to make instruments and voices sound unrealistically large. However, although it didn't sound real, the imaging did sound very different and unique, and I could easily see why some who like that presentation would have trouble going back to a more conventional speaker.

 

[richard12511]

Please make sure the LRS are set up correctly for the test...would be very much interested in the results.

For sure. With the past tests I've done, I spend about a week prior to the test finding the best spot in the room for each speaker pair, and then I tape it off so that the speakers can be moved in and out quickly to achieve optimal imaging/soundstage.

 

[Sancus]

Lots of discussion about what the measurement data doesn't capture the "magic" of these speakers, but I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the measurements do full encapsulate the speakers performance, but perhaps our interpretations are off.The erratic frequency response can be EQed very well(due to the amazing directivity), especially if you're willing to give up headroom.

Maybe but I doubt it has any headroom for that. It's too bad that the distortion tests were messed up because I think this is actually the biggest weakness of Magnepans smaller than the 3.7 or maybe even 20.7. No ability to play loud in the midbass and low bass.

I have 1.7is and they definitely fall apart, even with a sub, long before my Genelec 8351Bs do. I would not be surprised if the LRS can't hit 90db at 100hz without significant compression, which makes it compromised for high dynamic range material at a mere 70-75dB average. Let alone if you tried to EQ that range.

 

[BYRTT]

.....The erratic frequency response can be EQed very well(due to the amazing directivity), especially if you're willing to give up headroom. I think the key to this speakers strength lies in that horizontal beam width graph, which is arguably the best of any speaker measured so far.....

.. havent heard the LRS speaker but based objective graphs think you need some hard to find EQ with build in directivity steering, normalized listening window example below is LRS verse other low cost competitor 308P MKII..

.....Keep in mind that the 700-2,000Hz blip will be balanced out by the other speaker. Is it just me, or does the LRS look way more well controlled up until the top octave(at least out to -18)? It's basically a straight line up until 2kHz. At the very least, it's very different than anything else we've seen, and probably explains why some people love this speaker so much....

Pretty sure Amir's beamwidth graphs in a way is same as his shiny contour map, just using less blending colours but most important it set to normalized and why we see flat low end reach down to 20Hz, <100Hz raw anechoic LRS without normallization have not much output in contour graphs, best performing graphs for LRS in my view is vertical contour and system impedance ..

.....Having finally listened to the speaker, I agree that the imaging is not very "realistic", and tends to make instruments and voices sound unrealistically large. However, although it didn't sound real, the imaging did sound very different and unique, and I could easily see why some who like that presentation would have trouble going back to a more conventional speaker.

Thanks feedback and have fun, below animation toggle raw verse synthetic EQed smooth listening window & smooth power response..

 

[David Harper]

another thing may be that there is no test for detail and transparency.

 

[q3cpma]

another thing may be that there is no test for detail and transparency.

For that, we'd need a definition other than on and off-axis (incl. omni) linear and nonlinear distorsion. Protip: you won't find it as the sound is completely defined by this and time domain distorsion.

 

[BYRTT]

another thing may be that there is no test for detail and transparency.

Try think about it that anymore detail or be it transparancy than in some good headphones is probably some kind of distortion layer whatever acoustic speaker system add to the track material, no problem if that effect sounds good to anyone ear or owner but we got to admit that some acoustic system distortions can be human sensed as something taken for good that shouldn't had been there.

 

[richard12511]

another thing may be that there is no test for detail and transparency.

I disagree.

Why wouldn’t those show up in the spinorama? Transparency is (IMO) how close the response is to a straight line.

 

[Vasr]

another thing may be that there is no test for detail and transparency.

There is some validity to that.

Part of the problem is it is very difficult to objectively define what detail and transparency are. Two people can differ on what detail means and whether something is transparent. Only when it is well-defined can you relate it back to measurement. Even then the perception of these qualities might not be related to a single metric.

For a simple example of a single metric affecting detail, a speaker where the highs are elevated rather than rolled off will be typically perceived as having more detail (part of the reason why some speakers are designed to do this) unless it is too bright to be annoying/fatiguing. This is because, for example, you may hear the small tinkling sounds of studs on a cymbal more perceptibly and so you are hearing more "detail". But there may be multiple factors (including transparency) that may also affect perception of detail. Masking effects from other frequencies or harmonics, for example.

In terms of perceiving transparency (as opposed to veiled), the problem might be that it is also not reflected in one metric but a combination of multiple things. It is also more evident in real music than listening to single tones. So, measuring each of the underlying metrics on their own may not be sufficient to explain the perception of transparency but knowing how the interplay between them affects it might. I don't know of any studies that have tried to quantify the latter.

For example, the amount of distortion, resonance/decay characteristics, ability to reproduce harmonics in combination may likely control the perception of transparency rather than any of them on their own sticking out as not-transparent. Two speakers with similar distortion might have different "transparency" depending on the other dimensions and so on.

So, it isn't so much as discovering new metrics but rather than relating what we perceive as "detailed" or "transparent" to the "formula" based on the measured metrics.