• 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

D

Deleted member 2944

Guest
Dipole bass is not a problem.....it's an advantage. :)
My primary woofer system in the main listening room (for the last 22 years) is a dipole bass scheme based on the Linkwitz Phoenix.
And before that a variety of DIY panel speakers with open-baffle bass dating back to the early 80's.

Box speakers (of any type) are second-rate bass transducers, at best.

I suggest to do some extended listening.

Dave.
 

Burning Sounds

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
523
Likes
883
Location
Co. Durham, UK
And they don't have the bass problem that all dipole radiators have.

I realise that you are probably meaning the front/rear wave cancellation, but the reality is speakers of all types have a bass problem - namely the room. Given that a well-designed dipole has less interaction with the room it does have a definite advantage.

I posted this recently on another thread so apologies for repeating myself - it's the conclusion from Linkwitz's 1998 AES paper investigating the differences between monopole and dipole woofers:

"The investigation showed that measurable and audible quality differences exist between monopolar and dipolar woofers due to differences in their respective interactions with the room. The degree of these differences is difficult to predict and will depend upon the specifics of a room and the placement of woofer and listener. However, the dipolar source can be expected to interact less strongly with the room and will, therefore, on average convey greater detail and resolution of complex low frequency material."
 
D

Deleted member 2944

Guest
I realise that you are probably meaning the front/rear wave cancellation, but the reality is speakers of all types have a bass problem - namely the room. Given that a well-designed dipole has less interaction with the room it does have a definite advantage."
Yes indeed. Well put.
Front/back cancellation effects of a dipole configuration should be well understood by most. But that is one of the 'practical' considerations of this approach and not something that represents a "problem", per se.
For those of us that have experienced the quality of the bass reproduction resulting from this approach, the trade-offs necessary are understandable.

Dave.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
942
Location
USA
I realise that you are probably meaning the front/rear wave cancellation, but the reality is speakers of all types have a bass problem - namely the room. Given that a well-designed dipole has less interaction with the room it does have a definite advantage.

I posted this recently on another thread so apologies for repeating myself - it's the conclusion from Linkwitz's 1998 AES paper investigating the differences between monopole and dipole woofers:

"The investigation showed that measurable and audible quality differences exist between monopolar and dipolar woofers due to differences in their respective interactions with the room. The degree of these differences is difficult to predict and will depend upon the specifics of a room and the placement of woofer and listener. However, the dipolar source can be expected to interact less strongly with the room and will, therefore, on average convey greater detail and resolution of complex low frequency material."

I recall reading this quote a number of years ago, and I even recall the uneasy feeling that it gave me when I first read it. In the first sentence he asserts in essence that the measurable and audible quality differences between monopolar and dipolar woofers are due expressly to differences in their respective interactions with the room. This statement is not sincere if it happens that the primary reason for the differences between the two types of woofer is the mutual cancellation between the front and rear waves with dipole woofers. In order for him to have been fully honest and open, he would need to have written something like, "The investigation showed that the primary source of differences in the quality of monopolar and dipolar woofers is not cancellation between the two out-of-phase wavefronts in a dipolar woofer. Rather, the investigation showed that the primary source of differences was the way the two kinds of woofer interact with the room." The thing about the elephant in the room is that whenever anyone who isn't blind seems not to see it, they are only pretending not to see it. Dipole and monopole woofers do differ in the way they interact with the room, but this is mainly because with dipole woofers at very low frequency, there is barely any interaction with the the room, because of the mutual cancellation.

For anyone with a genuine desire to have a more informed understanding of this question, there are simple experiments that may be done. If you have a subwoofer with two active drivers (and no port or passive radiator), you can simply reverse the polarity for one of the two drivers. If you think there might be a difference for the case where the two drivers are facing the same direction vs. facing the opposite direction, then you would need a subwoofer where the two drivers are facing opposite directions. Or you can use two identical subwoofers, and for one of them, you can reverse the polarity in the signal feed. You will likely find that the effect is not the least bit subtle, no matter how you orient the two subwoofers relative to each other, except when your listening position is much nearer to one of them than to the other one. A commonly used way to tell whether two full-range speakers are wired with the same polarity is to stand equidistant from them and listen to how much bass there is, and to listen to whether the bass increases or decreases when you move from a location that is much nearer to one than the other, to a location in the middle. Another revealing experiment, which everyone who has ever tinkered with speaker building has done casually and on multiple occasions, is to simply listen to the sound of a woofer that has been suspended in free air. If you stand a few feet away from it and listen, it will sound very much like a midrange driver and not at all like a woofer. The primary and obvious reason for the difference in the sound quality between dipolar woofers and monopolar woofers is not the difference in the way they each interact with the room. The primary and obvious reason for the difference in the sound quality between dipolar woofers and monopolar woofers is the mutual cancellation between the front and rear waves with dipole woofers.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 2944

Guest
Well, I'm sure SL appreciates you labeling him not fully honest and open and providing corrected statements for him.
My goodness.
Is it your understanding that most folks posting here are some sort of newbies that don't have any audio background or experience?

But it's me that's the troll and not you? Classic! :)

Dave.
 

Burning Sounds

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
523
Likes
883
Location
Co. Durham, UK
I recall reading this quote a number of years ago, and I even recall the uneasy feeling that it gave me when I first read it. In the first sentence he asserts in essence that the measurable and audible quality differences between monopolar and dipolar woofers are due expressly to differences in their respective interactions with the room. This statement is not sincere if it happens that the primary reason for the differences between the two types of woofer is the mutual cancellation between the front and rear waves with dipole woofers. In order for him to have been fully honest and open, he would need to have written something like, "The investigation showed that the primary source of differences in the quality of monopolar and dipolar woofers is not cancellation between the two out-of-phase wavefronts in a dipolar woofer. Rather, the investigation showed that the primary source of differences was the way the two kinds of woofer interact with the room." The thing about the elephant in the room is that whenever anyone who isn't blind seems not to see it, they are only pretending not to see it. Dipole and monopole woofers do differ in the way they interact with the room, but this is mainly because with dipole woofers at very low frequency, there is barely any interaction with the the room, because of the mutual cancellation.

For anyone with a genuine desire to have a more informed understanding of this question, there are simple experiments that may be done. If you have a subwoofer with two active drivers (and no port or passive radiator), you can simply reverse the polarity for one of the two drivers. If you think there might be a difference for the case where the two drivers are facing the same direction vs. facing the opposite direction, then you would need a subwoofer where the two drivers are facing opposite directions. Or you can use two identical subwoofers, and for one of them, you can reverse the polarity in the signal feed. You will likely find that the effect is not the least bit subtle, no matter how you orient the two subwoofers relative to each other, except when your listening position is much nearer to one of them than to the other one. A commonly used way to tell whether two full-range speakers are wired with the same polarity is to stand equidistant from them and listen to how much bass there is, and to listen to whether the bass increases or decreases when you move from a location that is much nearer to one than the other, to a location in the middle. Another revealing experiment, which everyone who has ever tinkered with speaker building has done casually and on multiple occasions, is to simply listen to the sound of a woofer that has been suspended in free air. If you stand a few feet away from it and listen, it will sound very much like a midrange driver and not at all like a woofer. The primary and obvious reason for the difference in the sound quality between dipolar woofers and monopolar woofers is not the difference in the way they each interact with the room. The primary and obvious reason for the difference in the sound quality between dipolar woofers and monopolar woofers is the mutual cancellation between the front and rear waves with dipole woofers.

Unfortunately, you have a way of writing that comes across as arrogant and condescending. I have no problem with you disagreeing with SL's findings (although I think you are wrong), but I do have a problem with the way you characterized him and his work as dishonest. That is not acceptable and has no place on this forum.

Your second paragraph shows this same condescending attitude - I built my first subwoofer more than 35 years ago. I don't need to be lectured on how I might tell whether drivers are wired with the same polarity.

My goodness, indeed!
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
14
Likes
37
I'll just leave this here without comment beyond the emphasis I have added to the quotation:

"Siegfried Linkwitz was a rare combination of music lover who could hear analytically, and an engineer who could design, measure and interpret the performance of loudspeakers. He contributed much more than his well known crossover topology. He created novel loudspeaker designs and candidly reported on their performance in objective and subjective terms. He respected the scientific method. His insights and observations will be missed. RIP." Floyd Toole, quoted from https://www.linkwitzlab.com/about_me.htm
 

helom

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
45
Now I regret paying $2390 with tax for my 1.7i. The Kef R3 cost less and probably sound better.

But they don't. I've owned both. The 1.7is produce far deeper and stronger bass. The
highs are also smoother and less fatiguing. The R3 is actually one of the least enjoyable speakers in the KEF catalogue.

A good example of why you're better off judging speakers by how much you enjoy listening to them rather than questionable measurements.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
But they don't. I've owned both. The 1.7is produce far deeper and stronger bass. The
highs are also smoother and less fatiguing. The R3 is actually one of the least enjoyable speakers in the KEF catalogue.

A good example of why you're better off judging speakers by how much you enjoy listening to them rather than questionable measurements.

Uh what? No way lol. The 1.7i have serious problems reproducing anything below 200hz at high SPL, just like all Magnepans short of the largest ones. Even Magnepan's specs don't claim extension below 40hz... And yes, I've owned them, the poor bass is a significant reason I got rid of them. I would say a sub is required with both these speakers, but at least the R3 won't drop 5-10dB from your mid/upper bass without one.
 

helom

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
64
Likes
45
Uh what? No way lol. The 1.7i have serious problems reproducing anything below 200hz at high SPL, just like all Magnepans short of the largest ones. Even Magnepan's specs don't claim extension below 40hz... And yes, I've owned them, the poor bass is a significant reason I got rid of them. I would say a sub is required with both these speakers, but at least the R3 won't drop 5-10dB from your mid/upper bass without one.

Lol. The 1.7is have way more bass output than the R3s when allowed enough space from walls. And their extension is far superior. Have you actually lived with both in the same room or are you merely going off measurements posted in this forum? If the former then you’d know I’m 100% correct on this, or you simply have a poor aural memory.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
Lol. The 1.7is have way more bass output than the R3s when allowed enough space from walls. And their extension is far superior. Have you actually lived with both in the same room or are you merely going off measurements posted in this forum? If the former then you’d know I’m 100% correct on this, or you simply have a poor aural memory.

The things you are saying contradict the basic facts about these speakers so incredibly blatantly that you would need to post detailed measurements of both for me to even begin to take you seriously. Even then, if what you're saying was true in your room, the only explanation would be you're using some setup without any room correction and so the response of both was completely wrong anyways.

E: This was taken with them a full 36" from the back wall, if you moved them another couple of feet you might get rid of the 120hz peak but that's about it. It's not going to magically fill in the response below ~45hz, which drops off like a rock. They are not full range speakers anymore than the R3 are.

And this is ignoring the fact that they simply won't play very loud at those frequencies no matter what you do.

mZ5UMTS.png
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 2944

Guest
Speaker setups without room correction are completely wrong???? :)

Dave.
 

sritacco

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
58
Likes
35
I had the small Magnepans MG 1.4 many years ago, I'm not even sure I remember what happened to them.
They served me well for a number of years and were my entry into more esoteric audio gear. When I could, I graduated to Martin Logan Aerius i speakers, mostly because I guess I had become hooked on panel speakers and lusted after true electrostatics. Sometime thereafter, I also picked up a pair of LS3/5a used. They had impressed me many years earlier. Generally I find they both present the music they play well. Yes, they are different. I've suplemented both of them with sub-woofers and while the Aerius are in a 5.1 setup and the AVR takes care of the crossover to the sub, I left the signal to the LS3/5a's undisturbed and just spent a lot of time tweaking the cutoff freq. and volume of the small sub. I've done A-B listening and I felt satisfied overall that both accurately reproduce the recordings that are fed to them. In fact, I felt, in A-B listening, that either I just gravitate toward a certain "sound" or they are simply both neutral. I would like to think they are both neutral. I wouldn't give up either setup willingly. I put on music, it plays, I smile. The one quirk of the Aerius that I'm aware of, is that woofer down by the floor plays enough midrange that sometimes is does mess with where sounds (vocals in particular) seem located. It's a small flaw, but not a failing.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Speaker setups without room correction are completely wrong???? :)

Dave.

I would say that's true. I guess I wouldn't say "completely". You can get decent sound without room correction, but EQ is necessary(ime) for the bass to get great sound, unless you're just very lucky or have a purpose built room. Have you had success with speakers having a smooth bass response without EQ?

As for 1.7 vs R3 bass, I've heard both now, but in different rooms, so it's hard to compare. I thought the R3 dug a little deeper and sounded a little better down there, but as with all bass, I was hearing the room more than I was the speaker.

I agree with @Sancus that neither is a full range speaker, and both absolutely need subwoofers for "full range 20-20,000 with no compression" sound. The 30.7, with 22Hz extension is the only Maggie I would classify as arguably "full range", though even there it will be limited by output for certain types of music, at least compared to what good subwoofers can do.
 

Sound86

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
60
Likes
37
Location
Germany
I had Magnepan MMG years ago, which I loved a lot. My first real audiophile kinda modern speakers and my first planars as well. I then swapped them to Martin Logan Aerius, which I did not enjoy, then after that Magnepan 2.6, which I didnt like either. I was actually considering buying LRS sometime this year, because they are supposed to be better MMGs and youtube reviews were amazing. Now Im not sure, but I might try anyway, if a good used offer comes up.
 

milosz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
583
Likes
1,643
Location
Chicago
I had Magnepan MMG years ago, which I loved a lot. My first real audiophile kinda modern speakers and my first planars as well. I then swapped them to Martin Logan Aerius, which I did not enjoy, then after that Magnepan 2.6, which I didnt like either. I was actually considering buying LRS sometime this year, because they are supposed to be better MMGs and youtube reviews were amazing. Now Im not sure, but I might try anyway, if a good used offer comes up.

Magnepan can't build LRS fast enough to fulfill demand. I suspect that means that the used market will show elevated prices.

As you probably know, much of the sound quality from a Magneplanar design will depend on room placement and acoustic treatment (if any) Typically one also needs an amplifier capable of delivering faily high power into fairly low impedances.

Magnepan designs their speakers with the goal of providing an experience as close as possible to hearing an orchestra from a fairly close center seat at Minneapolis' Orchestra Hall. This design goal doesn't always result in a speaker that works well with- for example - heavy metal.

I have a pair of MG 3.6's that I have tri-amped using a DEQX, along with a pair of GR Research / Rhythmik open-baffle servo subs. The subs give more flexibility in the kind of music that "works" with the system, and the DSP allows for a more neutral overall "voice" as opposed to the Minneapolis orchestra hall type experience.
 

AudioJester

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
912
Likes
1,211
Magnepan can't build LRS fast enough to fulfill demand. I suspect that means that the used market will show elevated prices.

As you probably know, much of the sound quality from a Magneplanar design will depend on room placement and acoustic treatment (if any) Typically one also needs an amplifier capable of delivering faily high power into fairly low impedances.

Magnepan designs their speakers with the goal of providing an experience as close as possible to hearing an orchestra from a fairly close center seat at Minneapolis' Orchestra Hall. This design goal doesn't always result in a speaker that works well with- for example - heavy metal.

I have a pair of MG 3.6's that I have tri-amped using a DEQX, along with a pair of GR Research / Rhythmik open-baffle servo subs. The subs give more flexibility in the kind of music that "works" with the system, and the DSP allows for a more neutral overall "voice" as opposed to the Minneapolis orchestra hall type experience.

Sounds like an awesome setup. How high do you run the paper cone subs?
Any measurements of your setup?
 

josh358

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
493
Likes
387
I had Magnepan MMG years ago, which I loved a lot. My first real audiophile kinda modern speakers and my first planars as well. I then swapped them to Martin Logan Aerius, which I did not enjoy, then after that Magnepan 2.6, which I didnt like either. I was actually considering buying LRS sometime this year, because they are supposed to be better MMGs and youtube reviews were amazing. Now Im not sure, but I might try anyway, if a good used offer comes up.
If you liked the MMG's, you'll *love* the LRS. I used to have a pair of MMG's and I've heard the LRS, and it's basically an MMG that sounds very much better, more like the larger speakers in their line (but don't expect it to plumb the depths or work in a large room!)

I'd suggest buying it from Magnepan, since they have a money-back guarantee that they're serious about -- they *want* people to try it because they know that some will move up to their larger and more profitable models. So you can send it back without guilt -- but very few do, which is why they can offer the money-back deal in the first place. :)
 

Sound86

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
60
Likes
37
Location
Germany
Magnepan can't build LRS fast enough to fulfill demand. I suspect that means that the used market will show elevated prices.

As you probably know, much of the sound quality from a Magneplanar design will depend on room placement and acoustic treatment (if any) Typically one also needs an amplifier capable of delivering faily high power into fairly low impedances.

Magnepan designs their speakers with the goal of providing an experience as close as possible to hearing an orchestra from a fairly close center seat at Minneapolis' Orchestra Hall. This design goal doesn't always result in a speaker that works well with- for example - heavy metal.

I have a pair of MG 3.6's that I have tri-amped using a DEQX, along with a pair of GR Research / Rhythmik open-baffle servo subs. The subs give more flexibility in the kind of music that "works" with the system, and the DSP allows for a more neutral overall "voice" as opposed to the Minneapolis orchestra hall type experience.

True. Ive been following the used market for a while now. In Europe the prices for a new pair arent quite as competitive as in the US, so I havent pulled the trigger yet. From what I have heard on Youtube people liked the smaller Hegels a lot, H90 or the newer H95, and I might give that a shot. My music preference is women voices, acoustic instruments, live recordings and especially concerts. Like I said I really loved the MMGs and they fitted my music taste rather well. In hindsight I should never have sold them (its not like they take up a lot of space), but you all know how it goes... You get that itch and want something better ;-)
 
Top Bottom