Mission LX-3 MKII Speaker Review

[TheBatsEar]

Just had a pair delivered at $399 CAD. Right out of the box I find it very listenable and natural sounding, moreso than other similar sized and priced speakers I'm auditioning for a second system, e.g. various Polks and Elacs. The tweeter/treble is much smoother than the others for example. The tests I run are, does a cello sound like a cello, similarly, for a piano. Yes to the former, somewhat for the latter. I've listened to it for a couple of hours and I'm not yet tempted to experiment with EQ, placement, etc. again unlike the other speakers I've tried.

Like the Wharfedale Linton 85, they seem to couple nice with my room or something, they had a wide and seat independent stereo illusion for me.
Sadly, i can't really point to the measurement and say this or that is the reason. I'm sure it's in the measurement, but i can't see it.
Except their good bass response for their size, that is obvious.

Lent them to a friend who found them pleasant, but unremarkable.
However, he also loves the KEF R3, which i find just "ok".
It's all a mystery sometimes.

Luckily they have dropped from 430€ to 300€ here now, which brought them from meh to good value.

 

[Thomas_A]

Like the Wharfedale Linton 85, they seem to couple nice with my room or something, they had a wide and seat independent stereo illusion for me.
Sadly, i can't really point to the measurement and say this or that is the reason. I'm sure it's in the measurement, but i can't see it.
Except their good bass response for their size, that is obvious.

Lent them to a friend who found them pleasant, but unremarkable.
However, he also loves the KEF R3, which i find just "ok".
It's all a mystery sometimes.

Luckily they have dropped from 430€ to 300€ here now, which brought them from meh to good value.

Perhaps it is the small mid driver and its relative wide baffle size. Most speakers have quite poor baffle support for mid frequencies.

 

[Brab]

A follow-up to my initial impressions above: I do notice some midbass boominess and excessive presence, just the sort of thing you'd expect to make the speakers stand out in a store. Is this evident in Amir's measurements? I ran a PEQ via my Yamaha receiver which seems to agree and dialled both back very nicely. I wish the receiver could show what it's done to correct the frequency response but as far as i know that's not possible. At any rate I've just been listening to some Bruckner and am still finding the Missions quite listenable and impressive for their price. My reference by the way is a pair of classic Spendors in the living room.

 

[Lawrence of Suburbia]

Hi, new member here.

Brief general question for those who've heard both: are the LX-3 MkIIs subjectively brighter- or darker-sounding than the Wharfedale Diamond 220s (reviewed here awhile back)? The Missions currently on-sale for $269 on Amazon, seems another great deal!

I bought the 220s based on the review here, GREAT speakers for the money ($249 on closeout on Amazon). Very clear! But, for me, a bit too much upper-midrange and treble at times (badly-mastered or recorded CDs are revealed in all their terrible magnitude). Metal and hard rock are the usual culprits, everything else is tickety-boo.

EQ not really an option, my system is old, 'Flat Earth' Naim with DIN connections and a very confusing signal path amongst CD deck, amp and power supply.

 

[raindance]

Hi, new member here.

Brief general question for those who've heard both: are the LX-3 MkIIs subjectively brighter- or darker-sounding than the Wharfedale Diamond 220s (reviewed here awhile back)? The Missions currently on-sale for $269 on Amazon, seems another great deal!

I bought the 220s based on the review here, GREAT speakers for the money ($249 on closeout on Amazon). Very clear! But, for me, a bit too much upper-midrange and treble at times (badly-mastered or recorded CDs are revealed in all their terrible magnitude). Metal and hard rock are the usual culprits, everything else is tickety-boo.

EQ not really an option, my system is old, 'Flat Earth' Naim with DIN connections and a very confusing signal path amongst CD deck, amp and power supply.

I've heard both in my old listening room which was well treated with absorbtion, well actually the 220 vs the LX-2. The 220's need to be right up against the wall to be "in balance" or they'll be bass shy. Even then they're a bit midrange dominated

Contrary to the Wharfedales, the Missions (I used the LX-2) need to be about a foot or more away from the wall or there'll be too much bass (you could plug the ports I suppose). They were much more laid back sounding in the mids and treble than the Wharfedales, almost dull I'd say, with much, much more extended bass (they excited a 46Hz resonance in my room quite effectively, which the Wharfedales didn't excite at all.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Hi, new member here.

Brief general question for those who've heard both: are the LX-3 MkIIs subjectively brighter- or darker-sounding than the Wharfedale Diamond 220s (reviewed here awhile back)? The Missions currently on-sale for $269 on Amazon, seems another great deal!

I bought the 220s based on the review here, GREAT speakers for the money ($249 on closeout on Amazon). Very clear! But, for me, a bit too much upper-midrange and treble at times (badly-mastered or recorded CDs are revealed in all their terrible magnitude). Metal and hard rock are the usual culprits, everything else is tickety-boo.

EQ not really an option, my system is old, 'Flat Earth' Naim with DIN connections and a very confusing signal path amongst CD deck, amp and power supply.

I haven had the 220.
Based on the measurements, yes, i would say the Mission are a bit darker. What you get for sure is a massive amount of bass, at -10dB the Wharfedale are at 59Hz, the Mission at 41Hz. That will bring a lot warmth too:

Easily compare loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

You have to consider that they are a good bit larger as well and can play louder with less distortion. The only drawback of the Mission is the slight directivity error, wasn't a problem for me.

 

[Lawrence of Suburbia]

Thank you raindance and TheBatsEar! A big help to me. I may opt for the LX-2 instead, I have neighbors on both sides of my tiny studio flat so, 'party bass' might hinder my attempts at border diplomacy. Plus, the LX-2s are on sale on Amazon for US$229 ... almost free!

 

[cab1024]

I've heard both in my old listening room which was well treated with absorbtion, well actually the 220 vs the LX-2. The 220's need to be right up against the wall to be "in balance" or they'll be bass shy. Even then they're a bit midrange dominated

Contrary to the Wharfedales, the Missions (I used the LX-2) need to be about a foot or more away from the wall or there'll be too much bass (you could plug the ports I suppose). They were much more laid back sounding in the mids and treble than the Wharfedales, almost dull I'd say, with much, much more extended bass (they excited a 46Hz resonance in my room quite effectively, which the Wharfedales didn't excite at all.

How do you measure the extended bass in your room? I'd love to measure the frequency response of my LX-4 MKII in my room. I swear they go nearly as low as when used with my Velodyne CT100 subwoofer with front crossover set to 60Hz and sub crossover set to 80Hz.

 

[TheBatsEar]

How do you measure the extended bass in your room?

I use a MiniDSP Umik1, well worth the money i think.

 

[raindance]

How do you measure the extended bass in your room? I'd love to measure the frequency response of my LX-4 MKII in my room. I swear they go nearly as low as when used with my Velodyne CT100 subwoofer with front crossover set to 60Hz and sub crossover set to 80Hz.

Use REW with the UMIK-1. FYI, the CT-100 subwoofer doesn't go very low, I used to have one.