This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Mission LX-3 MKII bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and is on sale for US $250 (pair).
It is an attractive looking speaker with some vertical optimization by cutting the tweeter into the woofer surround. Alas, there is hardly a waveguide so we may experience directivity errors (mismatch between tweeter and woofer radiation). The cabinet is deep for its size and has a luxurious rubberized paint that is actually slick. It shows fingerprints as a result but is nice still. Back panel doesn't show much interesting:
I did not use the grill for testing. Reference axis was the lower ring of the woofer (found by near-field experimentation).
If you are new to speaker measurements, please see my video on understanding speaker measurements.
Mission LX-3 MKII Speaker Measurements
As usual we start with our standardized frequency response measurements:
Story starts really good with nice low frequency extension and very flat response up to about 1 kHz after which we start to get various ups and downs. We also see a directivity error in the way the radiation pattern suddenly gets wider when the tweeter takes over (due to lack of waveguide). We can see the reason behind some of the variations in the near-field measurements:
We see the classic cabinet/port resonance poking around 1.1 kHz. And strangely uneven tweeter response. On the positive front I like the high order truncation of the woofer response as evidenced by that sharp drop around 4 kHz.
Near field response is not bad actually (due to averaging, it is smoother than on-axis):
Putting both together using a prototype listening room, we get rather nice response:
Note however that the uneven directivity around the crossover means that the actual response will be more room dependent than it would be otherwise.
We can see the directivity error easily in beamwidth measurement:
See how the -6 dBSPL point gets wider at 4 kHz. A waveguide would have pulled that closer to that of the woofer and where the tweeter naturally beams (narrows). We can see the same issue in our directivity contour plot:
Despite attempt in getting the acoustic center of the woofer and tweeter together, we see the classic issue of narrow sweet spot:
So best to not go lower than reference axis. It also backs my choice to select the woofer ring instead of tweeter as that point.
Distortion is reasonable at 86 dBSPL especially in upper bass where a lot of small speakers suffer:
Impedance is on the low side although rather typical for the class:
Finally, here is our CSD/Waterfall and step responses:
Mission LX-3 MKII Listening Tests and Equalization
Out of box performance wasn't bad. There was plenty of volume to be had and overall tonality only seemed a bit wrong. Developing an EQ seemed challenging at first as the peaks are very narrow in frequency. Still, I gave it a try and results were positive:
While tonality improved some, the biggest effect to me was the improved clarity and instrument separation, likely due to reduction of distortion. There was enough bass out of the speaker to interact with my listening room, making it sound boomy. So I dialed in my standard filter at 105 Hz. So if you are going to copy my EQ, please don't use that filter but develop your own. Depending on how you dial this in, you could wind up with brighter sound.
Sub-bass notes caused audible distortion but not too bad. Crank up the volume and at some point you start to hear some ticking sound after which, some compression seems to set it as the speaker refused to get much louder (I did not push it). What was there was plenty though especially for a speaker in this size and class, outperforming many competitors.
With EQ in place, I could enjoy about 70% of my music tracks. Typical of wide dispersion speakers, some high frequencies would resonate in my very large space which could either be cool in the way they develop in 3-D space. Or call attention to themselves.
Conclusions
The LX-3 MKII is a clear mix of good and bad. On positive front, it looks very nice and has good bass extension and response. Lack of waveguide and uneven response hurts it though. Fortunately he undulations are small so corresponding EQ can correct most of it resulting in an enjoyable experience with most music. At its retail price of $570 I would look elsewhere but at $250, it is a very tempting choice if you can EQ it.
Without EQ, I can't recommend the Mission LX-3 MKII. With EQ, I could go along to the party.....
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
It is an attractive looking speaker with some vertical optimization by cutting the tweeter into the woofer surround. Alas, there is hardly a waveguide so we may experience directivity errors (mismatch between tweeter and woofer radiation). The cabinet is deep for its size and has a luxurious rubberized paint that is actually slick. It shows fingerprints as a result but is nice still. Back panel doesn't show much interesting:
I did not use the grill for testing. Reference axis was the lower ring of the woofer (found by near-field experimentation).
If you are new to speaker measurements, please see my video on understanding speaker measurements.
Mission LX-3 MKII Speaker Measurements
As usual we start with our standardized frequency response measurements:
Story starts really good with nice low frequency extension and very flat response up to about 1 kHz after which we start to get various ups and downs. We also see a directivity error in the way the radiation pattern suddenly gets wider when the tweeter takes over (due to lack of waveguide). We can see the reason behind some of the variations in the near-field measurements:
We see the classic cabinet/port resonance poking around 1.1 kHz. And strangely uneven tweeter response. On the positive front I like the high order truncation of the woofer response as evidenced by that sharp drop around 4 kHz.
Near field response is not bad actually (due to averaging, it is smoother than on-axis):
Putting both together using a prototype listening room, we get rather nice response:
Note however that the uneven directivity around the crossover means that the actual response will be more room dependent than it would be otherwise.
We can see the directivity error easily in beamwidth measurement:
See how the -6 dBSPL point gets wider at 4 kHz. A waveguide would have pulled that closer to that of the woofer and where the tweeter naturally beams (narrows). We can see the same issue in our directivity contour plot:
Despite attempt in getting the acoustic center of the woofer and tweeter together, we see the classic issue of narrow sweet spot:
So best to not go lower than reference axis. It also backs my choice to select the woofer ring instead of tweeter as that point.
Distortion is reasonable at 86 dBSPL especially in upper bass where a lot of small speakers suffer:
Impedance is on the low side although rather typical for the class:
Finally, here is our CSD/Waterfall and step responses:
Mission LX-3 MKII Listening Tests and Equalization
Out of box performance wasn't bad. There was plenty of volume to be had and overall tonality only seemed a bit wrong. Developing an EQ seemed challenging at first as the peaks are very narrow in frequency. Still, I gave it a try and results were positive:
While tonality improved some, the biggest effect to me was the improved clarity and instrument separation, likely due to reduction of distortion. There was enough bass out of the speaker to interact with my listening room, making it sound boomy. So I dialed in my standard filter at 105 Hz. So if you are going to copy my EQ, please don't use that filter but develop your own. Depending on how you dial this in, you could wind up with brighter sound.
Sub-bass notes caused audible distortion but not too bad. Crank up the volume and at some point you start to hear some ticking sound after which, some compression seems to set it as the speaker refused to get much louder (I did not push it). What was there was plenty though especially for a speaker in this size and class, outperforming many competitors.
With EQ in place, I could enjoy about 70% of my music tracks. Typical of wide dispersion speakers, some high frequencies would resonate in my very large space which could either be cool in the way they develop in 3-D space. Or call attention to themselves.
Conclusions
The LX-3 MKII is a clear mix of good and bad. On positive front, it looks very nice and has good bass extension and response. Lack of waveguide and uneven response hurts it though. Fortunately he undulations are small so corresponding EQ can correct most of it resulting in an enjoyable experience with most music. At its retail price of $570 I would look elsewhere but at $250, it is a very tempting choice if you can EQ it.
Without EQ, I can't recommend the Mission LX-3 MKII. With EQ, I could go along to the party.....
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/