• 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!

Mission LX-3 MKII Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 13 6.2%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 75 35.5%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 113 53.6%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 10 4.7%

  • Total voters
    211

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,375
Likes
234,488
Location
Seattle Area
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).
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker Review.jpg

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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker back panel port Review.jpg


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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker frequency response measurement.png

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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker near-field frequency response measurement.png


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):
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker early window frequency response measurement.png


Putting both together using a prototype listening room, we get rather nice response:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker Predicted in-room frequency response measurement.png


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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker beamwidth measurement.png


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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker horizontal beamwidth measurement.png


Despite attempt in getting the acoustic center of the woofer and tweeter together, we see the classic issue of narrow sweet spot:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker vertical beamwidth measurement.png


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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker THD distortion measurement.png

LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker relative THD distortion measurement.png


Impedance is on the low side although rather typical for the class:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker Impedance and Phase measurement.png


Finally, here is our CSD/Waterfall and step responses:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker CSD waterfall measurement.png

LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker Step Response measurement.png


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:
LX-3 MKII Bookshelf Speaker equalization parametric eq.png

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/
 

Attachments

  • Mission LX-3 MKII.zip
    60.5 KB · Views: 102

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
given the price and the panther rating I am surprised to see such performance! at the price I would call it good, especially considering it's passive speaker without DSP helping to achieve this
 

Maiky76

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
441
Likes
3,708
Location
French, living in China
Here is my take on the EQ.

Please report your findings, positive or negative!

The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 4.5
With Sub: 6.8

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Lots of resonances
  • Not flat
  • Directivity issue typical to old school two ways with no waveguide on the tweeter
Mission LX3 No EQ Spinorama.png

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

Mission LX3 2D surface Directivity Contour Only Data.png

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
  • Very hard to EQ but the Score EQ tracks the bare speaker surprisingly well, someone spent time to perform the tuning...
Score EQ LW: 4.9
with sub: 7.9

Score EQ Score: 5.9
with sub: 8.2

Code:
Mission LX3 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May172023-173842

Preamp: -3 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 53.18,    -1.41,    1.14
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 128.74,    -1.01,    1.69
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 532.74,    1.06,    2.22
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 651.33,    -1.44,    4.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1223.81,    -1.70,    4.99
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2081.73,    -1.79,    4.64
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3556.25,    -1.95,    4.99
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 3535.17,    2.91,    0.52
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8578.42,    -1.76,    4.85
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 14831.76,    2.52,    0.58


Mission LX3 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
May172023-173842

Preamp: -3 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 55.26,    0.00,    1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 126.55,    -1.24,    0.91
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 655.37,    -1.45,    4.88
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1210.35,    -2.46,    4.99
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2320.55,    -2.08,    4.86
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3244.62,    2.87,    0.70
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3550.59,    -2.45,    4.88
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5309.09,    -2.17,    2.95
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 8345.29,    -2.87,    2.73
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 11845.95,    3.27,    4.21
Mission LX3 EQ Design.png


Spinorama EQ LW
Mission LX3 LW EQ Spinorama.png


Spinorama EQ Score
Mission LX3 Score EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Mission LX3 EQ Zoom.png


Regression - Tonal
Mission LX3 EQ Regression.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements
Mission LX3 Radar.png


The rest of the plots is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Mission LX3 APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
    522 bytes · Views: 41
  • Mission LX3 APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
    518 bytes · Views: 37
  • Mission LX3 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    Mission LX3 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
    430.7 KB · Views: 33
  • Mission LX3 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    Mission LX3 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
    311.2 KB · Views: 37
  • Mission LX3 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    Mission LX3 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
    438.6 KB · Views: 69
  • Mission LX3 Normalized Directivity data.png
    Mission LX3 Normalized Directivity data.png
    321.7 KB · Views: 55
  • Mission LX3 Raw Directivity data.png
    Mission LX3 Raw Directivity data.png
    499.8 KB · Views: 42
  • Mission LX3 Reflexion data.png
    Mission LX3 Reflexion data.png
    143.9 KB · Views: 47
  • Mission LX3 LW data.png
    Mission LX3 LW data.png
    151.4 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,208
A good old school design and tuning, those, like most of the loudspeakers from IAD group (Wharfedale, Quad) are engineered and tuned by Peter Comeau who is very long in the business and knows how to voice such a directivity mismatch so it still sounds ok, namely by making the on-axis response at the region recessed so the sound power and PIR don't get a peak at that region.
 

Vict0r

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
647
Likes
1,581
Location
The Netherlands
Mission is like Magnat here in Western Europe. If you just want something decent, you go to a thrift store or to the local Craigslist thingy, and pick up either brand for pennies and have a good time. I've bought quite a few Mission speakers back in the day, back when I was still a student. €50 at the thrift store gets you almost-hifi, and if your intoxicated buddies accidentally throw a pair down the stairs, you can easily replace them without going broke. :p
 

TheBatsEar

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3,084
Likes
4,962
Location
Germany
Thanks @amirm for the review.
Luckily i have a MiniDSP Flex to tune the speakers a bit to my room. A small waveguide should be on the developers mind for MKIII, and maybe white grilles for an even better WAF.
I paid 190€ for the pair due to a price error at Amazon, so i can't really complain. I'm sure deals in Europe will pop up eventually.
Voted fine.

PXL_20230427_100452691.jpg
PXL_20230427_103619828.jpg

PXL_20230427_100743802.jpgPXL_20230427_100839477.jpg
PXL_20230427_100523972.jpgPXL_20230427_100458415.jpgPXL_20230427_100532751.jpgPXL_20230427_100634467.jpgPXL_20230427_100611076.jpgPXL_20230427_100618003.jpg
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
Quite nice though for the price. Having the speaker near wall with damping behind (damping port resonance) and a coffee table in front of the sofa, taking care of the floor bounce, it should sound quite good.
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
2,407
Location
Sweden
What is the cause of this directivity error when woofer and tweeter are this close? Phase mismatch?
One thing which is odd is the x-over. The woofer drops sharply at 3.5 kHz. Not sure what filter order they were aiming for.
 
Last edited:

TheBatsEar

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3,084
Likes
4,962
Location
Germany
There is a gentleman at Youtube that took a pair of LX-2 MKII apart. I haven't watched his video but only scrolled through to make a few pics for this thread.
The difference to the LX-3 MKII seems to be the enclosure volume and the woofer size.

The speakers come with foam plugs for the port, and inside they have some kind of speaker grille mesh glued in. It's an odd detail.
1684320999147.png


The enclosure is well done MDF with internal bracings:
1684321341748.png

1684322717503.png

1684322805642.png


If one wanted to lessen the 1khz port resonance, i think it would be a good idea to replace this dampening material with something heavier.
Does anyone have experience with that and can give a hint how to effectively do it?
1684322571773.png


The woofer is stamped metal, which is to be expected in this price range. The motor has two magnets.
Is this to get more magnetic flux out of it without using pricier rare earth magnetic materials?
1684321567630.png

1684321712929.png



What is the point of these holes?
1684321843074.png


Tweeter mounting looks rickety, with washers. :)
The beauty plate (as well as the woofers beauty ring) is pressed into rubber filed holes, which is a nice way of mounting the tweeter assembly: no visible screws, higher WAF.
1684321946453.png

1684322146299.png


The crossover network is mounted to the speaker termninal assembly:
1684322383989.png

1684322453633.png


Word on the streets is that GR Research will open the speaker soon, find the parts are cheesy, and sell a kit to replace some crossover network parts, the cabling and the speaker terminal. :p
 

Postlan

Active Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
112
Likes
72
I think this is a very good deal.

Sale price $249.99 USD
 

GWolfman

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Messages
624
Likes
1,041
Interesting little thing. Maybe ok for garage speakers but nothing I’d like for my primary system. EQ is a must, as @amirm points out, which raises the cost and complexity.
 
Last edited:

Doenerkunde

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2022
Messages
62
Likes
149
What is the point of these holes?
View attachment 286037
There is no pole core drilling of the magnet so air would get trapped between the membrane and the magnet. It probably is cheaper to prevent this by holes in the conjunction between membrane and voice coil than by drilling a hole in the magnet. Maybe one could argue that ventilation helps keeping the voice coil temperature down.
 

FrankW

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2023
Messages
393
Likes
373
They came back from the dead to make speakers with 2023 styling and 70/80s directivity?
 

PatentLawyer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2021
Messages
398
Likes
690
Location
Deep in the Soundstage
Gosh, you could do *so* much worse for $250. Fine.
 
Top Bottom