Magnepan LRS Speaker Review

[josh358]

3.7's don't change much when you stand up

Because the 3.7's are closer to a full height line source! You want to listen to a line source in the *near* field, otherwise it beams horribly as in Amirm's measurements.

If you run a finite line source from floor to ceiling, it approximates an infinite line because of the floor and ceiling reflections. But if it's short, it's just going to beam because it will act like any speaker where a dimension is more than half the wavelength.

 

[Thomas savage]

It means Nickelback will sound better.

That's one achievement humanity could do without .

 

[josh358]

These are the best measuring Magnepans I've ever seen. Now I'm curious how well their more expensive speakers measure with NFS.

?

My old IVA's measure beautifully. The larger the model, the better they measure. Are you thinking of Stereophiles old measurements?

 

[AudioTodd]

It means Nickelback will sound better.

But still won’t do anything to help Dave Mathews. Only the complete removal of the speaker can do that.

 

[richard12511]

All speakers are fundamentally flawed. There's a reason people like planar speakers -- incredibly bang for the buck. But it depends on what you're looking for. If you want deep bass without a sub and don't care about naturalism, you'll probably get better bang for the buck with a box. If you love acoustical music and value naturalism, planars are a better choice at a given price point. And most people will hear that right away in an A/B comparison at a dealer's, which is why they're so popular despite being awkward behemoths!

I think I’m gonna buy these guys. I’m starting to amass a pretty good collection here(11 speakers and counting) and I really want to start A/Bing them blind. Would be great to have these to see how they stack up in actual listening tests.

 

[q3cpma]

All speakers are fundamentally flawed.

That's a nice opinion.

 

[josh358]

Interesting.. I've heard *nothing*but gushing platitudes about the sheer perfection of these speakers from every source I've seen/ read ... It's obvious that some of the reviewers drank the hype kool aid... The measurements seem to indicate a seriously flawed speaker....i guess i don't have to worry about upgrading to a "better" amp as all those reviews suggest "to get the most" outta these...lol

I'm not sure that it's so obvious.

Here for example are the in-room measurements that Dick Olsher made of the LRS's predecessor, the MMG:

The first is in-room 1 meter response, the second far field third octave response. Where is the huge bass rolloff?

And you can see Stereophile's measurement of the LRS here -- unfortunately it's a near field measurement, but when you overlay the 6 dB/octave dipole rolloff on it, you get bass response that's similar to the MMG's:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-measurements

The LRS is the same size as the MMG and differs mostly in that it uses foil rather than wire on the woofer. So why did Amirm measure no bass at all?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I've heard them with a drum track and they didn't roll off at 250 Hz. They sounded like the MMG -- no deep bass, but flat down to 60 Hz or so, with the proximity effect suckout from the front wall reflection at about 125 Hz.

One possibility is that it was measured in one of those unfortunate rooms that makes dipole bass extension disappear. This happens with dipoles because they don't excite the horizontal or vertical axial modes, and that in turn means that a Z-axis null at the point at which the bass rolls off will slay the bass extension. And that may have "conspired" with the proximity effect null, which depends on the distance of the speaker from the front wall. But it's just a guess -- the room could have been too large to load the baffle properly as well.

In any case, based on these three things -- Stereophile's measurement, Dick Olsher's in-room measurements of the MMG, and my own brief listen at AXPONA -- I'd expect the in-room response in a room of moderate size to look more like Dick Olsher's. Maybe someone who has a pair could make some in-room measurements?

 

[MZKM]

A minus preference rating , what dose that mean ? You'd rather they were broken and produced no sound ?

Still better than the Realistics MC-100.

It’s simply that no speaker used that the formula was derived from had such terrible bass extension, which gives the wonky result.

 

[hardisj]

Thanks 72 txt-files of directivity data in below zip-folder..

Thanks. Here you go.



Horizontal:

Vertical:

The vertical looks suspcious. I'd expect it to be more symmetrical. But then I remembered Amir stated:

A set of metal stands forces a some amount of lean back which I find surprising. By dropping a couple of rings, you can tilt the speaker less and is something that is recommended by the company if listening past 10 feet or so. I was worried about measuring the speaker so leaning back in its default position so I tiled it up mostly to the angle that would be if you used the secondary, more upright position.

And his graphic also shows this:

Imagine you are standing on the right looking into the speaker. We see that the radiation pattern on the back and front follow the tilt axis of the speaker as it was measured. Also indicated clearly is that we have a narrow range of radiation before we hit pockets that are nulls or have less power (no red color in them). These interference patterns must be due to multiple sources playing at once and creating the complex sound field I talked about at the start of the review.

So, yep, my globe validates this (as it should; it's the same set of data).

 

[josh358]

I think I’m gonna buy these guys. I’m starting to amass a pretty good collection here(11 speakers and counting) and I really want to start A/Bing them blind. Would be great to have these to see how they stack up in actual listening tests.

Excellent, I'll be curious to hear the results! I'm still puzzled as to why dipoles measure so poorly and sound so good on acoustical music. I mean, I know some of the reasons, but not all. The spatial stuff is easy to explain -- polar pattern -- and so is the natural bass -- they don't excite the X and Y axial room modes. But planars have a transparency to them that all but the most esoteric dynamic speakers don't have.

Low harmonic distortion? Good nearfield waterfall? Directionality? I just don't know. But ESL's have the most of that transparency, followed by true ribbons, followed by quasi ribbons. Actually horns are somewhere in there too, followed by very esoteric dynamics (the Magicos, say, but not the Wilsons, which have more of a pleasant but mushy "hi fi" sound).

 

[Baxtr]

In-room I get bass to down to around 60Hz according to my measurements with out a sub. I have the speakers about 4ft from the wall and my listening position is about 7ft back. I added an RSL Speedwoofer to fill in bass and have it crossed-over at 60Hz. I also really like the results it got with using Dirac on these speakers. They are really fun speakers and sound so different from everything else I have. When I A/B between these and a standard speaker I immediately hear the box.

 

[NTK]

...
Where is the huge bass rolloff?
...

Do you know how little 80 dB SPL at 70 Hz is? It sounds as loud as 55 dB SPL at 1 kHz.

 

[firedog]

Interesting.. I've heard *nothing*but gushing platitudes about the sheer perfection of these speakers from every source I've seen/ read ... It's obvious that some of the reviewers drank the hype kool aid... The measurements seem to indicate a seriously flawed speaker....i guess i don't have to worry about upgrading to a "better" amp as all those reviews suggest "to get the most" outta these...lol

I haven't heard these, but lots of people love them and their larger brothers. I don't think it means they are crazy, but just that in speakers different people are looking for very different things, and one persons good sound is another's "ick". People gush about all sorts of speakers both cheap and expensive that I don't like. And they'd probably hate mine, which measure really well.

 

[Tks]

I wonder how much simulation and in field analysis was performed as I have shown here. Doesn't seem like much was done to find and remove issues with this speaker.

Yeah this was the only thing on my mind. If you had to go through all this and messing about trying to get it as functionally ready for listening as possible... What the heck were they doing to where they concluded "yeah, we're good here, put it on the shop".

 

[BYRTT]

.....So, yep, my globe validates this (as it should; it's the same set of data).

Great thanks globes looks more than fantastic, but what are happening to horizontals where yours looks like software copyed and duplicated right side over to the left side ..

In Amir's there a hole in left side around 1kHz..

Same hole is in mine whatever span is 80/60/50/40/30/20dB and radar paint it loud and clear too there is inteference at left side @1kHz ..

 

[ahofer]

As the singers voice changed tonality, it would sometimes shift left and right.

That is why I gave up my IIIa Magnepans years ago. There is something wonderful about the sound field of Magnepans, and I love the look, but I couldn’t stop being distracted by image inconsistencies in classical music.

I keep thinking there’s some pleasing sound-enveloping quality that isn’t captured in these Olive preference measures, and may, in fact, be at odds with them.

 

[leeroy 85032]

I haven't heard these, but lots of people love them and their larger brothers. I don't think it means they are crazy, but just that in speakers different people are looking for very different things, and one persons good sound is another's "ick". People gush about all sorts of speakers both cheap and expensive that I don't like. And they'd probably hate mine, which measure really well.

i agree with your "gist"(as i interpret it).. my thoughts more revolve around my disdain for blanket "awe" among reviewers (some of them obviously overlook this speakers many and obvious flaws) and the blanket assertion that they are worth a massive upgrade to your upstream equipment to listen to a seriously flawed $650 speaker...but then again , i'm just a guy who digs music and likes to know why and how it all fits together as a hobby...iow , i'm not a #'s and graph nerd , just a guy that realizes that's the beginning of understanding *why* and what i might like...

 

[CDMC]

Excellent, and massive, job @amirm ! I found no surprises and the measurements match the ones I took decades ago (not nearly as extensive) and since (ditto). The true ribbon tweeter does much better than their panels, one of the things that steered me to the 3 and 20 series rather than the 1 and 2 series decades ago, and anyone who thinks they do great bass is fooling themselves. Even the large panels distort heavily when driven by high-level bass signals. They need a sub (back then I DIY'd a servo sub; now it's Rythmik and there are a myriad of options available). I figured that out ca. 1980, after having my (used) MG-I's for a year or so. And yes they take a lot of fiddling with placement and room treatment to get happy. Back then their low distortion at higher frequencies and the fairly seamless transition from lows to high (with the right setup) was much better than almost all speakers available. Always loved their sound, but am quite satisfied with my (gasp!) conventional replacement speakers.

The "dots" on the panels are to break up panel modes by tying down the panels at "key" points. To help make them less audible, the tie-down points are different for left and right panels. More exotic means are used by ESLs that have the same issue.

Just to add to this based on my experience of owing Maggies for 25 years, from the SMGa through the 3.5s:

1) The smaller Maggies are bass deficient. They will produce bass down to 60 hz or so before really rolling, but as shown in Amir's measurements, it is shelved down in level. The larger Maggies don't have this issue, see my below in room measurements of my 3.5s run full range which make it flat down into the 40hz range before falling off the cliff.

2) The ribbon Maggies don't have as bad of comb filtering. The ribbons are much more narrow than the QR and once in the ribbon range, there is less of an issue. The ribbons also have a more open and delicate sound than the QR.

3) They act as a line source in the vertical plane. The smaller ones make this very apparent when you stand up. The 3 series and above are tall enough that even standing you are generally within the pattern (you must be over 6 feet tall to get above the panels direction), so are very consistent from sitting to standing.

4) As Don states, they really need to be crossed over and subs used to control bass distortion and get adequate bass at realistic levels. This is even true with the 3 series. I found them to work much better high passed at 80hz than running them full range.

5) They are inefficient and power hungry, but not really a hard load, as they are almost purely restive. For the smaller Maggies, I found that about 200 watts per channel into their 4 ohms worked well. The larger ones need 400 plus to wake up. The good thing is with Class D amps, you can now get this power at a reasonable price.

6) They are dynamically limited. Even pushing over 600 watts to each of my 3.5s, at best they would hit about 102db in room.

7) They sound really, really, really good on a lot of material. The problem is inconsistency, they can also make other material sound poor. If you are looking for an accurate representation of the material, there are many better choices.

8) They have a limited volume range where they sound "right". At low volumes they are flat and lifeless, then you hit a point where they are great, then you hit the distortion/dynamic limitations.

9) I miss my Maggies. That said, my F208s are far more consistent in their performance across different materials and a wide range of volume levels. They sound good at low levels and stay composed at extremely high sound levels. My wife also finds their sizing much more acceptable. '

 

[leeroy 85032]

I'm not sure that it's so obvious.

Here for example are the in-room measurements that Dick Olsher made of the LRS's predecessor, the MMG:

View attachment 83719View attachment 83720

The first is in-room 1 meter response, the second far field third octave response. Where is the huge bass rolloff?

And you can see Stereophile's measurement of the LRS here -- unfortunately it's a near field measurement, but when you overlay the 6 dB/octave dipole rolloff on it, you get bass response that's similar to the MMG's:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-measurements

The LRS is the same size as the MMG and differs mostly in that it uses foil rather than wire on the woofer. So why did Amirm measure no bass at all?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I've heard them with a drum track and they didn't roll off at 250 Hz. They sounded like the MMG -- no deep bass, but flat down to 60 Hz or so, with the proximity effect suckout from the front wall reflection at about 125 Hz.

One possibility is that it was measured in one of those unfortunate rooms that makes dipole bass extension disappear. This happens with dipoles because they don't excite the horizontal or vertical axial modes, and that in turn means that a Z-axis null at the point at which the bass rolls off will slay the bass extension. And that may have "conspired" with the proximity effect null, which depends on the distance of the speaker from the front wall. But it's just a guess -- the room could have been too large to load the baffle properly as well.

In any case, based on these three things -- Stereophile's measurement, Dick Olsher's in-room measurements of the MMG, and my own brief listen at AXPONA -- I'd expect the in-room response in a room of moderate size to look more like Dick Olsher's. Maybe someone who has a pair could make some in-room measurements?

that's interesting... i wonder if there were some mistakes made.. room interaction would be a serious thought... listening(amir) seems to back that possibility...

 

[YSC]

interesting, I remember once listening to a friend's big Magnepans, never think it could be measured so bad like this, at least the bass in his room don't remotely showed such roll off