Mission LX-3 MKII Speaker Review

[TheBatsEar]

Is that like the stuff on some Boston Acoustics towers I got for $20/pair because the stuff becomes sticky? And then you try to clean it but it doesn't really work completely, and eventually it is sticky again?

Let me clarify that this may not be paint but some soft touch material. But yes, those paints were horrible in the way they got sticky.

I think it's just textured/satin vinyl. Back side, upper corner:

 

[pathtonowhere]

What is the 1.2kHz resonance? Port, cabinet, or both? Does it manifest at any sound pressure level?
In the review charts it's registered as a port noise. If it's so, it's one of the worst port noise I've seen measured. What is the sound pressure in that measurement? It says 107dB in the bass, nearfield, but I don't know the distance. Is it equivalent to 90dB in room at 1m? More? Less?

I think manufacturers are going for port tunings that are too low for the capability of the woofers. This one seems to be tuned to 45Hz. Maybe a 50Hz tuning would have been better for the distortion levels.

 

[TheBatsEar]

What is the 1.2kHz resonance? Port, cabinet, or both? Does it manifest at any sound pressure level?
In the review charts it's registered as a port noise. If it's so, it's one of the worst port noise I've seen measured. What is the sound pressure in that measurement? It says 107dB in the bass, nearfield, but I don't know the distance. Is it equivalent to 90dB in room at 1m? More? Less?

I think only @amirm can answer these specifics.
Maybe this thread can shed some light:

Speaker Resonances - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Since the topic of evaluating resonances has been mentioned several times in @amirm's reviews, here is an attempt at a comparative analysis of different resonances in loudspeakers. For this purpose the measurements of the following loudspeakers are compared: focal-aria-906 buchardt-s400...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I think manufacturers are going for port tunings that are too low for the capability of the woofers. This one seems to be tuned to 45Hz. Maybe a 50Hz tuning would have been better for the distortion levels.

Well, whatever they did, it works, they emit a very enjoyable bass in my room. More than the ATC SCM19v2 and more than the Focal Chora 806.

 

[pathtonowhere]

Yes, that's the problem, they sacrifice clean high output for bass extension. People want smaller and smaller speakers to give as deep bass as possible. Especially with cheaper speakers like these. For example, I need speakers that go to 45Hz and play loud. If I buy a bookshelf, it will go to 45Hz, but with high distortion at high SPL. If I go for a floorstander, I get the higher SPL, but not that much more, because now it goes to 35Hz and distortions become a problem again. That's beside exciting the room modes below 45Hz, this being the reason I need a 45Hz+ speaker.

For example, Focal Aria 906, reviewed by Amir, had very low distortion, but it didn't have sub-bass. It's ok, just go to the next speaker in range if you want lower bass, but then you can have clean powerful output, too. Why but a bookshelf that struggles to play down to 40Hz at high volume when you can have a floorstander that can play clean down to the same 40Hz? I know people want the lowest bass possible and max output isn't the first need for them, but at least some models should sacrifice depth to sound pressure levels.

 

[TonyJZX]

but i think this is just manufacturers playing up to consumer expectations

6-6.5'" is a sweet spot as far as most people and companies goes... they dont want to go smaller because they know bass is crap but they dont want to go much higher as box size swells

a lot of customers dont care about linearity.. in fact V curve seems to be great to many

ironically here the DBR62 is about twice the price of this but to many I doubt they could make a case for the Elacs

I Know many Euros get good deals on Elac... that's not the case in the rest of the English speaking west... you do get good deals on MIssion.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Yes, that's the problem, they sacrifice clean high output for bass extension. People want smaller and smaller speakers to give as deep bass as possible. Especially with cheaper speakers like these. For example, I need speakers that go to 45Hz and play loud. If I buy a bookshelf, it will go to 45Hz, but with high distortion at high SPL. If I go for a floorstander, I get the higher SPL, but not that much more, because now it goes to 35Hz and distortions become a problem again. That's beside exciting the room modes below 45Hz, this being the reason I need a 45Hz+ speaker.

For example, Focal Aria 906, reviewed by Amir, had very low distortion, but it didn't have sub-bass. It's ok, just go to the next speaker in range if you want lower bass, but then you can have clean powerful output, too. Why but a bookshelf that struggles to play down to 40Hz at high volume when you can have a floorstander that can play clean down to the same 40Hz? I know people want the lowest bass possible and max output isn't the first need for them, but at least some models should sacrifice depth to sound pressure levels.

I feel you should consider removing bass from your speakers entirely and get subwoofers.

 

[pathtonowhere]

Quite the opposite, I need a system that doesn't go below 40Hz, so it doesn't excite the room modes in my concrete room, and play loud at the same time. You can't find that, because manufacturers prefer to tune for deep bass and low maximum output/high distortion.
At least now there are more speakers without ear-piercing highs, more and more people are starting to avoid bright speakers and some manufacturers are noticing it.

My favourite speakers for bass are Monitor Audio Silver 100. They can play loud, the bass reflex is tuned to 47Hz, so the woofers can play pretty loud. But everything else about these speakers I hate, the bright tweeter, the slight dip in the mids (1-2.5kHz), the uncontrolled dispersion. The perfect bookshelves for me would be the Silver 100 woofer with the Wharfedale Evo 4.2 mid dome and AMT tweeter, maybe the dome 1-2dB lower in output.

 

[TheBatsEar]

It sounds to me you could be happy with a MiniDSP and a measurement microphone. Why buy speakers when you can bend the ones you have to your will?

 

[TheBatsEar]

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

View attachment 285991
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.

View attachment 286000
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

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

View attachment 285996

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 285992

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 285993

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 285995

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 285994

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements
View attachment 285997

The rest of the plots is attached.

You marked them as LX-3, which is the previous generation floorstanding speakers. Amir measured the LX-3 MKII, the current generation bookshelf speaker.

 

[CleanSound]

@amirm I don't understand why you would even recommend a speaker if you need to EQ it. To recommend a speaker, it should be recommendable out of the box as it was designed and straight from the manufacturer. If you need to spend additional money and add more distortions by virtue of adding another component to the signal chain just to correct a design flaw/issue, then the speaker is not recommendable from the start.

An EQ should not be a tool used to correct speakers' of bad design and flaws, it should be used to adjust for personal preference.

I tend to say it the way it is, if a speaker sucks out of the box, I would say "don't even bother with it; there are so many good options out of the box; why waste your time, effort and money to muck around with a sub-par product?"

 

[TheBatsEar]

If you need to spend additional money

Depends on your setup, maybe your player has PEQ? Maybe your computer or streamer (APO, Moode) does?

An EQ should not be a tool used to correct speakers' of bad design and flaws, it should be used to adjust for personal preference.

It's legal to do both, one, or none.

if a speaker sucks out of the box

But do they really suck? I have used them without EQ for a few weeks and found them enjoyable and nice to look at.
These speakers are far from "sucks" if you pay the right price.

 

[CleanSound]

Depends on your setup, maybe your player has PEQ? Maybe your computer or streamer (APO, Moode) does?

But why? Unless one wants this particular frequency curve, why get these and EQ it even if you already have an EQ? There are so many options out there. Yes, they're cheap, $250/pair but you can get an Andrew Jones Elac for similar price.

But do they really suck? I have used them without EQ for a few weeks and found them enjoyable and nice to look at.
These speakers are far from "sucks" if you pay the right price.

*If* a speaker sucks. I didn't say these Mission in particular sucks since I never heard them before. But I am saying if Amir's review is that it needs to be EQ, that means you are compensating for something that you did not like out of the box.

Maybe Amir needs a new category, "Don't recommend", "recommend" and "They're OK enough"

 

[warpdrive]

But do they really suck? I have used them without EQ for a few weeks and found them enjoyable and nice to look at.
These speakers are far from "sucks" if you pay the right price.

They don't suck! Looking at that in-room response....it's exactly what you want in a speaker and you could drop these into the average room and it won't sound wrong. Amir's EQ isn't even that drastic, meaning the speaker has the basic sound done right. If you can get these for $250, it's a good value and easily beats most of its competitors

One thing about this forum is that it doesn't grade stuff based on a performance/price curve. If that had been done in this case, it would be near or at the top.

 

[TheBatsEar]

But why? Unless one wants this particular frequency curve, why get these and EQ it

Well, why would you not EQ if you had the option? Fix frequency response flaws, fix possible room influence, adjust to personal taste. EQ is good.
In my opinion almost all speakers gain by having EQ applied to them.

 

[CleanSound]

Well, why would you not EQ if you had the option? Fix frequency response flaws, fix possible room influence, adjust to personal taste. EQ is good.
In my opinion almost all speakers gain by having EQ applied to them.

Let's just say, if you didn't know how the speaker sounds and you got them for a really good deal and you can't return it. And you already have an EQ, yes, EQ them.

But what I am saying is, I, personally, would never have brought them from the start. Why would I, given the amount of options out there at similar price point that are better out of the box. Unless I can get a pair for a price that is no brainer, then it makes sense.

I'm not trashing these speakers, I just don't understand the purpose of a conditional recommendation. Just don't recommend them or have a new category, "It's OK".

EDIT: BTW, my first pair of real HiFi speaker is a pair of Misssion, so I have a soft spot for them. I don't want anything thinking I am bashing these speakers at all. I just don't understand the purpose of a conditional recommendation, just add a new category: "These are OK enough"

 

[TheBatsEar]

I, personally, would never have brought them from the start.

I did, before Amirs measurements. Sometimes you have to take a risk.

BTW, compare these with the Klipsch RP-600M if you want to see a speaker that is unbearable without EQ.

 

[warpdrive]

I

@amirm I don't understand why you would even recommend a speaker if you need to EQ it. To recommend a speaker, it should be recommendable out of the box as it was designed and straight from the manufacturer. If you need to spend additional money and add more distortions by virtue of adding another component to the signal chain just to correct a design flaw/issue, then the speaker is not recommendable from the start.

An EQ should not be a tool used to correct speakers' of bad design and flaws, it should be used to adjust for personal preference.

I tend to say it the way it is, if a speaker sucks out of the box, I would say "don't even bother with it; there are so many good options out of the box; why waste your time, effort and money to muck around with a sub-par product?"

i would amend the recommendations to take into account the controls provided by the manufacturer.

If a speaker comes set to a "default showroom mode", but there is a "flat mode" or "reduce bass" mode that makes it flatter, I would love it Amir (and other reviewers) can say "this speaker, as it comes out of the box is colored, but if you use the setting B or change one of the trim knobs on the back to "-2", then it becomes very accurate". Also some speakers also even have some rudimentary EQ built in (maybe need to use the app)...so what I want to know is.....if I just use those controls, is that enough to correct the flaws in the speaker to make it very good? Sometimes a coarse adjustment using the provided controls is enough to a fix a large flaw problem without a full blown PEQ using Roon or miniDSP and turn a speaker from ok, to very good.

 

[TheBatsEar]

If a speaker comes set to a "default showroom mode", but there is a "flat mode" or "reduce bass" mode that makes it flatter, I would love it Amir (and other reviewers) can say "this speaker, as it comes out of the box is colored, but if you use the setting B or change one of the trim knobs on the back to "-2", then it becomes very accurate". Also some speakers also even have some rudimentary EQ built in (maybe need to use the app)...so what I want to know is.....if I just use those controls, is that enough to correct the flaws in the speaker to make it very good? Sometimes a coarse adjustment using the provided controls is enough to a fix a large flaw problem without a full blown PEQ using Roon or miniDSP and turn a speaker from ok, to very good.

Well, that is where we have our great moment. It's the other members that can point to errors or give tips, offer alternative EQ and so on. I think it works fine as it is.
In other words, why don't you add what you want Amir to do in the first post all by himself?

 

[warpdrive]

Well, that is where we have our great moment. It's the other members that can point to errors or give tips, offer alternative EQ and so on. I think it works fine as it is.
In other words, why don't you add what you want Amir to do in the first post all by himself?

i think Erin does some of what I described. He plays with manufacturer controls and makes a recommendation taking those into account. For example, for Klipsch The Nines speaker, he took the measurements using Klippel *after* he adjusted the "treble -2" using the app and then it sounded very good and looked very flat, enough to highly recommend the speaker. Same thing with The Fives, it looked bad using the default setting, but he changed the settings and then it performed well. He shows the effects of the various settings as well.

I get why Amir may not do it....it's time consuming. I'm fine with the way the things are....mostly I ignore his panther rating as I can see the measurements for myself. Honestly I'd rather him spend his time measuring more gear than trying to fix things using EQ.

 

[Brab]

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.