Just received shipment of my Magnepan LRS’s

Yesterday I took delivery of my Magnepan LRS’s. I am powering them with a Rogue Audio Sphinx 2 through Stealth Audio MLT speaker cables. Sources are a Rega RP6 and an Oppo BDP 105. I know that these speakers have a long way to go to break in, but what great soundstaging, decay, depth and lifelike imaging. Can’t wait to see how they are doing in 6 months. This is my 3rd set of Maggies and I am tickled to have their sound back in my home.
Elizabeth, thank you for the explanation of how the Maggie's tweeters can be arranged.  It is pretty amazing that the LRS speakers can be manufactured and sold at such an attractive price.

jetter’s last post is on point. After reading the Stereophile review, they are terrific speakers for the price as long as your expectations are reasonable. They are sensitive to setup and amplification. But no matter what, the dynamic range is limited and no amp or setup will change the inherent limitations of the LRS. But for $650.00 it’s practically a moot point.
The Rythmik/ GR Research OB/Dipole Sub kit retails for about $1500/pr (that buys you four 12" servo-feedback woofers and two plate amps containing the OB-mandated dipole-cancellation compensation filter circuit), the flatpack H-frames the kits are installed in $500/pr. $2000 for the best sub in existence for planar loudspeakers seems reasonable to me. A $2000 pair of subs wouldn't be appropriate for the $650/pr LRS, but an OB/Dipole sub can be built for less than the price of the Rythmik/GR Research offering. True, that does require a sense of adventure and certain level of ambition ;-) . 
"Moved them to the inside and both my wife and I feel like there is some giving up of depth and a tad more brightness (paradoxical)."  Also, you find that the LRS are superior to your previous Maggies.  Many years ago, I had the Maggie Tympani 1D which was 6' tall and 36-48" wide each side, depending on the angling of the 3 panels.  I ultimately came to hate the large, bloated imaging.  Later, I liked the MG 3 series better because of the smaller, more focused sound.  When I then heard the original MG 20, I hated the larger sound field and actually found the HF subdued compared to the MG 3, possibly because of more bass dominance from the larger MG 20 panel.  Although I have not yet heard the new LRS, I believe that smaller is better if you value clarity and are willing to sacrifice low bass and dynamics.  I don't like the marketing pitch which says that once you hear the LRS, you will have a taste of the supposedly superior performance of the larger 20.7 and the huge 30.7, which looks like the original Tympani 1D.  The LRS still presents a medium size image predicted by its size, which is a good compromise for most any scale of music.  Regarding the tweeter on the inside, that creates a narrower image but more focused sound because imaging is more dependent on HF.
viber6,How interesting when my largely unproven theories are "proven" at least from the perspective of your experiences.  The LRS makes "perfect" sense from the size aspect.  The appetizer theory is a nice try by Wendell but given the huge jump in prices, it's like a hot dog vs. buying an expensive meal for a party of 100.  Or something like that.  Now, the ribbon tweeter of the 3.7i would be of some consideration, but here again we are at 10x the LRS.  As to what I would think makes sense for Magnepan, is to provide a bi-amped monoblock system for the LRS with powered OEM subwoofers made by REL or of their own dipole design.  They need to get into this century with their connections and fuses and jumpers or whatever is going on in the back, frankly it's a bit odd.  I mean what the heck.  Provide the amps, the cables, the subwoofers, all set up to make those LRS sing, all for under 5k total.  That's my marketing plan for Magnepan...