thomasj,
"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.
"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.