Just received shipment of my Magnepan LRS’s

"there's an unsubstantiated rumor that Magenpan may be developing a dipole sub of its own design to complement these"
NOW it all ties together.  There's always a "catch".
Of course this will be the "best sub", right?  Wink wink.  Right?
And, it may be.  Maybe dipole bass is the only bass that will really work well with these speakers.  We can spend 4k on subwoofers quietly and proudly announce the mains were only 650 bucks.
In the meantime, for under a grand for two (one is used) I will continue to enjoy these REL T5 that represent one of the better values in audio.

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 ;-) . 

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.