Speakers Designed For REAL Rooms - Larsen 4.2 Review 

My wife does web design/development so it was just something I wanted to do. I enjoy the marketing aspect I figured this would be a good project. Also, looking at the other sites for Larsen speakers made me just say uggggh, which didn't make sense for speakers that made me say ohhhhh! 🤣

@@joentell Hahaha, yeah, I think it is great. I think you are handling it the right way too. For the industry/hobby to grow we need to engage with people. Non-audiophiles, hardened audiophiles, manufacturers, distributors, everybody. Everyone was has their own flavor and requirements and we need a community and market to support that. As long as we are upfront about how we are doing it and are careful about it I think it is healthy. I mean Tech reviewers do it all the time.

Wow, that's amazing. Thanks for sharing. I understand that Anders Eriksson passed away in 2014 at the young age of 34. Sad.

Hampus Linden killer job finding these beauties

I appreciate that.

My pleasure! That was the original intention of my channel "show and tell".

Thank you!

The NHT's look like they're just accounting for toe-in and aren't angled upward. They aren't using any absorption material to reduce reflections.

Heed also has a similar design.

Bose is liked for these reasons for, well, a reason. These are like the modern Bose 501 - almost designed copycat wise in terms of engineering principle. Pretty cool

A bit different because these Larsens try avoid the early first reflection whereas the Bose tries to use it to expand the width of the sound stage.

@@joentell Exactly; just meant more or less similar principles just executed differently - reflected sound that is. You’re absolutely right.

Sonabs used Peerless drivers. Maybe put the famous Seas tweeters in the Sonabs. Tekton use Seas tweeters in some of their speakers and they got great reviews.

Thank you for the clarification

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but you probably already know that these are not open baffle, they just look that way.

Glad I got at least that one after saying Skillingaryd. 🤣

@@joentell He he! Well fought with the pronunciation of Skillingaryd. I struggle with that name myself. But then I'm Norwegian. Not Swedish. That must be my excuse.

I'm not sure if Larsen is forcing a different type of roll-off and at a certain frequency using a crossover compared to a sealed enclosure's natural roll-off. Toeing a speaker in and adjusting the rake angle up might give a similar effect, but you would also need to do something about the first reflection point like these are doing. It would be a fun experiment. The other thing to note is that the drivers would need to be chosen based on their dispersion characteristics. Notice these don't have a large front baffle like most speakers.

@@joentell man I could listen to you opine on speakers all day. You make it sound so cool and sexy. Real talk.

You want to start a NoRoomTreatment FB group with me? 🤣

@@joentell No room treatment, non-dedicated HT group, DON'T JUDGE US lol! I'm down!

I love it! Maybe include sub-optimal placement also! 🤣

@@joentell Oh AND mixing ported with sealed subs...or have I gone too far now lol?

Guilty here. SB3000 + Monolith THX 10. We might be on to something!

I would as well. They sound like exactly what I'm looking for, except for the midrange vocal critique. I wish there was a way to demo these before committing to them.

I had a pair of Sonab speakers a long time ago. Can’t remember the model now it was a fairly up line model with mid/bass and 4 tweeters , 1 at each corner, angled at 90 degrees so 2 forward firing and 2 reflected off the back wall.

I've made the C-Notes and they were good. I thought the Overnight Sensations were more fun to build and I enjoyed their sound more. They aren't perfect, but they're enjoyable.

Crazy deal

I'm not a reviewer, and have no connections with the company. I have heard the bigger brother in the line and they are fantastic sounding in the large room I heard them demonstrated in for an audition to the Bay Area Audiophile Society about 6-7 years ago. I only wish the look was as impressive as the sound. This model looks better than the Larsen 6 because of the symmetry, IMO.

Thanks for understanding. I have all this nice recording gear and I have to use a noise canceling app that makes it sound like a telephone if I record during the day. 🤣🤣🤣 I just have to remember that I chose to have them, they didn't choose to have me. 😉

@@joentell especially true when they're fascinated by a moving speaker surround and get tempted to touch or poke at it 🤪🤪🤪

Does it help that out of all the speakers I have, I still use these as my main L&R in my home theater?

It's tough because I usually review the bookshelf in addition to the center channel, and most of the time, not all, the performance of the bookshelf and center channel are very similar.

I wish

I've heard the 9's but they were playing a track that was almost all talking. I stayed for over 3 minutes and it was still just talking. I had to leave after that. 🤣

You inspired me to try to make my Ohms sound better. Pulled them out from the wall 6 more inches, went crazy with toe in... the tweeters inside are basically facing each other... finally sounds like the sound is coming from center. I would love for you to do a compare video Ohm and Larsen. Send them an invite!

Maybe one day, I'll get the opportunity

@@joentell never hurts to ask.

@@mcbowler I was thinking of getting an omni speaker, can you share your experience with the Ohms? thanks

I used them in my HT and now I want to get the center and surrounds

@@joentell Oh man. They sounded that good huh? They got you hooked on that magical voodoo that Larsen do😅🤣

They did. First the low end surprised me. Then the top end extension made my other speakers sound a bit dull in comparison. This is coming from someone who doesn't love bright speakers. I've found there's a difference between bright/harsh treble, and quality, smooth, extended high frequency response. I experienced smooth extended highs for the first time when I reviewed those $3000 Focal Stellias.

Seems like these would be perfect for a HT system with phantom center. How does your HT sound with "only" a pair of these?

Kanto speaker stands

I do and I love them for both.

Maybe the Lintons or Evo's might be a good match up. It only makes sense though. Now we're comparing floor stander (Larsen 4) to a bookshelf (Denton 85th).

@@joentell I still love my denton 85th anyway but the Larsen is tempting like I heard Ohm speakers before!

Those Denton 85ths are badass! Make no mistake about that!

@@joentell Yes, sir!

Thanks. Dirac can run on various MiniDSP products.

@@joentell Oh sweet. Gonna buy a fully loaded Mac Pro just for it then, can’t wait.

No need for a new computer, but these new M1 Mac's are pretty sweet.

I have not. I've only heard MBL's! Yikes...the pricetag. I wasn't overly impressed with the MBL's to be honest, but the music they were demoing wasn't entirely engaging either. 🤣 😴😴😴

The Ohm Walsh line is head and shoulders above these. I haven’t heard the Mirage, but I have quite a bit of experience with a lot of the Ohm offerings and these Larsens. The Ohm Walsh speakers honestly aren’t fully Omni directional as you mentioned-they are designed to be against a wall (they recommend 8” away). The sound stage and imaging with the Walsh are better than many speakers 10x more expensive. It’s seriously insane. Try to get a pair of Walsh 2000’s and compare. Your mind will be blown my friend.

From what I heard, the Ohm's are omni at certain frequencies which makes sense. I haven't heard them. All I know is I'm impressed with these Larsens. What didn't you like about the Larsen's that you liked with he Ohms?

I heard the Larsen 9's and the Ohm Walsh 2000's in another room at the same audio show in 2019. For me the Larsen's were significantly better sounding because they filled the room with a full sound but weren't overpowering. You could even have a conversation without needing to turn the volume down. The Ohm's just sounded thin in comparison and the sound didn't follow me around the room they way it did with the Larsen's. I've also owned the Mirage Omnisat's and I thought they were better for HTR than music.

Thanks for the insight based on your experience!

Except these are designed to minimize reflection

I'm looking at the Ohm Walsh and there is not many reviews, can you give me the best review you can and compared to the other speakers you like. Steve Gutenberg loves them but the regulars on forums down them. I mostly want them for movies, I may use as bed layer or heights in auro3d if they work that way. thanks

@@trauma50disaster1 I chose the Walsh 3000 from previously owning Walsh II back in the early 80's. That was my first exposure to this very cool speaker. As per the new 3000's, the thing with any speakers audible performance is the room foremost! Those who are dissing these speakers tells me they are not as good of a reviewer as they think they are. conjunction

I like those Wharfedale Diamond 12.1's I reviewed recently

You mean you haven't fully enclosed your living room in acoustical foam treatment???

That plus rake angle, plus reducing the rear first reflection, and tuned the bass for being placed near the wall. That's all I know. They might be doing other things also that I don't know of.

I had to use Krisp because kids were being super loud while I was recording. It's upsetting to me too believe me.

@@joentell haven't really had a chance to test it myself, but did you ever consider trying the Nvidia RTX Voice sw?

I haven't as I have a Mac and use an eGPU with a Radeon 5700XT. Mac's don't like Nvidia cards unfortunately.

They have distributors and dealers worldwide.

The look and perceived build quality is the first thing I addressed. I've reviewed products under $1000 with better build quality. These are hand built though in a small town in Sweden and I think that increases the cost. If you aren't sold on the concept, that's ok too. The great thing is there are lots of speakers to choose from. What's correct for one person will likely be different than for another person.

Yup - Ohm knockoffs

How is it a knockoff when Stig Carlsson has been designing speakers like this since the 60's?

I own Ohm walsh 2000 speakers and they just make them a little different so they don’t copy Ohm. Ohm speakers been making speakers back in the 60 also. So you tell me who is copy who?

I just looked at Ohm's website and it says they were founded in 1972. I really don't know much about them. I first saw them on a Z Reviews video and most of what I know is from that review. I would love to hear them one day.

@@billd9667 I have the Ohm Walsh 3000 and wish I had the Larsen.

You can toe in and add rake angle to any speakers. The question is whether those speakers were designed with that somewhat extreme off-angle response in mind. Most aren't, but it's worth a try. Also, most are definitely not designed to be close to a wall. They bass will be increased a lot, but perhaps not in a way that sounds natural so you will likely need DSP to tame the bass a bit. You will also want to try adding sound absorption to the back wall the way these speakers already do. If you decide to try it, let me know how it works out.

Ha! Stig Carlsson started with the orthoacoustic princie in the 50's ;-)

Oh wow really? For the 4.2's?

@@joentell yeah, looks like 4.3s are out now, trying to get in touch with someone at Larsen to see where/how to buy them in the US.

@@robertgruber982 oh wow, I didn't know about those until you told me about them.

I can't even figure out how to buy them, from their website I don't see but one phone number for the USA? Surely in the big city I'm in there is a dealer.

I had the 301 and the difference is this is not diffusing the soundstage artificially like what I've experienced with direct/reflect.

Directional vs Omni-directional. Different ideas.

@@joentell actually Ohm also controls directivity using foam pads and a directional tweeter.

Yes, but I think they have different ideas of where in the frequency band they should become directional.

That's understandable.

@@joentell Thanks for introducing these speakers to us. I've been eyeing Ohm Walsh speakers for a long time (ever since they showed up on Z Reviews), but they were a little too much money for me. These look like a very nice alternative, and at a slightly more manageable price. But the workmanship on the Ohm Walshs definitely looks better, especially with the rounded edges and real wood veneer. Looks like better craftsmanship. These Larsen 4.2 speakers have more of an Ikea-level built quality to them, which I guess is fitting since they come from Sweden. But I'm still very intrigued by them. Thanks again for these! It's nice to discover something new and unique.

I can't speak about other people's measurements, but these aren't really that flat. Others use different scaling and smoothing so it's tough to tell unless I overlay their measurements on top of mine and change the scale to be equivalent.

The best indicator would be a graph showing the directivity index. There's no way to tell just by looking at the on-axis frequency response by itself. The original Klipsch RP-600M had a dip at the crossover which was correctable with EQ. So, I'm not sure how you're coming to that absolute conclusion.

Except the design was out prior

@@joentell oh was it really? Well I'm going to go comment this on one of their videos! Thanks for the info

@@jasonmelo9379 they look very similar, but the philosophy is a bit different.

@@joentell oh yes I understand. A bit different

Stig Carlsson used this design philosophy a long time ago.

Larsen's are directional and made to go up against the wall. I have no idea how the others operate as I've never reviewed them

I live in Sweden. First I was about to buy me a pair of Larsen 8:2. But I bought myself a pair of Ohm Walsh 2000. Mainly because of the looks, build quality and weneer. The transport was very expensive. But I have not regret that. Love my Walsh speakers. I’m probably the only one in Sweden owning a pair.

@@bengtekman8616 so between OhmWalsh and Larsen you choose Walsh… cool. Question, are Larsen 8.2 and OhmWalsh2000 comparable? Seems like 8.2 should be way better taking price into account…

You seem concerned about that

@@joentell nah

Oh ok. I saw the sad face and sweat. ☺️

Read the other comments

Yes it's not good, but it's because my kids were in the room watching TV and I had to use Krisp to remove background noise which is why it sounds like I'm on the telephone. Compare that to when I did a recording of the speaker leaderboard and you'll see I'm using one of the best mics for podcasting, the Shure SM7B.

Your other comment was also negative, but I'll address it anyway. These are hand built and imperfect like I said in the video. Saying the build quality is poor is a bit of a stretch though. If you have anything positive to add in the future, I would like to hear more from you. If it's all going to be negative, it's a bit tiring to be honest.

The Larsen 8’s look like they came out of someone’s 80’s garage sale... but the sound! Closed my eyes and I wasn’t in the same room anymore. I think the 9’s have a more polished look , but even more expensive.

@@mcbowler LOL. They did a good job with the Larsen 9's for sure.

@@mcbowler since you actually own the Ohm Walsh 3000's and have heard the Larsen 8's, maybe you could help describe some of the audible differences you've experienced. I've never had the chance to hear Ohm Walshes and always wanted to.

@@joentell maybe it’s my room or I am doing something wrong but I can’t get a great stereo image out of the ohms. Maybe my TV is in the way. I even used a MiniDSP room correction. When it is there, it sounds like it’s coming from behind the wall. I use significant toe in and place against the wall for best sound. They sound wide and will get rock concert loud. I’ll try in a different room when Tektons arrive. Ohms needed only minor eq. They are very quick accurate speakers because no box, it’s a tube inside, no resonance issues or boxy sound. Simple, weird, they fill the room with sound and I like that about them. The simple way to describe the sound is... they sound exactly how they are built.. they fire mids everywhere and direct the highs. Where as the Larsen still use a wide dispersion, they are more controlled. If you want to go loud, Ohm. If you want more accuracy and don’t care how they look, Larsen. I was expecting more based on Zeos reviews but it might be my room, but also zeos reviewed the 2000’s.

It sounds like you are upset with me because of the types of products I review. There's nothing wrong with pulling speakers away from the walls. I'm just saying, not everyone has the luxury to do that. I know I can't and I have to sacrifice sound quality for practicality in my space. There's nothing odd or "hoity-toity" about placing speakers in optimal positions if you can do it. I also suggest people use room treatment if they can too, but that's also not practical for everyone. I don't have any contempt for audiophiles or high-end audio. The distributor for these Larsen speakers also sells $80k/pr speakers. My channel was started by me reviewing what I had, so I only had entry level speakers. My goal is to move people up from entry level, to better products. That happens naturally if people get the audio bug. If you refer to ALL entry-level as junk, then how do you expect people to get into this hobby?

@@joentell If you don't have the space to set up a system properly then you should buy a good pair of headphones and a good headphone amp. The room, speaker placement and room treatment is as important to the end result as is the electronics and the speakers, many more important. That's why you see so, so many systems consisting of top-notch gear that are setup in a terrible space, with terrible speaker placement and no room treatment and they sound like crap. You'll never get great sound if you ignore these factors, you'll get mediocre sound at best. As to the low-end gear and speakers. There are far too many people on RU-vid telling people they can get great sound with a $100 DAC and $150 speakers.....Bullshit! Will it sound better than a $50 Bluetooth speaker? Hell yes, but it won't sound "great". If you've ever heard a great sounding system, one that really blows your socks off, you'd know that none of this entry-level "stuff" sounds great!

I think you are passionate about great sound and I'm with you on that. I think it's about getting people there. I demoed $129/pr speakers and a $99 amp at a Hi-Fi tradeshow. The rooms near me were $500k+. The amount of traffic in my room was shocking. People working the other rooms came in to see what all the fuss was about. To me, the system sounded way better than it should have for the price. How come? Because I took the time to place the speakers properly and the speakers were the appropriate size for that small hotel room. The guys next door had huge modified Altec Lansing speakers the size of washing machines...you can guess how that sounded in a small hotel room. The point of reviewing the budget systems isn't to say that they're as good as higher-end systems, it's to say how much better they are than bluetooth speakers and sound bars. If you look at my speaker leaderboard, for the most part, $2000/pr speakers out-perform $1000/pr speakers, which out-perform $500/pr speakers. Once in a while, you get a speaker that performs outside of it's price category and those are the ones we want to show to people who are new to this. We want to help redefine the definition of "good enough" but by no means are we suggesting that those products are the best.