Being the first person to own a pair of these speakers - and given that there has been some interest in them in the audio fora - I feel duty bound to post a detailed review of these speakers (I've already posted this review in a couple of the Aussie audio fora). I should point out, however, that theoretically they are still running in, and I'm still experimenting with my system and placement to get the most out of them. Hence, I will likely have to update this review in the future once I am confident I have their full measure. I am nevertheless confident that I have a good handle on their strengths and weaknesses already though - enough to give a fairly detailed and accurate review.
My SystemI have an ageing Trichord Genesis CD player, which will be the next component in my system to be updated. So my front end is not state of the art. However, the rest of my system pretty much is: I have a passive preamp, a Pass Labs Aleph 3 power amp, and Harmonix cabling throughout. So my system does not go very loud, but it is exceptionally transparent. I'll soon be trying out Mike's own speaker cables, as they should in theory be an ideal match for my ML2 PlusRs. I'll update this review when I do.
My previous speakers were ProAc Response 2Ss, and original Response 2s before that. So that gives you a pretty good idea of my audio biases. I was originally looking at updating to Response D2s, but ProAc's local distributor doesn't have a dealer in Queensland(!), so hearing them was difficult. And while I was researching them on the net, I kept coming across showdowns between the ProAc 1SC and the Lenehan Audio ML1, which happened to be manufactured an hour's drive away on the Gold Coast. So I thought it made sense to go down and hear them.
My Opinion On the ML1sAs the ML1 is the Lenehan Audio speaker everyone will be most familiar with, I thought it made sense to start with my impressions of them, so that readers can have a clear idea of where I'm coming from.
There isn't much I can add to the many reviews of these speakers that have been posted around the net, except to say that I can sympathise with both the point of view of those who love them, and those who don't. They are easily the most accurate and transparent 5" stand mounts I've heard - indeed, they are one of the most accurate and transparent speakers I've heard of any kind. They also have the most extended and well controlled bass I've ever heard from a 5" stand mount. By any normal hi-fi measure, these speakers are an extraordinary achievement, especially for the size and price.
Yet - like many people who've done the 1SC vs. ML1 shootout - I found myself yearning to listen to my obviously far more coloured ProAcs. The excellent
review of the ML1s at Sonic Flare identifies the two problems that turned out to be deal breakers for me. Firstly, the dynamics just didn't quite have the "jump factor" I require to really enjoy music, even though technically, they had excellent dynamic range and transient response. And secondly, they just didn't project the stereo image out into the room in the way that I need speakers to, so as to allow me to forget they're there.
The ProAcs, for all their colouration relative to the Lenehans, really excel in these two areas, which allows them to really make the music come alive (as has been stated in so many reviews of them). I found their colourations annoying when a particular recording really excited them, but for the most part, I was able to hear through them and enjoy the music. If a speaker doesn't give me the sense of presence I require though, I just can't forget that I'm listening to speakers, no matter how technically accurate and transparent they may be otherwise. And so it was with the ML1s.
ML1 vs. the ML2Even though I didn't ultimately like the ML1s, I was still very impressed by their many great strengths. And I really wished I could have all the strengths of the ProAcs without their colourations. Could the brand new 6.5" ML2s that Mike was putting the finishing touches on give me the best of both worlds?
Okay, I won't beat around the bush here: I first listened to a pair of ML2s with outboard crossovers and flimsy wiring that Mike had thrown together from off-the-shelf parts, and even in that state, the answer to the above question was unequivocally yes. Although in this state they naturally sounded a little rough around the edges, they were clearly of the same level of accuracy and transparency as the ML1s, if not even more so. And as you would expect from a bigger speaker, the bass was even more extended - almost unbelievably so in fact. But best of all, they made the music come alive in a way that left the ML1s for dead, and which was fully competitive with the ProAcs - but without the colourations.
I later heard them with more finished, PlusR level crossovers, but still outboard with the flimsy wiring. Then finally, when they were ready to be picked up, with production level PlusR crossovers and wiring, inside the finished boxes. On each occasion, they sounded considerably better than they had before. And upon setting them up at home, I felt they sounded even better still than they had at Mike's place.
ML2 WeaknessesI don't want this review to sound like an unqualified rave by a guy smitten with his new toys, so I'll start by listing the ML2's weaknesses (also, if there's a deal breaker here, you don't have to read further!).
1) Not very sensitive. Mike measured them at 85.2dB, which sounds about right to me. And in a very low gain system like mine, this is actually a practical problem - I am going to need to get a DAC with more than the usual 2V output. Having said that though, they're a very easy load electrically - power is actually not a problem for me at all, even with the Aleph 3's measly 30W. If the playback volume of the source CD is loud enough, there's more than enough dynamics and headroom to make me very happy. Still, if your power amp puts out less than, say, 20W per channel, you'll probably be pushing it a bit.
2) Not cheap (starts at $6500 for the base spec, $8000 for the PlusRs). Although, by the standards of their build, component and sound quality, they actually represent something of an audiophile bargain.
3) Very heavy, and slippery when moist. These things weigh about 30kg each(!), and their beautiful, shiny finish is very smooth. Make sure your hands are dry when you're moving them around - I nearly learned that the hard way! Their weight also requires you to use them with very strong, heavy stands.
4) The usual caveats of highly transparent speakers. These speakers will tell you about everything you feed into them, so you'll have to make sure the rest of your system is up to the task. Very high quality stands are also a must. They may also tell you things about some of your recordings that you may not want to hear. Having said that though, they do not have the overly analytical sound of many high end speakers - they have an absolutely smooth top end, so they won't exaggerate brightness, for example.
5) For some, the lack of the usual reflex port peak and cabinet resonance could make them sound thin. Also, their very flat frequency response and low distortion may make them sound too smooth to some.
ML2 Strengths1) Incredibly non-resonant. In spite of their greater size, Mike says the ML2s have even less energy storage than the ML1s (or the ML3s for that matter). At 30kg a piece, with very thick HDF (not MDF) cabinets lined with 4mm sprung steel plating, with extensive bracing and tension rods, these could be the most non-resonant speakers on the market. At the very least, they are fully competitive with the most extreme high end stand mounts (Magico Minis, Wilson WATTs etc.), but for much less money.
So what does this mean for their sound? Exceptional clarity and transparency for one thing: I never get the impression that they're obscuring whatever I'm feeding into them. It also gives them breathtaking transient speed and attack - listening to well recorded percussion is an absolute joy, especially as their exceptionally smooth treble does not impart any sort of artificial hardness or metallic edginess to those transients. I really love how the treble lacks any excess brightness or peakiness, yet still sounds incredibly open and detailed (due purely to sheer clarity and speed), without being overly analytical.
The most striking result of the lack of cabinet resonance for me though is the incredibly clean upper bass and lower midrange. Resonance in this area is so endemic to box speakers in general that hearing speakers without them is a revelation. Acoustic guitars and male vocals take on a whole other level of realism. On the other hand though, as this sort of resonance is so widespread, some people may find the absence of them disconcerting, to the point of making the ML2s sound a little thin in the power range. But this would be wrong - the ML2s are undoubtedly simply being accurate, and do not actually have any sort of frequency response dip in this area at all. They're just very clean, not really thin at all.
2) As neutral as it gets. Like the ML1s, these things have incredibly flat frequency response - if not even more so. And their power response corrected crossovers ensure that this response holds up very well off axis, even through the difficult crossover region. In this respect, they could well be the most tonally accurate speakers on the market - I certainly don't know of any other speakers with such an accurate frequency response across such a wide listening window. This ensures the room sound is balanced too.
The smooth response through the crossover region is particularly noteworthy. They sound smoother here than any other speaker I've owned, to the point of seeming to sound a little laid back. Once again, however, I am convinced that the ML2s are simply being more accurate here, and remarkably, they do not lack any presence - quite the opposite in fact. They pull off the remarkable trick of sounding very smooth and highly involving at the same time. Amazing!
3) Unbelievable bass extension. Mike uses a unique bass alignment: although bass reflex, it measures more like a sealed box, with a gentle, second order roll-off, rather than the sharp, fourth order roll-off below a port peak that you usually get with a bass reflex speaker. It's still bass reflex though, so it still has the advantage of greater bass for a given sensitivity than a sealed box. Anyway, the upshot of all this is amazing bass extension (and control) for the size of the speaker - the ML1 already set standards for its size in this area, and the bigger cabinets and 6.5" woofers of the ML2s take it even further. Mike measured them as flat to 30Hz in room, and they really do sound that way! The gentle roll-off means there's significant output well into the 20s as well - enough to rattle my windows on some recordings!
The lack of the usual bass reflex peak (and lack of cabinet resonance) gives the ML2s an exceptionally clean and even-handed bass. This allows one to really hear what's going on down there - whereas, in the past, I might say to myself "listen to that bass", I now say "listen to that bass guitar". You can really hear the shape and detail of the bass notes, making them sound more integrated with the rest of the frequency range, rather than just being the music's foundation. Despite their incredible extension, the absence of any peakiness or boominess in the bass may once again make some listeners find them thin. But once again, the ML2s are simply being accurate, and allow recordings to sound as they really are.
4) Excellent imaging. This still seems to be a somewhat mysterious area of speaker performance. With their tiny, solid boxes, I was expecting the ML1s to be imaging champs, but instead this proved to be my biggest disappointment with them - they just didn't project the sound out into the room in the way that I need to suspend my disbelief (this was also the main criticism of them in the
Sonic Flare review). But the ML2s image as well as any speaker I've heard, if not better. The ProAcs are legendary for their performance in this area, so I was nervous that the ML2s wouldn't measure up in this area when I got them home. But they proved to be every bit as good as the ProAcs - indeed better (especially focus).
5) Exceptional musicality. Okay, enough of all this hi-fi stuff. Can they rock? Can they boogie? Can they move you to tears? Yes, yes, and yes! The other area of the ML1's performance that disappointed me was their lack of dynamic "jump factor". This isn't just about dynamic range or transient response - indeed, the ML1s excelled in these areas in hi-fi terms. But that sense of the band shifting into top gear when they hit the chorus (for example) just wasn't quite there, and this is important for my enjoyment of my music collection. Once again, however, the ML2s do at least as well as the ProAcs in this area. And boy oh boy, can they rock! They reproduce high energy rock with blistering dynamics and speed, really making the music come alive. PRaT (pace, rhythm and timing) is as good as I've heard from any speaker, if not better. No doubt that very clean and quick bass helps, but we've all heard speakers with high quality bass that nevertheless don't quite boogie. That most certainly isn't the case with the ML2!
One musical strength the ML2s share with the ML1s is their very even-handed playback of all different kinds of music - they do not favour one kind of music over another. And although they'll let you know exactly how good your recordings are, they won't make too much of their flaws - I think both of these qualities are because their frequency response is so even. As I listen to an enormous variety of music (I have about 1500 CDs), this is very important to me, and is a big reason I preferred ProAcs in the past.
ML2 vs. the ML3I haven't done enough critical listening to the ML3 to do a detailed comparison, but I intend to do so in the near future - I will post a follow-up when I do. I can say the following, however:
1) Both speakers were developed at the same time, and Mike claims they represent a new generation platform that is a considerable advance on the ML1s. Based on the ML2s, I can only agree with him!
2) As they are so much bigger, the ML3s of course have even more bass extension (although only 5Hz), and are a few dB more sensitive. Hence, they are a much better choice for those with really low power.
3) Mike feels the foam baffles on the ML3 are a big deal for sound quality, although part of this is to cover the extra panel area on the ML3s that the ML2s (as stand mounts) don't have. Still, the ML3 has them around the tweeters as well, while the ML2 doesn't. This probably gives the ML3 an advantage.
4) On the other hand, the ML2 has lower energy storage than the ML3, and even less than the smaller ML1! This is obviously a definite advantage for the ML2.
5) The ML2 has the simplest crossover design of any Lenehan speaker - apparently the box and drivers behaved very much as theory predicted they would with the ML2, so the crossover doesn't have to do so much to correct them. This could, I think, be a very big deal for sound quality. After all, as the Aleph 3's designer Nelson Pass says, "complexity is the enemy of musicality". We'll see when I test the ML3s.
6) The ML2 is obviously much cheaper than the ML3. If you've been pining for the ML3s but couldn't quite afford them, the ML2 may be the speaker for you!
7) I think the ML2s are much better looking (one of the best looking speakers I've seen in fact), but that sort of thing is obviously a matter of personal taste.
ConclusionI hope this review hasn't come across as too much of a rave, but there's just no getting around the fact that these speakers excel in every area of performance that matters to me (except that I'd like them to be more sensitive). I would like to publicly thank Mike Lenehan for designing and building speakers that are as close to my personal ideal as I'm ever likely to get, and importantly making them available at a price I can afford. They may not be cheap, but for their quality of build and performance, they're a steal - I honestly feel that these speakers are a serious contender for the finest stand mounts available.
