Lenehan Audio Owners and Discussion thread

[jeromelang]

Check out the interview he did:

http://www.stereo.net.au/articles/articles/mike_lenehan_interview/

 

He tried it and to his ears it made no difference except at the crossover where he uses a quasi topology (so he told me when I asked about it anyway - I looked it up -quasi simply means phase coherent through the crossover) to ensure it is phase coherent there.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

"....Time coherent loudspeakers are virtually indistinguishable from their non time coherent bretheren...."

 

Without a doubt. Mike's speaker designs are not time coherent.

 

I dunno about you, but I can distinguish the differences in the way time & phase coherent speakers project their soundstaging against other speakers which are not.

 

It irks me.

 

My current speakers are not.

 

Rationale for future upgrades keeps the hobby alive, don't you think?  ;D

[Eric Teh]

It would be quite difficult to do a meaningful comparison because of too many variables. Assuming that the time alignment is done using a sloping or stepped baffle, even if you produced two identical speakers, their cabinetry work and structural resonance would be different.

 

Doggie Howser would be in a better position for comments since he has spent a fair amount of time with both Lenehan and time and phase coherent speakers like Thiel.

 

"....Time coherent loudspeakers are virtually indistinguishable from their non time coherent bretheren...."

 

Without a doubt. Mike's speaker designs are not time coherent.

 

I dunno about you, but I can distinguish the differences in the way time & phase coherent speakers project their soundstaging against other speakers which are not.

 

It irks me.

 

My current speakers are not.

 

Rationale for future upgrades keeps the hobby alive, don't you think?  ;D

[jeromelang]

It would be quite difficult to do a meaningful comparison because of too many variables. Assuming that the time alignment is done using a sloping or stepped baffle, even if you produced two identical speakers, their cabinetry work and structural resonance would be different.

 

Doggie Howser would be in a better position for comments since he has spent a fair amount of time with both Lenehan and time and phase coherent speakers like Thiel.

 

I see you only repeating the same excuses speaker designers used.

Frankly, I'll be very suspicious about speaker designers who makes such claims as lenehan did.

 

Cabinet and structural resonance tweaking achieves nothing unless it is coupled with suitable cross over topology. and there is no mistakening the differences in the way sound images projected from point source.

 

There are other time & phase coherent speaker designs out there other than Thiels.

[Doggie Howser]

I can only compare the Thiel in my own room against the ML3Reference in the showroom so far

 

But like what Mike suggested, it's never easy to compare two different speakers because the design philosophy and architecture is so different.

 

My Thiels are 3 way designs with a coaxial/phase coherent driver and a sloping front baffle for the woofer to achieve the same alignment. It does require very specific seating positions to give a great soundstage, i.e. 8 feet apart and seated 8 feet away. It's also sensitive to toe in (I didn't like it) but once it's correctly positioned, I find the image is cohesive, wide and expansive.

 

The ML3s are really a 2 way design and seem a bit less finicky about positioning, but what it does deliver is a very transparent and fast response to the music. I find the signature is similar with perhaps a bit more bass emphasis like the Dynaudios (but not overwhelming like some B&Ws). The soundstage seems a bit less expansive than the Thiel but considering how different the speakers are and how different the rooms are, I am not sure how much we can draw from them.

 

 

[jeromelang]

I can only compare the Thiel in my own room against the ML3Reference in the showroom so far

 

But like what Mike suggested, it's never easy to compare two different speakers because the design philosophy and architecture is so different.

 

My Thiels are 3 way designs with a coaxial/phase coherent driver and a sloping front baffle for the woofer to achieve the same alignment. It does require very specific seating positions to give a great soundstage, i.e. 8 feet apart and seated 8 feet away. It's also sensitive to toe in (I didn't like it) but once it's correctly positioned, I find the image is cohesive, wide and expansive.

 

The ML3s are really a 2 way design and seem a bit less finicky about positioning, but what it does deliver is a very transparent and fast response to the music. I find the signature is similar with perhaps a bit more bass emphasis like the Dynaudios (but not overwhelming like some B&Ws). The soundstage seems a bit less expansive than the Thiel but considering how different the speakers are and how different the rooms are, I am not sure how much we can draw from them.

 

I guess you haven't learnt how to listen and recognize imaging signatures yet.

I hope you weren't one of those idiots who touted that 10 sec hearing trick, not a while ago.

[Eric Teh]

DH, thanks for your feedback.

 

I can only compare the Thiel in my own room against the ML3Reference in the showroom so far

 

But like what Mike suggested, it's never easy to compare two different speakers because the design philosophy and architecture is so different.

 

My Thiels are 3 way designs with a coaxial/phase coherent driver and a sloping front baffle for the woofer to achieve the same alignment. It does require very specific seating positions to give a great soundstage, i.e. 8 feet apart and seated 8 feet away. It's also sensitive to toe in (I didn't like it) but once it's correctly positioned, I find the image is cohesive, wide and expansive.

 

The ML3s are really a 2 way design and seem a bit less finicky about positioning, but what it does deliver is a very transparent and fast response to the music. I find the signature is similar with perhaps a bit more bass emphasis like the Dynaudios (but not overwhelming like some B&Ws). The soundstage seems a bit less expansive than the Thiel but considering how different the speakers are and how different the rooms are, I am not sure how much we can draw from them.

 

 

[Doggie Howser]

I guess you haven't learnt how to listen and recognize imaging signatures yet.

I hope you weren't one of those idiots who touted that 10 sec hearing trick, not a while ago.

 

The thing is, if you don't sit in the right position, it's very easy to tell when the image isn't cohesive on the Thiels.

 

And boy, yr demeanour online is really very abrasive.

 

I think JA did a measurement of speaker responses vs whether they were phase coherent or not and I think there was no correlation to him.

 

I think the point is the design of both speakers are fundamentally different and they are designed with specific placement and room considerations so there's so little correlation you can draw from just a single factor i.e. if they are phase coherent or not.

 

 

 

 

[Doggie Howser]

I think this is something that I read previously and which kinda corresponds to what I have experienced with Thiels.

 

... loudspeaker radiation is phase coherent and thus aligned in time only with respect to one listener-seating position (and only one listening height...

 

So that's why it does require the Thiels to be positioned correctly in the room vis a vis the listener.

 

Also,

the off-axis radiation of the speaker, which can provide up to about 35% of the acoustic energy at your ears (depending on the deadness of your room), cannot possibly be phase coherent and time-aligned.

 

And off-axis response is an area that Mike put a lot of his design time into.

 

So the thing is, the speakers are designed with different design goals and philosophies and used in their right ways, they work well in their own rights.

 

[jimi1624705950]

I guess you haven't learnt how to listen and recognize imaging signatures yet.

I hope you weren't one of those idiots who touted that 10 sec hearing trick, not a while ago.

 

Lol! Too many friends again JTL?

 

... I think it was more like 3 secs :)

[jeromelang]

The thing is, if you don't sit in the right position, it's very easy to tell when the image isn't cohesive on the Thiels.

 

And boy, yr demeanour online is really very abrasive.

 

I think JA did a measurement of speaker responses vs whether they were phase coherent or not and I think there was no correlation to him.

 

I think the point is the design of both speakers are fundamentally different and they are designed with specific placement and room considerations so there's so little correlation you can draw from just a single factor i.e. if they are phase coherent or not.

 

 

Some people naturally "listen" better than others.

One of those I have met is brother William, aka BTW.

I think he had also learnt how to recognize imaging signatures.

The only downside is - it becomes difficult to truly enjoy listening to non time&phase coherent designs.

I suspect the same is also for Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen and the late John Dunlavy.

Which explains why for the last 30 or more years, they had persisted with time&phase alignment designs against intentionally indifferent and apathetic audio critics (of course theres a reason why) and the general consumers at large.

Actually it is easy to learn how to recognize imaging signatures.

There was something written in the thiel speakers thread.

[jeromelang]

Lol! Too many friends again JTL?

 

... I think it was more like 3 secs :)

 

Only 3 secs? That's a new low.  ;D

[Doggie Howser]

I think there are different aspects of sound reproduction and each designer chooses to focus on different areas.

 

Magicos are not time coherent either but they are consistently rated as having a very cohesive sound.

 

 

[jeromelang]

I think there are different aspects of sound reproduction and each designer chooses to focus on different areas.

 

Magicos are not time coherent either but they are consistently rated as having a very cohesive sound.

 

Yes, the way magico images and the way time & phase coherent speakers image is very different.

Looks like you still dun get it.

Sadly, the virtues of Jim Thiel's speaker design is lost on you.

[Doggie Howser]

Yes, the way magico images and the way time & phase coherent speakers image is very different.

Looks like you still dun get it.

Sadly, the virtues of Jim Thiel's speaker design is lost on you.

 

 

Right, because there is only one way to design loudspeakers, the JTL way.

 

Focal/JM Labs, Dynaudio all have it wrong.

 

Because there is only one way. And Valin/Holt etc are all wrong for liking other speakers.

 

FWIW, I appreciate Jim's approach and his system sounds great, provided it is set up correctly. But as I said, it does require the speakers to be placed in a particular way. I bought the Lenehan for a much smaller room and in that approach, it works well. There's no way my Thiels would work in that room.

 

 

[jimi1624705950]

 

Some people naturally "listen" better than others.

One of those I have met is brother William, aka BTW.

I think he had also learnt how to recognize imaging signatures.

The only downside is - it becomes difficult to truly enjoy listening to non time&phase coherent designs.

I suspect the same is also for Jim Thiel, Richard Vandersteen and the late John Dunlavy.

Which explains why for the last 30 or more years, they had persisted with time&phase alignment designs against intentionally indifferent and apathetic audio critics (of course theres a reason why) and the general consumers at large.

Actually it is easy to learn how to recognize imaging signatures.

There was something written in the thiel speakers thread.

 

Which are the other spkr makes and models?

 

While it may be important for imaging theoretically, perhaps practically there are more important factors?

 

Are you talking about something v specific in the imaging? Apart from the ability to create solid steady holographic images separated in space. Or something about the level of detail of those images?

 

Actually imaging and separation is an interesting Hifi topic that I've wanted to start a thread on for a while. Will do after I've gathered a little more info.

[jeromelang]

 

Are you talking about something v specific in the imaging? Apart from the ability to create solid steady holographic images separated in space. Or something about the level of detail of those images?

 

 

The placement of certain sound images in the soundstage is usually different from non time & phase coherent speaker designs. They tend to produce a very compact, vertically small image, the so-called "horizontal slit" effect. Try listen to the icy chime-like keyboard effects at the intro on the track "in a New York minute" in the hell freezes over album through a t&pc speaker design and compare it to others. Then you may realize that in most convention speakers, the vertical placement of sound images is often dependent upon the frequency makeup of that particular sound. certain sounds like chimes, bells, sibilance, etc, with predominantly higher frequencies tend to image towards the upper portion of the soundstage, while sounds with higher contents of lower frequencies tend to image lower towards the floor. With human voices, let's say Don Henley's voice, the higher frequency portion of his vocals and sibilance are "pulled" higher up while the lower frequency portion is "dragged" down, and in the process, creating a longitudinal "stretched" effect, which most people had so gotten used to, and don't begin to realize the unnaturalness of it all, that is, until they hear the same track played back on a t&pc speaker.

 

Another example of the sound image "tearing" effect can be heard when playing back a solo piano recording.

here's a couple of pictorial depiction to illustrate:

 

The first picture is the point-source example (for the sake of simiplifing, let's use a multirange driver speaker type, where all sounds are heard to come from a single spot). provided the microphone placement is supporting the pianist perspective, or pretending this is a midi synthesized playback, the soundstage of a piano is perceived to be steady on the horizontal plane:

 

 

The next picture is the 2-way, non time & phase coherent speaker design example. The soundstage of a piano is separated on the horizontal plane, with higher notes appearing higher on the soundstage, and lower notes appearing lower on the soundstage.

 

 

in this above two-way example, the upper-range notes appear higher in the air because in most all two-ways the sounds from the tweeter are not arriving at the same time as the sounds from the woofer-- the tweeter is not time-coherent with the woofer. this timing difference is mostly caused by the crossover circuit.

 

Mike Lenehan is lying to his teeth when he says time alignment makes no difference.

[Doggie Howser]

Mike Lenehan is lying to his teeth when he says time alignment makes no difference.

 

So how bad is it on your Sony M9?

[jeromelang]

So how bad is it on your Sony M9?

 

My SS-M9ED is not time aligned.

Even though it's cabinet is slanted.

I hear the "tearing" effect all the time.

[jimi1624705950]

Why would you want 4 pairs of lousy spkrs when u could have at least bought 1 pair of Thiel 3.7?

 

...'tearing' me up to say this ;)

 

 

[Guest durianlover88]

Bro DH, next time you in SG, we should lim kopi like we did near AV Intelligence :)

 

I neber think conventional speakers can reach time AND phase coherence. Bery difficult to design.

 

On May 16, I hope Clayton Shaw can perform this tuning for me for Spatial HD on active crossover (Prism Orpheus) to my Emerald Physics CS2.7  speaker. I expect to achieve phase & time coherence, and configured to fit my room characteristics. The wait is agonising...

 

Meanwhile I hope to listen to Lenehan (Audiotrio?) since it generated so much interest :)

 

[jeromelang]

Why would you want 4 pairs of lousy spkrs when u could have at least bought 1 pair of Thiel 3.7?

 

...'tearing' me up to say this ;)

 

Why do you persist with your wife....?

Because she the only one you could get?  ;D

[bhobba]

Hi Guys

 

One thing I do know is Mike has a DEQX which can do all sorts of magic stuff like time coherency etc.  He was initially very impressed with it and was going to design his speakers around it.

 

But he hit upon his PRC crossover and to his ears it easily bested whatever the DEQX could do.  The issue from what I can gather is off axis response which mucks up time and phase coherency and this crossover tries to correct for that.  Don't know any more though.

 

Thanks

Bill

[jeromelang]

Hi Guys

 

One thing I do know is Mike has a DEQX which can do all sorts of magic stuff like time coherency etc.  He was initially very impressed with it and was going to design his speakers around it.

 

But he hit upon his PRC crossover and to his ears it easily bested whatever the DEQX could do.  The issue from what I can gather is off axis response which mucks up time and phase coherency and this crossover tries to correct for that.  Don't know any more though.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

It's past your bedtime, Bill.

 

But thanks for staying up late to confirm that Mike's current speaker designs are NOT time&phase coherent.

 

;D

 

[Griffinite]

Hi guys,

            Latest update frm Mike that waiting time for ML speaker orders is currently 12 wks instead of 6 wks when I enquired 2 wks ago. He was swamped with ML2 and S2 orders!

 

            Considered lucky that when I enquired, someone ordered ML2Reference had decided to go for ML3, thus leaving this last piece of 8 sets up for grab! Since 6 of us are traveling to Melbourne for holidays in early July, I take this opportunity to grab this offer and will check-in as luggage with some excess baggage charges to save freight cost(A$700). Mike offered to sent the ML2Ref frm his factoty in Brisbrane to my hotel FOC!

 

              Currently waiting for TT payment to clear so that my Reference speaker stand will be despatch ASAP by sea freight and receive it before I leave for Melbourne.

 

              According to Mike, he wrote to me that these stands are dedicated item for ML2 series, with and without damping material cost difference is A$300/-. The Reference stands weighed 40kgs each and features a floating 10mm thick 6.9kgs steel billet! This plate floats on proprietary damping material on top of to 10mm steel base plate, the improvement in resolution and midrange transparency is significant! With normal stand, no matter how well constructed, the energy fed through to the base plate is HUGE! A lot of this energy is winked into the spikes and hence to the floor but a significant proportion is also reflected back up and simply makes the base plinth ring. If u hold your ear close to the base plate of even the best conventional stand, you can audibly hear the music!

 

                Am glad to purchase the MLReference speakers and looking forward to hear & enjoy!

 

 

   

             

[Doggie Howser]

I heard the ML2PlusR and was already damned impressed by it ;)

 

BTW if you are flying Qantas, they charge about 90 bucks per pc of baggage less than 23kg. So maybe cheaper in the end.