I’ve recently had the chance to listen to a set of Neo2X’s and compare them to Lenehan Audio ML1s for some interested AC’ers. Equipment included a Wyred4Sound STI-500 integrated amp and Naim X-Series stack. The speakers were generally 30-36” from the front wall (front baffle), 6.5-7 ft. apart, and toed-in as needed to get a good combo of imaging and center fill. Neither speaker was terribly fussy about placement – I experimented a bit and sat down to listen over a week’s time.
First off, let me say I’m constantly amazed at what good sound is available at a modest price these days. The Neo2X is a fun speaker to listen to and a great example of what good sound you can get for very little money.
I had read somewhere the Neo2X might be bass-shy, but I had no problems with them being bass-shy in my room (although they don’t reproduce the lowest octave - no surprise here). Occasionally I felt like the upper bass in the Neo2X was a bit prominent in comparison to the ML1 – every now and then a note jumped out at me. Which is right? WHo knows I didn't measure. The ML1s “boogie” a bit more - this probably has to do with their bass alignment and inert cabinet. Of the speakers I’ve heard, I find ported speakers get out of the way a bit faster than sealed ones do. Overall, I was very happy with the bass produced by the Neo2X (and I’m an on-and-off bass player).
The Neo2X planar-magnetic tweeter is very smooth and clean – no hash, etc. - cymbals sound marvelous. However, the Neo2X treble was occasionally a bit prominent. The effect was very subtle, but that beautifully detailed and extended treble sometimes seemed to ride above the rest of the frequency range and be a bit showcased. For example, some added prominence was placed on the sound of fingers sliding on strings, plectrum hitting strings, etc., making acoustic guitars sound a bit like two discrete, slightly disconnected sounds (body sound and neck sound vs. one complex sound). By contrast, the ML1s treble isn’t as clean as the Neo2X (it’s not far behind though), but I am able to achieve a more coherent, seamless integration between the two drivers on the ML1s. The effect of this coherence is a more lifelike portrayal of instruments and the recording acoustic. The ML1s also give a hint more texture to instruments (think sound of hitting a drum skin, not just the sound of the drum), and the ebbs and flows in music are more dramatic. These differences are slight and may be related to setup, positioning, etc., but they were noticeable if I listened for them and I was never able to completely ameliorate them.
Imaging is a bit different between the two – the ML1s are more laid back with images further behind the plane of speakers; the Neo2X a bit more up-front (but still slightly behind the speaker plane in my room). I could happily live with either. I do feel the ML1s produce a slightly greater sense of depth – the front-to-back space between instruments is a little wider and more clearly defined. Very subtle again and personal preference will dictate whether this is meaningful to you or just an illusion I enjoy.
Minor criticisms aside, for those on a budget or looking to moderate their spending on crazy audio gear, I think the Neo2X is a great deal, especially if you have the woodworking skills to build a nice, well-braced cabinet. If you’re sensitive to driver discontinuities, you might have to work at it a bit to get the best driver integration though. If you have the money, have no qualms about spending it, and want a bit more refinement, there’s more to be gained by moving up the price ladder. How meaningful these gains are to you is a personal thing and the extent to which these differences show up is likely dependent on your setup, gear and musical tastes.
Danny, well done for the price! Thanks for letting me participate in the tour, and for encouraging comparisons like these.
