An Audiophile And A Subwoofer | The Wilson Audio Lōkē

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The bass is accurate, but comes from the right side of the room

I presume you've tried this with your eyes closed, just to be sure that's not influencing what you hear?

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I presume you've tried this with your eyes closed, just to be sure that's not influencing what you hear?

Technically no, but the subwoofer in my room isn't visible from the listening position, so this counts as blind in my book :~)

This would be good to do, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I'd have to have someone move the sub and I'd guess where it was placed. 

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Technically no, but the subwoofer in my room isn't visible from the listening position, so this counts as blind in my book :~)

 

This would be good to do, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I'd have to have someone move the sub and I'd guess where it was placed. 

Though I know where my speakers are, strangely the location of the acoustic center seems to move when I close my eyes. So it could be as simple as that - does the bass seem to come from the same place with eyes open and eyes closed?

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Though I know where my speakers are, strangely the location of the acoustic center seems to move when I close my eyes. So it could be as simple as that - does the bass seem to come from the same place with eyes open and eyes closed?

Wow, I've had the same thing happen with respect to the acoustic center and closing my eyes. Frequently in fact!

The bass localization is a tough one. I'm pretty sure I can pinpoint it, but I also can't get the sub's location out of my brain.

The Computer Audiophile and Jud,

robocop's reply to the reviewer isn't about room specificifity. Your insistence on "what about Chris's room" with his comment is misplaced or woefully ignored. His comments were for the most part accurate and I do not seemingly understand your combined stubborness, to things like value, multiple subs, portless boxes or larger drives (albeit good ones) which can be further expanded into "one-note" bass, frequency nulls in a room, etc

Trying to assert your arguement by acknowledging that only Chris's room matters, and that I, nor anyone else has access to it is bizarre.

Even in your room, Robocop's assertions still stand, but admittedly will even do better in a less restrictive listening room, or one with more complications, as your room seems to be quite throughly planned out.

Anyway this is the last time I will respond, (it's seemingly pointless) but since this is your baby, I have to say your site site is wonderful!

11 minutes ago, mesonto said:

The Computer Audiophile and Jud,

 

robocop's reply to the reviewer isn't about room specificifity. Your insistence on "what about Chris's room" with his comment is misplaced or woefully ignored. His comments were for the most part accurate and I do not seemingly understand your combined stubborness, to things like value, multiple subs, portless boxes or larger drives (albeit good ones) which can be further expanded into "one-note" bass, frequency nulls in a room, etc

 

Trying to assert your arguement by acknowledging that only Chris's room matters, and that I, nor anyone else has access to it is bizarre.

 

Even in your room, Robocop's assertions still stand, but admittedly will even do better in a less restrictive listening room, or one with more complications, as your room seems to be quite throughly planned out.

 

Anyway this is the last time I will respond, (it's seemingly pointless) but since this is your baby, I have to say your site site is wonderful!

It’s exactly this type of thinking that serves nobody. Generalities applied to specific situations equate to bad advice. 
 

Im very interested in taking my system to new levels. However, when someone tells me I need more because more is better, I tend to get suspicious. The person either has an agenda or really doesn’t know what he’s talking about or both. 
 

I this case you clearly dislike the price of the subwoofer. You’ve made that very very clear. You’re continued advice, based on general principles, doesn’t seem to apply to my space or at least it has yet to be shown how/why. I’ve asked several times, but received zero specifics. 
 

How will larger and more and cheaper subwoofers change the flat measured response of my room and help increase the accuracy of playback? That’s all I want to know. 

2 hours ago, mesonto said:

The Computer Audiophile and Jud,

 

robocop's reply to the reviewer isn't about room specificifity. Your insistence on "what about Chris's room" with his comment is misplaced or woefully ignored. His comments were for the most part accurate and I do not seemingly understand your combined stubborness, to things like value, multiple subs, portless boxes or larger drives (albeit good ones) which can be further expanded into "one-note" bass, frequency nulls in a room, etc

 

Trying to assert your arguement by acknowledging that only Chris's room matters, and that I, nor anyone else has access to it is bizarre.

 

Even in your room, Robocop's assertions still stand, but admittedly will even do better in a less restrictive listening room, or one with more complications, as your room seems to be quite throughly planned out.

 

Anyway this is the last time I will respond, (it's seemingly pointless) but since this is your baby, I have to say your site site is wonderful!

That of course isn't what I said, so you've misunderstood, either sincerely, or deliberately for the sake of mere argument.

I don't need to know about Chris's room. I need to see comparative measurements of room response in any room you like, in order to have reliable evidence that this supposed improvement you keep talking about is something more than the personal opinion of a random individual on an internet forum.

You've resolutely refused to provide any such specifics, likely because you have none.

If you have something specific of value to contribute to the discussion, we'd all be delighted to read it.

18 hours ago, mesonto said:

No problem, but you sound a bit intractable already:

 

"Over priced, ported, under sized driver and low powered." - absolutely for what it is,

"Doing yourself a massive disservice with this sub. You actually need two minimum and at least 12 inch drivers with 1000 watts or more and sealed." - 2 12 inch drivers would get you there as well, but sealed would get you there with no port huffing, no matter how it was designed.

"You could squeeze two JL Audio 12's in for this retail price." - absolutely true, and with dual woofers you will get more even coverage... just look this one up yourself. Even 4 will be better with less effort, but now we are trying to find room for them.

"Anyway it is what it is, you didn't pay retail so it doesn't matter. Sub woofers are essential and always have been they improve the midrange and high frequencies." - very true, allows your L&R to relax, your subs are now in their best supporting role.

"Sealed subs have always been cleaner sounding to my ears." Sealed subs are usually better for everyone's ears.

"Ported are trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear!!!" - I get it but not worth defending.

 

Hey if you cannot hear the difference or most likely haven't experimentated enough I get it. You love your Loke, great for you. Cheers!

I agree that, like all Wilson speakers, the Loke is "overpriced".  Nevertheless, I love my overpriced TuneTots, and am considering an overpriced Loke.  So leaving aside aside the Wilson-bashing...

I think your other comments about the room and two larger JLs get to the issue of whether a certain size driver or drivers is necessary to pressurize a certain size room.  That no matter how good a 10" sub might be, if one's room size requires 12", then the sub really needs to be 12" or more.  Is that the case?  If yes, some specifics on the math of sub to room ratio would be helpful.  tThanks

Perlisten subwoofers seem to have made a positive splash despite their relatively recent debut. Hard to find comparative reviews. Anyone here who has had a chance to compare:
* Perlisten D12s vs. REL S812? 

* Perlisten D12s vs. Perlisten R210s?

As sub+speaker integration is important, I reckon Perlisten's DSP and app should have an edge over REL (analogue)?

Both talk a lot about "speed" but it's hard to find their data on this.

On 7/28/2023 at 2:47 PM, ArcticSapien said:

compare:
* Perlisten D12s vs. REL S812? 

* Perlisten D12s vs. Perlisten R210s?

Answering my own question 

Having tested now, Perlisten R210s are much tighter than D12s. Perhaps the second driver ("push pull") helped to shorten transients. I'd vote for the R210s if the subs are for Music.

Perlisten R210s vs. REL S812?

I'm less clear about the difference between these two, due to different listening rooms and setup.

But Wilson knows that HiFi enthusiasts know how to recognize a driver and an amp from Dayton Audio?

More precisely, 10" Reference line driver and SPA500DSP plate... 600$ maybe.

5 minutes ago, Leo11 said:

But Wilson knows that HiFi enthusiasts know how to recognize a driver and an amp from Dayton Audio?

More precisely, 10" Reference line driver and SPA500DSP plate...

Wilson was forthcoming about its use of Dayton products in the LōKē when the product was released. No need for HiFi enthusiasts to discover or recognize anything. 
 

From the review:

“The app is supplied by Dayton Audio, which manufactures the amplifier used in the Lōkē. 

I talked to a couple Wilson Audio representatives about the use of Dayton Audio parts in the Lōkē. What I heard was 1. This amp is bulletproof and was unfazed by incredibly rigorous testing by the Wilson Audio Special Applications Engineering team and 2. If Wilson Audio built this amp in-house, in relatively low quantities, the cost of the Lōkē would've been far higher, without additional benefit to the customer.”

22 minutes ago, Leo11 said:

 

And how do they justify the price increase compared to components already available on the market for 1/10 of the price?

I haven’t asked that question to them, but if you consider companies such as Bryston have told me its products retail for roughly 8x the cost of parts, and the fact that the subwoofer enclosure is engineered far better than whatever enclosure is available off the shelf, the costs come more into focus. 

"Luckily some site measured it... and no, it's not an engineering monster at all. 1000$ subs perform equal or better in some case."

Absolutely, there are better out there for much, much less, this is simply a case of buying into a name. To me this is a sad situation and detrimental to the audiophile scene when reviewers will stop at nothing to defend a brand name for a poor product release. 

Now I am sure this subwoofer is fine sounding and built well, and some of their speakers are absolutely awesome if you like the sound signature they deliver, but their is no excuse for overcharging so much on this sub design. Certainly the value proposition is just not here with this particular product, unless of course you primarily value the name.

16 minutes ago, mesonto said:

To me this is a sad situation and detrimental to the audiophile scene when reviewers will stop at nothing to defend a brand name for a poor product release. 

I don't read other writers' reviews, but I hope this doesn't happen often. It's detrimental to everyone, including a manufacturer, when such a thing takes place. 

3 hours ago, mesonto said:

"Luckily some site measured it... and no, it's not an engineering monster at all. 1000$ subs perform equal or better in some case."

 

Absolutely, there are better out there for much, much less, this is simply a case of buying into a name. To me this is a sad situation and detrimental to the audiophile scene when reviewers will stop at nothing to defend a brand name for a poor product release. 

 

Now I am sure this subwoofer is fine sounding and built well, and some of their speakers are absolutely awesome if you like the sound signature they deliver, but their is no excuse for overcharging so much on this sub design. Certainly the value proposition is just not here with this particular product, unless of course you primarily value the name.

The audiophile press is more enamored with names and expensive prices. They have always been that way. Remember, we are the product being sold, not the sub or anything else. If they were interested, then tears downs, etc. would be valid.

On 11/8/2023 at 9:44 AM, mesonto said:

"Luckily some site measured it... and no, it's not an engineering monster at all. 1000$ subs perform equal or better in some case."

 

Absolutely, there are better out there for much, much less, this is simply a case of buying into a name. To me this is a sad situation and detrimental to the audiophile scene when reviewers will stop at nothing to defend a brand name for a poor product release. 

 

Now I am sure this subwoofer is fine sounding and built well, and some of their speakers are absolutely awesome if you like the sound signature they deliver, but their is no excuse for overcharging so much on this sub design. Certainly the value proposition is just not here with this particular product, unless of course you primarily value the name.

The value proposition for Wilson is not low prices or great specs, it is great sound.  Maybe wait until you hear a LoKe before being so definitive with the insults?

"The value proposition for Wilson is not low prices or great specs, it is great sound.  Maybe wait until you hear a LoKe before being so definitive with the insults?"

Of course there are different value propositions, and the value one prop., Wilson assuredly doesn't win. But FYI I have heard this little subwoofer (my local dealer in North York, Toronto) , and it did not impress the way in which other subwoofer manufactures have (it was however still good). And although it was good there are others that are much better and still manage to sell for less.  Perhaps take your own advice and listen to other subwoofers as well before being so definitive with you statements.  ;)

BTW, no insults here... just statements of my experience of auditioning speakers and subs.

17 hours ago, mesonto said:

"The value proposition for Wilson is not low prices or great specs, it is great sound.  Maybe wait until you hear a LoKe before being so definitive with the insults?"

 

Of course there are different value propositions, and the value one prop., Wilson assuredly doesn't win. But FYI I have heard this little subwoofer (my local dealer in North York, Toronto) , and it did not impress the way in which other subwoofer manufactures have (it was however still good). And although it was good there are others that are much better and still manage to sell for less.  Perhaps take your own advice and listen to other subwoofers as well before being so definitive with you statements.  ;)

 

BTW, no insults here... just statements of my experience of auditioning speakers and subs.

Glad to hear you have heard the LoKe and compared it to other subs.  Now that I know that, I appreciate your take.  You may be the only person I've read who has done this.  One thing that drives me bonkers about subwoofer reviews is that reviewers rarely offer comparisons to other subwoofers.  Instead we hear that the addition of the subwoofer in question improved the sound vs no subwoofer.  To a person already sold on subwoofers in general, this is not helpful

Just to be clear on what I meant by my "definitive statement" on "value proposition".  I have heard plenty of other Wilson speakers.  They are kind of like Porsches--definitely "overpriced" and not a good "value" compared to other fine cars.  Wilsons offer a certain sound that is not available elsewhere.  If you like that sound, and you are not price-sensitive, they are worth every penny.   So while it's kind of crazy that Wilsons are 2X comparable B&Ws, it's similar to Porsches being 2X BMWs--for certain people, the incremental performance is worth it.  (OK, I have not driven a Porsche, but I think most will get what I mean)  

Please provide a bit more info so that I can calibrate your thoughts.  Do you like Wilsons in general, or do you think they are all overpriced?  (or both, haha)  What speakers do you own/prefer?

55 minutes ago, PeterG said:

One thing that drives me bonkers about subwoofer reviews is that reviewers rarely offer comparisons to other subwoofers.  Instead we hear that the addition of the subwoofer in question improved the sound vs no subwoofer.  To a person already sold on subwoofers in general, this is not helpful

It’s tough to write a review that’s all things to everyone (as I’m sure you understand). As someone who went without a sub forever, and even disliked them, I preferred to take the perspective of, wow, adding a sub can be revelatory and here’s what I tried and loved. 
 

It would be both enjoyable and helpful to write more about other subwoofers in other articles. 

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s tough to write a review that’s all things to everyone (as I’m sure you understand). As someone who went without a sub forever, and even disliked them, I preferred to take the perspective of, wow, adding a sub can be revelatory and here’s what I tried and loved. 
 

It would be both enjoyable and helpful to write more about other subwoofers in other articles. 

Chris, I did not mean to criticize you personally, I appreciate that you've got certain limitations on what you can do.  

More broadly, if we go to the hifi-editorial complex in general--it amazes me that the major print publications, that run a huge number of reviews and must have a steady stream (gusher?) of demo gear running through their shops, never see fit to compare gear such as subs, power conditioners, and other important "peripherals".  This is especially important on something such as the LoKe--is it super expensive and better, or is it just super expensive?  

Cheers

The point is that there is no need to make comparisons.

State of the art performance can be achieved with thousands of dollars less. Document yourself properly.

And with Dayton components costing a few hundred dollars it can't get reference performance, not even with the diamond cabinet...

Tunetot measurements also demonstrate that Wilson do not pursue true fidelity but rather a (less than neutral) sound signature.

It's a classic HiFi brand... some may be fascinated by it.

But the same "charm" (or not state of the art performance) can be found at prices 10 times lower.

I too have lived in the fantasy world of expensive HiFi... only to discover over time that it was all snake oil, to the detriment of my pockets.

Honestly, I don't care if someone spends senseless amounts of money on an worthless audio system.

It's just that there is more misinformation and propaganda online than information and debate.

But the same goes for any other area... fanaticism, hypocrisy, pride and self-interest rule the world.