Article: An Audiophile And A Subwoofer | The Wilson Audio Lōkē

[PeterG]

Welcome to the dark side, Chris!  I hope in the future you're able to compare the Loke to others.  One of the things that's tough about subwoofer reviews is that virtually all of them pit the subwoofer against no subwoofer, as you've done.  But for those who are most interested in subwoofers, the conclusion of sub vs none is known in advance.  It would be awesome to know how Loke delivers vs JL, REL, et al

[PeterG]

On 12/10/2022 at 4:33 AM, robocop said:

Over priced, ported, under sized driver and low powered. 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. You could squeeze two JL Audio 12's in for this retail price. 

I'm not a technical person, but aren't both of these points really a function of room size?  In general--isn't our optimum size for a sub one (or two) that will pressurize the room without the giant waves bouncing off the walls too much?  On comparisons to other subs--Wilsons are always high priced when we are just comparing hardware, but they are still a great value in terms of sonics.  So if one's room is below some certain size--isn't it the case that certain other attributes would enable it to sound better than the pair of JLs?

 

Just to be clear--not pushing back just for fun here--I am in the market to upgrade sub from B&W DB3D and am considering, Loke, JL Fathom, and B&W DB1D.  I am not price-sensitive, but probably need to stick to one sub (for my wife).  To be paired with Wilson Tune Tots and McIntosh MC275, room is 17' x 30'.  Sound is currently excellent at low to medium volume, becomes muddy at high volume.  (Floor standers not an option)  Thanks

[PeterG]

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

 

 

[PeterG]

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?

[PeterG]

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?

[PeterG]

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