Although the LōKē was reviewed by JVS in a system with the Wilson Alexia V loudspeakers, I measured it in a different context, paired up with the Wilson SabrinaX. As noted in the review in Hi-Fi News (December 2022), the scope of the LōKē's low-pass (LPF) and subsonic (HPF) frequency and slope options plus phase, output level, parametric EQ, and placement scenarios allows many response combinations. For the sake of expediency, I left the subsonic (HPF) and PEQ features disabled for the flattest LF response and focused on the tunable (30Hz–125Hz, ±1Hz) LPF options.
The Sabrina's port has a 27Hz–85Hz range, supporting the 60Hz–280Hz passband of the Sabrina's woofer (all limits –6dB), realizing a 52Hz bass extension (–6dB ref. 200Hz) despite a steep LF roll-off (dashed trace, fig.1). When optimally integrated with the LōKē using a 60Hz LPF and 12dB/octave slope (black trace, fig.1), the diffraction-corrected system response extends to a rib-tickling 17Hz. The impact of higher and lower LPF frequencies (80Hz, blue; 40Hz, red, fig.1) is shown. The residual notch at approximately 50Hz may be fine-tuned by boundary placement and the LōKē's output via its Phase Degree facility.
In common with most modern DSP-governed subs, the LōKē is very versatile. Increasing the LPF frequency from 40Hz in steps up to 125Hz results in a shift in the LōKē's passband from 19Hz–98Hz to 42Hz– 120Hz (all ref. –6dB). These ranges are not significantly influenced by the choice of roll-off slope (solid traces, fig.2). The long slot port is tuned to 22Hz with an effective 13Hz–134Hz (–6dB) output when the LPF is set to its maximum (125Hz, dashed traces, fig.2). The peak at 111Hz just before a steep roll-off is tamed when the LPF is set to 80Hz or lower (dashed blue trace). Ultimate bass extension is influenced by boundary reinforcement and the LPF (and subsonic HPF if applied), but useful output below 15Hz (–6dB ref. 100Hz) is perfectly achievable. There is some small penalty in second harmonic distortion below 60Hz, however, where levels increase from approximately 0.1% to approximately 0.9% at 50Hz and approximately 9% at 40Hz (measured at 90dB spl).—Paul Miller
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
How does this affordable Wilson subwoofer compare to other subwoofers?
In other words, is there anything that separates it from the pack, making it worth the high increment in cost compared to competitive offerings? If it's worth it, that's fine, but before purchasing I'd like to be sure that I'm getting my money's worth, and that the money is not just going to its very nice, shiny automobile paint job.
Tune Tot owner here, so I am not shy about paying Wilson prices. But I have to agree that this review is only half complete, or maybe less. Like many subwoofer reviews, this tells us only that (surprise!) a sub is better than no sub. Also not optimal to review these in JVS's system. Sure it's great to know they can add to his already world-beating speakers. But the real question is how do these do with their intended use--paired with Tune Tots or at least other stand-mounts), and compared to other high end subs.
Interesting review. I've long been a fan of using subs - my system consists of a pair of Wilson Benesch Resolutions and a pair of Torus subs - especially for the point you make about adding air to the system. More recently I have been using a miniDSP and class-D amps to create a bespoke cross-over and filter rather than WB's analogue cross-overs and this has given a much more linear bass response.
Stereo subs blend more beautifully, especially with high-level controls from JL Audio or REL (others I'm sure too).
More air, depth of field perspective, stage width (based on sub positioning), better phase performance and less gain needed on the mains (even more so with external crossovers).
Better bass response means wider bandwidth and greater presence of treble and midrange- but through the omission of the trebles in the sub. When you extend the bass range deeper, there is a concomitant increase in percieved HF 'air' (if the speaker is capable).
For me, it really comes down to another box playing in sympathy with the mains and those subs only producing the bass range. The psychoacoustic effect is that the treble and phase effects are now aurally exaggerated in the main speakers by the omission of the trebles missing in the subs themselves. We hear it this way because the subs are missing this mirror image of the sound without the treble emanating from the subs as well. It's really not only about what's added, but what is removed from a 'quad' surround set up. To hear it and experience it over years is to know.
It makes Magneplanar 1.7i's sound like 2 pairs are set up instead of one. I find that when high-level (signal from the power amp or main amps) is employed in a stereo pair, the subs actually perform a surround-like effect that extends the stage another 2x, based on wall to speaker distances. Dipolar and bipolar speakers enjoy even greater space by connecting the two images together (sub and main on each side with stereo pairs).
To turn off the subs while the Maggies are playing is akin to turning off the dipolar back wave of the 1.7i itself. It's like a blanket was placed on the wall behind the speakers when the subs are off.
Kudos to JVS for reviewing this and getting to heart of these gains from subwoofers. Oh and I disagree with Jim / JA2- subs are directional and the difference between 2 of them blended appropriately with the mains vs. one is completely ear-opening.
It may be a result of high-level implementation, but it is definitely directional, as the subs extend upward to meet the speaker cross-over roll-off if the cutoff on the sub is correctly dialed-in. Move a single sub from corner to corner and back to the middle and you get three different presentations from either of the positions.
That some subs like the REL are run full-range but only produce bass. The presence of treble is still there, but so down in output, it merely reinforces the presentation in the main speakers. It is a trick on our ears, but a Really effective one. And it does indeed resemble surround sound- just a 'broken' variant of it. Lol.
... high frequency (treble) output from these REL subwoofers:
https://audio.com.pl/testy/kino-domowe/subwoofery/2575-rel-t-5i-t-7i-t-9i
These subs are run full range. There is treble and midrange content going to the subs.
The addition of the subs as 'bass-only surround sound speakers' playing the same signal as the main speakers causes an aural effect of pushing the midrange and treble into a larger sphere around the main speaker's placement.
We perceive this as increased HF air. REL's and JL Audio run high-level are different than the way the Loki was designed and intended to be implemented-
Low bass is LōKē's raison d'être. "In my large room, we cross over our subs at 44Hz," Daryl said. "We don't ask them to produce sweetness in the midrange or harmonic expression in the high frequencies. We ask them to push air very effectively."
The REL's run high-level do have other obvious audible additives that for the 'absolute sound (of live)" listener create a more believable experience.
I view the Wilson approach as 'accuracy to sources'. To posit one is better than the other is like accounting for taste. They serve 2 different listeners.
Show final roll-off of one of the T series subs at 350hz!
That's high and can produce fundamentals elsewhere in the spectrum.
I don't agree with summing two subs. Discrete stereo always increases image specificity and depth of field perspective. I'm a bit surprised at Mr. Wilson's statement here.
I wasn't high for that post! Lmao...
I have a pair of GoldenEar Triton Two's which have the rep of great low bass, but when I added a pair of old Yamaha YTS-SW305's from 35hz down, the sound took on a marked improvement in dimensionality.
https://tinyurl.com/ywt9ts4u
Cheers George
Regarding Footnote 9 (Jim Austin) and the main text.
In no case that I am aware of can signal arrive at any conventional driver (10 inch or otherwise) in digital form. I suspect what you mean might be that the signal is digitised at entry to the sub-woofer to allow for DSP response and phase shaping. It would then have to be re-converted to analogue form before the input to the built-in Dayton amplifier which would send an analogue signal (i.e. Volts and Amps) to the drivers. An exciting possible alternative (I don't believe it to be so) might be that the signal remains digital in the Dayton amps and is only converted back to analogue at the power amplifier output stage. This would be an example of the almost mythical "true digital power amp". Another reasonable term for this concept is a "power DAC" where amplification is truly digital (not class-D, that's about power supplies) and the D/A conversion is done at the power amp output stage.
Reply to self and Jim...
I imagine you are correct when you suggest that the signal to the main speakers passes thru un-digitised. This is really common topology. Just tap off the low-frequencies into an ultra-high input impedance op-amp and leave the full frequency range analogue for the main system. It works really well because the ear is relatively insensitive to distortion in the low-frequency range.
It's a bit aesthetically sub-optimal in a 2023 digital system because the analogue conversion is done way back in the equipment chain by what we refer to as "the DAC". It's not really pretty to have to add another whole round of A/D then D/A. Much nicer to stay in one domain when there. Nevertheless, as I said, it works fine for low-frequencies.
The ideal approach is to stay in one domain as long as possible. If you have an analogue source and it's possible to stay in the analogue domain all the way to the speakers, then you will get an optimal signal-integrity result. Conversely, if you enter the digital domain for any reason, then the optimal design is to stay in the digital domain until the final possible stage. This is the power-amp output to the speakers, which must be analogue.
Hence my reference above to the ideal and semi-mythical "Power DAC". I understand it was tried a few times in the early 2000's with great results. However it's an un-sellable proposition right now since everyone is heavily dedicated to their existing DACs and analogue power amps. Plus, of course, no use for analogue systems...
I don't understand. The Loke costs $8,950. Dayton plate amps cost $500 tops. There's a disconnect here. The article says the Dayton amp used by Wilson is off the shelf with only minor modifications.
That plate amp is less than $350 on parts express.
Has Paul Miller taken over measurement duties from John Atkinson?
I believe this is the first time I see Paul Miller in Stereophile.
Retirement for JA1? :-)
Has Paul Miller taken over measurement duties from John Atkinson? I believe this is the first time I see Paul Miller in Stereophile. Retirement for JA1? :-)
I'm still here :-)
As JVS lives 3000 miles from me and Paul had already measured the LoKe for Stereophile's sister magazine Hi-Fi News, it made logistical sense to publish Paul's measurements with this review.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Looking forward to more of your work.
providing measurements! Been looking for subwoofer reviews to include them for quite a while.
What would be even better would be to measure the cabinet resonance too, a very important attribute for subwoofers in terms of sound quality, freedom from localization and ability to avoid coloring the midrange of the main speakers.
Maybe you could measure the enclosure resonance of your next subwoofer review-
pretty sure the 110 lb! 10 inch LoKe subwoofer is reasonably solid :).
... McIntosh PS2K.
https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/subwoofers/PS2K
It's priced at $50,000. Really.
$50,000 is ridiculous for a sub, sure, but it’s a significantly better value proposition than the Lōkē. You know how many Lōkēs you’d need to purchase to get the excursion and overall output as the McK? A lot more than $50,000 worth, to be sure.
it's laughable.
There are many people that can afford this sub. Others cannot.
Otherwise, where would they get, really, 18,000 for a proper pair of woofers?
"McIntosh PS2K. https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/subwoofers/PS2K
It's priced at $50,000. Really."
Aussie's have simple a saying about this sort of thing.
"THAT'S BULLSHIT"
Cheers George
...Aussies spoke the King's English?!
Those stupid meters on everything?
All the McIntosh employees have them embedded in their foreheads and walk around like bots.
Cheers George
A McIntosh meter on the forehead is the new Medusa piercing.
JVS can be forgiven for the myopic, overly gushy review on account of his assertion that the Lōkē is ‘the first sub he’s tried in his system’. For those of us who regularly use subwoofers, you’ll have to excuse the skepticism.
Frankly, paying almost $9,000 for a 10” subwoofer that uses a sub-$350 plate amp from Parts Express, and only adds about 10Hz of lower extension to the speakers Wilson intends these to be used for….it’s borderline fraudulent.
I mean if Wilson is already dipping into the Parts-Express catalog for the plate Amp then a budget version should be offered without all the lipstick.
Wilson should be ashamed of themselves but I doubt they are. In their defense, automotive grade paint is expensive.
Glad to see some subs show up here with measurements though. Thanks for that Stereophile. Keep'em coming.
Please add some reviews of the REL offerings. I would love to see how they stack up in terms of measured performance as well. Will their loyal deep pocket fan base be disappointed, that is the question. Lol
For those who aren't outraged enough, Louis Vuitton is about to debut a million dollar handbag designed by their ahem "diverse" creative director.
________________
https://sexia.pl/k,wibratory.html
FEATURED VIDEO
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
