oops-- should read: not THAT the Lokius I currently own isn't remarkably transparent.
51 responses Add your response
My take … sales by number baby. $1499 EQ for a reason …. $299 Lokius owners know and why / buy @stuartk waiting patiently ;-)
|
@stuartk - I'd also be interested in what you think of the Max if you get one. I have DSP in my system already through Roon, but a remote-controlled, quick-to-adjust analog EQ is tempting. |
I have no reason to expect I won't like the Max-- I had a Loki to begin with and from there upgraded to the Lokius. At this point my system is considerably more neutral than it's ever been (I favored a more euphonic presentation in the past, before I started losing some of my ability to hear higher frequencies) and thus, considerably more revealing of the sonic differences between CDs. I'm actually compiling a spreadsheet of settings for each CD. At any rate, it's not very effective trying to adjust the EQ while standing next to the components, which are located off to one side of the room. The prospect of being able to make such adjustments from the listening chair is very appealing. |
I bought this unit, thinking it would be 6-8 weeks, it shipped the very next day. I have it here, but have so far not placed it in the system. I love the sound as it is, but will eventually try the unit for the reasons stated. The system is Perlisten S7t speakers, Constellation Audio integrated SS unit, and a Luxman D-10X SACD player. This system, to me, makes magic. |
Nice to know there are fellow obsessives out there! @rpeluso : Please let us know your impressions once you've actually got it in your system. That's great news about the quick delivery. |
@dwest1023 - Did you mean "It was not very hard to detect . . . ."? |
Sorry, I meant that I COULD detect the Loki in my system. There seemed to be some compression with the unit installed. I switched back in forth many times, as I I wanted to keep the unit. It was very well built and did not change the character of the music at all. The controls were like changing the character of the speakers more than the music. I hated to send it back, but I had just purchased a Pass int 250 which is very transparent, and I lost a bit of that with the Loki installed. This might not be noticed on other systems. There was one other person that returned his for the same reason. |
I have all 3 Schitt EQs and the Loki mini is just OK I haven’t used mine in a while the Lokius is wonderful, especially with full-range driver loudspeakers. The Max is the better-sounding eq. Remote is nice to adjust sound at the listening position. Still, I would say most systems wouldn’t benefit from the EQ. But if you have room issues, your hearing is failing, or you have a speaker like a full range or music that could use a bit of EQ to sound its best. They can be very useful. |
Its been a long time; I received the unit in January and had not placed it in the system until just this morning. I have been trying it with a few old Motown discs, Temptations, and to my ears most of these are bad sounding, little bass, lots of high end, probably mixed for a car radio. Well, I placed the Max in the system, and played a bit with the 6 settings, made three pre-sets for with increasing boosts in low one, cuts in high end, and they all make these old recordings sound unbelievable! In bypass mode I hear nothing from the unit. I think its wonderful, especially the 6 bands and the ability to adjust from a listening position. |
@rpeluso - Thanks for the report. It would be great if you (and other users of the Loki Max) could post more impressions as you use the unit more. |
@rpeluso Just saw your post and it confirms what I've hoped -- that the right EQ could coax these oldies, "mixed for car radio" as you say, into full-range sonic form. That virtue, plus ease of use, correction for room idiosyncrasies, and elder-ear HF hearing loss, would justify the price of Loki Plus for me. Appreciate the update. |
I had one on trial and returned it. Make no mistake, it's quite transparent and quiet and does its job well. So why did I return it? The user interface.
Given that I can correct tonality other ways, I couldn't see keeping a unit whose user-interface shortcomings would annoy me every time I used it. But I have to say, sonically, I think the Loki Max is quite an achievement. Years ago, I owned a Cello Palette Preamp. I think the Loki Max is at least as transparent as the CPP was, and it has a remote control, and it costs much less. |
@chuckie1970 Anyone can advise if the Loki max is actually superior to the Cello Palette? I’m pondering if getting Loki max plus preamp or an old Cello Palette. Many thanks. |
Good to know about the interface. I’ve had more pressing audio matters to attend to and as a result, haven’t bought a Max. Now, having read your post, I probably, won’t, as the distance from my listening chair to the Max would be more like 10 feet, in my case. At this point, having further tweaked my system, the impetus to utilize EQ has diminished significantly and the Lokius seems enough. Thanks for your report. |
After cataract surgery, my view of the gear became a lot clearer. I missed the Loki Max, so recently I bought one again, now in silver finish (formerly unavailable) to match my other gear. Although I can read the knobs, I prefer more definite indicators. I bought replacement knobs from DigiKey. I do find the unit cleaner than any other analog eq I’ve used. It doesn’t take anything from my listening pleasure; rather, it adds to it. I set Preset 1 to all bands flat, and with each track, I start out that way. If EQ is needed, I can dial it in in a few seconds. Did I really need it? No. Am I enjoying it? For sure!
|
These continued Schiit EQ testimonies prove time and again they’re worthy of a listen, and even the "purist" in mind should at least take notice. The Lokius which sets one back only a few hundred I consider a bargain / steal, Goldilocks Zone EQ. Those whom may be interested implementing one into their system I’d without hesitation skip right over Loki and purchase a Lokius. I’d certainly be interested in a Max (Schiit EQ trifecta style) if only felt she’d best their Lokius but have my doubts. Max level is purely "man, I ain’t getting up for schiit" convenience. |
Equalization is necessary sometimes for some speakers; in my case for my very special headphone; then "purist" are deluded... I use some for my headphone AKG-K340...It is an hybrid with two cells a dynamic one and an electro-acoustic one, and to reach optimal S.Q. i must tame a precise frequencies range in the middle band and at the two extremities, i boost the top highs and the deep bass... The result is more natural timbre for all instrument and voice... Hybrid headphone are too complex and costly to design well for profit and good sound said to me a big headphone company designer , that said a lot, and are too picky to drive well with any random amplifier in my experience ... The K340 is the only success and flagship for an hybrid ever... It change my life after the sad fateful lost of my acoustic room... I dont use EQ. as a toy at all for different nusical genre or styles and i never touched it again after the listening month experiment where i set it right to optimize my K340...I use EQ. to optimize TIMBRE perception once for all and this acoustic factor had nothing to do with listening to various musical genre... If someone use it as a toy it may be fun for sure but for me that means this audio system had an unsolved problem ... Because well designed system in optimized room need EQ only for improving timbre, and compensate for some speakers limits as in my headphone drivers case, it did not replace passive acoustic treatment not mechanical active control of the room ... ( in my room i was using mechanical equalization) My EQ is integrated in my dac as a very basic tool it is not a sophisticated equalization as the Schiit product, but it does the minimal work i need ...
«The only "purist" i trust has a double personality, he bi-locate around my head»-- Anonymus acoustician 🎧 |
Forgive me but I’m having difficulty locating my experience with EQ within your framework... so I must use my own framework in this case. For me, it’s not so much about timbre as it is about overall tonal balance-- most often the highs are too forward or sometimes the lower mids are lacking clarity -- imbalances due to the, at times, frustratingly-inconsistent SQ of compact discs. The more resolving my system becomes, the better all CDs sound but their individual differences are also more apparent. They do not sound uniformly wonderful. While I do not keep glaringly poor-sounding CDs in my collection, there are some that only require small EQ adjustments in order to eliminate otherwise distracting flaws that inhibit, as you might say, "immersiveness". This is not typically an issue with acoustic music genres but can certainly be an issue with electric instruments. I hope this makes sense, despite being presented within a different framework. 🙏 |
You are right... I forgot that i listen ONLY to acoustic instrument...Mostly... Then i must undertand that people MAY AND CAN "play" with it to compensate some cd recording flaws...Not because their audio system exhibit flaws,...I confuse my system experience with all others... 😁 But i must say to correct you that it is impossible to experience natural Timbre sound with an overall bad tonal balance... Then timbre experience encompass for his optimal perception and ask for overall tonal balance... But because you said it and explained it to me very well , i am wrong then refusing to others the necessity to play with it to accomodate some recording flaws and not so much audio system flaw as i wrongly claimed in a too hasty manner ...😁 Myself i used E/Q only to correct tonal overall balance of my dual drivers headphone for a better timbre experience... I dont mind some flaws time to time in recording...Most of my files are classical or jazz always acoustic instrument ... I did not listen to pop , rock, heavy metal nor electronica... but i must admit that all people are not like me then i was dogmatical 😁forgetting that there are recording problems in many musical genres.. i thank you for opening my eyes and rightfully correcting me... I wish you the best from my heart...
«Saying that you are never dogmatical is being dogmatical »--Groucho Marx🤓
|
If someone cannot hear on the spot the huge difference in timbre between these three cellos,then it very possible that he at least need EQ. for sure to optimize his system but more probably a new headphone or improving his system and improving acoustic in the room...And for the test the listener not only must hear differences but identifying why the no1-2-3 are better in the micro tonal playing dynamis on the spot too...
EQ help to optimize and compensate for some aspects of our system limitations yes, but it will not give by his own power a completely natural timbre perception if the system is not right to begin with or almost right or if the room acoustic is not well done or at least not bad even if there is no acoustic treatment... And the recording cd or files to take the test must be minimally good for sure as our friend stuartk pointed out... |
You are definitely right! I suspect I’m simply less aware of timbre than tonal balance. What I’ve noticed is that tonal balance and PRaT are the first things my brain locks onto and evaluates before turning its attention to timbre, sound staging and even resolution. I’m not sure why this is so. Do you have any ideas regarding why different listeners prioritize aspects of SQ differently?
|
One view -- the one I hold -- is that some kind of rather precise, fixed EQ will be needed to make many systems sound the most natural. Certainly in the bass, and sometimes higher up to correct quirks of the loudspeakers or headphones. THEN, one has to deal with the different approaches taken in producing different recordings. Some producers will use EQ or microphones that do not sound accurate. In many cases, broadband EQ like the early Cello devices and the new Schiit ones will be able to make substantial improvements. One could call the first kind of EQ timbre correction and the second kind tonal-balance correction without objection from me. Still, if one is wrong, the other will be wrong, almost by definition, since timbre is largely the balance of harmonics, i.e., tonal balance in some sense. That is to me not worth much discussion, being mainly semantics. My main point is that pinpoint EQ and broadband EQ are two different items and for two different purposes. |
This video and the others on this youtube site explain well all the factors at play and in the right order... I discovered it few weeks ago and i arrived in my own way "groping in the night" of my listening experimentsfor 2 years to the same conclusion about the value of these factors and their ordering...
The reason why your brain lock first in tonal balance and PRAT is simple and normal... It is impossible to experience a sound perceived Timbre naturalness without having through your system settle all necessary parameters for a minimal quality threshold experience of tonal balance and PRAT... If not timbre experience cannot be otherwise than inaccurate and artificial...Most people dont recognize Timbre imbalance and one of the reason is that they never experience it in a good speakers/room or with headphone to begin with... And for sure we must know how a piano and a voice must sound in various locations in real life ... Then when all is optimal and timbre experience is minimally good, then and only then you can tune your speakers/ room and work with its many acoustic parameters for more in term of Spatial soundfield : ( a)improving imaging, (b) soundstaging and (c) holographical volume ratio of the sound sources and the listener envelopment factor... These three are called "immersiveness"... In this video they say the same thing better than me because they are acousticians, and i am only an experimenting amateurs ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DseAu4LPPWQ&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_A5BFgnV1w5wNNfnks3u0oL&index=51&t=1499s
|
I am pretty in the same boat as you and i concur with the way you express it about EQ... Just a correction about "timbre" which is not only tonal balance or spectral envelope but also "Time envelope" and onset of the sound etc to described it briefly : From wiki ...
Then the timbre experience to be set rightin a room or in headphone ask for more acoustic factors to work with than just tonal balance ...
|
I have had MY LOKI Max for about a year and I must say I could not do without it in my system. I have space limitations in my room, which cause me to locate my bookshelf speakers close to the rear wall. What I like most about the Loki, is it seems to change more the characteristic of the speaker then the sound. Someone ask about transparency. Absolutely to my ears it is. I have remove it dozens of times from my Pass 250 and I can not detect any difference in or out. I have my room treated so I don’t need to use it often, but it sure is handy when I need it. Most of the time is just a very small adjustment here or there. Nothing like adjusting from a chair. I did use a black magic marker to color the notches on the knobs, to heal me see. It’s a bit pricey, but if somehow it stopped working I would immediately get another if it was not repairable. |
I have all three Loki. Lokies? The three band got relegated to the garage system pretty quickly. The Lokius is better but is now in the studio. The Max is a keeper - more bands yield a narrower Q, plus the memory and the ability to switch it in and out from "the seat." I haven't used it a lot because my purchase was looking toward modification of certain recordings, not speakers or the room. Were I to complain I would mention it gets warmer than I expected, give it clearance. For ref my system is Gato pre, Rose 150b, Marantz SACD, Michell and Pro-Ject TTs, Lounge Audio and Vincent TT pre, Perreaux R350, Martin Logan Expression 13a and various subs. Aside from the usual piano and female vocals I like nylon stringed guitar for comparisons. |
Stuart, when I say change the characteristic of the speaker, I mean when you adjust a frequency on the loki, it’s as if yoou change how the speakers is voiced. If you adjust the highest treble knob, you can make your speaker become bright. Your source music never seems to be altered. It is as if the Loki is built in the speakers. That is how good it is. Never thought I would be an EQ in my system. My Mac amp has a built in EQ but I never use it. It never sounds right. The Loki is MUCH better. |
OK. I guess I'm not that sophisticated. In my system, Lokius is located between dac and integrated. I'd be hard-pressed to discern whether it was changing the character of the source, amp or speakers. Could you please explain your rationale for concluding it's the character of the speakers that's being changed? ? ? |
Mikhailark, when do you hear this veiled sound from the Loki? Is this when the tone controls are active or is the sound veiled just being installed in your tape loop? I am connected from streamer to dac. Dac it output to my Accuphase 380 and I detect nothing veiled. I also rotate a pass 250, Hegal 390, Mac 352 and works and sound great. |
@dwest1023 - I am still evaluating. Obviously, when controls are active. I don't hear difference when everything is at zero or when bypass is on. I will give it some time. As I said, there is value anyway, I'd rather have poor recording corrected and simply defeat EQ in cases when I feel it is inadequate. It is all subjective, you know... |
