Schiit Lokius Review (Equalizer)

[antennaguru]

As has been mentioned the bands selected are the same as with the Cello Audio Palette, which I recall reading were chosen by Dick Burwen who was considered a genius in that era.

The Cello unit was extraordinarily expensive and considered a real benefit by those that used them.

 

[antennaguru]

A few years ago I needed a tone control unit for one mostly analog system and I initially tried using an Aphex studio parametric EQ that could be configured as a Bass and Treble control. It worked pretty well despite its physical form factor which was very wide for that system. I decided to build myself a bettter mousetrap around the ST SGS-Thomson TDA2320A Stereo Class A Preamplifier IC with three Alps R27 premium potentiometers, for Bass/Mid/Treble tone control using the circuit in the TDA2320A Data Sheet. It was a success as it gave me an extra band and was quieter, more transparent that the studio unit, and the right physical form factor for my application.

 

[beefkabob]

Is this so? what specific reviews give you this impression?
By my expectations even Behringer gear was ok for the price an they have the worst image in the industry.
Thinking about Motu or example they make excellent DACs for the Prosumer market (but its more studio and not PA)

2/7 recommended.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Motu. They have a very different market, I think.

The needs of PA are different from the needs of hifi. PA is about durability, working live, long runs, volume, and, in many cases, voice intelligibility across a large room. It's just not the same as you and two speakers at home listening to recordings.

 

[kevinh]

It doesn't work well as a tone control. It has too many bands for simple treble and bass boost. I would actually take a simple box that was just tone control over this. As it is, if you want to boost the bass, you have to fiddle with two knobs and get that combination right with no memory or gradation to remember it. Treble is worse as that is spread over four dials.

So this device is a version of the Cello Audio Plaette, which was derived from Dick Burwin's EQQ for hi system. The Frequencies were well chosen for the intended Program Equalization. I have some experience with the Pallette and it is wonderful for dealing with the many flawed recordings of great music that is poorly recorded. I fear you missed the point of this product. Levinson is now selling a version of this product in software which is more convenient to use, settings for a particular recording can linked.

Software – Daniel Hertz S.r.l.

Daniel Hertz Software | Master Class Software upgrades your digital music library to the sound and feeling of pure analog master tapes.

www.danielhertz.com

 

[Lambda]

2/7 recommended.

So by your metric Behringer is better then audioquest...
But i don't Know why you brig this up? Behringer is the lowest end consumer/ home user stuff and even they make some ok stuff.

For Amps it would be interesting to see some of the better Company's like
"Lab gruppe" "Powersoft" "QSC" "Yamaha" "Crown"

For DACs/ADCs and "streamer" there is interesting stuff from DiGiGrid, Neutric, Apogee, Motu, RME...

But its getting of topic!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

The choice of frequencies is wrong as is usability of the device. All of these are execution issues. I am actually OK with a concept of a properly designed EQ with good physical display and controls. I noted this in the review.

Agree to disagree then!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

Why is that hard to grasp? You can't turn the bloody things, they don't have indicators you can easily see, and are slippery to boot. This is a type of box you mess with a lot if it is for music equalization. So it better have good controls. I don't care how cheap it is. If it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for me.

Lokius doesn't grab you. I feel you. (I have the 4 band version which is a different animal).

It's very likely that you'll react to the knobs better when you review the bigger version coming out nonetoosoon. I think the q may adjustable and at over $1k it's distortion should meet your standards.

 

[Maki]

Lokius doesn't grab you. I feel you.

It's very likely that you'll react to the knobs better when you review the bigger version coming out nonetoosoon. I think the q may adjustable and at over $1k it's distortion should meet your standards.

Oh man they're making a big boy? I'm excited. Hopefully they choose the bass frequency bands more wisely this time.

 

[amirm]

So this device is a version of the Cello Audio Plaette, which was derived from Dick Burwin's EQQ for hi system. The Frequencies were well chosen for the intended Program Equalization. I have some experience with the Pallette and it is wonderful for dealing with the many flawed recordings of great music that is poorly recorded. I fear you missed the point of this product. Levinson is now selling a version of this product in software which is more convenient to use, settings for a particular recording can linked.

Unless you have some research that shows why these frequency picks are correct, I don't care who picked them originally. I tested them and found them awkward and ill designed to use. But even if they were, you absolutely need multiple profiles to switch in between which this box lacks. It also doesn't have a fraction of the physical usability of the Cello box:

Notice the large, wide apart controls. And additional ones to change EQ levels and such. So naturally the above box cost more because it has more to it both physically and operationally.

Also, from some of the video reviews I watched, people were using them to equalize headphones. This is a desktop product after all. So you can't compare the two products.

 

[amirm]

Lokius doesn't grab you. I feel you. (I have the 4 band version which is a different animal).

It's very likely that you'll react to the knobs better when you review the bigger version coming out nonetoosoon. I think the q may adjustable and at over $1k it's distortion should meet your standards.

Yes, I heard there is a "max" version with multiple memories and such. That, maybe a useful device but then you have to think how bad you need a physical box with such high cost. I guess for purely analog folks it would have value.

 

[MRC01]

Unless you have some research that shows why these frequency picks are correct, I don't care who picked them originally. I tested them and found them awkward and ill designed to use. ...

I've always wondered why EQs like the Lokius and others don't space frequencies by equal octave intervals, so the gaps between them are psychoacoustically the same across the range.
For example with 6 knobs, center frequencies would be 36, 114, 360, 1138, 3600, 11384. The spacing between them is 1.66 octaves and the lowest and highest are half that (0.8333 octave) from the passband limits (20 Hz & 20 kHz respectively).

 

[beefkabob]

So by your metric Behringer is better then audioquest...

Out of the mouths of babes...

But i don't Know why you brig this up? Behringer is the lowest end consumer/ home user stuff and even they make some ok stuff.

For Amps it would be interesting to see some of the better Company's like
"Lab gruppe" "Powersoft" "QSC" "Yamaha" "Crown"

For DACs/ADCs and "streamer" there is interesting stuff from DiGiGrid, Neutric, Apogee, Motu, RME...

But its getting of topic!

Berhringer makes a lot of PA stuff. They target everything but home.

Behringer | Catalog | Product Applications

Search Behringer products by Application, Category or Series to find what you need.

www.behringer.com

Behringer | Catalog | Product Applications

Search Behringer products by Application, Category or Series to find what you need.

www.behringer.com

Lots of companies make stuff. Motu is home audio recording. Why bring them up? PA style EQ came up and I said it was likely meh, like most PA gear is. I'm quite consistent in what I'm saying. You're mixing home recording with PA, two separate markets.

 

[antennaguru]

Here is Dick Burwen's biography. This is why he was widely considered a genius in the field audio design, and specifically audio filters, in his era:

Dick Burwen

If there is some concern about why he chose the six bands he did, I'm thinking he would happily answer that question. His contact info is available on the web site - and do make sure to take a look at the 5 channel listening room he designed in the mid 1960s.

 

[Lambda]

Behring is a meme in the event Industry the name is synonyms with cheap unprofessional low quality gear. (not always rightfully)
Motu on the other hand is respected in the industry

- Overview

 

[beefkabob]

Behring is a meme in the event Industry the name is synonyms with cheap unprofessional low quality gear. (not always rightfully)
Motu on the other hand is respected in the industry

- Overview

That's a digital mixer, though. I thought we were talking about analog PA gear. They do networking, AD/DA, and headphone amps. I don't see a single analog mixer or EQ. I'm sure Motu's digital mixer is great, which gets back to my original point, that doing any of this these days in analog is a fetish. It's not like many people are cutting their records from live recording anymore, and when they did that, the sound quality was awful compared to modern digital.

 

[nagster]

The other day, I was measuring a little 5Band analog PEQ. It is # 9500 from a manufacturer called GML. (LOW and HIGH can be [shelving].)
In the case of PEQ, even analog may help with correction.
GEQ is... If you need EQ, it's better than nothing.
If digital correction is possible, it is much more detailed, accurate, phase correctable and easy to recall.
Of course, in the case of fixed Q and fixed F, it is difficult to correct the room and equipment.
I think that it is suitable for correcting the sound source with a strange balance and making rough changes for the balance you like.

 

[JJB70]

I think Behringer are unfairly maligned. I have used a lot of Behringer gear over the years on a sound desk, doing PA stuff etc and in every case it did what it was bought to do perfectly well at very low price.

 

[kevinh]

Unless you have some research that shows why these frequency picks are correct, I don't care who picked them originally. I tested them and found them awkward and ill designed to use. But even if they were, you absolutely need multiple profiles to switch in between which this box lacks. It also doesn't have a fraction of the physical usability of the Cello box:

Notice the large, wide apart controls. And additional ones to change EQ levels and such. So naturally the above box cost more because it has more to it both physically and operationally.

Also, from some of the video reviews I watched, people were using them to equalize headphones. This is a desktop product after all. So you can't compare the two products.

This is a Tone Control for program EQ, The Audio Band was split into 6 segments, Sub Bass 20hz, Bass ~140HZ, 500hz & 2,000 Midrange. 5,000 Treble and 20khz supersonic. The filters are lower Q filters allowing a lot of overlap between the bands, The mid range bands have a low +_ 5 db range, the Bass and Treble Controls are12 db, the Sub bass and Supersonic controls are +- 20db range. The granularity of the controls are also finer in the midrange than more coarse as you mover away from the midrange.

This device should be used in addition to EQ for the room/system ie REW or Driac. IF a room and system is really optimized that Still leaves the program material. If you are listening to a GD Soundboard recorded in 1973, or an Ormandy Recording from the mid 50's who knows what the freq response of the hall electronics speakers used to record and master the program material? The odds are infinitesimal that it will match the response of a persons system. So the ability to adjust the tonal balance of the recording is very Nice. This would apply to the case of listening through headphones also. If you go to the Daniel Hertz website Masters Class link I provided above, scroll to the bottom of the page there are 6 selection of music with the EQ (as dialed in by the vendor) you can switch back and forth between the EQ and original versions of the songs.

Judge for yourself which is better, The differences are quite clear to me, YMMV.

MO you are missing the point of the product, your critique of the ergonomics are well taken, OTOH the product is $400 rather than 20K+ in 1985 dollars. For my part I will get the software version when I go to a mac for my music streamer platform.

 

[amirm]

So the ability to adjust the tonal balance of the recording is very Nice.

It is but this is the wrong box for it. If the tuning is program specific, then you will go crazy setting 6 different dials differently as you switch from one album to the other.

 

[kevinh]

It is but this is the wrong box for it. If the tuning is program specific, then you will go crazy setting 6 different dials differently as you switch from one album to the other.

Well when IU used the Palette (a friend woned one) it only took a few seconds to make adjustments. Did you try the Master class examples to see who the software functioned?