Schiit Loki Mini+ Equalizer Review

[mhardy6647]

I could write a lot about my EL84 and EL8 amplifiers. They are among my best. But that would be off topic here...

We could start another thread.

PS I like EL84 amplifiers. I've yet to hear one that wasn't very pleasant to listen to.

OK, I'll stop.

 

[mhardy6647]

Actually, as an on-topic aside that extremely modest (then and now) EICO AF-4 pictured above 'features' a cut-only tone control to minimize the demands placed by frequency response contouring on the extremely limited (4-ish wpc) output of the single-ended EL84 stereo amplifer.

 

[computer-audiophile]

We could start another thread.

Possibly these are old stories that have simply been told to the end already today. Perhaps all has already been said?
Well, sometimes old fashions are revived over and over again.

The separate tone control around which it is here in the thread, will probably hardly prevail, because the front end today is mostly digital, and I can already influence the sound in the playback software at will.

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

have you checked the used market? Some ten band eqs there for not much, but I'm in the US.

I'm planning to measure the one I have, just saving up for equipment.

Ten bands is way too large, I need something stackable with, say, TCA HPA-1, to fit on a cluttered office desk

 

[jbattman1016]

Ten bands is way too large, I need something stackable with, say, TCA HPA-1, to fit on a cluttered office desk

There are 5 band ones as well in the used market.

 

[Henreid]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Schiit Loki Mini+ analog four band equalizer. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $149/$159 (Black/Silver).
View attachment 287824
We have the usual Schiit enclosure which is fine for this application. Its stamped steel enclosure helps here by making it heavy enough to not get dragged by its dual set of RCA cables. I was happy to see a tone defeat switch on the right. Sadly there is no power switch in front (you have to reach in the back):
View attachment 287825

We have the usual Schiit AC adapter which wastes some power given the heat it generates. Surprisingly, the box itself also got a bit warm. Didn't expect this in a line level type of gear.

I got a kick out of the "no user serviceable parts inside." Does anyone in this day and age expect such parts? I think that vanished back in 1970s if not earlier.

Anyway, the idea is that you tailor the sound using the four controls. Let's see how it performs.

EDIT: Just read that the owner sent me the 500 ma transformer by mistake. The correct one is 1000 ma. I just checked the dashboard and IMD with 1000 ma transformer and performance is identical. The larger transformer may run cooler though.

EDIT 2: I incorrectly labeled all the graphs as "Mani+" rather than "Mini+."

Schiit Loki Mini+ Measurements
Let's start with its frequency response with the tone defeated or not (controls set at detent):
View attachment 287826
Ideally with controls at center we would still have flat line but we don't. Fortunately the error is small at 0.5 dB. Setting the controls to the right at 3:00 o'clock, gives us an idea of what each one does:
View attachment 287827

I was surprised at the effect of the middle controls (C2 & C3). They don't do much boosting but actually lower the response more at one end than the other. The extreme ones work as one would imagine more or less.

I set all the controls at max and min which should just set the unit up for flat response and act as extra or negative gain:

View attachment 287828

Instead of that, we get quite bit of deviation. This will make it hard to interpret what the unit is doing by looking at the controls.

Let's see distortion and noise by operating the unit first in bypass mode:
View attachment 287829

Performance is the same as if I bypassed the unit altogether indicating that the switch simply shorts the input to output. So if you don't need it, you can bypass it more or less completely. I say more or less because crosstalk is impacted:
View attachment 287830

If you enable tone controls, then you take a significant hit in distortion:
View attachment 287831

Noise performance is very good:View attachment 287834

The internal buffer seems to start to saturate at just 0.5 volt:
View attachment 287832

I was disappointed to see fairly steep increase in distortion with frequencies above 500 Hz:
View attachment 287833

Conclusions
If I were to summarize the performance of Mani+ it would be "it could be worse!" Analog equalizers can be quite noisy which I find unbearable. Here, Mini+ is pretty quiet. On the other hand, it throws away fair bit of performance which is hard to accept in absolute, i.e. regardless of cost. But then again maybe it is OK for the price. While I did not try to operate it, I suspect it would be frustrating to make sense out of what the middle controls do. Lack of memory means adjusting it for different types of music, speakers will be hard.

Anyway, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other for Schiit Loki Mini+ so won't put it on my recommended list.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Thanks for this review. It's good to know about a product's deficiencies before making a purchase (especially for a novice like me on a modest budget).
I have a related question about applying equalization to headphones when listening to CDs (since analog equalization doesn't seem to work very well). I'm using a CD player that outputs a digital audio signal through coaxial, optical, and HDMI ports. Would there be a relatively straightforward way to utilize any of these output sources to insert a digital headphone equalization tool into the signal path? What equipment would I need to accomplish this? (And, could I do this without needing to spend a small fortune?) I have a laptop I can use, if that would be one of the necessary components. I know that CDs can be converted to audio files and headphone equalization implemented in the usual way, but I have a large collection of Classical music on CD that would take quite a lot of time and effort to transfer.

I'm considering this because I realize there are many more high-quality headphones to choose from when you can apply equalization (and you aren't limited just to the few models that have close Harman compliance right out of the box). If this question might be answered elsewhere on Audio Science Review please direct me to the appropriate forum - I'm eager to learn.

 

[dzerig]

The problem with @amirm 's graphs is twofold: first he assumes that with all the settings at max or min, the frequency response should be flat. Why he sets this as a rule or goal is not clear.

Second, Amir changes the location of the curves, moving them up or down such that the response of ALL the knobs at 1 kHz appears to be 0 db. This is not what the device is doing, it is a result of Amir changing the location of the response curve.

At 3 o'clock, the 2khz knob -- c3 -- does not lower the frequency response at 20 hz by 1.8 db and leave the response at 1khz at 0 db. It actually leaves the response at 20hz flat and increases the response at 1khz to 1.8 db.

DO YOU SEE YET?

ps, The two curves at max and min are also moved up or down so they intersect 1khz at 0 db, but clearly at max response at all frequencies is up as much as 12 db / 6 db.

 

[T.T.]

this must be the most disappointing review/thread I read so far on this site. Not because of the result, but because of the esteemed reviewer's failure to reconsider or even admit the possibility of wrong interpretation of the measurements. It made quite a dent in my confidence in Amir's expertise.
And the ridicule instead of giving a proper thought ... that's just lame.
@IAmAlwaysSerious , respect for the way you responded.

 

[KenA]

this must be the most disappointing review/thread I read so far on this site. Not because of the result, but because of the esteemed reviewer's failure to reconsider or even admit the possibility of wrong interpretation of the measurements. It made quite a dent in my confidence in Amir's expertise.
And the ridicule instead of giving a proper thought ... that's just lame.
@IAmAlwaysSerious , respect for the way you responded.

100% agree.
Ive only seen this review first time today and read it through to this point and I’m amazed, frankly. This device seems to do exactly as it’s intended to do (some tone control) and has a purpose for a good number of people who will put it to good use and enjoy the results. And it’s been rubbished in an apparent poorly executed trial and review that has been countered by members, in a very reasonable manner, offering sound argument.
@IAmAlwaysSerious well done to you sir.

 

[doesthislookinfected]

This unit has been an absolute Godsend in the previous 2 years. Just enough addition or subtraction towards what the original recordings are lacking. Definitely not an "EQ" but a great control of tone that doesn't turn your recording into a foreign, unfamiliar album/concert but to just enough to improve what's lacking or what might be over bearing.
You can have your graphs and downvotes, they are senseless in a world where 99% of us have completely different systems. It's a mathematical impossibility to have similar readings of the ones presented that would affect any 2 people similarly.

That's why "reviews" are pointless, except for the explanation of what connects to what, power readings and what controls do what. Nobody listens to the same music, media, file, disc, cables, amp, transport, DAC, DAC implementation, analog presentation, power in/out, speakers, mood, architecture of room, type of headphones, subconscious biases, age and on and on.
And for a live concert taper of 40 years with mics or into soundboards, this little engine is a fantastic improver.

I really don't see the negativity towards the Loki. For the price, transparency and effect for the intermediate audiophile this should be all A+ / 100%

Peace & Nugs

 

[Robbo99999]

This unit has been an absolute Godsend in the previous 2 years. Just enough addition or subtraction towards what the original recordings are lacking. Definitely not an "EQ" but a great control of tone that doesn't turn your recording into a foreign, unfamiliar album/concert but to just enough to improve what's lacking or what might be over bearing.
You can have your graphs and downvotes, they are senseless in a world where 99% of us have completely different systems. It's a mathematical impossibility to have similar readings of the ones presented that would affect any 2 people similarly.

That's why "reviews" are pointless, except for the explanation of what connects to what, power readings and what controls do what. Nobody listens to the same music, media, file, disc, cables, amp, transport, DAC, DAC implementation, analog presentation, power in/out, speakers, mood, architecture of room, type of headphones, subconscious biases, age and on and on.
And for a live concert taper of 40 years with mics or into soundboards, this little engine is a fantastic improver.

I really don't see the negativity towards the Loki. For the price, transparency and effect for the intermediate audiophile this should be all A+ / 100%

Peace & Nugs

Although with that attitude you would potentially be saying that frequency response isn't important and the work of the Harman Research for both their headphones and speakers was non-valid and a waste of time. Frequency response is important, and when using Tone Controls it's pretty important to know what kind of effect they're having on the frequency response, and for those changes to be predictable & reproducible to the user.

 

[AVKS]

Although with that attitude you would potentially be saying that frequency response isn't important and the work of the Harman Research for both their headphones and speakers was non-valid and a waste of time. Frequency response is important, and when using Tone Controls it's pretty important to know what kind of effect they're having on the frequency response, and for those changes to be predictable & reproducible to the user.

Anyone who uses a product like this is quite obviously not concerned about adhering to a razor-straight response and isn't trying to 0.38 dB adjustments to a Hz-specific frequency range...

That's hyperbole of course, but it matches the melodrama in your response since no one discounted Harman in any way, shape, or form. I'm a Lokius user myself, and while I fully appreciate the research (and own a number of Revel/JBL/Harman products) and get in the weeds in the studio, sometimes I just want to turn a knob and dial in some bass/mids/treble to enjoy what I'm listening to without fudging around further. That's the use case for Loki/Loki+/Lokius users - it is very clearly not a tool for folks that want/need to take a scalpel to their frequency response.

 

[Robbo99999]

Anyone who uses a product like this is quite obviously not concerned about adhering to a razor-straight response and isn't trying to 0.38 dB adjustments to a Hz-specific frequency range...

That's hyperbole of course, but it matches the melodrama in your response since no one discounted Harman in any way, shape, or form. I'm a Lokius user myself, and while I fully appreciate the research (and own a number of Revel/JBL/Harman products) and get in the weeds in the studio, sometimes I just want to turn a knob and dial in some bass/mids/treble to enjoy what I'm listening to without fudging around further. That's the use case for Loki/Loki+/Lokius users - it is very clearly not a tool for folks that want/need to take a scalpel to their frequency response.

It is really though. If the frequency response changes that the tone controls make for this product are not predictable and reproducible to the user (note Amir's user comments on the tone controls) then basically it's the same thing as saying you don't want proper reliable control over your frequency response, which in context of the user I quoted who said the following then it's almost the same as saying frequency response doesn't matter and by extrapolation that the Harman Research for speakers & headphones would also not matter, this following bit of the user I quoted (in smaller text below):

"You can have your graphs and downvotes, they are senseless in a world where 99% of us have completely different systems. It's a mathematical impossibility to have similar readings of the ones presented that would affect any 2 people similarly.

That's why "reviews" are pointless, except for the explanation of what connects to what, power readings and what controls do what. Nobody listens to the same music, media, file, disc, cables, amp, transport, DAC, DAC implementation, analog presentation, power in/out, speakers, mood, architecture of room, type of headphones, subconscious biases, age and on and on."

 

[Jimbob54]

Frequency response is important, and when using Tone Controls it's pretty important to know what kind of effect they're having on the frequency response, and for those changes to be predictable & reproducible to the user.

Can't say that I agree with the sentiments of the poster you reply to , but can't say I agree with this part of your response as relates to the DUT either .

It's absolutely not the tool for trying to get a wayward FR to a specific target for either speakers or headphones , but as a way of seasoning playback to taste it is serviceable . The first few responses with more graphs and detail of the frequency and amplitude of the different knobs as well as amirs measurements tell us what they do. It requires a reasonably well trained ear to use filters 2 and 3 usefully I would have thought , especially if combining with 1 or 4, but they are predictable and reproducible in their effect .

 

[Robbo99999]

Can't say that I agree with the sentiments of the poster you reply to , but can't say I agree with this part of your response as relates to the DUT either .

It's absolutely not the tool for trying to get a wayward FR to a specific target for either speakers or headphones , but as a way of seasoning playback to taste it is serviceable . The first few responses with more graphs and detail of the frequency and amplitude of the different knobs as well as amirs measurements tell us what they do. It requires a reasonably well trained ear to use filters 2 and 3 usefully I would have thought , especially if combining with 1 or 4, but they are predictable and reproducible in their effect .

I'm just drawing a comparison, I'm not saying it's designed to fix frequency response errors in headphones & speakers. I've tried to explain the extrapolation I was making to the Harman Research albeit it wasn't that necessary that I mentioned Harman in the first place, as it was just an extrapolation of principles. I don't think it's important enough for me to waste any more space trying to explain what I meant - people will just either understand the point I was making or won't.

More specifically with regards to the device - given that central position of tone controls doesn't produce a neutral response is one reason why this device is unpredictable & non-reproducible for users.

 

[AVKS]

It is really though. If the frequency response changes that the tone controls make for this product are not predictable and reproducible to the user (note Amir's user comments on the tone controls) then basically it's the same thing as saying you don't want proper reliable control over your frequency response, which in context of the user I quoted who said the following then it's almost the same as saying frequency response doesn't matter and by extrapolation that the Harman Research for speakers & headphones would also not matter, this following bit of the user I quoted (in smaller text below):

"You can have your graphs and downvotes, they are senseless in a world where 99% of us have completely different systems. It's a mathematical impossibility to have similar readings of the ones presented that would affect any 2 people similarly.

That's why "reviews" are pointless, except for the explanation of what connects to what, power readings and what controls do what. Nobody listens to the same music, media, file, disc, cables, amp, transport, DAC, DAC implementation, analog presentation, power in/out, speakers, mood, architecture of room, type of headphones, subconscious biases, age and on and on."

Those are some mind-bending leaps of logic there. The thing y'all seem to lose sight of when tossing out the Harman stuff is that it's all preference, emphasis mine there, meaning that it can vary but also that it is not binary or zero sum. Just because something may be more 'preferable' in a vacuum or in certain circumstances does not mean that everything else is automatically bad/unenjoyable, nor does it mean that preference can't vary from circumstance to circumstance. If I'm sitting at my desk, my preference is to be able to dial in some bass boost by reaching out and turning a knob in a split second - I don't care about scalpel-precision with parametric EQ and all that jazz or jacking around with digital parametric EQ and futzing with all of that. I just want some more bass. Turn the knob and voila, more bass, and I enjoy the sound. It could be argued that someone sweating about keeping as close to something like the Harman curve as possible is listening as much to their gear as the actual sounds being played, and that's before we even consider the differences in how our individual ears hear from one another.

The flip side of this is that if someone doesn't like what the knobs do when they're turned then they can return the product and find something else. No harm, no foul. Again, this is not a product for folks looking to do microsurgery on frequency response or that fret about every last Hz. It's for folks who, for whatever reason, want a general tone control solution. It's not an affront to Harman, to science, or somehow saying that 'frequency response doesn't matter', because if someone truly thought that they wouldn't be using any kind of tone control at all.

 

[Robbo99999]

Those are some mind-bending leaps of logic there. The thing y'all seem to lose sight of when tossing out the Harman stuff is that it's all preference, emphasis mine there, meaning that it can vary but also that it is not binary or zero sum. Just because something may be more 'preferable' in a vacuum or in certain circumstances does not mean that everything else is automatically bad/unenjoyable, nor does it mean that preference can't vary from circumstance to circumstance. If I'm sitting at my desk, my preference is to be able to dial in some bass boost by reaching out and turning a knob in a split second - I don't care about scalpel-precision with parametric EQ and all that jazz or jacking around with digital parametric EQ and futzing with all of that. I just want some more bass. Turn the knob and voila, more bass, and I enjoy the sound. It could be argued that someone sweating about keeping as close to something like the Harman curve as possible is listening as much to their gear as the actual sounds being played, and that's before we even consider the differences in how our individual ears hear from one another.

The flip side of this is that if someone doesn't like what the knobs do when they're turned then they can return the product and find something else. No harm, no foul. Again, this is not a product for folks looking to do microsurgery on frequency response or that fret about every last Hz. It's for folks who, for whatever reason, want a general tone control solution. It's not an affront to Harman, to science, or somehow saying that 'frequency response doesn't matter', because if someone truly thought that they wouldn't be using any kind of tone control at all.

If you want a device that is unpredictable in the way it handles frequency response then by all means buy this device.

 

[Mart68]

If I'm sitting at my desk, my preference is to be able to dial in some bass boost by reaching out and turning a knob in a split second - I don't care about scalpel-precision with parametric EQ and all that jazz or jacking around with digital parametric EQ and futzing with all of that. I just want some more bass. Turn the knob and voila, more bass, and I enjoy the sound.

I totally get that and it's perfectly valid. It's just that if I was designing a device for that use-case it wouldn't be anything like the one reviewed here in implementation - or cost.

 

[AVKS]

If you want a device that is unpredictable in the way it handles frequency response then by all means buy this device.

I did- a Lokius. Bought one out of the gate when they released a few years ago. It's not the mixing board and precision EQ software we use in the studio but is great in own right and does exactly what I want it to, slight nudges of general tone with a quick turn of a knob. I use it in various ways with both my Harman-friendly Ascend speakers/Dan Clark Audio headphones and Harman-heretical Audeze/Hifiman sets.

In all fairness to the Ascends on this subject though, the only thing I might do is turn down the 20 Hz knob the tiniest bit at times. Everything else is fantastic and needs no adjustment to my ears.

I totally get that and it's perfectly valid. It's just that if I was designing a device for that use-case it wouldn't be anything like the one reviewed here in implementation - or cost.

That's fair, and no question there are other EQs/tone controls out there that offer more precise control if people want it. I was mainly responding to the comments about it being a travesty and how anyone who uses such a thing must be anti-science/is actively thumbing their nose at Harman/insert hyperbolic nonsense of choice here. There Schitt items are clearly not intended for folks overly concerned with precision adherence to a strict curve/very precise adjustments, which is a very valid way to experience music if one is interested enough to get that granular.

 

[Mike-48]

If you want a device that is unpredictable in the way it handles frequency response then by all means buy this device.

This review is probably the only one I've seen on ASR that I think is totally off-base, and that has led to some very strange comments by readers.

When testing an equalizer, if you want it to look weird, normalize all the graphs to 1 kHz. The right way is to keep the levels exactly the same, and see how the EQ changes the response when you twist the knobs.

Also, there is NO reason to believe that ANY equalizer will produce flat frequency response with all knobs turned to min or max. Anyone thinking it should do that just doesn't understand what an equalizer does. Flat FR with controls other then at zero is not part of the remit of any EQ.

Finally, some commenters seem to believe that the Loki should act like a room-correction device. That's like saying a wrench is defective because it's not a pair of pliers. Each tool has its purpose! For room correction, precise PEQ usually is best; for program equalization (which the Loki is designed to do), wide EQ over broad bands is the way to go, as it is harder to make sound unnatural and is easy to adjust.