Wilson LōKē - Wilson's smallest subwoofer

[crwilli]

[emoji897][emoji897][emoji897][emoji897]

[Charles]

Originally Posted by marsalis

There hardly any ported subs because it makes no sense to build one. A ported design will have a much steeper bass roll-off, which is precisely what you don’t want in a sub, compared to a sealed one. Efficiency is not an issue due to the built-in amplification and EQ. Compatibility has nothing to do with that, a good sub is a good sub, and they are typically sealed for a reason.

marsalis, you are off topic for this thread. The thread was concerning the plate amp of the Loke and its relatively high price. It was not about ported subs vs sealed subs. I absolutely agree with you that it is the quality of the sub and not whether it is ported or sealed. But as for the remainder of your beliefs, they are off topic. If you wish to begin a thread about the merits of sealed vs. ported systems, please begin it elsewhere.

Best

Charles

[bart]

Originally Posted by Charles

A properly integrated sub(s) makes a huge difference in any system. Wilson's are expensive. My Thor tops out at 70K. A REL 25 Reference is 7.5K. It obviously has more output than a Loke, a topline amp, and exudes quality.

But it is not made for a Wilson. It is a sealed system. The LoKe is a port. There are very few ported subs out there. Most are sealed. I could see using a REL or Gotham with a Magico more than a Wilson. There are subtle differences between sealed and ported bass.

Wilson's are extremely difficult to overload and low distortion. My 1.25KW gives up before my Thor. It puts out 1500 watts. I have seen the power guard flash once.

I think compatibility gets lost in these discussions. I am extremely grateful to match my XVX with an appropriate Wilson sub. It would never in a million years blend or perform as well with a REL six pack or Twin Gotham's. The difference would be immediately noticeable.

Best

Charles

Charles, I don't think Marsalis went off topic. He replied to a post from you on last page.

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by bart

Charles, I don't think Marsalis went off topic. He replied to a post from you on last page.

I agree Marsalis is on topic.

But Marsalis--unless you're going to tell us that you're an engineer at Magico or REL, and in on serious trade secrets; those are pretty strong words. Kind of like a car hobby guy opining that those dopes at Porsche don't know what they're doing. Wilson has an extraordinary team of speaker designers, so they will have taken all considerations known to just about everyone into account. Assuming your criticism is fair and they are competent, they will have decided there are other more important considerations.

I have approximately zero technical background, but I'm going to refer back to Charles's earlier point--it is very likely (or at least very much hoped) that the LoKe will integrate with Wilsons better than other subs are able. Perhaps the unusual choice of ported design is an important part of that symbiosis? With all this in mind, your post has made me more optimistic that LoKe offers something that other great subs do not.

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by PeterMusic

I agree Marsalis is on topic.

But Marsalis--unless you're going to tell us that you're an engineer at Magico or REL, and in on serious trade secrets; those are pretty strong words. Kind of like a car hobby guy opining that those dopes at Porsche don't know what they're doing. Wilson has an extraordinary team of speaker designers, so they will have taken all considerations known to just about everyone into account. Assuming your criticism is fair and they are competent, they will have decided there are other more important considerations...

Why the qualification? Does it really matter? The world's best designers often disagree.

Ultimately, LoKe will live and die based on it's performance, just as all previous Wilson subs have. We're good with that.

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by crwilli

[emoji897][emoji897][emoji897][emoji897]

Save a box for me!

[marsalis]

Originally Posted by PeterMusic

I agree Marsalis is on topic.

But Marsalis--unless you're going to tell us that you're an engineer at Magico or REL, and in on serious trade secrets; those are pretty strong words.

There are no trade secrets here nor any strong words, just Goggle the subject of bass tuning. Its pretty basic physics, no rocket science here.

[PeterMusic]

I think you miss my point. When you say ported makes "no sense", you imply that the Wilson engineers are incompetent dopes. I'm pretty sure we can all agree this is not the case.

But I do think your post gets an an important issue--why does a group of brilliant engineers with few constraints choose something that goes against conventional wisdom? What do they know/believe that the rest of the industry does not? Or do their goals differ from the others'? Will this be a very different sub than the competition?

[Charles]

I have been on AA long enough to recognize a troll when I see one. And the popcorn goes out. Marsalis does not state his signature. He makes a generalization, essentially trashing all ported subs, including Wilsons. I mean the answer is obvious to Marsalis. It's not rocket science, just basic physics: just go to Google as he did, and you will discover if you read about bass tuning, as he did, that a Watchdog, Thor, Subsonic, and Master Chronosonic are lousy subs. It makes "no sense" to build them, according to Marsalis.

How utterly ridiculous.

Marsalis, I will remember you. You are a troll. Either that or you are extremely misguided. I won't use the word I am thinking.

Charles

[marsalis]

Originally Posted by PeterMusic

I think you miss my point. When you say ported makes "no sense", you imply that the Wilson engineers are incompetent dopes. I'm pretty sure we can all agree this is not the case.

Like I said, a quick Google search on loudspeakers bass alignment will help you understand the subject better.