New Loki incoming? Loki mysteriously absent from the Schiit page

Discussion in 'Digital: DACs, USB converters, decrapifiers' started by PerfectAnalog, Nov 11, 2015.

  1. AllanMarcus

    AllanMarcus Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Dislikes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Alamos, NM
    Home Page:
    I hope to be able to hear it at RMAF. From those that have heard it, albeit industry insiders, the reviews are good.

    Anyone used the new Loki? I wonder if Schiit will simple integrate into their future amps. Amps used to come with 2 or 3 tones controls, so nothing new, but would be awesome.
     
  2. kukur9

    kukur9 Rando

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Likes Received:
    11
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Got mine Friday and casually listening on my office speaker system. The gradual increase in effect is a nice touch as it helps you find the point you want to settle in on. It's subtle, until it isn't, which I think is useful.

    My purchase intent was to make my Grado SR-80 sound like the GH-2. (I owned the GH-1 for several months and really enjoyed them, but $650 is a tough sell for me.) I'll see how this goes over the next couple weeks.

    The main qualifier in this experiment is that now I have to more seriously consider cables as well. My experience is they matter a lot so I don't relish having to try a few brands/types to tune the tone controls (Loki), but so far it's a nice purchase for bumping up the bass in a way that doesn't bloat the low-mids (again, just on my small speakers so far). I had this bass-bloat experience (a bad thing) with the new KEF LS 50 Wireless at a dealer this weekend. (Tidal via wi-fi. Wasn't able to hear direct USB.)

    And as baldr says, it's a "fun" component!
     
  3. pedalhead

    pedalhead Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    Dislikes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    Not wishing to flog a dead horse nor derail this thread, but there's plenty out there to suggest MQA, at best, is of no benefit.
    http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/mqa-core-vs-hi-res-blind-test-part-ii.html

    The industry is jumping on it as another way to sell more stuff, provide a topic for pages of copy, and arguably down the road, DRM. Consumers need it like a hole in the head.
     
  4. AllanMarcus

    AllanMarcus Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Dislikes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Alamos, NM
    Home Page:
    Interest read. If the point of MQ is to provide better sound, then the article helps debunk that. If the point of MQA is to allow for smaller file sizes of hi-res audio with little to no discernible difference, then the article seems to affirm that.
     
  5. nithhoggr

    nithhoggr Author of the best selling novel Digital Jesus

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Likes Received:
    204
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Location:
    Boston area
    Really interesting article. I almost find the demographic data more interesting than the results. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the respondents skew older, but it's older than I'd have thought, and a lot of the headphones seemed to be on the affordable side, at least compared to the other gear.

    I mean, that's always at least part of the point of a lossy codec. A ~256kbps VBR MP3 will offer a much smaller file size than a 16/44.1 FLAC with little to no discernable difference (at least to most people), but most audiophiles will prefer the FLAC on principle, since it could make a difference.
     
  6. AllanMarcus

    AllanMarcus Friend

    Friend
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Dislikes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Alamos, NM
    Home Page:
    But the point is compare a MQA 24/96 file with a 16/44 file. The hope of MQA is that the MQA version will sound better at the same or small size.

    I'm not an MQA fan; I haven't even herd it yet. This is all theory to me.

    Of course we are in a thread to talk about using a hardware device to alter the sound to make it more likable to the specific listener. Putting "purist" aside, using some sort of technology to have better sound is generally considered good in this industry. Some purist are OK with using tubes, cables, amp/DAC/transducer pairings to achieve a certain sound. Others have no issues with EQ or tone controls. MQA just seems like trying to figure out a way to get a "hi-res" file to the end user in such a way the end user will like it, but in a way that is streamable. It's about the end product and if the end user likes it.
     

Share This Page