Audiocontrol DQX....any experience?
- Thread starter d audio 450
- Live activity
- Replies 9
- Views 2K
d audio 450
I understand that this is a crossover and it seperates frequencies, but how does it make an existing system with an already built in crossover at the head unit sound better as in my case? I have the Eclipse8053 HU. I am also interested in buying this as a reccommendation from my installer. He says that with my Focal Utopias and Zapco 1000.4 amp, it would be a great addition to the system.
Can someone with some knowledge explain if it's worth it's $475 to be installed in my Explorer. Would it make it sound THAT much better and WHY and HOW???!!!
Thanx.
Can someone with some knowledge explain if it's worth it's $475 to be installed in my Explorer. Would it make it sound THAT much better and WHY and HOW???!!!
Thanx.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
The DQX is not only a crossover (seperates freqs), but a 1/3 octave equalizer. I assume you know what an EQ is, a 1/3 octave has 32 bands to adjust, as opposed to the 9 or 11 most people think of in in-dash EQ's. This helps to fine tune the system.
As for the DQX, I dont own one, but I almost almost bought one. My problem was, I wanted to be able to adjust it on the fly, which means buying the remote control for it also, which is (or was at the time, a few months ago) an additional $225. That shot the price of the DQX 'system' well into (and above if you look around) the price range of the Alpine PXA-H700, now remodeled as the 701. The DQX looks to be a very nice piece, but Im sorry, the Alpine 701 owns it. More EQ bands (a 1/3 octave for each output, each channel of each output), multiple parametric EQ's, crossover of course, time alignment, and even a surround processor if that's your thing. It simply has a TON more features than the DQX. AC came out with a nice product, but adding another $200+ onto the price tag for a remote was shooting themselves in the foot. But, if you dont want to control it other than from your trunk (set it once and forget it), and dont need/want more EQ's, time alignment, surround or any of the other few extra options the Alpine has, the DQX is a nice piece. If you do want the remote, do yourself a favor and just buy the Alpine. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
As for the DQX, I dont own one, but I almost almost bought one. My problem was, I wanted to be able to adjust it on the fly, which means buying the remote control for it also, which is (or was at the time, a few months ago) an additional $225. That shot the price of the DQX 'system' well into (and above if you look around) the price range of the Alpine PXA-H700, now remodeled as the 701. The DQX looks to be a very nice piece, but Im sorry, the Alpine 701 owns it. More EQ bands (a 1/3 octave for each output, each channel of each output), multiple parametric EQ's, crossover of course, time alignment, and even a surround processor if that's your thing. It simply has a TON more features than the DQX. AC came out with a nice product, but adding another $200+ onto the price tag for a remote was shooting themselves in the foot. But, if you dont want to control it other than from your trunk (set it once and forget it), and dont need/want more EQ's, time alignment, surround or any of the other few extra options the Alpine has, the DQX is a nice piece. If you do want the remote, do yourself a favor and just buy the Alpine. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
In your humble opinion of course, right?? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
The DQX has 30 bands of 1/3 octave 6 channel outputs and 2 parametric bands per channel, why anyone would need anymore than that is beyond my comprehension. And also has a very steep crossover slope (24db/oct). Most high end decks today come with time alignment.
In my opinion I would never want one single unit to do that much, its simply put "having too many chefs in the kitchen" if you get my drift.
Eq's are meant to be "set and forget" no other practical purpose can be served by having control in the car.
By the way, I'm not an Alpine hater. I love their stuff but when it comes to sound processors AudioControl is the shiznite in my opinion. The noise cancellation system is the bomb.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/offwall.gif.29a91b9b265d47af4b8e33fc5b558d18.gif
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
Well ok, IMO. But when you consider it does everything the DQX does, and much more, for about the same price (with controller included), it seems like a pretty solid opinion to me. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
It has a 31 band 1/3 octave graphic EQ for each front output, each rear output, the center channel output (or midbass), and an 11 band graphic EQ for its sub output. IOW, you can adjust each speaker in your system individually. Every piece of info Ive read on the DQX simply says it has a 30 band EQ, no mention of it being adjustable for each output, like the 701. You can say you would never need that much, but you never know. I agree from side to side adjustment isn't all the necessary, but I definitely see the advantage of being able to adjust the EQ individually for each pair of outputs, or sets of speakers if you will. For about the same money, Id choose more rather than less, even if I do end up not needing -all- of it. BTW, you dont have to adjust each speaker individually if its not needed. The flexibility is there, only if needed.
It has 5 parametric bands, again for the front, rear and center, and 2 for the sub. The DQX advertises 2 bands for its parametric EQ, that's it.
The 701 has 8 outputs, the DQX has 6.
The 701 has time correction, the DQX does not. As for most high end hu's having time correction already, I wouldn't necessarily say 'most' do, but yes many do. but, add a signal processor downstream from the headunit, and the hu's time correction becomes worthless. EQ's with multiple inputs are few and far between. So when you can only run one output from your head to your processor, time alignment for individual outputs on the head becomes, well like I said, worthless.
The 701 has Dolby Por Logic and DTS decoding for surround sound, if you want it. The DQX does not.
The 701 has adjustable filters up to 30db per octave, the DQX goes to 24. Small advantage granted, but yet another one.
As for having too much in one unit, it wasn't too long ago people were putting multiple processors parallel to get all the features (or most) now available in one chassis. I agree I wouldn't want all this in a head unit that also plays cd's, dvd's, VHS, and is a microwave. but we aren't talking about all that, we are talking about a sound processor that has virtually all the sound processing you would want, in one unit. That's an advantage to me, not a disadvantage.
"Eq's are meant to be "set and forget" no other practical purpose can be served by having control in the car."
I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever tried setting a 1/3 octave EQ from the trunk? I have, its not fun. You dont listen to the music in the trunk, you listen to it in the driver's seat. That's where Id like my adjustability. Also, EQ's do not have to be set and forget. I like lots of different types of music, and I like being able to 'fiddle' with the adjustments accordingly, and for various recording levels, etc. A trunk mount simply wont allow that, at all. I would turn your statement around on you and say there is simply no disadvantage to having control from the driver's seat. The 701 has presets (6 iirc) that not only allow you to change EQ settings on the fly (such as for 'daily listening', 'SQ competition', 'SPL competition', etc), but also will adjust filter settings, slopes, tiem alignment, and every other adjustment possible in the 701. It simply doesn't get any more flexible than that.
As for noise, did I mention the 701 has digital optical inputs? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
Im not an AC hater, nor an Alpine lover. I haven't owned another Alpine piece since this one, for a long time. And, I was dead set on buying an AC unit (originally looked at dual EQT's, then stepped up to the DQX). But, once I realized the price of the entire unit with controller (I waited a few months for them to finally release it), it became clear it wasn't a good bang-for-the-buck purchase, considering the alternatives. I like the DQX, I simply hate that its in the $700 price range if I want to be able to adjust it from somewhere other than the trunk. Once I realized this and did some shopping around, it was obvious (to me) that the 700/701 was a better bang-for-the-buck purchase, and simply a step up in signal processors. *shrug*
It has a 31 band 1/3 octave graphic EQ for each front output, each rear output, the center channel output (or midbass), and an 11 band graphic EQ for its sub output. IOW, you can adjust each speaker in your system individually. Every piece of info Ive read on the DQX simply says it has a 30 band EQ, no mention of it being adjustable for each output, like the 701. You can say you would never need that much, but you never know. I agree from side to side adjustment isn't all the necessary, but I definitely see the advantage of being able to adjust the EQ individually for each pair of outputs, or sets of speakers if you will. For about the same money, Id choose more rather than less, even if I do end up not needing -all- of it. BTW, you dont have to adjust each speaker individually if its not needed. The flexibility is there, only if needed.
It has 5 parametric bands, again for the front, rear and center, and 2 for the sub. The DQX advertises 2 bands for its parametric EQ, that's it.
The 701 has 8 outputs, the DQX has 6.
The 701 has time correction, the DQX does not. As for most high end hu's having time correction already, I wouldn't necessarily say 'most' do, but yes many do. but, add a signal processor downstream from the headunit, and the hu's time correction becomes worthless. EQ's with multiple inputs are few and far between. So when you can only run one output from your head to your processor, time alignment for individual outputs on the head becomes, well like I said, worthless.
The 701 has Dolby Por Logic and DTS decoding for surround sound, if you want it. The DQX does not.
The 701 has adjustable filters up to 30db per octave, the DQX goes to 24. Small advantage granted, but yet another one.
As for having too much in one unit, it wasn't too long ago people were putting multiple processors parallel to get all the features (or most) now available in one chassis. I agree I wouldn't want all this in a head unit that also plays cd's, dvd's, VHS, and is a microwave. but we aren't talking about all that, we are talking about a sound processor that has virtually all the sound processing you would want, in one unit. That's an advantage to me, not a disadvantage.
"Eq's are meant to be "set and forget" no other practical purpose can be served by having control in the car."
I couldn't disagree more. Have you ever tried setting a 1/3 octave EQ from the trunk? I have, its not fun. You dont listen to the music in the trunk, you listen to it in the driver's seat. That's where Id like my adjustability. Also, EQ's do not have to be set and forget. I like lots of different types of music, and I like being able to 'fiddle' with the adjustments accordingly, and for various recording levels, etc. A trunk mount simply wont allow that, at all. I would turn your statement around on you and say there is simply no disadvantage to having control from the driver's seat. The 701 has presets (6 iirc) that not only allow you to change EQ settings on the fly (such as for 'daily listening', 'SQ competition', 'SPL competition', etc), but also will adjust filter settings, slopes, tiem alignment, and every other adjustment possible in the 701. It simply doesn't get any more flexible than that.
As for noise, did I mention the 701 has digital optical inputs? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif
Im not an AC hater, nor an Alpine lover. I haven't owned another Alpine piece since this one, for a long time. And, I was dead set on buying an AC unit (originally looked at dual EQT's, then stepped up to the DQX). But, once I realized the price of the entire unit with controller (I waited a few months for them to finally release it), it became clear it wasn't a good bang-for-the-buck purchase, considering the alternatives. I like the DQX, I simply hate that its in the $700 price range if I want to be able to adjust it from somewhere other than the trunk. Once I realized this and did some shopping around, it was obvious (to me) that the 700/701 was a better bang-for-the-buck purchase, and simply a step up in signal processors. *shrug*
ok, my turn //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif
30 band 1/3 oct eqs are usually set with an RTA to begin with and then tweaking little by little after that. My eq has a cool feature that allows me to trunk mount the base in the trunk or where ever I want and use a long cable with the dials and sit in the drivers seat to tweak.
Which is a worthless feature if your deck does not have a "compatible" optical output.
30 band 1/3 oct eqs are usually set with an RTA to begin with and then tweaking little by little after that. My eq has a cool feature that allows me to trunk mount the base in the trunk or where ever I want and use a long cable with the dials and sit in the drivers seat to tweak.
Which is a worthless feature if your deck does not have a "compatible" optical output.
audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
You use the PPI 1/3 octave then. Great, but the DQX has no such feature. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif And yes you can use an RTA to set the 1/3 octave, but only to a degree. Its used to find problem points to dial in, then you use your ear to fine tune it. Again, this is very difficult from the trunk.
Id say as many high end hu's have optical outs as have time alignment.
Id say as many high end hu's have optical outs as have time alignment.
OP
d audio 450
10+ year member
Registered User
- Thread Starter
- #10
im gonna go with the alpine pxa-h701 cuz the dqx only has one set of inputs....very dissapointing to find out.....
i'll let you know how it is
thanks for the advice and stuff
-pat
i'll let you know how it is
thanks for the advice and stuff
-pat
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
- Started by artncrystal05
- Car Audio Classifieds
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 1,716
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- d audio 450
