Yo fellas, need your help... This old fart has gone to long depending on the limited EQ's that come with the HU's that I've been using. I can't take it no more as they are only allowing limited adjustment, which isn't good enough.
My system has gotten good results so far with plenty of compliments, but I need to "perfect" it to my tastes further. Two things that I'm lacking is a decent separate crossover and a good EQ. I already have a crossover that I can implement, though I'd be reluctant to use separate a EQ & Xover. What is a good, but not too expensive EQ that I should be looking at?
I know that the trunk models offer the best adjustment, however I don't think they are ergonomically practical. I would like a dash or glove box mount with at least a 9 band (parametric ok if enough bands). The Audiocontrol DQX would be a perfect all-in-one unit, but is ridiculously expensive and might require some deep fabbing to fit up front.
There are a few time tested ones (since the 90's) by Kenwood, Sony, and Alpine, but their output voltage is questionable as they are only stating output impedance instead.
Gimme some pointers....
Replies (13)
swez on 09/5/2007 10:35:34
This is a good step in the right direction for an Audiophile grade system at a modest budget. Before recommending an EQ system for your app, what frequency range(s) are giving ya the most trouble?
If I recall rightly, you now have an RTA program on your computer and a calibrated mike too... yes? Using these tools, one can identify the problematic parts of the audio spectrum that need some tweaking. Once you know the "hot spots and dips", then an EQ can help home in on them for corrective action.
A Pink noise tone source is good for all-a-round tuning adjustments. Once you detect the problem frequencies, then looking for the right EQ will be easier.
1. Parametric EQ's are great as wide and narrow band notch filtering.
2. Fixed point EQ's are easier to use, but harder to dial in on specific "narrow band problems" as each adjacent slider is affected by sliders above and below a given slider.
Say more bro,
Swez
ttocs on 09/5/2007 14:13:19
the only EQ I used I was completely in love with was that little kenwood 5-band with sub out. If you are looking for something small that will give you easy tuning that is the way to go. I was always able to make a quick adj as it was in easy reach and there was not too much to play with. Playing with eq's is fun but I am a big fan of the kiss theory there as it seems wit the bigger eq's it is always off a bit and I can't stop touching it........
MrBrownstone on 09/5/2007 15:02:32
Are you looking in dash or the opposite direction. Years ago, Alpine made an 11band 1/2 DIN model...but that's long gone the way of the dinosaur.
I own a Rockford OEQ-2 10 band varible Q model from 2003..and I believe it's one of the last of the parametric models made with frequency warp (being able to slide 1/2 octave in either direction) for under $500...heck, now it's either the ultra expensive or the useless 4 or 5 bands ones.
The 31 band slide rule ones are very good, but don't allow you to zero in on the offensive frequency.
I guess it depends upone what you want. I'd rather have 10 variable bands than 31 fixed...but that's because I like to fine-tune.
Ash on 09/5/2007 16:53:26
Humm, interesting points!
I just about have everything needed for the "mini lab", except I havent really decided on what program I want to use. In that case I'm kinda limited on knowing exactly what frequencies are needed. At the same time, flexibility beyond fixed bands would be nice as well as a crossover with midbass capabilities.
Part of my problem is that I'm using the limited crossovers on the amps. Since my front stage consists of a 4" comp set, the upper limit of 240hz hipass @ 12 db/octave isn't enough to keep them clean. Then the bandpass on the 6.75" midbass in the doors is limited to 200hz (24 db/octave) on the top end, which IMO is too steep and cuts off top end output too early. The Usacoustics amps have good clean power but tacky crossovers for my use.
However, all are defeatable and can make good use of a outboard x-over, but I would like to keep the amount of added units down. A good combo processor would be nice. I particularly like the Audiocontrol DQX as it would be basically perfect, yet it's price is somewhat of a hindrance ($400- ouch!). I can't see shelling out those kind of bucks for that unit. I think Mr. B is right... Either spend a bunch of ducks or use a unit almost not worth having, because that's all I am seeing.
What about these units that state ohms on the outputs instead of voltage? What's up with that?
ravin on 09/5/2007 17:21:47
I looked up the Audiocontrol DQX. Wow that looks like a sweet eq? Even has an input for a digital dash control so you don't have to mount the unit up front. I think your best bet is to just save up Ash. Remember you get what you pay for.
swez on 09/5/2007 18:49:51
Egads man...I see your point and there are a few things that are needed here.
It appears that your MB/MR transition points are not optimal. (Too low on the 4" MR and the MB BPF filter is too steep and not enough upper extension) This leaves a gap in these transition points. A Parametric or Analog EQ cannot fix these issues alone.
Here's a general roadmap of what I see so far that will help:
1. An active, variable multi-band crossover network (2-way or 3-way)
a. Sub (80-100 Hz. LPF) Sub amp filter should work here.
b. MB (80-300/500 Hz., BPF) Active BPF crossover network?
c. MR/TW (300/500 Hz. HPF) Amp HPF should work here and a passive HPF on the TW.
The sub and MR/TW filters are the easy part and most amps can handle this ranges. The MB/MR filters are not a good match as is. (Gap-osis)
Hummm, what to do here and keep the cost reasonable? Here's what I see so far...
2. Active/Passive Network options:
The 4" MR HPF needs to be adjusted upward so it does not gas out on you at higher SPL levels. (Too much LF energy here... yes?) A little experimentation will help ID the best crossover point on this driver. (~300-500 Hz + passive HPF for TW)
The MB BPF is too steep. (4th Order filter) The HPF extension is not high enough for the MB/MR transitions. Extending the HP section of this BP filter and perhaps change to a 12 dB/oct slope for smoother transitions. (80-300/500 Hz.)
You can combine MR/TW HPF and use passive filters on the tweeters. Here, the HPF could be about 300/500 Hz for the MR driver and then use a passive 2nd Order filter for the TW. These are the two main areas to focus upon. The amp filters will hopefully do the rest for you.
How many amp channels are you planning to use here?
2-way system:
1. Sub channel (Obviously)
2. MB/MR/TW
3-way system:
1. Sub only (Amp LPF, 80-100 Hz.)
2. MB only (Passive BPF, 2nd Order is good, 12dB/oct. 80-300/500 Hz.)
3. MR/TW (HPF on amp and passive 2nd order on TW) ***
*** If the HPF on this MR/TW amp is too low, consider F-Mods and run the amp at full range. (300/500 Hz HPF versions can be used here) The tweeter has its own passive network.
http://www.partsexpress.com/webpage.cfm?&WebPage_ID=3
The tricky part is the MB crossover:
1. It's too steep of a slope
2. Use a full range signal and passive or active crossovers to give it a smooth and usable BP range
3. To get the most from this MB speaker, separate amp channels are advised. Then one can control output levels w/o sacrificing "Incertion losses" typical in passive filters. (1.5 dB losses are typ.)
Chew on this one a while. I sure did and there may be other options to consider as well. We have not looked at Active crossovers here yet, but can consider that option as well. Unfortunately, there are basically 2 options... the expensive Audio Control crossovers or cheaper brands that can be found at PE. (Pyle, Pyramid and others in that category)
Swez (THINK...Whew... COFFEE)
trunkisloud on 09/5/2007 20:10:55
man i remember a couple of 1/2 din eq's i used to have ...i loved those things...one was the alpine 3331 and the other was a sony...cant remember the model...but it looked similar to the alpine...except you can chang the color from green to orange.
Ash on 09/5/2007 20:43:12
This cud has been chewed, grinded and spit for sometime. I have for some time already had it running the way it was designed. It just hasn't been tweaked (lack of proper x-over points).
The 4"comps are already run 2-way passive with a crossover I built. From the comps hi-pass and under (midbass, sub, everything is active. Just finding a good unit with midrange/midbass bandpass is hard enough. One with the points I need is even harder. Now add a EQ, now we're talking serious soul searchin'!
One that caught my eye was the MA Audio MA15EQX . Fixed bands, but if you notice, it's the ones you don't usually get (30/60/120hz). For me, the lower two have the most profound effect when tuning. Just can't get enough info on the unit itself. On Sonicelectronix site, they actually give some zoom pics of the unit. From what I can tell the description given by manufacturer is somewhat misleading as it states one thing, but it looks like it has MR/MB bandpass capability from looking at the pics. If you click to make it larger, you can just barely make out in the bottom left hand corner where the Sonic' logo is, it looks like there is a hi-pass/bandpass switch. There are also the frequency controls nearby. I checked out the MA website and was not able to pull up a manual to confirm this.
Before anyone gets confused as this is a somewhat simple setup from normal 2-ways, understanding the term "midrange" when referring to the active crossover is somewhat vague. Even though it may be labeled as such on the unit itself, the available cutoff frequencies actually can make it valid for mid bass use as well. Some units label it MR, but the points go well into the bass region. So it's not a matter of labeling, it's a matter of usable points to make it work. All we are doing is adding a separate midbass in between a sub & small component set. Bridging the gap so to speak...
swez on 09/6/2007 06:08:37
Here's a good picture and some specs on that EQ/3-way crossover features:
http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=14913
As I read this one, the MR section can be used to control the upper BP portion of your MB driver. A simple passive HPF can be used to control the lower cutoff point here. (Between sub and MB transitions) After looking at the blowup picture of the MR crossover section, it has a HP and Bandpass selector and HPF/LPF variable filters too. (Not bad Dad)
The Tweeter section can be used as an active HPF for the MR/TW since you already have passive TW filters.
Yeah, I think this would be a very good option at a price that makes sense too. This makes a lot of sense and a very good find Ash!
Swez COFFEE
Ash on 09/8/2007 16:48:52
Update:
I have made a decision and opted for an AudioControl DQX. Don't worry for it wasn't new. It just so happen to be one on ebay for nearly half of what they go for and only a few bucks more than the MA EQ at Sonicelectronix price. Not a bad deal in my books. It should be here tuesday. It might take a while before it's run as I will probably need to reroute a few things and make a more permanent setup.
In the meantime, I've been playing around with the 3-way setup (fronts). The Audax are 8 ohms and I decided to try them bridged on the rear of the USB-4065. This nets about 80 rms watts each in the 4 ohm load. I contemplated this as most would worry about the mono signal mixing up the front stage. Remember though, that this concentrated in the mid bass range (80-200) so imaging should stay intact.
The nominal handling the Audax HP170M0 is a mere 45 rms watts. However, crossing them upwards from the 70-80hz to about 100hz gives them better protection from the shallow 12db hi-pass slope. At the same time 12db is shallow enough to allow some bleed thru, so there still is a bit of low bass from them. Maybe too much on some boom tracks with the new power output. Headroom is nice though.
Readjusted the gains to match the MR/T's and came up with a nicer sound. Almost don't need a sub. Imaging has changed for the better as the "stage" seems to have more fullness. Still could clean them up a bit with a higher slope and/or cutoff point.
Here the DQX could really fit in with it's full 24db slopes. Stronger protection with more precise tuning is what I expect. That's the reason I chose it.
This project is getting closer to finishing. Once it's set, I might need to rebuild a amp rack and stealth the sub to clean things up a bit.
Wish me luck and I'll keep you guys updated.....
Ash,
swez on 09/8/2007 20:53:41
Interesting turn of events there Ash.
There is not much imaging at those low frequencies either. (To the Audax MB drivers) Directionality is more notable above ~350 Hz. So, going MONO with them makes a lot of sense. Stereo imaging is much more noticable in the MR/TW frequency ranges and your summary confirms this.
Am glad you found a well priced DQX as it is probably the best choice on the market. As long as it works properly, that's all that matters.
Good score fer sure!
Swez
Ash on 09/11/2007 21:46:31
I just received the AC unit and it powers up fine. Didn't get pass that phase yet. I got to find a home for it before I start actually hooking it up. For once I do that I'm sure to not go any further than toying with it. So it's best to install it properly.
Nifty lil' unit... Quite compact considering what it does. Only being about a little more than a inch thick and 10" x 6" hopefully will make it easy to conceal from prying eyes.
After powering it up, I scrolled through some of the menu functions and checked out the selections available. Simple enough to figure out how to scroll through the menu of adjustments which is no more intimidating than playing with Pioneer's EZ EQ. It would be nice to have the dash controller. Could make it quicker if you could adjust while in listening position at the same time.
Apparently the crossover frequencies are linked. In other words, you only make 3 choices in frequencies (PFM, mid/low, and mid/hi), and the affected output share that same x-over point. You would think that it isn't versatile, but it makes good sense since the slopes are 24db. With a steep slope there is less need for spacing between points as dips may become severe. It kind of makes it "idiot-proof" in a way by keep you from fiddling too much as well.
Also the range of x-over frequency points are very variable in that the bandpass output can be used for true midbass or midrange. Of course any 2-way comp's passives could be easily replaced with this unit as the MB/MR upper limit stops around 8khz before finalizing at "full range". Drawbacks are that it won't be suitable for two pairs (front/rear) of hi-pass only, as the front will run full range on the bottom end. I could be wong but I believe that's how it goes.
The options for EQ'ing are pretty neat as well. As I surfed roughly through the menu, I found that the lower octave extends well past normal use. Not sure of the increments (possibly 5 on the far end of the scale as it varies), but it did display 25 & 30 hz adjustments! The additional parametrics was the usual choice of 40/45, 50, and so on . What ever points the eq lacked, the parametric has the frequency in between. Very complete!
Output voltage on the unit seems to have a peak of about 5 volts. I thought the online manual said 7, but 5 is strong enough. There are also equalization overload indicators that is meant to protect the affected amp and speakers
Looks like a pretty complete unit, if one has a real use for it.
Give me a while to run it and I'll tell you what I really think of it.
Ash,
swez on 09/11/2007 23:03:12
Nice product and once you get some hands on time, am sure it will make perfect sense. AC does a good job at designing sensible crossovers and internal limiters. As you say, when using 24dB/oct slopes, that's really steep and little room for error the way AC sets them up.
Cool beans,
Swez
My system has gotten good results so far with plenty of compliments, but I need to "perfect" it to my tastes further. Two things that I'm lacking is a decent separate crossover and a good EQ. I already have a crossover that I can implement, though I'd be reluctant to use separate a EQ & Xover. What is a good, but not too expensive EQ that I should be looking at?
I know that the trunk models offer the best adjustment, however I don't think they are ergonomically practical. I would like a dash or glove box mount with at least a 9 band (parametric ok if enough bands). The Audiocontrol DQX would be a perfect all-in-one unit, but is ridiculously expensive and might require some deep fabbing to fit up front.
There are a few time tested ones (since the 90's) by Kenwood, Sony, and Alpine, but their output voltage is questionable as they are only stating output impedance instead.
Gimme some pointers....
Replies (13)
swez on 09/5/2007 10:35:34
This is a good step in the right direction for an Audiophile grade system at a modest budget. Before recommending an EQ system for your app, what frequency range(s) are giving ya the most trouble?
If I recall rightly, you now have an RTA program on your computer and a calibrated mike too... yes? Using these tools, one can identify the problematic parts of the audio spectrum that need some tweaking. Once you know the "hot spots and dips", then an EQ can help home in on them for corrective action.
A Pink noise tone source is good for all-a-round tuning adjustments. Once you detect the problem frequencies, then looking for the right EQ will be easier.
1. Parametric EQ's are great as wide and narrow band notch filtering.
2. Fixed point EQ's are easier to use, but harder to dial in on specific "narrow band problems" as each adjacent slider is affected by sliders above and below a given slider.
Say more bro,
Swez
ttocs on 09/5/2007 14:13:19
the only EQ I used I was completely in love with was that little kenwood 5-band with sub out. If you are looking for something small that will give you easy tuning that is the way to go. I was always able to make a quick adj as it was in easy reach and there was not too much to play with. Playing with eq's is fun but I am a big fan of the kiss theory there as it seems wit the bigger eq's it is always off a bit and I can't stop touching it........
MrBrownstone on 09/5/2007 15:02:32
Are you looking in dash or the opposite direction. Years ago, Alpine made an 11band 1/2 DIN model...but that's long gone the way of the dinosaur.
I own a Rockford OEQ-2 10 band varible Q model from 2003..and I believe it's one of the last of the parametric models made with frequency warp (being able to slide 1/2 octave in either direction) for under $500...heck, now it's either the ultra expensive or the useless 4 or 5 bands ones.
The 31 band slide rule ones are very good, but don't allow you to zero in on the offensive frequency.
I guess it depends upone what you want. I'd rather have 10 variable bands than 31 fixed...but that's because I like to fine-tune.
Ash on 09/5/2007 16:53:26
Humm, interesting points!
I just about have everything needed for the "mini lab", except I havent really decided on what program I want to use. In that case I'm kinda limited on knowing exactly what frequencies are needed. At the same time, flexibility beyond fixed bands would be nice as well as a crossover with midbass capabilities.
Part of my problem is that I'm using the limited crossovers on the amps. Since my front stage consists of a 4" comp set, the upper limit of 240hz hipass @ 12 db/octave isn't enough to keep them clean. Then the bandpass on the 6.75" midbass in the doors is limited to 200hz (24 db/octave) on the top end, which IMO is too steep and cuts off top end output too early. The Usacoustics amps have good clean power but tacky crossovers for my use.
However, all are defeatable and can make good use of a outboard x-over, but I would like to keep the amount of added units down. A good combo processor would be nice. I particularly like the Audiocontrol DQX as it would be basically perfect, yet it's price is somewhat of a hindrance ($400- ouch!). I can't see shelling out those kind of bucks for that unit. I think Mr. B is right... Either spend a bunch of ducks or use a unit almost not worth having, because that's all I am seeing.
What about these units that state ohms on the outputs instead of voltage? What's up with that?
ravin on 09/5/2007 17:21:47
I looked up the Audiocontrol DQX. Wow that looks like a sweet eq? Even has an input for a digital dash control so you don't have to mount the unit up front. I think your best bet is to just save up Ash. Remember you get what you pay for.
swez on 09/5/2007 18:49:51
Egads man...I see your point and there are a few things that are needed here.
It appears that your MB/MR transition points are not optimal. (Too low on the 4" MR and the MB BPF filter is too steep and not enough upper extension) This leaves a gap in these transition points. A Parametric or Analog EQ cannot fix these issues alone.
Here's a general roadmap of what I see so far that will help:
1. An active, variable multi-band crossover network (2-way or 3-way)
a. Sub (80-100 Hz. LPF) Sub amp filter should work here.
b. MB (80-300/500 Hz., BPF) Active BPF crossover network?
c. MR/TW (300/500 Hz. HPF) Amp HPF should work here and a passive HPF on the TW.
The sub and MR/TW filters are the easy part and most amps can handle this ranges. The MB/MR filters are not a good match as is. (Gap-osis)
Hummm, what to do here and keep the cost reasonable? Here's what I see so far...
2. Active/Passive Network options:
The 4" MR HPF needs to be adjusted upward so it does not gas out on you at higher SPL levels. (Too much LF energy here... yes?) A little experimentation will help ID the best crossover point on this driver. (~300-500 Hz + passive HPF for TW)
The MB BPF is too steep. (4th Order filter) The HPF extension is not high enough for the MB/MR transitions. Extending the HP section of this BP filter and perhaps change to a 12 dB/oct slope for smoother transitions. (80-300/500 Hz.)
You can combine MR/TW HPF and use passive filters on the tweeters. Here, the HPF could be about 300/500 Hz for the MR driver and then use a passive 2nd Order filter for the TW. These are the two main areas to focus upon. The amp filters will hopefully do the rest for you.
How many amp channels are you planning to use here?
2-way system:
1. Sub channel (Obviously)
2. MB/MR/TW
3-way system:
1. Sub only (Amp LPF, 80-100 Hz.)
2. MB only (Passive BPF, 2nd Order is good, 12dB/oct. 80-300/500 Hz.)
3. MR/TW (HPF on amp and passive 2nd order on TW) ***
*** If the HPF on this MR/TW amp is too low, consider F-Mods and run the amp at full range. (300/500 Hz HPF versions can be used here) The tweeter has its own passive network.
http://www.partsexpress.com/webpage.cfm?&WebPage_ID=3
The tricky part is the MB crossover:
1. It's too steep of a slope
2. Use a full range signal and passive or active crossovers to give it a smooth and usable BP range
3. To get the most from this MB speaker, separate amp channels are advised. Then one can control output levels w/o sacrificing "Incertion losses" typical in passive filters. (1.5 dB losses are typ.)
Chew on this one a while. I sure did and there may be other options to consider as well. We have not looked at Active crossovers here yet, but can consider that option as well. Unfortunately, there are basically 2 options... the expensive Audio Control crossovers or cheaper brands that can be found at PE. (Pyle, Pyramid and others in that category)
Swez (THINK...Whew... COFFEE)
trunkisloud on 09/5/2007 20:10:55
man i remember a couple of 1/2 din eq's i used to have ...i loved those things...one was the alpine 3331 and the other was a sony...cant remember the model...but it looked similar to the alpine...except you can chang the color from green to orange.
Ash on 09/5/2007 20:43:12
This cud has been chewed, grinded and spit for sometime. I have for some time already had it running the way it was designed. It just hasn't been tweaked (lack of proper x-over points).
The 4"comps are already run 2-way passive with a crossover I built. From the comps hi-pass and under (midbass, sub, everything is active. Just finding a good unit with midrange/midbass bandpass is hard enough. One with the points I need is even harder. Now add a EQ, now we're talking serious soul searchin'!
One that caught my eye was the MA Audio MA15EQX . Fixed bands, but if you notice, it's the ones you don't usually get (30/60/120hz). For me, the lower two have the most profound effect when tuning. Just can't get enough info on the unit itself. On Sonicelectronix site, they actually give some zoom pics of the unit. From what I can tell the description given by manufacturer is somewhat misleading as it states one thing, but it looks like it has MR/MB bandpass capability from looking at the pics. If you click to make it larger, you can just barely make out in the bottom left hand corner where the Sonic' logo is, it looks like there is a hi-pass/bandpass switch. There are also the frequency controls nearby. I checked out the MA website and was not able to pull up a manual to confirm this.
Before anyone gets confused as this is a somewhat simple setup from normal 2-ways, understanding the term "midrange" when referring to the active crossover is somewhat vague. Even though it may be labeled as such on the unit itself, the available cutoff frequencies actually can make it valid for mid bass use as well. Some units label it MR, but the points go well into the bass region. So it's not a matter of labeling, it's a matter of usable points to make it work. All we are doing is adding a separate midbass in between a sub & small component set. Bridging the gap so to speak...
swez on 09/6/2007 06:08:37
Here's a good picture and some specs on that EQ/3-way crossover features:
http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=14913
As I read this one, the MR section can be used to control the upper BP portion of your MB driver. A simple passive HPF can be used to control the lower cutoff point here. (Between sub and MB transitions) After looking at the blowup picture of the MR crossover section, it has a HP and Bandpass selector and HPF/LPF variable filters too. (Not bad Dad)
The Tweeter section can be used as an active HPF for the MR/TW since you already have passive TW filters.
Yeah, I think this would be a very good option at a price that makes sense too. This makes a lot of sense and a very good find Ash!
Swez COFFEE
Ash on 09/8/2007 16:48:52
Update:
I have made a decision and opted for an AudioControl DQX. Don't worry for it wasn't new. It just so happen to be one on ebay for nearly half of what they go for and only a few bucks more than the MA EQ at Sonicelectronix price. Not a bad deal in my books. It should be here tuesday. It might take a while before it's run as I will probably need to reroute a few things and make a more permanent setup.
In the meantime, I've been playing around with the 3-way setup (fronts). The Audax are 8 ohms and I decided to try them bridged on the rear of the USB-4065. This nets about 80 rms watts each in the 4 ohm load. I contemplated this as most would worry about the mono signal mixing up the front stage. Remember though, that this concentrated in the mid bass range (80-200) so imaging should stay intact.
The nominal handling the Audax HP170M0 is a mere 45 rms watts. However, crossing them upwards from the 70-80hz to about 100hz gives them better protection from the shallow 12db hi-pass slope. At the same time 12db is shallow enough to allow some bleed thru, so there still is a bit of low bass from them. Maybe too much on some boom tracks with the new power output. Headroom is nice though.
Readjusted the gains to match the MR/T's and came up with a nicer sound. Almost don't need a sub. Imaging has changed for the better as the "stage" seems to have more fullness. Still could clean them up a bit with a higher slope and/or cutoff point.
Here the DQX could really fit in with it's full 24db slopes. Stronger protection with more precise tuning is what I expect. That's the reason I chose it.
This project is getting closer to finishing. Once it's set, I might need to rebuild a amp rack and stealth the sub to clean things up a bit.
Wish me luck and I'll keep you guys updated.....
Ash,
swez on 09/8/2007 20:53:41
Interesting turn of events there Ash.
There is not much imaging at those low frequencies either. (To the Audax MB drivers) Directionality is more notable above ~350 Hz. So, going MONO with them makes a lot of sense. Stereo imaging is much more noticable in the MR/TW frequency ranges and your summary confirms this.
Am glad you found a well priced DQX as it is probably the best choice on the market. As long as it works properly, that's all that matters.
Good score fer sure!
Swez
Ash on 09/11/2007 21:46:31
I just received the AC unit and it powers up fine. Didn't get pass that phase yet. I got to find a home for it before I start actually hooking it up. For once I do that I'm sure to not go any further than toying with it. So it's best to install it properly.
Nifty lil' unit... Quite compact considering what it does. Only being about a little more than a inch thick and 10" x 6" hopefully will make it easy to conceal from prying eyes.
After powering it up, I scrolled through some of the menu functions and checked out the selections available. Simple enough to figure out how to scroll through the menu of adjustments which is no more intimidating than playing with Pioneer's EZ EQ. It would be nice to have the dash controller. Could make it quicker if you could adjust while in listening position at the same time.
Apparently the crossover frequencies are linked. In other words, you only make 3 choices in frequencies (PFM, mid/low, and mid/hi), and the affected output share that same x-over point. You would think that it isn't versatile, but it makes good sense since the slopes are 24db. With a steep slope there is less need for spacing between points as dips may become severe. It kind of makes it "idiot-proof" in a way by keep you from fiddling too much as well.
Also the range of x-over frequency points are very variable in that the bandpass output can be used for true midbass or midrange. Of course any 2-way comp's passives could be easily replaced with this unit as the MB/MR upper limit stops around 8khz before finalizing at "full range". Drawbacks are that it won't be suitable for two pairs (front/rear) of hi-pass only, as the front will run full range on the bottom end. I could be wong but I believe that's how it goes.
The options for EQ'ing are pretty neat as well. As I surfed roughly through the menu, I found that the lower octave extends well past normal use. Not sure of the increments (possibly 5 on the far end of the scale as it varies), but it did display 25 & 30 hz adjustments! The additional parametrics was the usual choice of 40/45, 50, and so on . What ever points the eq lacked, the parametric has the frequency in between. Very complete!
Output voltage on the unit seems to have a peak of about 5 volts. I thought the online manual said 7, but 5 is strong enough. There are also equalization overload indicators that is meant to protect the affected amp and speakers
Looks like a pretty complete unit, if one has a real use for it.
Give me a while to run it and I'll tell you what I really think of it.
Ash,
swez on 09/11/2007 23:03:12
Nice product and once you get some hands on time, am sure it will make perfect sense. AC does a good job at designing sensible crossovers and internal limiters. As you say, when using 24dB/oct slopes, that's really steep and little room for error the way AC sets them up.
Cool beans,
Swez
Copyright ClubKnowledge 2009 * All Rights Reserved
