Does the Audio Control DQX degrade signal quality?
03-07-2004, 06:23 AM
#1
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Guess what this is about? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Ok, I'll cut to the chase. After my Cable Test, I wanted to see how other components introduced to the signal path affect SQ.
The Test:
I'm going to listen to just my 4" Utopia midranges with a full range signal from a DVA-7996 deck, and a VRx2.400 amp. Then I'm going to introduce the DQX to the signal path without adding any EQ. Then I'm going to play with different interconnects between the DQX and the amp. to see which one sounds best IN MY APPLICATION.
Keep in mind, that my results may not work in your system. The cables used impart a sonic signature that is complimentry to my ears. To other people's ears, they may hear no change, or they may hate the sound. Tastes differ...
Also of note, you need to have fresh ears to do listening tests. Getting good sleep, and avioding loud music a day before you do a listening test will help you listen better. And don't spend a whole day doing tests, I spend under an hour doing listening tests. At about 30 minutes in, I find I start to get fatigued. I'm not as alert, and less critical. Start with fresh ears, and don't work past your fatigue point.
Off to do some more listening...
Adam
Ok, I'll cut to the chase. After my Cable Test, I wanted to see how other components introduced to the signal path affect SQ.
The Test:
I'm going to listen to just my 4" Utopia midranges with a full range signal from a DVA-7996 deck, and a VRx2.400 amp. Then I'm going to introduce the DQX to the signal path without adding any EQ. Then I'm going to play with different interconnects between the DQX and the amp. to see which one sounds best IN MY APPLICATION.
Keep in mind, that my results may not work in your system. The cables used impart a sonic signature that is complimentry to my ears. To other people's ears, they may hear no change, or they may hate the sound. Tastes differ...
Also of note, you need to have fresh ears to do listening tests. Getting good sleep, and avioding loud music a day before you do a listening test will help you listen better. And don't spend a whole day doing tests, I spend under an hour doing listening tests. At about 30 minutes in, I find I start to get fatigued. I'm not as alert, and less critical. Start with fresh ears, and don't work past your fatigue point.
Off to do some more listening...
Adam
03-07-2004, 11:16 AM
#2
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
The DQX degrades signal quality.
The DQX was designed to cross over and equalize signals. Using the DQX without equalizing or crossing over the signal is stupid. This unit was not designed as a pre-amp.
The DQX is capable of improving the sound of a system, but it degrades the signal to do so. It's a trade off, one that everyone buying an EQ should be aware of.
Using the DQX places a viel between you and the music. I found that tonally, the DQX was pretty neutral. However, the DQX muddies up the imaging. Because of this, dynamics aren't as crisp. I found that before the DQX, vocals were clearly defined in an area about the size of a grapefruit. Installing the DQX made vocals appear to be the size of a basket ball. It's sounds dramatic, because it is.
I am going to use the DQX in my system. Here is why:
1.) I have tonal problems, specifically in the midbass and tweeter area. I need a very precise EQ to help fix this. (the EQ is only part of the solution)
2.) The front stage will be totally active. The DQX give me total control of each driver's frequency range.(the adjustability of this unit boggles my mind)
For me, I'm willing to give up some imaging clarity to control my system tonally, and go totally active with my front stage. Besides, going active will get me back some of the imaging clarity that I have lost.(I've done listening tests to find this out)
Next on my list is the ELF-1 processor for my subs.
More fun...
Adam
The DQX was designed to cross over and equalize signals. Using the DQX without equalizing or crossing over the signal is stupid. This unit was not designed as a pre-amp.
The DQX is capable of improving the sound of a system, but it degrades the signal to do so. It's a trade off, one that everyone buying an EQ should be aware of.
Using the DQX places a viel between you and the music. I found that tonally, the DQX was pretty neutral. However, the DQX muddies up the imaging. Because of this, dynamics aren't as crisp. I found that before the DQX, vocals were clearly defined in an area about the size of a grapefruit. Installing the DQX made vocals appear to be the size of a basket ball. It's sounds dramatic, because it is.
I am going to use the DQX in my system. Here is why:
1.) I have tonal problems, specifically in the midbass and tweeter area. I need a very precise EQ to help fix this. (the EQ is only part of the solution)
2.) The front stage will be totally active. The DQX give me total control of each driver's frequency range.(the adjustability of this unit boggles my mind)
For me, I'm willing to give up some imaging clarity to control my system tonally, and go totally active with my front stage. Besides, going active will get me back some of the imaging clarity that I have lost.(I've done listening tests to find this out)
Next on my list is the ELF-1 processor for my subs.
More fun...
Adam
03-07-2004, 01:24 PM
#3
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,120
Hi Adam!
I've been following your postings...intriguing stuff.
About ten years ago a friend of mine had a high-end stereo (home & car) shop here in town and we used to do a lot of after-hours listening to different rca cables and vibration isolation products....our reference system consisted of YBA 3 transport and dual YBA amps hooked up to B&W Silver Signitures http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/272/
(These speakers came with their own silver speaker cables, all X-over components were solid silver as were the voice coils)
Anyone (nudge, nudge Dodge
) who has not done testing like this before and heard it for them selves is missing out on a pretty neat experience. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
I've been following your postings...intriguing stuff.
About ten years ago a friend of mine had a high-end stereo (home & car) shop here in town and we used to do a lot of after-hours listening to different rca cables and vibration isolation products....our reference system consisted of YBA 3 transport and dual YBA amps hooked up to B&W Silver Signitures http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/272/
(These speakers came with their own silver speaker cables, all X-over components were solid silver as were the voice coils)
Anyone (nudge, nudge Dodge
) who has not done testing like this before and heard it for them selves is missing out on a pretty neat experience. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]
03-07-2004, 02:36 PM
#4
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
mmmmmm YBA
Very nice gear.
Testing like this takes a lot of patience, more than most people have. Any time you step up and find you're own answers from practical experience, you respect other's opinions a lot more. Takes a bit of work to find some of this stuff out...
For those in the peanut gallery...come on down and have some fun!
Adam
Very nice gear.
Testing like this takes a lot of patience, more than most people have. Any time you step up and find you're own answers from practical experience, you respect other's opinions a lot more. Takes a bit of work to find some of this stuff out...
For those in the peanut gallery...come on down and have some fun!
Adam
03-07-2004, 03:27 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is an upgrade for the software from Audiocontrol, have you sent it in yet? Not sure what exactly was changed though...
I've never been fond of more than one DAC in my signal path which is why Im not fond of the DQX...If it would accept the optical input from my ECD 510 it would be a little more appealing. To each their own I guess...
[ March 07, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Kilowatt ]
I've never been fond of more than one DAC in my signal path which is why Im not fond of the DQX...If it would accept the optical input from my ECD 510 it would be a little more appealing. To each their own I guess...
[ March 07, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Kilowatt ]
03-08-2004, 05:45 AM
#8
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
I thought the DQX WAS THE STUFF when I bought it.
Here is my little problem. The demo car that I heard this unit in used very similar equipment to what I now have in my system. I was very impressed with the demo car tonally, but it didn't image very well. At the time, there was a lot more tuning to be done on the car anyway. So I dismissed the lack of imaging to tuning issues. I want to re-iterate here, I bought thousands of dollars of equipment based on that demo session. The car did sound VERY good compared to what I'd heard in the past.
So, Adam gets all this equipment back home to his car and starts shoe-horning gear in left and right. I'm cutting interiour panels up, cutting metal out of the chasis, getting stuff welded. Lots of serious fun. Then I fire up my system and I'm VERY disappointed. It images like crap, tonally it sucks, and I've got electrical problems in the car.
Fast forward to today. My system images better than many home systems, tonally it's pretty stunning and I'm using ZERO EQ, and I've got my car's electrical system sorted out. I would like to point out that it was trial and error install work that got me here. I've learned a lot, and I've gotten a ton of help from people on this board.
I get my DQX back from A/C and put it in the signal path and I lose some image depth. Of course I'm going to be disappointed, I've worked pretty hard to get where I am with the sound. Some people will remember that I removed an Audio Control Four.1i from my signal path for the same reason.
Where do I go from here?
More testing and tuning folks. This is how I got my car to sound as good as it does now, so I'm going to continue.
Now, after reading all of the above, why do you think that I'm still putting the DQX in the car? I feel the compromise is worth it, but I'd would urge anyone considering a DQX to try it out before buying. A/C has a pretty cool connection terminal on all of their units that make trial and error installs pretty easy. Find a good dealer, ask to demo the unit in your car at the store. Prepare all the wiring before you get there, and then make your own decision. After all, DQXs retail for about $1100 cdn, it's your cash.
Adam
Here is my little problem. The demo car that I heard this unit in used very similar equipment to what I now have in my system. I was very impressed with the demo car tonally, but it didn't image very well. At the time, there was a lot more tuning to be done on the car anyway. So I dismissed the lack of imaging to tuning issues. I want to re-iterate here, I bought thousands of dollars of equipment based on that demo session. The car did sound VERY good compared to what I'd heard in the past.
So, Adam gets all this equipment back home to his car and starts shoe-horning gear in left and right. I'm cutting interiour panels up, cutting metal out of the chasis, getting stuff welded. Lots of serious fun. Then I fire up my system and I'm VERY disappointed. It images like crap, tonally it sucks, and I've got electrical problems in the car.
Fast forward to today. My system images better than many home systems, tonally it's pretty stunning and I'm using ZERO EQ, and I've got my car's electrical system sorted out. I would like to point out that it was trial and error install work that got me here. I've learned a lot, and I've gotten a ton of help from people on this board.
I get my DQX back from A/C and put it in the signal path and I lose some image depth. Of course I'm going to be disappointed, I've worked pretty hard to get where I am with the sound. Some people will remember that I removed an Audio Control Four.1i from my signal path for the same reason.
Where do I go from here?
More testing and tuning folks. This is how I got my car to sound as good as it does now, so I'm going to continue.
Now, after reading all of the above, why do you think that I'm still putting the DQX in the car? I feel the compromise is worth it, but I'd would urge anyone considering a DQX to try it out before buying. A/C has a pretty cool connection terminal on all of their units that make trial and error installs pretty easy. Find a good dealer, ask to demo the unit in your car at the store. Prepare all the wiring before you get there, and then make your own decision. After all, DQXs retail for about $1100 cdn, it's your cash.
Adam
03-08-2004, 07:27 AM
#10
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,649
Some interesting stuff posted since last week.
One thing I'll throw in is this. In the home audio world, they seem to lean against EQ-ing above 600 HZ as it monkeys up the “quality” of sound. If one is having issues above 600 hz in the home, can be a sign of bad speaker design or that you're having room mode issues and need to correct them with your seating placement or dampening panels or a combination of these. There also may be other things as well, but EQ-ing is apparently not the answer. EQ-ing below 600 HZ apparently does not mess up the quality of sound. But…………… but to do it right, you also need an RTA that does a lot more then 1/3. I seems to remember that 1/10 or finer is what you should go with as it will more accurately show peaks and valleys that a 1/3 meter cannot see accurately. It's actually kind of interesting to note that 31 band EQ's are not really detailed enough band wise to truly sort out things in the EQ-ing domain on the home front. Each band is actually too wide and may hurt you more then help you. I remember the days when I use to think a 31 band EQ was ** WOW** .......so many bands to tune with. Apparently not. . All I know is that recently I have started to realize that there’s a lot more to EQ’s and how they work then I thought. Always learning…………. which is good. I think this knowledge from home audio is what makes systems like Mark Eldridge’s so different and some of the higher end system on the circuit that are using unusual equipment or home audio equipment for tuning. The home side of things is much more advanced and I think these guys are using this knowledge and experience from that other realm to sort out mobile audio issues. We’re monkey-ing around in 31 bands with concrete dam solutions when all we may really need is a proper sized band-aid and the eyes to see the wound properly. I also am beginning to think that parametric EQ’s have a lot more to offer then fixed band EQ’s. At the end of the day it may be about flexibility and being able to understand, see in detail the problem and properly “adjust” the problem. There seems to be very few pieces of equipment available to get to the level of High End in a car at this time………………… and the Pioneer P9 is included in that pile of not quite having what it takes. I’m going to be very interested in hearing our DXE when it’s available to see if it’s doing the same things that the AC piece or other pieces are doing. From what I understand, it won’t have those issues………… don’t ask me why. I may have misunderstood how it works and I should really get Mark to jump in and explain as he was there for the nuts and bolts of how the thing was actually developed. But from Adam’s results, it seems once again that car audio is all about compromise.
[ March 08, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: dawgsbreakfast ]
One thing I'll throw in is this. In the home audio world, they seem to lean against EQ-ing above 600 HZ as it monkeys up the “quality” of sound. If one is having issues above 600 hz in the home, can be a sign of bad speaker design or that you're having room mode issues and need to correct them with your seating placement or dampening panels or a combination of these. There also may be other things as well, but EQ-ing is apparently not the answer. EQ-ing below 600 HZ apparently does not mess up the quality of sound. But…………… but to do it right, you also need an RTA that does a lot more then 1/3. I seems to remember that 1/10 or finer is what you should go with as it will more accurately show peaks and valleys that a 1/3 meter cannot see accurately. It's actually kind of interesting to note that 31 band EQ's are not really detailed enough band wise to truly sort out things in the EQ-ing domain on the home front. Each band is actually too wide and may hurt you more then help you. I remember the days when I use to think a 31 band EQ was ** WOW** .......so many bands to tune with. Apparently not. . All I know is that recently I have started to realize that there’s a lot more to EQ’s and how they work then I thought. Always learning…………. which is good. I think this knowledge from home audio is what makes systems like Mark Eldridge’s so different and some of the higher end system on the circuit that are using unusual equipment or home audio equipment for tuning. The home side of things is much more advanced and I think these guys are using this knowledge and experience from that other realm to sort out mobile audio issues. We’re monkey-ing around in 31 bands with concrete dam solutions when all we may really need is a proper sized band-aid and the eyes to see the wound properly. I also am beginning to think that parametric EQ’s have a lot more to offer then fixed band EQ’s. At the end of the day it may be about flexibility and being able to understand, see in detail the problem and properly “adjust” the problem. There seems to be very few pieces of equipment available to get to the level of High End in a car at this time………………… and the Pioneer P9 is included in that pile of not quite having what it takes. I’m going to be very interested in hearing our DXE when it’s available to see if it’s doing the same things that the AC piece or other pieces are doing. From what I understand, it won’t have those issues………… don’t ask me why. I may have misunderstood how it works and I should really get Mark to jump in and explain as he was there for the nuts and bolts of how the thing was actually developed. But from Adam’s results, it seems once again that car audio is all about compromise.
[ March 08, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: dawgsbreakfast ]
