Does the Audio Control DQX degrade signal quality?
Thread Starter
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Here is an idea:
PXA-H700 versus DQX versus 8024
I've got my car wired to interchange processors pretty easy now. Running Ai-net or optical out to the rear is pretty easy for me too.
Anyone interested in the above comparison let me know, I've got pretty high end gear...so the rest of my system should show the differences pretty easily.'
Adam
PXA-H700 versus DQX versus 8024
I've got my car wired to interchange processors pretty easy now. Running Ai-net or optical out to the rear is pretty easy for me too.
Anyone interested in the above comparison let me know, I've got pretty high end gear...so the rest of my system should show the differences pretty easily.'
Adam
Guest
Posts: n/a
i have used the dqx and pxah700 and the pxah900(unfair to compare the 900 to just about anything)and found the 700 to be far superior because it has so much more control, its hard to compare the 2 as they are so different, if we were only comparing eq abilities they are similar. have found the 700 to be better. i dont really care for the ad/da conversion on the dqx as you are converting twice with the dqx(once in your cd player and once in the dqx) and that is never good, now im assuming fibre optic input into the 700, and to answer the question on the original post, yes, adding anything in line will degrade signal and as for the guys that say eq's and time alignments are bandaids must drive mclarens or alpine civics or mini's or some ceter drive vehicles, i believe that 99 percent of vehicles will benefit from some eqalization and or time alignment
I'll do that comparison Adam, obviously I don't have an H700 or DQX but I do have the Behringer. I'm actually supposed to be going out to PEI this summer to visit my grandparents so if it's in good working condition by then, I'll bring it with me.
50 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 164
I"ve been thinking about buying a DQX for about 6 months now and I was practically sold on it until I read this thread that is. I have boston pro's in kicks powered by a Soundstream Rubicon 702 and my head unit is a kenwood eXelon x659.
It almost sounds like you guys would rather not use a DQX but are using it just for the hell of it.. $1,100 sounds like a lot to spend for the hell of it =)
I am wondering if you guys would even consider wasting your money on a DQX with the equiptment I am using?? I think it sounds really good in my car as is... My imaging is decent, but I know it can be improved as I"ve heard cars that are a bit more precise! I was just thinking I could make it sound a lot better that's all!! One more thing.. i"ve never used an external EQ before.
I mean for that price I could get Boston Z series components.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
[ March 13, 2004, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: DaFeared ]
It almost sounds like you guys would rather not use a DQX but are using it just for the hell of it.. $1,100 sounds like a lot to spend for the hell of it =)
I am wondering if you guys would even consider wasting your money on a DQX with the equiptment I am using?? I think it sounds really good in my car as is... My imaging is decent, but I know it can be improved as I"ve heard cars that are a bit more precise! I was just thinking I could make it sound a lot better that's all!! One more thing.. i"ve never used an external EQ before.
I mean for that price I could get Boston Z series components.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
[ March 13, 2004, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: DaFeared ]
Thread Starter
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
I'll give it to you simply.
Upgrading my interconnect had a greater improvement in SQ than removing the DQX from the signal path.
If you are presently running passive X.O.s, you will get an improvement in SQ by going active. (no passive X.O.) To go active, you need an active X.O. The DQX is a great active X.O., and...it also is a very powerful EQ.
The benifits of going active outweigh the negative effects of adding the DQX to your signal path. This is why I am using the DQX in my signal path.
Getting the best component speakers you can buy isn't always the best money spent. I've got pretty high end everything in my system, and intially it sounded like crap. Since then, I've installed the same group of components about 3 times, and I've gotten better sound each time.
It's all in the install...
The DQX is something that can be used after you get the install right. So far I've only used mine as a band aid for my poor installations.
I recommend the DQX, but it's not the final solution.
Adam
Upgrading my interconnect had a greater improvement in SQ than removing the DQX from the signal path.
If you are presently running passive X.O.s, you will get an improvement in SQ by going active. (no passive X.O.) To go active, you need an active X.O. The DQX is a great active X.O., and...it also is a very powerful EQ.
The benifits of going active outweigh the negative effects of adding the DQX to your signal path. This is why I am using the DQX in my signal path.
Getting the best component speakers you can buy isn't always the best money spent. I've got pretty high end everything in my system, and intially it sounded like crap. Since then, I've installed the same group of components about 3 times, and I've gotten better sound each time.
It's all in the install...
The DQX is something that can be used after you get the install right. So far I've only used mine as a band aid for my poor installations.
I recommend the DQX, but it's not the final solution.
Adam
