General SQ General discussion of Sound Quality related issues.

Does the Audio Control DQX degrade signal quality?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 16, 2004 | 07:05 PM
  #41  
PEI330Ci's Avatar
Thread Starter
1000 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Post

Very cool to hear about tuning HLCDs with the DQX. Great write up, I really enjoyed it.

Here is a great example of how equalization can help a system more than mantaining signal purity.

Adam
Old Mar 16, 2004 | 07:41 PM
  #42  
Halo1's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 146
Post

I was very impressed with what this EQ did to my horns, they get very loud but stay very Flat.

In comparison to the other Audio control stuff I used, the difference was really as night and day, but I think it does take trial and error to FIND a difference in sound with different components.

Good job for Audio Control. [img]graemlins/bow.gif[/img]
Old Mar 16, 2004 | 08:09 PM
  #43  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Post

After plugging the unit in The slight harshness I had in my trouble fequencies between 3KHZ-5-KHZ DISAPEARED with no EQUALIZATION. The EQ was set to 0- GAIN on all frequncies. And the EQ's on my DECK were just BELOW full.
Would you agree that it shouldn’t have done this? If the DQX was a neutral/ flat product it should have been benign. Obviously this was a nice fit for your horns though!
This is my point about accurate, high fidelity and good sound. Just because it is accurate or even purist, doesn’t mean it will sound good. And just because it sounds good doesn’t mean you didn’t work to get it there. Now it wasn’t the highest fidelity path from the signal source but its result was a decent tonal recreation. Different means to the same end.

008- Is that tweet crossed over at an odd point???
Old Mar 16, 2004 | 10:29 PM
  #44  
Halo1's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 146
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnVroomAnd just because it sounds good doesn’t mean you didn’t work to get it there. Now it wasn’t the highest fidelity path from the signal source but its result was a decent tonal recreation. Different means to the same end.
------------------------------

I understand that adding the processor should not have changed the sound dramatically for the horns, instead it tends to MIMIC a WARM TUBE SOUND with the DRIVERS.

To what extent does someone chose between Audio Fidelity Sound reproduction and Signal processing Quality. I do not know. A cars interior is very complex.

Horns were designed to behave Specifically under certain THEORETICAL circumstances(WAVE DISPERSION).---But theory doesn't work when the OUT COME is VERY CLUMSY and poorly controled. Mouth of horns creates lots of saturation effect from higher frequencies possibly crashing into each other.

If you have a line(BAND OF SOUND/WAVE) that ZIGS and ZAGS over SPECIFIC PATTERN SURFACE AREA(CARS INTERIOR), the DQX possibly...corrects the LINE's CURVE around that SURFACE according to the SPECIFIC PATTERN OF THE SURFACE IT WAS PROGRAMED TO RECOGNIZE AND CORRECT> So it is based on correcting a Particular SURFACE pattern of WAVE(SOUND) ) DISPERSION... and not on DIFFERENT TYPES... possibly.>Kick panel setups have different DISPERSION PATTERNS inside the car compared to HORNS.
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 04:46 AM
  #45  
JohnVroom's Avatar
Yankee
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,599
Post

To what extent does someone chose between Audio Fidelity Sound reproduction and Signal processing Quality. I do not know. A cars interior is very complex.
Exactly, if the environment (car) allows it and your equipment allows it (overall neutrality) then the 'purist' or high fidelity approach has value. But that isn’t reality for most of us a peaky driver, a big steering wheel, or a hot reflection off the glass and your in need of EQ.

instead it tends to MIMIC a WARM TUBE SOUND with the DRIVERS
What, amps have a sound? Welcome to the club, avoid the heathens!
Old Mar 17, 2004 | 06:53 AM
  #46  
Halo1's Avatar
50 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 146
Post

Welcome to the club, avoid the heathens!
-----------------------------------------------
Gods Gonna fight them off! [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 08:57 AM
  #47  
frank hale's Avatar
0 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
Post

What did the DQX cost Adam?
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 10:53 AM
  #48  
PEI330Ci's Avatar
Thread Starter
1000 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Post

There you are Dad! Been hiding on the beach?

About $1000 for the DQX.

Adam
Old Mar 22, 2004 | 07:43 PM
  #49  
frank hale's Avatar
0 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
Post

Hi
I am a stones throw from a deserted beach. NO SNOW!! It's is great. Glad to see you got the LMS up working. The graphs look good.
Regarding the DQX unfortunately there are so many links in the chain (resistors caps transistors etc) it only takes one to affect the sound. I haven't heard the DQX enough to evaluate it but from past experience often the problem is the op amps. These are often the weekest link. For 99% of the car audio community they are fine. So who do you build for?
The fastest test to hear if your electronics are affecting the sound is to disconnect all the other drivers in the system and listen to just the tweeter both in and out of the system. If your tweeters are down on kick pannel then get down and listen to them head on. I guarantee results.
If you cant afford the active XO and have to take the route of building your own passive XO go with Axon Caps from Focal and low gauge coils. Focal caps are 1/10 the price of the high end stuff but 90% as good.

frank
Old Mar 25, 2004 | 09:30 AM
  #50  
TomK's Avatar
1000 Watt CAFz'r
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,649
Post

Mr. Hale, when you say in and out of the system, I assume you mean hooking up the tweeters to say a reference home system and then into the car system to gauge whether or not there is an audible difference!??!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.