# sq build: better to have 2.1 or 5.1 soundstage?



## distantxtremes (Dec 26, 2009)

I want to build a modest sq setup.
My vehicle comes stock with a 5 speaker setup.

Would it be better to focus on a 2.1 or do something with all 5 speaker location?

Also confused on which dsp to get.
Mosconi, Audison, Rockford Fosgate, JBL, Zapco.
Any suggestions? Price range under 500.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

As a relative n00b to SQ...stay with 2.1 to start. There is PLENTY of tuning and install stuff to learn. Once you feel really good about the 2.1...then worry about rear fill. You do not need rear fill to get a badass system going.

And really I think only the MS8 truly does a 5.1 or better setup. Most music material isn't recorded that way anyway, so why bother with 5.1?

Just my opinion...like assholes...


----------



## Deathjunior (Aug 2, 2011)

Alright so as the person above me posted yes I would choose 2.1 for a number of reasons.

First most audio is recorded in 2.1 and most sources cannot read discs that do have 5.1 surround. This means your trusting the signal processor to modify your nice clean 2.1 into a 5.1. Its not going to end as well as you hope. 

Second, install wise a huge amount of audio comes out of the center channel in a 5.1 setup. Most of the vocals plus lead guitar. A center channel needs to be just as big and bad and preferable better than your right and left but your not going to have near as much space on your dash to allow for it so it will take tons of modification

Third, the only ones that I know of that can process 5.1 are above 500. The MS8 is the closest but its EQ isn't near as controllable as even the much cheaper Audison bit 10 which can do better EQ and better time alignment plus is more compact.


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

I think deathjunior meant that music is recorded in 2.0, not 2.1. Slight oversight. But intent well received. 

I too would suggest staying with front speakers only, with a sub. If you do not want to have to learn how to do all the tuning involved with an active setup, the MS-8 does auto tuning and is a great piece of equipment. It does have it's shortfalls also, but none that you would miss if you didn't want to manually tune anyway. 

I use an MS-8 right now and I've got three-way fronts with a center and subs. You can configure the 8 channels in just about any way you want. So you could start out as basic as you wanted and move up from there until you found a point you were happy, only limited by the 8 channels of output. 

If you would like to learn how to tune and you want to mess with time alignment, EQing, setting up a measuring system of some sort, etc., then you have a slew of choices. Zapco, Audison, Rockford, Soundstream, miniDSP, Ground Zero and probabaly several I'm forgetting. But, there is a lot you'll have to learn for this to be an effective route to take. And certainly it can be an enjoyable one. But it does require time and money.


----------



## tbomb (Nov 28, 2007)

I say, as a beginner, the MS8 is perfect for you. And people calling it 5.1 creates quite the misnomer in my opinion. Plenty of guys running 4" centers with their 6.5" LR and sound great. I have a 6.5 center because it worked well with my plan. Only modification was creating an enclosure for it. (no cutting of dash necessary)
I have had several "2.1" systems and my current setup is my favorite by far.

So if budget allows, i say go for it.


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

Just so the OP understands all the 2.0, 2.1, 5.1 things being thrown around, in surround sound, these number identify the numbers of channels capable of being used. for instance, two front speakers, a center channel and two rear speakers with a sub would be 5.1. That's a typical set up. The .1 and in some cases, .2, are how many subwoofer outputs the processor has. the first number, 5, 7 and sometimes more, are the number of front, back, center, side, rear effect channels there are.

So in all honest, none of these have a place in this or any other car audio discussion, unless someone is talking about their DVD playing going into surround processor, etc. Because all the channels used in car audio ... tweeters, midranges, woofers, centers, etc., all started from a two channel signal and was split into multiple channels of amplification, not to be confused with channels of a surround processor. You may have speakers in the front and back, and even center, but it's not surround sound, so it's not a 5.1 or any other sort of set up. 

What we're doing in car audio is taking a 2.0 stereo signal and breaking it up and/or redistributing it, but NOT with a surround processor. Even the MS-8 upmixes the 2.0 into the various channels, but the original input signal is still just 2.0. So the output is not actually a 5.1. Maybe this is opinion based. But if the originating material is not encoded with 5.1 and being processed as 5.1 outputed to a 5.1 speaker setup, then it is not 5.1. 

So don't get hung up on that 2.0, 2.1, 5.1 talk. I think that is going to confuse you as you move forward. 

The MS-8 is a great piece of equipment. If you don't have amplifiers, it has 8 channels of 20 watts each that is a significant improvement over any stock system. Especially when you add in the processing capabilities. 

Given your original question and information you provided, you might consider the MS-8. You can install your speakers wherever you like, front, rear, center, etc. When you set up the processor, you sellect where each speaker is, front, rear, center, side, sub, and you sellect your xover frquencies and slopes. Then it walks you through some quick signal testing so the processor can set up the time delays and flaten your initial eq for you. So it's really quite handy and the Logic-7 processing works really well.


----------



## Deathjunior (Aug 2, 2011)

A well built time aligned and designed 2.1 system will sound better than a 5.1 if done right. Especially considering where the center channel usually has to be located. This is not just an opinion this is physics. Because the audio is recorded in stereo each microphone records the sounds differently. This is how you know where things are by the sound. One sound reaches one ear before the other. This is what we know as time delay. Now here is where 5.1 can fail you. 

The MS8 takes a stereo sound (as previously mentioned I typed 2.1 when I meant 2.0) and it uses this time delay to process what the center channel should and shouldn't play. The issue with this some sounds are in between the two distances of center channel and lets say the right channel. So now the processor has to play the sound out of both , modify the right and center time alignment within the track digitally as well as decide what volume output to give each speaker. This can be done very well but it can't accommodate for reflections that will muddy up the staging. I should also mention that for a clean separation as well as time delay it is important to make sure you only have one speaker per frequency range per side more speakers is more stuff to go wrong and allows a higher chances for a cloudy stage even if individually time aligned

Now if we remove the center channel wide have a wider stage to "play with" so to speak allowing more differentiation from left to right. The issue really here is reflections which due to the dash locations you will have to have for the center channel. There is a reason most competitors on here as well as most of the ones I have seen still run 2.0.
Moving onto the reach channels, when do you go to a concert and have the artist behind you? All rear speakers do is detract from the sound stage and cause more trouble finding perfect time alignment.

This is why when I listen to music in my home theater I switch to stereo mode on my Klipsch heresey's rather than use 5.1 surround.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

_A well built time aligned and designed 2.1 system will sound better than a 5.1 if done right.
_
I have to disagree. A properly constructed and tuned discreet 5.1 system will not only play your 2.1 material correctly but will also play discreet 5.1 program correctly. "Best of both worlds."
I know because I have done it.

View attachment Final System NEWV5nologo.pdf


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

garysummers said:


> _A well built time aligned and designed 2.1 system will sound better than a 5.1 if done right.
> _
> I have to disagree. A properly constructed and tuned discreet 5.1 system will not only play your 2.1 one material correctly but will also play discreet 5.1 program correctly. "Best of both worlds."
> I know because I have done it.
> ...


In a home yes, but getting it right in car can be very difficult (speaker placement, time alignment, equipment choice SACD vs. DVD etc.)


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Maybe my chart is not clear but I have built the system in my car. 
Was it hard? Life is hard!


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

What is 2.1 material? Maybe I'm out of the loop on some things.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

"So in all honest, none of these have a place in this or any other car audio discussion, unless someone is talking about their DVD playing going into surround processor, etc."

My car system will decode Dolby Digital, DTS, and DVD audio. All real discreet 5.1 formats.


----------



## tbomb (Nov 28, 2007)

Deathjunior said:


> I should also mention that for a clean separation as well as time delay it is important to make sure you only have one speaker per frequency range per side more speakers is more stuff to go wrong and allows a higher chances for a cloudy stage even if individually time aligned
> 
> 
> _*Moving onto the reach channels, when do you go to a concert and have the artist behind you? All rear speakers do is detract from the sound stage and cause more trouble finding perfect time alignment.*_
> ...



Classic excuse for not using rear fill. To bad it is flawed. (and I used it several times before getting educated on subject). When you are at a concert you are in a vast space designed to give the acoustic you need for desired sound. And even if it isnt, you are getting reflections from all over the room that adds to the space and "realism" of the music/performance. Why dont concert halls place the performers on the sides of the audience than(if we use the same logic).

A car does not provide the acoustics that a large space does. This is why, _*with the proper processing*_, rear fill is a much more accurate portrayal.

Also think you need to read up on Andys posts of how the MS8 and logic7 actually work.

Now, I am not saying classic front stage and sub cant sound very good, because it most certainly can. Just defending the premise of executing proper rear fill and staging.


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

garysummers said:


> "So in all honest, none of these have a place in this or any other car audio discussion, unless someone is talking about their DVD playing going into surround processor, etc."
> 
> My car system will decode Dolby Digital, DTS, and DVD audio. All real discreet 5.1 formats.


And you are correct. If you are talking about Dolby Digital, DTS or DVD formats. Music ... is none of these. Music is stereo. 2.0. Not Dolby Digital. Not DTS. And not DVD. So, if you are decoding a DVD that has one of those formats, then yes, you have 5.1. but if you are playing a music CD on that same system, it is not in 5.1. It is in 2.0, because that what the format of music is. You may use a simulated surround, or just play stereo through all channels, and it will play through all speakers, but that in no way makes it 5.1. 

You still haven't answered my question as to what source material is 2.1.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Airforceyooper said:


> If you are talking about Dolby Digital, DTS or DVD formats. Music ... is none of these. Music is stereo.


I have about 60 DVD's that are music. Some just music, some live concerts.
All in 5.1 format.
When I play _stereo_ material I play it in _stereo_.

2.1 is stereo with a _derived_ subwoofer channel.


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

So you thought you were doing the OP justice by assuming that he might be using a DVD player as his primary source in his car? lol. Come on man. This thread wasn't about you, it's about helping the OP with his questions. I have at least 100 blueray or DVD concerts myself. I have a Denon processor with all Klipsh Reference speakers. Does this help the OP? No it does not. So I didn't think it was pertinant to confuse the OP with such information. So your tangent is not helping the OP but confusing him. And if you derive a sub channel through processing, that still does not make it a 2.1 system. The source material is 2.0. That's all that will ever be. If it was not recorded with the .1, then it does not have the .1. I can derive all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean I can start making up my own numbering system for it. 

Go back and read the OPs first post. Then go read your first post in the thread and you tell me how that was helpful in any way.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

"sq build: better to have 2.1 or 5.1 soundstage?"

This was the Ops original question and I think my post made it clear what my opinion was to that question. Maybe you should read then again yourself.


----------



## Airforceyooper (Sep 22, 2005)

Son ... are you mentally challenged? You know full well he's talking about building a stereo system using a stereo head unit and not a DVD player with built in Dolby Digital processing or something. Don't try to act like that was even an option. ok, I'm done with you. lol. I'll let the OP try to weed through your crap. lol.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Thanks for the advice! I will seek help!


----------



## trumpet (Nov 14, 2010)

You should be thankful someone of the calibur of Gary Summers is willing to take time out of his day to help us. Gary has helped me make my car sound better and all I had to do was have an open mind to learn.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

:lurk:


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Ultimateherts said:


> :lurk:



We know who that is


----------



## el_bob-o (Nov 8, 2008)

I don't think 5.1 is out of the question at all, an Alpine DVA-9861 paired with a PXA-H701 is a pretty inexpensive way to get the capabilities for surround formats.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

el_bob-o said:


> I don't think 5.1 is out of the question at all, an Alpine DVA-9861 paired with a PXA-H701 is a pretty inexpensive way to get the capabilities for surround formats.



I would probably go with the PXA-H800. Its a bit more than the op wanted to spend for a processor but it will decode Dolby Digital, DTS, and DVD-audio, and is the current model supported by Alpine. If you choose the 5.1 path, the benefits will be worth it.


----------



## el_bob-o (Nov 8, 2008)

garysummers said:


> I would probably go with the PXA-H800. Its a bit more than the op wanted to spend for a processor but it will decode Dolby Digital, DTS, and DVD-audio, and is the current model supported by Alpine. If you choose the 5.1 path, the benefits will be worth it.



I use the PXA-H701 currently and I fully agree with using the PXA-H800 if it's within budget. My biggest reason for wanting to upgrade to the PXA-H800 is simply for the pc interface, I feel so slow and clumsy using the RUX controller to make all of my adjustments.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

el_bob-o said:


> I use the PXA-H701 currently and I fully agree with using the PXA-H800 if it's within budget. My biggest reason for wanting to upgrade to the PXA-H800 is simply for the pc interface, I feel so slow and clumsy using the RUX controller to make all of my adjustments.


I have to agree with you. I have always used a PC to tune and it is my preference. Trying to tune on a small screen is not accurate enough. Looking at a 12th octave RTA at 1db per step looks a lot better on a 17 inch screen than on my Iphone. Dealing with the files is easier as well. 
I have on the other hand run into many people who hate tuning on a laptop and prefer handheld devices.
Thank god we live in a free country and we can choose!


----------



## boricua69 (Oct 14, 2009)

garysummers said:


> _A well built time aligned and designed 2.1 system will sound better than a 5.1 if done right.
> _
> I have to disagree. A properly constructed and tuned discreet 5.1 system will not only play your 2.1 material correctly but will also play discreet 5.1 program correctly. "Best of both worlds."
> I know because I have done it.
> ...


I'm with you, 5.1 dts is mayor league! I built several 5.1 system with alpine pxa 701, F1 pxa 900, and less expensive Kenwood excelon 25anniversary. For Example: 
Just only play Phill Collinns concert DVD or Pedro Conga DVD in DTS mode.
Then go to your friends 2.1 system and play the same cd tracks and you will notice a big difference in separation and SQ.
5.1 system isn't for everyone.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

sometimes i get into conversations and think, who is this guy. diyma posts and google are good places to sometimes find out. :laugh:


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

boricua69 said:


> I'm with you, 5.1 dts is mayor league! I built several 5.1 system with alpine pxa 701, F1 pxa 900, and less expensive Kenwood excelon 25anniversary. For Example:
> Just only play Phill Collinns concert DVD or Pedro Conga DVD in DTS mode.
> Then go to your friends 2.1 system and play the same cd tracks and you will notice a big difference in separation and SQ.
> 5.1 system isn't for everyone.


DTS is no better than Dolby Digital. The sound engineers ran the DTS a littler louder when mixing to give you a perceived better sound. When properly balanced and at the same loudness both DTS and Dolby Digital should sound the same.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

What is the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS? Is it really just loudness or are there other differences? Hint. it has nothing to do with the sound mixing engineers.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

garysummers said:


> What is the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS? Is it really just loudness or are there other differences? Hint. it has nothing to do with the sound mixing engineers.


Yes the music has to be made into 5.1 which is where the audio engineers/producers come in. 

DTS louder than Dolby Digital? - AVS Forum


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

garysummers said:


> What is the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS? Is it really just loudness or are there other differences? Hint. it has nothing to do with the sound mixing engineers.


dolby digital has cooler intro screeners. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

garysummers said:


> What is the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS? Is it really just loudness or are there other differences? Hint. it has nothing to do with the sound mixing engineers.



Compression rates


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Airforceyooper said:


> Son ... are you mentally challenged? You know full well he's talking about building a stereo system using a stereo head unit and not a DVD player with built in Dolby Digital processing or something. Don't try to act like that was even an option. ok, I'm done with you. lol. I'll let the OP try to weed through your crap. lol.


I literally LOL'd when I read your reply. I don't know if you know this, but Gary really knows this field. Very well.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with him, but given he's a multi-*Oscar* winner in film audio, I'd choose my words a bit more wisely... as well as my battles.


As for the OP's question, I think this comes down to much more than simply "stereo vs surround", unfortunately. There really needs to be an understanding of the trade-offs in both the audio sense as well as the install sense. For example, in the audio sense, most of the music you listen to won't be provided in a surround type format. Some will... but by and large, music is stereo. From the install perspective (including tuning as well), it's obviously more complex. 

The benefits of a properly done surround system is total immersion. For some folks they don't like surround because it presents the sound in a different manner (or, simply, they saw someone else say they didn't and they adopted that stance as their own without any first hand experience).

Ideally, you'd be able to try both in your car and both setups would be perfect. That's not real-world, though. If you have the ability and/or a hand from someone who can help you REALLY do it justice, I'd go surround, personally. The reason I haven't done it yet is because I'm not happy with the available processing and the amount of money it would cost me to do what I really want to do with surround is simply not justifiable.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Big Red gets prize!


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

With regards to the sound mix for DTS or Dolby Digital. The exact same 5.1 Final Mix is used to derive both formats. What ever perceived differences in level, clarity, sub level, or anything else are introduced by the respective encoding processes. I do agree that the DTS track on most of my DVDs is about 6db louder than the Dolby Digital track. This again is done in the encoding process.


----------



## iamstubb (Sep 6, 2013)

I recently watched my deluxe LOTR DVD's through my HTPC and decent-but-not-audiophile 5.1 system. I think this Gary guy has some skills...


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

iamstubb said:


> I recently watched my deluxe LOTR DVD's through my HTPC and decent-but-not-audiophile 5.1 system. I think this Gary guy has some skills...


I can not take credit for the mixing on this trilogy. I only worked in a helping capacity and was not on the main mixing team, hence my credit as "Additional Re-recording Mixer". Chris Boyes, Michael Semanick, and Mike Hedges were the primary mixers.

They do excellent work!

Heading to NZ this friday to work in the same way on the Hobbit.


----------



## Deathjunior (Aug 2, 2011)

I think at this point it comes down to this. Do you plan on using music from surround sound formatted audio such as dvd audio or will you be primarily using cd's and things like ipods as your source unit. At that point even gary (who knows his stuff) listens to stereo recorded songs in stereo. I do the same as I mentioned earlier I shut my center and back speakers off and just use my klipsch heresey's for music reasons but then again my collection of music is basically all stereo. 

Side note from an math standpoint a derived sub-woofer channel (as long as it is crossed over correctly and tuned correctly) doesn't have the same issues as derived center and rear staging. Sub-woofer frequency ranges don't have the same directional properties as higher frequency's especially in a car environment. Due to the wavelength of sub-woofer frequency's being longer than the car itself (150 hz is about 7.5 feet for the wavelength and they only get longer the lower the note gets). Being able to perceive the difference between left and right sub-woofer should be beyond the limits of what we can hear. That's not stopping me from running stereo subs on opposite sides of my car for my next build but unless I time align them wrong it will still sound like bass throughout the car. This of course doesn't take into account rattling of panels which will be at higher frequency's and will tell you were it is, truck rattle, door rattle, etc.....

I'm sure gary already knows this but for those who don't


----------



## lordik333 (Apr 10, 2013)

Yes the PXA h800 is definitely the one to go with


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

Deathjunior said:


> as I mentioned earlier I shut my center and back speakers off and just use my klipsch heresey's for music reasons but then again my collection of music is basically all stereo.


Or you could do the cone of confusion and just turn off the center channel... Not to a jerk, but Gary Summers are you the former host of Double Dare?


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Not to a jerk said:


> I believe that was MARC Summers.


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

tbomb said:


> Classic excuse for not using rear fill. To bad it is flawed. (and I used it several times before getting educated on subject). When you are at a concert you are in a vast space designed to give the acoustic you need for desired sound. And even if it isnt, you are getting reflections from all over the room that adds to the space and "realism" of the music/performance. Why dont concert halls place the performers on the sides of the audience than(if we use the same logic).
> 
> A car does not provide the acoustics that a large space does. This is why, _*with the proper processing*_, rear fill is a much more accurate portrayal.
> 
> ...


Right. I'm glad someone paid attention. I find 2 channel in cars to be kind of boring and small sounding.


----------



## Stookie (Aug 9, 2012)

garysummers said:


> _A well built time aligned and designed 2.1 system will sound better than a 5.1 if done right.
> _
> I have to disagree. A properly constructed and tuned discreet 5.1 system will not only play your 2.1 material correctly but will also play discreet 5.1 program correctly. "Best of both worlds."
> I know because I have done it.
> ...


(sorry to hijack this thread) Gary - I was looking around for this schematic as I was wondering how you hooked it all up. I thought you (like most people - which you clearly are not) only had 1 processor and had the front stage semi active - mid/tweet on single channel with passive x-over and MW6 on a separate channel. 

Also wondered if you had a midbass in the rear as I could only see 2 in the pillar build. How does that work with TA being far apart from the mid tweet ? Also I assume you had to do a bit of work fitting the MW6 in the rear door as they take 5 1/4 standard


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Stookie said:


> (sorry to hijack this thread) Gary - I was looking around for this schematic as I was wondering how you hooked it all up. I thought you (like most people - which you clearly are not) only had 1 processor and had the front stage semi active - mid/tweet on single channel with passive x-over and MW6 on a separate channel.
> 
> Also wondered if you had a midbass in the rear as I could only see 2 in the pillar build. How does that work with TA being far apart from the mid tweet ? Also I assume you had to do a bit of work fitting the MW6 in the rear door as they take 5 1/4 standard


Since the PXA-H990 will only allow a 2-way setup for the rear channels and I am running a 3-way, I had to decide which two drivers to combine. I have run it both ways, woofer separate with mid/tweet combined and woofer/mid combined with tweeter separate, which is how I have it now. Obviously the ideal would be all drivers separate channels with their own TA. The interesting thing I found is that if I measure the path length of the woofer and mid from each side to the listening position, they are very close, within an inch or so. So I went with the configuration I have now. Is it perfect, no, but I feel it is the best sounding compromise. 
As far as getting the MW6 into the rear doors, that was done by Scott Babson at Kustom Kar Audio. Don't think there was any metal cut though.


----------



## Stookie (Aug 9, 2012)

garysummers said:


> Since the PXA-H990 will only allow a 2-way setup for the rear channels and I am running a 3-way, I had to decide which two drivers to combine. I have run it both ways, woofer separate with mid/tweet combined and woofer/mid combined with tweeter separate, which is how I have it now. Obviously the ideal would be all drivers separate channels with their own TA. The interesting thing I found is that if I measure the path length of the woofer and mid from each side to the listening position, they are very close, within an inch or so. So I went with the configuration I have now. Is it perfect, no, but I feel it is the best sounding compromise.
> As far as getting the MW6 into the rear doors, that was done by Scott Babson at Kustom Kar Audio. Don't think there was any metal cut though.


Thanks Gary..


----------



## tbomb (Nov 28, 2007)

Holy smokes! Got quoted and given credit by Andy W. My day is made!

(yes, I realize how pitiful my life sounds now)


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

trumpet said:


> You should be thankful someone of the calibur of Gary Summers is willing to take time out of his day to help us. Gary has helped me make my car sound better and all I had to do was have an open mind to learn.


Gary's post was also more about addressing the few vocal people in this thread saying MS-8 isn't good for SQ, center channels in car cant' work, etc. I don't think he was trying to tell the OP what to do, just more correcting some misinformation using his own great system as a reference point to what CAN be done using center channels, rears, etc.


----------



## Deathjunior (Aug 2, 2011)

I wouldn't say the MS8 isn't good I've installed 3 and owned one for myself for a little while. The issue with the MS8 is that to get true 5.1 out of it you have to feed it 5 channel input (something i haven't even tried on the MS8 so I'm not sure if it works but I imagine it could). Otherwise it is deriving the center channel and rears off of a stereo signal. The other issue I have with it is equalization per side. Unless the software has been changed mine didn't have a separate left and right equalizer that I could manually control (much less EQ per driver like the bit 10 or most other DSP's). This meant I have to rely on the self tuning setup to match the frequency response per side. That can make a massive difference when staging since varying upon the car and install since the auto tuning isn't and really can't be perfect.

It does have a lot of benefits though, built in internal amp, auto tuning is pretty good especially for those who are inexperienced, it has a screen for tuning so a laptop isn't needed, it has its own volume control so you can run directly off of something like an ipod or ipad standalone among other things


----------



## iamstubb (Sep 6, 2013)

distantxtremes said:


> I want to build a modest sq setup.
> My vehicle comes stock with a 5 speaker setup.
> 
> Would it be better to focus on a 2.1 or do something with all 5 speaker location?
> ...


Back to the OP, I am very impressed with the mini-DSP and if you need to approach with limited budget, I think it is the way to go. I personally used 2 2x4's but you can also get a 2x8 or 4x10 and probably still be cheaper than some of the others listed. 2x4's run $140 bucks each with DC power supply.

My OEM HU has front and rear outputs.

I used one 2x4 for front stage in a semi-active setup (I have 3.5" coax in my dash).
I use the other 2x4 as 2.1 for rear (very attenuated for rear enjoyment only) and sub channel.

Each speaker can be EQ'd and TA'd individually, and also EQ'd together as L and R.

No capability of surround processing though, which is the only drawback if that is your goal.

I squeezed a lot of SQ out of a relatively budget system that way.


----------



## T3mpest (Dec 25, 2005)

Deathjunior said:


> I wouldn't say the MS8 isn't good I've installed 3 and owned one for myself for a little while. The issue with the MS8 is that to get true 5.1 out of it you have to feed it 5 channel input (something i haven't even tried on the MS8 so I'm not sure if it works but I imagine it could). Otherwise it is deriving the center channel and rears off of a stereo signal. The other issue I have with it is equalization per side. Unless the software has been changed mine didn't have a separate left and right equalizer that I could manually control (much less EQ per driver like the bit 10 or most other DSP's). This meant I have to rely on the self tuning setup to match the frequency response per side. That can make a massive difference when staging since varying upon the car and install since the auto tuning isn't and really can't be perfect.
> 
> It does have a lot of benefits though, built in internal amp, auto tuning is pretty good especially for those who are inexperienced, it has a screen for tuning so a laptop isn't needed, it has its own volume control so you can run directly off of something like an ipod or ipad standalone among other things


The MS-8 does a FANTASTIC job balancing SPL for left and right sides in nearly ever setup I've ever seen one in, hence the single EQ once your done. The job it does with that is better than what most people will do even with gear, let along by ear and that's what the ms-8 is designed to minimize the need for or eliminate for non competitors especially. If you don't like the tune it's because you don't like it's overall response. However its overall response is basically the equal sum of the left and right, because it does a VERY good job making those nearly identical. It doesn't let you change left and right independently because witheverything being setup the way it does 99.99% of users are going to do more harm than good, especially when using it's center channels and rears, etc since level matching is more of a concern. When it's done it's autotune left and right are already even.


----------



## BadSS (Feb 2, 2008)

T3mpest said:


> The MS-8 does a FANTASTIC job balancing SPL for left and right sides in nearly ever setup I've ever seen one in, hence the single EQ once your done. The job it does with that is better than what most people will do even with gear, let along by ear and that's what the ms-8 is designed to minimize the need for or eliminate for non competitors especially. If you don't like the tune it's because you don't like it's overall response. However its overall response is basically the equal sum of the left and right, because it does a VERY good job making those nearly identical. It doesn't let you change left and right independently because witheverything being setup the way it does 99.99% of users are going to do more harm than good, especially when using it's center channels and rears, etc since level matching is more of a concern. When it's done it's autotune left and right are already even.


I agree 100% with "if you don't like the tune (from the MS-8) it's because you don't like it's overall response". I also couldn't stand that I had to use the remote for the volume - detail dropped significantly when using the radio volume. I know there are people happy with the MS-8 but it was not a good fit for me or my system at all. Not to mention the thing crapped out before I could get rid of it (bad for me, good for who ever would have bought it).


----------

