# Zapco DSP6 vs Audison Bit one



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

Looking for opinions form those who have heard or used both. Which one is the SQ king, and pros & cons of each unit?







.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Haven't heard a Bit One, but 2 things it has going for it out of the box over the DSP-6 is it can do a 4 way system, and it has the ability to do 48 dB/oct XO slopes.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

The bullet point feature list is way different... wouldn't it depend on application?


----------



## ClintMJ23 (May 3, 2007)

I will be trying out the Bit One soon and I will post some observations for you. I have also used the Zapco DSP Processor and Amps extensively. Gimme about a month!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I have zapco amps and had the bit one... well, still have a bit one but it's at Audison so I don't have it in my possession. :/

Just a quick rundown, and I bolded what I think are important features to both.

The above is correct... you're comparing 6 channel active to 8 channel active. Slope features are also different (48db on the audison as mentioned).

Audison: 
x-over slopes up to 48db in 6db steps.
*Currently cannot use different slopes on each end in 'bandpass' mode
Set x-over points to choose from (ie: can't choose your own)*
Can t/a in .02ms increments.
*Can EQ in 0.2dB increments*.
+/- 12dB on EQ 
Digi coax and toslink inputs.
*Controller comes with it.*
4 presets can be called up from the controller; no need to pull out a laptop when switching to a different setting.
*Fixed *31 band graphic EQ per channel.
Non-Balanced input
CAN NOT use the DRC (controller) to make changes; only fade/balance/sub/preset callup. You can only use the laptop to make changes.


Zapco:
x-over slopes up to 24db in 6db steps
Different slopes on each end in bandpass mode
*Can type in your own x-over point* 
(can't remember t/a increments)
EQ adjustments made in only full 1dB steps.
+/- 18dB for EQ steps
Toslink only (can be modded for digi coax, though)
*Controller (DRC-SL) must be bought separately (an extra $200+ depending on used/new)**
Can type in EQ points (ie: not fixed EQ bands)
10 band Parametric EQ per channel: Can type in Q (EQ curve) from 0.5 (REALLY wide) to 9.0 (very steep)*
*keep in mind if you bridge a set of channels you actually have 20 bands of EQ for that driver*
Balanced input
Can make changes with the DRC. Nice +.
Both:
PC control
Can store multiple settings on PC (kind of a 'duh')


If anyone can think of others, feel free to add.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Zapco:
> x-over slopes up to *36*db in 6db steps


I thought the max was 24dB.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Oh, you're right. Either a typo or I forgot.

Either way, thanks for that call. Edited post.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> Oh, you're right. Either a typo or I forgot.
> 
> Either way, thanks for that call. Edited post.


oh ok, I got excited there for a sec.


----------



## braves6117 (Feb 13, 2008)

BitOne has a better sound, more dynamic, and an overall crisper/cleaner influence at higher volume then the DSP6. 

I did a swap from the Zapco to the BitOne, kept the same crossover settings in theory minus bandpass and EQ on each channel, and their is a drastic difference IMO. Even my GF bluntly noticed the difference for the better and that says a lot to me .


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I haven't tried to directly copy the settings from my bit one to the zapco.

I must say, though... how were you able to do that given the 10 band EQ on the zapco? The sub and midbass are the only drivers I could get to fit the exact bands I had covered in the audison because they cover fewer than 10 octaves. 
If you ever did any EQ outside the x-over then I don't see how you can do apples to apples unless you didn't use more than 10 of your 31 bands on each driver. Not saying you can't do it... just not sure how you were able to. 

I do believe that the audison (despite the alt whine) sounded VERY nice... possibly better than the zapco, but as I said, I haven't been able to match the exact same settings as the audison so I can't give a fair comparison. :/


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> I haven't tried to directly copy the settings from my bit one to the zapco.
> 
> I must say, though... how were you able to do that given the 10 band EQ on the zapco? The sub and midbass are the only drivers I could get to fit the exact bands I had covered in the audison because they cover fewer than 10 octaves.
> If you ever did any EQ outside the x-over then there's no way you can do apples to apples. Not saying you can't do it... just not sure how you were able to.
> ...


We also don't know the exact Q of the graphic EQ bands on the Bit One.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I will go a bit further and say how much I LOVED audison's interface.
Man, the way you could control the channel levels (and mute them) was so nice and that was also in 0.2db levels, too. The zapco's interface is a bit harder to navigate (imo) and the levels can only be changed in full 1dB increments.

It's really tough to say which one is better. The audison has so many features and is much more refined regarding the level of adjustability (0.2dB steps). 
But, the ability of the zapco to manually TYPE in your x-over and EQ points is friggin' awesome. 


I know this is off topic, but the h701 is really the only unit directly comparable to the bit one... and the bit one walks all over it imo.


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

braves6117 said:


> BitOne has a better sound, *more dynamic, and an overall crisper/cleaner influence at higher volume then the DSP6.*
> 
> I did a swap from the Zapco to the BitOne, kept the same crossover settings in theory minus bandpass and EQ on each channel, and their is a drastic difference IMO. Even my GF bluntly noticed the difference for the better and that says a lot to me .



I was affraid of that. I currently have the DSP6 & believe that the Alto moble drive30 sounded better. I got rid of the drive30 because of the famous noise issue. 





.


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

ClintMJ23 said:


> I will be trying out the Bit One soon and I will post some observations for you. I have also used the Zapco DSP Processor and Amps extensively. Gimme about a month!





Cool, keep us posted!







.


----------



## braves6117 (Feb 13, 2008)

Sorry guys, I was too vague on my initial post. For the EQ portion settings, I did not transfer them over. My intial post said minus EQ and bandpass since the latter isn't an option somewhat. I simply took out the DSP6 and put in the Audison BitOne, did the setup and crossovers, and hit play. 


That said, and I've been hesitant to really review both units, there truly is a difference. And as Bikinpunk mentioned, once you throw the user interface in the loop, you'll be hooked.

Oddly enough, I'm still thinking about the DSP6 for a 2 way in the gfs ride. It is a great unit.


----------



## bose301s (Dec 8, 2008)

As much as either unit is nice, I am going to go with a Behringer DCX2496 over either of them. The Behringer is more flexible, cheaper and if needed can string multiple units together for huge systems, think 6 way active from 2 units, with the price for 2 units still being less than 1 Bit One or DSP6.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> I do believe that the audison (despite the alt whine) sounded VERY nice...


Is this a prevalent problem? I mean that's a huge negative to me, .2steps on the EQ. versus rpm dependent wine....hmmm

I'm in the middle of a system change. It seems since the H701 came out not much really happened, and it still has the very best interface with no additional laptops needed, control units with tiny screens etc, just your double din at the fingertip...anytime. The Bit one might have the goods but looks really buggy to me.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Is this a prevalent problem? I mean that's a huge negative to me, .2steps on the EQ. versus rpm dependent wine....hmmm
> 
> I'm in the middle of a system change. It seems since the H701 came out not much really happened, and it still has the very best interface with no additional laptops needed, control units with tiny screens etc, just your double din at the fingertip...anytime. The Bit one might have the goods but looks really buggy to me.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...some-coffee-take-nap.html?highlight=bikinpunk

Shouldn’t be an issue with the newer ones coming out. When that one hits, I have a feeling people will then be clamoring to buy one; it’s really that nice of a unit. I’ve already replaced my setup with Zapco dc ref amps, though.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

My DSP-6 is pretty nice sounding. The Rane is still better though. Neither are 100% stock though.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

Sorry for the thread jacking but between the DC Ref and the Ref, is there a difference in sound, components? Or the only difference is the tunning ability with the DCs? 

Sorry again, just thinking about a new setup, 
Kelvin


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

I have the DSP6 and DRC-SL combo and also the Bit One. DSP 6 goes in this weekend (finally got all the required cables).

So i can post on this thread with some opinions as well.

I know your question was about SQ but in my opinion the requirement for the balanced line simbilink cables is a PITA. I stayed away from the DSP6 because of that reason and went with the Bit One. Since the Bit One is awaiting replacement right now, I purchased a DSP6. It has taken weeeeeeeks to assemble all the cables and transmitters etc. Sheesh.

Now if I lived somewhere except bumfuqued egypt then speciality items might not have been a problem. But they were.

Just something for you to consider.

I paid MORE for the DSP6, plus DRC-SL, plus transmitters, plus simibilink cables than I did for teh Bit One plus RCAs.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

ARCuhTEK said:


> I know your question was about SQ but in my opinion the requirement for the balanced line simbilink cables is a PITA.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


In your case you had to special order the bit one. You didn't go right out and pick one up from your shop.

So, what's the difference in ordering a bit one and ordering some symbilink cables? I see none. Order the dsp and the cables at once and it's no more trouble than ordering the bit one and RCAs.


----------



## USC_Gamecock (Apr 17, 2009)

I haven't tried the Zapco yet. There is a lot of input on the Bit one at the following link (this link should take you to a post of mine specifically): http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/diy-mobile-audio/52240-audison-bit-one-hi-res-56k-go-make-some-coffee-take-nap-43.html#post724782.

I've posted my thoughts on it, just too lazy to re-type them


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> In your case you had to special order the bit one. You didn't go right out and pick one up from your shop.
> 
> So, what's the difference in ordering a bit one and ordering some symbilink cables? I see none. Order the dsp and the cables at once and it's no more trouble than ordering the bit one and RCAs.


For me a huge difference. I had to order the cables from three different locations, some Zapco dealers and some not. I even had a Zapco dealer tell me that a particular cable which was listed (still is listed) on the Zapco website was DISCONTINUED. I refused to believe it and kept trying. Very next dealer I called confirmed that they were still available, order them from Zapco and had them shipped to me. All in all it took four different shipments and 6 different cable sources (3 of which could not help me) to find the transmitters, main cables and then DIN to RCA's that I need to run the same three amp set up I have for the Bit One.

So lets see....thats a LOT more work than one phone call. These cables are not easy to find simply because they are not that common.

Maybe in metro areas....but not here. Which is why I said "in my opinion". This is all not even considering the effort it takes to figure out and learn all the different cables that you do need (let alone all the cables they sell...). They also have, in some cases, multiple products that serve the same purpose with different model numbers, yet all products will work for your needs. For example...the transmitters. There are three completely different kinds that will work for my needs. For the Bit One...just remember R....C.....A's

Results will vary.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

"I do believe that the audison (despite the alt whine) sounded VERY nice..."

I've read about issues regarding the bit 1 on this site and others. I'm confused about how a processor can sound very nice when it produces unwanted noise?? On the flip side, I've heard nothing but good things about the dsp6 and will be trying one out when I get around to installing it.


----------



## capnxtreme (Feb 5, 2008)

rain27 said:


> I'm confused about how a processor can sound very nice when it produces unwanted noise??


LOL my friend, indeed.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

if you're in the car listening when the engine idle (or even off) you get no alt whine. pretty simple folks. 


Kevin, fair enough. I was just trying to make the point that you don't necessarily have to make it hard on yourself. E-bay has cables and any zapco dealer can get you the cables you need.


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> if you're in the car listening when the engine idle (or even off) you get no alt whine. pretty simple folks.
> 
> 
> Kevin, fair enough. I was just trying to make the point that you don't necessarily have to make it hard on yourself. E-bay has cables and any zapco dealer can get you the cables you need.


I tried both Ebay and Zapco dealers from the get go.....and in the end it was DIYMA members and Zapco dealers who came through....just not easily. All is well and good now.


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

As for the alt whine and SQ of a Bit One....well strange but true. Both can be had at the same time, you just have to be there to experience it. Obviously when the alt whine IS present, it is not exactly SQ goodness.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I find it a bit ironic that the DSP6 EQ. has a major advantage in more complex setups such as 3way plus sub even though it can only be used in a 2way plus sub setup. 

Consider for example a 2way plus sub. On the midrange the Bit one has about 17 graphic bands from 63hz to 2500hz. This can be an advantage to the Bit one where 7 more trouble points can be addressed. However consider a 3 way plus sub where the midrange doesn't have to cover more than 200hz to 2500hz. Here there are only 12 bands usable on the Bit one if you consider the xover points, the flexible DSP 6 parametric becomes a better tool. That is off course assuming the trouble points are where the Bit one graphic eq. can make adjustments. If you have trouble in the 700hz band good luck with the fixed graphic eq. 

I chose the midrange driver example since most cars seem to have issues in the midrange with reflections more so than in other frequency bands. If you take a look at the tweeter, sub or midbass bands the DSP 6 will be supreme with at least as many bands available and off course the flexibility inherent in the parametric. 

To conclude, the DSP 6 EQ. seems much more intelligent to me, it's only downside being a 2 way plus sub setup when optimizing for midrange tunning with more than 10 trouble points and all those trouble points can be uniquely addressed by the preset Bit one bands. It's a remote possibility compared to the multitude of other applications the DSP 6 it would shine in. Now if the DSP 8 was out or two DSP 6 units would be used it's a no brainer. Notice doubling up on the Bit ones does nothing for you EQ wise. Either way, little reason to doubt the Zapco EQ is in fact better. The parametric eq. on this unit is several levels above my H701 parametric EQ.


----------



## trunks9_us (Oct 25, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> I find it a bit ironic that the DSP6 EQ. has a major advantage in more complex setups such as 3way plus sub even though it can only be used in a 2way plus sub setup.
> 
> Consider for example a 2way plus sub. On the midrange the Bit one has about 17 graphic bands from 63hz to 2500hz. This can be an advantage to the Bit one where 7 more trouble points can be addressed. However consider a 3 way plus sub where the midrange doesn't have to cover more than 200hz to 2500hz. Here there are only 12 bands usable on the Bit one if you consider the xover points, the flexible DSP 6 parametric becomes a better tool. That is off course assuming the trouble points are where the Bit one graphic eq. can make adjustments. If you have trouble in the 700hz band good luck with the fixed graphic eq.
> 
> ...


I really dont see why people have such a hard time understanding this.

You know if I plan on running a 3 way + sub which is still up in the air all I have to do is use my dsp6 then use a DC Reference amp plug it in to the dsp6 chan 6 then I will still not only have more channels and balanced lines but I will have solved the problem. I dont see why people seem to make this such a big deal. I dont really see anyone using 12 channels for a processor. I would just do a dsp6 then a dc1000.4 on chan 6 to have 9 channels so if anyone wanted to run a 4 ways + sub it would still be possible.
And the neat thing about doing it this way is you can still use the optical input from the dsp6 and then still have a digital signal with 9 channels total.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

trunks9_us said:


> I really dont see why people have such a hard time understanding this.
> 
> You know if I plan on running a 3 way + sub which is still up in the air all I have to do is use my dsp6 then use a DC Reference amp plug it in to the dsp6 chan 6 then I will still not only have more channels and balanced lines but I will have solved the problem. I dont see why people seem to make this such a big deal. I dont really see anyone using 12 channels for a processor. I would just do a dsp6 then a dc1000.4 on chan 6 to have 9 channels so if anyone wanted to run a 4 ways + sub it would still be possible.
> And the neat thing about doing it this way is you can still use the optical input from the dsp6 and then still have a digital signal with 9 channels total.


That works if you don't care for multiple D/A conversions or for being stuck with absolutely needing Zapco amps. to make it run.


----------



## trunks9_us (Oct 25, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> That works if you don't care for multiple D/A conversions or for being stuck with absolutely needing Zapco amps. to make it run.


Is there any bad thing any particular about having multiple d/a conversions?

Lets says you ran hu - digital optical - dsp6 - dsp6 chan 6 - dc amp So arent we just looking at a d/a conversion from the chan 6 to the dc amp?

And even if we didnt run digital optical wouldnt we then just be seeing 2 d/a conversions?

I guess I dont know why having multiple d/a is bad or is it?


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

ARCuhTEK said:


> For me a huge difference. I had to order the cables from three different locations, some Zapco dealers and some not. I even had a Zapco dealer tell me that a particular cable which was listed (still is listed) on the Zapco website was DISCONTINUED. I refused to believe it and kept trying. Very next dealer I called confirmed that they were still available, order them from Zapco and had them shipped to me. All in all it took four different shipments and 6 different cable sources (3 of which could not help me) to find the transmitters, main cables and then DIN to RCA's that I need to run the same three amp set up I have for the Bit One.
> 
> So lets see....thats a LOT more work than one phone call. These cables are not easy to find simply because they are not that common.
> 
> ...





Make your own! I did........


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

trunks9_us said:


> Is there any bad thing any particular about having multiple d/a conversions?
> 
> Lets says you ran hu - digital optical - dsp6 - dsp6 chan 6 - dc amp So arent we just looking at a d/a conversion from the chan 6 to the dc amp?
> 
> ...


The DSP6 makes one digital to analog conversion to get the processed sound from the optical in to the RCA outs. Your DC amps then take analog from RCA and convert it to digital to process, then back to analog to power. That is D/A, A/D, D/A, you trippled the amount of conversions. If you were to run RCA into your DSP6 then you would add two additional conversions, D/A in headunit, and A/D in the DSP 6. There is always some conversion loss, the more you make the duller your sound gets. Think how picky people are about DAC chips when making a single conversion.

I've used multiple conversions in two setups of mine. One using the PPI DCX730 and Eclipse CD7000, and another with the Kicker SX amplifiers and Alpine 9835. Both times the sound was very dull and boring and noise floor went up quite a bit. In both cases I cut it down to headunit processing and analog filters in the amplifers and I got much much better results due to the single D/A conversion.


----------



## VP Electricity (Apr 11, 2009)

I am a DC fan... I have installed dozens and will use a DSP6 in my car and run a DC in my wife's car. But every DC has an A/D conversion because the DC amps lack the digital in. So if you run a DC amp, you get an A/D into the DSP, and a D/A conversion after the DSP. 

With your scenario, running digital to analog to digital to analog (the signal path you describe to get to the DC amp and put the other side) is needlessly torturous. (if multiple conversions were harmless, why have digital outputs?

So I would not do what you describe, even though I like the gear.


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

Din to RCA!


----------



## evo9 (Jul 6, 2005)

Din plug part number is, KMDLAX-6P 

You can find it at mouser.com

http://anacapa.kycon.com/Pub_Eng_Draw/KMDLAX-xP.pdf


----------



## trunks9_us (Oct 25, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> The DSP6 makes one digital to analog conversion to get the processed sound from the optical in to the RCA outs. Your DC amps then take analog from RCA and convert it to digital to process, then back to analog to power. That is D/A, A/D, D/A, you trippled the amount of conversions. If you were to run RCA into your DSP6 then you would add two additional conversions, D/A in headunit, and A/D in the DSP 6. There is always some conversion loss, the more you make the duller your sound gets. Think how picky people are about DAC chips when making a single conversion.
> 
> I've used multiple conversions in two setups of mine. One using the PPI DCX730 and Eclipse CD7000, and another with the Kicker SX amplifiers and Alpine 9835. Both times the sound was very dull and boring and noise floor went up quite a bit. In both cases I cut it down to headunit processing and analog filters in the amplifers and I got much much better results due to the single D/A conversion.


2 Questions here.

1. So Correct me if I am wrong here If I had a hu with digital optical then I do it like this... hu - digital optical cable - dsp6 - symbilink - zapco amps (2 way + sub setup) By doing it this way I bypass the d/a on the hu then I am going digital on the dsp6 then I would be going from symbilink cables to the amp so I am just looking at a d/a from the dsp-6 to the amp then correct? Which means one time d/a conversion and no a/d ? so that would be a total of 1 conversion then. Let me know if I am correct on this.

2. Now as far as this (3way + sub setup) Running hu - rca/symbilink - dsp6 - dsp6 chan 6 to dc amp then that would be doing a (d/a from hu) (then a a/d from the processor) (then another d/a from the processor to the amps), (then on dsp6 chan 6 *(where the dc amp is)* it would be doing another a/d - d/a correct?) Let me know if I am correct on this as well.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

trunks9_us said:


> 2 Questions here.
> 
> 1. So Correct me if I am wrong here If I had a hu with digital optical then I do it like this... hu - digital optical cable - dsp6 - symbilink - zapco amps (2 way + sub setup) By doing it this way I bypass the d/a on the hu then I am going digital on the dsp6 then I would be going from symbilink cables to the amp so I am just looking at a d/a from the dsp-6 to the amp then correct? Which means one time d/a conversion and no a/d ? so that would be a total of 1 conversion then. Let me know if I am correct on this.
> 
> 2. Now as far as this (3way + sub setup) Running hu - rca/symbilink - dsp6 - dsp6 chan 6 to dc amp then that would be doing a (d/a from hu) (then a a/d from the processor) (then another d/a from the processor to the amps), (then on dsp6 chan 6 *(where the dc amp is)* it would be doing another a/d - d/a correct?) Let me know if I am correct on this as well.


Correct on both counts: one conversion in the DSP 6 vs. 5 conversions with the second setup.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

You guys really think there will be a perceivable lose in sound quality with an extra 24 bit A to D D to A with balanced ins and outs on a file that has a resolution limit of 16 bits?

Where will the degradation come from? Noise and distortion on a 24 bit conversion is well below the noise floor of the file being played.......wellllllll below.


----------



## trunks9_us (Oct 25, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Correct on both counts: one conversion in the DSP 6 vs. 5 conversions with the second setup.


Ok so another question this leads me to then... 

Does the D/A conversion really matter on the the mid bass in a 3 way setup + sub. Basically what I am asking is does all the d/a / a/d conversions really matter on a mid bass hz frequency range. From what I read is that the lower hz on lets say for subs 40-60hz dont really matter on sound quality as much as it does for mid range and tweeters range. (In terms of you cant really hear the difference.) So I am guessing the typical 3 way mid bass is ranged from 60 hz - 250 - 300ish hz range. So would doing those 5 conversions using the dc amp for the mid bass make the sound worse since its in a lower hz range? Or would you not be able to hear the difference either?


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

Evo9 Thank you for the suggestion. I have my cables now and I know this is a DIY site, but I am just not interested in making ANY cables at all, of any kind. The information you posted was very nice and I am sure will help others who read it.

During my install I had to splice a video cable and I thought I would I would shoot myself. That wire was so tiny I almost had to have a microscope to see it let alone handle it. I know there are tools for handling the wires (extra set of hands) and all but if I have to order tools I might as well order the final product. Then I dont have to second guess my work, which is not stellar in any way!

Thank you again.


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

Bit One wins....hands down!


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Depends on who you ask!!


----------



## ARCuhTEK (Dec 22, 2008)

rain27 said:


> Depends on who you ask!!


Well coming from someone who owns and has installed both into the same vehicle using the same components, I figured my opinion was worthwhile. Especially since he pretty much asked everyone.


----------



## hallsc (Oct 26, 2008)

Don't mean to veer off topic (I know this is a comparison between Zapco and Audison), but does anyone have experience to compare these to the Audio Control units? I am considering the DQXS, and I was wondering how it holds up to these two.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I wouldn't get the AC simply b/c it doesn't do TA.


----------



## hallsc (Oct 26, 2008)

T/A is not an issue for me, since I have T/A through my CD7200....so aside from the lack of T/A, how does it stack up?


----------



## xlynoz (Jun 16, 2008)

It's like comparing apples and oranges. The DQXS is just a EQ and crossover and the BitOne is a complete package. If all you are looking for is 6 channels of EQ and crossovers then it will do you fine. 

I personally like the idea of the all-in-one package which is why I just got rid of my DQS and will probably go with a BitOne. Also being able to mute speakers and change phase right at the control panel is a plus for me. Having to do it manually does not allow for a good a/b comparison and it's a PITA.

Dont get me wrong I liked my DQS. It did a great job at what I originally bought it for, to be an EQ. I just need something with more flexibility.


----------



## xlynoz (Jun 16, 2008)

ARCuhTEK said:


> Well coming from someone who owns and has installed both into the same vehicle using the same components, I figured my opinion was worthwhile. Especially since he pretty much asked everyone.


So I assume then that the latest replacement has won your heart back. Have all the issues been resolved with the latest version? I'm waiting to pull the trigger on one of these but I want to make sure I get the corrected version.

Also is the controller DIN height? It's hard to tell looking at the picture.


----------



## rx7foong (Dec 6, 2009)

do both the DSP6 and Bit One take speaker-level inputs, ie for OEM integration, or only the Bit One does? couldn't quite seem to find this piece of specification on Zapco's website.


----------

