# Audiocontrol DM-608 question



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

I bought a DM-608 for DSP processing and input EQ. I have a factory headunit that amplifies bass and treble at all volume levels (2017 Chevy Sonic). It seems to me that this unit uses the same EQ for both input and output. I wanted an all in one unit. I run out of EQ processing power because it flattens the input by using the same EQ that is needed for tuning 'in car acoustics'. This does not function like a separate JL Fix and Twk. I recently added a Jl Fix prior to the DM-608 and all is well. If I am wrong and there is a way to EQ the input through the DM-608 without using the same EQ needed to tune the system then please explain how I can accomplish this without having to use the JL Fix. I called Audiocontrol and they were not much help.


----------



## tranv9565 (Jun 6, 2017)

To my understanding, only 31 band graphic EQ in the output section.

It's a pretty poor excuse of a DSP. I had the DM-810 and had to get rid of it.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

I am Ok with the 31 bands of EQ. Its actually easier for me to use because I tune my system with a basic phone app and dayton phone mic. I can get it to sound pretty good that way. I know its not perfect and I wouldn't win any SQ competitions, but its quick and easy for the average Joe. My complaint is they claim its an all in one unit and its not. Audiocontrol is claiming its like combining a JL Fix and Twk together in one unit. This simply is not the case. I still had to add a JL Fix to adjust the signal coming from the factory head. I would have rather used a JL Twk than the DM-608. I use a Twk in my truck and love it. If Audiocontrol is correct then I simply just don't know how use it to correct the incoming signal. There should be two different EQ's, (one for input and one for output). If there is then I am completely wrong.


----------



## JamesRC (Sep 18, 2017)

I was looking at the 608 but ultimately decided against it because you also can't EQ the left and right channels independently. You can EQ tweeters, you can EQ mid-bass, but the EQ is applied to both the left and right channels. 

I loved the software interface, and I love that you can use the app on an Apple, but it's not quite where it needs to be IMO. I didn't even realize the input EQ and output aren't independent of each other.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

They have recently added a firmware/software upgrade to allow independent left and right equalization.


----------



## ominous (Apr 21, 2017)

Hopefully it's just a matter of learning how to work the software. From what I remember, CarAudioFabrication did a pretty thorough review of the DM-810. I don't remember the details, but I'd try searching for that video to see if it gives any tips on how to use the software.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

i saw that video too. Very informative, but no information on how to EQ the incoming signal. I'm very happy with how things worked out with he JL Fix. Just wish I didn't have to use two different processors. The Sonic is a very small car. Real Estate is very valuable. I currently have the Fix velcro'd to the top of the DM-608. It looks like a wart or an afterthought (which it was).


----------



## ominous (Apr 21, 2017)

Yeah, I searched and couldn't find any info that was helpful. Even AC's own website is lacking in info. I found a setup guide: 

https://www.audiocontrol.com/knowledge-base/dm-810-setup-walk-thru/ 

It has a decent looking input RTA but it looks like most (if not all) of their EQ adjustment is done within the Output tab. If that's the case then AC is either exaggerating it's units capabilities or needs to better explain how to use it on their support page.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

I feel like they are exaggerating. Thank you for looking into that. I too looked at that walk thru. That is a very detailed set of instructions. I'm not totally dissing the DM-608. The auto EQ works to correct the input much like the JL Fix would, however it uses the seme EQ as output. I have played around with the software every which way but it doesn't seem as there is a separate EQ for the input. Seems like false advertising to me. Lesson learned-Don't cheap out. Never be afraid to buy the best (not most expensive, but best) equipment available and you will not be disappointed .


----------



## ominous (Apr 21, 2017)

That sucks. 

It's also why I like companies that let you test their software before you make a decision to buy (shows a lot of faith in their product). You install the hardware once, but you're going to spend countless hours tuning and tweaking to get the sound where you want it. The software ends up being more important than the hardware.


----------



## criddopher (Apr 3, 2011)

I have the software as I'm trying out all the different DSP software to see what I like. And I cant find anyway to eq the input seperate from the output. But why does that matter? Could you just correct the signal and tune it to where it needs to be in one swoop anyway?


I mean if you just flatten the input to only change it with a tune, isnt the final eq all that matters?

Sorry If I'm an idiot here lol.


----------



## edub13 (Jun 19, 2015)

criddopher said:


> I have the software as I'm trying out all the different DSP software to see what I like. And I cant find anyway to eq the input seperate from the output. But why does that matter? Could you just correct the signal and tune it to where it needs to be in one swoop anyway?
> 
> 
> I mean if you just flatten the input to only change it with a tune, isnt the final eq all that matters?
> ...


 I believe that the idea is, let's say there is a big spike at some frequency in the input signal, and the DSP flattens that out with say a cut that is 75% of it's capacity at that frequency. You play the system in your car, and you still have a nasty hot spot at that frequency. You now only have the DSP's remaining capacity to make additional cuts.
I don't know how often this scenario would play out in real life, but it is surely one of the reasons that JL presents a "two box solution" to factory integration and other DSPs have both input and output EQ capabilities.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

This is what I ran into. My factory headunit alters the signal to make the crappy factory speakers sound good. By the time the DM-608 corrected the factory signal there was much EQ ability left over to correct for in car accoustics. Just because your equipment is seeing a flat signal doesn't mean it will translate well inside the vehicle. I added the JL Fix prior to the DM-608 and now I have the full EQ ability available from the DM-608, even though it is only a graphic EQ - good enough to make it sound better. The point is had I known from the start I would have gone a different route. Perhaps a JL Fix and any other processor besides the audiocontrol (mini dsp, Helix, JL Twk, or anything else)


----------



## tranv9565 (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm interested to know what were the driving factors for you to purchase the audiocontrol esp over other dsps.


----------



## ominous (Apr 21, 2017)

criddopher said:


> I have the software as I'm trying out all the different DSP software to see what I like. And I cant find anyway to eq the input seperate from the output. But why does that matter? Could you just correct the signal and tune it to where it needs to be in one swoop anyway?
> 
> 
> I mean if you just flatten the input to only change it with a tune, isnt the final eq all that matters?
> ...


No, you make a valid point. The final tune is what you're looking for and if the DM-608 (or any DSP) is able to do that then everything else is irrelevant. When you think about it, the DM-608 has automatic input EQ (it will automatically correct the input signal to a flat output signal), then you can apply any additional tuning/curve from there. But when I hear "separate" input EQ, I'm thinking one for the input and one for the output. That implies enough capability to do both jobs, _separately_. In the case of the OP, that clearly is not the case ("I run out of EQ processing power because it flattens the input by using the same EQ that is needed for tuning 'in car acoustics'..."). 

In all fairness, AudioControl's documentation doesn't actually say it has separate input and output *EQ* capabilities. What it actually says is "Input and Output *RTA* for precise and informed tuning". I can see how a potential buyer might (mis)read that and think it has the capability to tune both the input and output _separately_. AC doesn't say it has separate input and output EQ, but the way that info is presented can be misleading. By adding an input RTA (and displaying photos of it on the DM-608's product page) it gives the impression that it has a capability that it does not.

Thinking a little harder, aren't both RTA's pointless anyway? They show the electrical input signals from the source unit and the electrical output signals to the amplifiers, but we don't listen to electrical signals. We listen to the output of the drivers and the vehicles effect on that output, neither of which the AC unit monitors (it would need a microphone to do so). So while the RTAs are a nice visual touch, they don't show what really matters. It also invalidates their statement about "precise and informed tuning" since what the RTAs show isn't in any way related to what we actually use to tune. 

Or maybe I'm thinking too much.


----------



## edub13 (Jun 19, 2015)

ominous said:


> .
> 
> Thinking a little harder, aren't both RTA's pointless anyway? They show the electrical input signals from the source unit and the electrical output signals to the amplifiers, but we don't listen to electrical signals. We listen to the output of the drivers and the vehicles effect on that output, neither of which the AC unit monitors (it would need a microphone to do so). So while the RTAs are a nice visual touch, they don't show what really matters. It also invalidates their statement about "precise and informed tuning" since what the RTAs show isn't in any way related to what we actually use to tune.
> 
> Or maybe I'm thinking too much.


I have had this thought since they came out. While I think it would be amusing to see just what the factory signal looks like, and the output signal compared to acoustic response, it ultimately means sweet FA in the end because the acoustic response is the only reason to even fool with any of this stuff.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

The input RTA is not just a cool factor only. It did allow me to know that my factory head unit was not puting out a flat signal. It also allowed me to know that the signal did not change while contoling the volume-the signal stayed the same not matter what the volume on the headunit was at. that way I knew I did not need a separate volume control. So I guess it does have a purpose. If you have an aftermarket head then the input RTA is useless.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

tranv9565 said:


> I'm interested to know what were the driving factors for you to purchase the audiocontrol esp over other dsps.


I purchase the DM-608 to save some money. I wanted something that would do what the combo of the JL Fix and TWK would do in a single box. I should have researched this further or downloaded the software before purchasing. I did ask the guy at Crutchfield if it was an all in one unit. He seemed to think so. That was good enough for me. Now that I installed the JL Fix I am much happier. the AC DM-608 is not a bad processor as I am able to use time alignment, set crossovers and use EQ on both left and right channels. The software is not very friendly. You have to use two different screens and if your laptop is small then you have to scroll up and down all the time. Lesson learned - always do research and read reviews before making a big purchase.


----------



## Misgifmaker (Sep 15, 2015)

Sorry to revive a dead thread!

But I believe If you didn't need factory fader controls you could have solved this with the DM608. you should be able to use the high-level inputs from the radio (High-level Ch 1,2,3,4) and EQ those to correct the factory signals then simply make a loopback connection to gain another redundant level of 30 band EQ and time alignment (Line-Level Output CH 1,2 to Line-Level Input CH 5,6).

This setup only sacrifices two stereo channels and leaves you a ton of flexible!


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

I never thought to try this, but it does make sense. I will give it a go then report back.


----------



## Stycker (Jan 31, 2018)

ok, I thought about this. I am now using all of my outputs. 3-way up front and sub. This would have worked with a two way system or more available outputs as with a DM-810


----------

