# Helix Dsp or Audison Bit Ten D



## EricB (Jun 24, 2014)

I know this discussion has been talked about a lot here and I have read everything I can find including the owners manuals. Lets say I can buy these both for the same price. Which would you go with?? I am running a simple two way active system off a factory head to a PDX-V9 amp. The only benefit I can see with the Bit Ten over the Helix is the auto De-Equalization. Other than that, they seem very similar. This would be my first Full DSP. Is there anything that I am missing????

Thanks for the advice!!

Eric


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

i have owned both....pick the Helix.


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Helix DSP


----------



## Gadget01 (Oct 20, 2008)

The Bit-Ten and the D variant are limited to 2-way plus sub, so.... meh


----------



## altec (May 28, 2011)

does that mean the helix can do surround?


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

altec said:


> does that mean the helix can do surround?


surround?


----------



## altec (May 28, 2011)

Gadget01 said:


> The Bit-Ten and the D variant are limited to 2-way plus sub, so.... meh


i asked if the helix can to surround eg 7.1 of the ms-8


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

The Helix DSP is certainly a more elaborate DSP unit than the Audison Bit Ten, and also more so than even the Audison BitOne (which is Audison's flagship DSP). The primary difference is that the Audison processors only have graphic EQ, while the Helix offers parametric EQ. The Helix also offers subwoofer phase angle adjustments in 15 degree increments, rather than just a 180 degree invert phase button.

Helix is about to release a new DSP Pro very soon which will have 10 channels of output. This would be a better choice if you are interested in having more channels for "surround." Personally, I wouldn't get overly concerned with "surround" because there isn't much material out there to be played on it, other than movies perhaps.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

altec said:


> i asked if the helix can to surround eg 7.1 of the ms-8


The ms8 is not 7.1...it is Logic 7.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

De-equalization is a nice feature that lets you start with a blank canvas. If you're running an aftermarket head unit not really an issue. Messing around with different systems OEM systems, I've seen differences in equalization at different volume levels. The 3sixty.3 might be an option to consider. I've ran the regular Helix DSP and the crown jewel the Helix C-DSP. Both were exceptional processors with the edge to the C-DSP. Straight out of the box, that was the only processor I've ever used that was impressive out of the box. Required very very little adjustments.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

lizardking said:


> Straight out of the box, that was the only processor I've ever used that was impressive out of the box. Required very very little adjustments.


Are you saying that with the C-DSP you didn't need to do any major adjustments?


----------



## 2010hummerguy (Oct 7, 2009)

lizardking said:


> De-equalization is a nice feature that lets you start with a blank canvas. If you're running an aftermarket head unit not really an issue. Messing around with different systems OEM systems, I've seen differences in equalization at different volume levels. The 3sixty.3 might be an option to consider. I've ran the regular Helix DSP and the crown jewel the Helix C-DSP. Both were exceptional processors with the edge to the C-DSP. Straight out of the box, that was the only processor I've ever used that was impressive out of the box. Required very very little adjustments.


I thought the Helix DSP replaced the C-DSP? DSP>C-DSP>P-DSP?


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Are you saying that with the C-DSP you didn't need to do any major adjustments?



The C-DSP was outstanding.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

Architect7 said:


> I thought the Helix DSP replaced the C-DSP? DSP>C-DSP>P-DSP?



The C-DSP was the flagship processor and yes, better than the regular Helix DSP. They are next to impossible to find!


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

lizardking said:


> The C-DSP was outstanding.


I don't think that is a reflection of not needing much adjustment. Regardless of what processor you use, what you are adjusting is compensating for the crappy acoustics inside a car. Assuming all things are equal, if you need a fair amount of adjustments with one processor (any processor) and then you swap it for a different processor and this time you do not need much adjustments I can tell you that something is off with this scenario.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

lizardking said:


> The C-DSP was the flagship processor and yes, better than the regular Helix DSP. They are next to impossible to find!


When the Helix DSP-Pro is released in a few weeks, it will leave the C-DSP behind.

There will always be a better mousetrap.


----------



## Huckleberry Sound (Jan 17, 2009)

Do you feel people will make the jump from the Helix DSP to the Helix DSP Pro? Do you think they are jumping up because of a want or because its a need.


----------



## DonH (Jun 25, 2009)

Huckleberry Sound said:


> Do you feel people will make the jump from the Helix DSP to the Helix DSP Pro? Do you think they are jumping up because of a want or because its a need.


guaranteed want IMHO...


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Well, I'm about to undergo a major system upgrade soon and swapping DSP is one of the changes. I have a PS8 boxed up here next to me as I type this, but I have been eying the Helix DSP recently. Now that the DSP Pro is almost here, I am going to try to be patient and see what the final list of feature improvements entails.

Here is what I am hoping for from the Helix DSP Pro:

1. More than 2 presets. I think this is the biggest drawback to the Helix DSP. That's one area where I think the Audison BitOne is great. It has 4 presets available.

2. Better controller. The controller for the Helix DSP is awful looking. I know there is the option to create your own, however. But it would be nice if they came up with something smaller with more traditional pots.

3. Phase angle adjustments for all channels, not just the subwoofer.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

For me the resolution on DSP is very important. Do we TA in 0.04 or 0.02 m/s? Is eq in 0.3 or 0.5 or 1 db steps? Are xover points at 1/12 or 1/6 oct steps or coarser? Are 4th order slopes the max or can you do 8th order and do a really aggressive mid to tweet xover.

The Bit10 eq works in 0.3 db steps, I think the Helix is 0.5 db. Finer resolution is better here imho. Bit10 allows you to fine tune TA in 0.02 m/s steps not sure about the Helix. 

Both give adequate choices on xover points, Helix is better on slopes at it offers a wider choice in type and orders than the Bit10 which only does LR/BW and maxes out at 4th order. The Helix will allow you to upgrade to a 3 way down the line the Bit10 is 2 way+sub forever. 

The sub phase adjustment on the Helix is probably the equivalent of fine tuning the timing on the sub in 0.001 m/s. A nice touch but it just might be overkill. Once you have fine tuned the angle on sub phase at that resolution, the slightest change in the head position will nullify that 60 deg shift that gave the best result. Same logic would apply if you had this feature on all drivers. Beyond a point it's overkill...........ready to get swamped

The issues on the Bit10 (random white noise from drivers) are well documented, but these mostly occurred on the units made in the first few years. The Helix has a clean sheet on this front. 

[edit] The units are also different in terms of how one tunes. The Helix is great for those who measure a lot and like to specify a broad curve and let the unit tailor the response. If this is how you plan to tune then the Helix would definately be more intuitive. The Bit10 is more instinctive for those who measure to get to a ballpark and thereon tweak based on how it sounds. [edit]


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Helix DSP Pro. Just announced HEC modules to add a second optical input, a second optical output, or a bluetooth streaming module.


----------



## lust4sound (Apr 9, 2008)

Old thread, skimmed through briefly.. Anyone have any experience with the Mosconi 6 to 8? If so, how does it compare to the Helix C-Dsp..

It is my understanding that the Mosconi can be controlled via app for cellphone, there's also an Amas "single din" type interface which can be installed in place of a HU, there's also a much small interface which can be tucked away for OEM or if you have a nav type system you want to keep in place..

optional Bluetooth connectivity, all the bells and whistles (T/A, EQ, 8 channels pre)

The reason I ask, I came across one for sale (helix) buyer is asking $550 plus shipping.. for around $800, I can get the Mosconi with all the extras, brand new in box w warranty (a friend who is dealer, can get it at his cost)

I def want to step up to 4 way active, just considering my options here..

Anyone?


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

The Mosconi is a very nice processor, you can't go wrong with it.


----------



## lust4sound (Apr 9, 2008)

fcarpio said:


> The Mosconi is a very nice processor, you can't go wrong with it.


Kay?? Is that you? I too live in South Florida.. whereabouts are you?


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

lust4sound said:


> Kay?? Is that you? I too live in South Florida.. whereabouts are you?


Not Kay, but I am in Coconut Creek. You?

Btw, the Mosconi is going for $550 in amazon and there is also a great deal going on for the Alpine PXA-H800 as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Mosconi-Glade...8&qid=1448987528&sr=8-1&keywords=mosconi+6to8

These were going for $506, but there are none left (I got one), at $630 it is still a very good price:

Amazon.com: Alpine PXA-H800 -Imprint Audio Processor: Electronics


----------



## lust4sound (Apr 9, 2008)

sqnut said:


> For me the resolution on DSP is very important. Do we TA in 0.04 or 0.02 m/s? Is eq in 0.3 or 0.5 or 1 db steps? Are xover points at 1/12 or 1/6 oct steps or coarser? Are 4th order slopes the max or can you do 8th order and do a really aggressive mid to tweet xover.
> 
> The Bit10 eq works in 0.3 db steps, I think the Helix is 0.5 db. Finer resolution is better here imho. Bit10 allows you to fine tune TA in 0.02 m/s steps not sure about the Helix.
> 
> ...


I wish you were a neighbor.. Why can't I ever have intelligent neighbors who share the same interests? I would sponge every bit of data available in that "Einstein noggin" of yours, then we could kick back and enjoy good sound..

My neighbors are simple family folk who are content with listening to hip hop and playing video games.. Decent people, nothing to offer in terms of like minded interests..

I CAN'T SPONGE OFF OF THEM!!


----------

