# What do you think of the Audiocontrol EQX?



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm looking to upgrade my system, but I don't want to spend the money to go active... a friend on another forum recommended the Audiocontrol EQX, and I wanted some other opinions...

http://mobileaudiocontrol.com/product.asp?Product_Id=14162&d_Id=17612&l1=17612&l2=

I've got a 2004 Mazda 6s, and I'm using the stock HU from the bose system (the rest of the bose system has been gutted)...

I'm running a 5-channel Infinity amp (5350a), with 2 ohm Infinity Kappa 6.5's in the front doors, 2 ohm Infinity Kappa 6x8's in the rear doors, and a single 2 ohm JL Audio 12" in a sealed box in the trunk.

The upper diagram on this page shows how I am thinking of using it, the only difference being that the 3 amps are combined into 1 with my 5-channel....

http://www.mobileaudiocontrol.com/product.asp?Product_id=226061

The amp has 3 separate pre-amp input for the fronts, rears, and sub, so it should work.

I know that going fully active would be even better, but I really don't want to spend the money to do so... so this seems like a good intermediate option.

A couple more questions:

Can I run this off of the same 4 gaue power cable that is running the amp? Or will I need to run a separate power cable to the battery? (ugh)

Do I need 3 separate sets of pre-amp inputs in order to take advantage of the 3 separate sets pre-amp outputs? Or can the 3 set of pre-amp outputs use a common set of inputs (like my amp does)? Currently there is only one set of inputs coming from the headunit.

What do you think? 

Thanks guys!


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

I personally would not do it.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

Hic said:


> I personally would not do it.


why not?


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

The DQX isn't a bad processor. But its really limited when it comes to tuning flexability. If you want to go with audio control look at the DQS with a seprate x-over, or the DQXS


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

yeah if you're going audiocontrol, dqx or dqxs is the way to go, but you don't have time alignment, so that sucks. also, by the time you buy the remote for it you're at the price of an alpine 701 and controller.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

Actually, the more I look at the Audiocontrol processors, the more I think that the simple EQL is the way to go, since I've only got one set of inputs from the HU, and only one amp... and also because the price is right (<$200).

The EQL will give me an improved input signal, and a 13-band equalizer. Even this will still be a substantial improvement, right? 

I'm really not going for "high end" here... just substantially better, without spending a lot. 

It seems a bit silly to me to get a high end processor when the rest of my setup is middle of the road.


----------



## JeremyC (Dec 20, 2007)

Yeah if your not looking for 300 bands of EQ the EQL would be a good choice. Its not going to give you any crazy amounts of control, but if your only looking for a little, then why not give it a try.


----------



## reker13 (Oct 26, 2007)

Lunchmoney, I started with a David Navone 774 LOC converter in my system. Then, I went with the EQX from Audiocontrol. The sound quality improved slightly. Cleaner and less THD when cranking the volume. The EQ channels were really nice as well as the flexability. The suggest to go with the EQX is a good reccomendation! 

Finally, I sold the EQX on eBay and purchased a 3sixty.1. Think it cost me like $50 net. While i downgraded in terms of EQ, it was a major step up in the preamp section. Channel seperation was a night and day difference. Bass output was much strong due to the preamp output. Overall, a huge gain versus my previous upgrade.

AudioControl is good stuff don't get me wrong and your plan is sound. Going active LOC over a solid passive LOC will gain you an improvment. But, from my experience, going to a unit like the cleansweep or RF should be a consideration if not a serious one vs the EQX. Going with the digital AC unit will give you even more than the 3sixty but I sense your not looking for such a leap in $$$.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

reker13 said:


> Lunchmoney, I started with a David Navone 774 LOC converter in my system. Then, I went with the EQX from Audiocontrol. The sound quality improved slightly. Cleaner and less THD when cranking the volume. The EQ channels were really nice as well as the flexability. The suggest to go with the EQX is a good reccomendation!
> 
> Finally, I sold the EQX on eBay and purchased a 3sixty.1. Think it cost me like $50 net. While i downgraded in terms of EQ, it was a major step up in the preamp section. Channel seperation was a night and day difference. Bass output was much strong due to the preamp output. Overall, a huge gain versus my previous upgrade.
> 
> AudioControl is good stuff don't get me wrong and your plan is sound. Going active LOC over a solid passive LOC will gain you an improvment. But, from my experience, going to a unit like the cleansweep or RF should be a consideration if not a serious one vs the EQX. Going with the digital AC unit will give you even more than the 3sixty but I sense your not looking for such a leap in $$$.


Let me explain a bit more about my setup... 

The Mazda 6 Bose head unit already has a fairly good line-level output... a Cleansweep was actually tested with my head unit by JL, and the conclusion is that it does not make any significant difference on my head unit.

Does knowing this change your recommendation?


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

JeremyC said:


> Yeah if your not looking for 300 bands of EQ the EQL would be a good choice. Its not going to give you any crazy amounts of control, but if your only looking for a little, then why not give it a try.


I'm looking for ANY control... and the 13 bands of the EQL combined with cleaning up the input signal a bit sounds like a lot better than NOTHING... and better than the cheapo 5,7, or 9 bands EQ's out there that do nothing with the input signal.


----------



## foreman (Apr 18, 2007)

I'm running an EQS, and i love it. It just doesn't do crossover duty, but i don't need it. It cleaned up the sound quite a bit, and give me enough flexibility. I recommend it.


----------



## envisionelec (Dec 14, 2005)

lunchmoney said:


> I'm looking for ANY control... and the 13 bands of the EQL combined with cleaning up the input signal a bit sounds like a lot better than NOTHING... and better than the cheapo 5,7, or 9 bands EQ's out there that do nothing with the input signal.


I have a used EQL in white that I used for many years. I bought it used and replaced the RCA jacks with the Teflon insert types (the old ones kept breaking). There are scratches on it, but it still works beatifully. PM me if you want it. $60 plus ship.


----------



## Thumper26 (Sep 23, 2005)

one thing i've heard from a couple of people before, so take with a grain of salt, is that the analog audiocontrol pieces like the eql colored the sound.

again, that's just what i've heard. but it was from competitors.


----------



## seagrasser (Feb 6, 2007)

I've "heard" that of the concert series. I have an original version and it is very transparent. I am using it in a home setup now and love the control it offers.


----------



## reker13 (Oct 26, 2007)

Does the mazda6 factory EQ the factory speakers based on volume level? I'm afraid this is a limitation the EQX is not designed to overcome if so. Combined with an aftermarket H/U, the EQX is awesome because freq. response is flat. But I understand your desire to not change out the factory unit especially in a mazda6.

My reccomendation is to start with a flat signal. (3sixty, LC6, or cleansweep). If this doesn't make a big difference to you in the cleansweep, I don't see how a EQX will satisfy you based on my own experiences. But, I suppose much of this is subjective.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

reker13 said:


> Does the mazda6 factory EQ the factory speakers based on volume level? I'm afraid this is a limitation the EQX is not designed to overcome if so. Combined with an aftermarket H/U, the EQX is awesome because freq. response is flat. But I understand your desire to not change out the factory unit especially in a mazda6.
> 
> My reccomendation is to start with a flat signal. (3sixty, LC6, or cleansweep). If this doesn't make a big difference to you in the cleansweep, I don't see how a EQX will satisfy you based on my own experiences. But, I suppose much of this is subjective.


I don't think it eq's based on volume... it definitely does if you have the "get louder if the car's going faster" feature on, but I never use it... I think it's annoying.

And yes, based on the fact that a Cleansweep has been shown to be unnecessary with this head unit, I'm not expecting the EQL (or EQS or EQX) to do anything significant to the input signal... all I'm really trying to get out of it is some eq control, trunk mountable, at a low cost... the EQL seems to fit that bill. With 13 bands and a good reputation for quality it seems like a better option than the "Kicker 9-band's", etc out there.


----------



## lunchmoney (Dec 27, 2007)

foreman said:


> I'm running an EQS, and i love it. It just doesn't do crossover duty, but i don't need it. It cleaned up the sound quite a bit, and give me enough flexibility. I recommend it.


Are you usimg a stock head unit? Does your head unit typically benefit from something like a Cleansweep? My stock HU has been shown to not gain much if anything from a Cleansweep, so I'm wondering what if anything the Audiocontrol will do.


----------



## kimokalihi (May 27, 2007)

I've seen 880 PRS head units that will have all the EQ(L/R independant at that!)and crossovers you'll need for $225 shipped. In fact, I bought one at that price on here for a friend. I also bought mine earlier this year for the same price used from another member. 

Highly recommend this route. 

NOTE: I was too lazy to read the whole thread or probably some of the post as well so I don't know if you'd want to run an aftermarket HU. I see you're using the stock HU but I still recommend replacing it with 880. You won't regret it.


----------



## ~thematt~ (Sep 14, 2007)

reker13 said:


> Cleaner and less THD when cranking the volume.


You have incredibly good ears.


----------



## mudnubbz (Feb 15, 2008)

I currently run a dqxs on my system. The sound quality is excellent. It is alittle hard to figure out for a beginner to set up, but once you have you will be very happy.It has line drivers on all channels up to 7.5 volts if you need it. Very nice! I am down grading my stereo due to space and gas consumption,so mine is now up for sale. It is only a year old(from purchase date) and I still have the original packaging. Only small scratches from mounting on rack.I am asking $350, but will consider offers if anyone is looking.If so let me [email protected] [email protected] .


----------

