Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater SVS AS-EQ1 SubEQ

Well, I got an email receipt today, so I guess that means I made the first shipment. Hopefully I'll have it soon.

Excellent!

Scheduled delivery is 5/28. Hopefully it arrives quicker, because come on!

Charles, when you talk to SVS customer service, do you get a flat response?

Man, I'm such a dummy. The unit is out for delivery today, and I realized I hadn't bought my new cables yet. Duhhhhhh.

This is not going to be a review, by any means. I simply thought I should check in since I have the unit and am running it now.

I got my cables today. I ordered from Blue Jeans since they're fast, also being in Washington. I'm happy with the overall build quality and the connections in particular, since they're snug without having a death-grip.

It was kind of a pain in the butt connecting the AS-EQ1 to my computer since my computer is in the next room. Of course, then it didn't even work, since my computer runs Vista 64-bit exclusively, and apparently there's no support for that yet. I had to borrow my mom's XP computer in order to run the SubEQ software. I wish it either communicated through ethernet or, better yet, didn't require a computer and had its own interface, because walking back and forth between the two rooms (well, I ran) got old. I didn't want to keep my mom's computer for too long, either. I ended up measuring only 6 positions (max of 32), and, unforgivably, I didn't even figure out how to do the direct comparison of MultEQ on vs MultEQ off until after I gave her computer back. I think I'll definitely want to pick up a cheap XP laptop to do further experimentation.

It told me to input the sub distance in the receiver as 30.4 feet, but my Integra only goes up to 30.0 feet. It's a big distance, but I was willing to accept the inflated figure this time since there are now two DSPs to go through (AS-EQ1 plus DSPs in the subs themselves).

I've only listened to select scenes in movies so far, but from what I've heard, I would say that the overall sound is cleaner, less muddied, but I'm not sure there's any more impact. Of course, since I didn't do the direct comparison of MultEQ on/off, I can't say how much is placebo. I won't be able to provide much more detail until I have a more convenient way to play with this new toy. Does anyone have recommendations for a laptop that will fit my needs?

I also didn't save the before/after graph that the software created, which is yet another reason I'll have to do this all again as soon as I can. In the Before graph, the lower frequencies were as high as 10dB over the baseline, though, and of course the After graph was almost perfectly flat through most of the range. I'll let other people argue about the smoothing that's used to create the graphs, since I'm not informed enough on the subject. Assuming the graphs are to be believed, and it correlates with the differences I believe I've heard, then I'll say it's going to be worthwhile for me. I wasn't expecting a magical transformation, but rather another reasonable step toward more accurate sound.

There's no way around the fact that it's a lot of money for what it does. In a couple of years, I imagine this level of low-frequency EQ power will be in the receivers and processors themselves, which will be much more convenient. If I already had a laptop (and requisite OS), the process would have gone a lot better, but since I don't, I can't say a lot for this initial experience.

I like the software itself, and the unit seems to do what it's supposed to do, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Support for balanced I/O, native GUI, and a better faceplate (one of the embedded magnets came out already--I'd rather the faceplate just flipped up or slid over) would be nice, but ideally this whole functionality would be part of the receiver itself.

I'll have more to share later on, after I get a laptop or find a friend who has one to bring over.

Thanks for the feedback! BTW, the computer is not as much for the GUI as for the calculations themselves. The main problem of receiver-mutli-EQ is the challenge to get them to some very ccomplex calculations (especially time-related) with very small CPUs and limited resources.

That just means you have much more fun ahead of you (doing and re-doing!).

As for the PC, you may want to look at net computers. They are a lot cheaper and will do the job. I guess it depends on how it will get used once you are through with the AS-EQ1.

If the computer is required for the calculations, then the price of the unit is even less reasonable. The CPUs in most of the computers that will be used with the AS-EQ1 are a fraction of the cost of the unit. And even if it takes a few minutes for the AS-EQ1 to perform the calculations, who cares? It's not like it has to do it on the fly during normal operation. It just has to do it during the setup. To me, if they can't arrive at the appropriate level of processing power when the unit is in the $700-$800 price range, there's something wrong. Of course, there's very little competition in this space. We'll have to wait for other better implementations to come around before prices start dropping to more mainstream levels. Many receivers and pre/pros, on the other hand, have even more inflated prices, so it's inexcusable if they can't build the processing power into them. Pre/pros, especially, which don't have an amplifier section yet seem to cost more, should be able to meet the challenge. Here's hoping a company out there can polish this tech and integrate it into a pre/pro sooner rather than later.

I'm sure I sound bitter, but I'm really not. This is just the reality of the business at this point, but I do want the technology to improve at a faster rate simply because I like having more options. This product is still an improvement in usability over what's been out before it (apparently, as I haven't use the other options), but there's even more convenience to be achieved. I'll enjoy the benefits of this implementation, but I look forward to the next iterations.

I'll have to see about net computers. They'll really do the job? I was also thinking I could take the opportunity to cobble together some sort of HTPC, just to have done it. I don't really know at this point.

Thanks for the conversation so far.

You definitely can't do an HTPC with a nettop or netbook--maaaaybe if it's an Atom with nVidia's ION chipset, but certainly not an all Intel unit.