Finally: The Truth About Fosgate Surround Designs and DPL-II

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I do not know the exact difference in channel placement of SQ recordings when played back via DPLII vs. SQ. All I know is that it is incorrect. Is it close enough? That's something you'll have to determine for yourself. For me, it is totally unacceptable.

I thought I was pretty clear in stating that QS/RM channel placement is correct (given the proper adjustments) using DPLII. Please go back and (thoroughly) read my previous comments. I don't see the need to repeat myself here.

The nature of the center channel in DPLII changes depending on if you have it on or off and to what degree (strength) you have it turned on. At no time will you miss part of the mix (unless you have the center channel physically disconnected yet still allocate it using the DPLII settings).

 
The big problem with using DPL-II to decode SQ is that both rear channels are summed and sent out mono in the back. Yuck!!!

Dan in Spokane
 
"The big problem with using DPL-II to decode SQ is that both rear channels are summed and sent out mono in the back. Yuck!!!"

I thought that was DPL, not DPLII?

 
The mono rear channels decoding SQ with DPL-II came from Jim Fosgate himself. You'll hear more front-back seperation, but no seperation between the rear channels.

Dan in Spokane
 
Thanks for the info.That finally explains why the surrounds on CSII sound so much better than DPLII. It is because they are in full stereo with great seperation.:D
 
But is it better at decoding good QS material than any of the Vario Matrix decoders-like QSD-1 or 2?

 
Ignore my previous reply. I got my answer. This topic thread is so long, I should have waited till I read the whole thing before making my inquiry. I'm sticking to my QSD-2 and S&IC composer. Seems the new "stuff" still doesn;t make the grade.
 
DeepSky's mention of the mono rears in DPLII is specifically with SQ encoded material. With regular stereo material or any other matrix-encoded material, this is not the case.

 
I personally heard or had all the matrix decoder systems in the the 70's with the exception of the vario matrix & the later Tate. I have a Cantares SSP1 which produces true quad in Ambiosonic, SQ & QS without logic. CS II produces Quad sound with full logic. If you watch movies a center channel & sub are a must.The music mode gives a less full center for a more quad effect. As an old quad fan I have never liked any Dolby matrixes because they do not reproduce the real quad sound.
 
Obviously you've missed a major point of this thread: DPLII does indeed offer near perfect decoding of QS and RM quadraphonic material, which is a direct contradiction of your statement saying "I have never liked any Dolby matrixes because they do not reproduce the real quad sound."

However, I am guessing your generic "Dolby matrixes" term weighs heavily upon the old Dolby Prologic. I don't think you will find anyone here challenging the fact that it was pretty stinking bad.

DPLII is an entirely different beast. It has almost nothing to do with the original DPL scheme. It is unfortunate that it has the Dolby name attached to it, but you shouldn't let that fact detract from its often impressive performance.

In any event, if DPLII does offer mono surrounds for SQ material, I still am left scratching my head as to why you think that one virtually inconsequential feature would have anything to do with your preference of CSII over DPLII (unless, of course, you are limiting yourself solely to SQ material).

I am further left scratching my head as to why you feel the need to "bash" DPLII. You prefer CSII, good for you. I've never experienced it myself but it may be quite good, but I find the whole idea of trying to ridicule technologies in an effort to elevate your chosen one to be somewhat unsavory.

Now, I'm not some DPLII diehard or anything. In fact, I think it is clear from my comments that I prefer other surround technologies. But you know what, they all compromise at some point. I don't think there is a single surround technology that can offer optimum results in all situations.

With that said, I think DPL offers a very intelligent solution with some good parameters that allow it to be tailored to work extraordinarily well (if not optimally) in a wide variety of situations. Perhaps CSII is just as nimble and more satisfying, I don't know, but I fail to see how bashing DPLII is going to add positively to this discourse.

 
deepsky4565 said:
I have just finished researching Fosgate units for synthesizing surround from stereo, of course with lots of seperation, and a real quad like experience.

The Tate 101a used the first DES, directional enhancement circuitry. This was a huge advance for SQ decoding, and also for processing stereo. The first circuits were slow, however, and can lead to pumping type artifacts. Most of the time they would only be obvious to critical listening, especially of one or two channels at a time. Sometimes it is downright unlistenable.

The 3601 was not a step forwards, as nearly I can tell, and I haven't auditioned one. They have nearly universal negative reviews, at least for our purposes.

The Fosgate models 1 and 2 were an advance, and have powered back channels.

Model 3 and 3a, and then 4 and 5 have very excellent performance, as I think they aproach the performance of a Tate, but with very minimal pumping. The 3a was the most expensive of this sequence, and commands a higher price. Harman Kardon bought Fosgate Audionics, and rebranded these units, as did their subsidiary label JBL. I have a model 4, and love it. It has replaced my Tate for synthesizing surround, as the pumping is nearly negligble for most music, and it gives 5.1, not just 4.0.

The next step in Fosgate's design was 6-Axis. I just received a Citation pre-amp which has the 6-axis circuit. I believe only Citation 5.0 and 7.0 preamps had 6-axis. There was also the car decoder, the Harman Kardon CSP-1, and possibly the same unit branded as an Infinity. I have not hooked my 7.0 up, but in research, including lengthy conversations with Bob Popham, who worked for Fosgate, this is the ultimate Fosgate synthesizer. It is even faster, which should reduce pumping even more than the models 3-5, and boasts a much better seperation between channels. It also has lots of parameter controls. I will be posting reviews of the Citation 7.0 in the near future. The 5.0 came later, and used cheaper components. I do not know if this affected the 6-Axis circuitry, though. The 5.0 did offer Dolby digital and optional DTS however. It is interesting that the reviews at the time said the lack of digital decoding on the 7.0 was not a handicap, because the reviewers felt that 6-Axis sounded better. One other note on the 5.0, is that it offered the digitally decoded dolby digital and DTS through a 6-Axis Encoder to be recorded on the stereo analog outputs! The primary drawback to both units is the lack of external inputs. MSB technology offers a $400 5.1 input upgrade to the 7.0.

Now to the interesting part, that I have just uncovered. Just before the launch of Dolby ProLogic II, there was a media blitz, at least in audio circles, of this new wonder to be released. The extremely glowing commentary of DPLII was mouthwatering at the time. The thing I most focussed in on was its purpose to convert stereo music into 5.1 surround. It was said to be Fosgate's ultimate acheivement, as it incorporated a new concept of feedback logic to acheive incredibly accurate decoding, even better than 6-Axis. Well, after more research, at first it seemed that DPLII was an improvement of 6-Axis. I bought one of the very first receivers that offered DPLII, and I liked it, but it didn't ring my bell like I thought it would. The Tate was much more satisfying. Unfortunately, I did little surround listening for the last year and a half until recently, as I was building a dedicated home theater, and music listening room. After setting up the Tate again, finally, it just was so much more pleasing to me as a quadgeek than DPLII. What's the deal here? DPLII was supposed to be so awesome in its abilities as Fosgates ultimate, yet his ancient Tate ran dircles around it (pun intended). Well to make a long story a little shorter, Roger Dressler of Dolby Labs finally admitted that they wanted some accuracy and dynamics issues resolved for the new DPLII, and to accomodate them, Fosgate reduced the front to rear seperation. I do like DPLII, but if you are like me, and like an aggressive surround experience, DPLII should not be confused with Fosgates' earlier designs. This is why I just bought the 7.0, and again, I'll let you quaddudes know the score. I haven't heard much about the 6-Axis design in quad circles, but I think it's probably because the Citation units were so expensive, about $4k. Now they run about 10-15% of their original price.

Thanks for listening!

Dan in Spokane


Dan,

I finally set up my model 4 and agree with you completely. The primary reason I got it was to synth quad from stereo sources, and it is amazing at this , just as you had said . Thanks for the heads up review...it was the reason I went and bought a model 4. Any little tricks or tweaks that you know of would be welcome also.

:) Thanks again for all your research.

Len
 
I have a Citation 7.0 and a Fosgate Model 5. Neither of them gives me the discrete stereo matrixing that my S&IC does.

The 7.0 was a disappointment. I expected much more. The sound is smooth, and there are a lot of mode options, etc. The sound just doesn't give you that "wow" you get from a Tate DES.

I haven't used the 5 much. At present I am using it stand alone to run my subwoofer in 5.1
 
Last edited:
Howdy Everyone,

I inadvertently posted this in the Ebay Watch area in responding to another Fosgate related thread. So I copy/pasted it here too, since it is a more appropriate spot.

I'm getting involved in an old thread here. After doing as much research as possible here and on the rest of the net, I finally got a Model Four!!!!!!!!!
All I can say is WOW!!!! After about six years of Quad listening using Reel to Reel, SQ, QS, CD-4 and Quasi synthesis of stereo to quad using a Sansui QS-500, I got a Model Two six or so months ago. I have been very happy with it's performance, that is until about 4 days ago. I can't believe what my ears are hearing. Oh yeah, I forgot another thing. I also added SACD, DVD-A and DTS about four months ago. Now you are all up to date. My purpose here is to try to rejuvinate a discussion of the Model Four. It doesn't seem too difficult to figure out since I cut my teeth on the Model Two. I have a Model Two manual, but not one for the Model Four. I think they are fundementally the same in the areas of setup and listening. It's just that the Four is so much more discrete it's not funny.

I'll come right out and ask. Does anyone have a copy of the manual available for a reasonable fee? If so I sure would appreciate obtaining one. If not, is there anything I must know that is not intuitively obvious with regard to setting one of these up?

I thought I would have to wait years to get up the cash to get a Tate, but now I think I've got the next best thing, or dare I say, maybe I do have the best thing!?

Thanks in advance for any inputs.

Quadfish
 
OK, I have a question regarding a Fosgate surround decoder. Specifically identifying one. I bought this on Ebay years ago, and in fact it was made in December of 1990. On the front it says "DSL ONE" I never gave it a good listen because it had a problem with distortion that I believed to be a malfunction. But it has a six channel output and I wonder if it would be worth repairing. I bought it for Dolby decoding for movies, but I don't believe it is a true Dolby decoder, though it is licensed by Dolby labs. It also has "Fosgate Audionics" printed on the back. Anyway, if anyone knows about this unit, I sure would like to know more about it.

The Quadfather
 
Was there a Harmon Kardon model number for the DSL-1 ?

Harmon Kardon has many manuals on-line.
For instance, here is the service manual for the Fosgate model 3A
Harmon Kardon called it a AVP1a
http://manuals.harman.com/HK/Service Manual/AVP1a sm.pdf

vinylguy4

This is amazing!!!!!!!!! The owner's manual is available at the same site under Model AVP2. Wow, I can't believe it. Is everything available on the internet (good and bad) as long as you know where to look?

Thanks for all the info, a very happy Quadfish
 
Hey Y'all:
The DSL ONE has no Harmon Kardon markings at all. It only has Fosgate Audionics on it. The one that sold it to me sold it (on Ebay) as a Dolby Pro Logic decoder. But though it does say that it's licensed by Dolby, there is no mention on the face or back of pro logic. It's not even one of the mode selections. I suspect it might be much more than what it was represented to be. So I figure it's a surround decoder made for stereo. However, it may have been later rebranded as a Harmon Kardon unit, but I don't know. It has an address of Huber City, Utah under the name on the back. If so, that would be great, because I need a schematic for the unit, and Harmon Kardon isn't quite so secretive as Audionics was with the S&IC, a move that was totally unnecessary because all the magic took place inside the chips. Anyway, If I can get a print, that would be great.

The Quadfather
 
Now that I've read this entire thread, I'm gonna chime in with my two cents. The Dolby MP matrix, which is used for both the original Dolby Surround and DPL II, is, in fact, QS. There have been white papers published by Dolby Laboratories that clearly state this. That's why QS quad recordings decode spot on when played through a DPL II decoder with the parameters adjusted as mentioned further up the thread. I've posted on another thread about my own experiences with this, and the
results are most impressive. SQ recordings, played this way, sound good, but with little to no rear directionality. One thing I have not done, and am interested in whether or not someone else has, is how a Dolby Surround music recording decodes on a QS Vario-Matirx decoder. Has anyone tried this?
 
jaybird100, you are exactly right.

I am away from home, or I would post a picture.
Both the Dolby Matrix and QS are great circle matrices.
So -
Draw a circle.
Put an x at the top, at the bottom, at the left and at the right.

Label them (top) center, (bottom) back, (left) left and (right) right.
Those are the original Dolby MP encoding points.

Now place an x half way between each of your original x's.
Label them (between left and center) Front Left, (between center and right) Front Right, (between right and back) Rear Right, and (between back and left) Rear Left.
Those are the original Sansui QS encoding points.

Any great circle matrix will decode properly, there just might not be a speaker there so you get a phantom image.
A signal encoded Dolby MP left will decode QS equal level left front and left rear. (Phantom left)

A signal encoded QS left will decode MP equal level left and center. (Phantom left-center)
A signal encoded MP rear will decode QS equal level left rear and right rear. (Phantom rear)
A signal encoded DPLII left back will decode QS left rear.

You can encode and decode as many points on the circle as you like.
You can even add a center rear to the Dolby PLII or QS and call it something like, oh, I don't know, maybe EX? (just kidding)

SQ will not work because it is a spherical matrix, not a great circle.
It cannot be easily translated to QS, MP or PLII
 
To review the history - the earliest Dolby MP matrix was built for Dolby by Sansui. Same matrix, just encoded and decoded to different points on the circle (as above). Then Dolby began manufacturing their own encoders/decoders.

When the Sansui IC's became scarce, Dolby switched to Tate IC's. They still used the QS matrix (MP version), the Tate IC's were just used for the logic.

I think that's why a lot of people mistakenly thought Dolby was using SQ – because of the Tate chips. But Dolby was just using the Tate's Directional Enhancement System, still using the QS matrix.

Later, when the Tate IC's also became scarce, Dolby developed their own “Pro Logic” system.

In all of this, I am referring to Dolby's professional systems. Not consumer systems. Consumer systems were never built by Dolby, they were the OEM's design and manufacture, built under license from Dolby.
 
Back
Top