deepsky4565 said:
Dan from Spokane here. Let us know what you think of the Model 4. I now have a 3A, which after tweaking, I like at least as much. I certainly don't want to sound like Cai and I have a quarrel, just a difference of opinion, which I respect. I still have a QSD-2 and a QRX-9001, as well as the Tate, so it's not like they are out of a job. However, the Fosgate units are my overall favorite for stereo to surround out of everything I personally have had an opportunity to audition, and that is almost everything that has been mentioned here. At the very least, they aren't expensive for what they can do.
Hi Dan, I've spent a good deal of time comparing the Four to my Fosgate 3602 and the Rockford Fosgate RFQ5000 as well as my old Tate ll. I have a QRX3000 but it's not in the same class, so I'm just comparing Fosgates. The 3602 which superseded the very blah 3601, is still, in my opinion, the most transparant and discreet Fosgate, although the Four is very close. I'm sure you have records and discs that you use to check positioning and movement, likewise I pulled out my old standbys to compare the abilities of these magic boxes.
On cut three of DSOTM for instance, the Tate ll moves a voice saying "Here for today, gone tomorrow!" from the rear right down the wall to front right, then right to left across the front endng with a "gasp" in the rear left. Both the Four and the 3602 complete the horseshoe movement convincingly. The DPLll drops the gasp off somewhere between the rear and front left. I tried to play around the DPLll rear levels, but couldn't get it to complete the pan. Too much rear level brought the entire image toward the rear.
On Paul McCartney's album PRESS TO PLAY, I used cut three "Talk More Talk"; this piece is tough and opens with a voice dead center saying "A master can highlight the phrases!" This is followed by a voice distinctly placed in the rear left sayig "Sleazy instruments...half taught half baked ideas...". This is followed by instruments and voices coming from almost every direction. It is very discreet through the 3602 and almost as clean from the Four, although there is some bleeding of the voices into the front channels when they want to be clearly in the rear. Again, the DPLll wasn't able to get those voices to the rear, they fell somewhere between front and back. I know I'm being picky, but there's a difference between being there and almost being there, and like you I want discreet. The tonal character of the Four was slightly dry compared to the 3602 which to me is slightly more liquid. I love massed choral music from films like HOW THE WEST WAS WON and THE ALAMO, and both the Four and the 3602 produced stunning three dimentional images especially from the true stereo five channal elements used by Chase for their two disc HTWWW. Anyway, the Four is close to the best I've heard from a single processor.
Dan, I know you've warned people away from the 3600 series, but only the 3601 was a dud. In 1987 or maybe 88 at the CES in Vagas, I heard Fosgate call the 3602 "..a high definition Tate....", that's why I bought it. It is a seven channel unit, so if you're running a four or five channel system you must use the side outputs for the rear in order to get the benefit of the high seperation circuit. The rear outputs were the Dolby delayed mono signal! Even some reviewers failed to hook them up properly. Bob Popham and Charles wood were mentioned in the promotional lit and I'm sure they could vouch for the discreet nature of these pure class A units. They are pure gold.
Of course, I still haven't heard a QSD with the blend resisters removed which is why I was so interested in the Dan-Cai mega QSD Fosgate shootout!
Dwight
