SRS Circle Surround

[ambio]

Dwight, thanks for the details. I heard or had all the quad matrix decoders & C4 in the 70's.Except the QS Variomatrix or the later Tate SQ. The best quad decoded from stereo sources I heard at that time was QS. So Variomatrix, if it has logic, probably is the best of the 70's. Dolby II with all the adjustments still does not produce the quad sound I like from music.
I did not purchase the Gemini because it had XLR plugs. It has 4 channels and is not the 6.1 CS II version, but I am interested to hear your evaluation.

 

[brthdan]

I've recently purchased a brand new Gemini CS 1 decoder as well, for $30.00. I received 4 female XLR's to RCA (output) and 2 Male XLR's to RCA (input) jacks from the ebay user rwwrcc for $26.00 including shipping; I think she's still selling them at the present moment. About Circle Surround unit with respect to decoding.... it's definitley no variomatrix, which is STILL in a class of its own. I found the CS decoding front/back separation to be less than gratifying/acceptable. It produces a nice ambient presentation, but so do cheap decoders of the 70's. However, the fidelity of the unit is exceptional, not an ounce of harshness, like the tate (apologies to tate fans). There were a few times while listening to music that its decoding scheme caught my attention, but for the most part, I found nothing special about its performance. It has been 30 years now since vario-matrix type A decoding has been implemented in one form or another to the public, and yet nothing surpasses its performance. You'd think in all of these years of advanced technology, somebody would put this particular design back in production.... maybe even improve on it I'm starting to get sick and tired of repairing my 9001's and my QSD-1 to acclaim the best decoding:| While I enjoy the Tate II for SQ material, I can't stand its surround function. To much pumping, artifacts, and harsh sound/steering. Dolby II is a lesser designed vario A. There is no decoder in the world that is more musical than variomatrix A!! Ok, I'll shutup now

 

[deepsky4565]

Thanks for your review of the CS 1. I won't bother testing it, probably sell it unused.

I'm wondering if your Tate unit was one of the earlier units with the first chips. There were units that had the first set of chips that weren't very good, and most units were upgraded, but not all. On some material however, the pumping action can be unlistenable.

I think you should check out a Fosgate Model 3, 3A or Model 4. They aren't expensive, find em on ebay, Model 4's usually go for about $50, a real bargain in my opinion. It gives a surround field like a Vario-Matrix, but with a 5.1 output, and a better soundstage, IMHO with the centered vocals up front. It was the last Fosgate design that had quadlike performance. It was a vast improvement for pumping type artifacts. 6-Axis and DPL-II are nice, but not aggressive enough for me.

CS-II was a little below DPL-II in aggressiveness. However, there are surround guys that just like all around sound and not as into discreteness, so they may really like this.

Quad on!!!

Dan in Spokane

 

[brthdan]

Hey Dan, thanks for the advice regarding fosgate models, I'll have to give them a try. As far as the tate goes, yeah, with my luck, I have the antiquated Ic's. I guess I can't complain since I only forked out $250.00 for it, and that included the remote. Is there a way to decipher what IC's are present in my model by using the serial number? Thanks!!

 

[Obbop]

I haven't heard the Circle Surround 2 version.... just the older 2 output basic units.

I was unimpressed with the CS 1 output when it drove but 2 speakers and was not fed through my Vario-Matrix decoder. It was okay but nothing to shout from the rooftops about.

But, when those 2 CS outputs were fed into the 9001 where the VM could work upon the output of the CS unit, wondrous aural delights reached my ears. And, the controls on the CS units allowed much more "tailoring" of the sound that the controls of the 9001.

I suppose that the CS output sorta' "primes the pump" of the VM decoder. I have experimented over the years feeding the outputs of various processers and decoders into the input of the 9001 to see what would happen. Until I tried the CS all earlier experiments were failures. Then, the CS experiment occurred.

There is something different about that early CS unit's output that the VM revels in. Whether I used an encoded matrix or a stero source, the VM created an excellent sound field that could be fine-tuned to a large extent vis the 2 CS controls affecting its output.

Of course, people hear differently but, to my ears, the combination of that early CS output fed into the VM has given me the best surround sound I have experienced so far. Previously, everything I played went through the VM. Now, everything goes through my "dynamic duo."

In another post I mentioned the differences found between my Nureality CS unit and my recently acquired Hughes AK-500 2 output CS unit. Of the two, the Nureality produces an exciting liver quiverin' output. For reasons I can not determine, the Hughes unit, though similar in output, is lacking something that leads to aural ecstacy. If I had started off with the Hughes unit I would have shunned the early CS as not being enough of an improvement to bother with. But, since my Nureality unit does give the VM a signal it revels in working with I am convinced that, for me, unless something better comes along, I will travel the trail of my CS / VM combination.