Clones Part 2

Up to now we know that the Outlaw, Atlantic & Sherbourn are using the same platform for their pre/pro:

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/clone_prepros.php

You can now add to the list:

Adcom:
GTP-860

Fosgate:
FAP T1

Just look at the picture of the adcom. Fosgate's 5" LCD screen is an interesting addition.

I think it's a great thing that they can leverage this platform to bring us very affordable components with such high performance.

I'm sorry, but I cannot reveal my resources..... ;-)

Sayer

[This message has been edited by SayersWeb (edited November 11, 2002).]

The Adcom does not look to be a direct clone (different front layout, at the very least). I've seen pics of the Fosgate before, too, and it's definitely not a "clone" of the 950 (in the sense of being a re-branded direct copy). It is pretty cool looking, though. Is your resource hinting that some of the components developed for the 950 are being re-used in these two? That'd be quite interesting news.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

They all use the same EastTech platform, which apparently allows some wiggle room for customization. This is the extent of my information.

I first saw the Adcom prior to learning that it is based on the same platform. Even then it looked very familiar.

Sayer

gonk -

Will you be updating your comparison chart with the new models? It is a great tool and will continue to show the great value the 950 is compared to the competition....

One other thought. Knowing that all of these companies are putting their name on this platform gives me even more confidence that the 950 truly is an excellent product.

Sayer

Gonk, When Fosgate (the company) announced that their new pre-pro would feature matrix decoding for 7-speaker layouts, I got all excited and thought that Fosgate (the man) had finally come up with a 7.1-channel version of PL II. Well, it turns out that their "7.1 Extended Surround" is the same as Rotel's XS (eXtended Surround) which is the same as Outlaw's CES processing. I wouldn't be surprised if Adcom has the same Crystal processor; it's a popular chip amongst manufacturers and a convenient way to add surround back decoding to the processor (already built into the chip, just has to be activited).

While those two processors don't look like 950-clones outwardly, I'd be curious to see if they have similar (or the same) Eastech innards.

Best,
Sanjay




[This message has been edited by sdurani (edited November 11, 2002).]

Sanjay -- It really is pretty curious. I'm not surprised that the Cirrus surround processing in the 950 and 1066 is becoming so common. It's apparently fairly inexpensive to integrate, and I've been pleased with its performance in the 950. Both the Adcom and Fosgate certainly appear to be at least somewhat removed from the true clones (different numbers of I/O from the "950" configuration, different front panel layout, extra 5" video display stuck in the face! ), but if they are borrowing from or building on the Outlaw/EasTech foundation that would make for some interesting comparisons between the different family members.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

The Fosgate says it can be upgraded via an EPROM upgrade...hmmm...I wonder if my 950 can be upgraded too!

Sanjay,

Can you disclose how you were able to confirm Rotel's XS processing is the same as Outlaw's CES? Also are you saying Fosgate's 7.1 channel version of PL II has like the Outlaw 950, just 6.1 distinct channels?

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited November 11, 2002).]

For what its worth I just read at HTF that DPLII was orginially designed with capiblity to handle 7 discreet channels but when released pulled back to processing only 5.1 material. The poster said he assumed that gave the wiggle room for a future uppath someday, (when there is more 6 channel discreet DVD material on market and (someday 7 channel) to 'excite' us all to run purchase DPL3.
Just passing 3rd hand.

Arghhh! Figures..... I won't be buying a new pre/pro just for that upgrade!

Sayer

Somewhere recently, maybe in the Home Theater Mag or S&V eqp directories, it was specifically mentioned that the Fosgate was using CES modes for 6.1/7.1. So at the very least, does look like it has the Crystal/Cirrus DSP engine. Kind of confusing a little, in that somewhere else, I thought I saw that the Fosgate was going to have all analog sound field processing.



Well, except for the hiss that some of us experience.

Gonk: agreed. For the moment, I'm going to take this "clone" business, at least in regard to the Adcom and Fosgate units, with a grain of salt. Like I said, the Cirrus/Crystal chip is very popular with A/V manufacturers. The fact that Fosgate does and Adcom may use that chip doesn't automatically make them clones.
Zakman: probably the only reason that the 950 isn't software upgradeable is because it's a design choice; i.e., allowing this feature would have pushed the 950's price point above Outlaw's target. It's like when people wonder if the 950's rear channels could have been stereo? While they're used as a mono pair, you'll notice that they can be set for individual volume levels and (in 7-Channel Stereo mode) they're capable of reproducing individual signals. But paying for surround processing that generates stereo rears (which is not available off the shelf, like PL II or CES or Neo:6 are) would again have made the 950 more expensive.
Hi Will: I got the info about the Rotel from speaking to someone at Rotel re which processor chip they're using for their pre-pro; turns out to be the same as the one in the 950 (same features, same problems). I don't know if you remember, but you brought up Rotel's XS processing a long time ago in a thread at AVS forums. That discussion got me curious enough to investigate.

As for the Fosgate unit using CES, it already came up here at the Saloon in this thread about SMR's CEDIA report. Take a look at this page from the report (the relevant info is in second half of the first paragraph).
Lena: I don't know about PL II originally being 7 channels. When Dolby first announced PL II, they called it a 6:2:6 matrix (up to 6 channels can be folded into a stereo track and then decoded back up to 6 channels). I think they ditched the surround back channel because, at the time, they didn't want to confuse consumers by going beyond 5.1 channels (same reason that DD-EX movies were purposely not labeled as such on their DVD packaging).

Jim Fosgate has said that he has given Dolby enough info to take PL II up to 7 channels as and when Dolby wishes to do so. This isn't at all unusual with matrix decoders; they really can be designed to decode as many channels as the designer wishes. In this AVS thread , Fosgate says some interesting things about PL II, including the following two items:

"How many channels? It is possible to bring out as many channels with this technology as with any other matrix technology. Dolby and I agree that 5 channels is the best place to start. It’s been hard enough to talk some consumers into 5 channels, let alone 7 to 10. Dolby does not want to confuse the market by bringing this out with more channels now because consumers would think the extra channels were the “big thing” instead of the improved performance. I have worked with more channels on the breadboard but find that 5 channels are all I need in my listening room."

"It is possible to bring out a separate center surround channel (as on my breadboard) but that will have to come later."

Kevin: I think this is the Fosgate Audionics pre-pro that you heard about.

Best,
Sanjay



[This message has been edited by sdurani (edited November 11, 2002).]

My thought exactly -- the impression I got from the original announcement of CES's inclusion in the 950 was that it was a newly developed product that was being included in the 950 before it appeared anywhere else (production delays made that "before" a little less so than they'd originally hoped, but that's a separate issue that we've all beaten thoroughly to death). The use of Cirrus processing does not a clone make. The use of Cirrus's triple crossover does not a clone make, for that matter. I think the only ones that can reasonably be labeled "clones" are the ones that differ only in faceplate color and "tweaks" to the specifications. If the Adcom or Fosgate use some design components from the 950 (such as some version of the analog bass management on the 5.1 analog input), it doesn't feel like enough of a parallel to call it a clone. It would be an interesting re-use of design components, though, if it turned out to be true.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Just to clarify... I never claimed them to be clones (the subject line was intended to show a connection to the original), just that they were built on the same platform.

FWIW - I got the info when I called Sherbourn this afternoon. I spoke with a very nice guy with an accent (British?) who said his name was Ron Phone and is one of the owners.

He was very complimentary of Outlaw and said they have a very good working relationship. He listed the differences between the Sherbourn and Outlaw and said those differences along with their level of service (said the distributor would come out and install the unit) was justification for the price difference.

When I mentioned that I had heard the platform was going to be used by other manufacturers he offered up Adcom and Fosgate. He did not mention models but did say the Fosgate would have a 5" LCD screen.

The funny thing was that just two hours earlier I had gone up to a local AV dealer during lunch and that's when I first heard about the Adcom model which should list at $1500.

The other funny thing was that an old neighbor of mine who owns the online high end A/V business http://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/ emailed to tell me about the Fosgate while I was at lunch finding out about the Adcom. It was quite a shock when Ron mentioned them during our call.

So... those are the beans I have to spill. I was only kidding when I said that I could not reveal my source. I had no idea there were people who watched the industry so closely on this list or I would have been more direct in my original post.

Sayer

[This message has been edited by SayersWeb (edited November 12, 2002).]

Thanks for the info, SayersWeb -- I suspect that once the Adcom and Fosgate start shipping (the Adcom GTP-860 doesn't even appear on Adcom's site yet as far as I can tell), we'll likely find out more about how much of the "950 platform" each model is using.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Chipset makers often have a 'reference design' that is often used as a jumping off point for engineering teams wishing to implement hardware using the device(s). This will also often include sample code for any devices that are programmable or require device driver or firmware support.

So any similarity in the two could be a case of similar bloodlines rather than actual cloning.

Sayer, Got it; thanks for clarifying. If you want to put a face to that name, here's a pic or two , as well as some info about the Sherbourn clone. 'Clone' may be too strict a word, but I understand what you mean by 'same platform'. And while there are significant differences, they two units do share a helluva lot of awfully similar features: built-in tuner, analog bass management on the 5.1 inputs, two triggers, external remote jacks on back panel, same s-video jack-pack (five inputs, one record out, one zone out), same digital audio jack-pack (four optical in, one optical out, two coax in, one coax out), same crossover settings, etc. No problemo. A lot of us do keep up with the latest industry happenings, but no more than any other hobby.

Best,
Sanjay

Hi Sanjay,

In the SMR Cedia Expo reference link you pointed me to above, it says

In November, Fosgate’s own company, Fosgate Audionics, will introduce the FAP-T1, another pre/pro sporting a miniature monitor on its faceplate. A large complement of fully-programmable surround modes, including Dolby Digital 5.1 and EX, DTS ES and Neo:6, and of course PL II – all extended to 7 channels via a Cirrus Logic chip

Do we know if the extension to 7 channels mentioned above, is with the same Cirrus Logic chipset as is in the Rotel and the Outlaw? I'm asking if maybe Cirrus Logic has newer decoding chips now than what must have been available to the Rotel and Outlaw (excuse me, Eastech) designers late last year.

I'm still intrigued if perhaps Fosgate might have 7.1 discrete channels decoded, as opposed to the 6.1 channels decoded by Cirrus Logic chipset on the Rotel and the Outlaw.


Why yes, I do remember asking the question. I'm so pleased that you were able to verify that CES and XS are as you suspected at the time, the same.

Thanks!

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited November 12, 2002).]

Will, Ah, good point. For example: some surround pre-pros use SHARC processing engines as opposed the Crystal/Cirrus ones, and I remember that somewhere along the way the SHARC chips went from being (roughly) 155 mHz processors to 605 mHz speeds (source: TAG McLaren Audio). So yes, there is a possibility that the Fosgate may be using a newer Cirrus chipset, if in fact a newer one is out.

Anyone know whether Anthem's recent upgrade (hardware, not software) for their AVM-20 involved a newer Cirrus processor? The second half of the sentence that you quoted above seems to indicate that it is similar to the PL II + CES modes of the 950 and that it doesn't decode seven distinct channels of sound:

"A large complement of fully-programmable surround modes, including Dolby Digital 5.1 and EX, DTS ES and Neo:6, and of course PL II – all extended to 7 channels via a Cirrus Logic chip (a true 7-channel implementation of PL II is not yet on the horizon, but if it ever appears it’s a good bet Fosgate’s FAP-T1 should be first in line for the upgrade)."

Fosgate is doing the usual marketing thing of referring to their back channel extraction as "7.1 Extended Surround"; same as Rotel did in their marketing, though these two companies are hardly the only culprits. Personally, unless I hear specifically about some new processing on a newer Cirrus/Crystal chipset, I'm going to consider the Fosgate as having 6 distinct channels for a 7 speaker layout.

BTW, posting a little late into the night aren't we? ;-) Milk and cookies, Sebastian?

Best,
Sanjay

I thought the AVM-20 was based on Motorola's latest chipsets.

D'oh! Well, never mind then.

Sanjay

I do know, that the original versions of the AVM-20 that shipped, did need their chips (EEPROMS?) changed before it could accept the ver 2.0 software. Now, they are all shipping with the newer chip.

So, maybe we can call the Ref 50 an Anthem clone...

(Both based on Moto chips.)

A question: are there any newer pre/pro's with SHARCs? Or just receivers? (Denon's and Sony's come to mind.) The Sony TA-E9000ES had SHARCs, but I can't honestly think of a current model pre/pro that has them.

Isn't the Sunfire line of pre/pro's also based on the DigitalDNA (Mot) stuff? Also, yes, EPROM and EEPROM are different...

I would be surprised if the Outlaw PROM was not socketed - but that's not generally a viable route for field upgrades.

Charlie

I think the Tag-McLaren prepro is a SHARC based unit.

Kevin, You were right about the Sony 9000, it was one of the first pre-pros to use a SHARC DSP; its replacement probably will too. I think the TAG uses 2 SHARCs for their model AVP-192 (upgraded AVP-32). The Mark Levinson No.40 comes with 4 SHARCs installed; upgradeable to 8 total. The Lexicon MC-12 also comes with 4 SHARCs installed, but is user upgradeable to a total of 16. Can't think of any other off the bat.

Best,
Sanjay



[This message has been edited by sdurani (edited November 12, 2002).]

Sanjay- Know what the DC-2 and MC-1 used? (Just curious.)

I'm curious....

Is there a recap somewhere of the different chipsets and the pros/cons of each? Do they only handle the surround processing or do they handle the entire audio path? There seems to be a number of chipsets and people on this forum seem to know them well.

I find my Sony ES receiver to be very harsh sounding (even when using external amplification). Is this the result of the chips used? I mostly notice it in DVDs and not as much in stereo CD playback. My Infinity speakers have the Emit tweeter and tend to be a little crisp to begin with.

I'm hoping a new pre/pro will help.

Thanks,

Sayer




[This message has been edited by SayersWeb (edited November 12, 2002).]

Which ES receiver are you using and is an an external amp used with it?

[This message has been edited by Will (edited November 12, 2002).]

The Anthem AVM20 actually requires a board ($) swap by the dealer (end-user swap rumored to void warranty), and a software upload for the 2.X upgrade.

I have, what could be a faulty recollection, from the beta test discussions that the Outlaw did have a socketed eprom.

It's the DA30ES. Up until now I've used a pair of Carver Silver 7 monoblocks as my mains and the onboard amps for the remaining three channels.

I just bought an ATI 2505 amp which is on it's way. I also ordered three pair of the Outlaw PCA interconnects, which are on the way. Maybe these will help a bit.

Sayer

[This message has been edited by SayersWeb (edited November 12, 2002).]

Kevin: Lexicon has always used a combination of chips: currently it's SHARC and Crystal; in the older models it was a mixture of a few types of Motorolas, Lexichip (which ran the proprietary surround processing), and Zoran decoders. BTW, if you want to see what what the innards of the MC-12 look like (including a hi-rez pic of SHARC chips), go here .
Sayer: the DSP engines are basically used for signal manipulation; DTS/DD decoding, bass management, time alignment, surround processing & post-processing, etc. I doubt that the DSP engines would be contributing significantly to the sound quality of a pre-pro. The D/A converters probably have more influence, but ultimately it's the analog section and power supply that make the biggest sound quality differences between various audio components. Doesn't your Sony receiver have some sort of Re-EQ function that you can use to tame your bright sounding speakers?

Best,
Sanjay

Small world! I moved from the Sony ES receiver you now have, to the Outlaw 950. The Outlaw 950 is far more pleasing to my ears than the 30ES. However one complaint I have with the otherwise excellent 950 sound is it is slightly harsh in my system. (To be fair, others say the 950 is not harsh, but rather, revealing. I won't quibble with anyone about that.) However quite a few people who have compared the Outlaw 950 to the Rotel 1066 pre/pro say the Outlaw is harsher, or more revealing (take your pick) than the Rotel 1066.

Since you have the DA30ES receiver, you probably know that you can easily change the subwoofer volume, from the remote. That's not so easy to do on the 950's remote, and I miss the ease when switching between bass-light DD and bass-heavy DTS DVD's.

Anyway to repeat, the 950 pre/pro sounds better than the pre/pro section on your (and my old) Sony ES receiver, but the 950 is slightly harsh, to my ears.

The only time the Sony ES sounded better than the 950 was in quiet passages since my Sony never hissed noticably.

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited November 13, 2002).]

Thanks for the info. Yes there is some EQ facility on the Sony, but I have not explored it. I'll wait until the new amp arrives and then give myself a few days to get familiar with the sound before tweaking.

I'll have to see if the Sony can store separate EQ settings depending on the mode you are in. I really am pleased with the CD sound production, but in movies on DVD (like the famous Matrix lobby scene) there is too much of a harsh edge to the sound.

I've come from the background that EQ, bass boost, and any other additional tweaks are considered bad. This is very old school thinking... I basically installed the Sony, made sure everything was set to neutral, and forgot about it. It looks like these days it requires more than that.



Tis a small world! I'm hoping to demo the 1066 in the near future. I just searched and found a few of the threads on this forum regarding the comparison between the 950 and 1066.



Ahem.... Actually, I have not explored this. I just get up and change the sub. I'll have to explore that feature.

Like I stated above, I've probably been too stuck in the old school mentallity of leaving everything nuetral. I've never really trusted those extra features very much. I need to change my way of thinking a bit.



Arghhh!!!! Well, I have a lot to think about.

When I pulled the Siler 7 monoblocks out of my system last week I noticed that the DA30ES was weak to the left front channel. I've never used the onboard amps before for the mains, I had to turn the balance to about 9 o'clock to get it balanced with the right main.

Sayer

Sayer, But not uncommon in this hobby. What gets me is that audiophiles poo-poo the idea of equalization, often on principal alone, but then come up with all sorts of elaborate methods of tone control; everything from cable swapping to Mark Levinson's famous Cello Palate. I guess as long as they don't think of it as equalization, it won't offend their sensabilities.

Meanwhile, yes; once your new amp arrives, go ahead and tweak away with the equalizer built into your receiver. I mean it's not like you're going to hurt anything.

Best,
Sanjay

Even more silly when you stop to think how many places EQ is hidden in almost ALL signal paths.

Since Outlaw, Atlantic Technology and Sherbourn are using the same pre/pro platform, I'd imagine the extensive modifications now going on at Outlaw for the replacement 950 to reduce its hiss, where over 100 parts are changed, will be made in future Sherbourn and Atlantic Technology clones of the 950.