Look's Good!

I like the new look a lot. Can't wait for the day I start upgrading...

So I'll be the first to ask the annoying question that nobody can answer yet... "How's it sound?"

One has to presume that if the 7100 sounded good, the 7125 has to sound as good or better. Nothing was said about where the 7125 is made other than "in the US", so it is probably safe to assume that the folks responsible for producing the 7100 and most of the other Outlaw amps are doing this one.

This is new to me. Why does Outlaw mention RMS of 80 in the specs? I know what RMS is, but I have not heard them used before for the 7100 or the 770. Are we saying the peak rating is 125 with 80 watts RMS? If so what was the peak and RMS of the 7100, and of the 770???

Great! Now I can order my 990/7125 combo and save even more ($200) before the end of July. I also would like to thank Outlaw for not adding balanced outputs so it keeps the cost of this amp down. I do not see the benefit of balanced outputs if the 990 and 7125 are stacked closed to each other like mine will be.

Heck, they are now giving us more power and better sonic performance without a cost increase. Looking forward to this combo!

I believe the 8O means 8 ohms. There is a slight error in the announcement.

Power Output: 7 x 125 watts RMS at 8O, all channels driven from 20 Hz to 20kHz with less than 0.05% THD 7 x 190 watts RMS at 8O, all channels driven from 20 Hz to 20kHz with less than 0.05% THD

The 7 x 190 watts RMS at 8O should be 4O (4 ohms). The owner’s manual is correct.

Sorry, I meant to say balanced "inputs", not balanced "outputs".

OHHHHH....
You are right! That scared me for a second. Didnt want Outlaw to fudge numbers like other people do. The manual does state 125Watts RMS into 8 Ohms. Whew!!!

Man now I have to figure out a way to get this before the offer expires, it seems like an impossible to beat amount of power for that price!

Scott,

Will you offer "family" pricing on the 7125? Will you offer a price adjustment to those of us early-adopters who already bought a 990?

Seems bizzare to me that they would build the 990 with balanced outs, and then subsequently release a new amplifier, yet leave out the balanced ins. I realize most will stack them which in theory makes the balanced connections unnecessary (and potentially problematic), but why include them on the 990 if they can't be used with Outlaws own amplifiers?

Now I'm glad my wife made me wait for an amp with a faceplate that matches the 990...190 watts into 4 ohms is just about the perfect amount of power for my speakers.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to wait a little longer to sample perfection - the well is a little dry around here as we near the end of our renovation project. Can't wait to hear everyone's feedback on the new amp, though, so don't hold back!

-SM

I was looking at the spec sheet trying to figure out if the amp needed a trigger or would turn on with "music" like the mono-blocks.

I didn't see the same sort of words in the description as with the mono-blocks. It looks like you need some sort of trigger voltage to turn it on.

Comments/ Thoughts?

Historically, all of Outlaw's multichannel amps have trigger turn-on only. If you are using the amp with one of their processors or receivers, that's fine, since they all have the trigger jack.

If you are using someone else's receiver or processor (SHAME ON YOU!) you can turn the amp on by buying a small "wall wart" type power supply, plug it into a switched outlet on your receiver or processor, and plug the power side into the amp.

If there is no switched outlet or amp trigger jack you can get a "current sense" box, plug the recevier or processor into that, the sense box into AC and then use the trigger jack on that box to control the amp.

Easiest way is to just buy a 990 with your amp!

Pod: thanks! That's what I thought!!

I have looked very hard at the 990 and right now I have mixed emotions about it. As I posted on another thread, I think that the DVI versus HDMI was a mistake. Having said that, I am currently in the market for a HD TV. Depending on the TV, audio inputs/ outputs, potential lip sync, and video lag, I'm not certain just how important having HDMI on a receiver is to me. It may be a very moot point.

I will most probably wait and see what happens in the audio market. I currently have an old 150 watt per channel Kenwood receiver that I am seriously thinking about replacing in the next year or so. One near term possibility is to add two or three of the monoblocks for the fronts and, perhaps the center.

But, I'm still considering all options.

Rat:

If you are going to get a new video display (HDTV), as most of us will HAVE TO within the next 36 months as we ramp up to the "analog turn-off", you'll find that something along the lines of a 990 will be KEY to your system, for the lip sync delay, if nothing else. Don't fixate on the HDMI stuff we're batting back and forth in the 990 section here. Use the DVI switching in the 990 with one of their DVI to HDMI cables on the output and you'll be just fine. An optical or coax digital cable from sources for digital audio will be just fine.

By the time the HDMI thing DOES settle down, it's a fair bet that the Outlaws will strike with something that accomodates it. They guessed right when they were among the first with 6.1 in a receiver, and from all appearanced, the 990 and their amps are among the best buys around. If the HDMI thing STILL bugs you, you can buy 990 with one of their ampps and either use the TV's switching or buy an external HDMI switcher. (You'll find that the latter will give you NO benefit over using the dual-format cables and the 990 at this time.)

Pod: well, I have been doing a lot of research into the HD TV, especially the Samsung 6168. This model has 2 HDMI inputs as well as an assortment of component, coaxial and other inputs. So, the two channel DVI switch really doesn't do much (anything) for this TV.

The potential lip sync/ video delay issues are currently being studied by those just receiving this new TV. It is really a shame that they couldn't get a "straight" answer from a company rep. My current opinion is that both of these issues must necessarily be solved in the TV's intrinsic processing. Trying to do it in a separate receiver or pre processor may work, but you may need to program several settings depending on the source and/ or source material. Hopefully, this will be sorted out in the next few days.

The Samsung 6168 has an optical output to connect to external audio equipment. The consensus is that cable or over the air tuner will transmit 5.1 audio through this port. There are questions as to whether the data coming in the HDMI ports will be retransmitted as 2.0 or 5.1. Again, this should be resolved in the next week or two. It does not appear that HDMI inputs or outputs are required on the audio gear. May be a non issue.

Like I said, I haven't made up my mind, and the 990 isn't entirely out of the question. I'm not in a rush. It may be 6-12 months, or longer before I decide.

Right now, my number one issue is whether lip sync will effect my viewing pleasure if I purchase a Samsung 6168.

One nice thing about the 990's AV sync settings (which you likely have already noticed, but is still worth noting here) is that each video input has a separate sync setting - so if the DVD player introduces more delay than the HD cable box, you set the DVD input to one thing and the cable input to another. Obviously, if the source experiences different delay under different circumstances (such as a local TV station that can't seem to get their HD broadcasts to sync up correctly most of the time), this is less effective, but nothing short of a fix at the source is likely to help there...

More on sync:

A lot here depends on your source. If you are using the set's internal tuner you may still have delay depending on whether or not you are watching a native HD source (OTA or via a direct QAM cable connection with the CableCard) or something that is upscaled either at the station, or within the set when used with an external SD or analog source. Add a DVR, external cable or satellite box, or any other source, and there is more than a fair chance that transmission path issues, upscaling in the Samsung or any one of another few issues will throw the sound and image out of sync. I've heard that older Samsung models did induce a fair amount of delay because of the scaling/processing they used.

THAT is why, DVI, HDMI or anything else aside, you'll want to run the audio into something such as a 990 that has lip sync delay, and as noted by His Supreme Gonkness, set it individually for each input on the 990. HDMI ain't gonna help you there -- if you use the tuner in the TV, you wouldn't want to run HDMI back to the 990 ANYWAY. As you correctly note, an optical or coax cable is best for that AND BESIDES, that lets you have an analog back-up as well.

Man that looks nice. Can't wait for them to update the 770

Back to the first half of the this thread... I am kind of hung up on the lack of balanced inputs on the the 7125 and the fact that they are provided on the 990. 99.999% of the people have the amp and pre-amp nect to each other(please do not write saying your amp is in the apartment next door, I really do not care)assuming this are balanced outputs/inputs worth anything?

Balanced outputs have been requested by folks in the saloon from time to time for years now (if you look back through the "New Product Suggestions" forum), which is presumably why they showed up on the Model 990. How beneficial they are for most users is a matter of some debate, of course - as can be seen by reviewing the various discussions in the 990 forum back around the time it was announced. If you look at the amps that the 7125 is likely to be competing with (Sherwood A-965, Rotel RMB-1075, ...), you will not find balanced inputs typically. Personally, I don't see a problem with leaving balanced inputs off of the 7125, but I can understand where some people will want to be able to use the 990's balanced outputs.

I too wish that balanced inputs would have been provided on this new 7125 amp...

Just wondering why anyone would really want to use balanced outputs?

1. How far is your amp from your pre/ pro?

2. Do you now have hum being introduced into your system from your current cables?

3. If you do have hum, have you tried double shielded cables or re-routing the cables away from AC lines, etc?

4. Have you looked at the cost for a set of 5 or 7 balanced cables?

Just curious as I decide what to do for an audio upgrade.

Everyone I've known who prefers balanced connections does so for the sonic characteristics. Those who prefer perceive these characteristics as more accurate to source material, and those who don't perceive them as colored or distorted. If you've never heard a set up A/B'd between balanced and unbalanced, I would suggest you do so before upgrading around this technlology.

If outlaw offered a balanced-connection amp at this time, I would say that their 30-day money-back deal is a good way to accomplish this in conjunction with the 990. Too bad they don't.

Regarding Balanced inputs to go with the balanced outputs on the Outlaw 990: I have read reviews where the person noted it was like night and day when A Bing RCA's and XLR's and that is enough for me. If I already spent a cool grand for the 990 with those outputs you can bet that I will spend the next grand or two for an amp that can accept the best possible signal from the 990. Why would any of us here in this forum want anything but the best. Outlaw should have put out the 990 with the proper amp. The 7125 was there first shot at it but they totally blew it. The 790 may have them but then that amp is twice as much money with more power than most of us need.

Hey RatPack haven't your heard? The guys at Outlaw maybe giving away 7 XLR cables when you buy the new 990/790 combo. What a sweet deal. Actually I am starting that rumor right here and now. But who thinks it is a great idea besides me?

Kosman: well, I guess that is as good as any rumor.

Sluggo: please define what you mean by "sonic characteristics." Most listeners can't tell squat in a double blind test.

i think there should be a 7125a and a 7125b

or a 990a and a 990b

a- haveing the balanced input
b- with out

That way if someone wants to use them they can match it up.

if the concern is to save money and not include it on the 7125 why not save that same money on the 990 for users of the 7125.

comeone how big are your rooms that you even need more then 125 watts 8ohm or 190 watts 4ohms anyway?

My A/V room is about 30ft x 45ft. My system (at 300 watts into the 4ohm Maggies) seems perfectly suited for it. I don't think a 125watt amp (into 8 ohms) would cut the mustard.

WOW big room and all u have is a 32" tv a bit small for such a large room

I take it that is a basement?

Heh, no...it's my living room.

Well, I don't sit ALL the way at the other end of the room. My wife has made sure that suitable furniture is present so that we still feel squeezed for space. 8-) Though I have been pining over the 37" Aquos (after only just recently upgrading from 26" to 32"). I've also been looking at the larger Pioneer Elite plasma displays, but can't bring myself (yet) to drop that kind of $$$ on a TV. It's a slippery slope.

Cheers,

The pro audio guys I talked to about the noise on my EQ told me balanced interconnects would only solve the issue if the noise was being introduced from an external source. In other words, there is no benefit from using balanced interconnects unless you are experiencing noise due to your environmental conditions. e.g. power cables parallel to the interconnects.

People who claim improvements for balanced interconnects may have been suffering from just that sort of situation. Or they may be hearing what they want to hear. I have not personally tried it out myself.

Josuah

The noise from your EQ can easily be solved with an isolation transformer. By using that, you can run unbalanced line very long without worrying about picking up noises.