Outlaw usually has some product announcements in May and/or June. Let’s be patient and see what announcements there may be.

As far as the 950 being outdated, it would seem silly, in some ways, to try and defend a product that has had the same design for as long as the 950 has. On the other hand, a product is not truly obsolete until it can no longer perform the tasks you require. With the features present and at its current price point, there is still an argument to be made for the 950 as the pre/pro part of a separates duo. What will you get for twice the money? Will you genuinely use the additional features or note a difference if you do? Which of the features added deliver real benefits and which are dubious? I’m not being critical with my questions, I’m genuinely asking questions. Here’s one more: is the built-in parametric EQ in some of the newer receivers merely the latest must-have that the industry is beginning to include just to remain leading edge, or is the built-in parametric EQ implemented in such a fashion to be a real and genuine benefit? The same can be said of some other newer features. I don’t have a receiver with parametric EQ built in, so I’m not going to say either way. But I’m leery of a purported solution that would lull people into believing that a very simplified solution will be the answer to a more complex situation, and that I should be happy to pay more, or more often, for something that may be of no real help at all.

We know that in the high-end audio market, there can be a lot of snake oil out there. Such oil usually doesn’t serve to improve products; it does serve to lubricate marketing and sales.

In a wider scope, the consumer market is strongly driven by “New, New, New!” Isn’t it a marketer’s dream to have a new model to replace their company’s last “most advanced ever” product every year or even more often? (Why are some 2005 model vehicles already being sold, hmmm?)

I applaud the Outlaws for not falling into a new-for-the-sake-of-new pattern. When the Outlaws have something genuinely new above and beyond the 950, not just incremental changes every so often, I’ll be glad to consider it. For now, I’m still happy with my 950!


[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited May 17, 2004).]

if they were "for the people", they would have made the 950 upgradeable, that way those little incremental changes wouldnt sum into a big difference. when something major needed to be addressed, then produce a new model. i realize upgradeability is not everything, but it sure is nice to know that your product has the potential to stay pretty current. if audio companies had the balls they could look at computers as an example, (well onkyo txnr1000 is an exception) and devise more modular driven machines. granted computers are cheap as dirt these days, but everyone has one. my last processor for my computer was a 800mhz overclocked to 950mhz, and i waited until i got a superb deal on a 2.53ghz pentium to upgrade. i needed a new motherboard, new ram, new power supply, BUT i could use everything else i had. so it was win win, i got a better computer, and companies made money. above all the upgrade cost me like $250 total (told you it was a great deal) and that is not counting selling my old mboard,ram,processor for $100!. it just cost me 10x to change my processor in my ht.
i think (hope) that audio companies start valuing their customers more, because their are so many of them; loyalty is low, and they need to be willing to accept slightly lower margins, because they have been ripping off people for years.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited May 17, 2004).]

I think that the ability to upgrade a computer is only half the reason the components are largely modular. The other has to do with making a choice between many possible components for the same job, i.e. how many types of video cards are available, and the ability to replace one component only if a problem occurs. These abilities would be nice in audio gear also. How many different processor components will be offered by different competitors in the audio market that will all fit and function within the same box? However …

When I upgraded my computer, I found it not only more convenient and monetarily efficient to replace the ‘whole box,’ it was necessary. The upgrade required a whole new bus architecture, no old components, save the monitor, were usable. My next upgrade will likely be a similar process. Similarly, audio components that can be upgraded can only change so much before one needs a ‘whole new box.’ I’m just a person that will plunk down $750 to $1000 once while someone else may spend $250 two, three or four times in the meanwhile.

Another advantage to the ‘whole new box’ approach is that the ‘whole old box’ is still quite usable – a big plus in my view.

curegeorg, can I say this with a friendly smile and a wink, no criticism intended?: so after your computer upgrade, you were still living with ‘outdated’ video and audio cards? Or did you consider them not to be too outdated because they could still perform the tasks you require of them? Or, if you had replaced them, might you have just as easily replaced the whole thing?

When there is enough material being distributed in a format my 950 can’t handle, then I’ll be thinking, “upgrade.” Simply put, I do not consider my 950 obsolete because it still performs all the tasks I need it to do.


[This message has been edited by bestbang4thebuck (edited May 17, 2004).]

Nevertheless, with the increasing role of software in audio processing there is tremendous benefit to having at least some things that can be upgraded via a flash or a module swap out.

And its not just a customer benefit. For example, lets suppose that the DAC chips were on a swapable module. I can't believe that Outlaw couldn't make a nice profit on an "optional DAC module" that offered substantially better performance then their standard components. Locating the main processor chip and its memory on another module could allow them to sell upgrades and additional functionality that might require more processing power then their first choice processor had (e.g. entering the the exact distance for each speaker for surround sound).

The 950 was supposed to be very cost effective, as with everything Outlaw does. At the time it was made I'd guess Outlaw felt the upgradability feature was too expensive to be on that model. I don't remember hearing that much of a demand for it back then. I'm sure they'll be making a new model in the near future and will probably consider it. Is the 950 really the only unit that's missing this feature? Things have changed in the last year since I've been frequenting the forum more, but I don't recall much of any model having upgradability like what's desired now, save for a few very high level models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 950 is near 2 years old. Are the all that many products 2 years old or more that can do this?

I honestly don't really care about all these newer formats, not much anyway. I want 5.1 processing as a minimum and I want it done really well. Anything above that is nice, but IMO it's really not needed. There is so much marketing about having so many extra channels it's ridiculous. How are people going to figure out where (and how) to fit 9 speakers (and subs) when many already have trouble with 5?

Sorry for the rant, but it just gets old hearing complaints about a product that was made when some of these things just weren't in that big of a demand.

What I meant when I said old, I mean the processing chip. I don't care about 11.7 channels either. As it is with technology I would expect the chips receivers are using today to be better and more affordable than the chips Outlaw was buying 2 years ago but that is only speculation. I just think its odd that some of you shrug off the notion that newer receivers with improved processing chips may now be able to best the Outlaw for the same price.

I don't know if so many of us doubt that. What gets to us is the "it's newer, so it has to be better" mentality. That just sounds immature and very ignorant. I'm sure guys like soundhound and maybe a few others have (or know of) some items which are a decade old or more that would still sound as good as a lot of stuff today.

I don't remember where I posted it, but I purchased a new CD player for my car that's about 4-5 years old (brand new, but the design is that old) which can play more clearly than most anything (not everything) you'll find today.

My last post was really from a collection of posts all over the board. No one thing or person really set it off.

There are an army of marketeers out there eager to shake your hand, Jed. Your statement embodies the true spirit of planned obsolescence.

Everything that just came out is undoubtedly better than something that came out a year ago. Amen.

(I'm now putting away my cynicism with a partial -- but only a partial -- apology to Jed for my rudeness.)

My vacuum tube power amplifiers are between 25 and 35 years old. My Altec Lansing "Voice of the Theater" main speakers were bought in 1968 (the drivers were updated 24 years ago). I would put this stuff up against anything that was manufactured yesterday, today, or tomorrow.

The basic technology of audio reproduction has not changed as much as some would like us to believe.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited May 17, 2004).]

Bob, as a long time Outlaw supporter who is familiar with your posts, your last post took me by surprise in that you would twist my words so you could make me look ignorant or naive, but your "partial" apology is not needed.

My statement was simple. I never guaranteed something would sound better, I just simply stated that the price of chips have dropped and therefore it is possible to do what was not just two years ago. Since you earlier dismissed people who upgrade to get more features and then you claim I am a marketing shill because I said people may want something newer if it sounds better, I was just wondering what made you buy the 950 and not just keep what you had? Not trying to be rude either but twisting my words and then calling me out publicly as a pawn to prove your rant in my opinion is a bit over the top.


[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited May 17, 2004).]