Keta,

The French notices etc are pretty standard practice if you intend to sell anything in North America - since they are required in Canada. It saves the hassle and cost of having to produce different ones for US and Canadian sales - although it does result in a slightly higher up front cost.

The translation is basicaly "Notice - See the Owner's Manual."

I would be very surprised if Outlaw sourced the manufacture from more than one location - and even more surprised if they sourced it in Canada. Somewhere in the Far East might be a good bet.

If they were made in the US, there would likely be no duties to be paid in Canada - under the FTA. PST and GST (taxes) apply regardless. The real killer are the brokerage fees associated with UPS Ground shipments. These could be avoided if Outlaw had a Canadian distribution and repair centre. Although there might have to be a relatively small cost per unit to cover the bulk shipment costs to the distribution centre, its operation etc. - although (again) that would likely be offset by much higher sales volume (ie. profits). But I've stood on this soap box many times already - and Outlaw has made no public moves to make this happen..

Jeff Mackwood

i dont know why you guys are so concerned with ilink/firewire, its not the end all.

as far as power ratings go, yes a lot of companies rate one channel driven playing a test tone, but others rate all channels driven playing simulated music. the outlaws and nad are not the only ones to do so, you see this in a lot of higher end receivers. not pioneer, panasonic, sony, etc. though

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I don't quite understand it either. Maybe it's because we seem to be so close to having a standard digital interface for DVD-Audio and SACD?

im taking this as sarcasm... whats so wrong with analog outs?

I do understand where that statement is coming from. Don't.

[This message has been edited by JT Clark (edited May 29, 2004).]

Nothing - except that any processing would then have to be done in the analogue domain OR the signal would need to be re-converted to digital. Which would then beg the question: why not keep it digital to start with?

We have analogue connections for DVD-A and SACD not because the hardware to play them could not have been first introduced with fully compatible digital connections, but because the powers-to-be are terrified of letting us have access to nice, clean, pure - and potentially copyable digital signals. Better technology will always appear to them as a threat - rather than the opportunity that it really is.

And personally, I have a problem with any power-to-be who tries to keep me in the stone age - relatively speaking.

Jeff Mackwood

i did not realize that dvd-a and sacd got processed further after it was read off of the disc and output as analog. i thought it was decoded by the player, output as analog (bypass everything in processor as far as decoding) and amplified to the speakers. however, i do not have any multichannel audio so i could be wrong... i do see the advantages of a digital connection to the processor where better dacs could then more efficiently process the sound, however if the dvd player had good enough ones to start with the notion is moot. eventually it will turn into analog anyway, and i dont see how it matters where it is decoded as long as it is done so at a high level of quality.

as gonk has pointed out before with one cable carrying all the information (video and audio in his example), it is going to suck for people who do not want the audio and video to go to the same place...

the one advantage i see with one cable connecting rather than 6 is that it would cost less to buy that one cable...

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Many DVD players can decode Dolby Digital or DTS into 5.1 analog signals today. But most people use the one digital connection for DTS and DD movies instead of the 6 analog cables. Likewise, when there's a digital connection for DVD-A and SACD, most people use it. It's more convenient to decode in the receiver. Also, there's no 6 analog cables.

I.link is mostly audio not video. But future versions of HDMI (maybe version 2?) should carry audio and video.

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited May 30, 2004).]

If the output unit still has other types of output connections then it may be possible to get around the one cable sending the signal. I would suck to have to buy another cable, but at least it's only two cables now instead of 7. I'm sure the new cable will cost quite a bit, but will it really be as much as the 6 or 7 others? I hope not.

The further processing need not be anything as elaborate as surround processing but something as simple as time alignment and bass management, which would most people would prefer to do in the digital domain (since the source is digital to begin with).

Best,
Sanjay