A promise is now a week late. Even with the extra time because of the phrase "week of" they are late (as you all know!) This is quite rediculous.

And, unfortunately, not surprising based upon past history.

I'm with you guys. I've been a staunch Outlaw supporter, even telling others to be patient. I'm now finding the lack of communication unacceptable. It pains me to say this, but I'll be seriously looking at other options starting now.
The Anthem sure looks good. didn't want to spend the extra money, but oh well.
Mix

After the mid-june update was sent, I called and talked to Scott. He would not give a date, but said "soon" and "should be less than a month". Then we get the July newsletter which stated either a renewal of shipping or a newsletter by the week of the 5th. I suppose that the Outlaw's week could start on a Monday, and therefore any announcement could come as late as midnight tonight, but this is really sad. Moreover, it could be a disaster for Outlaw, further alienating those of us faithful enough to continue to wait. I can honestly say that I have been looking at receivers from Denon, Sony ES, HK, and the Rotel 1066. The main reason I have stuck with waiting out the 950 is that it reminds me so much of the old NAD classics, which I consider to be some of the greatest values ever in audio.

I just deleted some comments that got fairly harsh. I sure hope the thoughts I just had turn out to be a figment of my frustration!

I thought about the Monday workweek thing, and even if it ends-up being true and they 'update' us today, I'm damn tired of waiting for something that I could have purchased MONTHS ago! (sorry about the run-on)
I too am a huge fan of the company model and have spent quite a few dollars here.
My waiting now has an end date. 8/31/02. No notification e-mail by then, No Outlaw purchase. Period.
Life's too short.
Mix

I feel for you guys. I guess I just poke around here occasionally out of morbid curiosity, wondering when the 950 might actually ship (if ever??).

I gave up months ago and started looking around. Ended up buying a 1066 almost 2 months ago now. I figured (and my wife, too) that it would be the wash-the-car syndrome, and 950s would ship again the next day. Hasn't happened, not even any significant news!

I don't care how good the Outlaw products are, or how good of a value they are. This lack of communication is totally inexcusable. Miss a promise or deadline once or twice, most people will forgive. Do it often enough that it is 'expected' behavior from you, and I have very serious doubts about ever buying a product from you.

I'm actually amazed at the numbers here that have stuck around this long. I wonder how many on the waiting list have bailed at this point?

Mix, is that the week of 8/31?

DmC

DMC,
Very funny! (Really.)
Mix

I'm getting miffed too.

I am now thinking, I will purposefully not buy the 950 because I'm tired of the runaround.

"Do what you say you're going to do." What's so hard about that?

I wish Outlaw was a public company. The shareholders would be all over them right now for one of the most messed up product introductions I've ever seen.



Come on Pioneer, Denon, Sony, Onkyo, Yamaha: can't any of you see the business opportunity that you're missing?

Hmmm. Guess that report of either shipping or a newsletter during last week was incorrect. Where can I find the newsletter or email which stated this? The one here on the Outlaw site from July doesn't state a date... does it?

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Merc,

Wasn't really a newsletter, just a post from Scott promising news... either when shipments resumed, or by the week of the 5th, whichever came sooner. Guess it was neither.

Merc,

Scott's post is the fifth in this thread:

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000435.html


brianca

Well, the 'update' finally showed up, a little late, of course.

In my opinion, it was just non-news. Basically, the only thing they said was: we're still working on it, hope to start shipping soon!

Shocking, groundbreaking news to anyone?

I must say, the primary reason I waited for the 950 rather than going with the AVM-20 (which I thought, and still think, is a more flexible product) was the extra money. I simply didn't have the money for the AVM-20. Or the MC-12.

I was very lucky to get my 950 during the second set of shipments (after the first, infuriating stoppage because of the DD dropout bug). And, I've been happy with it. It's a great product.

But if I wasn't in that early group, and I was still waiting for the 950 now, going on 10 months after I first expected it, I must say that things would be different. Ten months is a lot of time to save up, and I now *do* have enough money to buy an AVM-20 if I'd wanted to.

Long and short of the matter; we are WAY long past the breaking point now, folks. I am personally *never* waiting for an Outlaw product again. From now on, I may wait for something from another company, but as far as Outlaw goes, I'm judging them strictly based on what they have shipping.

That means, that if I find myself in possesion of $2k or $3k in three or four years, and an itch for a new, higher-end pre/pro, and the Outlaws already have a big brother for the 950 shipping, I'll very seriously consider it. But if it comes down to spending $2k on the outlaw and waiting for it, or $4k on a competitor that happens to be shipping at the moment, you know what I think I'll choose. The only variable is whether or not $4k is in the bank; if it's there, I'll spend it.

I feel very burned by the whole 950 thing. It was a very stressful experience (yes nobody needs to tell me it's not a cure for cancer) and I won't put myself through it again for the sake of a few hundred bucks. If I could, right now, get those 6 or 8 or whatever it was months back, in exchange for the money I saved, I'd do it. Keep in mind people, I'd *sold* my previous stuff based on the Outlaws' promise.

Now, for it to be something like two months *past* the time when the 950 started shipping, and still no firm date on when the people on the wait list will be serviced, I'd be furious if I was still on that list.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being overly harsh here. My mood is made all the worse by the fact that the 950 is, in actuality, a very good product. And, because I also really believe in the Outlaw's business model and what they 're trying to do.

The worst tragedy that could possibly come out of all this is for the Outlaw's to throw in the towel after the 950 and go back to simply making amps. There's a lot they can still do for the high-end pre/pro and receiver market, if they get their s**t together.

Maybe they tried to hit too low a price point on the 950. Maybe they were just naieve and made a lot of mistakes on the first production run. Maybe they cut corners they shouldn't have. Who knows? I just hope they take a good long, hard look at this situation and don't repeat it.

That doesn't, of course, mean shutting up about a product or potential product until it ships. If anything, they need even more communcation with the customer and need to keep their deadlines and promises, even if the progress they'd hoped to report hasn't been made yet. This late newsletter thing is just a joke.

They also should learn from the double bass thing on the 950. A feature that they put in, hoping for it to be useful, instead turned into a liability because there was no way to disable it. They NEED to talk to their customers and find out how they're going to be using these things, and that includes sending out proposed features lists before they're finalized, in order to get it right the next time.

Oh, and by the way, the "week of the 5th" ends at 5:00 PM when I leave work on Friday. The newsletter was 57 hours late. And woefully lacking in concrete information. And, DON'T say "by the week of the 5th" when you mean "by the 9th." You don't use the term "week of" to describe deadlines; deadlines are a hard, instantaneous point in time. They are NOT a date range.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Yes but the business model has a dark side: note the complaints above.


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

Just to let the Outlaws know: I, for one, very much concur with Mr. Hill. He stated my, and I'm pretty sure many others, sentiments exactly.
I took the leap-of-faith of buying a 1050 when I went on the 950 waiting list. The 1050 is a great unit in it's own right, but what I really wanted was the feature-set of the 950, or something similar. I never guessed that I would be waiting so long. I would have purchased the Anthem, or the Lex, or even the Rotel a long time ago if I had had a clue what the wait would be.
Now I understand from the post that the next units shipped will go to those who not only have defective units, and I think that this is the right thing to do, but to those who have 950's and are worried that they don't have the latest 'update'. If you read some of the other threads you'll find people already lining up for their 'replacements'. I understand Outlaw's commitment to their existing clientale. I just hope that they use a judicious hand in doling out 950's to those that just want a new toy when they already have a perfectly good 950. Just my two cents worth.
I still want my own 950, but I will purchase elsewhere at the end of the month.
'Till next time,
Mix

Would have been nice to have had a shipping date in there somewhere...

Matthew, unfortunately I feel the same way. But there's no way I can justify $2500 for the Anthem when it most certainly isn't worth $1500 more than the Outlaw. (IMO, anyway! )

And I was back looking at the Rotel (mate it with a Pioneer 45a which *looks* like it will have bass management for both (SACD and DVD-A), but it has the stupid double bass problem too. Unbelievable...


I *want* to spend some money, but there's no product out there in my price range (< $2k). Somehow, doesn't seem like capitalism is exactly working in this instance.

Mr. Hill, You hit the nail on the head. My sentiments exactly. I am officially still on the waiting list BTW.

I spent my $900 on a Denon 3802 a couple of months ago. One of the few good investments I have made lately. Turns out to be an excellent decision. In the back of my mind I am still considering buying the 950 after it started shipping again. I would sell the 3802 for a big loss but still get the 950. Sorta like paying a rental charge just to be up and running.

For two months now I have been enjoying the HT and must have watched 20 - 30 DVDs. Taking the family to the movies at 40 bucks a pop more than makes up for it. (A CRT projector on a big screen is better than the theater anyway.)

You brought up a good point. One that I have considered. What if at the end of baseball season, Outlaw announces the introduction of the high end pre/pro. "Deliveries beginning soon." You pick a delivery date. I would certainly be interested in the product coupled with the 770. Would you or anyone consider getting on the wait list?

Outlaw has the lessons learned from the 950 to build on. I expect they would be able to deliver an excellent product. Especially if they listened to the comments made in the new pre/pro wish list saloon. Again, the Outlaw model is to deliver a great product at an unbeatable price. Sorta irresitable.

But after the bitter pill of being strung along as long as we have, would you really put yourself through it again?

------------------
No matter where you go, there you are.

mj

Maybe the answer is yes.

Let's go back two and half years, to April 2000.

In April 2000 (early spring 2000) the Outlaw Newsletter email said Outlaw won't build the pre/pro previously announced for spring 2000 and instead would build two separate pre/pro's, one to ship in late spring 2000 and the other to ship in fall 2000.

In November 2000 the Outlaw Newsletter email said they'd ship the two pre/pro's in the first six months of 2001.

In February 2001 the Outlaw Newsletter email said they'd ship the first of the two pre/pro's by June/July 2001.

In July 2001 the Outlaw Newsletter email said the Model 950 would ship by October 2001.

In September 2001 the Outlaw Newsletter email said the Model 950 would ship by Thanksgiving 2001 or earlier.

About a week before Thanksgiving 2001 the Outlaw Newsletter email said the ship date had slipped but Outlaw was nevertheless "committed to volume shipments well in advance of the Holiday Season ... in time for you to welcome Santa with a full 7.1 surround demo on Christmas Eve"

On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2001 the Outlaw Newsletter email said they would not ship (surprise!) by Christmas afterall. But they were fully confident it would ship within 3 weeks.

It didn't ship then either.

(If anything in the above is inaccurate please let me know so I can correct it.)

You guys probably know the more recent story since February 2002, so I won't bore you with it here.

In hindsight, we shouldn't have waited with baited breath on each new ship date officially promised by Outlaw, after Outlaw missed so many of their previously promised ship dates. Yes, we felt strung along. But there weren't many DPL II pre/pro alternatives back then, unless you wanted to pay much more. These days, though, there are some pretty good DPL II alternatives.


Yup.


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

Right now it's a race...

I'll buy whichever of the 950 or the new SherwoodNewcastle comes out first. Honestly, this has been so ridiculous I'd rather give my money to Sherwood.

Mr. Hill, you hit my heart. The latest newsletter is a joke. I am waiting, waiting, and waiting to see the news. However, it disappoints me a lot. There is no firm date on the news. Based on the historical experience, if we are luck, we may obtain the 950 by Christmas. I am NOT going to focus on the Outlaws anymore. Rotel or Sherwood might be my new targets. My new pre/pro search is launching now. If I can find a pre-pro I like before obtaining 950, I would say bye-bye to Outlaws.

James

Ok, so some folks were emailed the newsletter and others were not (like myself). It is still not posted on the Outlaws site and I would realy like to read it. Can someone who has recieved it set up a link to the document please?

On another note, I've only been on the waiting list since June 2002. I thought I would be getting my unit by the end of this month. Man do I feel foolish now. If the company I work for operated like Outlaw, we would have lost most of the persepective costumers after the second missed date, and would have none interested by now.

didjdude

On the list since February.... The Sherwood is going to get a long look from me. Judging from the Outlaw 'schedule', I'll have a lot of time to look. One benefit of the Sherwood is that they are a big company and as such can pour much more money into R&D and fixes than a smaller company like Outlaw. Good intentions go only so far....

Will posted it in this thread Monday morning (a few posts down).

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

Makes me wonder why they had to wait so long to post this 'non-news'! Are they trying to tweak us on purpose? And what about the rumor that people who bitch online will get units that will start hissing on the next full moon.

Thanks Gonk.

didjdude

This commentary is coming to you from Cold Comfort Farm. I realize I am an utterly different animal from most at the moment, because I have a 950 up and running. I really really like this unit, in addition I find myself liking it more as time goes by. As many are aware, I’m not trained, - I don’t have a lot of background and this is one of my first foray in years into purchasing electronics. I stay away from boutique B&M’s, (deliberately) where most units I’d really be curious to hear for myself reside. I have heard many of the current latest breaking and older models in the chains, Marantz, Pioneer, Denon, Onkyo, HK, etc. I have yet to run into any I like more than my 950.

Would I have gone and purchased something else if my reservation had not come up during the 2nd shipping? No idea because I can swing both ways under those circumstances.

I still have yet to see anything that intrigues me at the 950’s price point. It’s also crossed my mind to contemplate if I’m luckier than I realize. Recently I wondered if Outlaw is struggling with any type of decision in the realm of while changing specs to resolve whatever issues they’ve uncovered it increases the costs of the 950 beyond the point which they could absorb. In other words, end up having to announce all waitlists will receive their 950 at the originally stated price, but future orders will be?

I’m on the wait list for a replacement, to resolve hissing which effects me only in analog input. I feel so deeply sorry for those still waiting, am so content with the 950 in my rack now, I would happily (Outlaws you can mark it so) sit on this unit till orders from reservations dated through May are filled. I realize this is only a one-unit leg up for someone, but hey… share the joy.

Maybe I’m naive and new to the upgrade bug, but unless I’m willing to look at something like Lexicon, I just can’t see the need arising when I look at upcoming projected brands/models for upgrading my 950 for a very long time. I don’t see any truly revolutionary ground breaking new sound decoders on any horizon. There will be a sprinkling of THX ULTRA II types and the likes, just another ‘shade of’.
DVI, Firewire etc, there is too much controversy now in that area and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The upgrades (downloads and/or factory installed) seem too predominantly affect adding to units what the 950 already incorporates in its feature list. And in forums I often see the upgraders debating whether or not its time to sell and try a new unit rather than spend for the upgrade offered, such as DP11.

I still think Outlaw has been exemplary in every area since I started watching them in Dec 01. And I don’t fault them for their engineering problems with the 950, if they could fix it and ship it - they would.
I will agree that Outlaw should stick to their news deadlines, no matter what….if even regretfully having to report they have no further new information at this time. The news deadlines (unlike production difficulties) are static and something Outlaw can responsibly address. (Although I feel for the messenger, when it’s bad news) Outlaw waiters for the most part will vent and display disappointment with shipping delays, yet have also been quite generous with their patience when newsletter, newsdate schedule’s are adhered to.



Yes absolutely, people have loved their ICBM’s, 770's, 750's, their 1050’s, and me …my 950. The 950’s very satisfactory and I’d be a happy camper waiting for its big brother to overcome whatever delays assail its release. I KNOW I’m on the other side of the mountain from many here. But I was in those shoes for 6 months, just giving you my 2cents …The views great, - wish you were here- soon!


[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited August 13, 2002).]

Maybe, it may now be an inside Outlaw joke to try and post updates on the absolute last possible minute according to the latest interpretation of when they stated it would post. Hey, if anyone needs a good chuckle it is the Outlaw folks.

Oh yeah. This one IS true. Writing this into the software is what is taking them so long to send you your new 950.

The Outlaw pre/pro/tuner will probably resume shipping before the Sherwood pre/pro/tuner ships. The only DPL II pre/pro (it's a non-tuner, however) in its price range shipping today, is the Rotel.


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

The Outlaw pre/pro/tuner will probably resume shipping before the Sherwood pre/pro/tuner ships. The only DPL II pre/pro (it's a non-tuner, however) in its price range shipping today, is the Rotel.


I certainly hope the Outlaw ships - and soon. It has exactly the feature set I need, and one the Rotel doesn't nave, i.e. more comprehensive bass management options. I already have a very good seperate tuner so that's not an issue with me. In fact, an on-board tuner could in fact be a liability if the RF junk from the tuner section intermodulates with the other audio circuits, creating spurious junk. Of course, Outlaw engineers thought of all that, right (-:


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 13, 2002).][/QUOTE]

Do you mean the 950's analog crossover? More and more players are coming out with DVD-A/SACD bass management. These players do DVD-A/SACD bass management digitally, before the DAC. It's better for bass management (and perhaps more flexible) than the 950's fixed analog crossover.

There's an additional problem with the 950. As you probably know, the 950 adds double bass to full bandwith analog signals. It's a known bug. A player with DVD-A/SACD bass management expects the pre/pro to pass the full bandwidth without double bass. But the 950 can't do this unfortunately.

If you get a player that does DVD-A/SACD bass management, it probably won't work right on the 950, due to its double bass bug.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 14, 2002).]

Will - Thanks for taking the time to give me the info, but I have a different need for the bass management. In my system, I have four 18 inch subwoofers, two per side, operating in true stereo. I crossover them with an analog crossover in line with the main left and right speakers at 60 hz. This way, I always get good, stereo sub-bass no matter what the source; stereo, 5.1 or directly through my mixing console (I use the system as a reference tool for mastering movie soundtracks). On the Preamp/Processor, I set it up with my front Left/Right as "big" and all other speakers as "small" and set their crossover to 60 Hz. But what is important, and what the Rotel does not do, and the Outlaw does do, is send the bass from all the "small" speakers to only the front left and right speakers. That way, no matter what the source, the bass always is reproduced correctly. I *can* direct bass to the center and surrounds if need be as they are actually very large professional type theatre speakers, but directing all the bass to the 18 inch subs works the best and is the most transparent to whatever source I'm playing. In addition to the mono bass in the ".1" bass of movie soundtracks, there can be, and is, stereo bass information in the main left and right channels of movie soundtracks. By the way, I truly believe that stereo sub-bass is important, especially for reproducing well recorded, naturally miked orchestral music. There *are* phase differences present in the pickups of widely spaced microphones in the bass region, and stereo subs preserves this. It presents a more convincing 'you are there' type feel to the ambience in music. You should try to hear a system with stereo subs if you can.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited August 14, 2002).]

Soundhound - cool!!! How do you get the ".1" information to the subs though??

Cary

First of all, you need to have two subwoofers, one positioned next to each of your front left and right speakers. Run the signal from the preamp/processor left and right front outputs to the subwoofer's line in jacks for each channel. Set the subwoofer's crossover to 60 or 80 Hz, depending on the size of your mains. Run the line level output of the subwoofer to your main left and right front power amplifier. Set the preamp/processor bass management for the subwoofer to "no subwoofer". Set the front left and right speakers to "large", the center and surrounds to "small". **If you have the Outlaw preamp/processor or the Sony EP9ES like I do, all the bass, including the ".1" will be directed to the stereo subwoofers along with any natural stereo bass information and the upper range will go to your main left and right fronts. Of course this assumes that your subwoofers have a built-in line level crossover that has a high-passed output to feed the power amplifier for the main speakes. In my installation, I use passive subs, with an external analog crossover network and a dedicated power amp for the subwoofers, but a sub with a built-in amplifier and line level "in and out" crossover would accomplish the same thing. Good luck!

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited August 14, 2002).]

I'm glad this solution works for you. While you can run the output of your pre/pro first to your sub's analog crossover, and then back to your amplifier, and then on to your main speakers, I'd rather use the digital crossover in a modern pre/pro's, especially for the MAIN speaker channels. Modern pre/pro's have much cleaner bass management than the analog line level crossovers in a subwoofer. And there is the (I assume) long analog signal path from pre/pro to subwoofer to amplifier (to main speakers) to consider. But bottom line is this works for you, and that's what's important. I'm glad you have a solution that works for you.


The 60 Hz and 80 Hz digital crossover in modern pre/pro's is quite good. The bass managment in modern pre/pro's is much better than bass management I heard from some receivers only a few years ago. Of course a few years ago, many didn't even have 60 Hz crossovers.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 14, 2002).]

SoundHound,

Do you have any pictures of your setup? I for one would be interested in viewing your system.

------------------
Benjamin King
benjaminking@yahoo.com

surrounded,

are you saying that most pre/pros don't reidect LFE to the mains if no sub is selected?


brianca.

If "no subwoofer" is selected, the Rotel for instance looses the ability (according to their tech person) to select the crossover frequency for the re-directed bass, and the bass is simply re-directed to ALL speakers at a fixed frequency of 80Hz. If you have a single sub connected to the LFE out of your preamp/processor and the subwoofer "on" in the preamp menu, then there's no problem. I'm sure that the manufacturers didn't want to touch the complication of stereo subs since connecting all the components is difficult enough to most people as-is.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Will:
[B] [QUOTE]
I'm glad this solution works for you. While you can run the output of your pre/pro first to your sub's analog crossover, and then back to your amplifier, and then on to your main speakers, I'd rather use the digital crossover in a modern pre/pro's, especially for the MAIN speaker channels. Modern pre/pro's have much cleaner bass management than the analog line level crossovers in a subwoofer. And there is the (I assume) long analog signal path from pre/pro to subwoofer to amplifier (to main speakers) to consider. But bottom line is this works for you, and that's what's important. I'm glad you have a solution that works for you.

[QUOTE]

The crosover I use is not in my subwoofers - they're completely passive. The crossover is right next to the power amplifiers in my rack, so there is no long-interconnect issue. Don't knock analog crossovers! They can be just as good or better and doing it digitally if the electronic components within the crossover are of very good quality, like polystryene capacitors for instance.

Soundhound, thanks for the clarification. That's a better solution than using the crossover in most subwoofers, or having long-interconnects, for sure! One knock heard about passive analog crossovers is they mess up the phase as a function of frequency. Anyway, good luck!


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 14, 2002).]

I don't have any pictures online but basically the room was built as a dedicated theatre, and is about 21' x 30' with an arched ceiling. The power amps for the main LCR speakers is all vacuum tube. The front left and right speakers are bi-amplified (apart from the sub woofer path) with a 1,200Hz crossover. The frequencies above 1,200 Hz are amplified by a single-ended triode power amp. The subwoofers and surrounds are powered by solid state power amps. There are four surround speakers, left and right side, and left and right back for Dolby EX. Currently I'm using the Smart "circle surround" EX extractor box for the back surrounds. There are four 18 inch subs, two per side, in stereo. These are next to the front left and right speakers. The screen is 10 feet wide in a 16:9 aspect ratio. The projector is a Sony LCD 16:9 native unit. The whole system has two signal paths: a "home theatre" path which takes it's signal from my (currently) Sony EP9ES 5.1 processor, and another path taken from my mixing console which in turn is fed from a ProTools 24 bit digital audio workstation, along with sundry outboard processors, analong tape decks, DAT deck etc.

Any analog crossover introduces phase shift at the crossover point, whereas doing it digitally *can* be done without any phase shift. The actual "at-the-ear-in-the-real-world" sound of analog is *generally* more pleasing than doing it digitally. Every time you use an analog "tone control" on a preamp, or every analog equalizer on a mixing console introduces phase shift, but to the ear, the effect is more pleasing than a digital equalizer or filter. I realize this is a controversal issue, but all I can do is point to the overwhelming popularity of analog outboard equalizers in use in recording studios, which to most ears sound more natural than digital equalizers.

I have heard phase shifts (which can't be avoided with a passive analog crossover) can be pleasing to the ear, but most people tell me accurate phase makes for more accurate sound reproduction.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 14, 2002).]

Are these the same people who just happen to have a digital crossover they want to sell you? (-:
Seriously, it comes down to application. Sometimes, such as in a recording studio where you want a vocalist "to sound really good", an analog unit is reached for, even one that uses *really* old technology such as inductors and capacitors. In speaker crossovers, the phase shift is generally agreed to be a bad thing in a passive crossover. In a signal path that is meant to be as transparent as possible, digital is the way to go. In a home theatre setup, I personally would rather have the more warm sound of an analog crossover, if for no other reason than to counteract the harshness of almost all film sound, which is almost universally done with a completely *digital* signal path!

I'm not sure adding a phase shift in the low frequencies where a subwoofer crossover occurs (with an analog crossover) counteracts harshness in the higher frequencies where harshness generally occurs.

The sound studios can tweak the sound using filters (and reverb etc). But I want to play back what the studios put on the recording, without adding filters (or reverb etc) in my listening room. But to each their own.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 14, 2002).]

Adding phase shift in the low frequencies would do nothing for the highs, as you said. But dubbing stage speaker systems have analog active electronic crossover networks, analog 1/3rd octave equalization, and use horns for the high frequencies. The mixing engineers hear the sound through this system and mix accordingly.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited August 14, 2002).]

I personally don't know how a phase shift could ever be a good thing.

Basically, any phase shift at a particular frequency or range of freqs involved with a crossover between two drivers, would result in a decrease of output for the freq involved. Bingo, no more flat frequency response where the phase shift has occurred.

Now, *usually* crossovers are used at lower frequencies, 60 - 120 Hz or so. Digitally, that is a piece of cake, due to the typically high sampling rates involved (compared to the crossover freq).

I would always prefer it be done in the analog domain too, simply because of the "continuity" (digitally, no matter how high a sample rate is still discrete), but at these frequencies, I doubt *anyone* could tell the difference.

I plotted frequency response of my system a bunch of times once. Every Hz from 98 to 20 Hz. Crossover set to 80 Hz. Really interesting in that I could get the sub in phase with my mains at *either* 60 to 90 Hz, or 20 to 30 Hz. Chose the higher simply because there is more content there. (Obviously a phase shift between the 2 somewhere.) Phase in a HT is a really interesting thing that most people don't fully understand.


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited August 15, 2002).]

Kevin, I agree with most of your points.

The processing steps needed for full 5.1 or 7.1 bass management have less loss of information when done in the digital domain than in the analog domain. There's more than just crossovers to consider. There's summing multiple channels (to, for example, the sub), time delays, etc. These things are done more accurately digitally than the old days where analog adders did sums, and analog bucket brigades did delays.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 15, 2002).]

Dear Outlaws:

As we have often stated, all of the Outlaws read all of the posts in this Forum, but we also refrain from interfering with the flow of the threads so that the discussion in not tilted in one direction or other by us. However, some of the recent posts have brought up a subject that I felt merits my personal intervention.

Some of you have complained that the August Update was a bit light on new information. We realize that, but given the promise to release something (a commitment that many of you were taking us to task on) we wanted to at least issue some statement. Laugh if you will, but we said that an Update would go out before the end of the week of the 5th, and it did. (In typical Outlaw time!)

That having been said, I’d like to provide some additional thoughts given the current discussions
As a member of the Outlaw team I am privy to the day-to-day flow of data between our engineering teams in Taiwan, California and New England, as well as the factory in Maylasia. I am confident that we are extremely close to resolution to the issues that have impacted the Model 950, but if we were to release daily updates it will only confuse matters and create more, not less frustrated customers.

To sum up: the discussions that I have been involved with in the last 96 hours since the Update was released -- indicate that we are really close. We have a plan ready to activate, and once we get the word from the factory, we will start to get the corrected Model 950s in your hands very quickly. I believe it, and the rest of the Outlaw's believe it. As a matter of fact, one of the Outlaws never went to bed last night as he dealt with engineering and production teams in Taiwan and Malaysia to nail down a “pesky” technical issue. (He stumbled into his day job this morning, only to pick up where he left off at 5:00 AM this morning!)

Bottom line: Nothing is more important to all of us than to get the 950 going again and we literally are working around the clock on it. However, we will do it right and that unfortunately takes time.

A final note: Those of you, who have come to know me over the last couple of years, know that I am dedicated to providing the quickest most accurate answers and service possible. It has never been my, or any other Outlaw's, intent to provide less than this. I was Outlaw’s first full time employee. I was excited to join the company then and am even more excited today about our future plans.

Sincerely,

Scott Jackson

The phase shift of an analog crossover most certainly isn't a good thing, but it's something that's taken into consideration in speaker designs for instance. If you have satellites speakers with a woofer and tweeter, you almost certainly have a good old analog passive crossover in there. The designer of the speaker takes the phase shifts into consideration in the design of the speaker, to yield the best results. My original point was just that the best tool for the job should be used, be it analog or digital. One factor in including digital filters in preamp/processors etc is that they are *cheap*. Aside from the software design, there is no parts count involved, really. There can still be good and bad implementations of a digital filter; it's up to the skill of the software engineer.

How do you get that?

I am talking about the simple act of crossing over, delays are a separate issue entirely.

Digital is digital, and analog is analog. With a well done analog crossover, it is impossible to lose any information. For digital, no matter how high the sampling frequency is, you will always lose something.

We can argue about whether it's audible or not, but it is always preferrable to stay as much in the analog domain as possible.

Ain't no jitter in the analog world!

Actually there are problems with both analog and digital processing. There are losses in even the best analog crossover. CD and DVD information is digital to start with. Bass management requires summing information (say from 5 different channels into the bass channel), as well as doing crossovers and both can be done more accurately in the digital domain than in the analog domain.

In theory, you lose very little information compared to the original CD and DVD information in well thought-out digital processing. The resulting information has less data loss if you process the information digitally, and DAC it to analog, than if you instead, DAC it to analog and then do analog processing (summations, crossovers, delays). In either case, the information can't be any more accurate than the original CD and DVD information, which is digital.

It's different if the original information were analog, e.g., vinyl, or if the digital processing is done badly. I would prefer analog processing over bad digital processing. The flaws associated with analog processing are usually more pleasing to the ears than the flaws of bad digital processing.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 15, 2002).]

Scott

Thank you for the reply. This is the type of news I wanted. Although it doesn't give an actual time, and although it basically restates what the last update said, this note seems to hit home more than the last one (probably due to the fact that it is not a last minute newsletter). It is good to see you posting on a thread again.

Or a few threads, as the case may be. :-)

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Will- I hope we would both agree that:

1) There is nothing intrinsically better or worse crossing over digitally vs analog-ly.

2) It is better to cross over in the native format: PCM for DVD-A (or MLP) and CD, DSD (?) for SACD, analog for lps, tuner, or the analog outputs of a DVD-A/SACD player that has no internal bass management.

3) Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do an A-to-D conversion, then bass management, then a D-to-A conversion if the original format was analog.

There are obvious benefits to doing it digitally such as being able to adjust channel levels, time delays, DSP processing, etc. But. All these things can be done with analog circuits just as well, just that it's more expensive.

Yes, and if you own a DVD-A/SACD player with internal digital bass management (which more and more DVD-A/SACD players have), you're probably better off doing bass management there, than in an external analog crossover like an ICBM, if you have the choice.

Perhaps in theory. But I don't know anyone, no matter how wealthy, using pure analog circuits for DPL II or DTS processing (DSP).


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 16, 2002).]

Agreed. But..., remember that when DPL processors first came out in the late '80s, early 90's, a lot of them were analog only. In fact, the analog ones way back then consistently outperformed the digital ones. Fosgate, Shure, etc, were repeatedly more highly reviewed, praised, and measured better than those from Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, etc.

I recently had an old (analog) Fosgate model 3 DPL processor that finally took a dump, which is one of the reasons I'm getting the Outlaw 950. Gotta tell you, the DPL on the Fosgate was orders of magnatude better than the DPL in my (newer) Sony Dolby 5.1 digital processor. Hands down, no frigg'in contest. On the Fosgate, I went in analog and the processing was analog, on the Sony, digital, and the DPL was done in the digital domain, using the same DVD. I guess nobody told the folks at Fosgate that digital was 'perfect"....


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited August 17, 2002).]

The Fosgate Model 3 was a great Servo-Logic surround processor. Since then, Jim Fosgate went on to design 6-Axis processing and after that he went on to design DPL II. DPL II was designed by Jim Fosgate. As far as I know, DPL II is only implemented digitally.

As I understand it, Jim Fosgate was chosen to design DPL II because the folks at Dolby liked what they heard with Fosgate's 6-Axis.

I've not heard DPL II yet, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it does on the 950. Nowadays I mostly use DPL to extract surround information from stereo recordings of popular music. DPL makes a gawdawful mess of classical; jazz, less so.

DPL II has a mode for music and another one for cinema. Ditto with DTS. While I prefer DPL II-music over (original) DPL for both classical and jazz, I don't listen to either much, since I prefer DTS-music even more, for classical and jazz but YMMV.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 17, 2002).]

Can DTS music be used for playing regular CDs, or is it only for DTS encoded CDs ?

Soundhound: Only for DTS music encoded discs.

I should have been more precise and said DTS NEO:6-M (that's what I meant by 'DTS-music'). DTS NEO:6-M works for all stereo sources. It's like PLII-M (DPL II-music) in that regard.

FWIW, despite the 6, NEO:6-M works very well with only 5.1 channels going out, on the 950. You won't need a 6.1 or 7.1 channel home theater to hear very good surround processing of your stereo jazz collection and your stereo classical collection, imho. It's very similar to straight stereo, but with a pleasant very-slight very-listenable multi-channel ambiance added.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 18, 2002).]

I have to disagree, Will. I have a Sony SACD player, but use the 950 for bass management. All the Sony's have a 120Hz crossover point- too high for me. The 950 80Hz setting works fine. By the way- I have no double bass problems either. I think that issue is way overblown.

Good point, steves! If I had the choice between a 120Hz crossover and an 80Hz crossover, I'd do what you did and take the 80Hz crossover, even though it's analog.

Upcoming players will hopefuly have lower crossover points. Today DPL II processing is done digitally not in analog (as far as I know). Likewise, DVD-A/SACD bass management in the future will mostly be done digitally, when there are better digital options. Until then, the only good options are analog. Fortunately the 950 has that option.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 17, 2002).]

DPL2 was actually designed in the analog domain as that is the only way Jim Fosgate works. DD Labs implemented the digital conversion.


[This message has been edited by minuteman (edited August 17, 2002).]

The double bass problem doesn't exist if you are using the 950's 80Hz analog crossover on the 5.1 inputs. Only exists if you are running your mains full range.

That's right. Double bass exists only if you run your mains full range. But here's the rub: You'd want to run your mains full range if you used the digital crossovers in a DVD-A/SCAD player. So, chances are, you won't get great sound through the 950 if you DO use the digital crossovers in a DVD-A/SACD player, due to the double bass bug of the 950.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 18, 2002).]

Will: OK - I will be using the internal digital x-over inside any SACD player I get in the future to fold the .1 into the front left and right channels. I will *never* have a sub connected to the 950's LFE output, and it will be set up as 'no sub' in the 950's menu, since I run my subs from my front left/right. Am I screwed? What'sa this duple basso thing?

Hound,

You won't get double bass since you are not using the 950's sub output.

You should be fine (not screwed).

Does this mean that I won't hear the double basses in the orchestra? (-: (thanks for clarifying my screw-stratus)

OK, has anyone begun to receive their notices yet? It has been almost a week and a half since the newsletter, and 5 days since Scott's update. Where's the 950?

Maybe ask Scott.