Hi, I'm new to posting, but have been reading since they announced they were coming out with a pre-pro. I unfortunately made the jump to "seperates" and now am in the market for a pre-pro.
I guess my comments are: Is Outlaw still planning on making a more expensive pre-pro like they originally stated? I don't think I could live with all the glitches reported here. (Slow signal locking, hiss, punching things thru on the remote?...and the green buttons).
Does anyone know when Parasounds "Halo" pre-pros are gonna be out? Or Sherwood Newcastles' new P-958? Will Sherborn and Atlantics' vesions have the same issues?
Why can't companies like Pioneer and Denon make a pre-pro for the same money as their top end receivers? You have to buy a receiver, it seems, to get all the cool features. Why is that? Anyway I couldn't hold it in any longer sorry.

Welcome to the forum, Maximum7.

1. Yep, Outlaw still (last anyone heard) plans to produce a "big brother" to the 950. I would expect it to be a while arriving, however.
1a. I'll toss in my two cents on the glitches you mention -- the signal locking problem is true of all the home theater pre/pros (nature of the beast, as it were), the hiss is apparently about to go away, and the remote is good for most people (although the problem of adjusting things like sub trim is undeniably present). It may still not be what you need, but don't give up on it too quickly!

2. I know there are a few "Halo" products out already, but so far it's all two-channel gear. I haven't been closely watching the Halo stuff (just sort of noticed it here and there). Their site mentions "surround sound controllers" in 2002, for what that's worth, and they had some stuff at CES 2002 as you are probably aware, but they aren't even mentioning it on their website yet. Pricey! I know even less about the Sherwood Newcastle, I'm afraid...

3. The general concensus is that the Sherbourn and Atlantic Tech versions of the 950 will be straight clones -- they may have different specs for some components, but otherwise they're the same.

4. Heh-heh. Good question! And this may change, as Outlaw, Rotel, and others start making very competitive "budget" home theater pre-pros -- stuff that can be paired up with a multi-channel and and compete pricewise with the flagship receivers.

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

Last I heard, the Sherwood Newcastle P-958 tuner/pre/pro will be priced in the same general ballpark as the Outlaw 950 and the Rotel 1066 pre/pro. I imagine it will compete with the Outlaw and Rotel, rather than the more-expensive Anthem and Sunfire pre/pro's. Here is some information on the new Sherwood pre/pro/tuner, from January 2002 CES. The information says it has Dolby Headphone and a dedicated room 2 remote, and is available next month (September 2002), but please take the availability date with a grain of salt.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 07, 2002).]

The Denon Rep has said they are working on one. I believe for release next year? However it sounds like it will not be cheap- maybe more than their top-of-the-line-flagship receiver?? I guess we'll see .

Why can't they just take the amps out of their top of the line receivers and sell them that way? It should be cheaper, not more! For higher prices I expect to see much better specs like better S/N ratios, etc. compared to the pre/pro half of the corresponding receiver.

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

Thanks everybody for your thoughts.
Matt, I whole heartedly agree with your comments. I, in fact, have thought about purchasing a 47tx or 49tx (Pioneer) and just not using the amps, but unfortunately they only have pre-outs for the front channels. I have put in a few "systems" for friends from hundreds to thousands and the recievers lock onto signals fast, why can't $1000.00 pre-pros? I also have heard from my local Rotel dealer that this was addressed in the 1066. Is that true? I wonder why do you have to pay more to get less? Better quality with more quirks?
If anyone knows, what is the time it takes for the signal to be aquired on the 950? A few seconds after play has started?

I'd put it at under a second. On CD's, there are only a couple of discs with tracks that allow me to spot the delay -- you need a track to start playing at 0:00, and you need that to be the first track you play. When the disc switches from one track to the next, the 950 does not have to re-acquire the signal (unless the disc or player is doing something strange). It shows up on DVD menus pretty consistently, but my 1050 did the same thing (actually the 950 seems to be faster at picking it up). My old Yamaha receiver didn't, but that was because it was Pro-Logic only and therefore had no digital signal to lock on to!

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

Worse than the signal acquisition time on the 950 is the fact that the damned onscreen display comes on to tell you what's happening.

When I try to play some PS2 games through my home theater, the damn OSD flashes frequently as the audio briefly drops out during a disc load.

My old Harman-Kardon preamp had two svideo outs but only one of them displayed the OSD. That worked great.

The Sherwood AVP-9080R lists for $1200. The Sony TA-E9000ES lists for $1700 (and sells for $1200 here ). Both pre/pro's have been out for awhile, so budget pre/pro's from big companies is not new. Both pre/pro's are pre-DPL II vintage. Still waiting for one of the big boys to sell a budget pre/pro with DPL II. The wait shouldn't be too much longer I hope.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 08, 2002).]

Bobblinds: I've seen a lot of pre/pro's that do that, and I was actually surprised that the 950 didn't. Doesn't seem like it should be hard to do.

The Sherwood P-958 looks interesting. Anybody out there have a bead on how much it's going to cost? Could be a very good deal if it's the same price as the 950.

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

Well, didn't the last Sherwood go for like $1200 list? The new one looks good to me too and the last one was a "recommended component" too!
Has anyone seen the one from Davis Labs? (Davislab.com) That looks good unfortunately I think they said $3000.00, just a little outta reach.

The Sherwood looks like a nice unit, but, according to their website it lacks 6.1/7.1 decoding while the Outlaw 950 does. I am looking forward to the DTS-ES for Gladiator . Has anyone , with a 950 played this selection yet in the DTS-ES format?

Gladiator in DTS-ES was one of the first movies I watched when I got my 950. It was very cool. The 950 detected the ES flag and switched right into the correct mode, and it sounded great.

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

Everett, did you go to the "new products" link and look at the new pre-pro? Cause it says it 7.1 and DTS ES.
I guess I'll wait until Sept. or Oct. to purchase. That seems the time for manufactures to realease their new stuff. Speaking of, how come Marantz hasn't come out with an upgrade for their AV9000 pre.? One could almost buy that on looks alone.
I'm really regretting moving to seperates becuase unless you have 7 or $8,000 to spend you wind up getting less and glitches and problems. In fact, does anyone wanna buy a two month old ATI 1505? JUST KIDDING!
I think I'll sell my body a couple of weekends for some fast cash. Again JUST KIDDING! I'll stop now.

Everett, the upcoming Sherwood P-958 pre/pro/tuner has 7.1, according to http://www.sherwoodusa.com/2002products/2002HTML/P958.html

I stand corrected. I clicked on to seperates and got the AVP-980 (I believe) and it states 5.1. I see now they do have a 7.1 offering... a nice looking unit and apparently will be priced similar to the Rotel 1066. Is there a firm retail on this yet? Or, are we waiting for an offical word in SepT!!

Will Sherwood have a matching 7 channel amp for the pre/pro? At this point it seems worth waiting for if they ship on time. I've already waited 17 months for the 950, what's another month?

They sure do...

http://www.sherwoodusa.com/2002products/2002HTML/A958.html

What I can see is that in 1-2 years, there will be a lot of interesting separates available.

What I also read was that a Denon 3802 as a pre-pro is also very good when matched with the 770. The 770 takes care of the flat sound of the 3802's amp section. That could be an affordable pre-pro with all the goodies while waiting for a better pre-pro.

That 7 channel Sherwood amplifier has fewer watts per channel than the big amps. It's like the upcoming 7 channel amplifier announced by Outlaw, which lets people buy separates without having to buy a beefy amp. Often a beefy 7 channel amp isn't desired since it would cost far more than the budget pre/pro's from Sherwood, Outlaw, and Rotel. A budget 7 channel amp mated to a budget 7 channel pre/pro should compete nicely against the overpriced mega-receivers.

Depending on when the 950 starts shipping again , the *3803* might be viable competition for a receiver-as-a-pre/pro...

I just got my issue of Stereophile Guide to Home Theater and their review of Pioneers' 49tx said that it was outstanding. Maybe I should re-think the seperates route. Soundpros.com carries it for like $2,500.00. I don't think that they are authorized but they treated my friends like gold when they bought stuff off of there and they do honor the manufactures full warranty. Hell, that's a great price to use it as a pre-pro even.

It's a fine receiver, but they weren't comparing the receiver to a pre/pro. Generally speaking, dedicated pre/pro's do a better job as a pre/pro, than receivers used as a pre/pro. That's been my experience over the years. Quite a few people who bought Denon super receivers a few years back, are slowly but surely moving to separates. Often, first they buy external amps and use the Denon receiver as a pre/pro. Next, they buy a dedicated pre/pro to replace the Denon receiver (used as a pre/pro).

I've been using the 1050 as a pre/pro. It's done an excellent job, but I'm ready to move on.
Mix

or perhaps the 3804.....

But are the pre-pros better as far as features? I wonder. he 49tx has neat things like seperate 7.1 inputs, one bypass and one to work with dsp and bass management. It also has a trim level and eq. for each channel on that input. Plus a manual or automatic set up and calibration that takes into account room boundries and stuff.
Now I ask, what pre-pro under $5000.00 grand has that or anything like it.

Super-receivers have more features than budget pre/pro's that concentrate on sound quality first, and on features second. Many people bought super-receivers by Denon and other brands, a few years ago, and are now buying pre/pro's and amplifiers, preferring separates (even budget separates like Outlaw, Rotel, etc.) to getting another super-receiver.

More receivers are sold than separates, but I think most people who have owned both receivers and separates, sometime in their lives, end up preferring the sound quality of separates. Receivers have their advantages. They often take less room, have more features, are easier to assemble and cost less than separates. Many many people who end up getting separates, got a super-receiver, first.

If you want all the latest features at a good price, get a super-receiver. But if you want better sound quality than a super-receiver, and can live with less features since afterall price is an issue, I'd recommend looking into a BUDGET separates system, from brands like Outlaw or Rotel. Enjoy!

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

I don't think there'd be much if any difference in sound quality between a "reasonably priced" pre/pro and one of the top-of-the-line receivers.

Yeah, units of equal price, I'd take the pre/pro, but the only way I can imagine a > $3000 receiver could compete with a $900 or $1250 pre/pro is if it could actually compete on sound quality too.

The professional mag reviews tend to back that up.

I had a $800 Yamaha receiver-as-a-pre/pro before my Sony pre/pro (4 yrs ago even). I didn't think there was that much difference in sound quality. And I much preferred the DSP processing in the Yamaha.

And the Yamaha didn't "hiss" either...

If the receiver is the weakest link in your system, chances are you would hear an improvement in sound quality. There are many people who once owned top-of-the-line Denon receivers mated to an amplifier, singing the praises of a "reasonably priced" Outlaw or Rotel pre/pro, after they switched.

Maybe I missed it. I haven't seen a magazine review that says a top-of-the-line receiver sounds as good as "reasonably priced" pre/pro's from Rotel or Outlaw. The top-of-the-line receivers often have more features.

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

Keep in mind that the whole issue of which unit 'sounds better' is a holdover from the vacuum tube days of the 1950s when there *were* definite differences in the sound of units. This was because of differing topologies such as triode verses tetrode/pentodes. With solid state, and especially with everyone basicly using the same chip sets now, units all sound very similiar. Of course the advertisers would love to make you believe there are differences. Don't believe me? Try a blindfold test with someone else doing the switching.

But that takes the fun away!

Well yes, if worrying about minute things makes you happy. The human ear is even more easily tricked than the eyes. The whole reason Dolby Digital and DTS work at all is the fact that you can't hear some sounds buried under stronger sounds. In my work, I',m on movie mixing stages for weeks at a time during the mix of a feature film. The difference in sound going from the original digital 24 bit PCM master to Dolby Digital (or DTS) is **WAY** more than between any home components could ever have. Trust me on this....

Take a look at other posts by me - you will perceive that I was kidding around. I'm probably one of the most painfully pragmatic people you'll ever meet. It's a curse.

Smile and smell the roses.....

Charlie

OMG. Another DBT/ABX threadfart.

IMO, if anyone feels that all decent components sound the same blinded, then those folks should just buy the cheapest decent components they can find and always wear a blindfold when they use that system. For those folks, the Outlaw 950 sounds just as good as the AVM-20 or even the Krell units.

Also, why would any DBT/ABX advocate EVER post or be involved in such apparently biased and opinionated arena as an online forum??? For those folks who need a DBT/ABX as proof of anything, other's opinions are moot. All that matters for them are the very specific DBT/ABX testing each one of them does for their specific system/room/gear. Even their findings are not applicable to anyone else unless their system/room/gear is identical to the tested one...

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

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

I said NOTHING about ABX!! Yes there are differences, but all I said that they pale *by far* from the differences between a master on a dubbing stage and the Dolby Digital encoded copy. I just wanted to put some perspective in this.

Hi Merc

I don't want to get into another long thing, but let me assure you I don't believe all equipment sounds the same, and blind testing can be applied outside the test environment with some degree of statistical certainty if properly done. Drug companies have used it for years.

ABX is a very sensitive blind test method which has been used to reveal differences in how many components sound.

As to why someone pragmatic would participate here, same reasons as anyone else I suppose.

Charlie

Soundhound: True... but you were thinking it.

If not using an ABX box, how would YOU do a DBT between an Outlaw 950 and say, a Rotel 1066?

So, are you agreeing with me that for most comparisons, simple careful crossover listening will do the trick in determining which unit sounds best to you?
Really? Do you work for a drug company?

OR, are you just determining the hearing accuity of the subject? If you are using an ABX box to do the testing, then all you are proving is that your results are valid WITH the ABX box IN the audio loop, and nothing else.

I'm not familiar with the crossover listening technique. Is it a blind test?



It is requred by the FDA.



The ABX box can also be ABX'ed to see if it is audible.

Are we getting into another thing?

Just want to let you know up front - I have no malice for you and I value your opinions.

Charlie

Hey, for the record, I've *never* even taken an ABX type test!! I do it the way you probably do. I listen to one component, then the other, non-blind. I just listen for a profession. As far as doing a 'blind' comparasion between the 1066 and the 950, here's a suggestion. Put up a curtain, behind which are both components. Have someone else connect one, then the other, and keep score on which is preferred by you. Listen as long as you like to each. All day if you want. Do this maybe ten cycles of switching (or not switching) and then have the assistant tally up the score. You very well may get a perfect score, if so, great. That would prove to you at least that there were significant differences. But if you get it wrong more than once, I would question if the differences are significant enough to spend a great deal of money on. Price is not always a guide to quality. There are less expensive components that sound better than more expensive ones - the difference is in the skill of the designer, not how thick the faceplate is.

Charlie: same back at you friend.

I am just a bit rubbed by the notion that anytime/everytime anyone gives an opinion or suggests that one unit is better/worse than another, someone needs to rush in with the DBT/ABX arguement.

Anyone that knows anything about trial design, knows that correctly designed and implemented DBTs are virtually impossible when comparing electronics. An incorrect or flawed DBT may introduce errors which can make the results of the DBT neither reliable nor valid.

BTW, my comment of was un-necessarily sarcastic. Sorry. I've been in the drug industry for almost 20 years and have been involved in the design, implementation, writing and critical analysis of clinical trials much of that time. My wife is published in JAMA and JACC, and currently coordinates clinical trials in leukemia for a major US cancer center. You could say we live clinical trials. So, your comment about using DBTs in the drug industry begged my sarcastic comment. Anyway, do you work in the drug industry as well?

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

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

***Anyone that knows anything about trial design, knows that correctly designed and implemented DBTs are virtually impossible when comparing electronics. An incorrect or flawed DBT may introduce errors which can make the results of the DBT neither reliable nor valid. ***


Really..... see my post above. How hard could doing a single blind comparason without you knowing the identies of the units be? The volume difference issue could be easily solved by having the assistant reducing the volume to zero on each unit as it is put into the system, and you adjust it to taste from there. Personally, I wouldn't take the time to do such a comparason, since, being the outcast that I am, believe that the sound difference in most electronics is swamped by the differences in program material / how your hearing is on a particular day / if you just had an argument with the significant other / relative humidity / sound absorbtion from more people in the room etc.

Soundhound: Single Blind is NOT DBT(Double Blind Testing). And, Single blind testing introduces all its' own inherent biases and errors as a result of the investigator's knowledge of the unit being tested and the lack of testing randomness.

***Single Blind is NOT DBT(Double Blind Testing). And, Single blind testing introduces all its' own inherent biases and errors as a result of the investigator's knowledge of the unit being tested and the lack of testing randomness.***

We're not talking about rocket science or creative accounting practices here - simply which do you prefer!!!

Why would single blind inherently lack randomness?

brianca

Because someone is making an active decision as to which unit is being tested, when, and in what order.

Single blind can have as much randomness and double blind, it's just that the order of the 'subjects' is determined by a tester, who knows the identites of the units.

In that case, the tester can create a random number generator, using sophisticated scientific methods - like, uh, flipping a coin or something.....

EXACTLY my point. I prefer careful crossover listening without all the rocket science. However, if you intend on going the science route, either do it right or you're doing it wrong.

Having an investigator come up with and manually select the unit for testing, opens the protocol to suspicion and questioning, and probably introduces testing error variables which can confound the results thereby increasing the total trials needed to reach a significant p value.

If your study can reach a significant p value in ten tests or fewer, then the difference is so significant and obvious as to make the blind testing un-necessary in the first place.

Why not carefully listen to each unit a few times and then if you cannot discern a difference or make a decision, either buy the cheaper unit or then do your blinded testing?

I couldn't agree more - and no, I'm not in the drug business.



Um, because you're biased, like it or not? If the differences are signifcant as is often claimed, a double blind test (ABX or not) will show it.

Charlie

***Why not carefully listen to each unit a few times and then if you cannot discern a difference or make a decision, either buy the cheaper unit or then do your blinded testing? ***

Well, that was exactly my point in the first place. Going the scientific route is pretty pointless, I think, for something so elemental as home theatre, but you had previously asked me how I would propose to compare a 1066 vs a 950 in a blind situation, and I told you. I did not propose to make the test any more sophisticated than it deserves to be. You are absolutely right in that if you do only a few trials and can hear a difference, then the difference must be so gross that ANY comparasion (dare I say an ABX test...sorry...) would pick it up.

I agree....unfortunately the differences in electronics are pretty slim nowdays, but some would like to believe they are huge. I personally haven't taken an ABX type test: generally if I hear something wrong, then something IS wrong.

Using some form of "blind testing" to make a purchasing decision for a piece of audio equipment comes up constantly. Other than Brianca, I have yet to see where someone actually posted that they had made their buying decision based on a blind test of some sort or another. Maybe I missed it. Lots of theory on how it should be done out there, but even the proponents seem to have made their purchases based on other factors- like making their choice with both eyes open. So let's please drop this blind testing BS. I don't think anybody here is gonna go that way. What fun would that be, anyway? Whether we like to admit it or not, there are a whole bunch of other factors that influence our buying decisions- not just what we hear. Besides, how would you feel when they pulled the curtain back and you discover your golden ears just selected the new Audiovox pre/pro (intro priced @$99.95)

Whoa! I guess when I started this topic my whole and sole point was... why can't they make a super featured pre-pro that sells for under say, $4000.00 or even three. If manufacturers can make a "loaded" reciever with amps binding posts then why can't they make a pre-pro with out the amps etc.. but with loaded features for the same price? They save money on the amp part don't they? I'm not saying you don't get better sound and purer circuitry with separetes, I'm counting on that you will, thus my move to separates, but you should be able to get all the "features" because they don't have to put in amplification. If you can hear the difference then good if you can not then good, but to argue how everybody should think is pointless.

Personally, I'd probably still buy the more expensive brand, but more for build quality, or reliability.

'tis true. I AM biased and always secretly root for the lower priced component to sound better or the same as the higher priced one. Sometimes, I get my wish, other times I do not. Still, since I am paying for the unit, I'd rather go with my biases and not other persons, and pick the unit that I think sounds best. Is that so hard to understand?

So. If I understand correctly... are you suggesting that you'd spend $600 to ABX test and get the same results you could get with careful crossover listening, just because you feel you are too biased to trust your opinions based on carefully listening?

No. If I was concerned I'd do a simple double blind test for free - assuming my time is worthless, of course. But IMO if I just stick with well designed equipment from good manufacturers I'll get good results. That has always been the case, sonicly at least.

But maybe I have a tin ear. Personally I think distortion, noise, response and a few other easily measured quantities (depending on the device) can adequately quantify whether the device will be acceptable to me or not. That and the gut feel I get about the general construction of the unit (which is a not sonic thing) tells me all I generally need to know. So I like well made equipment - sue me.

The human ear has finite resolution. This is a fact some 'philes can't get their head around.


Charlie

Of course, I agree. I also agree that any component that exceeds that audible resolution is overkill and a waste of money. So, if you can't hear it, IMO, it is irrelevant to you. If you can't hear a difference, then don't buy it.

I guess I just don't need to assure myself that 'x' sounds better than 'y' to buy 'x'. If I like 'x' better, for whatever reason, and that is what I'll probably get.

To put it into perspective, it's been a long time since I heard a bad sounding piece of high fidelity equipment. I've never heard a bad sounding one that measured well.

Charlie

But there are components like single ended triode tube amps that sound good, yet measure badly....sorry, just throwing fuel into the flames!

I just don't have the osilliscopes or gear to actually measure what I hear. I can run Spectraplus, as I do for EQing my sub, but I don't know why I'd do that for a preamp? As for hearing a bad sounding piece of gear, I guess that is all relative to me. A new piece of gear could sound bad or better than your most previous piece of gear depending on what that last piece of gear was... many folks like the sound of their B&K Ref 30s. I found it veiled and rolled off sounding. IMO, we both are right.

Which is a lot of why I don't trust listening tests much in absence of instrumented tests. If a well run listening test discovers a difference or preference the measurements can be very informative. As you say, one thing that seems to pop out is that some 'golden ears' like distortion. Whatever.

Charlie

Actually, distortion aside, class "A" single ended amps (tube or solid state) do not exibit crossover distortion. Push-Pull amps, especially solid state ones can have nasty garbage at the zero crossover point, which has to be taken care of with negative feedback, which has it's own problems. This is really only an issue with very efficient horn loaded speakers since they amplify any low level grundge upstream. The signal path has to be squeaky-clean.

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

Still be nice to see a date for any of this. "What by when."

Thank you Scott,
Appreciate the info!