#44140 - 02/04/03 12:28 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 06/13/02
Posts: 39
Loc: Overland Park, Kansas
|
Originally posted by Will:
Does anyone know if the AT pre/pro was upgraded like the 950 went through recently when the 950 blue dots came out? According to AT, they started shipping improved P-2000s shortly after the 950s.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#44141 - 02/04/03 03:28 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Desperado
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 369
Loc: Deep in the Woodlands of Texas
|
Will: I doubt there is ANY difference between the latest 950 and the AT2000, although I guess there could be...?
Why not ask Outlaw or RAF on this info to be sure???
[This message has been edited by merc (edited February 04, 2003).]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44142 - 02/04/03 12:14 PM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Desperado
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 1176
|
Parts substitution for higher zoot parts that are pin compatible isn't generally all that prohibitive. Either this is happening, or Outlaw is intentionally under rating the 950 video switcher or AT is over rating the p2000 switcher, right?
The last seems least plausable, and I'm trying to figure out what the motivation to intentionally under rate the switcher would be.
_________________________
Charlie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44143 - 02/04/03 12:34 PM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Desperado
Registered: 04/10/02
Posts: 1857
Loc: Gusev Crater, Mars
|
Originally posted by charlie:
.... I'm trying to figure out what the motivation to intentionally under rate the switcher would be. Perhaps the same motivation as intentionally "uglying up" the 950 in relation to the AT clone  The higher zoot parts would likely be the "A" suffix versions of the standard part.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44144 - 02/06/03 07:47 PM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Desperado
Registered: 05/28/02
Posts: 605
Loc: LA's The Place
|
I doubt there is ANY difference between the latest 950 and the AT2000, although I guess there could be...?
Why not ask Outlaw
At least in the past Outlaw wouldn't talk about what internal differences may differentiate their 950 from the AT pre/pro.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44145 - 02/06/03 10:22 PM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 01/21/03
Posts: 8
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah
|
Originally posted by SayersWeb:
I think the 950 is by far the best value in a pre/pro.
I went with the Rotel RSP-1066 to avoid the wait for the buzz problem to get worked out. Now that the issue is resolved I will strongly recommend the 950.
SW, since you actually own the Rotel 1066, may I ask for an actual (honest) comparison between it and the 950. I have seen a few rather biased comparisons from 950 owners mentioning only the 950 features not shared by the 1066, but not mentioning any features of the 1066 not shared by the 950 (eg. the ability to set and remember different subwoofer settings for each different input source). Are you saying you would rather have the 950 than the 1066, or just that it is a better value for the money? If they cost exactly the same, which would you choose and why? Also, the Rotel 1055 and 1065 receivers appear to be identical to the 1066 pre/pro feature-wise (and even the front layout in the case of the 1055)with 5 channels of amplification added. If this is the case, one could purchase the 1055 receiver and get the equivalent of a 1066 pre/pro with a tuner (ignoring the 5X75 Watts/CH)for several hundred $$ less than the 1066 alone....a much better bargain, and much closer to the 950 in price! Am I missing something here? T.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#44146 - 02/08/03 09:55 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Deputy Gunslinger
Registered: 02/08/03
Posts: 14
Loc: USA
|
Originally posted by charlie:
No one seems to argue that the video switcher in the clones has wider bandwidth than the 950. I'm curious; I fthis is in fact true what makes the audio section so unique that it could not benefit similarly from parts upgrades?
Or is the improved switcher being questioned as well? Has anyone from Outlaw shed any light on this? Let's ask Outlaw!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44147 - 02/08/03 10:33 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 04/05/02
Posts: 175
Loc: New London, WI, USA
|
I don't have HDTV so maybe I shouldn't comment, but...
Should specs matter as much as actual picture quality? I mean, if you plug the HDTV source directly into your TV, then unplug it and run it through the 950, and find no signal degradation, does it really matter what the numbers say?
_________________________
THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44148 - 02/08/03 11:52 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Gunslinger
Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 58
Loc: Ann Arbor
|
I think the Outlaw is plenty adequate to handle HDTV switching, which even my Denon 3801 (27 MHz) did a good job with (on a Sony KP61HS10 RPTV). I believe 30 MHz is supposed to be all you need.
I would have been a lot more concerned with the early 1066 and Parasound 2500 pre/pros, which were seriously limited.
I'm embarassed to admit I even tried them, but don't even think of using those cheap component cables that come with some DVD players. They're not HDTV compatible.
_________________________
Home theater: the hobby the whole family can enjoy - whether they want to or not
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44149 - 02/08/03 11:57 AM
Re: Outlaw 950 vs. Sherbourn vs. Atlantic Technology
|
Desperado
Registered: 03/21/01
Posts: 14054
Loc: Memphis, TN USA
|
For what it's worth, I'll quote a tidbit from an old Outlaw newsletter, where they addressed their design choices on the 950's component video switching: We're often asked what the bandwidth will be for the component video switching in the Model 950. We're finalizing the part selection right now, and we won't know for certain until we're able to actually run objective tests. However, our target goal is to have the end result somewhere between 40 MHz and 50 MHz per channel (Y/Pr/Pb).
We know that this will cause some comment, so we're going to explain ourselves upfront on this one. Regardless of what you may read elsewhere on the internet, or attempt to calculate by multiplying various aspects of the video system together, the plain fact often ignored by many posting messages in the various forums is that the Y/Pr/Pb signals are analog, not video. (In fact, if they were digital components they would be labeled as Y/Cr/Cb, but that's a story for another day.) While they may have been digitized at one point, when you deal with them at the output of a high definition set-top or a progressive scan DVD player, you are looking at analog signals.
Depending on the origination medium, these signals are governed by a series of SMPTE standards during the production process. (SMPTE 240M for the earlier cameras and systems with 1035 line limitations, SMPTE 274M for current 1080 systems, SMPTE 296M for 720P systems and SMPTE RP 160 as the Recommended Practice for "Three-Channel Parallel Analog Component High-Definition Interface". In the consumer electronics world, these connections are guided by the EIA-770A standard.
No matter which of these standards you look at, the specification for "nominal video bandwidth" is 30 MHz. NONE of the systems by which high definition programming is produced calls for bandwidth over that figure. The "RP" for the connection of "equipment operating with analog component HDTV signals" references itself back to the Standards, but specifically mentions a 30 MHz nominal video bandwidth figure as well (RP 160-1997, paragraph 7.2.1). Similarly, the consumer electronics industry's own standard also calls for 30 MHz in each of the Y/Pr/Pb channels.
Some might say that "more is better", but in this case it simply isn't true. We've consulted with a number respected engineers in the HDTV world, and they all agree that 40 or 50 MHz in the analog connection of HDTV signals is all that you need to want. Wider bandwidth in these connections may subject the system to possible RFI/EMI interference from a variety of sources. In other words, you'd find that you have "too much of a good thing". In audio there are some who say that wide bandwidth is appropriate, but in video all you will do is run the risk of having to deal in intrusion from a variety of unwanted signals.
The conclusion: Sure, we could easily design a switching system with 50, 100 or 200 MHz bandwidth, but there is no reason to do so. Spending money on components that deliver no perceptible benefit just to claim a higher figure than internationally recognized standards call for is just silly. The Outlaws like to have fun, but not at our customers' expense. ------------------ gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
986
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
8,717 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,331 Topics
98,708 Posts
Most users ever online: 1,171 @ Today at 03:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index