Er.....I would go with the 950.....trust me on this one........

Can the local dealer say anything about any specific internal difference, so that people can open the AT and say, yup, this is more "select" on the inside, than the 950?

Frankly, the parts inside both of these units are surface mount devices, which you will have a hard time gleaning any information from. Also, unless you are familiar with the nomenclature used on electronic components, it would be very difficult to tell any difference, if any existed at all. If somebody said they looked casually inside any device like this and was able to tell anything of value, I would be very surprised, as it is not obvious at all just what component does what, except in very general terms.

I have spent substantial 'quality time' inside all the 950's I had, and there is nothing that could be improved besides parts substituions. The circuit board is already glass epoxy, which is as good as you're going to see on any consumer component. The power supply is already as good as anything out there. There's just nothing else to improve!

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 30, 2003).]

Will- Excellent points.

And about peering inside and judging the "quality of manufacture" (maybe similiar to what SH posted): they are both produced on exactly the same manufacturing line.

I like Will's point. If I were seriously considering the AT or the Sherbourn over the 950, I would put the onus on the At or Sherbourn to *prove* to me that any differences were actually relevant to the functionality, performance of the unit.

The difference in video bandwidth is real, but for example, I got direct to the display anyway.

Thanks for the comments everyone (Soundhound especially). I tend to agree that any differences have got to be minimal.

If Soundhound claims Outlaw's assembly would be hard to improve on then I'm sure it would more than exceed my expectations.

I can't blame my dealer too much if some of his comments were a bit misleading. You've got to admit Outlaws approach to marketing has got to be a nightmare for dealers. He did not trash Outlaw products. He did make a blanket referral to directly marketed goods as being inherently inferior which I knew was utter fallacy. In actuality I took his assessment of the AT as a quasi-endorsement of Outlaw's 950.

I do remember reading about some chip or chipset the AT featured which might allow some future sound process format upgrading. They were quick to point out that this was only a theoretical upgrade path depending upon the nature of future format releases? I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics only that it was some sort of "potential" avenue. Does anyone know what I'm referring to. Maybe the Outlaw has it also.

At the very least I do think I will listen to the AT before I make my decision. I like the idea of having a local certified rep for service if the need arises and his 90 days same as cash policy might just let me keep my credit card paided off. That considered along with no shipping charges and the economic gap really starts to shrink.

My biggest concern really is wether the AT has the bugs worked out of it the like Outlaw
does. Last thing I need is a "buggy" unit for my first pre/pro.

Mike

Are you aware the same person runs both companies?

which two companies?

While "runs both companies" might be a bit of an exagerration the same person is associated with both AT and Outlaw.

Speaking of differences...

The true test would be to open both units to make sure. I ran into a similar situation many years ago when purchasing my Pioneer Elite Pro-45 Rear Projection Monitor (still going strong after 13 years as my non-HDTV set). I paid considerably more for the Elite over the "standard" Pioneer RPM and the cost was supposedly justified by a couple of things - higher quality parts (closer tolerances), twice the warranty length, and, of course, that glorious ebony piano-like finish.

In the case of the RPM comparison I got the service manual and there were actual part number differences between the two units. Whether these differences reflected different parts or just closer tolerance parts is hard to say. But the Elite has served me well and has paid for itself many times over.

In the case of the "clones" versus 950 discussion, are there any such verifiable differences? I would suspect not, and the reason you can get the 950 more cheaply is because of the way it's sold. No "salon fees" and other matters to pay for.

Incidentally, I would assume that once everything falls into place the net prices of all these apparently identical units will be very close to each other. The 950 only offers any discounts that Outlaw chooses to promote whereas the clones are more subject to the world of supply and demand.

Speaking of falling into place, I'm reminded that today (1/31/03) marks the anniversary of my first exposure to the 950 as Beta Tester #1. (Think I'll start a separate thread on this not to clog things here.)

One year later and I still think it's a lot of bang for the buck. In fact, if I were in the market for a pre/pro today it still would be my first choice - all things considered.

------------------
RAF

My HT (latest update 04/17/02) Now includes Outlaw 950 and Outlaw 755

RAF! Good to see you!

The individual in question here is Peter Tribeman, president of Outlaw and chairman of the board (previously president) of Atlantic Technology. Peter was very involved in the design of the Model 950. As much time as he spent with it, I'm sure all of the discoveries made with the 950 also appear in the AT P2000.

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

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?