There is a reveiw of the Atlantic Technology P-2000 on the Home Theater magazine February edition. Here is my gripe on that review. How come there is no mention or comparison to the Outlaw 950? The reviewer apparently interviewed Peter Tribeman but he never asked him about the similarities or differences of their unit. They talk about the P2000 as if it was the original and the 950 doesnt exist. I feel the the magazine did it's readers a disservice by not comparing the units and telling them if spending the extra 800 bucks is worth it. I know it has a lot to do with advertising and not pissing investors off but they have a responsibility to their readers. But this is just my personal gripe and I'm sure others have a totally different view.

Hey, if people feel the need to double the price for a different face plate, more power to them. I'll stick with my ugly duckling. The music it makes sure is a swan!

I personally found the review *text* quite favorable towards the unit. What I can't figure out, is the low scores it got...

This is the 950 wearing a different mask. The specs and features are identical. I believe that Outlaw gave the off-shore manufacturer the right to sell the Pre/Pro to other audio companies.

Peter Tribeman's comments in the HT review indicate that he was involved in the design and subsequent redesigns of the 950 (P-2000). Perhaps he is one of the Outlaws... or is he???

The Outlaws may have made deals with some outsiders to help finance the design and production of the 950. I hope there is someone in the Saloon who can shed some light...

Let's hope that being an Outlaw can be something we can continue to be proud of... just imagine the Radio Shack version of the 950... with Terri Hatcher and Howie Long grovin' and gettin' down.

Peter is an Outlaw, but he also works for Atlantic Tech.

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

"Works for A.T."? Cute way to put it Gonk. As 'President' of a company, I would figured that "A.T. works for him" would have been a better way to phrase it.




rmbg,

One key point to keep in mind - the target audience of Outlaw Audio versus that of Atlantic Technology.

O.A. is targetting the educated consumer. The consumer who is willing to do their own research, figures out exactly what they want and therefore doesn't require the pre-sales, sales and post-sales support staff of your 'typical' retail purchaser.

A.T. is targetting the professional installer. These people typically provide the equipment, installation services and post-sales support to end users who don't want to see the product, nor do they really care about it. They just want it to sound good and to work.

Different audiences + different support (pre & post sales) requirements = different pricing models.

Just my two cents worth of analysis.

------------------
pat----

email: pat@sklenar.info ---===--- home page: Grumpy's Lair

Heh-heh. Actually, I think he's chairman of the board for AT these days , so it could probably be safely said that "works for" might be a little understatement...

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

I know that the product is targeting a different type of consumer. My gripe is with the magazine/reviewer. Since he was using the Outlaw amp, I know he probably has tested the 950 or at least knew about it. It would have been his responsibility as a reviewer to compare the two and tell people what he thinks. He can state his opinion whether the extra money on the P-2000 can be justified or not. Readers rely on this magazine for their purchase decisions and to learn about other products that they may not normally be exposed to. In some past reviews I can remember, they had no problems writing the someone would be better off buying this or that for the money. That was just my point. Thanks

Is it possible the head of Atlantic Technology, who is also the head Outlaw by the way, asked the interviewer not to say the Outlaw 950 and the P-2000 are clones, when he was interviewed for the article?

In most cases, reviewers will only do comparisons of products previously reviewed (or under current review) by the magazine. I'm sure the author is aware of the similarities between the two units, but if he, or another writer with the mag did not receive a 950 for an "official" review, I don't see how he could make any sort of comparison. I don't find his report to be a disservice to the readers at all. He received the Atlantic Technology P-2000 (NOT a 950) and was asked to review it-- which he did. Simple as that. If he is "issued" a 950, and is asked to review it-**maybe** at that time, he might make some comments on the similarity between the two products. Who knows?

Although he did not receive the 950 for an "official" review, he could have written the 950 is a clone from a sister company to Atlantic Technology, and that it costs much much less.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited January 17, 2003).]

I just thought of something, Will... you could always write a letter to the Editor with an explanation of what you feel was not fairly reported on in the article! Maybe they'll publish it.

The reviewer probably has good reasons not to discuss the relationship between the Atlantic Technology P2000 he reviewed, and the Outlaw 950.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited January 17, 2003).]

it's a common practice not to cite "clones" in a/v journalism. i used to be so bug by it but understand it now since working for a manufacturing company.

i think most of us would be surpised that several a/v companies have agreements to re-badge each other's products. even if most of them use produce different products, their contract manufacturers might share common BOMs (bill of materials).

some fairly well known clones and components sharing products are:

pioneer 503cmx = pionner pro1000hd = hitachi CMP-5000WXU plasma displays

hughes = toshiba = philips = mitsubishi HD STBs

zenith sat520 = sony hd200 HD STBs

fujitsu plasma using the panasonic plasma glass

yet you rarely see any a/v journalist outright say a product is a replica of another product. i think it's professional courtesy to mfg and a bit of an unwritten rule not to mention clones. while mainstream consumer magazines might not mention this practice, trade magazines (industry specific) can be much more reavealling about this type of stuff.

if you look out there, there are really not many manufacturers who have the resources to produce a product from the ground up. many times they source it a design house then subcontract it out to contract mfg. or even competing company -- in that process they make business deals to share product or parts. this is not just in the a/v industry, it is widely practiced in the ce, auto, computer, and other industries.

the other member here is correct, the a/v journalist is not intentionally doing readers a disservice. his only task is merely review the product at hand. it is for the educated consumer and industry insider to know the difference.

besides, Home Theater is only a smidgin better than Sound & Vision (pure fluff). Guide to Home Theater will give you so much more detail and educated reviews

[This message has been edited by BodegaBay (edited January 18, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by BodegaBay (edited January 18, 2003).]

Sound & Vision has evolved a tiny bit in the last few years. At least now they _dare_ to state the downsides of some of the things they review.

That wasn't the impression I got when they decided not to perform their typical power measurements of the Sony DA4ES last month, at Sony's suggestion.

I said _some_ of the equipment

BOM = bill of materials, yes?