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?