UPDATE: Originally posted in the Saloon on March 29, 2003, the link below to the update instructions are also being posted here for the convenience of our customers. Note that customers who placed their 950 orders March 14 or later are NOT affected.
---------------------------------------
We are pleased to let you know that everything is now in place to enable you to correct any Model 950 unit that exhibits the "No LFE output on DTS-ES" bug. Please follow this link for further instructions.
---------------------------------------
Fellow Outlaws:

When we first addressed this issue a week ago, we promised you that we’d keep you up to date on our progress and have an answer for you as soon as possible. In order to keep the lines of communication open, we would like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on where things stand.

Thanks to exhaustive work by engineering teams in Asia and the US, we have been able to locate the source of the “No LFE on DTS-ES” issue. As it turns out, some incorrect software provided to us by an outside source as part of the product development, but otherwise verified as correct, turned out to be the root cause.

We have received corrected software and it is currently undergoing one more round of compliance testing and verification. The good news is that the bug was isolated to one specific module, so completion of the testing should only take a few more days.

Even better news is the fact that the software that needs correction is located in a replaceable E-PROM chip on the Model 950’s digital board. Those of you with long memories will recall that at one point in the early product descriptions we did say that some software was upgradeable. Fortunately, this issue falls into that category.

What that means to Model 950 owners is that anyone with a unit exhibiting this issue will NOT have to return the unit to us for repair. Instead, we are now assembling a kit that will contain all parts and information required for the E-PROM to be replaced. We’re putting some final touches on the procedure by which this will happen, and you’ll see that in just a few more days once the final testing is complete and we have the replacement chips and some other needed items in hand. We think you’ll be pleased with the process since it will not require your unit to be swapped or out of service for more than the time it takes to have the chip replaced.

Of course, going forward, we will make certain that the correct code is in all new units when they ship.

We apologize to the relatively small number of customers that have been impacted by this issue, and we thank all those that participated in bringing this to our attention.

Thanks and regards

The Outlaws


[This message has been edited by admin (edited April 03, 2003).]

As usual, Outlaw customer service prevails...

Good thing the EPROM is socketed.

As first time owner of Outlaw products, I am impressed with Outlaw's customer service

I think this is universal to all players,most people just "don't know" any better.
Has the reversed polarity issue on the 6ch input been addressed by the Outlaws yet?
I've been away from the HT forums lately.
Thanks!

Wow, I had to go car shopping last week and get a son ready to go to CO for spring break in the morning (plus work) this last week. Have not had time to dig out any DTS-ES to see what I could see.

...and they have already addressed the problem...if I do have it.......
Evidently, (as usual) Outlaw Customer Service cannot be outgunned

I only run 5.1 right now, but i may want to run 6.1 in the future. Should I send my unit in for the upgrade? Can they send me the eprom to change out? I think I still have my chip puller around here some where.

------------------
MeanGene's Home

Another example of Outlaws supreme Customer Service

------------------
Play it LoUd!!

Awesome. Truly awesome...


Ah HA! So *now*, I can be correct in saying that, "in some cases, the 950 is indeed software upgradeable."


Any chance I could get a black power button, and a heavier duty volume knob with my EPROM chip?


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited March 15, 2003).]

My sympathies to Peter Tribeman and the rest of the Outlaws for all the incredible kee-rap they've had to wade through in the ongoing saga of the Outlaw 950.

Add to that my unqualified respect for the extraordinary customer service and decency with which the Outlaws have handled each one of the 950's issues. It's a remarkable record of performance that most companies should replicate.

This kind of response is what kills me about OUTLAW!!!! Again on top as usual!!!

Way to go Outlaws!! I expected the worst and got the opposite!! You guys are good! I am looking forward to getting the kit and watching Gladiator in glorious DTS-ES. My compliments!

John

Since presumably we'll be opening up the 950 without nullifying its warranty or those cautions stamped prominently in back, in order to replace the E-PROM, maybe people can finally post pictures of what's inside. If so, I wonder if we'll be able to notice some differences among the red dot, blue dot and pre-red versions by the pictures. That's assuming an E-PROM replacement is appropriate for the different "dot" versions.

Outstanding job OUTLAWS!!!!

If only the rest of the industry would provide such great customer service.

BRAVO!!!!!

I have a suggestion too. Hun mentioned this one another thread (and here too!).

In the new software release, why not invert the phase of the signal going to the sub for the digital crossover in the 950? Then, it would be more or less in phase with the 6 ch input, and any 2 ch input in bypass mode.

And then, has Outlaw ever confirmed this problem? I've always said "out of phase", but the exact magnitude of the phase difference between the digital and analog material sent to the sub probably depends on the crossover freq, and it's probably something like 142.5 degrees and not 180 anyway.

??

And while I'm suggesting *other* "easy" software suggestions, I'd personally like an an additional CES mode specifically for 7.1 setups. DPL II, DD, DTS: instead of a mono signal derived from the surrounds fed to both the rears, I just want the surround info copied to the rears. So left surround also goes to left rear, and right surround also goes to right rear.

1st one should be easy, 2nd one maybe not (storage space? the right eprom?). I never use DTS Neo 6, or the 5/6/7 channel stereo modes, so those could be replaced, for me.

I'd even pay a few bucks for the above 2 suggestions. (Man, am I opening a can of worms or what? Hee, hee. )


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited March 16, 2003).]

I suspect the fix for the DTS-ES bug is either getting bug fixed library code from a vendor or essentially 'flipping a bit' to activate some chunk of logic in that vendors library, or something like that.

While certainly worthy I suspect what you want would be orders of magnitude more effort, since it would require a whole new design/develop/debug/test/release cycle.

And, every time a feature is added it's an opportunity for a new set of bugs to hatch. In the business it's called 'feature creep'.

Kevin,
Well said, I support your ideas completely.
Now if Scott would only respond on this.

Oh don't get me wrong - they're good ideas, but I doubt it's practical to make that sort of changes (newly added features) at this point in production, but you never know.

I only have 5.1 now, but plan on upgrading to 6.1 or 7.1 some time in the future. Therefore this problem doesn't affect me now, but it will be nice to have the fix in place (a long way) down the line when I upgrade my system.

I will be paying attention to the procedures by which I can get the upgrade. Good job Outlaw. I'm sure the new chips are going to be cheap.

------------------
Philip Hamm

I was under the impression the kit would be a warranty deal?

I meant cheap for Outlaw, of course it will be warrantee service for us.

------------------
Philip Hamm

Perhaps Outlaw saved money earlier by not spending much on QA'ing the 950.

I think that is a bit of a cheap shot. You know as well as anybody out there that it is simply the nature of anything that involves software that there will be "bugs" uncovered as the product gets more use. What computer program do you have that has never had updates to fix bugs?

What seems to be glaringly missing here is an appreciation that Outlaw DID cover their bases in the design stage by having the software on an EPROM chip. I seem to remember some screaming months ago about the "non-upgradeable" nature of the 950. This was obviously wrong.

Give 'em a break!


------------------
The Soundhound Theater

I am pleased they are fixing some bugs their customers have found. This isn't the first such bug. Maybe Outlaw didn't thorougly test some basic functions in the 950 before releasing it to the public. It's like the hiss problem earlier. Maybe if they had tested the 950 on more home theater configurations with efficient speakers such as you and I have, they would have known about the hiss problem too, before many of their customers (like us) experienced it.

That being said, nobody is perfect and software often has bugs, that's for sure! This does not take anything away from the Outlaws for owning up to the problems and fixing them, and doing it on their dime. But maybe we should not feel too sorry for the Outlaws for spending money on warranty fixes, if the Outlaws saved money by not testing as thoroughly as we might have hoped.

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

You are of course correct, but it must be noted that the incidence of bugs in 'firmware' and personal computer software shouldn't be thought of as comparable. In the case of firmware, the platform is well known (the target hardware) as is the operating environment (no other software installed by users), whereas a large portion of the bugs in personal computer software stem from the diversity of hardware and other software that are involved. This also makes computer software testing much more of a challenge.

To use a case in point, when was the last time your cell phone or microwave needed a firmware update to fix a bug? Ever bring your fuel injection unit in for a bug fix? This sort of thing could happen, but it is very very rare.

Also, the complexity of the firmware of something like the 950, while not trivial, pales in comparison to any significant personal computing application.

Sorry, but in this case I agree - QA should have caught this one - this is one of the 'primary functions' that absolutely should have had a test case.

I always thought a beta test of 5 was incredibly small, too small to be really useful as anything more than a marketing test. The bugs found bear this out. Our last beta was ~2500 users over several months, and at the end the product is very solid, even though that was a small beta test IMO.

I'm glad someone decided to socket rather than solder the EPROM. I hope if opening the case is required (I imagine it will be) there is some provision for those who don't feel comfy doing that sort of thing.

One thing for sure - this has been an opportunity for Outlaw Audio to show what their customer support is made of, and IMO they have passed that test with flying colors.

Nice to know About the way Outlaw takes care of their customers.

Question-- I just recieved my new 950 Thursday, March 13. Has this problem been fixed on it??

------------------

Charlie:

Maybe I should have used preamps like the Rotel 1066 as an example - bugs there too.

Tango:

Since the issue is still being resolved, I'd be pretty sure your 950 does not have a modification.

The way Scott's message read to me, I'm guessing they're working out some retrofit arrangement with a service provider and that owners will NOT be installing their own EPROMS.

I think the complexity is comparable to software because although you control the hardware platform you don't have control over all the software running the individual components. Trying to tie code from different sources together to run one thing in a dynamic situation where everyone is always changing their parts of the code is a nightmare. And my experience as a consultant is just like the Outlaws...my customers don't care that the problem was in the code that one of my sub contractors provided and I had no control over - they paid me - they complain to me (as it should be). Your first pass at testing is thorough, then you start spending all your resources resolving the known bugs while quietly a new bug is introduced by some seemingly irrelevant update. I think it is what's keeping Rolaids in business.

Well done Outlaws, keep up the hard work.

What in Scott's message makes you say that?

I've worked on huge embedded systems that spanned 10 - 30 networked processors and controlled 20+ million dollar machines, and it's not even close QA wise.



Sure you do.



See?

The integrator has the option, at at their discretion, to use or pass on updated libraries. If the integrator uses the updates, then it is their responsibility to make sure no old bugs were reintroduced (regression testing) and all test cases are revalidated. It's all part of an organized QA effort. What I see is a lowering of quality standards across the board driven partly (IMO) by the lowered expectations folks have due to their experience with software, which shouldn't influence them, but does.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited March 17, 2003).]

boblinds- From Scott's message, I got the impression we'd all be doing our own chip swap. I doubt they could cut a deal with a "service provider" fast enough, *and* that would have coverage in all the locations where 950's now reside. Otherwise, you'd have to ship your unit, which contradicts what Scott says.

Just have to ground yourself, and be careful not to bend the pins... No biggie.

[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited March 17, 2003).]

Kevin and I read the same quote and came up with diametrically opposed interpretations.

Perhaps Outlaw saved money earlier by not spending much on QA'ing the 950..

Chapter One: Whereupon those who live in the disagreeable world of unpleasant AV product glitches proceed to stampede into the dramatically detailed perfection where QA dollars prevent any unpleasant surprises and everything works as well as my microwave, which worked nicely until a thunderous storm scared it into a great decline

To use a case in point, when was the last time your cell phone or microwave needed a firmware update to fix a bug? Ever bring your fuel injection unit in for a bug fix? This sort of thing could happen, but it is very very rare

Chapter Two: Adventures in programming Polyphonic Ring Tones for less hearty souls who desire greater dependability in a unit, which produces melodies.

I always thought a beta test of 5 was incredibly small, too small to be really useful as anything more than a marketing test.
The bugs found bear this out. Our last beta was ~2500 users over several months, and at the end the product is very solid, even though that was a small beta test IMO

Chapter Three: Enron economics are applied whereupon companies are assured by accountants that more test units than projected sells of said units is a figure guaranteed to raise the company’s status on paper and increase stock value

But maybe we should not feel too sorry for the Outlaws for spending money on warranty fixes, if the Outlaws saved money by not testing as thoroughly as we might have hoped

Chapter Four: Strongly illustrative of the position that company’s whom document the least bug occurrences (when someone has been counting) than companies which are happy to sell their bugs at higher commission, are not to be faulted for bemusement over the fact that A: you can have less bugs. B: you can fix them quickly but C: you shall be vilified for ANY BUG AT ALL, after presenting said bug at the cheapest going rate.

insert all replies here

Chapter Five: In which a certain female thinks she had better go away and goes accordingly stepping gently and comfortably into the fire after deserting the frying pan…preparing for extraordinary calamity to befall.

in my business i have a cast-in-concrete rule: i don't do anyone's warranty service work for them for free.

this glitch doesn't effect my system, but if it did, there is no way i would open this box myself to correct someone else's mistake.

sorry, outlaw...the advertisement said "DTS-ES", so fork it over.

Well, perhaps, but is it safe to presume that the beta you describe was for a software product that ran on a known hardware platform? If you are doing that sort of thing, a large beta not only makes sense, but it is relatively inexpensive to do. Yes, there are the development costs, of course, but you don't have to supply everyone with the hardware.

Perhaps some might say the Outlaw beta sample could have been larger, but how many reasonably expensive, one might even presume to be hand-built pre-production units would you expect them to build for a test? Remember, they would have to provide BOTH the hardware and software in such an enterprise!

But what do I know, I'm only a dog!

ARF ARF, says Iggy

Methinks the five beta testers tested near-production units that were built by machine mostly, rather than by hand. But to paraphrase one of the great K9 typists, what do I know, I'm only human.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited March 18, 2003).]

Lena... Chapter 3... Perfect!

You are correct. And I'm not promoting the idea that the 950 should have had a 10,000 unit beta, but illustrating the fact that a 5 unit 'beta test' is more a test marketing exercise than anything. One reason software betas are so big is actually due to the fact we're not supplying the hardware - so we can be reasonably sure the product works on a broad cross section of configurations. This does not apply to an embedded system but the other reasons do apply.

But the beta issue has more to do with previous problems, like the hiss problem. This case, DTS-ES not working properly should have been caught in QA at the latest. Management creates a specification, engineering implements it, manufacturing builds it and QA tests against the original specification before release. It's not that complex.

The things QA tests, or put differently the tests that are run, should be designed to verify each part of the spec under a variety of conditions. Generally a very large 'test matrix' is developed to assist in this task.

there is no way i would open this box myself

Scared to death to tell my husband he might have the opportunity to do so. You see, he was known by his parents for popping tops off boxes (radios-record players-motors) when very young. However he was not known for his reassembling skills simply leaving a conspicuous trail documenting his desire to ‘see how things worked’.
Well, actually now the family frequently calls on him to put things back together eating up many of his spare hours. He would have far too much fun with this.

Hopefully, they will have tested to see if there was still no LFE information being sent to the sub when the speakers are in the SMALL mode.

The re-routing of bass from the other speakers could potentially fool you into thinking you were getting ALL the bass information on the DTS track.

Hopefully, everything will be rosie on this new E-PROM and will contain this fix as well as all of the revisions so far.

Yup, I still feel that the R&D money could have been better used for a serial upgrade port and flashable chips with more memory for more features (Anthem AVM-20 style) than a mediocre radio tuner. But, we all know about hindsight.

As for opening the case and swapping out the chip, it looks like it would be as easy as my old Millennium 2.4.6 DTS decoder, which I had to upgrade similarly to accept DTS DVDs (although, that took both an E-PROM and a new Motorola processor chip swap-- luckily both were socketed). The socket (from the pictures of the inside guts) looks to be in plain view and accessible without too much fuss.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Hitchman (edited March 18, 2003).]

I feel just the same, but maybe the tuner adds significant value for some folks. On the other hand the ability to distribute features (rather than just bug fixes) via flashable files would be added value too. In that case something like the things Kevin wants could be done later, as time and budget permit without prohibitive distribution costs. Heck, the new run of units could be 955's (951 ?) and 950 owners could get a free update to the 95x feature set.

Outlaw probably won't change hardware again in a $899 pre/pro/tuner that's been out about a year. And it's probably selling like hotcakes right now! It's still the cheapest pre/pro/tuner with DPL II on the market, just like it was when it came out a year ago.

Actually I'm glad the 950 has a tuner. I wouldn't have purchased a 950 last year if it didn't have one.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited March 18, 2003).]

And you're probably not the only one. I do think traditional tuners will become increasingly irrelevant as time passes.

As far as new features, we're NOT talking changed hardware, you know? It's about things like a phase control on the sub out, a setting to shut off 'double bass' mixing on 6 channel inputs and maybe adding new modes, that sort of stuff. Maybe gain for LFE vs SUB, etc. The things one could do with flashable firmware in the next 12-24 months, as the 'new' wears off the 950. If the new modes/features were significant the old hardware could be sold as the 951, which replaced the 950 and 950 owners could get a 'free' 951 update.

The old hardware can STILL be sold as a 951 with significant new features in firmware, but the marketing mileage is greatly decreased if existing customers have to trade in or open up their boxes to get the benefit.

Field updates provide a lot of leverage potential, and while socketed EPROM is great it doesn't, IMO, qualify as field upgradeable except in the very loosest sense of the term.

EPROMs are cheap, but PLCC pullers are not (I assume the EPROM is in a PLCC package). This could cost a bit.

Kudos to Outlaw's customer service.

Cary

This was posted by BruceD over on HTF. Best (potentially meaningful) explanation I've heard of the phase diff to the sub between the digital and analog crossovers on the 950:

According to the ICBM manual you can have either 2nd or 6th order low pass filters.

where did the information come from that the 950 uses an active 2nd order low pass filter, or is that a guess? the information doesn't appear in the manual.

------------------

BoB- I believe that the crossover info has been included in (some of) the 950/Sherbourn reviews. I know that S&V usually tries to include it anyway.

They had the digital one for the Sherbourn at least:

24 dB/octave low pass filter, 12 dB/octave high pass filter

Hi all
I presently do not own any Outlaw audio products, but am planning to buy the 950/7100 combo very shortly. I have read with interest the discussion about the installation of the new eprom into the 950 to correct the DTS LFE problem. If indeed 950 users will be required to remove the old eprom and install the new one, I would be glad to do so for any 950 owners in the greater Los Angeles area. I have a static free work station, grounding straps and PLCC chip pullers available to do the work. I would do the work for free to anyone interested in taking me up on my offer. I live in the city of Torrance on Artesia Blvd near the 405 freeway.
Regards,
TCIII

Fellow Outlaws:


We'd like to keep you up to date on our progress regarding the DTS-ES LFE issue with three brief, but important pieces of information:


* We have completed testing and verification of the revised software, and it is functioning properly and without any further concerns.


* We have already updated all units that are currently being shipped to customers ordering a new Model 950. If ordered a Model 950 and it was shipped after March 17th, it contains the latest software. Anyone who might have been waiting to order a new unit until this item was addressed may now order with confidence.


* It will be a few more days before we have the details for you on how we will handle the upgrade for those with existing units. Although the software has been checked and approved, we are still working out some of the logistical aspects of the upgrade process. We'll have the details ready for you in a few days.


Thanks for your patience as we finalize the best method to take care of this with the least possible inconvenience.


Regards

The Outlaws

Scott

Is there consideration to replace complete unit for those recently purchased the 950 and is still within the 30 days return guarrantee?

It would make sense for us not to mess with the unit (assuming that we have to replace the EPROM by ourself).

Its funny, I just asked Scott a similar question. I would be very interested to know the answer to this question myself.

John

[This message has been edited by nohjy (edited March 20, 2003).]

I measured 8db differnce between the DTS-ES Discrete,and the DTS+CR-C modes when playing LOTR EE [Sauron's finger with the ring falls......].All speakers were set to small and sub said "yes".
On the "Haunting" the differences were so big,that even if you were "deaf" you would "feel' the difference,I'm not kidding!

I'd imagine it depends on the mix.

No! Maybe on the sub.
Oh I forgott to mention,while the 6 main speakers were set to small they were inactive,so I only heard/measured the sub output at my main viewing spot.

[This message has been edited by The Hun (edited March 21, 2003).]

of course it depends on the mix. i thought everyone was clear on this already...bass is contained in both the five main channels, and the lfe channel. The amount of content that is in the lfe channel is up to the engineer that does the mix for that particular movie.

if you set your speakers to small and play an ES track, you're going to get bass output. You'll get all the bass in the main channels below your crossover point, but you'll be missing the lfe bass. IF you compare this output to non-es DTS track with an SPL meter, you're going to notice a reduced output in the ES track. It's not that the bass is being played at a lower output level, it's that you are simply missing a good portion of the actual bass content.

Really!
Of course it does, as I pointed out with the Haunting having more of difference then with LOFTR[The least difference I was observed was with Blade II]The point is you loose LFE content all togheter no matter how much was mixed there to begin with.
Was this somehow unclear from my posts?

just an FYI:

when you do get your DTS-ES 'fixed', use caution when demoing LOTR.

i have no problems with the LFE coming through with DTS-ES, and i'll tell ya, the LFE signal is super-hot with this disc.

Can't wait!

This will make all the difference in the world. I can't wait. Do we need to mail the Outlaws or will posting here be enough?

Thanks
Stott

------------------
Stott

bossobass,
Did you get your 950 after 3/17? My original impression after reading this thread was that all 950s prior to ship date of 3/17 had the DTS-ES LFE issue.

Anyone else feel the same?

Ron

Am I missing something here, or aren't there two problems being discussed in the recent comments:

The phasing issue, which is being addressed by the software update;

The loss of LFE when 'small' is selected and bass signal from other speakers is diverted to the sub, this issue not being addressed by the update?

Maybe Scott can step in here and comment. Thanks!

I doubt the phase of the sub between the analog and digital crossovers will be addressed. What will be fixed, is the lack of LFE (.1) signal in DTS-ES mode.

Will everyone be contacted automatically or is there a form or call that has to be made in order to receive the fixed software?

Any updates? I think Scott said that he would let us know how the fix would be implemented either today or tomorrow.

I've waded through all the postings on this topic and cannot fully comprehend the issue when I think about my own setup, so please bear with me, as i know this is getting tedious.
I have not read here of anyone using the ICBM between the 950 and 755 as I am. I have all speakers set to large in the 950 and use the ICBM to send each speaker the correct signal. That is 40Hz to L&R, 60Hz to the center, and 80Hz to the two surrounds. I have the LFE output amplified by a bridged 2 channel amp to a passive sub.
I'm sure the ICBM is redirecting bass from all the other channels, so how do i test for this LFE problem? My own suspicion is for me to unplug all inputs to the ICBM except the LFE, and if I do not have this problem in my 950, then Gladiator DTS-ES should still pump my sub -- YES ???

I think Kevin's nice procedure for testing it should still work in your case (from a post in the previous thread):



In your case, you could probably skip the "small speaker" approach and see if your sub gets a signal with the other speakers off. You will need to either disable the bass management in the ICBM or disconnect the pre-amp inputs from the full-range speakers (only have the LFE signal from the 950 going to the ICBM, so that it doesn't mix anything else in). It was pretty readily apparent when I tried it last week.

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

all you need to do is set your ICBM crossovers to "bypass" for every channel, and play a DTS-ES track. Make sure the outlaw is set for 6 or 7 speakers and is in ES mode. You should get no output from your sub.

This is interesting to read, but you have to really read it to understand what the dude is saying:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132121

Bottom line, LFE/crossover flaw on the Denon 3803 (and 1803 looks like too). The reason why I put this is here, is because, a) the 3803 *really* doesn't have software upgradeability, and, b) this unit is right in the 950's price range as a receiver-as-a-pre/pro.

In the context of the LFE/DTS-ES issue on the 950, this is just an interesting industry benchmark.

[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited March 25, 2003).]

So what's the deal? How are they going to implement the fix? I have a line on a cheap B&K Ref. 50 and I am getting antsy to pull the trigger and return the 950. I am so confused...

C'mon Scott how is this going to work? I need to know so I can make a decision on what processor I will be going with.

In the way he described it I can't imagine that anyone would design bass management to behave that way...

So.. it all matters when bass management is applied, before levels are set or after...

in this case then all of the speakers should be set to the same level or there'd be all kinds of varying bass levels... in my case I've got very insensitive main speakers which are set to -5db, the center is at -9 and the surrounds are at -11 and the back surrounds are at -15... but I guess ideally dvd's wouldn't be mixed to send much low frequency info to the surrounds and center..


So Scott, when does the 950 apply bass management? before or after levels are adjusted?

in case anyone was still wondering, my personal testings confirm no LFE in DTS-ES mode with an Atlantic Technology P2000

bass management adjusts levels of redirected bass and LFE in the summing modules according to the speaker configuration (dolby 0, dolby 1, dolby 2, etc.). the signals used to do this, in the case of redirected bass, are duplicates of the 5 satellite signals. the subwoofer calibration has nothing to do with the individual satellite calibrations.

the only variable as regards redirected bass level, is user adjustment of the subwoofer level. this also affects the LFE signal equally, as the composite redirected bass signal and the LFE signal are summed to form 'one digital bass signal'. except, of course, in the case of all satellites set to 'large', where the sub gets only LFE.

i'm fairly certain that the 3803 was not designed to do what the poster said his does. IMO, he has a defective receiver.

Just how many people are reporting this bug?

And what is the ratio to those who did (or didn't do) the replacement for the 'hiss' issue?


[This message has been edited by Xen (edited March 30, 2003).]

I am sidetracked by a new pursuit for the month and just now dragged out 2 DTS-ES I own. Glad. & CastA. I'm assuming LFE is either ON/OFF if you have the bug? Not simply reduced output from my sub, requiring closer observation with my SPL? I've got LFE on one of my 950's in DTS-ES.

Edit: after paying attention, Could not remember without dragging out the manual where to turn speakers (OFF), without unplugging the connects. Just left them on with sub trim boosted and rechecked after spotting the large/small parameters of Kevin’s laid out simple test.

With sub on, all speakers (small) I have LFE in DTS-ES. When sub is on, only mains (large) reduced LFE. When sub is on, all speakers (large), No LFE.

Did not notice the large/small effect prior since I normally leave speakers defaulted to small, (because the guys don’t think to change that. (a protective action on my part towards my Beethoven’s. SO if they boost sub trim 100% when I’m not around they won’t be stressing my speakers as badly when additionally they also roll up the dB, and I’m not here to monitor).

I do have the bug? Only exhibits when speakers (large).
Edit again: Sorry should be reaaaadng instead of skimming. My summed bass below CO's is what I'm hearing while speakers are set to small. So thats why no LFE in large, which then glaringly displays the lack of .1 being processed.

[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited March 30, 2003).]

Your 950 has the bug.

Chris, this did not work. Bypass selection just made every speaker run full range I believe. They all still operated anyhow and the ICBM still will reroute bass I think.
Pulling all the inputs from the ICBM but the LFE, should relieve the rerouting and only the LFE signal to the sub should be in evidence.
Now, In this scenario, I ran Gladiator till i found an LFE signal in Dolby D. This was 8.09 and 8.16 into the initial fight scene. (2nd chapter.) I reran this test with the DTS-ES signal and I have the same LFE signal and it was a little stronger yet !
This tells me I do not have the problem !
This disc actually has very little LFE, I almost decided I had the bug !
It is possible a lot of folks will mis diagnose, so i'd love to hear someone say they tried this test track and did NOT get an LFE response.

The ICBM will not route information for speakers set to "bypass" to the sub unless you have the recombine switch on, which you shouldn't. IF you're getting non-lfe sub output with all crossovers set to bypass then you need to flick that switch to off.

Oh great, now i have to redo this !
Just kidding, I actually do flip the recombine switch on for movies that are radical, and off for everything else.
I need to retest anyway, as I'm thinking about something else I read about in one of the postings. Before I do retest though, what are your thoughts on this:
DTS-ES is a 6.1 enhanced surround format correct? Now,in my case, I have but 5.1 speakers and only these enabled in the 950. Am I correct in now assuming that even when I select the DTS-ES track within the discs menu, the 950 will only give me DTS ?
What makes me think this is that the 950 briefly displays DTS-ES when I select it, but then the display flips back to DTS. DTS-ES does not remain on the display as I believe it should. If this is actually happening, then my test result from yesterday is flawed !
I believe I must reset the 950 to 6.1 to fool it into thinking i have the extra surround and retest ??
And now I read about another wrench in the works, Center channel not redirecting bass frequencies - Man this all starting to sound like a Microsoft scenario: the-public-is-our-research-and-development-program philosophy!

That is absolutely the case. You must set the 950 to 6 or 7 speaker mode or else it will default to standard DTS. I'm sure you will find that you have the bug once you get everything configured properly.

Thanks Chris, I set the 950 to 6.1 and you have now given me the bug!
No - thats wrong, you just showed me that I already had it!
Guess it would be unusual for me to be one of the few that don't have this fault.
Giant Kudos to Outlaw though for their attention to solving this, and their well documented amazing service after the purchase. This level of service and this forum are the reasons I went with Outlaw, and I could not be happier.
That is, other than the fact that all too often these days it appears that we consumers are buying products that are hardware/software based and are released without a complete test. Microsoft springs to mind at a great rate of speed. I know manufacturers sometimes have to replace a part along the way on the production line with one that is supposedly identical, but at that stage the product becomes an unproven entity.
Every item I bring home these days must be put through the wringer to see if it actually does all it is supposed to. A very high percentage fail !
Example, my Pioneer DV45A is awaiting replacement because when I finally purchased a couple of DVDA's, it would not play them!
Maybe this is the price we pay for not being able to afford the very best of everything !
Do people that can afford a garage full of Ferraris have these problems ?

Has anyone received and installed, err had installed, the fixed eprom? We're there any other changes/fixes beside the LFE problem?

Received the "No LFE on DTS-ES" fix today. Installed the chip and tested my system. The fix worked. I just want to thank Scott and THE OUTLAWS for the great customer service and a great product. Thanks again
Rick

Anyone's unit NOT show this bug?

Well I have it :\

Only shows up when I set my Rear Surrounds to large NOT my Mains. But the LFE signal for sure cuts out.

[This message has been edited by Xen (edited April 06, 2003).]

Hi, how do you know for SURE if your 950 needs the upgrade? Ordered 3-17 and it shipped on the 18th. I assumed I was ok but filled out an upgrade form just in case. I figured since I had to include my serial number that if my unit did not need the upgrade I would not get the kit. But I did get it. So my question is... do I, or do I not, need the upgrade? I have not hooked up my unit, waiting for other components ,cables, etc.

Thanks,

Mike

According to Scott's initial post, all orders placed after 3/14 include the new code, so yours is fine.

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

Hello Mike,

You were sent the kit because you had requested it. Unfortunately, I forgot to confirm your need for the update. Any order shipped after the 14th of March contains the updated code.

Scott

Thanks Scott,

I will return the chip.

Mike