Last Friday I replaced my Outlaw 950 pre/pro with a brand new Lexicon MC-8 unit in my home theater (a 61st birthday present to myself). I’ve mentioned this to a few people and the inevitable, “Why did you do this?” question has come up several times already. Therefore, to address these inquiries (especially in light of the fact that I was the infamous “950 Beta Tester #1)” here’s the story so far.

When I first received the Outlaw 950 for testing I was very pleased with the quality of its performance and still am to this day. It was my first serious venture into total separates, having previously added some outboard amplification to my DENON 5700 receiver, which opened up the sound considerably. There were some speed bumps and growing pains along the way as the 950 “matured” (some hiss issues which I never personally experienced, and a couple of coding issues that were resolved before final production or in subsequent hardware modifications) but this is not too unusual in a product as electronically complex as a surround processor. The biggest obstacle in all my testing was unplugging and plugging in a huge number of cables each time the product was updated to the next version.

But once stabilized, the 950 worked and sounded very good to me – especially when one considers that it is now available for under $800. I never got overly involved with some of what I consider non-issues (the color of the power button for example or the design of the Outlaw logo) and lived with the few things that I wished could be better. And what were a couple of my minor annoyances?

Probably the biggest annoyance was the delay in the time that it takes for the 950 to lock onto a digital signal – specifically from my Echostar DISH network receiver. Locking on to other digital source signals (like DVDs) was addressed in early software changes during the Beta testing and is sufficiently fast to be practically unnoticeable. However, something about the 950/Echostar digital connection was never really totally satisfying to me. True, you can “force” the 950 to use the analog signal and the delay disappears, but then you also lose any DD 5.1 soundtracks, especially on HDTV broadcasts, etc. I should also note that I was using TWO Echostar receivers, an HDTV Model 6000 and a PVR 501 so this problem occurred on two sources. What it basically came down to was this: whenever I would channel surf there would always be a several second delay before the sound locked in and that became very noticeable – especially in contrast with my upstairs system, which also uses a DISH receiver coupled to my old DENON 5700. The almost instantaneous lock onto a DISH signal upstairs was in sharp contrast to what was happening in my HT. In fact I found myself avoiding watching normal television (except for HDTV) in the HT because of the delay.

A second item that I had adapted to was the inability of the 950 to adjust the volume for different sources and retain these settings. Not all sources provide the same volume. For example, I usually use a volume setting of around –20dB on the 950 for watching DVDs (all volumes relative, of course, to initial settings on your amps, etc.) and a volume of about –40 for Echostar. Imagine what happens if you finish a DVD and then start watching TV! If you don’t quickly drop the volume ~20dB your ears (and your neighbors) are in for a sonic shock. Ironically, the lock-on delay of the 950 actually helped here since you had a several second “window of opportunity” to turn down the volume (some would probably call this a feature!). But I didn’t always win the race until, like Pavlov’s Dogs, the 950 rang my bells a few times.

Granted, these are things that one can live with and I have to say that once the 950 was locked in to a signal, with the volume adjusted to my liking, the sound it produced was very, very nice indeed. In fact, it’s still among the best sound I’ve heard in my theater, especially in the surround modes. That is, until I heard Lexicon’s Logic 7.

Now I’m not going to try to tell you that Logic 7 is vastly superior to the surround modes on the 950, but there are some subtle differences. Some have termed it a bit smoother transition from speaker to speaker during sound pans. The term “clarity” crops up in some descriptions. Others have suggested that the 950 almost seems to have a subset of the processing capabilities of the Lexicon. I’m sure all of this contributes to the delicate difference in the sound field. The quality, quantity (greater processing capability) and the design of the circuitry also plays a role. And a lot of this translates into dollars.

Logic 7 is something that has to be experienced to be understood. No words can substitute for actual listening. It is a sound technology that has developed over a long period of time. Of course, Lexicon’s advantage is that Dr. David Griesinger, the architect of Logic 7, has a head start of almost two decades on Outlaw and the others, and is intimately involved in the design and direction of the technology. There is a fascinating interview with Dr. Griesinger at

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Lexicon/dg_qa1.html

which explains some of the philosophy of surround processing and also provides links to other relevant information.

Another Beta Tester for the Outlaw 950, Gene Lockaby, owned an MC-12 and when he made the statement that the 950 came very close in sonic ability to his Lexicon there were a lot of people who questioned him on this. Now that I have personally experienced a Lexicon in the exact environment (same connectors, components, etc.) as the 950 I know what Gene was talking about. There is a slight difference, to be sure, but I find it quite interesting how well the Outlaw 950 holds up when compared to the MC-8 in sonic quality.

Don’t get me wrong. If you gave me a choice between the Lexicon and the Outlaw I would choose the Lexicon every time. Aside from the ability to lock onto all signals quicker and to set individual volumes for different sources – two things that I found lacking on the 950, the MC-8 just has so much more flexibility. Much more control over inputs (you can configure the analog inputs as 8 pairs Stereo, or 5 pairs Stereo and one set of 5.1 analogs, or 2 pairs Stereo, and 2 sets of 5.1 analogs), direct access to the processor via RS-232 and software updates, slots for future modules as new technologies emerge, tremendous build quality, an upgrade and support structure that allows Lexicon owners to move up to new models when they are released – the list is almost endless. And with so much control I am finding the menus to be extremely intuitive and quite logical. Once I was pointed in the right direction by an excellent manual I was able to set out on my own and, so far, everything has fallen into place.

I chose to treat myself to the MC-8. But if budget is the primary consideration, then the Outlaw 950 walks very, very proud. While it never did set out to compete with a unit that lists for over 7 times its cost, the 950 does provide some very nice sound with a little less of the convenience and upgradeability. As an aside, I ran into a similar situation when purchasing my first front projector. I finally settled on a (then) $5,800 Sony VW10HT LCD unit. The flagship Sony projector – the G90 CRT – was also about 7 times the cost of my Sony and, while superior, it didn’t produce a picture 7 times better. Of course, I never would have been able to make the jump from a VW10HT to a G90 because, while the multiplier is about the same, my pockets are not that big! Luckily, a Runco CL-710 DLP projector landed on my doorstep (see my HT website for details) so I now have a new “crown jewel” for my home theater. And if the Runco is my video gem, then the MC-8 is the audio equivalent.

In my opinion the Outlaw 950 competes very well with other pre/pros in its general vicinity (under $2,000) and is still a watershed product for those wishing to get into separates. And knowing the Outlaws, I would suspect that they have plans in the works for a follow-up product to the 950. Those who followed all this from the beginning recall that Outlaw initially planned to produce two pre/pros – an “entry” model, which evolved into the 950, and a “deluxe” model, which fell by the wayside as the 950 went through some growing pains. Now that the 950 has settled in I would be very surprised if Outlaw doesn’t take aim at the pre/pro market that starts at $4,000 and up in the not-to-distant future.

In the meantime, I now know what all of those who kept mentioning two words to me were talking about – “Logic 7.” There’s still a lot for me to learn and I’m sure I’ll be tweaking the sound even more as I learn more. At this point I would estimate that I’m at the 90% comfort level with understanding the MC-8’s operation and 110% satisfied with my investment. So that averages out to 100% and is perfect in my book.

For now.

I agree with you on both issues,I have a Panasonic TU DST52 HDTV tuner and there is a
3 second (average) to lock onto the digital audio, It must be the the 950,also it clicks
when CD tracks are changed. This and the programable settings for each input must be addressed on the "next" 950 or an upgrade in the software.

Robert,

Thanks for sharing an interesting perspective / some observations on the 950.

I've had my 950 for a few months now and remain convinced that it is one of the best home theatre buys out there. I have no quibbles at all with its performance or feature set. (I new what I was buying before I did, so how could I subsequently lament that it is lacking something?)

A comparison of the 950 to a product that for 99%+ of the population is unattainable is interesting - but not really "news," unless the result was that the 950 won the comparison ("man bites dog"). However what I think you've written is not that "dog bites man" but rather that "dog and man bite each other - no clear winner declared." Because for every time someone throws "Logic 7" into the fight, the response is "$799"!

I've owned a Lexicon product with Logic 7 (a CP3+) before, and while I'm sure that Lexicon has evolved that technology many steps since, in my mind it was never a particularly strong draw. There might be a day when the feature set of a high-end Lexicon product would make it worth my while to go for it, but that's highly unlikely so long as Outlaw keeps turning out products like the 950.

Besides, while products like the Lexicon are "upgradeable" both in terms of hardware and software, my guess is that a future hardware upgrade alone for the Lexicon will cost more than a brand new 950-successor. I hate to say it, but at $799 the 950 borders on "disposable". If you tire of its terrific performance and features after three, or four, or five years, post it on ebay and move on! You'd be much less likely to do that with something that cost $2-4K now wouldn't you?

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

I find it interesting that people who supposedly are after the closeset reproduction of a soundtrack to what the mixers and directors heard during the final mix of the film (isn't that what THX is all about?) are willing to chuck that out the window and process the signal through an aftermarket process like Logic 7. It does not make sense to me to pay big bucks for a preamp only to have it "change" the sound from what is on the DVD. I've heard Logic 7 myself and frankly, Dr. David Griesinger or not, find it or any after-the -fact processing distracting and sounding less desirable when played through a good system. Fans of Logic 7 may disagree with this but this is my view.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 29, 2003).]

Duplicate post

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 29, 2003).]

Congrats on the very nice upgrade, RAF. It sounds like a great step up. The fact that the improvements seem to focus mainly on additional features and flexibility goes a long way to reinforce your greatly-appreciated feedback during the 950's beta testing. And if you are going to step up from the 950 for additional flexibility, the MC-8 seems like a first-rate way to do it. Enjoy!

The signal acquisition delay can be a pain -- I finally tracked down a digital cable box that provides a digital audio output for all channels (Pace Micro DC-510), but when shifting between formats (not every channel, but when you went from a channel with a native digital signal to one with a PCM digital output generated by the box) the pause drove my wife nuts. We're leaving it in analog mode in general, but I do switch back to digital when it's just me.



Hmm.. That's a pretty good way of putting it, Jeff. Or perhaps, "apples and oranges both taste good?" Seriously, I appreciate RAF's comparison of the two -- there is obviously a great deal of disparity between the two units, but it is still interesting to hear.

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

LOGIC7 wasn't introduced till the DC-1. NONE of the CP series processors (including the CP-3+) had LOGIC7. In fact, prior to the release of the DC-1, Lexicon's ambience extraction modes were limited to only 5 channels, not 7 (they still used 7 speakers, but the side speakers duplicated the signal of either the Front L&R or the Rear L&R - user's choice). L7 was different from the ambience extraction modes on the CP series because it actually extracted 7 distinct channels of content, as opposed to 5.

LOGIC7 has gone through many versions over the years (with some newer versions sounding worse than the ones they replaced). But it's come a long, long way since the DC-1; and it continues to evolve. Even the version Robert is listening to on his MC-8 is a significant improvement from the L7 that was on Lexicon's flagship model MC-12 when it was first released.

You can't really judge the surround processing available on the MC-8 by listening to the older DC/MC models, let alone go by the CP series processors. That's like responding to someone praising PL II on the 950 by saying your that the Pro Logic mode on your old receiver left you feeling it wasn't a "particularly strong draw". Fact remains that LOGIC7 is the number one reason for buying Lexicon processors.

Best,
Sanjay

Can't disagree with personal preference. However, I'm curious which type of LOGIC7 you listened to; though they may share the same name, the matrix decoder used on 2-channel material is different from the post-processing applied to 5.1/6.1 channel sources. In either case, what did you find "distracting" and/or "less desireable" about the sound?

Best,
Sanjay

I listened to it at a studio DVD authoring facility on at least 3 occasions, and I'm sure they were the latest versions of the system (Lexicon is widely used in professional facilities).

Processing that varies the soundstaging I spot instantly, and this is distracting to me. Keep im mind that I work on movie dubbing stages and hear soundtracks in their original master form, so I pick up on differences. Personally, I think in a properly set-up system, what the engineers do in the vast majority of instances sounds worse when "second-guessed" by electronic means. Especially in a system set up for 7.1 (even with the back surrounds mirroring the sides), I find the envelopment and integration with the mains very satisfactory, certainly better than Logic 7 or any other post-processing. Personally I think users should concentrate more on their room acoustics and setup than "band-aid" processing that supposedly makes thing "better than original".




[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 29, 2003).]

Thanks for the comments. As usual, a number of "spirited" debates spin off.

A few comments of my own.

Yes, as I mentioned, I still consider the 950 to be a remarkable product for its price point - even more so now that it lists for less than $800. I stand by my statement that I would not have upgraded to anything else out there in the under $2000 category since I couldn't have really justified this. However, the MC-8 is a different story entirely for the reasons I've already outlined.

(Interesting sidelight: I got a personal message from one of the Outlaws once he became aware of my upgrade. His exact words were, "Robert, I would have been crestfallen if you told me that you had switched over to a Rotel. But since you are moving on to an MC-8 I can't really fault you for that.")

I'm still a big fan of the 950 and it will still serve me well upstairs (no delay problem since I use the analog DISH inputs there).

When Gene Lockaby (the 950 Beta Tester with a Lexicon MC-12) stated that the 950 competed favorably with the MC-12 sonically a lot of eyes (ears?) were opened in disbelief. He never did say it sounded better, merely that the sound was very, very close. And factoring in the price differential, the 950 became a "Best Buy." Now that I've lived with my MC-8 a bit I know exactly what Gene was talking about and I echo his statements. Nobody should consider my move to a Lexicon as a knock on the 950. In fact, it shows how good the 950 is in most areas. There is absolutely no substitute for comparing two pieces of equipment in the same room and with the same components, wires, speakers, etc. and I was able to do this in a manner of speaking. (I didn't do a strict A/B test since that would have involved an unfathomable number of connections, etc.) But living with the 950 for longer than most (over a year and a half) I feel confident in my ability even at my advanced age(g) to be able to compare what I'm now hearing on my MC-8 with what I heard on my 950. Lots of familiar sights and sounds.

The Logic 7 thing is relatively new to me and I like it. A lot. It seems to smooth everything out in sound pans and I find myself choosing the L7 option in just about every case (analog bypass, of course, for 5.1 and 2 channel analog sources like DVD-A and SACD would be an exception). It's there, it sounds great, and it's configurable. And for those who wish to use the "final mix on the film" the MC-8 allows you to chose the mode of your choice. You aren't limited to Logic 7. Everything is there, including THX Ultra, Neo-6, ES, EX, you name it, the MC-8 has it. You can even turn all the processing off and customize the sound to anything you want to dial in. And the biggest improvement is that I'm not limited to what's currently in the software. Lexicon has a history of adding new sound modes as they are developed. I already have an RS-232 null modem cable ready for any upgrades. (Let me make a prediction here: The next Outlaw Pre/Pro - and you know there will be one, just a couple of years later than they originally said - will offer SW upgradability and other goodies. But that's in the future, not now.) The bottom line here is that Logic 7 comes with Lexicon products, but nobody is forced to use it. There is a full menu of other options.

Nobody who has chosen a 950 should have any reason to second-guess their decision. It's a fine product and contains many of the features (but not all) of the more expensive products. And, as one of you pointed out, at a $799 price point it can almost be considered disposable for future enhancements.

On the other hand, while the upgradability of the MC-8 is a nice feature in itself, another characteristic of the Lexicon experience is that they have traditionally offered a very generous upgrade path toward new technology (I believe there was an inexpensive way to move from an MC-1 to an MC-8) so this relieves the sting of the original purchase price. Of course, Outlaw's direct marketing approach (avoiding dealer networks) doesn't allow the same degree of flexibility as Lexicon. If this were the case, you wouldn't be able to buy a 950 for $799.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03) Now includes Runco CL-710 DLP FP and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited July 29, 2003).]

One other item I forgot to mention:

Someone asked me to compare the MC-8 to the 950 in terms of locking onto a digital signal from my DISH network receiver. While this was very annoying with the 950 in this mode I find that the MC-8 locks on so much faster that it is a non-issue. It's not instantaneous, but it is so quick that I don't lose any dialogue when channel surfing.

I'm very satisfied with this aspect of the MC-8's performance. It was my biggest complaint with the 950.

Also, if you haven't in a while, check out my HT website. It's redesigned with a lot of new items.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03) Now includes Runco CL-710 DLP FP and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited July 29, 2003).]

Mi Casa Studios, by any chance? If so, I'd be even more curious if you could answer to my original question about whether you were listening to 5.1 or 2-channel material when you demo'd LOGIC7. I'd really appreciate an answer. With all due respect to your professional experience and ability to "pick up on differences", I don't understand how the soundstaging could have been varied by LOGIC7 processing. When L7 is applied to a 5.1 soundtrack, the front channels are left untouched: 3 channels, 3 speakers; what's there to process? The only processing that occurs is the extraction of surround-back content, the difference being that L7 creates stereo rears rather than the more common mono surround-back channel extraction. Is that ONE difference what you were able to "spot instantly" and was it so "distracting" compared to EX/ES decoding or even the 950's CES back channel extraction? What, in your experience, was LOGIC7 doing to hinder "integration with the mains"? I ask because you obviously have a personal dislike of LOGIC7 but have yet to give any reasons why.

Soundhound, because I've read your posts and know your experience in the industry, I'm reluctant to dismiss your comments. However, had I read those same comments from anyone else, I'd conclude that they came from someone who'd never heard LOGIC7. Seriously, if someone told you that they didn't like to use the 950's CES mode because the additional processing made the vocals harder to hear and made the bass too bloaty, wouldn't those comments leave you wondering if they'd actually heard CES processing?

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay:

It was not Mi Casa, but one of the major film studios in Hollywood.

I really don't want to get into a debate on this subject - I simply prefer the sound of the film the way it was mixed. I can hear the artifacts of signal processing like Logic 7 (and I'm not singling out this process - it applies to all of them) and this creates a disconnect for me with the mains. Fake stereo is fake stereo, no matter who wrote the programming, and I simply don't care for it.

Personally, I have a live-end/dead-end type of room which creates all the diffusion in the surounds I could care for.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 29, 2003).]

I'm with SH on this one. I don't think Soundhound is comparing Logic 7 to any other matrixed soundfield as much as he's saying that none of them take the place of, or in any way enhance a discrete multichannel mix.

I especially, personally, do not get the idea of a matrixed surround version of a
stereo mix. The very idea is illogical (pun intended).

Once I've heard any discrete multichannel source on any given setup, then any matrixed soundfield is easily and instantly apparent.

Some like it, some do not. Playing re-mix engineer with a remote control makes little sense to me. DD-EX, Neo 6, DPLII, Logic 7, Bass Enhance, etc. Who's implementation is better is a non-issue to me...notwithstanding all argument to the contrary.

Not looking for a debate either, especially one having to do with personal preference (I can't tell you what to enjoy). However, if are going to make claims about a process that I am very familiar with, then I'm going to ask you to back up your claims with details. To that end, it's unfortunate that you chose not to answer a single one of the questions I asked you.

If you don't like post-processing (L7, THX, CES, etc) of a discrete multi-channel signal, then so be it. No argument here. However, the reasons you gave for your dislike of the process contain descriptions that no one familiar with LOGIC7 would recognize.

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay:

Just what details do you want!? I said I hear steering artifacts, as in I hear steering artifacts. It makes the mains not integrate as well as without post procesing. What part of that don't you understand! Simply put, every post processing process I've heard (including Logic 7) sounds cheesy and artificial compared to what I hear (and prefer) on the actual film mixing stage, which of course is full discrete. My Logic 7 comparisons were "this is the uncompressed master unaltered" and "this is the uncompressed master with Logic 7 processing" I liked the unaltered presentation.

I'm happy you seem to like Logic 7. Have a good day.




[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 29, 2003).]

Are you sure that's what he was doing; i.e., comparing a 2-channel soundtrack via LOGIC7 decoding vs playing back a discrete multi-channel version of the same soundtrack? If so then that completely misses the point of matrix decoders. For example: Dolby didn't create PL II to "take the place of, or in any way enhance" DD 5.1 soundtracks; PL II is supposed to be used when you don't have a discrete multi-channel mix available.

Best,
Sanjay

Sorry...I believe 2 channel IS a 'discrete multichannel mix'.

I agree with SH. I immediately understood the point of his post. I should try to be more adept at expressing myself in print, but this time I really think it's not necessary.

'Cheesy' pretty much says it.

So you're going to evade the same question? I'll repeat my question to you in a way that will avoid the term "discrete multichannel": Are you sure that's what Soundhound was doing; i.e., comparing a 2-channel soundtrack via LOGIC7 decoding vs playing back a 5.1/6.1 channel version of the same soundtrack?

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay,

Sorry about my error re the CP-3+ and LOGIC 7. Funny because I usually never make misteaks.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

Sanjay:

You made your point, my friend. Now let's go to our corners and enjoy the decoding algorithm of our choice.

Let's keep things non-combative in here. No sense in making this forum like every other forum.

Soundhound,

Sorry, didn't mean to make you resort to exclamation points.

As for details, I was curious what artifacts you were hearing. I'll use your example of the fully discrete 6.1 mixes you listen to on a film mixing stage. If you apply L7 to a 6.1 mix, the ONLY processing that occurs is the surround-back channel is gently moved between the two rear speaker. This "processing" is the equivalent of adjusting the volume balance between the two rear speakers (based on activity in the Left & Right surrounds). None of the other channels are touched. With that in mind, I guess what I 'don't understand' is how this could mess up front/surround integration or what matrix decoding artifacts (pumping? leakage? hesitation? etc) you hear from such a benign process.

Anyway, no need to respond to my questions if you don't want to; the answers are not worth getting you in a tizzy. However, I did want to respond to the questions in your last post. Heartbroken you don't seem to like it, but have a nice day nonetheless.

Best,
Sanjay

Edit: I guess you removed the term "6.1" from your post.

[This message has been edited by sdurani (edited July 29, 2003).]

Fair enough Phil; I wasn't attempting to be combative, but I will end my participation in this thread.

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay:

The processed activity in the rears is exactly what I hear and It sounds false, mechanical, and definately not what the mixing engineers had in mind. I know what the original elements sound like, and how they are mixed into the surrounds, and this is not what I hear with post processing. I don't know how else to explain it - it is a night and day comparison for me when I hear it, and every time I opt for the unaltered version. It messes up the integration with the fronts for me, and again, it's not something I can put a scientific scale to other than I don't like it.

I deleted the "6.1" because some films are mixed in 5.1 with the surrounds split left and right.

Personally, I think that Logic 7 is the pinaccle of DSP processing for movies. I like the DSP processing that Yamaha has (didn't like Sony's for example). I really liked the CES modes on the Outlaw. Logic 7? No competition.

As for music, I'm strictly a 2 ch guy, and the MC-8 does that very well too.

It's interesting in that I find myself finatical about not using any kind of processing for music, but for films I certainly finds that it can enhance the experience. Maybe because, 1) film soundtracks aren't "real" and are artifically recorded on a "Foley" stage, and, 2) DD/DTS are lossy compression schemes that have adequate at best fidelity in the 1st place. DSP IMO can help in both areas. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but it can make the whole video/audio movie watching experience more engaging, IMHO.


Also, AFAIK, software upgrades from Lexicon are free. It's the hardware upgrades that cost money, just like most gear.


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited July 30, 2003).]

Soundhound,

I'm confused by the comparison you described as: "My Logic 7 comparisons were 'this is the uncompressed master unaltered' and 'this is the uncompressed master with Logic 7 processing' I liked the unaltered presentation."

How were you able to make such a comparison? Logic 7 (in its 5.1 variety) is designed to operate on a Dolby Digital or DTS source, both of which are compressed formats, and lossy ones at that. Are you saying that you played a source in one of these formats through Logic 7 and compared the result with an uncompressed master? In that case, you're also comparing the uncompressed master with a significantly compressed source before the Logic 7 processing was even applied to it. Since for 5.1 sources Logic 7 actually performs very little alteration (none to the front L-C-R), it’s more likely that the artifacts and degraded signal you report are due to the format compression.

But if you were somehow able to get an "uncompressed master" into the Lexicon for comparison purposes, would you please explain how you did that?

You also said something puzzling earlier: "I simply prefer the sound of the film the way it was mixed. I can hear the artifacts of signal processing like Logic 7 (and I'm not singling out this process - it applies to all of them) and this creates a disconnect for me with the mains." The thing that confuses me is that the vast majority of the sound you hear in a film is not natural recording, it's heavily post-processed even on the master tape, using all kinds of professional tools to manipulate the perceived ambient space and steer content between channels. Engineers don't create each soundwave by hand, they use equipment--most of it by Lexicon, in fact--to manipulate the entire soundfield. So if such manipulation is "bad" when applied afterwards to the master tape, why is it any less bad when applied before it?

It's perfectly fine to have personal attachments to a way of doing something, and I can quite understand how given your professional involvement you would come to begrudge any processing after the recording had left the engineer's board. But when Logic 7 post-processing involves ambience extraction of information cues that were placed there by the engineer (using Lexicon Pro gear), it’s hard to see that as the violation you make it out to be. Your personal preference and respect for the sanctity of the recording engineer’s role is understandable. However, I question the lengths you go in defending it, by claiming there are problems with a surround processing mode that do not at all match the experience of anyone familiar with it--including respected members of your industry like Mi Casa’s Brant Biles, who has been using matrix-encoded Logic 7 to create the Dolby Surround mixes of some spectacular soundtracks. When played back through a Lexicon home pre/pro, Mi Casa’s L7-encoded tracks recreate the original 5.1 mix with often jaw-dropping fidelity (anyone with a Lexicon who catches a Dolby Surround broadcast of The Lord of the Rings is in for a happy surprise). Far from being “distracting” and “less desirable,” well-designed surround processing can honor and extend the sound engineer’s intent by extending it beyond the limitations of the delivery medium, as in extending the contents of one pair of surround channels into two, in a natural and believable way. For anyone who can get past the theoretical mindset of “well, it’s not what’s on the original master tape,” they may be surprised to find that it sounds better.

Cheers,
Philip Brandes

The Lexicon processor (professional) had inputs to accept an AES/EBU bitstream from a digital audio workstation for the demo I heard.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I just think that post processing sounds bad to me and spoils the engineer's intent in a film mix. Sometimes I am a music engineer on a film mix and I know what my intent was better than Lexicon or other silicon device. There are no "hidden cues" put into the music mix just waiting to be unlocked by Logic 7. Considering how much a film's mix is agonized over, don't you think that if something were missing that Logic 7 could "fix", that this would be done during the mix by less arbitrary means? And if Logic 7 processing is as you say, added during a film's mix, wouldn't using Logic 7 at home constitute double processing of the same material? The music's soundfield is definately not created artifically - I know this because I am at the orchestra recording sessions and know how it's recorded and mixed. Everything possible is done to make sure the music is not changed.

If you and Mi Casa like Logic 7, great. Just please don't try to trample my opinion because I question somebody's "sacred cow". To me, a properly set up system sounds better without modifications to the sound. For me, it's a question of why bother trying to get the best sound equipment possible, the best cables, the best amplifiers and speakers if i'm going to filter it through some process that changes it?



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

Why would any bother with the Accuphase/Meridian/Linn/Classe/Madrigal/Theta models if the superiority of L7's decoding algorithm over all other choices can not be denied either by professionals or aficionados of AV? Don’t forget to cut some slack (and credit validity) all the way from the bottom into the top tier of expertise for preferences in audio implementation, user interface, DAC brands and post processing.
I have decided that it is past due to instruct all of you in the superiority of ‘CHICK FLICS” over all other possible genres of film.
I am highly qualified which should rate respect for the definitive and uncontestable validity of my arguments as regards ‘chic flics’. It’s one-half the family business throughout history; I come from a long line of ‘chicks’ my family is well represented by chics with a lifetime of professional and specialized chic industry behind them.
On the other side of the coin, a further basis for the irrefutable evidence my arguments are based upon. I have known many models of ‘chics’ over the years and have expertise in the current street value (new and used) as produced by the various manufactories. I have extensive opportunity to compare in controlled conditions in my own system all versions of software and hardware including most recent models of ‘chic’s launched.

Since I trump all expertise levels in this forum, both as a professional (in the industry) and through a massive amount of demo’s and models both in-home and at professionally installed demo locations (teas, charity functions, showers, weddings, funerals and La Bare).

I will now explain to you why my opinion as regards ‘chic’ flicks is superior (and Final) to all other categories, (Action-adventure, Sci-Fi, Horror). I will require you to bias rate my instruction due to the fact that I was in the neophyte sub-minority of females who had never acknowledged the superiority of ‘chic flicks’ in my past. However the sheer preponderance of professional and highly trained experts in this field have forced me to capitulate.

Who can refute massive numbers of professional females dragging dates to a 3rd viewing of “Titanic” and informing a spouse they are constructing a ‘hat’ for the “Ya Ya Sisterhood” themed monthly meeting of their Stock Portfolio Club.

Now while you all retrieve or purchase your latest studio-version, professional grade female equipped with box of Kleenex. for sealing leaky outputs, and high-end tonearm with diamond stylus, low pass home accessory filter and high-pass WAF AV filter - your homework assignment is to review a less demanding topic.

Amps on Top or Bottom, or, The care and feeding of Electrons.
here
RAF nice review! Good to hear from you and happy you got your Runco in the system finally...

I guess you can't diss Mom, Apple Pie, the U.S of A., and Logic 7 here. How sad!

SH,

Sure you can. Because Philip, Sanjay, and myself value Logic 7, we want to be able to tell if you don't like Logic 7 because you "just don't like it" or because there's something wrong with Logic 7 that we should get on the horn with Lexicon about.

You and I frequently disagree about things (such as tubes vs. solid state) but I respect you a lot, and I'm sure that both Philip and Sanjay respect you, too. I know them both personally, and I can tell you that they're not attacking you: just trying to dig for information.

Also, you have to understand that we at the SMR Forums often see people coming in and bashing Lexicon without ever having heard one of their products. It's almost a habit of course to start digging for clarification the moment we hear a disparging remark about Logic 7 because until we can get clarification, we never know if it's a valid complaint or not.

I don't think you're a "basher", but then, I know you better than Philip and Sanjay do.


Jeff

Jeff:

I'm not saying there's anything at all wrong with Logic 7 - I'm sure it was doing exactly what it was supposed to do when I heard it. I simply heard the processing as such, and didn't like it, that's all.

Actually, in fact, most of it is not done by Lexicon. Lexicon is famous for it's world class reverbs. Companies like Drawmer, Avalon Design, Focusrite, Summit Audio, Manley, etc., are known for dynamics processors, and EQ, along with Pro Tools, Motu, Steinberg, Apogee, Tascam, Kurzweil, etc., on the digital hardware/software side.

Really, the point is not whether there is any processing done in the production/mastering of a multichannel audio
source. It's more the question of whether or not it should be applied during playback.

I agree with SH. There should be this much fervor on the subject of room acoustics, placement, phase adjustment, etc. to get what was intended to the ear as correctly as possible in any given setup.

OTOH, if processing your soundfield at playback is your thing, that's fine. Lexicon is a very good Company that produces very good products.

I'm sure Lex fans know this, but for those who don't, the Lex 960 multichannel digital effects system is in the neighborhood of $15,000.00. I don't see how anyone thinks he or she can improve upon the effects of this sort of proccessing (in the right hands)after market with the pale versions that are available to the consumer.

I don't use DSP modes because they sound lame to me. SACD, DVD-A and movie soundtracks are getting better and better. Blue ray is on the way. SH has his preference...I agree with him but even if I didn't, I would certainly respect his choice.

Understood, though you lumped it in with Bose on one of the other threads, and that's obviously a gauntlet thrown down to Lexicon lovers. I'm not sure what your motivation was there.

Anyway -- and this isn't an attack -- I'm curious about one thing: you claim that you don't like the altering of the sound from the original master, yet you're a big tube advocate. To me, that seems contradictory.

Jeff

Jeff:

I really don't want to get into a tube/transistor debate! Suffice to say that I have a system that is considered as a whole - the parts complement each other. I have arrived at my particular configuration after day-to-day direct contact with the orchestral music I work with, and what I have, including the tubed equipment, translates that sound to me from the musicians on the scoring stage to my room with the best representation of timbre, soundstaging and dynamics. Isn't that the whole idea?

Any generalizations such as "all tube gear distorts the sound" or "all solid state gear sounds hard and brittle" is nonsense, because it simply is not true in either case. There are good and bad examples of both technologies. I use whatever gets me closest to my goals, tube or transistor, analog or digital.



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

Ah, but if tubes didn't affect sound, then there wouldn't be much of a point in advocating them. Hence, they must affect sound, and surely, you're not suggesting that tubes are more accurate than solid state, are you?

Sorry for beating a dead horse. And if this thread is making you uncomfortable, I'm perfectly willing shut up and go away! (Do you realize how many people wish they could get me to do that? Count yourself fortunate!)

Jeff

Jeff:

I really don't comprehend what you are trying to get at here - yes, please drop the subject.

*thunk*

Subject dropped.

So, wanna talk politics next, or religion?

Jeff

David Griesinger for gov'na of California?

I like it!

Hello Everybody!

I've had many people listen on my 950 system in the last few months. Most of them prefer stereo playback over the other processing modes like DPL II or DTS NEO, at least on my system. Soundhound himself visited last year, and listened to many many soundtracks over the course of a very pleasant afternoon. We listened at that time to pop and country and classic and as well as some of his own recordings. He preferred regular stereo to either DPL II or DTS NEO. In some cases (as with the classic symphony) playing back in stereo sounded more like one would hear in an actual concert. In other cases (as with a modern techno album) the recording engineers he said added psycho-accoustic material deliberately to the two tracks for effects, and those effects sounded more compelling in stereo playback than in DTS or DPL II playback, which wasn't able to decode the effects as well as stereo playback could decode those effects in a real listening room (or rather, in MY real listen room), particularly when played loudly enough to let the sound disperse around the listening room.

Soundhound and others, may feel free to add their own version of the experience.

Best,

Will

Yes, I did prefer the straight stereo listening in Will's setup. In some recordings of popular music the soundfield enhancement processing can image instruments and vocals way out into the room, even behind the listener. In my own room, sometimes you would swear that the surrounds are playing and I have to look at a monitor meter to confirm that I'm indeed listening only to straight non-processed stereo. I have found that post-processing like PL-II or similar spoils the effects of these spatial processes built into the mix and simply folds the random and out of polarity signals into the surrounds. The soundfield is not nearly as rich and enveloping for me when this is done.

Hello, everyone. I have monitored these forums for the past several months and always enjoy the "spirited debates"! I hope everyone remains friends. I received my 950 this week and am very, very pleased. If I could have bought an ultra-expensive pre-pro, I would have considered it. Maybe the 950 is a stepping stone, maybe it is the end result. What surprised me the most is what great sound I achieve in 2 channel stereo through this unit! I personally prefer it to any processed multi-channel output from a 2 channel source. The 950 is a fantastic bargain and everyone here agrees to that. The only question is how much more you get for more money. I discovered that environmental adjustments, speaker placement and my frame of mind have more impact than most electronics. The multi-channel processing for 2 channel sources is very nice when others are around to listen though, because I don't want to give up my "sweet spot". Thanks again to everyone on the forum for helping me choose the 950 and learn more about sound reproduction.
TG

I also prefer listening to 2 channel stero for many sources and ever since I got me DVD Audio player I have been using my analog outs with the stereo bypass on. It sounds better to me than listening to CDs through the digital coax on my dvd player. I got a great set of interconnects from Cobalt Cable and it really sounds nice with 2 channel or multi channel audio sources.http://www.cobaltcable.com/?source=HTD

Nice debate! I have not been here in a looong time and just stopped in to see what is going on. I have nothing to add to the subject other than to say "hi" to all of you (that might care anyway) and to say it is good to see RAF again posting. RAF and Gonk, you are the two people who steered me to the 950, and everyone who has heard my system is awestruck. Thank you both for the honest comments. To the rest of you...take care and smile!

Willscary,

Very good to see you again. You read like you're doin' well. And the hits just keep on playin'.

I used to be a big fan of Yamaha's front effects channel DSP modes (once echo is properly tamed by shrinking the room size setting), but lately I've found it ruins the surround mix. It always messed up rear dialogue (ex: "Strange Days"), but on recent releases it's affected any type of non-traditional dialogue (ex: narration on "Adaptation") and sound field cohesiveness (ex: "Star Wars Ep. 2").

Since I know the DSP hasn't changed, either my tastes have evolved, or the film mixes themselves have changed. I strongly suspect that film mixes have actually gotten more sophisticated over time, with better mixing equipment and better human understanding of multi-channel.

I should be testing a THX Ultra 2 receiver soon; it will be interesting to see how that post-processing affects things and whether that is preferred over straight DD-EX.

-avi

P.S. Yes, Jeff, we need to get together; I've been traveling.

SH,
In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Durani will argue his cause ad nauseum. He must have some bot on his computer that notifies him when "Lexicon" or "L7" are mentioned anywhere on the net. I agree with your take wholeheartedly, but no point in arguing with Durani as he will have the last word. I wonder if he is a Lexicon plant? He and his buddy Shawn Fogg.

Minuteman,

Sanjay, Shawn, Philip, and I are all regulars at the SMR Forums. We are indeed all fans of Lexicon's products, and we'll be the first to admit it. However, we ourselves are the first to beat up Lexicon when they provide less than excellent quality or service. Fortunately, this happens extremely rarely, but as anyone from Lexicon can attest, we're hardly sycophants or "plants".

Now, in case you haven't noticed, Sanjay's last post on this thread was July 29 -- sixteen days ago. So it seems to me that the one who's trying to argue this point "ad nauseam" is not Sanjay, but yourself.

Actually, I take that back because you didn't in fact argue a point. No, you seem to have just joined this thread solely to insult Shawn and Sanjay.

That being the case, I recommend that you go off for a few days. When you have an original thought -- and I'm sure you will, sooner or later -- come back and contribute. In the meantime, perhaps you should just keep quiet about those posters here who do try to contribute.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited August 14, 2003).]

Ouch! You are brutal! That opening personal attack was un called for, IMHO. I guess he hit a nerve ;-)
C

Yes, you are right. I've removed it. Thanks for keeping me honest.



Well, it's not so much that he hit a nerve as that he comes in out of the blue and starts bashing Sanjay for no apparent reason. And does he use facts or arguments? No, he just resorts to insults.

But you're right: just because he's behaving badly doesn't mean that I should.

Jeff

Why can't we all just get along?

For me it was simple: I really liked what the Cirrus/Outlaw CES modes did for 5.1 soundtracks in a 7.1 speaker system, so I tried Logic 7, and never looked back.

But the thread kind of veered into DSP for 2 ch sources. I agree, not preferred.

Wow. Glad to see that the Outlaw crowd is still opinionated.

willscary,
Good to hear from you, too. Glad to know you are enjoying your system.

And to the others, yes, I've moved on to a Lexicon and will probably never look back. This was a decision on my part and I've explained this elsewhere in this thread so I won't rehash it here.

And yes, now I find the MC-8 to be superior to the 950 because of its great flexibility. Does this make me a "shill" for Lexicon? Absolutely not! But having heard both units I can understand why some people become Lexicon zealots.

It's funny, because it was only a little over a year and a half ago that I was considered by some to be a "shill" for Outlaw! How the times change.


One thing is very clear to me, based on real world use of both units. The 950 lists for $799. The Lexicon MC-8 lists for $6000. While the MC-8 is, in my opinion, superior to the 950, there is no way that it is over 7 times better. This makes the 950 a remarkable bargain in the entry-level pre/pro field (especially when coupled with some of the Outlaw amp combination packages.) I've still not changed my opinion in that regard.

Is the 950 the only entry-level priced separates solution out there? Of course not. But, except for the used components approach, the Outlaw products still represent the best performance for the dollar. In fact, the sound of a 950 can get to be quite close to that produced by the MC-8 (although I have to admit that after living with the MC-8 for about two months now and learning more about tweaking it I prefer the Lexicon's sound). It's just that approaching that level of sound is a bit more cumbersome on the 950 (with the signal acquisition and volume issues I discussed elsewhere.) The MC-8 is just a lot more elegant in that regard, with a menu system and parameters that far exceed the 950's capabilities and tweakability (if that's a word.)

But, to reiterate once again, nothing that I've said above is a knock on the 950. In fact, if price is the major issue, then the Outlaw has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. One of the other 950 beta testers compared the sound produced by the 950 favorably to his Lexicon MC-12 (big brother of my MC-8 and sonically equivalent). I can now confirm his findings.

'Nuff said.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8



[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited August 26, 2003).]

I think it's a matter of personal preference whether the extra money is worth it. Certainly, there're diminishing returns. If I move from a Bose speaker system to an Energy speaker system, I'm going to see a huge improvement. If I move from the Energy to Aerials, I expect to see a big improvement, but as big as from Bose to Energy. If I move from Aerials to something better, I would expect the improvement to be even more subtle.

Same with the MC-8/MC-12. I absolutely love my MC-12, and wouldn't change it for the world. That being said, I had no problem recommending the 950 enthusiastically to Nostaliga, since I know that for his purposes, the 950 was more than sufficient, and a lot less expensive.

Jeff

Well put, Jeff. That's the heart of the matter. Sonically, the 950 gave me very good performance. The only area that was a bit lacking had to do with some convenience issues as I've noted previously in this thread. My installation is a fairly standard one. There are no weird angles in my room and very little that has to be "tuned" to accommodate the space. True, my MC-8 has parameters to allow for speaker delay, etc., etc. and most of those go unused. But when I decided to treat myself to a MC-8 for my birthday (old guys get to do that, sometimes ) I probably went from 95% sonic satisfaction to 99% sonic satisfaction. (I would have said "100%" but I like to leave my options open for future enhancements. Certainly, the MC-8 is perfect for my forseeable needs right now.)

Not everyone can afford to drop $6000 on a pre/pro and the 950, at $799 (or less in a combo package) brings a very similar sound to the affordable level. And at that price it just about reaches the level of disposable hardware so all the competing products that still cost at least a bit more than a 950 while offering some type of "upgradability" really don't offer an advantage in this regard. As some others have stated, you can keep the 950 until the "960" comes out and then just move on to the next level of features. (As an aside, the various support and upgrades that Outlaw has offered on the evolving 950 - less hiss, new chip, etc. - is service "above and beyond" in my book. Kudos to Outlaw for that.)

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited August 27, 2003).]

Actually just to balance the equation a little more, Outlaw's customer service kicks butt all over Lexicon.

There is a small but nagging issue for a small percentage of MC-8/MC-12 owners. If you set the display brightness to anything other than 100%, it buzzes. For example, at 50%, I can hear the buzz at my listening position, about 8 ft away. If I set it to 25 or 75%, the distance of audibility drops to an acceptable 2 ft. (I have mine at 75% now, even though I'd prefer 50%.)

So far, here is Lexicon's official response:

http://www.lexicon.com/kbase/answer.asp?qid=3535

I was OK with this for a while. But I have personally decided that for $6k list, this is unacceptable. So I'm trying to see what Lexicon will do for me behind the scenes.

We all *know* what Outlaw would do... I would have a replacement unit to try within days to compare to the original. (There is a known variation among Lexicon pre/pros in that only a few people have noted this.)

So it will be curious now that I have escalated this a little, to see what happens...

I own an Acura MDX. What you state is not much different than the impression one gets with Lexus vs. Acura.
Acura is the luxury arm of Honda but you would never know it by the way most dealers treat their customers.
In fact many of us (acuramdx.org) go to Honda for routine service for less bucks for the same mediocre service.
It is interesting how uneven customer service can be for products touted as superior.

Kevin,

I don't think it's fair comparing Outlaw support to Lexicon's: their sales and support model is completely different. I think that Lexicon gives absolutely outstanding direct support considering that they're dealer-based.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited August 30, 2003).]

Kevin,
I too have pursued a "fix" for this noise. I don't understand why this issue which seems small will not be addressed by Lexicon. I had not read the Knowledge Base from Lexicon on this topic. It pre-dates my efforts to resolve this problem. Perhaps that's why I've received the "cold shoulder" from Lex. They don't feel it's an issue. I've called them a few times and they said they'd get back to me. It's been over a month and I have heard nothing. There's two threads in the SMR forum that go into this in depth.

Chulona

[This message has been edited by chulona (edited August 28, 2003).]

Dealing with Outlaw regarding any sort of problem you might have or think you have has certainly spoiled me.

Any other purchases I've made, from a car to a toaster oven, causes me to pray I don't have to deal with customer service for any reason. OTOH, it has been such a pleasure to deal with the Outlaws in any capacity, and bears repeating here.

RAF, I just spent a good deal of time reading every part of your excellent site. It made me want to buy stuff. Hats off for a monumental effort that benefits all who enter.

Chulona- SMR was how I put 2 and 2 together in terms of my "buzz". I did get an email from them today suggesting the fix was to run the display at 100%. That's a band aid. I kindly asked back, what if I want to send it back to see if they could fix it? Oh, my dealer is in Massachusetts, I am in CA, so I don't think it makes any sense to try and go through him.


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited August 30, 2003).]

Lexicon's return policy is exactly what you said Outlaw's policy is: that you can return the unit for inspection. The difference is that Outlaw's sales channel is internet-based and Lexicon's is dealer-based.

In other words, you're biting into an apple and complaining that it doesn't taste like an orange.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited August 30, 2003).]

Apples and oranges...I never appreciated likening a $6,000.00 preamp to a perishable good.

If it's a dealer network, then any dealer should be able to address the problem. What if KCB had lived in Minn when he made the purchase and then moved to CA?

In any case, to have called and been told 'We'll get back to you' and heard nothing for over a month, or to be told that your problem is a non-issue is poor service...period.

BoB,

Comparing Lexicon to Outlaw isn't exactly fair, either. Lexicon has outstanding customer service, true, but very few manufacturers indeed have the level of service that Outlaw provides. And remember that Outlaw does it without the middle man, which itself has advantages and disadvantages. (How many people would just love to have gone to a showroom and listen to an Outlaw product before buying?)

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited August 30, 2003).]

Also though, companies that use dealers to sell (and service) their product may do fine even if internet boards say something negative about the company's service. But Outlaw, on the otherhand, depends so much on the finicky internet community to sell their product, and doesn't have a neighborhood dealer on their side to off-set anything negative from the internet boards, which may be another reason Outlaw has to try very hard to give good customer service.

Well, I own a Lexicon and I'm going to be purchasing a 2004 Acura MDX so I guess I'm in for a heap of trouble regarding customer service on both counts, right?



Seriously, let's not lose focus here. Granted, service can vary from dealer to dealer and not having do deal with dealers (lot of "dealing" going on here - almost sounds like a casino!) may have some good points. Since Outlaw is a direct to customer manufacturer they at least have a handle on being responsible for reacting to a customer's problems with no outside variables beyond their control. And on the question of customer service I feel that Outlaw has gone "above and beyond."

When I was a beta tester with Outlaw on the 950 I felt that perhaps the great interactivity and support I had from them was, in part, an accommodation to me because I was testing their 950s (several iterations of it). However, now that the 950 has been in the public sphere for a long time, I continue to be impressed how Outlaw has dealt with issues that have come up with "regular" customers - even when other manufacturers may have taken a different stance on these issues. Kudos to The Outlaws on that.

In fairness, dealer networks cost money to the manufacturers so that a $6000 list price unit with dealers in the mix doesn't represent a product that should be 7+ times better than an $800 one that is sold direct. True, one should expect the $6000 unit to be considerably better and, in my opinion it is in a number of areas. What is surprising is that the difference in sound is not as big as some might expect.

Dealing with dealers can be variable. Luckily, I've had no "display" issues with my MC-8, but if I did, I'd take it up with my dealer. It's funny, but the Lexicon Display issue seems to be running parallel to the 950 "hum" issue. I didn't have an issue with that either, but I realize that others did. As others have mentioned, Outlaw handled that issue very nicely for most concerned, although there still was a bit of grumbling. You can't please everyone. It's just that with the Outlaw direct-to-customer model, there are fewer people involved to screw things up.

The bottom line is are you pleased with your products? You choose a particular item because you like the way it performs. You've probably done your research and your final choice is based on the features and the performance over time. And you also hope that you will have some recourse in case you have problems.

When I decided to purchase a Lexicon I did this based on what others thought of their units, the features that it had, the ability to get answers to questions (SMR forum is a top-notch resource) and an upgrade path (Lexicon traditionally takes care of users with software and hardware updates and generous trade in offers when new products come out.) I realize that things can go wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that my MC-8 is one hellova piece of equipment.

I'm not about to purchase a less capable product because its dealer network is "better" (whatever that represents). My first priority is the quality of the unit I'm considering once I've established my budget. To me, a better support structure for a lesser product is not my top priority. For others, their priorities may differ. And, for the record, I think Lexicon is very responsive to most needs based on what I've heard.

And the same goes for my upcoming Acura MDX. I've looked at a lot of SUVs over the past few months and I'm going with the Acura. I have a very good dealer and in talking to others who have used this dealer find that people are satisfied with him. Sure, there may be some bumps in the road (no pun intended), but once again I'm placing the features, performance and reliabilty I want (and which get a great rating) ahead of the supposed "superiority" of a competitor's dealer network. If something is reliable there is an extremely good chance that you won't have to "deal" with a dealer after the purchase. And if I do, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Yes, quality of support is one thing to consider, but quality of a product is my most important parameter.

My 2 gold (Au) cents, one Aural and one Auto.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited August 29, 2003).]

bossobass,

Thanks for the kind words. They are appreciated. My goal was to offer something that might be useful to a wide audience. Glad to hear that you feel I've had some success with this goal.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

D'Arbignal- I think your point is only somewhat valid, 'course I have some info right now that you don't. 1st, in terms of what is wrong with my unit, the dealer wouldn't be able to fix it anyway. Would have to go back to the factory. Now, you could say that gee, maybe he'd give me a loaner while that happens, or even swap units straight up. I personally think that'd be easy for a $200 receiver, but I wouldn't even suggest that he put up the money it would take to do that in this case. Hence, that's where the mothership comes in.

Oh yeah, said Minnesota up above. For come reason I was thinking about hockey there for a moment. Actually Mass. (I edited the original message.)

Now, I did get a reply back from Lexicon. Admittedly in a nice way, they said that sure I could send it back, but they practically guarenteed that the display would meet *their* specs, and that they wouldn't replace it anyway. They said they'd only replace the display if it failed entirely. (I got the distinct feeling that they have been asked before about this.)

Bottom line, is that yeah, I run the display at 75% and the buzz isn't that big a deal. But for $6k list... And with the experience I had with the 950 and Outlaw... Just makes me think is all...


[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited August 30, 2003).]

RAF,
I agree that product quality should be foremost in a decision on a purchase. I think customer service and attitude is as well. If you have two products that from your view are close to each other in what you want, for me, customer service is a factor that would influence my decision. Did you find Lexicon a significantly better product, from your point of view, that their customer service, as experienced by Kevin and myself, would not be a factor if you were buying again?
Also, I was curious if you researched Parasound (C1/C2), Anthem, etc. before you decided on Lexicon. If you did this research, from your point of view, how was Lexicon significantly better?
Chulona

[This message has been edited by chulona (edited August 30, 2003).]

Jeff,

Your points are valid and duly noted. I'm a fan of Lexicon products for years.

Just don't count KCB out yet...he is a smart guy who doesn't usually take the first answer...to the benefit of every consumer of the product in question.

Chulona,

The difference Lex offers is I/O, matrix modes and tweakability. They are, simply, the best in the world...thus, the price difference.

I have outboard I/O routing schemes that suit me, outboard tweaks that rival the Lex and am not interested in matrixes, so the 950 is, simply, the King of Pre/Pros, to me.

OTOH, guys like RAF and Jeff and Sanjay have their own valid reasons for thinking the same of Lexicon, and I'm sure no one will dissuade them.

The subject of customer service is just icing on the cake for me, in the case of any Outlaw product.

Raf,

Where credit is due, no thanks are necessary, nevertheless, I appreciate your comment.

Price IS an issue for me, so I tend to buy budget pre/pro's or pre/pro/tuners and for the same reason, I don't upgrade every year like some folks do. I won't upgrade what I have unless it's for a "gotta have" feature and of course, the price has to be right. At the time I got my 950, a "gotta have" feature was DPL II.

As I recall, the very first inexpensive pre/pro available to the general public that supported DPL II was the Rotel 1066 closely followed by the even cheaper Outlaw 950. Even today, these two remain two of the least expensive pre/pro's or pre/pro/tuners with DPL II available to the general public -- which is remarkable since they've each been out for about a year and a half.

I don't yet know what will replace my 950. I don't know when I'll replace it. But I'm pretty sure it will be replaced by a budget pre/pro/tuner. I think a "gotta have" feature will be it has to support the STANDARD digital interface for DVD-A and SACD. And I think budget pre/pro's and pre/pro/tuners will support this standard before long since players and receivers (from different brands so they should interoperate) already support it. Hopefully budget pre/pro's and pre/pro/tuners will be available soon that support the same standard interface that receivers are already starting to support.

Best,

Will

[This message has been edited by Will (edited August 31, 2003).]

Will,

The problem is that the digital multi-channel connections that exist today are all proprietary. That means that for Outlaw to use it, they'd have to pay for the use of the scheme, which means that they'd have to pass the cost onto the consumer.

Ideally, someday these paranoid media twits will ease up a bit and agree on an open standard for multi-channel communication. That would make everybody (except those who shelled out for the proprietary connections, I guess) a lot happier.

Jeff

The 1394 audio specifications were completed last year. Audio and Music Data Transmission Protocol version 2.1 is dated May 24, 2002. The 5C/DTCP compliance rules for 1394 audio was completed June 10, 2002. There is currently a Pioneer receiver and DVD player that handles DVD-A and SACD, that uses this standard digital interface. A Sony receiver and player using this standard digital interface is expected in a few months (it's from Sony so it supports SACD but probably not DVD-A however) and, even Denon recently announced products that use the standard interface (even though Denon previously used it's own proprietary digital interface).

So yes, there is a standard for DVD-A and different brands are following it to promote interoperability between the brands.

See the following thread for more up-to-date info: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...0&pagenumber=10

Best,

Will

Hmmm. I wonder what the hold up is, then. Did all the major manufacturers sign up to use that format?

Jeff

chulonga,
Yes, before I decided to go with Lexicon I looked at the other options out there but in my opinion Lexicon was the only true upgrade choice. As others have very elegantly stated, Lexicon products are, in my estimation, the absolute best with their proprietary matrix modes and their tweakability. An additional factor which finally sealed it for me was the commitment to upgradability that Lexicon makes to its customers. What can't be upgraded by either software or firmware releases is handled by a very generous upgrade path. For example, when the MC-8 was introduced owners of the MC-1 were able to trade in their equipment at a substantial savings. It's still going to cost you some money, but it's much closer to the upgrading by throwing away the old pre/pro philosophy that some people prefer (once you've made the initial investment commitment.)

Quite frankly (and not to ruffle feathers here, but just my opinion) based on the performance and features of the 950 I consider moves to Anthems, and many others out there not really significant upgrades but lateral moves. The 950 sounds just about as good and the additional features that contribute to the higher prices of these other units still don't get you Logic 7, the same degree of tweakability and, of course, the upgrade path of the Lexicon family.

A bit cultish? Perhaps. But the more I use the MC-8 the more I'm convinced that it is a significant upgrade. I'm not the least bit (no pun intended) sorry I treated myself to this new pre/pro.

However, to bring this into focus, I fully realize that there are a lot of people who can't afford to get an MC-8 or similar so I wish to remind people of how good the 950 competes sonically for an amazing price. (That's what Gene Lockaby was saying in his beta test of the 950). About the only other thing I might suggest would be looking for some of these pre/pros on the used market once more of them appear. That's another budget path to consider.

I hope this answers your questions regarding my position on this. I was happy with the sound of my 950 and relatively pleased with its operation (as outlined elsewhere) and getting a Lexicon was the only thing that I really considered seriously.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited September 01, 2003).]

Robert,

I gotta jump into this thread again given your last post.

I hear what you are saying - but I think you've assumed / oversimplified way too much when you state (and I paraphrase) that those who can't afford a Lexicon can be happily satisfied with a 950. Wow! So what about those of us who can afford a Lexicon (or two) but feel that the incremental benefit of doing so is practically negligible; that spending the additional dollars on a Lexicon would be a waste of good money?

I bought my 950 for its value (not price alone). I choose not to buy a Lexicon product because, in my opinion, it is of lower value - not because it is unaffordable. There's a serious difference - at least in my mind.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

JM,

I agree with you in essence, which is, of course, why I own a 950.

I am also quite sure that RAF was addressing those who might rather have the likes of a Lex, but truly don't have the disposable do-re-mi.

For myself, I'm waiting for the all-digital signal path to active speakers with digital amps, Blue-Ray and the Hi-Rez connections talked about above. So yes, it's not for the price diff, but rather the wait for the next wave of technology. Who knows, I might get tired of waiting, but for now, the 950 suits me just fine.

I'm sure RAF meant no condescension. He was only pointing out that there is a very affordable alternative (thank goodness).

RAF, thanks for your perspective.
Chulona



[This message has been edited by chulona (edited September 02, 2003).]

Jeff,
The problem with paraphrasing someone's words is that you can easily subvert the meaning of what a person was trying to say. And, since I was the author of the original statement, you surely did this in your message. At no time did I mean to sound condescending and, after re-reading my comments several times I don't think that this is a valid interpretation of my words. Others have obviously seen this too and correctly interpreted my intentions.

If you have been following my comments not only in this thread but in all my talking about the 950, right back to Day One when I was one of the first users of this unit, I've stressed over and over that in price : performance the 950 is extremely hard to beat. I've not changed my position on that one iota.

My latest response was to a question of why I chose to go with a Lexicon rather than a Parsound or an Anthem or something of that ilk and that's what I was addressing. There are certain things, in my opinion, that the Lexicon offers that none of the other units mentioned (and many others) don't. Therefore, to me choosing between the non-Lexicon units, the 950 keeps coming out on top. However, the few things that the MC-8 does better than the 950 is what convinced me to shell out the extra money for the Lexicon. For many others, the incremental improvement is not worth the big jump in cost. Like they say, different strokes for different folks.

What it comes down to is this. The Lexicon costs a lot more than the Outlaw. Some people who would love to have a Lexicon can't see spending the money, either for economic reasons or for not thinking that the extra investment is worth the extra cost. What I did is certainly not what everyone else would do. I was just stating my preference here. At no time was I trying to talk down to anyone.

You state that you feel the difference between a Lexicon and a 950 is negligible. While I would agree that there is very little difference in most sonic modes (the Lexicon has some proprietatry modes that I enjoy but when comparing Apples to Apples the two units are very close) I disagree with your characterization for other features. To me, the tweakability and upgradability of the MC-8 is not "negligible" but significant. You, of course, are entitled to a different opinion.

And yes, I do realize that lots of people can afford a Lexicon and choose not to go that route for whatever reason. But I also realize that lots of people can't afford a Lexicon. bossobass read my words and my intentions correctly. You state that you "hear what I'm saying" but you clearly did not.

I meant no offense and I stand by my original statement.


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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited September 02, 2003).]

Robert,

I took no offence. Nor did I say, or mean to imply, that your position was a condescending one, or that you meant to offend.

All I tried to say, admitedly not very well, is that there is a wide range of value judgements that people will apply to such a purchase, and that for me the value of a Lexicon product is just not there.

Lexicon makes great products. No disputing that at all. Outlaw however, makes products of much greater value - in my opinion.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

Jeff,
I agree with your statement. We are on the same page here. I've touted the value of Outlaw products for a long time here (and taken quite a bit of flak from some people for this!)

Where we have divergent opinions is whether or not it's sometimes worth it to spend extra money to get an improvement that is probably not as great as the additional cost. Not everything is linear and everyone is entitled to spend their money the way they see fit.

In the case of the Lexicon I chose to treat myself and I'm not sorry. And I can't defend my choice on a "bang for the buck" platform. The MC-8 offered me something that the 950 (and a lot of other units) didn't - and that's what I was talking about when responding to chulonga's inquiry.

If everyone purchased equipment based solely on price : performance then there probably wouldn't be any Lexicons or Krells or numerous other "boutique" labels. But that's another topic entirely.

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

My HT (latest update 07/27/03)
Now includes my Runco CL-710 DLP FP
and Lexicon MC-8

[This message has been edited by Robert A Fowkes (edited September 03, 2003).]