What is the end user advantage of Quadruple Crossover Control (Separate settings for Front L/R, Center, Surround L/R, Surround Back L/R) as compared to the sound and features provided by the 950? Will this be a blessing to those of us who have a room of full range speakers. Does it address the double bass problem/feature?

The quad crossover could help if your side surround and rear surround speakers want to use different crossover points - such as a case with tower side surrounds and small bookshelf rears.

The double bass issue was never part of the 950's triple crossover - it had to do with the 5.1 analog bypass (which is apparently being handled compltetly differently on the 990) and the stereo analog bypass.

Quadruple crossover is a good thing, I think! The Outlaw 990's sibling, the Sherwood P-965, didn't even have dual crossovers, which is one reason I wouldn't consider it, since I use the 950's triple crossover.

As to your question about if quadruple crossovers would be needed if you've got full range speakers all around, my understanding is you wouldn't need any crossover, whatsoever. That's assuming of course that you really do use them as full range all around. It's great if you can do that. In fact, that's the best of all worlds, I think. Unfortunately, I can't do that in my setup. For one, I can't position my surround speakers far enough from my walls to be able to use them as full range. Two, I can't afford full range (which to me is +/- 3 dB at 20 Hz) speakers times 7. Times 2 is my limit, financially speaking. So for me, I like the crossover. Even if it's only used as an option, some of the time, it's better to have that option, I think, than not have it available.

There are times when I would like double bass. I know that might sound crazy to some but, since the bass channel is mono and low frequency it has never bothered be to have more than what may be considered appropriate. With the 950 even if you had 20 to 20K speakers they would only get 40Hz at the lowest. Although rare, there where times when I wanted more bass from the system, which I new was there, and could not get it out of the 950. There have been a few occasions where I was playing a cd and noticed no output from the subs, when I switched to 5 channel stereo, the subs would start working. Just was hoping the 990 would provide more control over this.

We'll have to see the manual or wait until folks have units in their equipment racks to get all the details ferretted out - as the Model 950 proved, there's a lot that can go on with bass management.

The change in sub output between stereo and 5 stereo could be due to different crossover points on mains and on other speakers - if the mains are crossed over at 40Hz, most music sources aren't going to cross much over to the sub, whereas if the center or surrounds were crossed over at 80Hz or 100Hz you could easily see more data going to the sub once those channels kick in.

Gonk, you're exactly right. I purposely set my rear speakers at a higher low pass to get more bass to the subs when playing certain types of music. What I would like is a switch that would just give all the bass to all the speakers and I could adjust what frequencies they would get. The sub woofers would get a full bass signal and I would decide what frequency they would get and I could turn it all off and let the 990 decide. Something like that.

The problem I always had with the 950's double bass problem/feature is it doesn't add the bass quite at the frequencies where I want it, unless the only place I want it is the sub crossover frequency and below. Sometimes I want a little extra PUNCH, aka double bass, but at a higher frequency than that. Yes, as you note, one way to do that is to adjust the crossover frequency. And along those lines it's possible to crank the 950's sub output. We've all done that, I'm sure, at one time or another!

But I think a better way to add PUNCH is with tone controls. How do the tone controls of the 990 compare to the 950? Are the tone controls more extreme, the same, or less extreme (aka more "purist")?.

Best, Will