I have had my 990 for a few days and have been able to share the theater room with a couple of neighbors, themselves outlaws in good standing on this forum. They brought along some cd's to sample on the 990 along with about a half dozen sacd's and a DVD or two. Using, Auto Set Up with the microphone we were up and running in a few minutes. We followed that up with a RShack sound level meter and made only minor adjustments. The only thing that I didnt like was not having the set up right on the LCD and having to use a Monitor. We auditioned the CD's, sacd's and played with all the different modes offered for listening. We all agreed that the 990 was a step up from the 950. We found it to be quite! silent, the sound was clean and clear. My Monitor Audio Golds never sounded better. I loved the 950 for theater but found it not to be as musical as I would have liked. But hey, it was a bargain for the price. The 990, still a bargain gives me the music listening pleasure that I didn’t have with the 950 and that is a big plus. I like the upsampling mode for some of the music. The bypass mode for pure sound is always my first option. The sacd cd's sound was outstanding. I just finished a couple of DVD's and believe the 990 is another theater winner. Some of the added options like Pllx were no big deal for me, take it or leave it. The AM/FM turner has good quality sound but something I might never use. I cant give you any feedback on the video switching, because I use audio only. No video going through my 990. The front Sony HT projector gets it feed right from the Elite DV-37. I have Monitor Audio Golds, 7.1 in the theater. A Parasound 2205 amp, and another Parasound 1500 for the rears. A Sony C555ES for sacd, and all Outlaw connects behind the rack. My only issue is with the remote and might have to switch that out. This Preamp/Processor will be a keeper for me, and one I look forward to having for a while.

Good mini-review Dobeman.

I agree with you about not being able to use the menu on the lcd screen on the 990. Maybe they can software upgrade that for people who don't have 480i capabilities. It's a pain having to run an s video cable to my projector just to change the crossover or something.

Also, I agree about the AM/FM tuner. Its much better than the 950's. I find myself leaving it on AM sports talk while playing XBOX. With the 950 it was always a little too noisy to use it for an extended period of time while the 990's tuner is very clean.

The AM tuner is amazing on this thing. I get tons of AM in New York City. I live in a mid-80s building in the city, but I get perfect AM with this thing. I used to get ok reception with the NAD. THis is a step up.

FM is good too, though I haven't tested it as much. I only listen to Fordam FM radio for the most part, and that is only on certain nights. No, I am not 19, but I hate most commercial FM radio.

Shawn

I agree with you that the Monitor audio gold 60's sounded better than ever, and I am still waiting to hear how the 990 will make the silver 5's sound. BTW Sfox, what's wrong with being 19

they really put thought into their products .. the 2 channel sub offset is a great idea !!!!!!! theater soundtracks you want big bottom but stereo clean and pure .. nice touch outlaw .. phono input big plus .. video upconversion all across nice ... dual sub out great .. no more y .. i think this 990 will really hurt anthem cary ead .. etc .. yes you may have some difference in sound etc but not 1000 to 4000 $ differences .. ATI has the 8500 for like 3500$ with lcd display on unit that shows what you are watching.. or sending to your monitor .. nice feature and with ATI sound quality and warranty that is the only other unit i would go for but there is a little more than 2000 $ diff ... outlaw you win hands down in the prepro bang for buck area .. most large manufacturers dont even make prepro any more ..a shame .. recievers ..well you tell me when the value of a unit goes down 30 to 50 % when next years model comes out how well built is it .. AMPS hardly lose value .. adcom ati outlaw any they stay at a level cost even up to 20 30 years .. original adcom 555 and 545 are still going 200 (545) to 600 (555) and they are 20 years old .. !! well i m getting into a whole nother subject so i'll leave saying outlaw is the real deal with a price that wont make ya keel ..

Whenever I see the phrase "not as musical" my ears perk up.

I am completely baffled by statements like this.

Do people honestly hear a difference between a 950 and a 990 when in full bypass mode? Or between any two pre-amps for that matter?

Sure there's differences between processing modes - even the standard ones. But from CD to pre to amp to speaker direct? I'm not sold.

Given equally low noise and distortion, and a flat frequency response, there's only "features" to distinguish between components like pre-amps. Any review of something like the 990 should simply say whether any unexpected noise, distortion, or frequency irregularities were heard (or more likely measured - although the original 950s were an exception) and then get on with a description of all the great gee whiz features and processing modes etc.

In fact I bet my 15 year old NAD stereo pre-amp and the 990 could not be told apart in a blind listening test.

Musicality? I don't buy it at all.

Jeff Mackwood

Jeff, the only reason I can imagine why somebody could be hearing a difference in bypass mode between the 950 and 990 (which I think is unlikely too) is if their subwoofer didn't have phase adjustment, or it wasn't set correctly and the 990's ability to set the sub distance has changed/improved the sound. Keeping in mind, that would only be true of Outlaw and clones since they have analog bass management.

I think you've got a pretty decent point, Jeff. I did not notice a dramatic difference in stereo bypass (a mode that I'm not currently using), and what difference I did hear was likely due to the 990's lower noise floor. Likewise, the improvements in DVD-Audio and SACD were marginal - likely due to the noise floor and the more flexible bass management (which suggests that the A-D-A going on there is done pretty darn transparently). The biggest differences for me have been in cases where the 990 is involved in processing digital signals. Upsampling PCM stereo from CD's, for example. Of course, I can understand if if someone who is just getting the unit settled in happened to get carried away in their praise - it really is a great sounding piece of gear.

i dont know whose post said not as musical .. but if mine is the one your refering to i said nothing about direct or bypass . using the 990 dacs is what i m talking and yes dacs are different ..you are converting 0101010 back to a analog signal .. diff dacs take more or less points to make their analog wave .. and also take a adcom vs a ATI .. the adcom will color a little brighter and the ati more neutral .. yes amps color .. these arent just different boxes.. ...... you have capacitors transformers etc .. look at the adcom upgrade kit.. 200 $ upgrades the transformer and 2 caps and you have a great dynanmic headroom gain .. and if your using a true bypass or direct in stereo you should have no sub out slick .. direct is Left and Right channel as recorded at studio .. you are implementing a x over separating the signal .. if you want direct bypass buy a high end dvd with decoder and a gain assembly for between you source and you amp .. then all you video must go to tv and you select inputs rather than letting the pre pro do it for you .. i have a yamaha dvdc 920 that has dts and dd decoding built in .. and yes back when i had a adcom gdd1 and a gsa700 the direct from the yamaha was better but dac s technology is flying along .. hence the 990 having a usb and other upgrade capability.... other companies have tried this and some succeed for a while .. lexicon dc .. etc some fail proceed .. but i think the folks at outlaw have tried to anticipate as much as possible .. and for the $$ great deal.

Travk13,

I was referring to your post - since it was the one that kicked-off this thread.

While I specifically mention bypass mode, your post did say that you had "played with all the different modes offered for listening" and found the 950 to be "not as musical as I would have liked."

Regardless, I remain just as baffled by comments (yours and anyone else's) regarding "musicality". Is there more noise, more distortion, inaccurate frequency response with the 950 versus the 990? How exactly does one component sound more musical than the next?

I'll extend my claim to include DAC processing as well. I seriously doubt, in the absence of noticeably noise, distortion or non-flat frequency response, that anyone can tell the difference, in a blind listening test, between any two modern-day pre-amps passing a stereo signal through their DACs.

I'm sure that there could be differences heard between multi-channel DAC-processed modes - but not because of the DACs themselves - or at least not likely because of them. I can set-up the DPLII parameters on my 950 to either approximate or not a true concert listening experience from most sources using the user-accessible parameter adjustments. Maybe the 990 can do it better. If so, is this what makes the 950 less musical?

In fact I bet that you could not tell the difference between a purely anologue stereo signal travelling through a 15 year old analogue pre-amp with inherently low noise, distortion, and flat response, and the 990's DAC's passing the signal. Inaudible is inaudible regardless of how it reached your ears. Analogue or digital: they are both designed to simply pass the signal through without you noticing. And except for obviously flawed or failed designs (like the original 950), they all accomplish this - with no difference in musicality (whatever that is.)

Jeff Mackwood

Quote from Jeff Mackwood "Any review of something like the 990 should simply say whether any unexpected noise, distortion, or frequency irregularities were heard (or more likely measured - although the original 950s were an exception) and then get on with a description of all the great gee whiz features and processing modes etc."

I basically agree with Jeff's statement on Musicality. However, I do no agree that he has the right to tell anyone how their review should read.

Paratrooper,

Point understood. I should have said something like "Any review that I would write..."

Jeff Mackwood

ps. If there's one thing that been great about the 990 so far, it's that it's revitalized what had become a pretty quiet Forum of late.

ps. If there's one thing that's impressed me the most about the Outlaw Forum, it's that, with but very few exceptions, its members remain rooted in good solid A/V fundamentals and avoid getting caught up in the temptations of snake oil and the like.

Further apology.

I was of course quoting from and commenting on DOBEMAN's original post - not travk13's later post.

Jeff Mackwood

ok jeff now i understand .. you initially ment dobe s review.. i thought cuz of the post after mine you ment mine ..yes i will agree if you hood say a music hall25 cd player up to a 950 and 990 on the analog out of the music hall to the cd input on either the 990 or 950 and use direct bypass to the same amp you will not notice a diff.. u r using the music hall s dac for both and just using the unit as a gain control ...

Jeff Mackwood,
When I gave my brief review of the 990, I gave a honest option of what we were hearing. You need to go back and read my brief review. Maybe you scanned over it to fast and really didn’t interpret it correctly.

"We auditioned the CD's, sacd's and played with all the different modes offered for listening. We all agreed that the 990 was a step up from the 950".
This is still true. I have listened to the 990 for many hours and still enjoy listening through the different modes offered and still like the sound better then that of the 950.

"We found it to be quite! silent, the sound was clean and clear".
Maybe the sound floor is a large contributor to what we were hearing and what makes it sound more musical

."I like the up sampling mode for some of the music. The bypass mode for pure sound is always my first option".
The up sampling mode was enjoyable listening, and enhanced some of my earlier cd's. The statement I made about BYPASS always being my first option, is true. I like the pure sound with nothing added to distort the true recording. How this took off to be a topic of what is or what is not musical is beyond me. Maybe start your own post with the question: The definition of Musical, and let everyone chime in.

For those of you who actually care what the 990 sounds like, rather than how the spec sheet reads, IMO it is a more "musical" component than the 950. The big improvements, even in video modes, come in low level detail retrieval, and image placement. Listening to a musical vocal track, the voice has much more texture than the 950 ever produced.

On the video side, I've also noticed a slightly better focus in the component video switching, which is very welcome. Using a test pattern, line edges appear sharper. I also suspect a bit greater color depth, but hey, I've only had the thing two days.

For music, I'm not convinced that the bypass mode is better than the upsampling mode of the 990. I think I prefer the 990 to the Sony DVP-S9000ES in terms of sonics, and plan to use the 990 as a DAC for that player, rather than using a bypass mode.

When you guys say a processor is more musical than another... what do you mean by that?
Do you mean that, one unit is better at 2 channel than the other?
So perhaps, the 950 is great for home theater applications, but if you want to listen to a lot of 2 channel than you would be better off to opt for the 990.. ???

Craig

I would say that if you plan on using the DACs in your processor then the 990 is better than the 950, IMO. I think if you are really serious about music, investing in a $300 cd player is probably going to net better results than most DACs built into HT processors. That said, the 990 does sound nice for 2 channel stereo, something I wasn't sold on with the 950.

Could anyone advise how much sound quality improvement btw 990 and 950 on the basic DIGITAL processings available at both processors (ie. DOLBY D, DOLBYEX, DTS, DTS-ES, NEO:6C/M)? Does it worth the upgrade from 950 to 990?

That's something that is difficult or impossible to quantify (as in "it is 7.42 percent better"). The 990's lower noise floor does help in all modes, including Dolby Digital and DTS processing, and depending on the speaker setup the quad crossover and discrete channel delays may also yield some improvements. I've been completely satisfied with my upgrade from 950 to 990, so for me it was worth the upgrade. I'm also making use of some of the extra features as well, though, which certainly helps justify the upgrade in my case. However, the fact that I have been able to (pretty easily) justify the upgrade in my case does not mean that the same will hold true for everyone. If you were planning an upgrade anyway, the 990 certainly warrants a place high on your list of candidates. If you weren't planning an upgrade but find the extra features appealing, then you might want to take one for a test spin - there's always the 30-day return policy if you can't justify the upgrade in your case.

I know this may not be a popular opinion but essentially all pre-amps will sound the same if they are doing their job well. They are supposed to simply transmit sound and not modify (with the exception of DSP modes)it in any way. So I would say, the differentiating factor would be the features and build quality. If you have no need for the features I would highly doubt you would be able to hear a sound difference between the 950 and 990 and any other pre-amp in an A/B comparison. It could be feasible that one would be more electronically perfect than the other but if the variances are below human hearing who cares?? Modern electronics have such a low noise floor, and virtually linear frequency response that nowadays our focus should be on the real things that cause huge differences in sound: your speakers and your listening room. Dont get me wrong, I love the 990 but if they were both still on sale I would get the 950 since I dont need the 990 feature set. And I am sure they would both sound JUST AS GOOD.

Why buy something as expensive as the 990 if they all sound the same? Unless build quality is the utmost important thing for you when it comes to buying electronics.

Good comments, gentlemen.
I wonder if the chips for (DOLBY D, DOLBYEX, DTS, DTS-ES, NEO:6C/M) are the same in 950 to 990?
I had tried to compare the spacs from both manuals, but don't have a clue.

Well the truth is the 990 is not "Expensive" when compared to other pre-amps. As a matter of fact I think it is the least expensive retail price on the market for a pre-amp. In addition it has very expensive options like digital video switching, balanced outputs, automatic configuration, etc. that are usually found in 3k preamps. So in my humble opinion, buying a 990 would show that you don't believe in "magic unknown technology" when it comes to electronics and their is no voodoo magic a Krell Pre-Amp can do to sound that an Outlaw can not. Especially when they are designed to do NOTHING to the sound! If a 990 is out of budget than a used 950 or forgetting seperates and getting a receiver would be more affordable options that would again SOUND JUST AS GOOD.

Elikd: I hear you. I have the 950 and today is the deadline date to order the 990. I have a high end parasound DAC for stereo music, which is superior to the DAC in 950. So i am not quite concern much about the Stereo By-pass in 950 or 990 (after all they are AV processors).

That's why I keep asking owers of 950/990 for inputs before submitting the order today. Tough decision.

Elikd, I assume you are just talking about the digital side of the preamp and not the analog right?

Kwok, you will only be out $60 bucks or so in shipping to try it out. Forget my opinion or anybody elses, only you can judge.

Jed M: Tks.

Kwok

Digital or Analog. Let me be clear on one thing though, I am assuming that what sounds good also has good measurements. There are actually many extremely high end components that ADD distortion to get a certain sound (Tube Amps do this). The audiophile likes this sound and then claimes it to be "Better". I believe that components should be tranparent and any colorization should come from the recording engineer. If we assume that by good sound we mean it will also have excellent measurements than you can apply the following rule to electronic components:

Elecronic componentes will be audibly indistinguishable if they have:

1- Flat Frequency Response
2- Noise and Distortion levels below audible thresholds
3- High Input impedance and low output impedance

Now this is the engineering/scientific and measurable point of view. Many people claim to hear things that are NOT measurable or claim that non measurable things still affect the things we can hear or that "Good" sound does not measure as such. Thats where we go off into exotic audiophile land with $1000 speaker cable, CD rings, and wierd amp, pre-amp designs, etc.

Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Theoretically you may be right about analog, but in the real world there is no way I can agree with you that all analog sounds similar to one another, even in similarly priced gear.

elikd - First off let me say I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. I do think there is an art to Analog PreAmp design that very well may be audible. Maybe not to you or me but I would not be so quick to dismiss it. As you said a tube Pre actually colors the sound. I believe the "Art" of analog PreAmp design, even solid state ones can have different electrical and sonic characteristics. Who knows if it is audible? Do you really believe all reasonably designed PreAmps have the same:
1- Flat Frequency Response
2- Noise and Distortion levels below audible thresholds
3- High Input impedance and low output impedance?

If not, I don't believe it is fair to say they are all going to sound the same. Just to be clear I'm talking about just the analog PreAmp section not the digital PROcessing. I disagree that the function of a PreAmp "is to simply transmit sound and not modify", it does condition the signal that is the function of a PreAmp. As I am a big user of the bypass modes I'd be very interested in comparing those modes between the 950 and 990 and can very well believe there may be an audible difference between the two.

" I believe that components should be tranparent and any colorization should come from the recording engineer. "

B&W Loudspeakers lab in England, when testing speakers don't even use a pre-amp, amp only.

"Elecronic componentes will be audibly indistinguishable if they have:
1- Flat Frequency Response
2- Noise and Distortion levels below audible thresholds
3- High Input impedance and low output impedance"

In theory I beleive this to be correct, but in the real world, they do sound different. I remember when I first got into high end audio, and was choosing between a California Audio labs DX-2, and a less expensive Rotel CD player. There was a clear, and I mean clear difference between both units that my wife even heard. CAL Audio was the winner by the way.

Give me a Rotel 1066 and a Anthem Statement D1, and I will pick the Antem out everytime.. I know.. because I've done it.

I do not believe all equipment sounds the same unless it meets the criteria I stated. So if a preamp is designed to colorize the sound to seperate itself from the rest (like many high end ones do) then what I said does not stand (In addition it proves that many low cost pre-amps will measure and sound better than high end ones if better sound to you means transparency and letting the original recording through). But If it does meet the criteria I gave it will sound the same as long as the setup is identical. We are assuming the preamp does not have equalization errors, frequency response anomolies (must be flat) or overload problems. If we are talking about an amp it should have high input impedance, low output impedance, no frequency response anomolies, and be at all times operated within its voltage and current capabilities. Think about what I am saying it is nothing special. If two devices have flat frequency response (transparency and no colorization) and distortion less than human hearing they will sound the same. Does that not HAVE to be true? The only way to prove it is to measure the output frequency response or do a BLIND A/B test under controlled conditions. In addition, they must be set to the same dB to within .10, so you need a accurate instrument to validate this (just setting the volume wont do it). The reason is that what we percieve to be better sound is generally more power or volume and humans can differentiate very small changes in volume. So you buy a new amp, stick it in, set it to the same volume (manually) hey better sound. When in fact it was good power reserves.

As for CD players well that the same story as well. Digital audio equipment must meet the preamp qualifications I gave earlier (for analog) and be up to present day standards of D/A conversion to qualify for my statement. Maybe if you got a seriously cheap one with really bad analog circuits and you used the analog output you could hear a difference (due to distortion). And even then, if you used the digital out and used YOUR D/A converter of your pre-amp how can it sound different? Any player up to modern standards should sound the same. How can it not, it is digital information not sound.

Like I said, this is the measurable/engineering point of view. And I know it is not popular. But I feel if something measures the same it sounds the same and all decent modern electronics have such a low noise floor, and flat response that they can not be differentiated by our ears (unless the device was designed to sound different and NOT be transparent). Of course you still have to buy based on features, build quality and power (to avoid clipping and distortion). But in the end, if you want to have better sound, get a good amp with plenty of power (Outlaw makes a couple I can recommend..hehe),good pre-amp (again Outlaw, decent CD player, and spend the large chunk of your money on speakers. You will see that when you visit the exotic sound stores you can NOT hear what the salesperson claims to hear (the famous did you hear that?). I wonder why???

Pity.

BTW, I love these Audio Geek conversations! In addition, I love sharing opinions and thoughts with other people in the same hobby. So please dont think I am trying to convince anyone they are wrong in their thinking. Everyone has a right to think what they want, and if buying an exotic amp/preamp or cable makes you happy well thats what it this is all about; being happy with your hobby. Most people think I am crazy for considering a 2k amp versus a $200 receiver (my wife included)from Walmart. Thank goodness we have Forums where we can talk about these things. My wife would have fallen asleep by now!!

And it never once crossed your mind that it could be your hearing? Seriously, you can't think everybody hears on the same level. Just because some can't tell the difference between two red wines, does that mean nobody can?

Most definitely it can be my hearing. Most likely you or someone else can hear something I cant. I mean I am almost 35, a couple rock concerts here and there, clubs, etc, I am sure I cant hear even close to 20KhZ any more! But then again, I am sure none of us can hear better than an instrument can measure. But that is the Golden Ear theory, that some people can hear what can not be measured or that some things sound better and dont measure better. My opinion is if it measures good it sounds good, if it measures the same it sounds the same.

elikd - I like your style Even though I used to sound like you regarding straight engineering specs(I'm an engineer too)on audio equipment with age I have changed and have almost done a 180 and believe people can hear minute differences in electronics. Can my 48 yr old ears hear a difference? Sometimes yes, a lot of times no.

The best example I can give for myself is with the 950 DACs compared with my Perpertual Technolgies P-3A DAC. When level matched the difference is quite stunning, even my wife can hear the difference and she doesn't have a clue what a DAC is. It should all just be 1 and 0's right? Let's just say it was an ear opening and mind expanding experience.

I'm even become convinced there are people with equipment revealing enough to hear differences in cabling. Can I personally hear it? I doubt it but I believe it is possible and even likely someone else can.

Thanks for the discussion guys and all you opinions. It was a good conversation. Time for me to jump to another topic.