The Sherwood P-965, upon which the Outlaw 990 is closely based, now comes with a room EQ feature that includes the subwoofer. As far as I know it is the only pre-pro in this price range that includes the subwoofer in the room EQ.

I had been leaning towards the Outlaw 990 over the Sherwood because of the balanced outputs and the DVI switching. I have no need for either of those features at the present, but the flexibility for the future would be nice.

However, the new room EQ feature on the Sherwood changes the equation for me. I have a passive "raw" VMPS New Larger sub that I can only control through the pre-pro, so room EQ with sub coverage is very attractive.

The Outlaws have been hinting about some "surprises" going into the holiday season. Does anyone think there is a chance that room EQ with sub coverage will be added to the 990's feature set?

It is a possibility, but some of Outlaw's earlier comments suggested that they were interested in an EQ solution that they considered really effective - and judging from some comments when the 990 was originally released, I'm not sure the solution now being used on the P-965 met their requirements.

That was my understanding as well (that the room EQ as implemented by Sherwood wasn't up to snuff).

Cheers,

Here is an excerpt from an email that I received commenting on the Sherwood's EQ:

"SNAP is S/N's version of room EQ and auto setup and it definitely does EQ the sub specifically. I have tried it in my own room and it is the best EQ on the sub I have run across. I actually was able to take the Behringer Feedback Destroyer out of my system because the SNAP EQ did a better job."

Granted, the email was from a Sherwood dealer. :rolleyes:

.

A wish from someone who has a 2.0 (= stereo) setup now but hopes to go multichannel in the next year: the capacity to memorize channel balance and EQ settings for three or more positions in the listening area - not just the full-frontal sweet spot - and either switch among them with the remote, or do a room-wide average. Such a capacity might make the 990 unique among HT processors.

Might as well dream big.

I have the Sherwood and was considering sending it in to get the SNAP but I am going to wait and see if they work out the kinks.

After reading numerous posts on AVS and other forums people seem to say that they notice little difference and that it still tends to set their speaker sizes incorrectly in the auto set up which has been an ongoing problem with these units, mine included. Generally this is not a big deal because the speaker sizes can be adjusted manually but, evidently, if you set them back you lose the SNAP settings. I don't know if they have ironed this out yet but I have not heard any new news. It is still an amazing unit and I plan on keeping mine for many moons.

I am just setting up my room and I need equalization (in addition to room treatment) to make it work. I just purchased two Behringer DEQ2496 Ultra Curve Pro equalizers. XLR cables will connect from the left, right, center and sub XLR outputs of the 990, through the equalizers and to the amp. I have two concerns:

1. The equalizers will be in the path AFTER the volume control. If I have to use analog (and by doing this equalizer connection I am doing an analog to digital to analog conversion), I would rather be doing this at line level. I think there would be less noise it the equalizer operated at line level. In the old days, with my stereo receiver, I would hook an equalizer to the pre-out and amp-in jacks. I have no way to get the analog outputs at line level unless I crank the volume up on the 990 and then add another box to act as a master volume control for all channels. Ideas anyone?

2. Wouldn't it be much better to have a digital pre-out/amp-in setup? If I could but a 7.1 toslink equalizer, and the 990 had such an connection path, that would be great. I don't think equalization of the surrounds is critical, so 4 channels would be enough. However, I would need electronics that could separate the appropriate digital channels, feed them as digital inputs to the equalizers and then recombine them to send them back to the 990 to apply volume control and send the analog to the amp.

I am going a little crazy trying to make equalization work.

Wingnut, if you set one speaker size manually, do you lose the SNAP EQ just for that speaker, or for all the speakers? I am mostly interested in using the SNAP to adjust my subwoofer. As long as the sub adjustments are preserved when I manually adjust the size settings of the other speakers, then the SNAP would still be potentially useful for me. Also, are the RCA connectors gold-plated on the Sherwood, as they are on the Outlaw 990?

MusicMan, I have a suggestion that may be too simplistic, but here it is. Have you considered inserting one of your Behringers into the tape loop on the 990? I do not know if the tape loop is before or after the surround processing in the 990. I also do not know which channels (if any) of 7.1 analog input would be sent out the tape loop to the Behringer. Doing it this way, you would lose the ability to adjust EQ separately for each channel. But at least the EQ would be done at line level. Just a thought.

With the extra channels of surround systems, processor loops are basically a thing of the past, making this sort of thing a bit tricky. I'm not familar enough with the Behringers to offer any specific suggestions, but there are a lot resources online - which you've probably already looked at...
The idea has some merit, but the logistics could be a bit tricky. You'd want to put this processing downstream of the DSP and upstream of the DACs. What digital format to you use for the output? The only way I know of to pass eight channels of PCM (the most logical choice downstream of the DD/DTS/PLIIx/etc DSP) is HDMI, although FireWire could probably pull it off as well - coaxial and optical digital output probably don't have the bandwidth.

Gonk,
I may not have found all the resources that you know of. Could you list a few regarding what to do in the analog realm?

As I have said, the main thing I am worried about is that, since the output level varies with the volume control, rather than staying at a fixed level, the equalizer will be operating over a very wide range of signal levels. To me, this sounds like it will introduce noise, and therefore might be an inappropriate application. So, I have two questions about analog:

1. Without divulging any trade secrets, would it be possible for me to (voiding my warranty, of course) tap into an analog signal before the volume control? For this to work, I assume the path would be 7.1 analog to the volume control and then directly to the output jacks.

2. If I had the volume control maxed, is there a musical, balanced and affordable 7.1 infrared controllable volume control that you know of?

The digital solution is interesting, but certainly not possible with the current model. HDMI would be cool, but there would certainly be DRM issues complicating matters. FireWire would be good too, after you paid your royalties to Apple.

The professional stuff from Beheringer and others uses AES/EBU for digital, but I don't know much about it. I think it is only two channels. The voltage levels are different. The connector is bulky, but a high density connector with a conversion cable would do the trick.

Equalization seems to be the only major piece missing from the 990. It would make much more sense to integrate the capability than provide a connection for outside processing. It would be a heck of a selling point to have the features I need for the Behringer incorporated. It has a 1/3 octave graphic equalizer, plus 10 parametric channels. It has a real time analyzer and pink noise generator to automatically or manually EQ the room.

I would certainly pay twice the price for the 990EQ.

As for resources, Behringer's feedback destroyer (BFD) has been a favorite among subwoofer tweakers for years now - I never investigated them closely, but have seen numerous discussions of them in places such as HTF. One recommendation is the BFD Guide site (formerly called Snapbug, since that was the old domain name), which some consider the definitive source for BFD information.

Finding a way to tap the analog signal internally, pull it out to process it externally, and then plug it back in would be a pretty major undertaking - I suspect that Outlaw would be leery in the extreme about coughing up information like that. It would probably qualify as a case of "if you can figure it out without asking and don't care about the warranty go for it, but otherwise forget it." As for the IR-controlled 7.1 analog volume control, I have no idea. Folks have suggested that Outlaw (or somebody) build a purely analog surround processor on occasion - mostly as discussions of ways to improve the ICBM, such as adding multiple inputs and/or volume control so it could act as a 7.1 switcher or even a 7.1 analog pre-amp - but I don't think anything has really appeared on the market.

I don't see why you are so worried about having your EQ after the volume control and before the amps. Every speaker (except the LFE) in my system is run this way (ie. each speaker has a dedicated 10 band parametric equalizer associated with it) and that alone introduces no added noise, problems, or distortion that wouldn't have been present using a fixed line level. Seems to me that mucking about by splicing into a circuit somewhere is inherently more problem -prone. Or maybe I missed the point of the originl post?

Jeff Mackwood

Jeff,
You are absolutely right that messing with the 990 could be a bad idea. It wouldn't do my warranty any good either.

My concern is that I am asking the equalizer to cover a very wide dynamic range by asking it to handle the range of the source material plus the range of the volume control. The equalizer is 24 bit, which is about as good as it gets. I just think that the chance of introducing artifacts would be decreased when doing an analog/digital/analog transformation if I was only dealing with the dynamic range of the source material.

I haven't even hooked up the equalizers yet, so maybe the best thing to do is just listen. I do tend to get too wrapped up in theory.

Thanks to you and Gonk for your valued input.

For subwoofers, I've never seen mention of anyone having trouble with using the unit downstream of the volume control - it's the standard location for a BFD among sub tweakers. For your full range speakers (which I'm not as used to seeing fed through an EQ like this), the best bet is to let your ears be the judge. I saw a mention on the BFD Guide site to a bypass button on the Behringers - that would be an excellent way to test the influence of the unit on the signal path.

Oh, anybody else notice the newsletter ? You know, the one that Scott just posted that announced this goodie ?

I just purchased a SMS-1 from another vendor, and it is awesome. It is one of the best additions to my home theater yet. I would recommend it to anyone, especially those like me with limited room placement options.

So do we think that this means there will not be some room eq functionality added to the 990???

Personally I can not afford a 990 and a SMS-1.


Regards,


Charlie

It seems unlikely that the company would offer the SMS for sale and then "cannibalize" sales by adding similar functionality to the 990. If the SMS works as advertised, it sounds like a nifty little box. I'll have to consider checking one out for my dual LFM-1 setup.

Cheers,

.

I largely agree with and affirm the points made and conclusions reached by Wayne.

The only exception I will respectfully take is that I believe a single test position is not sufficient for subwoofer signal modification. While the lower frequencies do not provide perceived directional cues to the listener, bass frequency ‘standing waves’ in a room with mild, moderate, or strong resonances make reliance on a single test point a poor choice.

Let’s say that a given room has a large resonance response at 48Hz. There are still places in the room where, by moving about with one ear covered, one ear open, or with an SPL meter, 48Hz is perhaps 10dB over the average and other places where 48Hz is 10dB under the average. Unless the measurement microphone is placed in a position where 48Hz is at an average, the adjustment for 48Hz will be off. But then if the measurement microphone is in an average position for 48Hz, it doesn’t mean it is at an average position for all other subwoofer frequencies. Granted, there are test signals that are better to use than sustained sine waves, but normal source material will have some frequencies sustained for long enough periods to result in standing waves and resonance in the room, so it is good to 'observe,' among other tests, what happens when standing waves are present.

It is not realistic for me or anyone to expect a flat and properly time-aligned response everywhere in the room no matter what forms of analysis and correction are applied. While this would be ideal, I cannot afford the pursuit of that goal to the nth degree of what is actually possible. But short of that nth degree, I can still measure and take note of differing response in different areas of the listening environment and make reasonable adjustments to: the signal (including internal EQ or external devices like the SMS-1, if present), the placement of transducers and room treatments. Personally, I would never rely on a single, or even just a handful, of measurement points if I want the best overall experience for all listeners present.

If the signal modifying equipment allows for several presets, one could have a saved setting for the ‘sweet spot,’ another for an ‘alternate sweet spot,’ another averaged for ‘small group near the sweet spot,’ and yet another for ‘best average for a large group.’

Enjoy finding what works for you!

To quote myself 11/21: "the capacity to memorize channel balance and EQ settings for three or more positions in the listening area - not just the full-frontal sweet spot - and either switch among them with the remote, or do a room-wide average. Such a capacity might make the 990 unique among HT processors." Isn't that pretty much what Wayne Charlton and bestbang4thebuck are talking about? So could such a capability be downloaded into the 990's software, and how much would it cost, and if it can't be done that way how about Outlaw leading the industry by offering it in a box between the pre and power amps? Maybe an "ICCM", like the "ICBM".

Again - might as well dream big.

.