Hi there,

I don't normally use bypass mode. However, I recently inherited a decent turntable, and I wanted to use bypass mode last night.

I turned off my sub at the source, so there's none of that to get in the way.

So I'm listening to some Steely Dan on vinyl, and kick it into bypass mode; there was effectively no change. Still in bypass mode, I go into the OSD and set main speakers to "large". Now my bass is present in my mains.

This morning, I did a little test. This was using my PC with an optical connection. Send a 70 Hz tone to the 990. Enter bypass mode. Set crossover point at 100 Hz. Switch between large and small in the OSD. Bass comes and goes in the mains. No sub attached.

So what's up? The "990 Digital Bass Management Matrix" indicates that bypass mode will set the mains to "Full Range" regardless of all other settings, and in all cases. I note that the "990 Digital Bass Management Matrix" has an overall header of "Analog Input Signals". As noted above, I've tried this with both a PC as input to the 990 (digital), as well as a turntable (analog).

Anyone else see this?

Bypass with a digital input is not an effective test of how bypass works with an analog input. There are two separate tables for Outlaw's "990 bass management matrix" - one for analog input signals and one for digital input signals .

With an analog input, bypass mode will yield a full range signal to the mains no matter how the speaker's bass management is configured (large or small). The bass management setting does determine whether or not a duplicate of that analog input is copied to the subwoofer - when the fronts are set to "small" and an analog input is set to "bypass" the 990 will send a summed copy of the full range inputs to the sub, whereas when the fronts are set to "large" and an analog input is set to "bypass" the 990 will not send anything to the sub.

Hi gonk,

I just did another test. First set my PC to output analog signals. I figured there was some difference in using digital signals. I used a Galaxy CM-140 SPL meter to take measurements. I had C-weighting enabled and "Slow" mode selected. I was in the "Medium" range (I think it's 50 to 100 dB).

First, crossover frequency did not seem to make a difference. Also, the sub selection of "LFE Only", "L+R+LFE", etc. did not seem to make a difference.

All measurements were taken using Bypass Mode.

So, to recap, I'm taking SPL measurement using pure tones sent using an analog signal from a PC. The 990 is in Bypass Mode for all measurements. The only thing I'm changing is the status of the mains from "Large" to "Small". I also scrolled through crossover settings and sub "configs" while measuring, and those seemed to have no effect.

Freq=76 Hz
Mains Lg = 73.1 dB
Mains Sm = 69.1 dB

Freq=50 Hz
Mains Lg = 63.4 dB
Mains Sm = 53.8 dB

I would expect there to be no change for the mains SPL readings based on Large or Small settings when using Bypass Mode.

Am I missing something?

Hmmm... I'm not sure on this one.

You've got an analog input in both cases, with the mode set to bypass in both cases, with the volume set to the same position in both cases, and the only difference was whether the fronts were set to "large" or "small"? The fact that changing the crossover point didn't affect the outputs suggests that there really is no crossover being applied, assuming that at least one crossover chosen was below one or both of these frequencies. I'd be curious to know what is happening when the frequency is something well above the bass management/subwoofer domain (maybe 500Hz or 1,000Hz), just to see if the ~4dB difference is happening across the board or if it is limited to the range in which a subwoofer would also contribute.

A little clarification of the thinking behind that last comment... The consistent 4dB difference makes me wonder if there was an attempt to compensate for the presence of a subwoofer to prevent double bass by dropping the level 4dB below a certain point. I hadn't ever heard of such a feature, but it would be a reasonable explanation (and a sort of cool feature, actually).

Hi again,

Yep, you've got it right. An analog signal coming from my PC playing a single tone in bypass mode. All I'm doing to alter things is switch between small and large size for my mains speakers in the OSD. Sub is unplugged and I'm not messing with the volume control.

Same test at 1kHz measured no change.

Freq=200 Hz
Lg=70.3 dB
Sm=69.8 dB

Freq=100 Hz
Lg=78.7 dB
Sm=77.3 dB

FWIW, the front crossover point was set at 40 Hz, but moving it around didn't appear to make any difference in the measurements.

I see what you're saying about dropping off 4 db for any potential sub contribution. However, since they're publishing that the mains be full range, I don't think there should be any frequency roll off at all.

Also, the sub output in bypass mode is also full range, so they couldn't assume at what frequencies the sub would contribute. I'm using a DIY sub that relies on BM from the 990, so full range into that sub sounds pretty bad. Or, what if I had an SVS or Outlaw sub and was using its built in crossover? They wouldn't know where that was set in order to roll off my mains.

All in all, I think that full range should be full range, no roll off, when in bypass mode, regardless of the size setting for the mains.

Finally, if they are rolling off the mains at whatever point, and for whatever reason, does that imply that they have sampled my analog signal?

It's probably in the manual somewhere, but do they directly state that bypass mode means no A/D and D/A?

Thanks!

It might be worthwhile to run the question past Outlaw's customer support. For what it's worth, here's the reasoning that I'd see behind a 4dB drop for frequencies below 100Hz or so when using analog bypass and small speakers.

First, the logic behind Outlaw's decision to send a copy of the signals to the sub when front speakers are set to "small." If you have the speakers set to "small" then presumably they are not good down to 20Hz - or for that matter, possibly not even 60Hz or higher. That's the reason for the 990 to still send a signal to the sub with small speakers when in stereo analog bypass in the first place: those speakers, being identified as "small," are going to naturally roll off somewhere below 100Hz but a fair bit above 20Hz. Sending a full-range signal to a sub isn't necessarily an ideal situation no matter whose sub you have, but if you are likely to use this arrangement with the 990 I would tend to suggest something that I otherwise recommend against with surround systems: enable the sub's internal crossover to prevent it from having to deal with that full range signal. Set it high enough to keep it from interfering in normal circumstances, but let it provide a "backstop" of sorts to high frequency material.

Now, we'll carry it one step further. Say that we're assuming that speakers are rolling off naturally because they are identified as "small" but we have no idea where that roll-off is happening. We do know that the sub is getting a copy of that data, and it's going to try to play at least everything below 80Hz (even with a sub's crossover engaged, this is a pretty safe bet). That means that we've got a "double bass" situation potentially happening. How do we minimize this? (Especially considering the endless debate that the idea of "double bass" generated for the old Model 950.) Well, we know that there's a sub in the system to help below 80Hz because the 990's set up that way. That means that we could reduce the gain a bit over a small portion of the low end so that the reinforcement provided by the sub won't be as overpowering. Because there are too many unspecified values, it's going to be a rough correction at best, but there's a certain curious logic hiding in there. Like I say, though, this is just me musing over random possibilities - I've not heard of this actually being the case.

I don't know where it is specifically listed, but yes - bypass definitely means no A/D/A. Anything happening to that signal is happening in the analog domain.

Hi gonk,

I talked with Steve at Outlaw, and he said it shouldn't be doing that at all. "Full Range" to mains shouldn't have any rolloff anywhere.

I agreed to do a system reset, reconfigure all my settings and see if the problem still exists.

After that, he suggested I try reinstalling the firmware. Depending on how I'm feeling tonight, I may try that as well.

If it persists after that, Steve's indicating to me that there's a problem.

So, gonk, if you're up for it tonight, see if you can recreate the problem. It's simple and you don't really need to measure. Just play an analog source in bypass mode. Switch mains between large and small. You should hear no difference. Although I measured it to obtain a little more detail on what's happening, it really wasn't necessary; it's rather easy to *hear* the difference.

I'll repost after the system reset.

Thanks!

Two other things:

1) The title of the thread is a bit misleading, as I don't think that bypass mode is really applying bass management. It may be using pieces of the algorithm somehow, but it's not as simple as saying BM is still working in bypass mode, as crossover point and other settings are still irrelevant.

2) Although bypass mode should mean no A/D/A, I'm very curious to know in what domain my rolloff issues are occurring. I would not be surprised if it were happening digitally, as I wouldnt' expect the 990 to have filtering implemented in analog circuitry (I could be wrong, but I don't see a need for analog filtering).

The same issue occurs after a system reset.

Half way through setting *everything* up in the OSD, I realized that maybe I shouldn't have put so much time into it if I'm just going to do a FW flash, 'cause I'll just have to re-enter everything after the FW flash. Oh well. Maybe later tonight.

Same problem after FW flash. I am using FW rev 3.11, which is the same rev as I had installed before, and the latest released by Outlaw.

I'll continue discussions with Steve tomorrow.

Thanks!

The family has gone to bed and I'm taking a few minutes to (quietly, alas) blow off some steam from a long day, but I'll try to replicate this with an analog source in the next day or so.

I know it's not this simple, but, originally you said you you were using your PC with an optical connection. Later you said you set your PC to output analog signals. You did change cables (from the PC to the 990) and changed the 990 to the correct input, right? Probably way off bass (base, heh) but just throwing it out there.

Yep, but thanks for checking. I have the PC hooked up with both analog and optical at all times. I did go into the setup for PC and set it to use "analog" input -- after that, it said "analog" on the front panel of the 990, and I could hear some hum from my long cable run.

As I recall, I've got a stereo analog connection from my 981HD to my 990's CD input (connected when I was beta testing the 981HD ). I'll toss some test tones on a CD and use that connection to do some testing either tonight or tomorrow morning and let you know what I find.

Is “Tone Defeat” turned off? I know that when that is turned off it does some goofy things.

Checked that, but the "Tone" features aren't available in bypass mode, which is what I would expect. Nonetheless, I set it both "on" and "off" in a non-bypass-mode setting, and then returned to bypass mode. No change. In all cases, bass and treble were at 0.

OK, I've got a test CD made here with 10 second test tones at 45Hz, 75Hz, and 200Hz as well as some frequency sweeps taken from the RealTraps Test CD. I'll use this disc and the stereo analog output of my 981HD to see if I can reproduce the behavior that Otto is seeing.

Thanks, gonk. We'll see what happens with yours.

Here's a link to some frequency sweeps I did this morning, FWIW.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/r....html#post32923

I did some testing to see if I could duplicate what you were getting and the answer is yes. I tried both digital and analog signals with a test CD. Using the SPL meter I could hear and see that when changing the Fronts to Small resulted in a lower SPL reading with both digital and analog when in Bypass mode. For this test my sub was disconnected. I tried several frequencies and the difference between small and large was significant with some frequencies such as 40hz. I wouldn’t have needed a SPL meter to tell there was a difference.

Yeah, I can detect it also, in a very obvious way. I have a CDP hooked up to the 990 via analog cables. I turned the power off on my sub to ensure it had no effect on what I was hearing. I played a CD, have it set to bypass, change the mains from large to small and back again. It is very obvious when they're set to small, the music has much less bass.

Thanks, guys. Yeah, I initially noticed a difference while just listening to music -- didn't need an SPL meter.

Daryl -- the behavior of the 990 in bypass mode when using a digital input still applies a crossover to the mains when they are set to small. I also did a test with a digital input initially, but repeated my tests with analog only, and got the results that you did.

The Outlaws are still looking into this. I think I'll be hearing from them before too long...

I am a little confused. I am interested in buying the 990. I want a perfectly clear pass through of analog from both my CDP (tube output) and my phono (SS). Will the 990 apply bass management to the "direct" or "pass through" signal? Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that happens in the digital domain, therefore it cannot be a true bypass, i.e. remaining solely in the analog path. I am going to pause before I buy and wait to get this cleared up. Thanks!

What the 990 claims to do is give you a full-range pass through, no A/D/A. What you are getting is some type of high pass filter on the mains, and not a full range signal.

As far as I can tell, it's a bug in the system somewhere. I assume that it's happening digitally, which it should not be.

The Outlaws have taken my problem ticket and said they are working on it. Several people have claimed to hear the same thing, so I don't think it's an issue of reproducing the problem, but rather just a matter of finding the right solution.

There is another thread around here that seems to indicate that the LPF, as defined by the crossover point, is being applied to the LFE channel. I think this is also wrong, and that the LFE channel should be sent to the sub in its entirety, regardless of crossover points.

If I were shopping, like you, I would wait till this stuff gets ironed out. I'm confident that they will fix it sometime soon.

Has this question been answered yet?

I haven't heard an answer back yet.

anything been done to resolve this issue?

I talked with Scott about two or three weeks ago, and he told me that they are working on it, but that he couldn't tell me anything else.

I'm not sure what's taking so long, but I do assume that they will fix it. Between this problem, the other one in which they are low pass filtering the LFE channel, and my complaint about them using a fourth-order filter on the mains when they advertise a second-order filter, they probably need to go through the entire system. They need to meticulously measure and test each and every input and output in all modes and all crossover frequencies, and it may take some time.

I hope that when it's all done, it will be worth the wait.

I just posted a new topic related to this bass problem This stuff happens switching between PL2 and Dolby Digital sources, not just between "Bypass" and any other mode. It's impossible to calibrate the system correctly- something is always wrong. I'm giving Outlaw until summer's end and then my 990 will be for sale.

BTW, Steve no longer works at Outlaw

I think you might be seeing something else... The digital bass management is different than that of the analog when using "bypass" mode. I measured the outputs in digital mode, and I think everything was OK, but you might have caught something that I missed -- I did not measure each and every combination of modes and inputs.

There is another issue where the sub output filters the LFE signal, and many think it should not.

Indeed, I have given up. I received a Cary Cinema 11 yesterday, and my 990 is now for sale.

There just should not be a 10db swing of bass levels when the processor goes from a matrix surround mode (PL2,DTS Neo) to a digital surround mode (Dolby 5.1, DTS. I have no analog sources input to my system and levels change anytime the source changes from 2.0 to 5.1
I was able to confirm it by using an analog input, a test generator, a meter and my ears.

During initial setup, I think some of the problem might be where the 990 noise generator falls in the circuit. On my unit it appears the test generator is after the crossover and bass management so I get noise level up to the highest frequency my sub (an LFM-1) can produce. The LFM is set with its crossover to bypass but when I engage it I can hear it working. The 990 crossover was set at 80Hz. My experience with other preamps has been when the noise generator was before the bass manager I would not be able to hear any difference switching the sub crossover in and out with the sub crossover set to its highest frequency.

There has been no information regarding this Bypass issue for a number of days. What has been resolved? I do not dare buy a 990 unless I know the Bypass mode is working because I listen to a lot of 2 channel stereo.

Still no update. Last I heard, Scott told me they are working on it. I have faith that they will fix it eventually...

Hello Otto and sailorman,

I am working with the software team on this issue. Thanks for your patience and understanding while we take the time to get it right!

Best!

Scott

Scott,

While you and the software Outlaws are working on this BYPASS problem, have you ever discussed whether the BYPASS option could also be made apply for the 7.1 analog input too? The 990's full digital processing and bass management are great and will always be needed for digital sources like cable TV boxes, but it would be nice to be able to bypass it for a high end 5.1/7.1 analog source.

Scott would have a better answer than I, but I do recall this being discussed a year or so ago. I'm not sure of the reasons why it wasn't able to be implemented at that time, but Outlaw was unable to do so then. If they were able to work out a way between then and now, of course, it would be a nice touch (even if I doubt that I'd use it ).

I check this thread everyday hoping the fix is near.

You are not alone.

my issue is that I have to go to the menu and change the mains to large every time I want to listen to full range 2 channel in bypass. I would imagine if you are running Klipschorn's and LaScala's you have the speakers set at large all of the time. You must have lots of space for those speakers. I know they are the size of a washing machine because I had a pair of LaScala's way back when and I constantly fried the tweeter. Lucky for me there was a speaker repair shop close to me and he would change out the diaphragm for $60 every time. I always wanted a pair of Klipschorn's, they must sound incredible with the Macintosh amps.

Any word on a timeline yet?

I haven't heard anything yet.

Hello All,

I know it's been a while, but rest assured we are still working on this. I'll post more as soon as I have more info.

Best,

Scott

I think my 990 will be the last outlaw product I ever buy. The bass management issues are just astounding. Nothing works like advertised or even how it should work in the first place.

Is there really no resolution to this issue already? This isn't something that's difficult to reproduce, and it's really a pretty glaring problem for anyone that happens to own speakers capable of reproducing low frequencies.

The more I play with the 990, the more I'm finding that this really may not be the right pre/pro for me... and that's a huge disappointment because it sounds wonderful with 2-channel audio. But you can't easily switch back and forth to multichannel without the bass problems, at least if you happen to own 'large' speakers that you enjoy listening to alone for stereo sources.

I'll have to experiment further, but the SMS-1 may be a workaround since it has a 12-v trigger which could be used to defeat the subwoofer entirely... and then I'll just be forced to set the main speakers to 'large' and not filter them at all, even when watching movies when I wouldn't mind at least protecting them from the bottom octave.

Is there an ETA on a fix?

- Jason

I haven't kept a real close track of this problem, for the simple reason that the bug doesn't coincide with the way I use the 990. I didn't come across it when experimenting with the 3.10/3.11 update, either, but I don't know that I did much of anything with bypass mode at the time. I do know that Scott's on the case. It's possible that they're having to involve Etronics engineers in some of it, and based on what I've seen in a thread at AVS about Sherwood's new receivers (Sherwood being Etronics' "house brand") that may be time-consuming. Scott may be able to offer some further insight on this one, as he tends to be the central person for these sorts of processes, but he is probably on his way to Colorado at the moment for RMAF. Maybe next week we can find out something more.

Hi Jason,

Well, I did talk with Scott directly a few times about this issue, and he always told me that they are working on it. He was non-commital on completion dates.

I agree with you very much about the ease in which one can repeat the problem, and the annoyance that it is. Unless there is an actual bug in the chip, I would expect that it would take a firmware engineer less than a week to fix that (and a week is generous for any engineer that's already familiar with the system -- of course, that's only my opinion as a FW engineer and FW engineering manager).

Testing of the change, as well as testing of all other bass management modes, also wouldn't take that long. I did a bunch of measurements myself in my living room in a matter of hours; that's how I proved this issue to myself and to Steve (Outlaw employee at the time). Give an engineer the right bench and the right tools and they would again be able to do all the measurements within a week (again, a generous time frame, IMHO).

I think the truth is that the engineering resources are focused elsewhere. Perhaps, as gonk notes, the Etronics engineers are doing something else. Perhaps Outlaw's engineers are working on next-gen products. Perhaps there's an non-disclosure agreement with Etronics such that any-old-engineer can't work on stuff.

Or perhaps it's just a simple business decision -- not enough people care, complain or talk about it in magazines for it to make a difference to Outlaw. The same reason that the tires blew up on Ford Explorers seven years ago or so. It was simply more expensive to fix the problem than to pay out to the families of the people that died. Except that no one's died from the 990 bug.

So, those are just some reasons it might take so long... In the end, I got tired of waiting and sold my 990. I got something else that has its own little quirks, but that doesn't have the quirks that I didn't like with the 990.

While it sounds like I'm being rather negative (and I am to a certain degree), we have to keep the 990 in perspective. It's, what, $799 now? A great deal for the price!

I am leaning towards this reason. Having to go into the menu and switch the mains from small to large every time I want to listen to 2 channel is a pain. I need to know this is resolved befor I consider purchasing the next gen 990. It may be true that only a few of us are troubled by this issue and it is not important enough to address. I hope that is not the case here.

I spoke with Scott today about this. Basically he said that this isn't so much a bug as a feature. They don't believe that bypass should enable a full bandwidth signal to reach the front speakers if they're set as 'small'.

- Jason

Hmmm. That's not what the published analog bass management matrix shows:

http://www.outlawaudio.com/support/990_analog_bm.html

Notice that "Fronts SM" indicates that a "full range" signal should be sent when "bypass" is selected.

Perhaps there was some miscommunication. Every time I've spoked with Scott about this, he's said that they're working on it.

Furthermore, the high pass filter applied to the mains does not appear to be related to the crossover frequency applied in the OSD. It seems to be applied at about 100 Hz regardless of crossover setting. That, in and of itself, makes the whole discussion moot.

I think there must have been some miscommunication. Perhaps you guys were talking about digital inputs...

He certainly may have misunderstood. My experience matches yours - the HFP seems to have no bearing on the particular frequency selected as a -3dB point.

- Jason

Bypass sending a full range signal to the mains even when they are set to small, and no sub output whatsoever would just make me happier than a clam

To me, you have a 2 channel source coming in. When in bypass, don't mess with it. Don't apply any type of filter. Don't duplicate it and route a signal to the sub. Don't do anything with it. Just send the most direct signal possible straight from the 2 channel input, to the main's output.

Now my 990 has started sending a signal to the sub no matter what sound field it is on or what size the front speakers are set on. IE when I am listening to a CD and I have it set to "bypass" and only the L and R are lit up on the 990 display, a signal is still being sent to the subs even though according to the display the sub is not being used.

Is outlaw going to offer any help?

Have you checked to make sure your sub/spk size have not changed to LG/LR+SUB? According to the both the digital and analog input bass management matrices using this setting will output bass to the sub in all playback modes.

Yeah, that sounds weird. It sounds like it just started happening. Did as mm_half3 suggests, did something change recently?

The standard Outlaw answer in these cases is to reload the firmware. Although I get somewhat tired of that answer, I would probably suggest it in this case. You might as well, as you won't get anywhere with official Outlaw help until you do.

Even with sub set to off a sub signal is still sent out. I tried with speakers on lg/sm and with sub on off/LFE only/LF+sub(obviously this one will always send a signal)

It has been awhile and now its awhile longer. Is this issue being looked at and if so when can we expect a fix? This issue was found in April, does it take this long to do an estimate?

Personally, I'm pretty frustrated with how Outlaw has dealt with this issue. I mean, a little communication goes a long way. It seems to me that they are trying to ignore it and hope it will go away. Earlier, I felt that a little patience would be rewarded. Now I feel that I should have sold the 990 earlier. Live and learn I guess...

Has anyone heard from Outlaw on this?

Not me. Unfortunately, it's become apparent that they have bigger fish to fry...

Me neither. At least they still have my support ticket left open. If it would've magically closed and disappeared, I'd be even more worried.

I have. Scott actually sent me a beta version he has been testing and asked me to test it. I can’t say anything more then that.

Wow - that sounds like good news! This would be a very nice Hanukkah present. (Outlaw - you have 7 days).

- Jason

How about Christmas? New Years?

Please?

- Jason

It has been awhile, can you tell us anything more now?

I want add my 2 cents to the discussion.
The small/large bass management issue is very frustrated. I discover it few month ago when I get the Denon DVD-3930CI as the replacement for my Oppo 971. Since then I’m watching this topic with more frustration how the Outlaw is dealing with it.
All the time when I want listen to audio bypass or DVD-Audio I have change the speaker size.
If Outlaw considers this is functionality not major issue then good luck in the future product sale.
This brings another question.
If the 7.1 is consider direct audio bypass why the lip delay could be adjusted?
It could be only done by A/D/A.
That is bad news for DVD-A and future TrueHD users who want use the analog output from their high end source player.
The 7.1 input setup shall have option between Bypass and A/D/A as the audio analog inputs has and the bypass shall by true analog.
I don’t think my next processor will be from Outlaw. I had too many issues with the 990 in the past. Starting with the front IR input sensor. Nobody in the Outlaw knows how to make it working to distribute IR to other components via rear IR output jack.
It is good sounding unit but too many bugs in details and the small/large issue ignored by Outlaw for more then year speak for it self.
Kris

I was not aware of the BM/Bypass issue before I purchased the 990 in late December 2007, and therefore, am still within the 30-day risk-free trial period. It is a fairly disconcerting issue and makes me wonder, based on the length of time it is taking for a solution to this problem to be realized, whether to change gears and go for a different pre/pro altogether or stay with the 990.

It's a shame, too, because I really like what Outlaw has done up to this point and I think the 990 is, overall, a great product. But, in the end, Outlaw's reputation will rest with the success or failure of their QA/QC department, not whether their new equipment will have HDMI v1.3, TrueHD, 1080P, or whatever the next great feature may be.

I'm also a new 990 owner since late December and I'm concerned with the lack of a response to this issue. It leaves me wondering how well the 990 will be supported in the future.

Based on Daryl's earlier post, a firmware update is far enough along to be undergoing testing as of a few weeks ago. That suggests that a response is impending.

Maybe. But the fact that Outlaw hasn't responded to this thread since August suggests they aren't doing anything...

It suggests that they aren't telling us what they are doing, not that they aren't doing anything.

Well that is one perspective. I disagree though, due to the fact that the issue was originally raised in April and there has been next to nothing from Outlaw as far as a response. If they were working on something, why not say so?

I'm proud to own a Outlaw 990!!!!
Enough said!!!!!

Clearly, they are working on something, because at least one forum member has been sent a copy of the new firmware. As for why they aren't talking about it, I think that can be traced to two things: their policy of minimal forum presence (after almost seven years, Scott has less than 500 posts, and Peter waited at least five years before even registering an account), and a policy of being tight-lipped about product updates in general as a sort of residual scar tissue from the Model 950 development (when they were a bit too open about projected delivery dates and got roasted on a spit in numerous online forums when the product ran into numerous delays).

this is reassuring :-)

What now? Wait for another year or two?
The 990 was last product which I purchased from them!
I spend few days on measuring this thing and it has no bypass mode at all!
Everything is going trough the A/D then D/A.
Regards
Kris

I've had my 990 since the beginning and always use its full digital processing with all sources, at least to split and balance with my sub properly. That and none of my sources are so great that the 990 is ever the weakest link. I do find it very amusing that I have read a couple of "professional" reviews of the 990 where the reviewers preferred the clean transparent sound of BYPASS mode compared with STEREO or even UPSAMPLE. Now we find out that BYPASS doesn't bypass! So much for their fancy review equipment and experienced golden ears!

I was under the impression that if your mains were set to large, and stereo mode set to bypass, no A/D/A occurred. Is this not correct? What tests can be run to prove this?

Hi jrlouie,

I believe that the problem is with mains being set to "small". The analog BM matrix shows that in all cases, setting the device to "Bypass" should allow no filtering at all. It seems to work correctly when mains are set to "Large" but not when they are set to "Small". The fact that the filtering does NOT follow the crossover point is concerning, as it doesn't appear to simply be an overlooked issue of applying BM, but some other weird bug.

I started this thread, but sold my 990 some time ago after not getting a fix (I really can't believe that there's still not a fix for this -- it's either fixable in firmware or it's not; if yes, it shouldn't be that hard of a fix). Anyway, on the first page of this thread there is a post by me, linking to the HomeTheaterShack in which I performed a number of measurements that prove that this is a problem. I can't prove that there is or is not an A/D/A process occurring using the tests I performed; it only shows that theres some type of filtering going on, and we can all agree that a HPF on the mains should NOT be occurring in "Bypass" mode.

To the previous poster that commented on all the glowing reviews of the 990: I totally agree. I don't recall any particular reviews, but the BM issue with "Bypass" mode was quite audible to me.

It's unfotunate that Outlaw has been so slow to resolve this. It's been almost a year since I identified this, and still zero (well, there are some hints and half a rumor, but that's about it).

Otto, totally agree with ya. I was only questioning that the 990 has absolutely no bypass setting and always going through A/D/A. It was my understanding that this was not true.

What I did is very simple. The left channel analog out of the CD player to the pure analog audio preamp (NAD). The right channel trough the Outlaw 990. Guess what, whatever I select stereo or bypass. The Outlaw output was delayed creating echo. This is clear indication that 990 is processing the audio in A/D/A. No bypass. The quality of 990 A/D is very good. I compared it to a Denon 3930CI.
The Denon A/D sound little bit better for me but it could be subjective. The problem starts when you use such a quality A/D converter with analog input of 990. i.e. 7.1 input. Then you get double A/D conversion and that sound ugly. Unfortunately the DVD audio or SACD can’t be converted in the D/A of 990.
Kris

Very interesting, krisdz! To follow up with a question based on the point made by Otto, did you have your front speakers set to LARGE or SMALL when you did the test with the NAD? This could answer the question of whether BYPASS ever bypasses or whether the problem is only when the front speakers are set to SMALL. The implication is that it really should bypass any BM if the speakers are set to LARGE.

Despite our confidence in the Model 990's behavior regarding "bypass", we took your post very seriously and double-checked the system path. To do that we performed calibrated measurements and confirmed that the Model 990 does not route analog signals through the DSP circuitry.

More importantly, the tests verified our thought that regardless of the audio path, any differences in the "speed to output" between bypass and a signal that has gone through the Model 990's digital circuitry are infinitesimally small and well outside of our audible range of detection. For that reason, we suspect that some other system variable is at work here. I encourage you to ensure that system levels are matched and that any other potential differences between the two signal paths are accounted for. If all else fails, please try a system reset.

Best,

Scott

Ok Scot I’ll redo it again with system reset sometime next week.
I have only one question how the 990 can adjust the lips delay on the analog 7.1 connection without been rerouted to DSP?
Regards
Kris

OUTLAW - are you ever going to resolve this?

A year passes and the failure to resolve such a fundamental operating issue is unnaceptable.

Gonk, I truly appreciate your contributions to this site, as I am sure Outlaw does, but your speaking as an apologist for Outlaw only gives them an reason to further delay a resolution.

Your previous post where you say:

policy of being tight-lipped about product updates in general as a sort of residual scar tissue from the Model 950 development (when they were a bit too open about projected delivery dates and got roasted on a spit in numerous online forums when the product ran into numerous delays).

makes no sense. Scar tissue from a premature announcement and the fallout that ensued? I hope the pricipals at Outlaw are tougher than that. It's no excuse for poor communication or lack of resolution.

This is a basic operational issue for the 990, not a discussion of a new product release. One issue is a premature announcement about a new product (950), the other issue is the seemingly (I am leaving room that it isn't) flawed operation of the 990.

By making these apologist statements for Outlaw you are compromising your integrity as a good- hearted friend and advisor to users of Outlaw components. It will only serve to plant a seed of doubt to the forum members as to why you're here; to help or to make excuses for Outlaw.

I hate to sound harsh, because I like your posts - and again, you provide a great service to the forum users and by default to Outlaw, but I feel really disappointed when you start theorizing and coming up with excuses for Outlaw. Let them monitor these posts and assign someone to respond - it's their responsibility. And if they don't think it's important to respond to these inexcusable delays in getting a product that has now been on the market for YEARS!, - let them suffer the consequences when members take their business elsewhere.

I looked back at the post in question . It was in response to a post that suggested that Outlaw was doing nothing about the issue, even though someone had reported just a few posts earlier that they'd been helping Outlaw test updated firmware designed to fix the problem. In that context, I still don't see anything wrong with offering a possible explanation for why such beta firmware exists without any official announcement.
I am going to go out on a very short limb and say that I very much doubt anything I post here is going to shape Outlaw's business policies. I'd love to see a firmware update released for this issue, even though the way that I use my 990 doesn't happen to cross paths with the bug in question. For that matter, I doubt that Outlaw enjoys having a bug without having a fix released for it. Ideally, we'd have a firmware update sitting on Outlaw's server for download next week, and the issue could go away. When such a firmware update arrives and how it is announced is not anything that I have any control over, though, so all I can do is make note of what I've seen transpire in the past.

We also have comments in this thread that say Outlaw doesn't consider this an issue but more of a "feature". It would be nice to know really what they think and what (if anything) they are doing about it.

The bottom line is that the issue was raised almost a year ago, and the way Outlaw has dealt with it has only frustrated customers. If they don't feel this is an issue then say so. If they can't fix it, say so. If they consider this an issue and are planning on fixing it then say so and give an estimate of when. At least we would know what to expect.

Thank you for sharing your experience - it is appreciated. Given what you've seen in the past, is this type of response to an issue typical of Outlaw?

Did anyone see block diagram of the 990?
Kris

Outlaw's track record suggests that they certainly don't like leaving flaws in products. The turn-around time for fixes varies. When the 950 had problems with hiss in the analog section, it took them around six months to finally resolve - that included a three-month period when they pulled it off the market and developed one hardware revision (the "red dot") before resuming shipments and a subsequent further revision to the hardware (the "blue dot") a few months later. When there was a bug identified with the LFE channel of DTS-ES tracks on the 950, they had a fix in place in no more than a couple weeks. A problem with the 1070's component video switching took maybe a week or two to resolve. In a few cases, of course, software bugs have taken longer to get resolved (such as this bass management concern and the 1070/970's problematic "no audio" bug).

I find much irony in this thread, that all I can bring myself to do is laugh. The constant updates & questions of Emotiva to fix the LMC-1, which I might add has been firmware/software updated & no longer produced, but yet no updates & questions of Outlaw to do the same for the 970 & 990. To top it all off, a trade-in program for Emotiva's LMC-1 for a just as buggy 970, now that's humorous!!!

Scott,

I'm confused. Unless we are, once again, failing to communicate clearly, this flies completely in opposition to the conversation we had on the phone on January 3rd. Once again, to clarify, here's the issue:

- When the 990 has front speakers set to SMALL,
- AND using an analog input,
- AND using bypass mode...
: According to the Analog Bass Management Matrix , the 990 should pass a "Full Range" signal to the front speakers and subwoofer.

However, it does not.

Instead, in this mode (Small front speakers, analog input, bypass mode), the output to the main speakers is clearly being run through a high-pass filter. It's audible immediately when listening to any kind of familiar music with bass response.

I do not have access to a scope, but I do have a 1/3 Octave RTA on hand as well as a proper digital audio workstation. I will run some tests this week and report exactly what is happening in this mode. To the ear, it sounds like a high-pass filter of 12dB/octave around 30Hz, or perhaps a 6dB/Octave with a higher -3dB point.

Perhaps we can establish if we're talking about the same actual BUG, and then move toward setting some expectations for a fix. Personally I've resigned myself to running my front speakers as "Large" which appears to completely circumvent this design defect.

- Jason

Jason,

You can see my measurements (using REW) as posted on page 1 of this thread. It's a link to the Home Theater Shack, where I posted a number of plots of the 990's frequency response for the various modes.

I think the response that Scott gave is with respect to someone's (Kris, I think) assertion that since there is some time delay from input to output, then there must be some A/D/A conversion going on. It's slightly different than the bypass bass management problem that is the focus of this thread.

As you will be able to see from my original plots, there is indeed some type of high-pass filtering going on, but it's constant with respect to the varying crossover settings. It starts at about 100 Hz, IIRC. Also, although there is some type of strange filtering going on, we can't assume that it's a digital filter (nor can we assume it's not). It's just a filter at this point.

Thanks, Otto - I appreciate the clarification. I have no idea if it's happening in the analog or digital realm, but it's certainly quite audible and easily avoided by using the "Large" speaker setting.

Hopefully Scott's comments to me last month (on my birthday no less) that an updated firmware that fixes this issue is forthcoming were accurate.

Fingers still crossed...

- Jason

Hey LCSeminole. Haven't seen you around here in a bit.

I initially didn't plan to reply to your post because I didn't feel that it would aid the discussion in question. I also haven't been to Emotiva's site or forum in months - things got real busy last fall, around the time that Doug917 made a first pass at updating the LMC-1's manual, and by the time I got my head above water I just never got back to their site to see what was happening. I glanced at their site just now and didn't see any sign of a newer version of the manual than I saw last fall or of a FAQ for the LMC-1. Based on the assumption that the LMC-1's status is unchanged from when I lost track of it last fall (some time before it was discontinued), I'd take some exception to your comments here. True, Outlaw is overdue on getting a patch out for the 990 on this issue. Also true, Outlaw had a very difficult time with the 970's "no audio" bug. It's worth pointing out, however, that Emotiva's fixes for the LMC-1 (which took over a year and a half) only fixed some issues - others were "fixed" by labeling them features. A couple of quick examples might help. Signal acquisition time was "fixed" by achieving a two to three second delay (eliminating an intermittent 10 to 15 second delay experienced by some users), even though that two to three second delay is roughly double the one to 1.5 second delay found on processors like the Model 950 and Rotel's 1066 (both of which used the same DSP chip as the LMC-1 and were released back in 2002). Surround mode memory was fixed by saying that per-input memory was impossible due to hardware limitations, and even then I was never able to get a definitive answer on how the global memory worked - even after asking countless times in e-mails, at AV123's forum, and on Emotiva's own forum. That means that not only was the issue not fixed, it wasn't even explained in any complete fashion. For that matter, it would appear that Emotiva has also still not documented exactly how the LMC-1's bass management breaks when using Pro Logic II/IIx with Dolby Digital sources, even though the firmware that produces that break has been in production since June of 2006.

Just to be clear, I am not making this post to excuse the delay in a firmware update for the 990. I am making the post to suggest that posts comparing the issue under discussion with the LMC-1's mis-adventures is of no use to the discussion. In fact, they really feel like nothing more than trolling. Now, back to the discussion at hand (including Jason's very good question)...

Well, I did some testing tonight on my 990 and here's what I've found...

Testing with pink noise, even using the same 30 second snippet of pink noise designed to have very regular distribution results in some anomalies that suggest that testing with test tones may be easier. However, the data appears significant enough to draw some conclusions.

I ran three tests. I used the IASCA 1995 competition CD, track 27 which is pink noise, and a Sound Devices 744t recorder set to analog input at 16-bit, 44.1kHz with levels ~ -1dB peaks. I recorded the first 30 seconds of the pink noise track while playing back from my CD player:

First: CD Player RCA outputs > Sound Devices 744t
Second: CD Player > 990 set to Large speakers, bypass mode > RCA L/R line outputs > 744t
Third: Same as Second but with Small speakers.

I opened up the recordings and did a spectral analysis of the same section of audio (Blackmann-Harris with Fast Fourier Transfer size of 8192 samples.) The Second recording (990 Large) looks very much like the First in the bottom 2.5 octaves. But the Third run shows some dramatic dropoff in the lower registers. It's not so even and regular looking that I can absolutely identify the crossover type or slope, but extrapolating through some data, I would guess that it's a 12dB/Octave slope with a -3dB (crossover point) of 70Hz.

Some interesting data...
- down ~ 26dB at 20Hz
- down ~ 17dB at 40Hz
- down ~ 10dB at 50Hz
- down ~ 3dB at 70Hz

Hopefully we can all agree this is a VERY audible filter. I can't say if it's digital or analog, but it's there... and it's not supposed to be.

More tests if feedback warrants.

- Jason

JasonR,

thank you very much for your measurements, but, you know, no good did goes unpunished .
Is there any chance you could run a similar test in stereo mode by applying tone controls? I am curious to see whether the bass rolloff pattern seen in the "bug" matches the crossover and slope of the analog bass tone control.

My thinking is that if it does, then the bug might act totally in the analog domain, and it simply messes up the tone control settings. This doesn't make it any less of a bug, but since you are on this path of tracking it down, this might come across as of interest.

Just a thought...

I believe that in stereo mode (not bypass) with analog inputs, the signal is digitized and all equalization or tone control is handled in the digital realm. With digital signals, the EQ is digital.

I believe everything going into 990 regardless small, large, digital, analog is more-less digitized and all x-over filters, lips delay, etc. are handled in the digital realm. The volume control is digital right?
Regards
Kris

The volume control is applied in the analog domain, not digital. Crossovers, tone control, channel trims, channel delays, and AV sync are all digital domain. In most cases, analog signals are converted to digital, but not always. Bypass mode is supposed to preserve the analog signal all the way through, although some users are reporting behavior that makes them question if that is operating as intended.

It is digital potentiometer not analog right? So if it digital how it could be in analog domain?
Kris

I’m no audio electronics expert, but I know there are wholly analog circuits that can be used as volume controls where the audio signal is not run through an exposed resistive conductor with a sweeping arm moving along the conductor.

The digital operation of the 990 volume knob or remote control could, for instance, be converted to a controllable, steady analog voltage of say zero through one volt dc and then that dc voltage used to govern an analog circuit through which the audio signal is passed when in ‘bypass’. I don’t know if that’s actually the case, but it’s possible.

The volume control is implemented by a digitally controlled analog ladder attenuator. The digital words from the processor (via the volume control encoder) control which resistor rungs of the ladder are in circuit and which aren't. These rungs function as a voltage divider, which attenuates the signal. There are 8 ladder attenuator channels, one for each output channel. From the ladder attenuator, the signal goes to the output buffer ICs.

Ok, then, I was wrong in my assumption that the tone controls of the 990 operate in the analog domain.

I stand corrected.

I only wish the bug was as quickly and easily corrected as my wrong assumption was.

Gonk, Sorry if you consider my post trolling, it is not meant to be trolling. It just goes to the problems that Outlaw was/is having with the 970 & 990, and how it parallels to a younger internet company in Emotiva. It still is quite ironic how you documented and asked so many questions of company on a product that you don't own, yet not much on documentation or questions of a companies products you do own. Parallels do seem come full circle. As for steering this thread off course, I apologize to those forum members that I may have offended, and will officially steer clear of this thread.

I have not been particularly active in the discussions of the 990's bypass mode issue. Would you like to know why? It's because after using the 990 for almost two years (closer to three at this point), spending countless hours using it and discussing its operation with others, and following the discussions leading up to the 990's 3.10/3.11 firmware update (including being active in those discussions and doing a bit of tinkering to understand what was happening as best I could), I felt quite comfortable with how the 990 works in my system. When the issue in question arose, it appeared to relate specifically to a situation that didn't exist in my system. It also arose at a time when I had a lot of other things going on (promotion at work, young child at home, and so on). Having already been sucked into the ongoing debate about the LMC-1 by that point (a debate in which my involvement dated back to almost eighteen months prior to the start of this thread, before the LMC-1 even started shipping) I didn't have the time to dig into another puzzle, especially one that would involve making cabling changes to my system and coming up with test procedures and measurement tools specifically for the issue. Quite simply, I wasn't the right person to contribute to the debate, so I stayed out of the way and left it others who were in a good position to contribute. Hell, I was only continuing with the LMC-1 discussions at that point because I was deep enough into it that I was interested in finding some answers, and even that was a great deal more time consuming than I would have liked - especially in light of the attitude I've gotten from some people as a result of my involvement in that debate.

Hello, In reference to mxbum. Freedom of speech is thankfully a law in this country, but why are you so critical of Outlaw products when you sold yours on ebay two months ago????? ...Stephen..

Where was I critical of Outlaw products? I do not feel that Outlaw has handled this issue well and I would like to see them resolve it - both for myself as an audio consumer and for current owners.

Time to kick the dead horse again.
It's been over a month since the last post from Scott. Any news yet on a firmware update?

Any updates? I wonder if I can get some of my money back since I only received a partial working product.

lol at outlaws attempts to dodge questions by focusing on an issue not related to the main topic.

I liked the idea of the 990 switching the mains to large and the sub off whenever it detects it is in bypass mode. Or even better they can copy Classe' and put a 2ch preamp in the case and allow only one source to it. All the others will go through the processor. I do find it odd that Outlaw is not on top of this with a new processor coming out, all of this negativity can't be good for business.

Mmm, drooling

I had a processor in the past that did this and have always wished the 990 did. I don't think it'll ever happen though.

Call me picky, but I think it's pretty reasonable to ask that a product do what it's documented to do. The 990 doesn't.

I happen to love the sound of the thing, and for the price I still find it a great processor, but it does NOT do what is documented in terms of bass management in small speaker mode with analog signals. The fact that Scott and Edward haven't handled this matter very well gives me pause about buying another Outlaw product.

- Jason

I think I find the solution for this problem.
I will purchase the new Denon AVR-4308CI. It has the Denon link 3rd so I can transport the SACD, DVD-A and Stereo etc… trough digital link from my 3930CI and do the DAC and bass management on the processor. Everything else from the HDTV sources will go trough the HDMI 1.3. Also I’m intending to use the 4308 as the amp for the four surround speakers and the pre-outs to feed my front end and sub.
So, my 990 is for sale.
Regards
Kris

Krisdz,

Last month I sold my 990 and replaced it with a NOS Pioneer Elite VSX-74TXVi receiver that I am using as a HT processor. Though the 990 sounded good, the Pioneer sounds even better due to probably a couple of factors. Wanted the Pioneer for the iLink to my Marantz DV-9600 which eliminates jitter, it has a much more sophisticated acoustic room management system than the simple speaker level adjustment of the 990 and the bass management in bypass mode works the way everyone on this thread is wishing for in the 990. Another thing that the Pioneer can do for me is provide biamping to the front channels if I am not running a 7.1 system which my Magnepans benefit from. I will always be an Outlaw customer at heart (great people on this forum) and it was difficult for me to sell the 990 but I had no choice but to move on. Good luck with your next purchase.

Slbenz

Slbenz,

Same here. Despite how much I like the people here and the product itself. Lack of the response from the Outlaw forced me to move on. My 990 will be on Ebay soon as I get the Denon 4308CI. I want do some tests on both units. I will post them latter here.
Best regards to everybody.
Kris

Silbenz, you mentioned your Magnepans benefiting from using (I presume) 4 channels of your Pioneer receiver. Are your Maggies 3.6s or higher, or have you adapted 1.6s by doing a crossoverectomy on them? And what are you using for a line-level crossover? Can you describe the benefits you've heard from biamping? Thanks.

My 990 is going up for sale too.

My .02 cents, it appears that we have some children here who complain when things don't work as they expect and throw tantrums. When you purchased Outlaw equipment, you had a 30 day trial period. If the product didn't meet your needs, then you should have returned it.

If you guys need to sell your Outlaw products, do so, move on and grow up.

Yes, I am using four of the Pioneer's built-in amps. The Pioneer already has a built-in crossover to handle the active crossover needs of my Magnepan IIIas. Biamping with the Pioneer really lit up my IIIas. Much more detail, greater mids and bass you can really feel without the need of a sub. As my wife said, it really loaded the room with sound that she never felt before and I agree. Biamped with the Pioneer sounded better than running my IIIas with my Parasound HCA-1205 or a $9500 Karan 2-channel amp in conventional single cable/speaker mode. I am waiting later today for arrival of Cardas cabling to run my Parasound in biamp mode with the IIIas. Should eliminate all the clinical sound that I am experiencing with the digital amps in the Pioneer.

It’s an open forum for discussion of the equipment. If you don’t like what you are reading or what other people are doing then look for another thread to go nut hugging in.

Some people were lead on to believe that a fix was going to be available soon, like myself. Other wise the outlaw 990 is great but this problem kills its use for stereo music in my situation.

Don’t worry Meatbag some people will never get it. Including Outlaw audio.
Regards
Kris

I have lost my patients with this issue. I am so used to going into the menu and changing the mains to large and the subs off when listening to two channel it doesnt even bother me anymore. The fact that we are left hanging without any info on progress of a fix or if Outlaw even cares about the problem anymore has me looking elsewhere. I was excited about the new Outlaw pre coming out but this has left a bad taste in my mouth.

I asked Scott about this the other day, as even though the bug doesn't directly impact me (because of the way I use my 990) I still watch this thread and was curious about the situation. He told me that work was still under way, but that there was a bug in the latest test firmware that affected the LFE channel. He didn't say any more than that, but I figured I'd pass it along.