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