Seeing the prices of the 990 dropping, I'm somewhat interested (probably will wait for the successor though) in picking up a 990 and an amp as an upgrade over my 1070. It's quite a handsome piece of equipment - but it's girth is something I really notice in the pictures. What about the insides of it makes it so large heightwise?

RedSIinPA,
More like the space required for the back panel. Take out the balanced connectors and you could loose some height (for example).
Later.....

The 990 uses the same case as a receiver (Sherwood R-965?). So, all that room was used up by amplifiers in the Sherwood. One of the advantages of a large case is it is easier to do hookups on the back and all the extra room might also explain why the 990 has balanced outputs.

Just take a look at the back panel. They needed the height to get all those connectors in place. In fact I wish there was a little more room back there. Once you get 4 or 5 digital sources plus 3 DVI cables, all the XLR cables to the amp and then add in the analog cables and you are pretty tight back there. I am running a 5.1 surround system and I have nearly 30 cables connected to the back of my system! All in all I think they did a pretty good job of using the available real estate.

My biggest wish would be for them to give more room around the 7.1 analog inputs. When you are using decent RC cables such as the Outlaw Cables the connectors are nearly touching each other, which makes it very difficult to make all those connections. Especially when you have hands like "The Thing" from Fantastic Four!

Moving from DVI to HDMI should reduce the size needed a bit, methinks.

I also hope they move away from USB and go with an ethernet port on the future product.

But mostly I hope they work out as many bugs as they can before releasing it to the public.

I'd rather have a product with fewer "nice-to-haves" that is more solid and less quirky than the 990 is now.

Specifically, make sure it doesn't make popping noises when switching surround modes, or doing anything really as this is annoying and potentially damaging to speakers...and quicken the amount of time it takes for the player to figure out what kind of audio stream it's working with.

AvFan's right on target - the chassis used for the Model 990 was developed by Etronics originally as a receiver with seven channels of amplification (and something like 120 watts per channel), so there was originally a lot of additional hardware on the left and right sides of the chassis. Outlaw used that real estate for the balanced outputs and DVI switching.
The 990's replacement would only be likely to use the same height chassis if Outlaw were to use an Etronics platform that also retained that chassis (I've read that Sherwood will have a receiver that retains that same cabinet). Moving from DVI to HDMI will not help any - the cabinet dimensions will be dictated by other factors. Is it being developed solely by Outlaw and Eastech, as the 1050, 950, and 1070/970 were? Is it being based on a platform developed by someone else, as with the 990 and the Etronics/Sherwood R-965/P-965? If it's the latter, was the platform developed as a receiver first? That is the sort of stuff that will determine the height of the cabinet.
Compared to other products I've used, the 990's speed is pretty respectable here (fast enough that it doesn't generate snide remarks from my wife, who I consider an excellent test subject for evaluating signal acquisition time). On the other hand, part of the October announcement that mentioned waiting on a final implementation from Cirrus for the 49700 related to getting really fast signal acquisition times for the new audio formats, so we may see even faster acquisition times than the 990 exhibits in the next generation. (Rampant speculation mode off, as it's time to eat some lunch before my next meeting...)

My RDC-7.1 has no such issues when locking on to signal type.

If I remember correctly, the 990 had about a half second lag time when a source was first turned on.

I would agree that the 990's acquisition time is around half a second, but that compares to a second or even a couple seconds for many other surround receivers or processors. The Model 950 averaged closer to one and a half seconds, and Emotiva's LMC-1 apparently takes around two or three seconds in many cases.

Heh, guess I'm spoiled then.

The thing I always wonder is why it is so deep. Height I can see, because of the connections on the back, but man, it's deep. Guess it's just because of the shared platform aspect, which probably in turn relates to better prices. All speculation of course, what do I know.

Yes, the depth would also be a direct result of the shared platform (although the 950, which was developed from scratch as a surround processor, was only 3" shallower).

With all that space it's a pity there are no upgrade components or cards - it could accommodate them. Imagine a really high end phono preamp board that could handle low-output MC cartridges - the kind that can cost more than the 990. Right now I'm listening to Joan Baez's 41-year-old Vanguard "Noel" LP via an Audio Technica on my 45-year-old AR XA turntable plus Mayware unipivot arm and after two generations it still sounds richer than most CDs.

psyprof1,

I can hardly wait to hear your impressions on the Yaqin buffer, once Santa brings it to you, as I'm sure you've been good and deserve it.

Would it bring the analog-like sound? I truly hope so, although I cannot help thinking that such a tall order is impossible to be achieved by a buffer amp, no matter how good. Nothing could enrich sound if the richness is not there to begin with. But maybe it will simply let the detail otherwise lost in the analog stages of your CD player shine through by reducing the current draw, given its very high input impedance.

Fingers crossed...

Please let us know your findings on the Yaqin...

All the best,

Thanks for the good wishes, Alexandru, but I plan to connect the Yaqin - assuming I get it! - between the 990 and my current stereo power amp, a 20+ year old Adcom GFA535, so its benefits will apply to all audio sources, not just CDs. At least that's my hope.

Forgot to say this to you, Alex, and to all you gunslingers and desperados: whether you call the holidays Christmas, Hanukkah, Eid, or other names I'm too ignorant to know - have the best.

Wouldn't it be cool if we could arrange regional parties and meet each other face to face, maybe hear some of the setups so many of us list at the end of each message?

Okay, Alexandru and everybody else anxiously awaiting word on the Yaqin: it's now connected between the 990 and the generation-old Adcom GFA535 (they did themselves proud with that little amp), with a pair of slightly-better-than-cheapest interconnects I had lying around. I've had a couple of hours to listen to it, so far only on FM and the output from my Scientific Atlanta cable box.
Preliminary impression positive. No extra noise audible at listening distances, voices (especially male) seem to have a more "in the room" quality, and music just seems more musical, especially in the midrange. Over the next few days I'll find time for more critical listening from CDs, SACDs (front channels only, obviously), DVD-A discs (likewise), LPs, cassettes, and even some open reel tapes from previous generations.
The unit is small enough to be kind of cute, sitting on top of the Adcom on four Vibrapod feet. It would be nice if it went into bypass mode when turned off, allowing A/B testing, but I'm keeping it on to allow "burn-in" - if there is such a thing - and prevent accidental transients. The tube and power cord are what came with it and any changing will be down the road a ways, if ever.

Thank you, psyprof1.

I'm glad to hear that Santa rewarded you this year. Sometimes being good pays off

I'm looking forward to hearing more from you on the Yaqin. Let it break in (I DO believe there is such a thing) and let us, please, know your impressions on the benefits it brings when listening to CD.

Who knows, maybe you have time to hook it between a CDP and the 990, just to determine where it best fits in an audio system. Sure, between the preamp and the power amp is the place to make everything benefit from its presence, but maybe it brings more when located between a CDP and the preamp, to kick out the digital harshness.

Just a quick answer, Alex, on the Yaqin with CDs: Since my Pioneer DV578A universal player is connected to the 990 via a digital coax cable (Mapleshade Ultrathin), putting the buffer in there would require running two pairs of stereo interconnects, plus resetting the 990 of course. But I just listened to a CD that had so much digital harshness I couldn't get through it before - Eugen Jochum doing Bruckner on EMI, actually an ADD recording - and now it's quite listenable. So the Yaqin works on digital nasties even when it's connected farther down the chain.
Now if I could just learn to like Bruckner. Like Brussels sprouts I guess.

Wow. That's great news, then, psyprof1. It seems to be working.

Definitely you get the best of your DV578A using it only as a transport, as 990 has a nice sounding DAC section.

If I'll buy a Yaqin, I'll use it in my Music Hall, Cambridge Audio, Infinity Delta 30 stereo chain I use for music. I intend to replace the Cambridge, although I'll have to think twice as it sounds so nice to my ears, with a Vincent Audio hybrid preamp and a pair of Outlaw monoblocks. But I'll have to work my way into that investment first, you know, I have to "earn" it. :rolleyes:

I use the 990/7100/Axiom W2 system for HT only, which is a shame, 990 being so good, but my HT room is pretty difficult and I don't have too many options to treat it, given the design and my wife's total opposition to any aesthetic penalty in favor of sound quality.

C'est la vie, I have the other system for music, "win some lose some", cannot win them all and thank God I don't have to lose them all .

Thank you, once again, for the info on Yaqin, very helpful for me.

One more bit on the Yaqin: contrary to what I said above, it does go into bypass mode when turned off. But until I know there are no turn-on transients I'm not going to turn it on with the power amp on.
It sure makes my Magneplanars sound good though.

Latest bulletin on the Yaqin tube buffer (and last unless someone has a specific question): I've now moved my best interconnects (Kimber PBJ) from elsewhere in the system to do input and output for the Yaqin. At this point the only difference they make may be in my comfort at having the signal treated the same on both sides of the unit, but what's the harm? More important for a few of you is that LP records sound even better with the Yaqin in the system and they sounded pretty good before. And last night the Met "Barber of Seville" I'd recorded on the SciAtlanta cable box from PBS Great Performances sounded great; the tenor's interminable final aria was like he was right in the room - but, thankfully, more than 8 feet in front of us.
So: Yaqin tube buffer heartily recommended to all music lovers.

Psyprof1,

I have been waiting patiently to see what your conclusion was with the Yaqin tube buffer. Glad to see you came to the same conclusion I did. As you can see by my signature, I have both the Yaqin and the Musical Fidelity and like the Yaqin much better. I have two Yaqins and the one MF to cover all my channels in my 5.1 channel home theater. Wait until you tube roll and change the power cord. Even better sounds await. Enjoy and Happy New Year!

Slbenz