Certainly there are other important aspects of a receiver. But all else being equal, more power is better.

There must have been some reason the Outlaw's introduced the 7100 (100wpc) instead of say a 7060 (60wpc) amplifier.

I would suggest logistics on that one - it's a pretty reasonable exercise in engineering to put seven 100W amp channels and a power supply in a single chassis. When you try to add a pre-amp section, digital processing, DACs, video switching, a tuner, and the space-consuming spread of inputs and outputs on the rear panel, you are going to be trying to use a lot more space. Perfect case in point - there have been many, many complaints about the size of the 990's chassis, and that very significant chassis is as big as it is because the design developed by Sherwood allowed for either a processor or a receiver with a 120Wx7 amp section.

If Electrical Engineers with good sense were the only ones making and buying audio products there would be little reason to quibble over 60, 75, 90 or 100 watts. But then enter the average marketing department and John Q. Public where the perception of performance for all equipment is reduced to a set of specifications which tell only part of the story and for which JQP has at best only half the knowledge he needs to both interpret and look beyond the specs.

Of course there are designers and companies that are not all about mass market appeal, but they do compete in an arena that includes such marketing and JQP consumers and a 'positioning of products' becomes necessary. Match that with the idea that the minimum meaningful increase in wattage is about a factor of two, and you have a product line that is 65, 125, and 200 or 300 watts respectively.

This is not an all-out criticism of JQP consumers. Most consumers want a way to judge and compare, but all that matters has not been reduced to commonly available specs and hence there is much wiggle room for marketing and a fair amount of uncertainty for JQP to wade through because rarely is “all else equal.”

All else is seldom if ever equal. Something has to give and I'm generally pleased with the economic and marketing choices Outlaw makes. If I were in the market for a AV receiver I'd look closely at the 1070, as I was generally pleased with the 1050 and the 1070 promises to be a major improvement in usability.

I've had a several amps in the 60-80 WPC range and I honestly never ran them out of steam except in "let's see what she'll do" situations, or when driving inefficient speakers. To hear much difference I had to go to a Carver m1.5t, about 10x more power. even a 200 watt amp was just barely different volume wise.

Obviously the huge bass content of HT changes this somewhat, but then, that's what sub-woofers are for. Given a system with a good powered sub, I have trouble imagining the 1070 running out of power in real listening.


As for the review ....

If you read his other reviews he's fair at least. The Sunfire Pre-Pro got nicked for 1' delay increments, for instance. I do think his rating system is a bit unimaginative; Sort of a "if some is good, more is better" approach rather than thinking about or evaluating creative solutions to common HT problems. Thus things like the bass management get marked down when in reality the 1070 has stellar BM features for a receiver.

I think the scheme that Secrets has developed for evaluating surround processors and receivers has a lot of potential - they look at some really useful traits and features - but I think the actual follow-through is still a bit rough. For example, the 1070 (and every other unit I recall being tested with this method) fails the Dolby Digital 640 kb/s AC-3 item with the comment "Not specified" - does that mean it may support 640k AC-3 but doesn't mention it in the manual? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a 640k AC-3 source and test it with each unit to see what they do? Same for DTS, with the comment "Does not indicate decoding up to 1509.7 kb/s" - again, I'd rather see an approach like their DVD player benchmarks where they test the unit with an actual DTS 1500k source. (Or, in both cases, ask the manufacturer for confirmation regarding the feature.) As for the bass management, I think there's actually an error in the table - the comment in the cell about bass management seems to indicate a pass (with the qualification that crossover adjustment is in 20Hz increments rather than the 10Hz that is preferred), but the cell's color is red. It would also be good to have some room for "bonus" items such as rare features (such as the option for analog bass management in the 7.1 analog input). I'd also like to see Secrets go back to the review and fix the items in their benchmark chart (such as the power-on volume setting and couple other items noted by Outlaw).

I agree with the "it has potential" comment, but as it is it's pretty much an unfinished idea.

Well, I've noticed differences between two receivers by the same manufacturer with supposedly near-identical pre-amp sections and other components with a 100wpc vs 60wpc power rating when running in stereo mode driving my full-range towers. 60wpc just doesn't seem quite enough for proper bass.

It's tough to come out with a receiver line of just one product and clearly the Outlaw's have made their choices as best they could guided by engineering, marketing and customers. I like some of their decisions such as outstanding bass management and 'usable' a/v sync delay. I guess I'm biased but I just can't get past the idea of spending $900 for a 69x2 wpc receiver --- also all these posts about having to crank the volume (on the digital inputs) to a maximum of +10 to hit 70dB or 75dB on the SPL meter just doesn't seem right. Couple this with the fact that I'm only interested in 5.1 for the forseeable future and have no use for DVI switching unfortunately makes the 1070 a no-go for me. Now, if the Outlaws updated the 1070 so that you could bi-amp the rear surround amps or bridge them with the fronts, that would be a whole new ballgame.

Keep in mind that an internal test tone is not the same as source material - the goal of those test tones is to be at 75dB with the volume at "reference" level of around 0dB. Those tones are not meant to achieve window-rattling 100dB levels. I ran the 1070's predecessor (also rated at 65W/channel) with speakers that tend to prefer a good bit of power to sound their best (Paradigm Studio/60's, Studio/CC center, and three Studio/ADP surrounds) and with no sub (leaving the 60's to run as large and handle both their own low frequency and the .1 channel of 5.1 soundtracks). The ol' 1050 did a fine job under those strenuous circumstances.

i was interested to read outlaws letter to the editor response. i read the review, seems solid to me. well, what i would expect to hear. i agree some of the benchmark criteria are not the best. i think +25% in 2 channel mode is kind of silly, unless the product is supposed to do that. evaluating a ssp analytically is tough though, so as John Johnson replied the benchmark is a work in progress. distortion is obviously easy to measure, distortion of signal, power, etc. though i would bet all higher end products are pretty close... none the less you have to check, right? so the question is how do you differeniate between a lot of good products? i would say pricing...

pricing is what sets the outlaws apart.

frankly, 65wpc is going to keep a lot of people from buying the 1070 by itself. 65wpc with no distortion or clipping all channels driven is not enough for me, and i presume not enough for many others. there is no defense for not having a more powerful amp in there, other than cost. so if you like the 1070, but want more power, you need an amp. add an amp to the 1070s price and the value is gone. for that reason i would classify the 1070 as an entry-mid level system. no serious audio person would settle for 65wpc, period. it could make the sweetest sound you have ever heard, and have all the features in the world, but without the power to back it up people are going to pass on it.

i think the 1050 sounded fine, the 1070 sounds fine as well, but i would not own it as a stand alone receiver.

i think lots of people will not buy the 1070 because of its low power rating. yeah the power is rated accurately and not overrated, but 100wts is the standard. a lot of units rated 100 might actually produce only 65, but they get the buyers because of the 100wts spec. so the defense for accurate power rating is kind of silly. 65 is not enough. for some 100 is not enough. above that level basically you get into separates.

i like the outlaw product line and what they try to do, but they do miss the boat on some things (so to speak). 65wpc was a mistake for them. not enough people know and respect their brand name to get by with that low power rating, and even the ones that do question why its so low.

I guess it depends on your definition of silly. You claim that it's silly to give accurate power ratings because accurate power ratings, which are less than 100 WPC, don't sell product. I think it's silly (and just plain wrong) to inflate power ratings to sell product.

One thing's certain: it's silly (and a shame) when companies get criticized for being honest.