Doug et.al. - What both of you stated, that 990 has clear advantage (technically or actually in Dougs case where he has both) when using digital input and this makes sense to me. The ability to upconvert PCM to higher bit rates (192khz) with better quality DAC should make this possible (but only for stereo, correct? The 990 doesn't upsample 5.1). Since I do most of my critial listening using my pioneer elite 45a DVD-audio/SACD player and this player has good high bit rate DACs and I plan to use high quality interconnects and by-pass mode to the 970, I think I the sound should be as good as with the 990 (N.B. in the full by-pass mode only, agree?). The trade-off will be that I also watch RAVE channel on Dish network and old lazerdiscs and these will be digital input. Having said that, looking forward any HD-DVD format player should have decoding, analog outs and high bit-rate DACs built in (assuming again here the analog pass though) and the 970 should work as good as 990, correct. Again to be clear we are only talking about the analog direct pass of the signal from a high-quality source player to pre-amp and single-ended (not balanced) connection from pre-amp to amps.

Bottom line was I was going ot go to balanced audio as I'm a believer in balanced audio - no question - it should work to lower the noise floor and produce crisper sound (as does balanced power by the way), I'm not convinced I needed both. I'd love to do A/B testing with a 990 (Doug we're all jealous) specifically with regard to the direct pass through modes. Any thoughts? -Don

Doug, John- When I refer to analog interconnects, I'm referring to passing analog signal from source player to the 970's 7.1 audio inputs (marked "DVD player" on the back of the unit). Also, Doug when you used digital inputs, did you use the optical or coaxial in? Coaxial is always going to sound better, due to the fact that all optical cables leak some signal (granted not all sources have coaxial option-my satillite box is an example). My experience so far with my source player (and I will need to A/B test the 970 in my system to know if this also applys to the 970) is to let the source do the decoding and pass the analog signal produced through the shortest path to the speakers (i.e. without any additional digital to analog conversion). There are lots of times you can't do this (many sources don't have analog output or bass management), but if you can avoid this, then it will most likely just sound better than going through another DAC cycle.

For the 7.1 Direct analog input, differences between the two units should be very marginal assuming the 970's analog bass management switch is set to either bypass or HPF/LPF (the "digital" setting is going to bring the 970's DAC's into the picture, which is likely to give the 990 an edge) - for the bypass and HPF/LPF modes, both should perform similarly for DVD-A, SACD, and of course HD optical disc players (Blu-ray and HD-DVD).

I'm curious - are you planning to use analog output from your 45A all the time, or just for the DVD-Audio and SACD (when you are of course forced to by the formats)? The 45A is a good player, but I still normally recommend digital output for Video DVD's. The reason that I typically recommend this is that Video DVD's present such a wide range of audio formats (DD 2.0, DD 5.0, DD 5.1, DD EX, DTS, DTS ES, PCM stereo, ...) that create a great number of opportunities for making use of the 970's surround processing modes (most often Pro Logic IIx, but also Dolby EX and DTS ES). At the very least, I'd suggest running a digital audio cable and doing some A/B testing with a few discs.

Randomcreek,

The only difference I noticed in the analog inputs between the 990 and the 970 before I sent the 970 back was that the noise floor was slighly lower with the 990. The 990/755 combo is dead silent turned completely up with a source paused and my ear right next to the speaker. The 970 had a little more hiss than the 990. The 970 was quieter than my Yamaha 2500 used as a pre/pro only.

If anyone actually sees the back of both units side by side they will notice the 990 uses much higher quality connections and is much more solid. Honestly, there is no comparison between the build quality of the two.

I am left wondering if this was a good part of the reason the 970 was nosier than the 990. Keep in mind, this was at a level hopefully no one would be listening at and would easily be drown out by the source material. At practical levels, the 970 should perform very similar to the 990 via the analog inputs.

I have a question regarding performance for movies. I agree they share the same processor chip, but after the DD, DTS, etc., processing is accomplished, aren't the decoded signals then sent to the DAC's for coversion to analog output?

If this is case, which I belive it is, and the 990 has better DAC's, then it should also sound better for DVD's as well; no?

Similar performance should only be achieved via analog inputs with no digital processing. And, would actually favor the 970 IMO, because of the analog filter used for the 7.1 inputs. Both would be the same in Large bypass mode with no filter engaged and with the digital fiter engaged. Cant for the life of me figure out why they didn't include the analog filter with the 990.

IMO if Outlaw had used better DAC's in the 970 it would be a much better deal than the 990 if you don't require balanced outputs.

I have the 950 which supposedly has inferior DAC's to the 970, but only use it when decoding a two channel source. I get much better performance using the 5.1 analog inputs and using the processor and DAC's from my Sony NS 999ES DVDP. It has high quality 24/192 DACs.

I'm curious how it stand up against the the new units?

Doug you bring up some good points, but this is an area where I feel many are missing the boat. Fact is tht the majority of our entertainment, for the time being at least, is DD or DTS. In the case where you have a source with superior processing and conversion to the pre-processor then the rest are of litte use/importance most of the time.

Of course the processor is always going to be needed to the additional things it brings to the table, but this is the reason I've been ranting about paying more attention to the analog inputs. We certainly don't need digital processing, this is just wrong. Analog filters here and you can have the best of both worlds.

I actually made a post on 990 forum about how I would like to see Outlaw make the ideal pre-processor. Had they just put the simple analog crossover on the 990 they would have made allot more sales, or put higher quality DAC's in the 970 and ditto.

Either would have give us the flexiblity we need for movies, SACD, DVDA, etc. Right both fall short in one aspect. This is the only reason I'm still looking.

I know they have the ICBM, but no thanks to all the extra clutter.

Gonc- I am planning on using the analog direct-pass all the time for the DVD player and digital inputs for laserdisc player, satillite box, etc. It's important in this context that you know that my surround speaker set up is different than most and was something I had to research quite a bit of research on to figuge out how to do right. Here's what I'm doing. I have 7.2 speakers, but only use DD 5.1 decoding (because I only have 5 channels of the sweet modded amps I described due to cost considerations). The surrounds are located on the side and back (as with 7.1) but wired in parallel (amp to side speaker, then from side speaker to back speaker). This effectively creates a 4 ohm load on the amp and works fine if your amp can handle a 4 ohm load. Key here is that my DVD player decodes the 5.1 signal, adds full bass management and speaker distance settings and the ability to select the position of the surround speakers - which in this set up is "on the side wall behind the listener (i.e. half way between the side and back speakers). It works like a charm to provice 360 soundfield for all 5 channel media. Trade-off is that I don't have discrete back channel for EX discs (but I'm willing to live with this).

I agree with you that some A/B testing with the digital input and different surround fields that the 970 offers is needed and will give this a try and let you know how it goes.

Doug- Your point on noise floor being lower is probably correct. I suspect that the 990 would have a lower noise floor compared to 970 due to the balanced outputs and higher quality DAC in 990 (vs unbalanced for 970). Were you using the balanced outputs from preamp to amp when doing your noise floor testing? Remember, I've already lowered my noise floor considerably with balanced power transformers supplying all my gear. It could be that it could go even lower with fully balanced preamp, interconects and amps- I don't know. I'd like to try this, but with considerable recent investment in amps that do not have balanced inputs, it will have to wait. BTW- My understanding is that it's not only the inputs that matter, but the entire amp/preamp set-up needs to be balanced throughout the electronic architecture (and I think this is why the new Outlaw stuff is soooooo popular- they did it and are not charging an arm and a leg for it).

Jack- I don't know the real answer to your question of why there is no analog filter mode on the 990. Could it be that with the better Quality DACs that it's really not necessary? And you are making my point that in my set up when I do critical listening I'll be using my DVD/SACD/DVD audio player to do the decoding for 5.1 media most of the time, therefore no need to pass through another DAC- analog is the way to go. I'll still need the 970 to decode other devices and swithch/convert video signals. So trade-offs for my going with the 970 is that I won't get as high quality DAC for my satillite dish and laserdisk player and stereo CDs are not upconverted to higher bit-rate. So if your source player for critical listening is high-speed and you don't plan on going fully balanced pre-amp and amps, then it may not be necessary to go up to the 990 to get excellent sound.

The Outlaw 755 amps I have use only analog connections and that is what I used when comparing the 2 units.