Wow exciting news!
But not for Outlaw Audio.
Even if the 978 were to become available in the not to distant future if the rumors become fact about Denon and Marantz I think a lot of people would wait to see what actually is put out in the market in the way of processors from these companies.
Regardless of what Outlaw is promising in the way of NEW products they don't seem to be out of the gate. No news from them means exactly that "there is no news".

Are you aware that the CE mark is a voluntary system? The CE 'lab' does not test to see if the product meets any safety specification. Yet another corner that Emotiva cuts...

Emotiva first announced the XMC in late 2009, they know all about missing dates as well. I've been waiting for 2 years for a flagship pre amp from them, promised and promised again. They said they couldn't release what they had in the lab because it negatively affected the soundstage when connected with their new-at-the-time DAC, the XDA-1. So fine, it needed a re-work. Then last fall they announce the end of this DAC, at barely one year old. And by the way, it had a crappy volume implementation that made it useless as a pre amp, the reason I got sucked into buying it.

So they put off the flagship pre amp because it didn't play nice with their DAC, and then cancel the DAC, the component that kept them from releasing their pre amp. It made me wonder who was at the controls in that organization. They know how to make promises, but keeping them is another thing.

Meanwhile they STILL haven't released the flagship pre amp though they dropped a brand new amp model out of the sky without any advance notice recently. I really think Tonewinner is pulling the strings, and Big Dan just tries to smooth things over so as not to hamper sales.

I was looking at an amplifier from Emotiva prior to going Outlaw. I wanted to save some money but I new I would be saying "what if only". I looked at the specs on Emo and their amps exhibit a higher noise floor. They rate their XPA-5 and others at .1% THD at rated power. Outlaw measures at .03% THD on their units such as the 7500 which I bought. Emotiva does cut corners in their sonic fidelity by making their amps in China.

Rubbersoul I do not trust that company and I won't be buying from them at all. I, however like yourself, am willing to wait on Outlaw for the 978 and look at others as well like Marantz 7005 or the rumored 7007. I do need to see the price on the 978 and the look as well. I am willing to let others be first adoptors so I can get a real feel for the product.

I am going to wait until both the 978 & XCM-1 are reviewed to make a decision. However, another consideration is the price difference. I bought and immediately sold a refurbished Emotiva UMC-1 for $100 less than I paid for it to get a $50 Emotiva credit and a 40% off Emotiva processor upgrade card. That means it would only cost me $950 to buy the XMC-1 ( $1499 X 60% = $900 + $100 loss on UMC-1 - $50 credit).

*yawn*

And a gazillion other manufacturers "cut this corner" too. Like I said, that "voluntary" testing is fine with me. If you'd like to pay extra for the UL testing, be my guest.

Voluntary CE compliance seems to be good enough for the European Union member countries. I don't own any Emotiva gear, but I think nitpicking over that is downright silly.

I looked at a Rotel RMB-1575 recently and I don't think it had the UL mark either (but did have CE). I guess Rotel makes junk and should be avoided too, eh? I think some of Marantz's amps also don't have UL marks. I think you should make a list of all these substandard manufacturers so that none of us novice electronics purshasers get rooked.

Best,

Well I guess I'll be your guest! I think it's overly cheap for Emo to do this when they sell primarily in the U.S. Maybe that's just me.

I think you're on to something there....

Having the “CE” Mark is NOT a substitute for what a UL, CSA or ETL mark does on a variety of levels.

First, it is mandatory, not voluntary, that products have the CE mark when sold in the EU. However, the difference is that the manufacturer themselves can test and self-certify the compliance.

Then there is the issue of the various CE standards that the application of the mark is certifying compliance with. These standards are considerably different from those of UL, which are typical in the US or CSA, which is used in Canada. These standards are for safety ONLY and have no bearing on how the product actually works/sounds. Rather, they are simply saying they won’t burn your house down, burn you when you touch them or cause a shock hazard. CE standards are quite different UL or CSA.

When it comes to the actual testing, although UL (which, contrary to what some may believe, is an independent, non-governmental organization) SETS the standards, compliance with them may be given by any “Nationally Recognized Test Lab”, or “NRTL”. The ability of labs other than UL’s own to do this was once the subject of legal action that, I believe, went all the way to the Supreme Court. That is why you see marks from different labs such as CSA (which also both sets standards and tests for compliance) ETL/TUV. There are other NRTLs that test a wide range of products outside of consumer electronics.

Look at the mark on a product and you’ll see two things. First, obviously, is the lab’s mark. Then, you’ll see a number BELOW the mark that is the number for the standard the unit is compliant with. You’ll also often see both a “C” and a “US”, particularly with CSA tested products, signifying that the product is compliant with both US and Canadian standards. Remember that testing and compliance with UL is NOT required for consumer electronics products, although in some jurisdictions it is required for display on shop floors.

What IS required is the FCC testing to confirm compliance with emissions standards or DHHS compliance for products with lasers. Take a look at the power brick for your laptop and since these are generally made for global compliance with these standards as they vary from country to country. There you get a world tour of compliance with things such as “CCC” for China, NOM for Mexico, “C-Tick” for Australia, Nemko, and many others.

On top of that, particularly outside of the US, there are requirements for the “wheelie” logo to denote recyclability (or not), RoHS, the “double insulated” indication, etc.
Safety and compliance is a detailed and technical world unto itself.

Bottom line: Having a “CE” mark is nice, and if the compliance was done it means the product is likely to be safe, but it means nothing in the US. Application of the mark of an NRTL and the applicable standard not only means the product has been tested, but in these cases there is also a plant inspection and follow-up visits to make certain that no changes have been made to any part that would require a re-certification. The day the “UL guy” shows up at your plant and asks to see the files is not a happy day.

As an aside, if you open a product (which, of course, the UL standards require that you put a warning in the manuals and on the rear panel telling consumers NOT to do!) you will see boards and components with a “UR” mark. That tells you that the board, chip, transformer or whatever is, itself, compliant with the applicable standards. (For example, that a PCB meets the “94V0” flammability standards.) However, while you need to use UR parts, or parts that otherwise have the necessary Certificate of Compliance “C of C”), that does NOT in and of itself mean that the product is approved or certified. That only comes when the whole system is tested. Having someone (and I’m NOT saying anyone discussed here does this) say that they use UR parts means that a product is approved, is simply not true. Haven’t seen or heard that in a while, but it has happened in years gone by.

YEEHAAA!!!

XenonMan, did you just out yourself as Howard Dean?! LOL