when you start to compare different models within the onkyo and denon lines (as example)you see the failures when something new comes along the 1st thing to get the chop is usually the amp section, with a pre-amp this is ne-gated by amp you associate with it and which ever speaker combo you decide to run with..

the option of the 10-14 12v outs was the option to use monoblocks to power the speakers to start with..

the option to pass through 3-4 isn't a preference i like, the option of 10-14 gives me the option of running 2-4 multi channel amps or the option of of running 7.1-11.3 in a monoblock setup, I prefer each amp have their own 12v trigger. i never liked the daisey-chain principle..

the option should be there if you choose to run with it, each person to their own flavour for connecting amps..

Again, these feature suggestions are way out there. These suggestions are supposed to be for Outlaw. We barely get a few titles with actual 7.1. When can we expect the 11.3 stuff to be mainstream enough to justify any company building a processor with that numbers of channels supported? I prefer to stay closer to what a company like Outlaw has the capability to build. For the 11.3 system how do you get discrete sound to the 4.2 channels which aren't processed.

If we can replace the "RI" control ports (not RIHD) with a mix of IR connections (input and output) and 12V triggers, I think we are in agreement on the kinds of inputs and outputs that the Model 998 should have. I think the only point where we disagree is on quantity of inputs, quantity of outputs, and whether the second zone is stereo or multichannel.


So your complaint about processor designs always being compromised is actually the tendency for receiver designs to compromise amplifier design to allow incorporation of new features and hit a desired price point? I agree with the sentiment in many cases, but I don't think it makes much sense to complain about processor designs based on that. It also isn't a universal truth for receivers.


First, your 7.1 to 11.3 setup is going to have seven to 11 monoblock amps. The other channels are powered subs. Why have 14 triggers when that is three to seven more triggers than you have trigger-equipped monoblocks?

Second, if you look at Outlaw's monoblocks, they each have a trigger in and a trigger out. That is done because it is impractical to cram all those triggers onto the rear panel. Daisy-chaining is a valid solution for triggering a gaggle of monoblocks (or is it a flock?).

Third, Outlaw recognized that triggering on a whole surround system worth of monoblocks is a challenge. That's why their monoblocks all have a signal-sensing mode that removes the need for any trigger at all. Designing a feature that addresses the problem for the users who actually have the problem (monoblock owners) seems like a more graceful solution than throwing extra connections onto a product that is more often owned by multichannel amp owners than monoblock owners. Then you have a trigger or two, which can be used by multichannel amp owners and by people who want a trigger to control other devices (like motorized projection screens).


See my second and third points above. If you design a product that has every option that ever user might need, you'll never get the product to market. You'll spend years just trying to finalize the feature list, then you'll have a product so expensive to design and build that the project will collapse under its own weight.

what happens to the lower models gonk, will end up in a pre-amp in 1 form or another, look at AVS as example 90% of the people on there tend to use external amps because the internals are crap..

it don't matter who builds the pre-amp/processors when you keep using the same design from previous models and keep using the same chassis, you start to build flaws into a system..

it's just cosmetic looks you see between models..


while what I say may be impractical for most people, it was only a concept, you will likely find more people would support these features than you realise gonk, though nobody will openly voice this opinion as it is harder to submit it to final production stage, though it's a nagging option that most will have in the back of their minds even if it isn't acted upon though each to their own train of thought..

yes I realise amps can be used in a daisy-chained for the 3-12v triggers, as that is the way they were designed to function, personally i never liked daisy- chaining to many items in 1 row, especially when looking at amps that use above 300 watts..

my plans are to built 2 cinema rooms 1 with outlaw amps, and 1 with emo or similar amps.. just looking for 2-3 pre-amps to suit some of needs that's all

If you could use the HDMI out from one processor to feed the HDMI in to a separate processor it would provide all the connections you could ever use for legacy and would make it easier to have all the peripherals in one place. You would have to be able to bypass one processor or the other if you wanted. Think of the numbers of remote controls which no one in the family understands. AAAH, the bliss of feeling needed!!

Your specific complaint was that they were compromising the design of the amp section, and I agreed with that. Good amp manufacturers do not borrow from receiver amp designs to build power amps, though, so that doesn't hurt processor designs. Specific examples can be found in the pictures in my sig. You can see what the insides of several Outlaw amps look like. They share no design lineage with receivers.

I still haven't heard an example of DSP section compromise, analog audio stage compromise, or video processing section compromise associated with receiver design. Those are the areas that may in some cases end up in processors. For that matter, what happens in lower-model receivers doesn't have any actual bearing on what happens in Outlaw's processors (particularly the Model 998, which is reported to be a new ground-up design by Outlaw and their new manufacturing partner). I'll get into that in a moment.


Re-using design components does happen, certainly. Companies like Onkyo and Denon will develop a platform and then implement minor tweaks several times to produce subsequent model years. That's a necessary part of the process when your product life-cycle is a year or less. Even there, though, a lot has to be replaced entirely every few years to keep up with changes in technology. New video processing, audio processing, room correction, and other key pieces of the puzzle require building new board designs from scratch and developing entirely new code. This process is complex and time-consuming, and it requires a lot of work to get stable and reliable operation. Products like Sherwood's R-972 and Emotiva's UMC-1 are proof of this. It's worth noting that both of those products were newly developed from the ground up. The R-972 retained the dimensions of its predecessor and some front panel design cues, but the guts probably retain no more than 1% or 2% of the R-965's hardware. Likewise, the UMC-1 retained nothing from the LMC-1 that preceded it. Both products experienced multi-year delays and were still launched prematurely. In contrast, the Onkyo Pro PR-SC886 retained most of the 885's hardware and had some firmware refinements - and I think it benefited from that. (Of course, it only worked because there was no need to integrate any really radical changes - they had a year to learn from the 885 and make improvements, but they didn't really do anything terribly different with the hardware.) These specific examples don't support the idea that re-use is detrimental or even as prevalent as you suggest.

The idea that there is large-scale component re-use also doesn't necessarily apply at all well to companies like Outlaw. Unlike companies like Onkyo and Denon, with their once-a-year new product releases, Outlaw will develop a processor and keep it on the market for several years. By the time it is replaced, changes in the industry have been significant enough that there is very little that can be re-used. Newer DSP chips are available that do more and cost less, and when you design for the new chips you have to build new DSP boards from scratch and develop all new code. Newer video processing options are available that do more and cost less, and again you have to build new boards and write new firmware to implement them. Changes in the industry (and in the DSP sections) mean that the input requirements have evolved, so you need to design brand new input boards to support the new mix of audio and video inputs. Maybe you could re-use a good analog audio section? Again, you may now be able to get newer and better DAC's, thus triggering a new board design. You may need a new board design anyway since everything around it is new. What's left? The physical chassis, the power supply, and maybe some secondary parts like radio tuner, headphone amp, and phono pre-amp. Even there, you're probably going to be better off taking a fresh look at all of that. As a result, each new product retains precious little physical relationship to its predecessor. The notion that Outlaw is plucking the guts out of a cheap receiver and building a processor around them isn't supported by the facts. On the contrary, this thread has value to Outlaw because they have stated that they are going back to the design approach they used on the Model 1050, Model 950, RR2150, and Model 1070/970 - which means they are starting with a blank piece of paper and building from there. If they were going to build the Model 998 by taking something off the shelf and slapping a new faceplate on it, our input would have no value because it would be too late.


I have a hard time believing that most people want ten sets of composite video inputs or a dozen 12V trigger outputs on a surround processor in 2010. I've been helping people figure out how to set up their home theaters, discussing things we like and dislike about different products, and otherwise floating around debates such as this one for quite a while now. I've heard a lot of ideas batted about. A few of the ideas you've suggested have turned up at a more modest scale (6 HDMI inputs rather than 10, 2 HDMI outputs rather than 3, a 4-port network switch rather than 16). There are a lot that I simply haven't ever seen voiced before now, on any forum. Many folks never use the IR ports, and those of us who do have never wanted more than one or two inputs and maybe an output or two. I've never heard anyone ask for 10 IR outputs, and still don't see a reason for a manufacturer to include that many. (That's not to say I don't see a way in which it could be used. I have an IR distribution system with a six-port distribution block and another four ports on an RF receiver. Those ten ports feed a mix of signal cables and IR flashers that distribute IR remote commands to every component in my equipment rack. If I had a processor with an IR distribution block built in to it, I could replace that distribution block and just connect the RF receiver to the processor. If I ever replaced the processor, though, I'd have to re-build that IR distribution system. I don't have any interest in merging that function into my processor.) Lots of us use 12V triggers, but I've never seen people asking for 10 of them. Most folks are content with just one, while a few may like to have two. Many folks never use the second zone, and those that do have always been comfortable with it being a stereo output, with some interest at times in a subwoofer output. Nobody has ever complained that it wasn't multichannel. (Besides, as previously noted, implementing that would be hugely impractical if you wanted the second zone to be anything other than a mis-calibrated mess.) As I've explained, there are very real reasons why these ideas aren't practical for a product like the Model 998.


Why does it matter what power rating the amps have? We aren't powering them with this 12V signal. We aren't delivering the audio signal from this 12V signal. All we're doing is saying "if you see some current over this connection, turn yourself on." If the designer planned for the daisy-chaining and you don't make any one chain so long that you exceed the designer's planned chain length, there is no harm in doing so.

The Model 990 had two trigger outputs. If one trigger was daisy-chained through three monoblocks and the other through four monoblocks, you would be fine. Those two trigger chains match with the design of the trigger controls on the Model 200 and Model 2200. Or, if you don't like that, there are other solutions. Use the signal-sensing mode on all seven amps and don't bother with a trigger. Or use one trigger to control switched outlets on a power conditioner and control all of your amps that way. (By the way, this means the amps can't draw any power when off - which is the ideal solution for your goal of minimizing stand-by power consumption. it's also the way I have my system set up, with my five-channel amp, two monoblocks, and my powered sub all powered on and off based on a single 12V trigger to my power conditioner.)


I'm all for giving folks options. I just described three separate options that can work very nicely with a monoblock-based system and no more than two 12V trigger outputs. But those options must be balanced with the overall design intent of the product and some practical limits.

I wasn't comparing avr's to pre-amps, I was using them as an example only..

developments happen everywhere that's a given..

just because you change innards of something doesn't make it the be all, end all solution considering you're using the base plate to build from it is a certain that anyone building a pre-amp it doesn't allow you to build better in some cases as some items will get the chopping block that's a given as you need space here you remove space from there to fit certain options in..

I've had the pleasure of configuring and setting up a sherwood 5.1 separates system and I'll tell you this for free, I wouldn't trust sherwood to build a pre-amp as far as I can throw them, for them to develop something outlaw to use I think it will be like the Co they went to for the the development of the 997 i would expect it to be another no show after 1-3 year development cost down the drain..

when comparing the lmc-1 to its predecessor I think you go from high end to entry level going from 1 model to the next..

Most peoples opinions of lmc-1 are this, great concept, poor implementation, still bug fixing to this day and its look looks more like a entry level avr than a pre-amp..
emo has gone from 1 extreme to the other when you start to compare the lmc-1 to its predecessor..

when buying a pre-amp you are buying into the whole option of using existing tech with the unit, now how far you go is entirely up to you, though personally if you're only going to cater for the the new gear you may aswell be building a entry level avr in the guise of a pre-amp.. as all you will end up with is something that resembles the lmc-1 in form and half function..

I'm afraid I don't understand the objection you have to processor design, then. You suggested that specific components have been squeezed to save space, compromising quality. The only example of such design compromise you have identified is the power amp section in surround receivers.


Not sure what you mean here.


There will never be an "end-all, be-all" surround processor. If I assume that Outlaw will build such a product - at any price point - I am going to end up disappointed. These products are too complex and the industry too quick to change. Plus, there is variation in what people need. The ideal product for one of my co-workers would be inexpensive (probably under $500), easy to use, and offering a minimum of three or four inputs. My ideal will be a more powerful and robust product, with a higher price tag. My "dream" (beyond my budget's reach) would probably be something else again, although the differences between it and my ideal are generally subtle improvements.

My examples of previous products (Outlaw Model 1050, Model 950, Model 1070/970, and now the Model 998) were not changing the innards of some previous product. The associated boards were developed specifically for those products, based on feature sets that Outlaw defined. The firmware had to be developed specifically for those products, as well. They had to use some off-the-shelf chips, of course, but if you're going to object to somebody using an existing DSP chip, DAC chip, ADC chip, and video processing chip, you are going to be waiting a long time before buying a processor or any other consumer electronics product. They are not unique in this approach, either. The few instances that receiver and processor development intersect are usually with higher-end receivers, not the cheap ones.

When you talk about fitting things in, you seem to have been suggesting that the companies are crowding the components into smaller chassis and thus producing an inferior product. When we were talking about amp sections, I could understand that. If we're not talking about amp sections, I really don't understand what components are being crowded in that are giving us inferior products. It isn't the internal circuit boards, certainly, as I haven't seen a surround processor yet that was unreasonably cramped under the hood. Are you talking about rear panel connectivity?

If you have some specific surround processors in mind that were built from existing "base plates" that inherently limited their potential, I'd be interested in knowing what they are, but I still see no reason to condemn the entire industry's efforts to design good surround processors. Without some real world examples, I think suggestions that Outlaw is going to develop a deficient product are baseless.


I had to read the last sentence a few times to understand. You were theorizing that Outlaw was changing partners and using Sherwood to develop the Model 998, right?

First, Sherwood has built some good products, although they do have a consistent history of being late. The R-965 and P-965 were good-sounding units, even if their user interface wasn't very friendly and their bass management was basic. The Model 990 was based on that platform, but with some significant revisions (balanced outputs, DVI switching, completely re-written bass management, and a totally different user interface).

Second, the Model 997 was going to be based on the R-972, but Outlaw cancelled it because of Sherwood's problems with that product. It was those problems that led Outlaw to change manufacturing partners - from Sherwood to someone else.

As it happens, I am very familiar with the LMC-1. It was an entry-level unit, as is the new UMC-1. Yes, the LMC-1 was very possibly based on an existing AVR design (the initial development cycle was very short enough to suggest as much), but details are hard to come by. Yes, the LMC-1 was very buggy. It was abandoned (discontinued) without many of those bugs being resolved. The UMC-1 will hopefully fare better - the latest beta firmware suggests that they are making good progress at last.

The LMC-1 doesn't have an Emotiva predecessor. There was the DMC-1 prior to the LMC-1, which was a Sunfire processor with a new faceplate. I don't consider the DMC-1 to be the LMC-1's predecessor, however, because it was a higher-tier product that was available concurrently with the LMC-1. Trust me, the LMC-1 and UMC-1 are comparable. As proof, look through the history of the UMC-1 and you'll find that it was originally called the LMC-2.


Of course we have to buy existing tech. When buying a pre-amp, I buy a unit with the features I need and the performance I desire. I don't expect a processor to have all the latest bells and whistles, because receivers are generally at the leading edge in that regard. If I need features that are still at that bleeding edge, I have to decide whether to get a receiver and use its preamp outputs or wait until a processor arrives with those features.

This is my suggestion that would set the 998 apart form any receiver/processor on the market: Allow me to use every input on the unit. Here is what i mean.

I am currently using an Denon AVR-889, (i've also owned sony, onkyo & Kenwood) it has 4 hdmi, 3 component, and 5 composite AV inputs. (it has many additional audio inputs but this doesn't concern them) that makes 12 video inputs. the AVR-889 only has 4 assignable video inputs. this means after the 4th input is plugged in the remaining 8 inputs will never be used. and can never be used because you can only assign 4 AV sources. I have more than 4 AV sources and can not use them. (list below)

Here is my Suggestion, have all the inputs available in the setup menu, be able to turn them "on" and "off" and rename them however you like. when you scroll through your inputs only the ones you've turned "on" will be seen. the other will just then be ready to be used. allow the option to change your audio input (optical, 7.1 in, etc) Once the audio inputs are gone then its just not an option.

I can't be the only person with this frustration. Why should i pay +$1000.00 for a receiver/processor to only be able to use a quarter of it? the only option is to use an inferior splitter to get all my sources connected.

Denon AVR-889
sony up converting DVD (hdmi) (i'd rather use this for dvd & SACD than my ps3, saves the life of both)
PS3 (Hdmi)
Xbox 360 (Component)
DVR (Hdmi)
Apple TV (Hdmi)
Wii (Component)
HD-DVD (Component)