Outlaw 990 or Rotel 1068 pls help me decide

well I'm about to buy a pre/pro to replace my old and yes cheesy optimus receiver but I got a good deal on a rotel 1075 amp and was going to purchase a processor from them as well until I stumbled across Outlaw. For the same price as the ROTEL amp/pro I can get an outlaw setup but with 200w monoblocks instead of the 5x125 rotel? would this make very much difference and I noticed the outlaw has DVI kind of important since I will finally be setting up a dedicated HT room with new projector and my new denon 3910 has DVI support.

Guess my real question is why buy outlaw? can anyone point me to a comparison between say the 950 and a rotel 1066. also I read somewhere that the DVI on the outlaw is only a switch.. does this mean the OSD will not work through these outputs?

and finally are they going to color match the amps to the 990 now that the 950 is gone >?
sorry for the long post
Thanks to everyone

P.S. if this is in the wrong forum please let me know

This is the right forum. It's still a little early to say with much certainty how the 990 sounds, but early reports have been very positive. I've been maintaining a pre/pro comparison chart for a few years now, and it includes the Rotel 1068 and the 990. Based on features alone, the 990 wins (especially considering the difference in prices), but we must also consider how the units sound. A few folks here (myself included) have had the opportunity to compare the Model 950 and the Rotel 1068 and found the 950 to be the sonic equal or better of the 1068 (I found the 1068 to be somewhat harsher sounding than the 950, and both my wife and I preferred the smoother sound of the 950). Initial reports on the 990 suggest that it is going to prove to be a step up from the 950.

The DVI switching on the 990 will not carry the OSD and will not crossconvert from component to DVI, but the component outputs will carry OSD as well as all s-video and composite video inputs.

We haven't heard what Outlaw plans for their existing amps in light of the new design style of the 990 and the upcoming 1070.

Just to provide a counterpoint I currently own a Rotel 1068. I initially purchased it over the 950 since it allowed true direct bypass on the 7.1 inputs, was software upgradeable and had several user interface upgrades I liked. I will not say it sounded harsh, but it was "edgy" compared to the Outlaw 1050 it replaced (using 5 M200's for both. However, the edginess disipated after a while but the clarity and extension did not. After a few months I compared it to a used 950 and I preferred the sound of the 1068.

I do not consider the 990 a big enough upgrade for me. However, if I did not own the 1068 I would seriously consider the 990 since its current price is essentially what I paid for my 1068.

One big difference between the Rotel 1068 and the 990 is you can buy it..

The 990 is a big enough upgrade for me I think considering I have no real pre/pro to begin with it is pretty much a no brainer. I have seen a lot about DVI and HDMI inputs on the 990 and wether it is good enough for the future. I for one will never run my video into an audio component no matter how good it maybe. That said I do understand the need for many to have an adaquate means of switching video and I for one believe the 990 is fine for handling the video portion of the task with the DVI inputs. However, I too feel it would have been nice to see an i link peeping out from between some of the input/outputs on the back panel. The ultimate end purpose for having a pre/pro is flexibility in audio video processing, switching and delivery. Without an i link the 990 becomes some what more rigid than flexible in that regard. However, I believe I can find it within myself to forgive them for this oversight and will probably be purchasing one in the near future.

Also, thanks to GONK for the compare and share chart. I hear quite a bit about you on this site. It is almost as if you have obtained some kind of jedi status with some of the more frequent users. Seeing as how your are member no. 64 I guess that pretty much makes you the old green guy huh?

The 990 vs 1068 would be a tough call for me. I currently own the 1068/1075 combo and overall I am very pleased with it. The Rotel sound is unique, and will somewhat depend (obviously) upon what speakers you are using. I would really want to hear the 990 first, but if I already had the 1075, I would most likely get the 1068. They are made for each other and the resale value of the pair would be higher. Further, you might find that the 1068/1075 sounds better too, which is a always a matter of personal opinion, period.

Just remember those DVI switchers ain't cheap...$224 for the 2v1 Geffen, and that's with a AVS forum discount. DVI switch box
BTW, no pre/pro with a DVI or HDMI switch will display OSD across them. It is apparently a hugh leap to interject text into that digital stream of video. I sure as heck wouldn't want it to even try. I don't want my pic getting degraded. In the 990, (as well as the Geffen unit) it's supposed to be a simple, mechanical switch, that's all. And as far as I'm concerned, that's a plus.
I was going to buy (in fact I did...I discovered this 990 was coming out too late to cancel my order for the Geffen switch) a DVI switch anyway, so I figure I can knock $224 bucks off the final price of the 990 because I won't have to (errr...I have 30 days to return it) buy a separate DVI switch box.

I'd like to thank everyone for the replies. I like the fact that it has DVI switching and I now understand why none have OSD through DVI or HDMI for that matter.

can anyone comment on the types of processors/dacs used between the two units? is either of higher quality?
and last question what kind of difference might I notice running all M200's vs the 125wpc rotel amp. will it really make a big difference?
Thanks again

one more quick ?
what is the USB port on the 990 for and can the software/firmware be updated on this unit?
Thanks

I don't know what DAC's and processors the 1068 uses. The 990 is using one of Cirrus's newest DSP chips (the 49400), for what that's worth. The 1068 is a well-built unit, and while very few folks have even seen a 990 yet the impression I get is that it is on par with the 1068. Sadly, I think that it's just too soon to reach any conclusions that can be considered "definitive." Give us another month, by which point there will be a bunch of 990's in people's hands, and we'll be in a better position to say. Heck, I'll drag our VP over to the house at lunch one day (he owns a 1068 and 1075) and let him take a listen to it once I have mine settled in to the system.

Whether or not a stack of M200's (or a single 755) will make a difference compared to the Rotel amp depends at least in part on the speakers used. More efficient speakers may never need the extra 75W of power, while hungrier speakers (such as some of Polks bigger, low efficiency speakers) may benefit from it. Forum member wingnut recently bought an Outlaw 770 to drive a set of Polks because the 7100 didn't have enough power to completely satisfy them.

The USB port allows for stereo audio from a computer. The USB and RS-232 ports both can be used to install firmware updates.

The Rotel RSP-1068 uses:

- Crystal 24Bit/192kHz CS43122 DACs
- 24Bit/96kHz AKM5383 ADCs.

The 1066 used the Cirrus 493xx, but the Rotel 1068 uses the Cirrus 494xx. Same series that the 990 uses.

I'm kind of in the same boat here. I posted this a bit further down. I can get a brand new 1068 for the price of the 990 and I just can't decide between the two.

I know they will both sound good...but it's still a tough call even though the 990 is feature rich over the 1068.

The 1068 is a solid piece of gear. The problems I had with it were the documentation, remote, and somewhat harsher sound than I'd like. An experienced home theater enthusiast will probably not have a problem with the 1068's interface, especially if he doesn't rely too much on the manual. A novice will have a very hard time with the 1068, whereas the 990's interface is probably somewhat easier to get familiar with and is (I think) quite a bit better documented. The 1068 owner I know ended up wishing he'd bought an Outlaw 950 once we got it set up last year - the store he bought the 1068 from (along with a 1075 amp, a B&W center channel, and some cables) gave him absolutely no help with figuring the unit out even though he'd been a customer of theirs for over 20 years, leaving him high and dry until I stopped by and sorted through the setup with him. Rotel's end-user support will depend on the store you buy from, which can range from great to abysmal. Outlaw's support is quite consistently excellent and is augmented by this forum.

Well, I'm not worried about the set up. Afterall I have a Denon and as some of you may know Denon makes the WORST manuals ever. They need a decoder to figure everything out.

I'm mainly concerend with overall sound quality for HT use. That is the bottom line for me...and that takes front seat over DVI/HDMI/balanced inputs etc etc. It all comes down to the sound.

Overall sound quality may be somewhat subjective, but I can at least offer my experience. It's a little roundabout and of course my preferences may not be the same as yours, but...

While helping out my previously-mentioned co-worker last summer, I had the opportunity to compare a 1068 with 1075 amp driving B&W Nautilus 805's and I believe an LCR600 center. The source components used were a Sony DVD player and an older Meridian CD player. Both my wife and I came away feeling that the overall sound was somewhat harsh and fatiguing compared to our system. At the time of that demonstration, we had a Model 950 as pre/pro along with Outlaw amps and Paradigm Reference Studio speakers. Based on that, I felt that the 950 seemed to be a bit more neutral than the 1068, although the 1068 did offer some additional features. Since then, of course, we've replaced the 950 with a 990, and we've both found it to be a very satisfying upgrade. Based on that series of events, I would come down in favor of the 990 over the 1068. For what it's worth...

gonk, thanks for the info. If you were running Paradigm Ref. Studios with your 950 and didn't think they sounded harsh...I think I may like the Outlaw sound.

I have heard Paradigm Studio 20's, 40's and 100's on Rotel gear and I felt they all sounded a bit too harsh on the high end for my liking. I always thought it was the speaker....maybe it's the gear.

I'm pretty sure based upon everything I've read and info from various forum members that I'll be going with the 990.

The 1068 manual is extremely easy and user-friendly to read, and covers everything very well. The remote is no problem either, in fact it is one of the best remotes I've ever used, it controls all other Rotel equipment as well and can learn commands and macros for everything you have too.

The 1068 is not responsible for any harshness you might have heard, but I would definitely recommend pairing it with high-quality amplification. I've recently tried the M200 mono's with my 1068 and found the sound quality immediately improved over my Rotel 1075 amp - much more powerful, refined, and sweet sounding, especially in the highs, and a much lower noise floor. I will be replacing my 1075 amp with a Bryston.

Hey gonk, no hard feelings - I know that you ALWAYS end up answering in favor of Outlaw in any gear comparison questions, but I just had to speak up in this case! The 1068 sounds as good as the $3000 Rotel 1098 and represents one of the very best pre-pro deals in home audio today. It looks great in the rack and has some of the most user-friendly and convenient software that I've seen on any pre-pro or receiver. I've also found it to not have even a single problem or issue, something that I cannot say to be true for other receivers and pre-pros that we tried.

I downloaded the Rotel manual and it's pretty straight forward to me. Nothing stuck out as hard to follow. I've looked over both the 1068 and the 990 manuals and they are both well written and user friendly.

Again, it will come down to sound quality for me. I'm trying to stay around $1,000 and my Parasound amp will do just fine for now. The processor is my next "upgrade". I will eventually move into a more powerful amp later on....but I think my $$$ will show a better jump in HT quality by getting rid of my older Denon and moving to a dedicated processor.

To be honest I would hardly think either choice would be "bad". I'm sure both are great products...it might just come down to a "gut feeling".

Something to add here.....a really good selling point for the Outlaw would be a forum like this. Support from REAL users. It's not like there is a dedicted 1068 forum, or at least I haven't run across one.

NewBuyer - no hard feelings! There should be no question that the 1068 is a respectable piece of equipment. As I said, my observations were nothing more than what my ears heard and my preferences interpreted what was reported by my ears. There was someone else here in the forum who found the 1068 a bit harsh, but that obviously doesn't mean there aren't going to be people, systems, and/or rooms where no such harshness exists. As for my comments regarding the remote and manual, I was viewing both through the eyes of a newcomer to home theater rather than someone with prior HT equipment knowledge.

Hey Gonk, you may be referring to me and my results with my Rotel 1068 and Outlaw 950 side by side comparo. I found the 1068 to be quite a bit more harsh than the 950 and ended up returning the 1068. My wife who's not nearly as in tune with such things agreed with me.

Fast forward to the 1st shipment of 990's off the reservation list: I spent several days doing a side by side of the 990 and 950 and ended up Ebay'ing my 950 away. I love my 990 and while I have not had the opportunity to do a side by side a 1068 again, I can only imagine my results would be the same as the 1st round.


Later,
Simp

I asked this question on another board and didn't get a satisfactory answer, so I'll ask it here.

What, exactly, in a pre processor (or receiver for that matter) makes it warm, bright or harsh?

Remember we are talking about a flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz or higher and low THDs of less than .08%.

What is making the difference???????????

Unfortunately I can only report what my wife and I heard, or thought we heard. Can't really tell you why it sounded that way. But there was a significant difference in the sound.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I was running all the pre/pros through a Rotel RMB1075 amp. That's one reason I was so surprised that the Rotel didn't work out. I figured, "Same brand, the Rotel has to outshine the Outlaw." It didn't. The Outlaw pre/pros just sound so much more pleasing to my ear that I couldn't justify the extra $'s on the Rotel 1068. At the time the 1068 was almost twice the price of the 950. I knew that 950's were fetching very good prices on Ebay (I ended up making a killing on mine) so I took up my spot on the reservation list for the 990.

later,
Simp

sraber: what you heard is what you heard. I'll not dispute that.

But, the specific point is that you simply can not tell any difference if the frequency response is flat and the THD is very low. That is fact. Tests have shown that unless the THD is several %, the human ear can hear no difference. You can't have those very low THDs and NOT have a relatively flat frequency response.

So, I'm back to what is the ACTUAL difference in the pre processors and/ or recivers that people hear? Are the people fooling themselves? Are the specifications cooked? Is something else going on?

The terms warm, bright, harsh, etc. were "coined" years ago to describe speakers whose frequency response was NOT flat across the spectrum. I had an interesting post from Alan Lofft (you may recall the name) on this subject on another board. Alan is now a technical consultant for Axiom speakers. If anyone is interested, I will repost his comments here.

I entirely understand your question, ratpack, but unfortunately I do not know what design aspects would be responsible for the sort of differences between units that people (myself included) so often report. My first instinct upon encountering such noticeable differences is to check for mistakes in setting up the equipment - bass management issues (such as main speakers set to small and a sub set to on in a system without a sub), tone control settings that are not zeroed out, or some sort of odd EQ being introduced, for examples - since those are the most logical source of noticeable variances in sound. In the case of my experience with my co-worker's 1068, I had gone through those items in some depth, so I have a hard time attributing my experience in that case solely to a setting oversight.

Others with some hands-on audio electrical circuit design experience may be able to offer some hints. The only aspects that I have heard and can make a clear and straightforward case for would be noise floor - as an example, I'm far from the only person to comment on how absolultely dead quiet the 990 can be (when ground loops are cleared out of the system, of course), whereas the 950 had the teething pains of the red dot and blue dot revisions in an effort to eliminate a noise floor-related hiss. That doesn't really seem to relate well in my mind to issues such as one unit sounding "harsher" than another or any of the other sonic-related critiques that we so often hear about.

I'd be interested, ratpack, even if just a link to the other forum. Thanks.

-SM

Here it is:

"Hi Ratpack,

Those two terms have been in common usage among some of us that participated for 20 years or more in the double-blind listening tests of loudspeakers conducted at the National Research Council in Ottawa.

If you were on the listening panel, there was a vertical rating scale for "Brightness- Dullness", with "very dull" at the bottoom and "very bright" at the top, as well as a kind of ideal mid-position. Dull signified a depressed midrange and rolled off highs, so it was "muffled" and "lacked detail".

"Very bright" verged on harshness; too much midrange and high-frequency emphasis. But you could use "bright" as a compliment as well, meaning "bright, quite detailed" or you might qualify that a bit, if you heard treble resonances that were annoying.

"Warm" was typically used to describe a speaker whose frrequency response had an audible boost in the upper bass octaves from about 80 Hz to 500 Hz. It might be about 3 dB or so, but it lent a kind or "rich" (another synonym) fuzzy resonance to male voices, double bass, cello, etc.

"Warm" was also used to describe a kind of rich, harmonic wash that characterized speakers with lots of even-order harmonic distortion in the bass octaves, and that was also applied to some tube gear, which typically adds that kind of "musical" distortion to signals. Audiophiles mistake that quality for some ethereal or mysterious trait that belongs to their particular tube device. In fact, it's just a different kind of musical distortion, but distortion nonetheless.

The opposite of "Warm" might be termed "Lean", lacking bass content or "Thin"--too little bass relative to midrange and treble.

Regards,

Alan Lofft
Axiom Resident Expert"

And, now, some are using those terms to describe pre processors and receivers that are supposed to have a very flat frequency response and very low THD!!

Go Figure!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gonk: unless someone can offer a strong alternative, I think that one of the following must be technically and theoretically correct.

1. The listener is fooling himself.

2. The manufacturers are cooking the specifications.

3. Both 1 and 2.

I don't know how to answer your question Ratpack. Have you done extensive listening to different processors to draw this conclusion? I am curious as to which ones you compared that you found indistinguishable.

It is interesting to me that just as many people describe the Rotel sound as warm, as do bright. This observation has come up often on the Club Rotel forum as well. I think ratpack makes a very good point...

Jed: I am coming from an electrical engineering standpoint. If your equalization is zeroed, flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, and less than .1% THD, then, there just CAN'T be any human ear listening difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are REALLY hearing a difference, then something VERY STRANGE is going on!!!

My question is: WHAT????????????

It has to be the make up of the copper atoms!!! Jim

ratpack: I don't have the technical expertise to answer your questions. But there was a difference. During my testing I made sure that the speaker settings (size, distance), the x-over points, sub settings, etc were all the same. I callibrated both units using Avia DVD and a rat-shack spl meter. I used the same source and cables with both pre/pros. I listened to music cd's and watched movies. In all cases, the Outlaw had more full, rich sound. It seemed to hit all freq. ranges more evenly. While the Rotel, it seemed, placed too much emphasis on the high end. Way too much IMO. In addition, the Rotel seemed to be lacking in the lower to mid range. I have no other way of quantifying this other than my ears. Sorry, I'm not that much of a techie. I know what I heard though....

later,
Simp

You guys may want to check out this professional review link. The reviewer found the RSP 1068 to be a little forward (bright) at first. But after an extended break-in period it warmed up and he was very pleased with the sound.


http://www.guidetohometheater.com/surroundsoundpreampprocessors/904rotel/index.html

That is so unprofessional.

while i dont think that processors play a very large roll as far as how the end result sounds, they are not all the same, even with the same specs. some of this is to do with manf. having different standards, measuring techniques, etc. there are many ways to reproduce sound, each adding a little to the sound or taking away a bit, thus the end sound can be slightly different.

you can have two different speakers with exactly the same "electrical" specs and they can sound absolutely different. the same theory is applicable to processors, though the differences are much much less.

go for the better value in your processor and spend more on speakers or if you prefer alcohol (which coincidentally makes everythind sound different).

Things that affect sound are, in order of degree of affect are:

1) Speakers
2) Room (Some would argue that the room can have a greater effect than the speaker, and for very low frequencies, this is very possible.)
3) Amps
4) Source
5) Preamp/Processor

So, if all else stays the same, a preamp can affect the sound. The question is: does it do so in an audible fashion? Obviously, if the preamp is a poor one, the answer can be "Yes". Let's consider just good pre/pros, then.

While digital processing has removed much of the possibility for introducing analog noise and non-linearities, it can cause problems of it's own. One has to consider roundoff error in the processing algorithms, whether the analog signal sampled was properly band-limited (foldover distortion will result otherwise), and sampling jitter in A/D, and, more problematically, D/A. The final D/A stage also has a filter to remove resampling artifacts.

All of these can contribute distortion: DACs, particularly in consumer gear, are not perfect, and their clocks can jitter all over the place.

Assuming the quality of the digital processing is the same across all manufacturers, the final analog stages tend to be most crucial. Upsampling, particularly, can have an effect here, because it determines the quality and steepness requirements of the output filter, sometimes a combination of an analog and digital filter. Google for "noise shaping". The bottom line, is that one can use a less severe output filter with increased upsampling rates (and that translates into less phase distortion at higher frequencies). Of course, if increased resampling can make an output filter (integrater, really), work better, there may be the tendency to try to use an inferior output filter to get the "same" quality as one would get with a better filter and less upsampling. Increased upsampling also requires tighter jitter tolerances.

All of these are tradeoffs. Do they affect the sound in a manner that is noticible? Perhaps: jitter distortion is particularly nasty (witness the harshness of early 1980s CD players with poor clocks, no buffering, and hard output filters).

Of course, it should be difficult to notice differences between any decent pre/pro, suggesting that features and price be the primary factors determining what one should purchase (support and appearance being others). I suspect few could tell in a double-blind test. But, there is no guarantee that a $1100 pre/pro isn't just repackaged junk at a high price.

Problems start when a reviewer finds a pre/pro "bright". Does that mean lousy output filters, poor DSP algorithms, or a very slight perception that high frequencies are emphasized? In other words, just "how bright" is it? If the pre/pro is otherwise recommended, probably not a lot.

Now, with regard to Outlaw, their M200 monoblocks have a documented tendency to roll off the high end above 10 KHz. Could Outlaw have tried to compensate by making their pre/pro intentionally bright, if ever so slightly? Some manufacturers are big proponents of "component synergy". I suspect this is a marketting ploy to sell you everything from source to pre/pro to amps to speakers, and it might be possible that individual components are made intentionally less than ideal to pull this off.

But, such chicanary can be found by measurements, and AFAIK, no such emphasis is seen with the 990.

I own a 990, and am extremely pleased with it, even though I'm just using it in a 2.0+LFE configuration for now, replacing a 20 year old analog preamp that cost $2500 at the time (and I would admit that half of that was for the "B&O 5500 look"). Balanced outputs, bypass mode, number of inputs, component and DVI switching, and price were the determining factors for me.

I would consider the Rotel a decent pre/pro, probably on a par with the 990, but with all the "overhead" of a retail sales network, and the markup that entails. Bottom line: the 990 is better value for at least the same performance.

Rene: can you post links to the M200's frequency response? I would like to see the data.

I want to see the data also!

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_10_2/outlaw-audio-200-amplifier-4-2003.html:

"The frequency response is the only area I see room for improvement. It starts rolling off about 3 kHz, although it is down only 0.3 db at 20 kHz. The low end though suffers a bit, dropping 1 dB at 20 Hz. Perhaps this is an overzealous use of an input capacitor (these are commonly used to prevent DC from getting into the power amplifier from the preamplifier). I would suggest using a higher value to keep it reasonably flat to 20 Hz. It is not so much that you can't boost the low end with a tone control somewhere, but there is phase shift where you have frequency response rolloff."

The rolloff is not as bad as I remember, though: it's down only 0.3 dB at 20 Khz -- arguably inaudable. I had thought it was 3 dB down.

Still, when an Odyssey Stratus Plus sports 2 Hz to 400 kHz +0-1dB (admittedly, a $1200 amp - not cheap, but not uberexpensive, either), one has to wonder why the M200 isn't flatter. Most of the expense of the Stratos is due to the fact that it's an over-built 160 wpc class A/AB amp. (Class A to about 5 W).

Thanks Rene!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, .3 dB is nothing, absolutely nothing.

I suspect that these monoblocks are not used to drive subwoofers so anything much below 60-80 Hz is a moot point.

Comparing the Odyssey to the Outlaw, $1200 to $300, is probably not a good comparison. It would appear the the Outlaw is a really good buy for the money.

In case anyone hasn't noticed it, look at Scott's news, today, of the receiver and the amplifiers. Some things to think about.

I read the article and it is fairly impressive. The output power curves show the roll off at both ends. It is only down about .5 dB at 30 Hz.

Nice for the price!!!!

Oh, I agree that comparing the Stratos to the M200 spec-wise is a bit unfair since the Stratos is double the price (well, 4x, but for two channels instead of one): it is overbuilt like a tank, with a massive torroidal power transformer and humungous heatsinks, weighs about 55 lbs. and is class A/AB (Class A to anywhere between 5 and 30 watts, depending on who you ask). The warranty is 20 years on parts, transferrable to a second owner (one year on labour).

Personally, I think the Stratos is a bargain at $1200.

But, I see no justification for the kind of rolloff the M200 exhibits, even if it is inaudible -- it makes me wonder where else Outlaw scrimped to produce a $300 amp. 20Hz to 20 kHz, an amp should be ruler flat.

I'd also be concerned about using a class AB/G amp, like the M200 to drive my BG Radia 520i speakers because of any high-frequency distortion created during AB to G switching -- such distortion is death to ribbon speakers (even if inaudible), and BG notes that the warranty on them is void if they are driven by a "digital" amp (class G) for this reason. Finally, the Radias present a somewhat difficult 4 ohm load.

That said, I'd see nothing wrong with using an M200 to drive a more conventional speaker. I had considered them (biamping my Radias with a pair each), but would have preferred balanced inputs and better specs at a somewhat higher price, say $500 to $600. I DO remain leery of using AB/G amps with ribbon speakers.