1070 review

I was doing my usual morning browsing before diving into the pile of work on my desk, and came across something interesting: a Model 1070 review by John E. Johnson at Secrets. It's a quite complementary review, and worth a read if you are considering the 1070.

Well, whether it's fair or not I suspect the 1070's power ratings may turn out to be it's Achilles heel, particulary statements like this one from the review:
"Two Channel Power Output: Max power output at 1 kHz measured 69 watts with two channels driven."

I really think they should have beefed up the amplifiers over the 1050, particularly with the price jump from $500 to $900.

I don't know, the 1050 never had trouble with power, and the 1070 actually has more when you look at all seven channels - it may "only" offer 69 watts with two channels driven, but you can drive the other five channels at the same time and still stay around 65W. Many receivers rated at 100+W drop to the same level when all channels are driven, which is a more realistic condition for a surround receiver.

Gonk, thanks for the link to the review. Now, can anyone explain "pre-out voltage" to me? The review mentions that for the 1070 it is only 0.76V RMS, whereas 1.0V is preferred and 2.0V is the "benchmark specification." My old Adcom tuner-preamp has a 2.0V rated output with a 10.0V peak output. What effect (if any) does pre-out voltage have on SPL, S/N ratio, dynamic range, amplifier performance, and most importantly, quality of the music? If I get a 1070, I will use it with an Adcom GFA 555-II amp for the front L&R channels. Is there any way to predict whether they would be a good match? Thanks.

I heartily agree with the Outlaws “Open Letter” response to the review.

I think that some of J.J.’s “pass/fail benchmarks” are either personal preferences or merely a reflection of what mass-market receivers have been doing, such as touting the inability to maintain full power across all channels as a feature, i.e. more watts for two channels in stereo mode - again a design choice, not a pass/fail. Where is the category that gives a 'green' to the 1070 and a 'red' to most other receivers over the ability to select different crossover points for fronts, center, side and back surrounds? By summing things up in pass/fail manner that ignores some criteria, J.J. fails to point out some of the positive aspects of some of the design choices made by the Outlaws.

The green-red review system fails in my way of thinking.

Once I got over the “shock” of the green-red approach, I was able to read past the colors. What is sad for Outlaw is that some questioning buyers may not.

Acutally, I think the previous 3 channels driven rating of the 1050 was probably more realistic for a surround sound receiver. However, that's not how everybody else rates their receivers.

More and more receivers, especially in the $900 range, are now meeting the ratings they claim. I'm just a little suprised that a recieiver weighing in at 40lbs. with a torriodal power supply measuring 60W x 7 doesn't do a bit better than 69W x 2. If you take a look at a few of the "honest" power-rated competitors such as H/K and NAD, the Outlaw's power output is near the level of their bottom(NAD T743) to middle (HK AVR435) of the line receivers.

SMitty:

Sorry, but I'm afraid that it is just the opposite of what you are saying. While some brands, particularly Harman Kardon, quote "honest" specs that testing will bear out, many brands have been quoting "100 WPC" for virtually every product in their line, an d the reviews aer indicating that many of them don't come anywhere NEAR the published specs in real life testing.

PodBoy,

What particular brands are you speaking of? From reviews I've read some of the more flagrant violators have cleaned up thier act:

Marantz 5400

Denon 3805

Yamaha is still not up to snuff though.

THere's lots of talk over on AVS about a Pioneer not meeting specs, and I've seen some Onkyo tests (though no new tests, admitedly) that missed the WPC boat.

The decibels difference between 70 and 100 watts isn't a big deal. The rest of the receiver is much more important to most people. Or should be.

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.

Who says a "serious audio person" would not "settle" for 65w? Tube gear is often low wattage. The need to blast the music is not an audiophile requirement. My 1050 with a powered sub gives me plenty of output. I have thought of adding a separate amp, but could not justify it's expense. I'm sure there are gains to be had, but don't underestimate the amp in the 1070 either.

ok, well i overlooked tube amps. ill give you that much. god forbid a generalization to make the point more clear. rather than state every possible situation where what you say may not be accurate... qualifying every statement in preparedness for attack wastes my time.

back on topic. i think its great that outlaw rates accurately, but to say that just because they are actually putting out 65wts is not a defense for ONLY HAVING 65WTS. my point was, an amp rated at 100wpc by another man. may actually be putting out more than 65wpc, and knowing that, the accuracy of the rating is less important.

if an amp says it puts out 500watts x 50 channels, would you really care if it put out only 300watts x 50 channels if you knew that ahead of time, and was at a better price point than other 300watts x 50 channels amps? i dont care what the label says, other than about price. so i am saying that an informed consumer realizes that some man. overrate the power and take that into consideration when buying.

if you look at the results the 65wpc was not perfect, so while it is a more accurate claim, it is not exactly accurate.

those of you familiar with MTX car audio amps know that they test each amp and give you a little slip that says its actual power rating. sometimes the advertised amp is close to the actual (close but above) and sometimes the actual power rating is much higher than the advertised power rating. if only home audio manfacturers could do this. that would warrant a lot of respect. but they like trying to confuse the consumer, rather than being straightforward. computer processor man. often sell a faster processor under the label of a slower processor (adjusting the clock accordingly) if it costs them less to make the faster one. in these examples man. are giving away free/bonus power.

home audio is like cars though, the sticker doesnt mean much. when is the last time a car actually got its advertised HP or MPG claims? why is this, because the testing is designed and (not regulated enough) to produce these inflated results.

it's marketing and i understand it completely.

outlaw shouldnt have penalized themselves by producing a solid 65wpc, when they could have as easily produced a solid 100wpc. then people would be like "wow, 100wpc and its an outlaw, so you know its good". instead of, "its an outlaw, thats nice, BUT it only has 65wpc".

i dont want to split my ear drums, but i do want enough power to differeniante loud from normal.

A true 100 wpc receiver can get about 2 decibels louder than a true 65 wpc receiver. This really isn't a big difference.

I'm not suggesting more power is not desirable. I had a Rotel separate amp rated at 2X 60watts. It was a dual-mono design, having basically two mono amps in a single chassis. It could be bridged to put out a mono 180watts. I ran it initially full range to my Vandersteen 1b's. It sounded much better than my old NAD 40w/ch integrated. I had to send one of the Vandy's back to the factory to repair a woofer, and in it's absence ran the Rotel bridged to the one speaker. If I could have swung a second amp, I'd have bought it and ran each one bridged! The main difference was in the bass control, extension and definition. Big difference. But, once I added a powered sub that leveled the playing field........somewhat.

My point, if there was one, is that most people don't realize that at average listening levels, only a few watts are being used the mjority of the time. Only on transients, or peaks, are the reserves called upon. If you double the 1070's power rating to, say, 130watts, 7 channels driven, you only gain what....2-3db?

My Rocket UFW-10 has 500watts. My old PSB had 180watts. The UFW is a 10" sealed sub in a roughly one cubic foot cabinet. The PSB is a 12" ported sub in a box approx. 16" square. The PSB will rattle everything in the room at a lower setting on the volume. The UFW is not as "powerful" sounding at first, but is smoother and has better control and articulation. I guess it takes a lot more power to overcome a smaller driver, cabinet and being sealed vs. ported. So while 500 vs. 180 watts seems like a total mismatch in comparison, it is not all that obvious.

But I agree with you on one thing, Curegeorg(OMG ) For the difference in price from the 1050, I expected a higher power rating too.

my main sub is velodyne hgsII 18 1250rms, 3000+peak. i used to supplement with velodyne hgsII 10s for the fronts 1250rms, 3000+peak before my theatre room got smaller and i got less excited about audio.

i dont know how much you know about velodyne, but they are the amplification/performance that i expect. very high quality, low distortion, and gobs of extra power (enough to blow out the lights if you arent wired right). not that power is the only measure of quality for subs, but still...

do i know for sure that 1250rms is being produced or used, no. do i care if is actually only 1225rms, no. i care that when i hear an explosion i can feel it, and when i hear a car backfire it sounds different than that explosion. i care that i can listen at thx ultra2 level, or i can listen down the street/in the yard, etc. do i crank up the sub past 1/4, not often, but have i, yes. has the sub produced as much power as it says it can, not likely, but im sure i have gotten it close.

65wpc is not enough for me, and its not enough for a lot of other people.

subs have higher power requirements because they have different goals than loudspeakers, plus drivers are larger, etc. so the comparison is not the best, but since it was taken there, i analogized.

you have got to be crazy, if you think you can convince me that 65wpc is better than 100wpc (same quality assumed). only way 65wpc would be better is if it was priced for 65wpc, the 1070 is in the price range where you can get quality and 100wpc.

i am using 100watts as my argument, because i think that is the lowest acceptable power rating that most people want. LOWEST being the key word.

people with exotic needs and equipment, arent likely looking at a receiver, no matter who makes it or how great it is!

the outlaws appreciate our opinions, so dont dare mislead them into the idea that 65wpc was a good idea. you guys should be appalled and complain, so that next time they take it into account.

anyway, i have gotten this urge to crank up my sub now and revel in its excessive power capabilities and wonder if i could get more from my gear if i build a reactor in my basement.

i am not saying that 100 is SO SO much better than 65, but it turns people off to the 1070. you can see it in this very forum. a new person will say, oh i like this 1070, it has good features and i hear outlaw is a good company, BBBBUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT it is only 65wpc, i dont know. more sales=more money=more variety of products=happy consumer=even happier outlaws.

THe key words are "same quality assumed". With most of today's "100 wpc" receivers you aren't getting anything near that.

Of course, you can always go to separates, and I think the Outlaws have more than enough solutions there.

AND: with the presumption that the watts are "REAL", did it occur to you that some people can't afford that? What you are saying may well be right for you and for some other people, but to make it a global statement is absurd. Why not leave people to, date I say it, LISTEN and then make the determination?

Oh, and could you possibly trade is some of those watts for a supply of capital letters? It would be greatly appreciated by those of us who read your posts.

Thanks

Paul Klipsch said something like "What we really need is a good 10 watt amplifier", but obviously he wasn't a "serious audio person" by some standards.

2 decibels is 2 decibels, and it doesn't take much to make as much or more difference in volume. For instance, the obvious one is speaker sensitivity. Another is simply adding a powered sub. In contrast, an outstanding pre section can't be faked or added in later.

Finally, for $1500 one can get a pair of 2200's and have 200 wpc on the front channels. I stand by my statement: The 1070 is a damn good unit in it's price range, what more can one reasonably expect? Magic?

gonk, I understand the purpose of the internal test tones. My point was that there have been several posts (not all in the Saloon) about having to use a +10dB setting and not reaching 75dB or even 70dB. In my mind, you should never have to turn the volume to it's maximum setting --- and if you do, and still haven't achieved a 75dB reading it's worrisome unless you have unusually inefficient speakers.

60wpc x 7 with a subwoofer is perfectly fine for HT. However, IHMO, 69w x 2 is not fine for two-channel stereo listening at a $900 price tag. As the reviewer said: Times have changed in the past few years and as curegeorg says there are quality receivers out there in the $900 price range. It's a different league than the $500 receiver market of five years ago. Dismissing all the other "100 wpc" receivers would be underestimating the enemy

it is no surprise that you older outlaws support the 1070, while newer outlaws question it.

i would fall in the middle, with saying it is a good product, just not great. for that price, you can get better. its a little disappointing.

it is what it is and is already being made, but i would like to see the sales # info in a few years compared to some other receivers that are comparable. yeah i know, internet only will be hard to compare to anybody, but just for my own delight it would be interesting none the less.

Well, sales is closely related to marketing and consumer perception, and no one here has been claiming consumers make uniformly wise choices. Quite to the contrary it's obvious some consumers will be influenced by things that barely matter, as evidenced by this thread.

PS - If you press the key with the arrow on it (it also generally says "Shift") you can get capital letters to work for you, George.

Being new to Outlaw, I will admit that 65Wx7 and 69Wx2 was/is a concern in my decision making process. I've got another post concerning my trouble getting 75dB out of the test tones with my setup unless the channels are trimmed up extremely high or the volume is maxed at +10.

However, having been through other receivers and looking at various 100+W/channel new units, I find the features and flexibility of the Outlaw very appealing. Items such as lip-sync delay adjustable from the remote (without going through a bunch of menus), pre-set level for power-on volume & channel surround mode, bypass mode for inputs, 12V trigger for external amp (if I ever need more power), multiple levels of bass management (including the fixed 80Hz switch so I can get sub output in 2-channel bypass mode), fully assignable digital inputs, true 65W/channel with all channels driven, DVI switching and more. So my quandry is a solid and flexibile feature set with "somewhat restricted" power levels. The 1070 is now hooked up and I'm going through the process of testing it out to see if it's worth keeping. It certainly can get very loud playing 2-channel music or movies in my space, even with the noted problems of reaching 75dB with the test tones.

It will certainly be a judgement call that I'll have to live with for a while based on the price... but I am enjoying the process

Walter

Nice...very mature charlie.

Walter,

I'm in a similar quandry as yourself, although unfortuantely am not it the position to benefit from the majority of the many fine features that make the 1070 unique at its' price point, such as DVI switching and lip-sync management (which I agree, is by far the most usable I've read about). So...I'm left in the position of evaluating it based on ability to perform essentially as a 5.1 and stereo receiver. In that regard, its' flexible feature set isn't quite as important as its' stereo capability. Additionally, being in Canada, the cost of shipping one up for a 30-day demo is also quite prohibitive.

Would you mind mentioning the other units that you've demoed and your impressions of them? In paticular have you listened to either of the NAD T753/T763 models, Arcam or any of the Pioneer Elite models?

Smitty

Where are these other posts saying that people have to turn up the volume to +10db to get 75db on the meter?

I would like to know, since I suspect I have this problem as well. I really like the features this unit has, but it just sounds a lot quieter than my previous Kenwood reciever.

Just have a look through this forum, there's a couple of threads on the subject including the following:
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=000029
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=000058

There's also this one, that is somewhat related:
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=000049

I don't think it's really a "problem" so much as a power limitation of a 60w x 7 receiver. Basically it indicates that, depending on your speakers, you may need to set the volume to maximum to achieve "reference" levels.

Smitty,

My current unit is a Yamaha RX-V630 (75Wx6) and I've listened to the Rotel 1056 and 1067, the Arcam 300, Yamaha RX-V1500 and RX-V757. I'm on the pre-order list for the Emotiva ULs (pre-pro/amp combo) but obviously haven't heard this yet since it's not shipping (the amp is listed as 125x5, 2x50 into 8ohms IIRC). The Arcam clearly sounded the best - even though it seems lacking in power initially as well - but my budget can't handle its price tag. Compared to the rest, the sound of the 1070 is "neutral" meaning no excessive low-end or high-end coloration of the source. I too only have 5.1 but it seems harder and harder nowadays to get a good 5.1 unit (or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough). I still feel the power is somewhat lacking at 65Wx5 and would really prefer not to have the volume just a few clicks from max for most of my listening. I also noticed that in bypass mode the test tones drop from about 72dB to the mid 60's and this is also evident when playing CDs - the volume drops noticeably when switching from 2-channel stereo mode to bypass. I really like the sound from the bypass mode but am now without a CD player for a few days to run any more listening tests so I haven't been able to check if power/volume is an issue.

I'm really hoping to get the replacement CD player quickly and will be testing as many DVDs as I can until then to help me decide if the power output is a show-stopper. If it's close (meaning my wife keeps telling me to turn it down) I don't mind dealing with it for a while and putting an amp on my wish list for next year... but that wasn't my goal when intially deciding on this unit.

This could be one of the most misinformed statements I think I've ever read on this forum. There is no way you can tell somebody that a similiarly priced 100w x 7 receiver is going to acheive "reference" level easier than the 1070. Without providing full system information, including speakers and room size, you're absolutely just guessing. AND, if you're basing this judgement off of what the volume knob reads instead of a SPL meter, well, you're just out of line.

We got your point. You don't like the 1070 because of the power ratings. I'm sorry it doesn't work in your situation. By the way, what do you own?

Wow, that's got to be one of the worst (best?) misinterpretations I've read anywhere.

What I said, in response to a very specific question, was that the volume setting you use in calibrating the test tones (obviously with the aid of an SPL meter as the original poster mentions) is the same volume setting you'll need to reach reference levels. And this is related to the power level of the receiver. Simple.

BTW, as the byline says: "Here you can discuss your likes, dislikes, questions and experiences with the Model 1070." I'm sorry you feel offended by constructive criticism of an electronics product.

My views from the sideline.

I have no plans on owning the 1070 since I am a 990/770 owner, but I do think the Outlaws should have beefed up the amp section at this price. I understand it is only a few decibels but not having at least 100wpc in the $1000 range seems out of place. The feature set looks great though, but that only stays fresh for the first year. Once every receiver in the $300 range has HDMI or DVI switching and the $1000 range receivers start eclipsing the 1070 in features then 70 wpc will be a much harder sell for the Outlaws. Power may not be important out of the gate with a feature ladened receiver but as time goes by it will need to rely more and more on the meat and potatoes and less on the features. One feature that will probably remain uniquely Outlaw is the analog bass management, which is truly awesome, but quite frankly if a receiver in a years time can do bass management with an HDMI cable, then that relegates that feature as less important too. I truly respect the Outlaws and I know without hearing it that the sound quality is "there" but IMO I think in its price bracket charging $100-200 more and beefing up the amp would have made its long term prospects better.

I don't mind that the 1070 is only 65 watts, because I've never had any problems with power with it. I was a little worried since my old Sony was rated at '110 watts per channel', that the Outlaw would not have enough power for me, (the exaggerated rating of the Sony non-withstanding). One thing I do wonder about is the sensitivity of everyone who is complain's speakers. Maybe if you have very insensitive speakers, then the 65 watts of the Outlaw will not be enough for you, but I think for most, it won't be a problem.

In my case, I have Klipsch speakers with sensitivities of 100, 96, and 92 for the fronts, center, and surrounds, so that was enough for me to get past my discomfort at the seeming downgrade in power (even though I am pretty sure the Outlaw is still more powerful than the Sony it replaced).

My speakers are 88/6ohms, 91/4ohms and 89/6ohms respectively (L/R, C, Surr). It does take some power to get them going. When listening to some CDs today via my DVD player (CD player is on the fritz) and its optical output, I was able to get some pretty significant volume levels... but playing music videos on some of the DVDs I have, even pushed to the max, I couldn't get that bleeding edge I was looking for. My choice in speakers is definitely going to be a factor in my receiver purchase when power comes into play... and all I can do is listen to them and pick what works best for my setup.

Oh man.

A very inefficient speaker will convert 1 watt of power into about 85 decibels at 1 meter. 10 watts per channel should be way over reference level in any reasonable sized room.

It's about gain, not available output.

And sure, I like power too. But it's more about play time than real listening. I mean, I own 4 Carver m1.5t amplifiers among other things. Power is fun, and it sells I suppose, but let's convert it to dbWatts:

1 watt = 1 db watt
10 watts = 10 db watts
35 watts = 15 db watts
65 watts = 18 db watts
100 watts = 20 db watts.
125 watts = 21 db watts

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/dbw.htm

Those are very rough approximations, but they're close enough to show the point - after 50 watts or so diminishing returns set in with a vengeance.

While there is no easy way to tell, it would be interesting to know just how much output you have at a given volume setting with particular source material. Not that the number really matters in the end, but rather does the 1070 give a particular person what they seek?

In my case, I have loudspeakers considered inefficient, middle 80’s dB for 1 watt. As such I took the leap to a 770 amplifier and have not been disappointed. My medium room can get near painfully loud without reaching the amplifier’s limits. Would I have chosen the extra expense of a 770 if my speakers averaged about 90dB for one watt? Not likely. If 5 dB is a power factor of about 3.2, then 6.5 watts average/65 watts peak into speakers with a 90dB sensitivity rating is about the same loudness as 21 watts average/210 watts peak into speakers with an 85dB sensitivity rating. Then one has to factor in whether the room is rather “live” or “dead” acoustically – “dead” meaning that air borne vibrations are quickly “killed” or damped by surfaces in the room. This can easily make a five or six decibel difference also.

Again, the numbers can tell a story, but the user has to decide suitability.

That is surprising that you have issues driving those speakers. I have Rocket Package #3, so my sensitivities/ohms are similar to yours. I drove my speakers with the Pioneer 1015,and with an Onkyo 702. Never had a problem getting them loud.

According to the SPL calculator, I need just 85 watts across all 5 speakers to play 90 dB... 340W for 96 dB. I usually watch movies at 70 dB (with 90 dB peaks) and had it as loud as 75 dB, (with 95 dB peaks). The 702, 1015, and 1070 are capable of 340W with 5 channels driven.

So I wonder what the issue is...

-T

That's 2 db per channel, but it is still miniscule IMO.

Well, it's just like charging $0.99 instead of $1 .....

For marketing to people who don't understand, or even to people who do understand and let their limbic system help too much with the decision making, it matters. But in reality, for most systems, it's pretty much academic.

But then, I think we all choose some things by emotion once in a while.

T-Bone,

Not sure... I'm going to switch the unit to 8ohms instead of 4 per instructions from Outlaw based on the amount of ventilation I have for the 1070. Even though I used the SPL meter to adjust the system with the reference tones, I didn't have it out during my subjective listening. Guess I'll do that this time to get some better information. However, I know that in my listening position, I can play the music videos on both "A Walk to Remember" and "SpiderMan" at full volume with the 1070... but can only get to about -15 on my Yamaha RX-V630 (75Wx6 - which maxes out at 0) and the Yamaha is noticeably louder... and the clarity, imaging, etc. is equal - so I'm not pushing the Yamaha to distortion to get "loudness." I also watched Jurassic Park with both receivers and to get what I would call "reference level" (again, no SPL to confirm - shame on me) with the 1070... I had the volume at -2 to +1 (in that range) and noticed some harshness to the voices - perhaps due to the high volume level... yet was able to stay at -15 on the 630 with no discernable harshness and equal if not greater volume level in the room.

I've double & triple checked all the settings for input trim (set to 0), channel trim (bumped per previous notes to get my reference tones to about 73dB at 0 volume), surround mode, bass & treble trim (both at 0)... I've used the same player, with the same optical interface and the same DVDs for my tests... the mystery continues.

Walter

Secrets posted an interesting update to their review yesterday, with a revamped form of their surround processor/receiver benchmark (on page 2 of the review). This new form is a bit more practical, I think.

Sure, if you sit 1 meter away from your speakers

For a few more theoretical numbers try this calculator instead, it's more fun: Peak SPL Calculator

It would be interesting to know what the power rating of the 1070 on a 4ohm load with the 4/8ohm switch in the 8ohm position is.

Is it just me, or did anybody else find this review somewhat confusing (from gonk's link above):
Oh...maybe 65 Outlaw watts are plenty.

Huh?!?!

I agree with the comments of "brightness" at the limits of volume... which is what I experienced watching Jurassic Park. His comments of using an efficient speaker make sense, based on the 2-channel power ratings... but I listened to Klipsch and Paradigm (both very efficient speakers)... but they didn't sound as good to me as the Rockets so instead of choosing speakers that work with my receiver, I'll need to choose a receiver that works with my speakers. Looks like I'll be spending this weekend trying the 1070 again with the 8ohm setting and will be comparing the Yamaha and the Outlaw with the SPL meter to see what the differences are - as well as my ears for clarity, image, soundstage, etc.

And have one speaker .....

In real life I listen to a fraction of a watt, up to maybe 3-5 watts average output. Peak loads are generally 30-50 watts, in a big room. not counting bass, of course.

Things brings up an interesting observation. I recently got one of those fancy power filters. I have all my devices through it. I can look at what the current draw is on the components. In my admitedly small Room I only draw 1.7 amps on the whole 5 channel amplifier during the lobby shooting scene in The Matrix. That was the peak! Watts = Resistance x Current^2.. Assuming that my speakers are 8 ohm nominal that formula comes out to 23 Watts, Total on the Amplifier. That means this blistering loud scene drew less than 5 Watts Per Channel. My room is 12ft x 14 ft, and my speakers are set to small. I would have to say that 65W per channel would be more than adequate in my size room.


Moral of the story. 65W should be plenty of power unless you are driving huge inefficient speakers in Big rooms.

Regards,

Charlie

where was the spl meter?

For me, the spl meter was at the listening position (right next to my couch) at ear level.

Actually the draw was 1.7 amps at a nominal 120 volts. About 200 watts consumed, but amps are nowhere near 100% efficient, and on the other hand, the amp power supply would prevent the line conditioner from seeing the real short term peaks.

Nutshell: Your test doesn't mean what you think it means, but it's interesting.

Hey Walter, have you had a chance to try out the 1070 with the switch in the 8ohm position?

Just started to... not much change. I was able to dial down the trim by 1 or 2 dB per channel and still hit 73dB with the test tone. Got the CD player back and ran some 2 channel tests, in stereo and bypass. Bypass doesn't drop in level as it did before and I can run high 80's low 90's on the SPL meter. Running in the mid 80's on the couple of movies I tested. With all of those tests, I do notice a brighter (bordering on harsh) sound as compared to my previous receiver... and even compared to almost maxed out volume at the 4ohm setting... but then again, I didn't get quite the same volume levels at the 4ohm setting I'm getting now. Haven't had a chance to try the DVD-based music videos yet to see if there's been a change.

Now that's what I'd would have liked to see in the 1070!

Smitty,
I hear you. However, I will say that this past weekend I really put my 1070 through the paces, listening to some demanding 5.1 SACD/DVD-A music. I could only get to 0.00 dB before I thought I was damaging my ears; it must have been the blood coming from them.

I am looking at getting the 1070 ... but I have an unusual setup ....

I have a dedicated 2-channel passive preamp that drive my two front speakers (Maggies).

I will be taking the Front PREs from the 1070 and feeding to the passive preamp (I use the passive preamp to listen to stereo music from a dedicated source).

Will the 1070 heat up as much when the front two channels are not powered by it ?

Some 1070 users out there with separate amps can hopefully give you some feedback about the 1070 specifically, but in the meanwhile I can comment on what my old 1050 did when a separate amp was added. The unit still generated a fair bit of heat from the amp section (which is basically sitting idle), but there may have been a few degrees difference. Of course, my separate amp was beneath my receiver when I had the 1050, so heat from the amp would have risen past the receiver.

So, after a few disappointing trials with some lower priced higher powered competitors, I decided to try out a 1070. The end result is that I'll be keeping this puppy.

Simply put, the sound is fantastic. Music is outstanding in 2-channel analog bypass mode, SACDs and DVD-As excellent as well. Using the 1070s DACs, I find 2-channel music a little harsh depending on the quality of the recording, on a well recorded CD the 1070s DACs sound better but I find the analog inputs a bit more forgiving for most of my CD collection. HT is very engaging, certainly beyond what I expected.

The volume output isn't quite up to ear damaging levels, but I think I'll just learn to live with that. It sure would be nice though if the Outlaw's could squeeze in a software upgrade that added a bi-amp mode for the rear surround amps.

Thanks Smitty...what were some of the receivers you compared the 1070 with?

chas, most recently I tried out an H/K AVR635 and Denon 3805. They were both excellent for movies and okay for music. I was close to buying a NAD T753, which I thought sounded very good as well, but was worried about quality issues.

I am new to this forum, so let me start by saying this. I am in search of either a receiver that is "different" from mass market stuff, or I am going back to separates. I have changed equipment several times in the past year to know that nothing has pleased me. I have owned the NAD 762, Marantz SR 8400 ad the Pioneer Elite 74 TXVi. The NAD was great in power, but the sound was way too subdued for me. The Marantz had a great power supply and plenty of power, but home theater was not too convincing. The Pioneer had very good home theater effects, but I could not get past the cheesy... and I mean "cheesy" parts inside the unit. It had great potential as far as features go. Imagine what they could do if they offered all those features with a Toroidal and about 80,000 microfarads of filter capacitance? Anyway, they all went back, and I am borrowing a Harman Kardon 240 receiver, just temporairly. Decent sound, but not for me.

I am intrigued by the 1070 but am concerned about the power. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the 65 watts, if it won't get stressed by tough loads. If I ever wanted to hook it up to inefficent speakers,at loud volumes, it would run out of steam. I am speaking about speakers that can dip into 4 and 3 ohms. So this is my dilemma. I've heard the receivers mentioned earlier and have not found the balance that I am looking for. Would the multi channel separates setup provide more performance than the 1070? Maybe I should just give the 30 day trial a try.

PS. I did also listen to the Arcam AVR300 for a week, and although it was very impressive for home theater and music, I thought it was overpriced at $ 2000. Just my take on things.

Nick

Low impedance speakers always make me tend to veer toward separate amplification - too few receivers offer amp sections that can really do their best work with such speakers. You could give the Model 1070 a 30-day trial, but if you have 4 ohm speakers in the system now you might also consider the 1070's processor sibling the 970 and a separate amp like the Model 7125 (7x125) or the Model 7075 (7x75), both of which should be comfortably up to the task of low impedance speakers. The 970/7075 combo is $1300, although I'm not sure that the 7075 has started shipping yet (if it hasn't, it should begin shipping this month). The 970/7125 would be $1600 and would be available for shipping immediately. If you really don't need more than 60W or 70W, though, 970/7075 would give you 75W that should have no problem with tough loads for only about $400 more than the 1070.

The fact is there is no magic $1000 A/V receiver that does everything well. A $1000 receiver is going to be a compromise in some area or another and is never going to sound as good as $2500 separates. You need to decide which area to compromise in: price; sound quality; component quality; upgradibility; output power; features; etc. All I can tell you is that, in my opinion, I don't think you'll find better sound quality in a receiver for $1000 than the 1070. The features are up to you do decide. Whether or not the output power is enough for you or the tonal characteristics are to your liking is another matter, this is what the 30-day trial is for. As for upgradibility, good luck finding an audio manufacturer that will respond to problems (minor or severe) reported on a web forum with a software downloadable fix in a matter of weeks.

Don't forget, the 7075 amp is rated at 7 x 115w at 4ohms. Something to think about you have 4ohm speakers and are considering that path.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the response.