Current 978 Feature List

Just thought I would keep a current confirmed feature list for the 978 so it is easy to find. If I missed something, let me know and I'll add it...

- 5 Fast Switching HDMI 1.4a inputs with 23D capability and audio return
- 2 HDMI 1.4a Outputs
- Balanced and unbalanced amplifier outputs
- Dual sub capability
- Audyssey MultEq XT32
- “State-of-the-Art” DACs on all channels
- Phono Preamp Input
- USB Firmware updates
- Audyssey Volume
- Anchor Bay Video Processing
- No network connectivity

1.I think you meant 3D capability

2. Instead of Dolby volume we will have the Audyssey equivalent.

Peter

I'm curious if all 5 of the HDMI inputs will be on the back, or 4 in back and 1 in front?

If this ends up being the ESS sabres, and the unit has an asynchronous USB input to get computer based audio into it, I am in.

Audyssey Pro-ready would be nice! nudge, nudge, wink, wink

Yes more and more people are moving to computer based playback, its almost silly not to have that input as a standard these days.

Hey guys, new to this forum. Any ideas of what this will look like or any pre-production pictures yet? I would love to see some pictures soon!

Welcome SilverSurfer, I have one and love it.

Also a new registrant- although I've been creeping for a few months. Do we know anything about two zone support? If that is part of the feature set then I will continue to wait. Otherwise the Marantz 7005 is an awfully sweet piece of gear.

The 990 had zone 2 support, and it's a popular feature, so I'd be surprised if it was not included this time.

Have one what? I was asking if there is a picture of the 978 yet?

Outlaw has previously posted this preliminary pic of the 998... I assume the 978 will look much the same.

The two are supposed to share much of the same architecture, so I would suspect that the image GaryB linked to is a pretty reasonable approximation of what the final product will look like.

Just setting up my first Blu-ray player using all analog outs and realized I have a problem with my current setup I am hoping the 978 will cure.

Will the 978 have bass management on the stereo analog outs? Blu-ray and current processor do not. Since this Blu-ray has better audio channels for the dedicated stereo outs, I want to use them but do not want to lose my sub.

Anyone know?

Appreciate the insight.

~Bob

First I haven't seen anything posted about whether the 978 will have analog only bass management (I assume you are looking for something like that in the RR2150 or in the old ICBM).

While I don't know the answer to this question directly, I am curious why you would do this with the 978 as one of Outlaws major claims about the 978 is the quality of the DAC's. I am hoping that they are at least the equal of those in the Oppo BDP-95. If that is the case, then digital to the 978 may be the best way to get bass management.

Interesting thought. Today I am thinking about the new Oppo and the claim the analog outs are above what most would find on a player. So I automatically though for audio they might be a step above the Outlaw. But you may be right. In which case the investment on the Oppo could have been less for the 93 with less advanced analog outs.

Been 10 years since any changes in my system. Lots to rethink to build for the next ten years.

~Bob

The stereo analog inputs on the Model 978 will certainly have bass management, although Outlaw will likely offer an option to disable it (and all other processing that requires an A/D/A conversion process). Whether you want to use this feature with your analog source depends on the source and the transparency of the Model 978's A/D/A capabilities. For most sources, I suspect that this process will be very close to transparent - but in those cases, it could be ever better to simply rely on a digital audio connection if one is available (either coaxial, optical, or HDMI).

The multichannel analog input is less certain. Past Outlaw products have offered it, but most processors and receivers do not - and the emergence of HDMI as the de facto standard connection for "high resolution" audio sources makes it harder than ever before to justify the added cost involved in implementing any bass management solution for the multichannel analog input (either analog or digital). For the case you mention, this uncertainly probably doesn't factor in to the equation anyway.


We don't know what DAC's Outlaw may be using. Someone around here theorized that they could be ESS Sabre DAC's like those in the BDP-83SE or the newer Sabre DAC's in the BDP-95. An analog section equal to the BDP-83SE would be great to have. What I'm seeing of the BDP-95 suggests a step up from the level set by the BDP-83SE, though, so matching or beating that could be a very tall order indeed. Of course, something that could rival the BDP-83SE and had sophisticated bass management and room correction on top of that could easily be enough to justify not spending the extra money required for the BDP-95 and "settling" for a player with a less extreme analog section.

Thanks for that Gonk. A bit to think about.

For now, I'll try to get what I have working as well as possible. I think I am getting closer.

~Bob

Quite frankly, I wonder if there IS a future at all for analog inputs in forthcoming generations of AVR/Pre-Pros? The highly anticipated recently introduced AVRs from "Anthem" have totally omitted the analog inputs from all three of their models.

I am assuming from this they have made the decision that the vast majority of their customers would much prefer the convenience of one HDMI cable and are no longer interested in hooking up a multitude of cables from their source equipment. Besides, I think they probably feel that their internal DACs are going to be as good or better than anything connected to it plus their ARC Room EQ is only going to function properly in the digital domain anyway.

Plus it is cheaper to build without the multichannel inputs. The Sony PS3 eliminated the multichannel analogue outputs, yet still is reputed to have lost money on the early models.

To be a bit cynical, it also provides some extra product differentiation between those receivers and the processors (AVM50v and D2v), both of which offer multichannel analog inputs. From what I've been told by a D2v owner who also beta tests players for OPPO, I think those processors convert the multichannel analog to digital for bass management and ARC.

Retaining a multichannel analog input is still desirable in my mind - even if you put a great analog section in to the receiver or processor, you still have some customers who have older players and want to use that multichannel analog input. Same with analog video inputs, which are rapidly disappearing from the equation for new source components but still deserve to be included in at least limited quantity to support legacy hardware. If manufacturing costs started getting VE'd, I'd expect any sort of analog bass management or A/D conversion for that input to have been placed on the chopping block first.


PS3 is probably a poor example. Game consoles from Sony and Microsoft have reportedly sold for less than their manufacturing costs at launch (and for a good while afterward) for the last few generations, but they do that because it makes them more competitive and allows them to make their money off game sales. Consumer electronics companies (excluding ones that also own movie studios and record labels) don't make any money from software sales. A cheap multichannel analog output on a disc player is not a huge cost increase. A really excellent analog output is pretty pricey, but it's also pretty rare. Sony didn't incur the extra cost on the PS3, probably for a number of reasons. One would be that first cost (an extra $10 in manufacturing costs, maybe). Another was rear panel space - game consoles tend to be "simple" at the rear panel, and an eight-channel cluster of RCA's would have been hard to fit. A collateral side effect that I'm sure they were happy to get was Blu-ray player sales - the only reason to have multichannel analog outputs was to support multichannel lossless audio, which means Blu-ray and (for the early PS3's) SACD. If you can't use HDMI for that because you have an older receiver, Sony would be happy to sell you a standalone BD player instead. (Oops, I'm being cynical again this morning...)

"...the only reason to have multichannel analog outputs was to support multichannel lossless audio, which means Blu-ray and (for the early PS3's) SACD. If you can't use HDMI for that because you have an older receiver, Sony would be happy to sell you a standalone BD player instead. "

And two channel 24/192.

The reason I bought the Oppo 95, and considered the Nuforce editions as well as Denon 2012, is for the best possible analog on MCH and 2 CH. But without analog inputs with bass management, I am unable to take advantage of these features. For now, I am am usable with 5.1 and have bass management working well. But two channel is either redigitized and downsampled or has no bass management. With HDMI (which my processor does not have) I am also somewhat limited on what would be lossless, no? In other words, would HDMI pass 2 channel 24/192 or downsample to 24/96?

This becomes a tad confusing for me, as you can see. Either I really do not need a new processor, or with a new processor would not have needed the advanced and extra cost analog stages of the Oppo player.

So not even discussing flac or shnf formats which I can always burn to wav or DVD-A for higher res (24 bit) files, I am unsure my best path forward to be sure I can get the best out of Cd, Blu-ray Audio, DVD-A, SACD and hi res 2 channel.

~Bob

With very very few exceptions, surround receivers and processors only do bass management in the digital domain. That's the nature of the beast. If you want 2.1 with the BDP-95's internal DACs, then you need to either use the player's 7.1 analog output and set the fronts to "small" - at which point the player's bass management will be enabled - or you need an outboard analog bass management tool such as the ICBM-1 (or the RR2150 receiver). Using the 7.1 output from the player will give you bass management, and if you disable Pro Logic II it will preserve the stereo mix (so no signal for center or surrounds).


It depends on a lot of factors. HDMI can pass 24/192 PCM stereo. Will the player output it? (Some may not.) Will the processor or receiver retain a 24/192 signal throughout the digital signal path, including room correction, bass management, surround processing, etc.? (Some may not.)

What 24/192 sources do you have? Most lossless audio on Blu-ray is not 24/192. Most of it is either 24/48 or 24/96. They are still all lossless, whether TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, uncompressed PCM, MLP, or DSD.


I would argue that there is no single answer here, which is part of the problem. It's a matter of how far you plan to go when chasing optimal performance. You can upgrade your processor to something with HDMI and a really excellent analog section, or you can keep your non-HDMI processor and upgrade your source(s). Either approach will work. For example, you can use the BDP-95 with a non-HDMI processor and get tremendous analog audio performance. We don't know how the Model 978 or Model 998 will compare sonically because the don't exist, and I hate the idea of guessing how it will sound based on some newsletters - that's a dangerous road to go down. Would a used BDP-80 paired with a Model 978 sound as good as a BDP-95 paired with a Model 990? Nobody can know.

If you have or are going to get a BDP-95, I would suggest connecting both the 7.1 analog output (which you need for multichannel sources like Blu-ray, SACD, and DVD-A) and the stereo analog output to your existing processor, then compare the two with CD's to see which you prefer: the stereo output (no bass management, ESS eight-channel DAC configured with four channels each for left and right) or the 7.1 output (bass management, same model of ESS DAC using one channel per output channel). Be sure to set your processor so the stereo analog input is not being converted to digital. (By the way, what processor do you have right now?) I'd also suggest setting the BDP-95's SACD output to "DSD" so that the DSD signal goes straight to the DAC, although this means that you won't have bass management with SACD's.

Wouldn't an ICBM solve this for you? Not made anymore of course, but available used. Or the 950 prepro? I'll make you a really good deal when I finally decide on what to replace it with But it has no room correction abilities whatsoever. Actually, I'm in a somewhat similar situation regarding a new prepro, as I had my Oppo 980 modified to improve the analogue multichannel output.

Edit: Gonk beat me to it.

I have vinyl rips of 24/192. and Neil Young has now released some hi-rez stuff too. HD Tracks are also releasing some hi-rez content also. 24/192 is also a format we record in occasionally.

Well, I do have DSD set and do use the analog outs. My proc is a Parasound AVC-1800. There is no setting for analog on the stereo ins. They always do a digital conversion.

And you are correct. There is no single answer. No matter how much I thought this through, its a different story once you receive the gear and actually setup and play. The compromises are not obvious until I try all the possibilities.

~Bob

All the more reason to focus your efforts on the 5.1 analog connection, as the BDP-95 can provide bass management there for you (for both stereo and multichannel sources, SACD notwithstanding). If you wanted to get a little extreme, you could connect both the stereo analog output and the left/right channels of the 7.1 analog output into a good quality switch box of some sort. You could then feed the stereo output signal into the left/right channels of the 5.1 analog input while also getting the subwoofer signal from the 7.1 output (produced by the BDP-95's internal bass management). I don't think that I'd go that far with it, but I have no doubt that other people would.


Likewise, the possible permutations that can be used when mixing different components can seem almost limitless (see my suggestion above for an example). For what it's worth, I think you got a very nice piece of equipment when you picked up that BDP-95.

I don't know anything about the 978's bass management, but I can tell you that you can still use your sub even if there is no analog bass management. Just run your fronts full range with the sub. Now this results in what people call "double bass" but its not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, although I have the 950 which has analog bass management, I've actually achieved a flatter bass response in "double bass" mode than I have with the analog bass management enabled. The trick is getting the speaker locations, phase, and crossover settings right.

But - this is why I think its so critical for the pre/pro to have a great DAC/analog section. Its just so much easier if the pre/pro can manage bass in the digital domain. And you get the extra benefit of not having to spend $$$ on source gear with great DACs/analog peformance.

He can't do this with his Parasound without having the BDP-95's stereo analog output converted to digital.

Right. Missed that detail. And it would be a shame to redigitize that signal from the BDP-95. I simply cannot understand why any modern pre/pro wouldn't provide bypass on the analog inputs.

Does anyone know if the 978 will have balanced stereo inputs? I am getting an Oppo 95 which has this feature.

I don't think Outlaw has said one way or another about the balanced stereo inputs yet. One thing you may want to consider: Outlaw has said the 978 will ship with "state of the art" DAC's. I'm waiting to see exactly what they are before I commit to either the Oppo BDP-93 or 95. If the Outlaw has comparable DAC's to the Oppo 95, I will get the BDP-93 and use HDMI to take advantage of Audyssey XT32 in the 978.

The AVC-1800 was released around 2000 (that's the copyright date in the manual, at least). The Model 1050 receiver (released around the same time and admittedly not as expensive as the AVC-1800) didn't have a stereo analog bypass mode, either. Both have the ability for such a bypass by using the 5.1 analog input, which was often considered sufficient. After all, at the time most DVD players would have been connected via optical or coaxial and the multichannel analog input could be used for any more "exotic" analog sources. In hindsight, stereo analog bypass is a pretty useful feature for a lot of people.

What would be the adsvantages of balanced stereo inputs, other than being able to run longer cables?

I can think of three things, but in terms of performance are nominal and highly conditional:
1: If the source's output is a balanced signal and the 978's input balanced, you maintain a highly noise & distortion resistant signal between the components.
2: A potentially more secure physical connection versus RCA (negated if a locking RCA connector is used)
3: If the 978 is located in a electrically noisy environment (ie-PC nearby), a balanced cable should offer better noise rejection than say, a cheddar-cheese (poorly shielded) RCA cable.

In short, I don't think a balanced input on the 978 would offer much sonic improvement over a quality RCA connection; especially if the distance between components is short.

So really no compelling reason to jack up the price for little benefit. At some point we are just going to have to stop customizing the device so it can actually be constructed. There are probably devices to take balanced inputs and change them to RCA outputs without too much expense.

RCA/balanced converters are availble even at Radio Sgack and RCA/LCR cabels are availale from Monoprice. If your intrested in Balanced inputs to retain a fully balanced sound chain, however, I don't expect either will meet your needs.
I've never seen much difference in balanced and unbalanced connections , except far long cable runs.

A feature I'd love to see on the 978 is virtual inputs. By virtual inputs I mean a system where during setup the input is first named by the user, then multiple properties assigned to it such as:
-number of active speakers
-crossover points per speaker
-individual speaker levels
-default surround mode
-apply video processing
-apply eq (including different types of eq: "flat", "normal", etc.)
-physical input (aka "connector" for purposes of this post). Important: one connector can be assigned -to multiple virtual inputs.
-physical output connectors (audio and video)

I've only owned one AV component that had this feature(Theta Casablanca prepro-sold long ago), and I miss it (feature) to this day. Let me provide a few examples of why virtual inputs would be useful.

If you have a single source (ie: HTPC) capable of serving multiple media types like audio and video, you would likely want different combinations of speakers and processing optimized for said media. For example, if you're listing to music you may only want two speakers (plus possibly a sub if they are bandwidth limited). For surround encoded movies you would probably want not only to add center and surround speakers, but a sub and auto-detect of movie surround mode. You may also want to tweak the sub level a bit versus what you used on music. Virtual inputs allow the user to configure all of this during initial setup.

Another example would be music playback. Though I often listen in stereo only, there are times that I prefer applying a music surround mode like DPLII music (live recordings). Virtual inputs make this easy while only using one physical connector (hdmi, coax, etc.) from a single source, and I did precisely this with the Casablanca prepro. Once configured all I had to do is select "stereo music" or "sur music" on my smart remote and two things would occur: Either engage 2 or 4 speakers and use stereo or matrix surround (Theta's ambiance extraction mode-very effective) as appropriate. Note that this could be applied on the fly while listening to music and as a result sold a couple of Casablancas for my dealer to friends who heard it. By the way, if you're wondering why I only used 4 speakers for music surround, this speaks to another advantage of virtual inputs. By default, Theta's matrix surround mode uses five speakers (plus sub if desired). However, in practice I found the center channel sound distracting for music so I disabled it for the surround input.

One more example involves subwoofers. With virtual inputs it would be very simple to preset subwoofer level, crossover, and even on/off per user-defined activity. So for music only, if you had a speaker that delivered very accurate bass down to say, 40hz, you could set up a "jazz/pop" virtual input that didn't use a sub. For large scale orchestral music, you could define a "classical" input that activates the sub and crosses it over at 40hz. You could set another one for rock that kick's the sub in at 60hz with as much or little bass boost as desired.

Note that though I used an HTPC as a multi-source example, virtual inputs would also be useful for CD/DVD/Blu-ray megachangers and even single disc players with Internet/remote media capabilities (Netflix, Youtube, etc.).

I know that some receivers and prepros ALMOST do this today. I know from first hand experience that at least mid to high end Onkyo and Denon components have a "personal memory plus" feature that can memorize different speaker levels and default surround modes per input. Some Denon models also have a "quick select" feature that I believe can mimic virtual input functionally. However, my Denon prepro (AVP-A1) only has three quick select inputs, and accessing them from the remote is less than intuitive.

Virtual inputs offer three other benefits:
-For novice users, they make the prepro very user-friendly. Once virtual inputs are bound to a smart remote like a Harmony, selecting a activity automatically also optimizes the prepro for said activity without user intervention.
-For Outlaw, virtual inputs could also make life easier for prepro design, as fewer physical inputs (connectors for purposes of this post) should be required, because a single connector can support multiple audio/video activities.
-For universal remote makers and users (especially Logitech Harmony), virtual inputs make set up a bit easier because for prepro configuration, beyond power on/off you would only have to know which virtual input relates to a given activity, as opposed to knowing all physical connectors involved.

The key to virtual inputs are two elements: inputs (discrete push buttons on the front of the prepro and remote), and connectors (physical inputs and outputs mainly on the rear of the prepro). On current receivers and prepros, connectors are typically labeled hdmi1, hdmi2, coax1, coax2, etc.). For virtual inputs to work all inputs and connectors must be pre-labeled by the manufacturer, and name of each label must be unique. This already occurs for all receivers and prepros I've encountered, but I would recommend one change for the a virtual input 978: Simply number the inputs sequentially from 1 to <highest numbered input offered by manufacturer>. Most manufacturers currently pre-label inputs by predicted function "TV, Music, Game", etc. and if the unit doesn't support virtual inputs, this method makes sense. However, for virtual inputs it's understood that the user will custom name the inputs during initial set up based on activity or function.

Virtual input downsides: I can think of a few.
-A bit more work will be required up front because several elements per input will have to be manually configured. However, if Outlaw were to use the "Copy Template" feature the Casablanca has, the input configuration effort would decrease significantly. With copy template, you only configure one input completely, then copy it to other ones you intend to use then tweak them as appropriate. Using this method I was able to configure six inputs for the Casablanca in ~ 20 minutes.
-Virtual inputs by definition practically require use of a learning remote that allows custom labeling of input buttons. The good news however is that you don't have to spend big money to get this kind of remote currently. Of course, Outlaw could provide such a remote if desired, but frankly I like Theta's approach with the Casablanca where they only provide a very inexpensive, basic, non-universal remote designed to only setup and operate the prepro itself. Theta (correctly IMO) concluded that owners of a prepro with Casablanca pricing would want to use their own smart remote to control the unit and system.
-Virtual inputs will likely cost a bit more (but I don't think much more) for some extra non-volatile memory to store multiple virtual input configurations.
-If you have a separate source component for each audio/video function you use, virtual inputs become less valuable (assuming Outlaw includes an equivalent version of personal memory plus per physical connection). However, even these users could still benefit from custom crossovers and speaker selection per input.

I apologize for the verbose post. I just think virtual inputs would be a very useful feature for any future Outlaw prepro.

I think that virtual inputs of some form would be an excellent idea - almost essential, even, since the tradition of tying inputs to physical analog connections (stereo analog and in some cases composite/S-video) no longer works with the input mix we're seeing on modern rear panels. The virtual inputs I'd like to see would allow HDMI, component, or composite inputs to be assigned for video and HDMI, coaxial, optical, stereo analog, or multichannel analog to be assigned for audio. For inputs of any kind (virtual or otherwise), input naming is a vital feature for me (huge WAF benefit) and having the ability to control video processing is high on my priority list. Per-input surround mode memory has been available in all of Outlaw's previous products, although having it defined in a menu can be tricky to implement without feeling confusing.

I agree that processing (not to mention post-processing) modes in general can be somewhat confusing, especially for casual users. My suggestion for virtual input configuration in terms of signal processing would be to default configure all of them with a "auto" setting for audio connections and passthrough for all video connections. Assuming the user can accurately map their source connections to the virtual input, they should at least get usable signals to amps and displays. Using this as a baseline users can learn, experiment, and tweak until they get the sound and picture they desire. Of course, the manual should convey what processing is applied by default for a given signal type.

Further, though configuring various parameters per input might seem complicated if implemented properly it's actually not hard to do. Again, I'll give kudos to the Theta Casablanca. Despite having a ton of configurable options in multiple menus, they designed it such that you can configure anything in any menu via three buttons (two opposed arrows and enter). They also cleverly designed the menus to focus on what your configuring while hiding the rest.

By the way, if sounds like I'm a Theta fanboy well, I am-and I'm not. The Casablanca is beautifully built, offers superb sound quality despite its age, and has been upgraded over the years. However, support for hdmi and the hidef audio codecs for movies literally became available just a few days ago. Then there's the issue of price... To give you an idea, the upgrade price to get hdmi v1.4 for the Casablanca will be 5k. This is more than three times what I suspect the 978 will sell for. By the way, the 5K price for hdmi assumes you have a Casablanca III. If you own older versions of the Blanca and I read the upgrade announcement correctly, you won't be able to upgrade it. Rather, these individuals will get UP TO 5K in credit for a new Casablanca III HD (the name of the hdmi-equipped prepro). Price of a new Blanca III HD: 15-20K depending on configuration. Even my current Denon AVP at 7.5K retail (and I didn't pay retail) is a bargain by comparison as it is competitive with the Blanca in terms of build and performance IMHO.

I think you see where I'm going with this. I'm lurking in the 978 forum because I suspect it's going to be my next prepro. Though I enjoyed my Casablanca and Denon AVP, I'm getting to a point where I value value most. I've never had room for dual systems (dedicated music and HT), so I've always needed a prepro that could do both well and my aforementioned units delivered. However, I also owned an Outlaw 990 previously (it replaced the Casablanca in fact) and I have to tell you that I found it musically satisfying and more than good enough for HT. Thus, if the 990 was enjoyable years ago, the 978 should be even more so and that's my point. I don't need the ultimate prepro anymore. I just need one that's good enough and I'm confident the 978 will be exactly that. FWIW, I'm currently using a 7700 power amp and I'm very happy with it.

I fully agree with Eric, virtual inputs would be a huge plus. I also expect that the 978 design has advanced to the point that it's too late to add the virtual input feature if it's not already included. Perhaps virtual input could help to distinguish between the 978 and 998.

Your probably right about the state of the 978 and virtual inputs and if that's the case consideration for inclusion in the 998 makes sense. In fact, if the 998 is going to serve as Outlaw's reference prepro (something I'd love to see), I have a few more ideas for it as well. However, at this point I guess it's best for Outlaw to focus on one thing at a time; namely the 978.

Has Outlaw mentioned anything about iphone/ipad or android phone/tablet control for the 978? I'm personally leaning toward android at this point but could live with either platform.

I assume each of the devices has an App which allows it to learn from the remote. Should be able to learn the remote and control the 978 just fine. I am assuming this is the way they all work as there would be too many different control options for any device to have access to them all without dedicated site support similat to the Harmony remotes.

It would be really cool to have the Trifield music mode used on the Meridian processors on the 978.

Interface is the key here. It can be done well, but all too often it is done poorly. The Onkyo 885 and 886 have a menu for setting default surround processing modes, but the labels they used and the way they structured it left a lot to be desired - especially for casual users. The Marantz AV7005 gives a good range of control over setup like we are describing, but the interface requires you to either exit the menu and change the active input or use a web browser to make those adjustments for all of the inputs - something that Outlaw's guide spells out, but the Marantz guide isn't so clear on. That strikes me as highly inconvenient.

I think we're in agreement that there needs to be a way to make use of all the HDMI inputs as well as some of the other inputs. Other high priority capabilities would include some form of per-input surround mode memory (with a menu for setting defaults as an option for initially setting the "default" modes for each input), per-input video processing adjustments, and input labeling. Being able to select which Audyssey curve is applied per input (including the option to bypass Audyssey entirely in some cases) would also be a good idea, and one that has appeared on a number of similar products over the last couple years.

The only one I wonder about is the per-input bass management control. For one thing, that gets very complex - and with all that complexity, I don't know how useful it ends up being. Crossover points shouldn't change based on the source, and neither should the decision to set speakers to "large" or "small." If Outlaw stays true to form, they'll have a bypass mode available - that could provide a way to exclude bass management for special circumstances. Additionally, I'm not sure what Audyssey would think of that in the first place...

Since Meridian touts this as being unique to their product line, I'd guess Outlaw would have to pay for the rights to use it, adding still more to the cost. And that's if Meridian would even consider it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've stated with regard the need for a quality, well thought out UI. Your description of the AV7005's menu is interesting. Until I learned of the pending 978, the AV7005 was on my short list of prepro candidates. Your description of how Marantz handles input configuration doesn't make much sense to me either and it was never that involved with the Casablanca. I owned Onkyo's 885 for a brief time and don't recall having any problem with configuration and like the 885, the Casablanca only had black and white text menus. Where they differed IIRC is that the Blanca's menu titles more clearly defined their functions, had fewer items to choose from in any given menu level, and did a better job of placing popular configuration items near the home menu.

Concerning subwoofer customization per input, I don't think it has to be complicated. My idea would be to force the user to do global speaker/sub configuration first, and only allow access to virtual input config afterwards. As virtual inputs are created by the user, the global speaker/sub config would be copied to them automatically and I'd arrange the input menu such that the user wouldn't even see the copied values directly. Further, because virtual inputs by definition have to be user created, he/she has some control over complexity by determining how many inputs they create. Perhaps to help this along, Outlaw could pre-define two virtual inputs most users would likely use at minimum: A stereo music mode (2.1) and a HT mode (x.1 where x=all speakers from your global config)and surround mode set to auto.

I agree that crossover change per input would be a nice-to-have feature that would be rarely used so I would consider its inclusion optional. I think that the Large/Small speaker designation invites confusion. Rather, I would change that field to read "Use Sub Crossover?", which could only be set to "yes" or "no" manually or via Audyssey. If yes, another field sets the frequency. If no, the frequency field would be greyed out (locked from user access). Complex or no, I do think that speaker & sub level control per input needs to be available for users. In my experience, differing media content tends to benefit from level tweaking from the global setting achieved during initial setup.

I agree about large and small. They became an industry standard many years back, but they're not great. I kind of like the approach of merging crossover settings and the large/small selection - have a speaker setting with an option for "full range" or options for crossover settings. It has been used by a few products in recent years, and does streamline matters.

For the record, Meridian did not invent and does NOT own this technology. Instead Meridian is a licensee of Ambisonics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifield

The ownership and trademark are acknowledged by Meridian in every product manual. For example:
http://www.meridian-audio.com/media/12667/861v6%20user%20guide.pdf see page 4.

There is also a semi-pro implementation:
http://www.agmdigital.com/page7/files/059b6cd343bca57b71726b911ba17790-2.html


We have heard this system and it is indeed very impressive. However, time to market for us is critical and due to software issues we are a bit behind schedule. Adding this in at this time will tend to slow down the process and there is also the MIPS issue to contend with

Going forward, this is something to think about for future implementations.

Peter

Oooh yeah! Maybe another feature to help differentiate the 998? Meridian owners seem to like it. I wonder how difficult it would be to integrate this with Trinnov? That would be a unique feature combination!

Thanks for clarifying who owns the rights.

Peter: wher's that update?

Hank,

Please look in the announcements section. We posted an update on Jan 26.

Peter

Outlaw has said the 978 will be "state of the art." I hope the only difference between the 978 & 998 will be Trinnov vs. Audyssey XT32. I don't want to buy the 978 only 6 months later wish I had waited for the 998 because it has a different feature set than the 978. I just don't want them to intentionally "hold back" features for the 998.

Based on their past announcements, I don't expect there to be much difference at all between the two beyond the room correction. We should know more definitively by the time the Model 978 is available, which would allow people to make an educated decision one way or the other.

Thanks Peter.
"...the release date is now targeted for late in the first half of this year."
I would be very disappointed, BUT for the past 8 months I've lived with the delay of one of our products being caused by - you guessed it - firmware. Evil firmware - more difficult than hardware. One bug fix hatches two more bugs. Our supplier's slow firmware development caused us to miss the holiday season with this one new product :-(
So, I'll hang tight. I assume you'll announce advance order placement at some time?

Peter,
Now that Silicon Image has acquired "select assets" from Anchor Bay Technologies, will that affect the use of the ABT chip in the 978? Do you have an alternative?
CT

I wouldn't think it would interfere with a product already in development. For that matter, I would expect Silicon Image to continue to support those ABT technologies. After all, that's why they spent the money on the ABT.

I know what you are saying, but nothing is final until it's final.

True. But I don't know why we should expect the change in ownership to affect development of products that are in the Model 978's position. If it was still on the drawing board, that might be a different matter. The Model 978 would only change if Silicon Image forced a change - which would be an odd thing for them to do if they want their ownership of ABT's technology to be profitable in the long term.

I would tend to agree with you, however, call me a bit of a cynic in that all too often, after a merger and/or acquisition, corporations don't always act in a logical manner. I would refer you to what Klipsch, not long after their purchase, did to the Mirage brand and others in the API stable of speakers and what, after their purchase, what Audiovox might have intended for them. Time will tell.

Generally speaking, those on the forums that are Klipsch owners, are not too happy about this situation either.

Anything is possible, but it's not something that anybody can speak knowledgeably about. Asking for what impact it will have now is not going to yield a definitive answer of any sort - I doubt even Silicon Image could answer it.

The case of Klipsch and Mirage is one that's similar to other instances of one company being bought by another that makes the same sort of products (whether speaker companies, plumbing fixture companies, credit card companies, banks, or many others) and one company's product line and history gets diluted or altered in undesirable ways. Silicon Image has no existing video processing offerings, so they are using the ABT purchase to enter a new market. That could prove good for them, or their inexperience in the market could cause future ABT products to fail to live up to the lineage that has come before. In the short term, it could have no impact at all for the Model 978 or it could make it harder to get answers to questions that arise during beta testing. In the long term, it's anybody's guess...

I am most interested in what the video processing features will be? I am currently running an Integra 8.9 and use the ISF features in the receiver to help out my RS2. I wouldn't expect Duo level of video adjustments but something near what the 8.9 does would be a real attraction for me. If it were also automatable via Calman I'd be all over this device.

RE-visiting this earlier discussion... The new pictures of the ICBM-2 reminded me of this debate, especially with the BDP-95 in the mix.

The ICBM-2 has both RCA and XLR inputs. It also has a front panel switch to allow you to switch between the two. This is what I picture from looking at that combination:

Take a BDP-95, connect the multichannel analog output to the RCA inputs on an ICBM-2, and connect the stereo analog XLR output to the left and right XLR inputs on the ICBM-2. Connect the RCA outputs of the ICBM-2 to a non-HDMI surround processor. Disable bass management in the BDP-95, and set the front crossover on the ICBM-2 to something (not bypass). Voila - when the ICBM-2 is on "Balanced" input mode, you're using the dedicated stereo output and getting a signal for your subwoofer, while changing to the "Unbalanced" input mode gives you multichannel audio.

And speaking of pictures, we also have Model 978 pictures...

Some thoughts on those pictures:

Phono pre-amp is MM/MC. I don't remember if we already knew that or not, but it's rare on a surround processor or receiver.

PLIIz support is going to involve sacrificing back surrounds: 7.2 pre-amp outputs. This is the same as the AV7005 (even though the AV7005 has 11.2 pre-outs). This has been an often-asked question.

Looks like we'll have some form of "virtual inputs" - two composite video, three component video, three stereo analog, three coaxial, three optical, and five HDMI inputs are all labeled with numbers only rather than generic standard names. The only "pre-labeled" inputs we may find are the phono (naturally), 7.1 direct (naturally), and front AV. I think this has the potential to be a very good arrangement.

Primary monitor outputs are HDMI only, with some record and second zone composite outputs in the mix. This is a reasonable decision for a product launching in 2011, and with two forms of legacy analog video inputs available (a total of six composite and component connections) we can still integrate older source components.

The layout of the rear panel feels like it will be comforable to connect, at least for the way my equipment rack has evolved. Pre-outs can go down without blocking access to other things, video inputs are at the top, digital audio are off to one side, and only analog audio inputs (which we're least likely to make heavy use of) are stuck in the very middle.

They haven't shown a bunch of logos on the unit yet. They may keep it that way, which would be OK with me.

Very nice, clean look. I'm with you Gonk, I'd keep the logos off. Old school.

Great peliminary analysis, gonk. I agree... very promising.

+1

A comment and two questions:
Though any form of virtual input (VI) will be welcome, I hope Outlaw implements two features at minimum beyond VI labeling. The first is the ability to map a single physical input to multiple VI's. This would be very useful for owners (like me) who use a multi-function HTPC as a source. Related to input mapping, it would also be nice if different default surround modes could be assigned to individual VI's. Outlaw could do a lot more beyond this with VI's, but these two features would suffice for me.

Questions:
* Does anyone know if both HDMI outputs can be active at once?
* Does anyone know if the 978 will be able to play FLAC files?

Eric

Assuming the HTPC can output the FLAC files I expect the 978 will be able to process them. The player will determine what can be output.

My HTPC can definitely output FLAC (ripped from CDs), but I don't know if FLAC decoding is a standard feature on receivers and prepros yet.

Hmmm, the logos would be a tough choice for me to say yay or nay if it were my option.
I definitely like the understated of the unit, but it almost too plain.
Maybe the logos currently at the bottom could be moved INSIDE of that cover panel,
and then along the bottom could place some SMALL logos.
The silver volume knob is a bit much too for me personally.
I don't mind a little mix of silver buttons, but I'd prefer the knob to be black.
Either that of change the color of silver to a darker color of silver for all the buttons and knob.
The knob just seems to stand out a bit too much... though maybe some logos along the bottom would help to offset that too.
Just food for thought. ;-)

Yes, I liked the picture of the all black 998 faceplate, with what looked like a deeper design inset.

I would agree that being able to map one connection to multiple inputs can be useful - the Model 990 did this, and I used it several times.


I doubt that both HDMI outputs will be active at once - the vast majority of dual-output processors only output to one of them at a time. Splitting HDMI is a messy proposition, especially when the two signals are going to displays that support different resolutions.


FLAC is a file type, much like AAC or WMA or MP3. Does your HTPC actually output the file's undecoded data over any connection? I would think it would have to at least decode into stereo or multichannel PCM before outputting over coaxial, optical, or HDMI. I could be wrong, though - haven't tried to set up an HTPC like this before.

It won't be a show stopper for me if both HDMI outputs cannot be active simultaneously. My Denon AVP-A1 prepro does support this and I think it also offers different resolutions per output (but both of my display resolutions are identical so I'm not sure about this).

My HTPC does bitstream the FLAC format directly via HDMI (the AVP-A1 displays the input signal as such), and because the signal can be manipulated by the prepro's DSP, I'm pretty sure that FLAC>PCM conversion occurs internally. Marantz's AV7005 supports FLAC input, so I don't think it would be a stretch for the 978 to do so as well.

I like the styling overall as hip-retro, but I agree with you about the volume knob and buttons. I think a dark-silver (titanium) finish would provide a very eloquent look. It would be double-eloquent if Outlaw could do a metal veneer for the volume control where the owner could see and feel metal grain. In the interest of practical cost, the buttons could simply be painted.

As for surround labeling on the front, I personally could live without it, but I think I recall some equipment vendors at CES a few years ago telling me that the surround labels were required as part of the license for using the codecs. I have no idea if this mandate would apply to Outlaw or not.

They may have to put those logos somewhere, but the rear panel may be an acceptable location to satisfy licensing agreements...

It is interesting to note although there is a composite video out to other zones, there is component video "in" BUT no "out".
This unit is obviously previewing the final demise of analog video connections.

I noticed that too and agree with this direction for the most part. However, I think phono, analog CD, and multi-channel analog input will have to be supported for the foreseeable future. Conversely, I would not be surprised if component disappeared from receivers within the next generation or two of receivers/prepros. I also wouldn't be surprised if the number of coax and toslink connectors are reduced-but not eliminated-in the next generation or two.

Perhaps, but if I could imagine myself as a marketing rep for Audyssey or Dolby Labs, and had a contract with a given AV vendor to display my codec logo on product X, I'd be pretty insistent about having the logos in the most visible location. To do otherwise would largely defeat the purpose for requiring logos in the first place.

No RJ45 or RS-232...

I have emailed Audyssey to ask if their MultEQ Pro (the Pro kit) ever interfaces via USB. Not Pro-ready is a deal breaker for me...

Jeff

I like the looks, and I don't feel a few logos on the front would hurt the appearance at all. I notice that the 978 has a headphone jack. Might be nice if Dolby headphone was included!

The Sherwood R-972 has Dolby Headphone and I believe the 997 was going to have it. I thought I remembered reading that the 978 had Dolby Headphone too, but I can't find it.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does the "Pro kit" give you? What does it add?

An individually calibrated mic (and a really nice boom stand), software that can take up to 32 measurements, the ability to edit, save and load different target curves.

Just the Pro cal alone is worth it, but tweaking the target curve made a noticeable difference. Plus, I have an "alternate" set of surrounds that I swap in for SACD/DVD-A and a corresponding calibration file for them that I load.

Jeff

The Model 990 had it, too, as did the Model 1070/970...

Side issue here, how does the 990 handle the sound when DTS is the source? Does it bypass Dolby Headphone?

I'm a little disappointed. I was really hoping for 9.2/11.2 output for the 978. as I'll be wiring my theater for 11.2. But then again I was planning on the 998; any news on 9.x or 11.x on the 998? I agree that the silver knob looks goofy.

I never tried it, but Dolby Headphone was a processing mode applied after the original signal (whether Dolby Digital, DTS, or PCM stereo) was decoded. The Model 990 could apply Pro Logic IIx to a DTS source, so I would expect that it could apply Headphone to DTS as well.

I'm with you. I'm replacing an Onk Pro 885 mainly motivated by Audyssey MultEQ XT 32, but I want DSX Wides as well as much improved sound quality that will come with a 978, an Integra 80.2 or an Onk 5508. Plus I use Audyssey Pro and the pics of the 978 don't show a way to interface with a laptop running the Pro software.

I suppose I can wait until the 978 is released to see what the "state of the art DACs" bring to the marketplace and maybe influence the next Onk/Integra models which *do* have DSX.

I don't want to diss this model, so I should probably just lurk for a while ...

Jeff

It's been so long ago now that my memory is unclear, but wasn't the aborted 997 suposed to support Dolby PLIIz ? Isn't that 9.1 ?

I hope the model 978 can process DSD over HDMI.

Yes.

PLIIz doesn't have to be 9.1, although it can be used in addition to PLIIx to get there. It is offered on the AV7005, which is limited to 7.1 output. What most of the PLIIz and DSX implementations offered so far have done is allowed either back surrounds or or front height output, but not both at once.

Is there any device right now that actually puts out 9 or 11 channels? Translating from 5.1 to 7.1 isn't all that great so I can imagine that the extra channels are just remixes of the surround channels. How does the system know what is a height/wide channel and what is a surround channel? Is the position of the audio somehow encoded in the track or does the system guess?

Lot of units output nine main channels, and like gonk posted there is a choice with DSX-equipped units ... usually between rear surrounds, Wides and/or Heights. i.e. pick two.

And I think I remember seeing AVRs with nine main channels and line outs for external amplification of the 10th and 11th channels.

I don't know of any PLIIz units that have only seven main channels ...

Jeff

I don't know about Dolby PLIIz, but Audyssey's DSX is reproducing at the Wide and Height locations what one would hear in the "Great Halls" that they modeled. But they might be doing some other stuff as well. And I would bet that they are evangelizing the technology to the movie industry trying to get mixers to put discrete content in the DSX channels.

Basically, it expands the front soundstage .. and quite convincingly as well!

AV7005 (and likewise the SR7005). Also the SR5005.

The AV7005 has an 11.1 unbalanced pre-output, but that's a bit misleading since it has only an eight-channel DAC. You can configure all eleven speakers plus a sub, but you can only use seven speakers and the sub at any given time. Pick PLIIz, and the rear surrounds are unactive. Pick DSX, and you have to choose either Wide or Height - and either way, the rear surrounds are inactive.

So the real skinny is that there does not appear to be any systems that actually use all 9 or 11 channels at the same time. You always have to choose whether to give up two of your surround channels to support either wide or high. I was wondering primarily because I have not seen any 9 or 11 channel amps out there. It would also appear that the codecs do not support the wide and high channels except as an algorithym in Audyssey or Trinnov space. So at least for now we are still limited to 7 channels at a time.

I have toyed with the idea of splitting the signal from my AVP output to two different amps to add extra surround channels. The signals would be the same but would extend the surround effect over a larger area. It might confuse the setup mike a little though.

Anyone know of some actual material out there that actually is encoded to use the extra channels of wide and high or is it just created out of thin air (literally). I think some of the games may use it more than movies. My music room up north has the ceilings tilted at a 45 degree angle and could be very adaptable for some in wall speakers for all of the extra channels.

There are some units available with 9.1 simultaneous output. The Onkyo TX-NR5008 offers 9.1, for example. It offers options for front wide and front height, but it appears that you have to pick one or the other (not both).

There are no 9 or 11 channel amps that I've seen. I think Axiom has (or at least had) an 8 channel digital amp.

Aside from some SACD's that had a mono height channel, the height and wide channels are exclusively produced by matrix processing. Of course, in many cases we're still using matrix processing to create back surround signals - 7.1 tracks are still rare on Blu-ray and not available on any other format.

I am currently using the Onkyo 1007 and it has a 9 channel amp and can output all 9 channels at one time. On my unit you need to choose either wides or height. I am using the height speakers. I cannot do the wide in my room. So when I watch a 5.1 movie the setting I like the most is the PLIIx (to take it to 7.1) and then the PLIIz to take it to 9.1 and I am using the THX Cinema DSP. It's 3 levels of decoding! I have had some friends over to test the difference between just the 5.1 to 7.1 and the 9.1. This setting works for me most of the time.

I am using an Atlantic Technology 7 channel amp along with this AVR. I bi-amped the front 3 channels and I am using the Onkyo to run the front height, surround and rear center channels. This is the amp I was using when I had the 950.

In my room, with my setup I really enjoy having the height channels. I prefer the PLIIz over the DSX. When I do go back to a pre pro, I will want to have the possiblity of using the 9 channels. I will purchase another amp so I can utilize all nine channels. I like it that much.

When I first got the Onkyo, I tried some really inexpensive Yamaha bookshelf (small) speakers to see if I like how it sounded in my room. I could tell a difference so I installed a pair of Kef 300ci inwall di-pole speakers for my height channels and wow, what a fantastic upgrade! I am running Energy Veritas 2.4's up front and a 2.0 center channel and 4 inwalls for my rear speakers.

The more I look at the front panel, the more I like it. That being said...

Is it just me or does the back panel of the 978 look just as sparse as the front?
There are five analog video inputs (three component + two composite)(not including the mandatory but arbitrary front panel composite+stereo RCA in), but only three analog stereo audio inputs. How exactly will I connect five analog AV devices, if such a need were to appear?
I have an antenna connected to my TV as well as a U-verse box connected to my receiver (sorry, NFL games still look better OTA here); the TV analog stereo outs use one set of ins on my current receiver. If I were to use this setup with the 978, I'm down to two legacy devices (presuming the 7.1 analog ins cannot be mapped to regular stereo ins). After AirTunes and Wii, I'm fresh out of analog ins. What about my DreamCast? I know that such a setup may be a bit of a stretch, but why include legacy inputs at all in that case?

Further, I have no devices that have 7.1 analog output that don't also have HDMI; I know some of you old fogeys have SACD or DVD-A players, but just sell them and get an OPPO already, I need more back panel space for additional HDMIs and more balanced outs!

Five HDMI inputs seems less than optimal or expected in a contemporary pre amp, although It seems that most of us would be hard pressed to really need more than five.

To the outputs: needless to say, most of us were at least hoping for, if not expecting, 9.x output; maybe the rec1 and/or rec2 can act as heights and/or wides? Wishful thinking here, boss.

While the back panel looks easy to navigate, I'd imagine that people buying Outlaw products have a pretty good sense of how to connect their devices; if you buy Outlaw, you're not also shopping WalMart or BestBuy for preamps or receivers. Outlaws buyers know the score and can likely handle a complex rear panel, no?

Maybe it's just me, but I've been wanting to move to separates, and have been waiting for the 978 to drop, hoping that it would leave a trail of 9.x breadcrumbs to the 998. If the 998 has the same feature set as the 978, excepting Trinnov, I'll be more than a little disappointed in the lack of 9.x or 11.x; the strange input issues aside, the output may be a deal breaker for me.

Even with all the goofy iterations of HDMI, it looks to me like the promise of HDMI is evident on the back panel of the 978. Comparing the back panels of the 990 and the 978 reveals rather striking differences. Gone is the column of S-Video and composite connections as well as their corresponding stereo inputs on the 990 replaced by a few, but adequate number, of these inputs (no S-Video) on the 978. Eliminating those connections freed up a lot of space.

I was a bit surprised by the lack of two things on the 978. There is no component video output or USB on the back panel. It wasn't all that long ago that flat panel TVs only had component inputs so some may miss that output on the 978. I imagine this has to do with the video processing in the 978. Lastly, I have a USB cable plugged in to my 990 for the occasions when I hook my laptop up to my HT for iTunes playback. It would be nice to not see the cable draped across the front of the 978. Regardless, I don't think these omissions are deal killers.

Now that we have a working sample of the 978 in for initial testing, can we get dimensions of the new model? This seems pretty knowable for Outlaw at this point.

Six digital audio inputs, which can be paired with some or all of those analog video sources. I have a couple analog video sources without digital audio output, but most offer coaxial, optical, or both.


Consider optical out from your TV. What device do you use for AirTunes? If it's the Airport Express, it also has an optical output. In both cases, optical allows you to benefit from the 978's DAC without a cheap (literally pennies in parts cost, probably) analog section upstream of it. That means you just have the Wii and DreamCast that still need to use stereo analog inputs.


My OPPO still uses 7.1 analog connections, although I also use HDMI for testing at times.


What happened with a lot of Model 950 and Model 990 owners was that those processors represented people's first move from stereo to multichannel. There were Outlaw customers who knew a good bit about the stereo days, but nothing about surround. There's also the KISS principle - build a product that works well, sounds good, and gets the primary job done, and it doesn't need to have a bunch of clutter just for the sake of clutter.

Maybe they'll a) go 9.2/11.2 with the 998, b) forget the Trinnov and stick with Audyssey and c) make it Audyssey Pro-ready ...

Jeff

I made no reference to digital inputs. I couldn't be happier with 6 digital ins, but that's outside the scope of my original post.



Why didn't I think of that? Oh that's right no digital out on my TV, hence my post about 'analog stereo ins'.



I would use the digital optical with AirPort Extpress, but Zone 2 is analog only in my receiver, and according to the answer you gave to my question about digital in zone 2, the chances of that happening in the 978/998 are nil.



Nope, as noted, digital inputs don't fit into this equation, thus omitted from my original post. To be fair though, I don't even have a Dreamcast, it was just an example to show that I may want/need a fourth.



Why not just use the HDMI, I would ask. I know my tone to this point may seem a bit sharp, but I would sincerely like an answer to that.



I wouldn't call matching five stereo ins to five analog video ins "clutter for the sake of clutter"; if these omissions were made in order to include a couple of extra balanced outs, or another hdmi or two, I'd be silent and happy. That's not the case.

Jeff, while your post above hints at an answer, have you indeed heard yet from Audyssey whether the installer kit can interface with an AVR/pre-pro through a USB port?

The ability to perform a MultEq Pro calibration is not nearly as important to me as it obviously is to you but it's something I might consider in the future with the 978, if the option exists.

Gonk, thank you for being so helpful AND polite. Some days it just doesn't pay to respond.

If my wry sense of humor comes across as less than polite, I'll apologize, immediately and sincerely. I always write the same way I speak, and often forget that my tone of voice and ludicrous facial expressions that allow for some interpretation don't translate at all on message boards. I guess that what the emoticons are for, but I find them daft looking.
I do appreciate any responses to any comments I make, including XenonMans (presumably) tongue in cheek response. I remembered Gonk's quick and insightful response to my question about digital 2nd zone, and even sourced him in my response.
No harm I hope.

Unusual, but not unheard of. That does limit your options.


This brings up an interesting question. If they've reduced the number of stereo inputs but retained the second zone, might they have provided a separate stereo DAC for the second zone? It would be a first for Outlaw, which is why I (and probably others) wouldn't expect it, but times are changing. I've been wrong before, after all - I could be wrong here again.


For most players, I recommend HDMI. It gives you access to room correction, bass management, AV sync adjustment, and lots of other useful DSP functions. It's also convenient - after all, you're likely using HDMI for video anyway, so the cabling is the height of simplicity and you've already been saddled with HDCP. For some players, though, the analog section may justify using an analog signal path all the way to the speakers. The BDP-95 is such a player. Heck, the BDP-83 (a generation older, half the price, and using Cirrus DACs instead of the BDP-95's ESS DACs) sounded at least as good via analog through the Onkyo PR-SC885 as via HDMI through the 885 - even though the HDMI path included Audyssey.

Fingers crossed, here, boss.



I have a BR player with component and 7.1 outs; I'd assume that using the HDMI with this model would be preferable, as the internal DACs in my player would be less effective (presumably) than the HDMI processing in a 978/998. However, if the 978/998 include high end DACs, such as the Sabre ESSs, then there would be no difference from using the analog outs the OPPO 95 compared to HDMI? And even preferable to use HDMI in the case of the BD-83?

With that player, I would agree wholeheartedly - use HDMI and forget about it. Whatever DAC's the Model 978 use, it should be at least as good as the Model 990 sonically (most likely even better - although I prefer to wait to hear it until I say anything definitive). That will be a solid upgrade over whatever analog section Samsung tossed into that player.

Analog performance is a complex puzzle, and predicting it even with specific details on the components used is not practical. Even if two products use the exact same DAC chip, they can sound different. The BDP-93 and BDP-83 are a good example. Both use the same Cirrus DAC, but the BDP-93 sounds a bit better than the BDP-83. Add to that the fact that we don't know what chips the Model 978 is using, and it's far too soon to know how the Model 978's analog performance will compare to other products - especially once you move into the realm of products with above-average analog designs.

Generally speaking, though, how does HDMI processing compare to good DACs?

No DSX seems to point to a basic implementafion of Audyssey, albeit an XT 32 one. If you think about it, that is consistent with their stated design philosophy for the 978. I don't know if a laptop running Pro can interface with a pre/pro via USB, but i don't think any existing units do.

Jeff

Yes on A, but I'd be very disappointed with B. I am really looking forward to Trinnov and I hope it materializes. I know it's a long way out, but I think it would be a disappointment if it never game to fruition.

If Outlaw delivered a unit with 9.2/11.2, Pro Logic IIz and Trinnov, that would be super impressive and I'd probably jump in a heartbeat.

Did I read correctly that Trinnov is not compatible with Pro Logic IIz or 9.2/11.2 or was it both?

I don't think I ever heard that. Adding more channels would seem to add processing work load, but I haven't heard of a reason why the underlying algorithms would be fundamentally unable to scale up beyond 7.1.

Thanks gonk.

I wonder if at least part of the difficulty in implementing Trinnov isn't due to its interface with the Dolby systems we all know and love so much. I wonder if the Trinnov spatial remapping ability doesn't confuse the Dolby systems to some extent.

I wouldn't think so - room correction should happen after any Dolby or DTS processing (either decoding or matrix processing like Pro Logic II or Neo:6) is applied.

Yes, ditto Audyssey's room correction.

Do we know for a fact that there's no DSX? I don't see a reason why the 978 couldn't support the 7.1 Surround configurations of DSX, if Outlaw decides to license the technology.

Is Outlaw running behind the pack even before the 978 is released?

DTS Neo:X is brand new technology, not even available anywhere at the moment. It's vanishingly rare to find a small manufacturer that gets to be first to market with new tech like that. Outlaw got lucky once and was among the first with Pro Logic II on the Model 950. Given today's marketplace, that's not likely to happen again. Onkyo is mentioned as the manufacturer that's likely to be first to market with it. I've owned some Onkyo gear, and it's pretty good stuff, but the truth of the matter is that they've made their mark on the marketplace largely through quantity of features: if there's a feature you can think of, they'll probably try to shove it into their flagship tier and let it trickle down from there. That's just the way they are, and it has helped them claw their way up to a point of prominence in the receiver market.

Outlaw can't constantly postpone new products like this to add every new product that appears. That does not necessarily mean they are behind the pack or obsolete at release date. Some people will opt for the latest receiver from Onkyo with all those bells and whistles, which is what those people need. For example, someone who wants a 9.1 or 11.1 theater won't want the Model 978. They won't want the Marantz AV7005 or Anthem AVM50v, either. Other people will opt for the Model 978 instead of an 11.1 Onkyo, and they will likely do so even though the Model 978 won't have all the bells and whistles. In place of the laundry list feature set, we expect that the Model 978 will offer better raw audio and video performance. It's all a balancing act. Just like your computer or cell phone will be outdated in some way a month (or a day) after you buy it, so to will your surround processor.

It isn't mentioned in the article, but Neo:X is doing the same thing that Audyssey's been doing with DSX for a while now. It may do so better, but it may not. Neo:6 has struggled in moderate obscurity behind Pro Logic II and IIx for almost a decade now. It will be curious to see if Neo:X can improve on DTS's reputation in this area.

I agree with Gonk 100%. There is no way on earth Outlaw can compete feature wise with a company like Onkyo. However, Outlaw CAN hit the sweet spot - enough features to keep MOST 5.1 or 7.1 users happy, while providing glitch free operation and top notch sound quality. If you take what many consider the BEST SOUNDING pre/pros (Lexicon, Classe, Anthem, Krell) The feature set on the 978 is right there with them (In some cases better.) The little things count, too - for example, looking at the back of the 978 it has a "digital out" jack - many recievers and pre/pros today omit this, but I'm glad it will be there. Also, there is a headphone jack, and some here have said they would not be shocked if the 978 contained Dolby Headphone.

DSX *is* the Wides and/or the Heights. It doesn't do anything to the "main" 7.1 channels. I guess one could forego the rear surrounds in lieu of Wides or Heights, but the labeling on the pic says "Rear Surrounds."

Jeff

But previous announcements indicated that they plan to include PLIIz, which means the "rear surround" outputs are likely going to be able to be re-assigned as height channels. In that scenario, they could also be assigned to "DSX height" or "DSX wide" instead.

That being said, I don't know how likely it is that we'll see DSX appear on the Model 978, especially since they've made no mention of DSX. XT32 was a very late addition, and since the processor is focusing mainly on 7.1 they may have decided not to bother with DSX when they already had PLIIz.

Peter said this in another thread: The 978 will be a 7.1 device. As with the Marantz AV7005 the two back channels can be switched to height channels instead. Your choice.

For the record, not a fan of the new 978 photo. I know outlaw has been conservative with looks in the past, but ouch!

2 years ago some pictures were posted of the 997, and it looked VERY cool! They may not have been "official" from Outlaw, but there were many positive comments on it.

Having been waiting for several years I was still very interested in getting the new model and selling my Onkyo 886, but the look of the 978 is a downer.

Sorry, thats just me.

I see that gonk and Orangeman have already answered for me. I was, of course, implying foregoing the Rear Surrounds in favor of Wides or Heights (the latter as suggested by PeterT) just as Audyssey does for their DSX 7.1 Surround configurations, which retain only the "main" 5.1 channels. The current labelling is a little misleading, I agree, but could easily be changed to a more generic "Surr2 R" and "Surr2 L" or suchlike, using the existing nomenclature for the "main" surrounds.

gonk's point regarding not bothering with DSX when PLIIz is already included is well taken, especially if adding DSX would incur additional licensing fees, although dispensing with DSX would mean no "Wide" option.

The only pic I've ever seen of the 997 (and which is still on the Outlaw Products page under "Discontinued Items") is a duplicate of the 990.

For the record, I'm quite satisfied with the uncluttered, understated look of the 978.

I agree with GaryB. I think the 997 was going to look a lot like the 990 - hence the placeholder using the 990 - but I think the 978's design (which is a stylized and simplified spin-off of the RR2150) looks promising.

With the mixed look of the RR2150 and the established "industrial" look of their previous pre/pro's I wonder what will be the dimensions in terms of hieght. Personally, I always thought the 990 looked cool.

Yes. I too have asked about the dimensions of the 978. I want to know the depth as well. I'm not worried about whether it will fit in my set-up, but rather how much room I'll have behind it.

It shouldn't be all too difficult to get a fairly accurate idea of the dimensions of the 978....

Assuming the phono in jack on the front is a 1/4" jack (or if one knew the dimensions of an HDMI, XLR or RCA jack on the back panel), couldn't one extrapolate the width and height by printing a large (say a photo quality print on legal paper) and measuring the overall width/height as compared to the known dimensions of a phono jack(or other). On to the hard part.

Assuming that the front panel and back panel are the same width/height, one could, with some ninja maths, reckon the depth based on the distance shown from the front panel to the back as shown on the front panel panel pic (which shows some one point perspective).

One could do this, if one were so inclined; it would be easier said than done, of course.

Since the Outlaws already have a prototype on hand (and probably agreed to the chaise configuration some time ago), they could easily post a preliminary height, width and depth without disclosing any other secrets. They could even do a plus or minus on each dimension in case things are not yet finalized.

Agreed, but they haven't, and likely won't in the near future.

Simply suggesting some fun homework for those interested in the dimensions.

Sure looks like 5.25 x 17.5 to me. Depth is the odd one. If I was a betting man, I'd say 16 or 16.5 deep.

Will be interesting to see how close I am.

~Bob

We should start a pool on the dimensions; and the release date.

my preliminaries look like anywhere from 5.5x15 to 6x17, I haven't followed my own advice, though. I am sure it will fit inside a standard rack with plenty of room to spare.

Months ago, after printing out the original mock-up of the 998, and assuming the same 17.1" width as the designed-by-Outlaw RR2150 (with which the 978/998 share a similar front fascia, as noted by gonk), I calculated a height of almost exactly 6.5" including the feet, i.e. approximately 6" for the faceplate and 0.5" for the feet.

It's virtually impossible to accurately estimate the depth from the newer pics of the 978; I'm still hoping for no more than 16" including all front and rear projections, as I requested in another post quite a while back.

I'm in the pool with 15.8 inches wide by 5.5.inches high without feet. Outlaw tends to like taller feet so I am going with 6.5 total height. I also think 16 inches is a reasonable depth.

A width of 15.8" would be highly unusual. I just checked and all current and recently-retired Outlaw pre/pros, amps and receivers measure between 17" and 17.4" wide, which is in line with industry standards.

Thats what it measures out to be for me. 15 3/4 inches would be close enough.

If we don't use the guessing SWAG method, then you can probably bet that all of the pre-pros will be the same width as the amps (17.2 in) so they match pretty well.

That's my bet.

Just saw pics of 978, no usb and no ethernet = no future upgradability once firmware is set?

Troy

There is a USB port hidden on the front of the 978.

Front USB port allows for firmware updates. I think it was described in an early newsletter as being similar to the USB update process found on OPPO's disc players (which is very easy).

I'm surprised I didn't catch the lack of RS-232 support sooner. It's not a show stopper but I'm a little disappointed since the 990 had it, and it would have been nice for control via my home automation system (Homeseer). Given an estimated price for the 978 in the 1K range, one would think RS-232 would be included.

Having said this, I can't fault Outlaw too much for its omission, as few people own HA systems to leverage the interface.

Most every upscale processor I have seen comes with Ethernet - why in the world would they not include this? I currently don't have anything with a network port besides my Squezebox Touch & digital Sever but it's very nice to be able to remotely manage the device through a browser.

I recall Outlaw saying there were other products out there better suited for Network conectivity, but I have no idea what they are talking about - anyone???

ps3, xbox360, wii, htpc, roku, boxee, tivos, apple tv, dune hd, any number of dvd/bluray players, many televisions, more and more everyday.

I guess it comes down to what you consider an "upscale processor". I would consider Lexicon, Classe, Meridian and Theta to be upscale - and they do not include Ethernet that I am aware of.

True, but Marantz's AV7005 at $1500 and Integra's DHC-40.2 at $1200 both have it so I don't think it's really a upscale feature anymore for prepros or receivers. Because the 978 will be upgradeable via usb the lack of Ethernet should not be a huge deal, though Ethernet would have been a more eloquent way to do it.

As others have noted, the really high-dollar processors (Lexicon, Anthem, Classe, etc.) don't include this typically. Companies like Marantz and Onkyo and Integra do, but that is because it is carried over from the dozen other products they build that they can use the same basic networking hardware and software for, thus distributing the R&D costs across a lot of separate sales. Additionally, the presence of a port doesn't guarantee the capabilities offered by that port. The possibilities are extensive - RS232-style control, web control, firmware updating, network file access, streaming services like Pandora and Netflix, etc. - but it's rare to find a product that supports all of those.


When they talk about network connectivity, they are mainly talking about accessing local file servers and streaming media services such as Netflix, YouTube, Pandora, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon VOD, etc. Your Squeezebox is a much better device for accessing and managing music files on your server than a surround receiver or processor. Other very good options such as the Roku boxes, Boxee, AppleTV, and a lot of similar devices have been designed from the ground up to serve this purpose, each with a different approach to it. Outlaw doesn't want to try to re-invent the wheel (and pass the costs of that re-inventing process on to all of the processor customers) when others are already offering those features in a separate chassis. It's considered preferable to let customers buy the device they want or need than to try to provide a one-size-fits-all solution inside the surround processor.

With the speed of change in the internet availability markets I am glad Outlaw has chosen to forego getting into the "race to space". I have a Roku box and it interfaces with my 886 just fine through HDMI. It has all the cabailities available and it cost $69. If the market changes I can upgrade it without changing my prepro for some minor input device which doesn't make my system sound better but only makes it more flexible. Don't want or need the extra cost and headaches when it does not function through no fault of Outlaw. The ethernet systems are too fickle unlessyou have a wired input in your rack.

Though I think you made a valid point about the efficacy of external streamers, I'm not sure what you meant by this comment. For an RJ45 Ethernet jack what else would one use beside a hardwire connection? I've never had any issues with multiple firmware updates or local network streaming via my Denon prepro. Though I've certainly heard of some users experiencing hiccups with Ethernet on some AVS receiver/prepro threads, I didn't get the impression that the flaws were endemic to the interface in general. If anything, Ethernet-based firmware updates via my AVP have proven to be a Godsend compared to the prepro it replaced (Onkyo Pro PR-SC885). With the Onkyo I had two choices for firmware updates: Either take it to a local authorized repair shop (which presents its own risks when it's not the original equipment vendor), or attempt the update via data file playback from a CD /DVD player. By the way, as a matter of Onkyo policy users were not supposed to update the PR-SC885. As there were horror stories about some owners bricking their Onkyo prepros via CD update, I sent my unit to the repair shop once for update, then promptly sold it when it dawned on me that multiple firmware updates would be likely for any AV receiver or prepro throughout its life cycle. Since living with two products that allow Ethernet firmware based updates, I would be very hesitant buy to buy another AV receiver or prepro that didn't have it, or a reliable equivalent (as I expect the 978 to be) for owner firmware updates.

I think he means wifi is the problem - that network connections are fickle unless you're hard wired.

The PR-SC885 is very unpleasant to update firmware on. I did it once (without a trip to the shop) but it was a huge hassle to do. It was one of the biggest strikes against the unit, in my opinion, and a pretty bad black eye for Onkyo. If I had to pick a single method for firmware updating, I'd prefer USB over Ethernet. That's because anybody can download files onto a USB stick and - with at most the investment in a $10 USB stick. Not everyone will connect an Ethernet cable to their gear, but a product that relies on Ethernet only for their firmware updates (like the Marantz AV7005) will force them to either move the unit or run a really long cable temporarily for the purposes of doing the update. Of course, having both available works, too (as OPPO has been doing with their Blu-ray players).

Yes I was referrin to wi-fi connections. That is how my Onkyo interfaces with the net. For updates I agree with Gonk in that USB is the way to go. I have updated my OPO twice and it was a cinch both times. I bought my 886 from Outlaw and when it arrived it didn't have the latest firmware installed so I sent it back and they did the install for free including shipping costs. I don't think I will ever update the 886 because of the hassles involved.

I agree that using wifi for firmware updates is a bad idea. As to whether USB or Ethernet is better depends on the individual and his/her circumstances. As you said, if there is no Ethernet near the prepro then USB makes more sense. Conversely, if a jack is nearby, I think Ethernet updates would be better for three reasons:
1: No need for a PC or usb drive.
2: The ease of updating relative to having to use a PC located elsewhere.
3: No need for PC literacy. Though I suspect this won't be an issue for most 978 owners, Ethernet-based updating should be painless so long as the owner can plug in a jack and navigate a unit's menu (which will be required to set the unit up anyway).

As previously stated, usb updates work fine for me, and will be extra convenient as I will have a HTPC co-located with the 978.

With my 885, I lucked out because a local authorized dealer was available. However, had that not been the case IMS, I would have been responsible for shipping at least one-if not both-ways.

Though I appreciate your view on future 886 updates given the hassle involved, I hope it doesn't come back to bite you if you ever decide to sell. I say this because when I put my 885 up for sale years ago, one of the first questions I was asked by most buyers was if the latest firmware was installed. The nice thing about many current receivers and prepros is that owner firmware updates are included standard, so future buyers won't be as likely to focus on the unit's firmware status.

1. If Outlaw wanted to, they could include a 512KB or 1MB USB stick in the box with the Model 978. All users need to do is download a file (or files) onto their computer (Windows, Mac, or Linux), copy the file(s) onto the stick, and plug the stick into the processor. They can even get the file(s) at work if they don't have a computer at home.

2. If you have a home network and will have the processor connected to the network all the time, Ethernet should be straightforward. What I've noticed while watching people get into Blu-ray players is that frequently they don't have Ethernet at the equipment rack. That's why I think it's really important to at least have USB as an option. As for the proximity to a computer, a USB update doesn't require that at all. I've lost count of the number of times I did USB firmware updates to the BDP-83 when I downloaded the files and copied them to USB at work (five miles away from the player) and installed the update when I got home.

There's another wrinkle: let's assume for a moment that someone doesn't have broadband at home. Maybe they live in an area where broadband (cable, DSL, FiOS, etc.) is unavailable or they just don't want to pay for it. (I have co-workers who fall into both categories.) In that case, that person would have to take their processor to a different location to install firmware via Ethernet unless they had an alternative. In both cases, USB firmware updates would still be possible using dial-up Internet access or by carrying a tiny USB stick to a different location (like work or a friend's house) and retrieving the file that way. If you're going to pick only one firmware update procedure, I'd recommend USB over Ethernet - in part because of the potential for situations like this.

3. Connecting a player to an Ethernet jack can be simple enough, but it still requires some knowledge. Networking equipment isn't always easy. It can in fact be pretty complex, depending on how you do it. Copying files onto a USB stick is basic - far, far easier than the process required to update the Model 990, Model 970, and Model 1070. It's comparable to or even easier than what OPPO Digital has been doing since 2005. Dealing with firmware updates is part of the price of admission with the products we're using now. For better or worse, we're stuck with it. The USB approach is a very reasonable and user-friendly approach that works for the widest range of users.


I agree that USB should work just fine. Ethernet can also work. We've both done it, after all. I would only want to do it if the interface was already being included (which is not the case on the Model 978 and won't be the case on the Model 998) and USB was still available as an option.

I did the FW update on my 886 with files provided by a member over at AVS. I have to say I am a computer newbie and I was able to do the update without any issues. My biggest concern was a power outage while the update was in process. I did my 805 and 885 as well with no problems. But I am looking forward to the release of the 978 as it has just about all the features I am looking for.

Bill

True, and that would be a nice touch but the question is, will they?


As previously stated, I agree that USB makes more sense if an Ethernet jack is not co-located with the equipment to be updated. As for downloading files to USB at work, how convenient that is will depend on two things: Does the individual have their own desktop PC? Despite this being the 21st century, plenty of workers don't. Even if the worker does have his/her own PC, are downloads for personal purposes allowed by IT policy? I was a IT security auditor in a past life and can tell you for a fact the some organizations (especially ones dealing with sensitive technology or operations) do not allow file downloads from "unauthorized" websites for personal purposes. As you said, downloading at a friend's house will be an option for many people, but at this point is doesn't sound very convenient to me. Having said all this, my view is that someone who orders a 978 from a web-based site will likely have access to firmware files from the same location.


For home use, establishing a wired network should be pretty straight forward and again, if someone ordered a component via the web in the first place (increasingly common), odds are the network is already established.


Agreed, and I think it is for the better at the end of the day. It's nice to personally have the ability to easily repair or improve an electronic component at home.


I agree that USB will work for the widest range of people. I do not agree that it is the most user friendly approach. I still think that belongs to Ethernet, at least in terms of the user update process.

Of course, this is all moot since the 978 will not have a Ethernet connection.

I hadn't taken it to that extreme a position since, as you note, if downloading a file onto a USB stick somewhere in a person's daily routine is that challenging, how likely are they to even know that Outlaw exists?


I've known a lot of people for whom having a wired connection to their home network available at the entertainment center is exceedingly difficult. I was just at a friend's house this weekend - a database admin who is an extremely sophisticated user - and he was talking about how hard it was to get a wire to his living room in his older home. His Mac Mini HTPC and Wii have wireless so he hadn't worried about it in the past, but he was streaming a race from ESPN and couldn't get reliable video without a wired connection. After hours spent trying to fish a Cat5e through some abandoned radiator piping to his basement where he could get into an abandoned electrical conduit, he gave up and ran the network cable down the stairs and behind the couch. He could always do a wireless bridge if he had a device without built-in wifi, but I've known several other people (including two Model 990 owners in the Memphis area) who can't get Ethernet to their entertainment centers and probably wouldn't want to invest in the gear to create a wireless bridge unless there was a huge benefit to it.

It's a very real problem for a lot of people. The minute you add Ethernet to a product, you can expect people to start asking why it isn't wireless because they can't get a cable from their home's router to the equipment rack. I've seen it with OPPO's Blu-ray players. And wireless, while potentially not that big a deal to get working, creates a whole new universe of tech support challenges for a company like Outlaw that provides their own customer support. They wouldn't have to worry about you or me, certainly, but there are a lot of current and potential Outlaw owners that I've talked with over the years who would have a problem getting Ethernet to their gear and would need help getting a wifi-capable unit connected to their home network.


- That's true. Still, I've been persisting because I think it's an interesting and useful dialog, seeing different sides of the issue.

In a prior post, you mentioned how easy it was for you to update your Oppo player via USB at work. The only point I was making is that though it was easy and convenient for you, it may not be so for others. IMO, once you have to use the computing resources of others fix your product, the PITA factor rises.


Based on first hand experience, that's simply not the case. I'm currently living in a home over 60 years old with plaster walls. When I moved in, there was no Ethernet anywhere. I used ServiceMagic.com (they now operate in most major cities) to get multiple bids to install 7 jacks in 4 rooms. Total cost, including parts and labor, was $275 (this charge would have been less has the walls been traditional stick and drywall). Obviously, cost mileage may vary, but I don't think the delta would be large elsewhere and if were only talking about one jack near the owner's equipment, I suspect the cost would be nominal. If there's no ServiceMagic office nearby then Craigslist is an option too. Simply put, getting a hardwired Ethernet jack installed need not be complicated or expensive.


I agree and I've enjoyed our discussion. How about splitting the difference? For future AV prepros and receivers, the standard should be to include both USB and Ethernet ports so the owner can decide which one will serve him/her best.

Part of my point was that if you can't copy files onto a USB stick at home, it's highly unlikely that you can connect a processor to the Internet at home. Which is easier: carrying a USB stick elsewhere to put a file on it, or disconnecting and carrying a whole processor?

I was thinking this morning about how I've used the USB and Ethernet firmware update options with my Blu-ray players. I have used Ethernet a lot of times, and it is convenient for typical updates. USB is important to include, though, because I thought of a number of instances when I wanted to do things that I couldn't do via Ethernet. In some cases, I had to change between different firmware branches (production, public beta, or closed beta), which wasn't possible via Ethernet - I had to use USB in those cases. Other times, I wanted to roll back to older firmware. There are advantages to having USB as the primary firmware update process.


Similarly, my single-story 52-year-old house was easy to wire because I could run through the attic and drop in the walls.

On the other hand, I've got a co-worker with a 30-year-old two-story house who can't get wires run easily in his living room because he's got a slab on grade and no way to get down from above without tearing out drywall. (He's one of our electrical engineers, so part if his day job is figuring out how to run conduit and cables in existing buildings.) And the friend I mentioned previously has a ~90-year-old home with plaster walls that's been added on to a few times. He's been re-wiring the electrical one room as a time, and has a very good idea of how to get wires through his house. This particular area is very difficult to reach from his office (where the home network originates). Some homes can be wired easily, but a lot can't be for various reasons.


I still think USB has to happen, while Ethernet should be included for firmware updates if the unit already has Ethernet for some other reason. Adding the hardware and software costs to include Ethernet just as an extra way to update firmware is a disservice to customers who don't already have a network connection they can use. If the Ethernet port's there already, I agree that allowing firmware updates is a nice convenience.

For better or worse, I think Ethernet is going to be the standard for streaming and firmware updates in the near term (for at least a few years-wireless broadband may be the next big interface). Ethernet was originally only found on vendor's flagship product, but is now trickling down to lower and lower price points. Case in point: Samsung HW-D7000 (SRP: $599). I mention the pending HW-D7000 in particular to illustrate a harbinger of the future: Downloadable apps. In short, AV receivers-followed by prepros-are going to become more like HTPCs every generation; perhaps to the point within a few years where external streamers will be largely redundant. Note that I didn't even mention the 3D blu-ray player built in to the HW-D7000. It will be interesting to see how well it does in the marketplace...

That's a really bizarre piece from Samsung, but it's really more of an overgrown HTiB (with the built-in disc player) than an especially good indication of future receivers. Since it has Blu-ray, the Ethernet and apps are more likely to be showing up because of the player's SoC (system on chip) than the receiver's DSP core. Those sorts of functions are currently much more common on BD player than receivers, in large part because BD players have to be little Java-based computers. It's actually much more natural for a BD player to provide audio and video media support than a receiver (even though I still think even BD players aren't an idea substitute for a really good standalone media client if someone is serious about it). I'll bet every bit of the HW-D7000's media streaming support was ported directly from the same player that Samsung used to add Blu-ray playback to the receiver.

I think the media streamer market is still moving far too fast for standalone boxes to go away, especially since currently even the best products that also have streaming (secondary to their primary function) are game consoles, followed by BD players, and then bringing up the rear are receivers, with TV's threatening to overtake them. And since not even the game consoles can claim to be better than the really good standalone boxes, I don't see the standalone units going away soon.

Gonk, the 7000 may appear bizarre to you, but I think it will be well received by typical consumers (which we on this forum are not-In the classic words of Igor from Young Frankenstein, we are "Abi-Normal"). Samsung will release plenty of HTiBs this year independent of this piece. As speakers were not included with the 7000, I don't see how it qualifies as anything other than a AV Receiver as Samsung and reporters have described it.


From a consumer's perspective, this is irrelevant. They will focus on the feature, not how it's implemented in silicon. Rather, they will focus on the value of a complete AV entertainment solution in one box that allows them to download features of value to them while allowing them to use their speakers of choice (within limits due to the amp section of course-this applies to most other AV receivers as well).


In the short-term I agree. However, as streaming and apps continues to proliferate in TVs, game consoles, and now perhaps, AV receivers (and soon in prepros?), dedicated streamers are going to become less relevant.

The 978 and prepros in general are somewhat niche in the consumer AV world, but so long as the 978 is released before the end of the year and delivers sonically at a competitive price, it should do well. However, don't be surprised if downloadable apps appear in the next generation of prepros from Outlaw's competitors. Who can blame them? If they follow Samsung's model and build their own app stores, they'll have something new and valuable; recurring revenue from component sales. I wouldn't presume to speak for other prepro enthusiasts on this forum, but if Samsung ever decided to take the HW-D7000 and build a decent (Marantz AV-7005 class) dedicated prepro under 2K, I'd give it serious consideration. I don't think Samsung will do this as their business model is oriented towards the masses via big-box retailers and e-tailers. However, I wouldn't put it past Onkyo or Marantz...

Until Blu-ray players are standard in a receiver, the 7000 is not a standard AV receiver. It is an AV receiver with a BD player built in to it. We saw this with DVD players, as well, and in many cases those receivers were offered both on their own and in packages with speakers (hence my HTiB comment). It didn't catch on, because it wasn't a good idea. I don't recall a single DVD receiver that was considered a truly top-rate receiver, although I admit that I could certainly have overlooked some and I think Panasonic had some decent entry-level units that were at least fairly respectable for the price (~$300). The argument against this "complete AV entertainment solution" is that it locks you in to that BD player (which may or may not be pretty crappy - Samsung's not had the greatest track record with BD players) and if anything fails you are potentially forced to throw out the whole thing. Sure, they may sell a lot at Best Buy or CostCo, but I don't think that it is a precursor to any sort of industry standard.

The fact that those functions are integral to the player side of that unit is hugely relevant, at least from a design standpoint. (My day job is engineering, so I may be focusing more on that than some consumers would, but I think a company like Outlaw has to think that way, too.) There's a lot of silicon and a lot of software development involved in implementing that SoC so you can have those apps and media playback abilities, and I still think it's wasteful to transplant all that hardware and software into a receiver when it already exists elsewhere in the equipment rack and can be plugged in - if the consumer wants it - with a single HDMI cable. Unless the companies making DSP chips for receivers (TI and Cirrus, primarily) start building these functions into their chipsets, I don't see an efficient way to match this level of functionality without adding new hardware. I highly doubt that Anthem will do it in either their processors or their receivers, and Anthem has been toward the forefront of HDMI implementation among small audio manufacturers. I don't see Parasound doing it. Certainly Onkyo might, and Denon might even get into the mix, but they are chasing a different customer - I don't see it being part of what the smaller companies try to do at this point. I also don't see Onkyo or Denon being able to provide functions that are as good as what can be had with a game console or standalone device unless they borrow one of those standalone devices and drop the entire thing into their chassis. Perhaps things really will change more than I expect and the generation of processors that follows the Model 998 and Model 978 will include some network audio and video functions. At this point, though, I don't see it happening, and I'm OK with that.

According to Peter T's last update, the 978 is scheduled for release by the end of the second quarter 2011. And that release was pushed back due to the decision to add Audyssey MultiEQ 32. I must be a dreamer, but I'm still hoping that the 998 is out by the end of 2011.

The Outlaws simply MUST get this prepro on the market ASAP. They haven't been able to offer anything (of their own) since the 990. High rez audio via HDMI has been available for years now, and they have been losing sales all that time.

You're probably right about the smaller vendors not implementing the internal blu-ray drive but the streaming/app piece: We'll see. Concerning the internal blu-ray drive, Denon already has done it. S-5BD. NAD also has the same thing with a DVD drive. NAD Viso Five The VISO has gotten good reviews for audio and video performance (even from The Absolute Sound). Thus, I think high performance is possible, it's simply a matter of vendor implementation and will. To be clear, what I find attractive in the concept of fewer boxes, not any current implementation. Like you, I value performance and won't give it up in the interest of fewer boxes but I see no reason why those who want it can't have both.

Given Peter's recent comments about the disaster in Japan, we should consider ourselves fortunate if the 978 ships by the end of the year:

"To say the least, the entire parts situation is completely up in the air. Everyone is scrambling to determine what this means for their products- component by component, and the information about availability is changing daily.

Expect disruptions all across our industry..."

As noted in the "Who" thread, the picture of the rear panel of the 978 says "made in P.R.C.". I would think that as many parts as possible would therefor be made in China. However, it seems that they don't know right now what components come from Japan, and what impact that will have on the release.

My wishful estimate that the 998 follows the 978 by six months is based on the assumption that the 998 differs only by the implimentation of Trinnov. The 978 was only created to get something to market more quickly. In fact, before adding Audyssey MultEq XT32, it was scheduled to be out by the end of this month.

Just wondering....let's say the 978 sells for between $1500-$2000. It's feature set looks really good, but do the "higher end" pre/pros like Classe, Bryston, Lexicon etc. offer much better performance & sound quality, or is it really just a case of fancy metal work and the fact they are sold through dealers instead of direct? I know this is hard to answer as the 978 isn't even out yet. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to sacrifice sound quality, but I don't want to (grossly) overpay, either.

My $0.02? Outlaw's products have historically hit at something of a sweet spot on the "diminishing returns" performance curve - you can get better sound quality if you pay more, but it starts becoming more about subtleties in improvement than in truly eye-popping improvements. Companies like Classe, Bryston, and Lexicon thrive on the consumers who will pay more (sometimes a lot more) to obtain those diminishing returns. Part of the cost increase is perfectly justifiable because it starts costing a lot more to achieve those gains. Part of the higher prices is inevitable because of the distribution channel they use. And yes, sometimes the higher price is because of the name on the faceplate.

A perfect example of the potential cost impact associated with achieving these improvements, taken from another Internet direct company, is OPPO Digital and the difference between the BDP-83 and BDP-83SE or the BDP-93 and BDP-95. The 83SE and 95 cost 80% or 100% more than their siblings, with the cost difference resulting solely from improving analog audio performance. The R&D costs and hardware costs required to achieve those refinements led to the higher price tags.

That being said, we can also look at OPPO Digital for proof that those "higher end" brands can sometimes get lazy and simply over-charge their customers. The Lexicon BD30 is a $3,500 Blu-ray player that Lex "assembles" in Indiana. As it turns out, they bought the internals for the player straight from OPPO's manufacturing partner, BBK, and dropped those internals - bottom chassis plate and all - into a slightly taller cabinet. The only physical changes were a different front panel, taller rear panel with different silk screening, and a different cover. Lexicon worked with OPPO to get the video performance adjusted to satisfy THX's video benchmarks, but those adjustments were made in the base player and simply carried over to the BD30. Functionally, the BD30 is a BDP-83 with a taller chassis and thicker face plate. For a price tag seven times higher than the BDP-83 and almost four times higher than the BDP-83SE, Lexicon customers got a player that performs just like a BDP-83 but doesn't get firmware updates as fast because Lexicon has to have the OPPO firmware re-packaged into their own files with their own splash screen logo. (In some cases, the delay has been months, although right now they are current with OPPO.) That means the BDP-83SE (or the newer BDP-95) represents a better product, both in customer support and performance, than the more expensive Lexicon. Just a reminder that it's sometimes important to do your homework.

Good insight, Gonk. We're not talking a $500 or even $1000 difference between a product like the Outlaw 978 compared to, say, a Classe SSP-800 or the upcoming Bryston SP3. It's actually over a $5000 difference! I'm just curious about the performance difference and would love to be able to compare the BOM's for these products to the Outlaw 978.

Gonk,

Your comparison of Outlaw to OPPO is quite apt. I have an OPPO BDP-83SE paired with my old Outlaw 950. The 950 has a very clean analog pass-through mode and the 83SE sounded like a good enough improvement over the stock 83 that I felt the upgrade was well worth the money. While I have enjoyed my Outlaw 950 for a few years now, the DACs on the 950 sound somewhat thin and brittle compared to the DACs on the 83SE with lossy DVD soundtracks.

I like my 83SE, but I would like to have DACs that are the same quality as the BDP-95 or at least BDP-95 for all of my sources. I also would like to have the option to use a state of the art room correction technology like Trinnov or Audyssey. Finally, as nice as the OPPO 83SE is, it does not support 24-bit streaming music. I really would like the option to render high resolution, multichannel FLAC files on my new pre-pro. Cover art would be preferable, though dumb rendering with an iPhone, iPad, or Android interface would work just fine.

My 950 has served me well, my 83SE works well enough with physical media, but I really want something that will make all of my content sound as good as possible. I'd also like to be able to access all of my content from my computer without having to turn on the projector to drill through a folder-based menu system. It doesn't seem like this is too much to ask in 2011, but no pre-pro or Blu-ray player seems to be able to handle all of these tasks, yet alone at a semi-reasonable price.

Jimbo, did you really register in 2003, and this is your first post? If so, you are a patient man.

Just to amplify what Gonk said from a different perspective, I moved to a Outlaw 990 prepro from a Theta Casablanca with Superior DACs several years ago. The price difference between the two products was six fold and though I did notice a decrease in sound quality for CD-based content, it was only slight and frankly after a few days forgot about it and simply enjoyed the 990 because I found it to be musically satisfying.

Several years later I'm in the same position with my Denon AVP-A1 prepro. In terms of build, features, and performance I couldn't ask for more and I consider it to be in the reference class as prepros go. It even has a reasonably priced upgrade path for HDMI v1.4. However, I'm going to pounce on the 978 as soon as it becomes available because I'm confident it will deliver 90-95% of the AVP's sound quality at a third of what I expect the AVP to sell for. I can think of a lot things to buy with the difference in savings...

In this spirit, I'm pretty confident the AVP will be the last expensive prepro I own. At this point for me it simply makes more fiscal sense to purchase-and replace as appropriate-prepros in the cost sweet spot. IMO this sweet spot is $1200-$1600 in terms of price vs. performance.

Case in point about value: The first HDMI update for Theta's Casablanca III (and it must be vIII to accept this update) just became available in Q1 of this year. Price for this upgrade: $4995!

Thanks Eric - Just the kind of info I was looking for.

Will be Outlaw have Bluetooth remote like the PS3?

Sorry if this have been asked before, I didn't want to read through 18 pages.

I don't think it has come up, but I would be stunned if the remote was anything other than the standard IR.

Other than for things such as PS3, Bluetooth remotes are problematic, as they make it a real pain to program the remote into a "universal" remote such as Harmony or similar. Yes, there are PS3-specific BT to IR converters, but that just wouldn't make sense here.

In Scott's January 26, 2011 update on the 978 he noted:

"As a counterpoint to the latest in HDMI and digital audio processing, the Model 978 will include an audiophile grade phono preamp section, specifically designed for the Outlaws. We know that many of you still have extensive vinyl collections, and this will make it easy for you to listen to them as they were intended to be heard."

Does anyone have an idea how the 978 will handle bass management for vinyl playback? Vinyl playback is probably the only disappointing feature of my 990. Then again the 990 is an AV pre/pro and the phono function was never a primary feature. But if in fact the 978 will allow me to listen to my albums "...as they were intended to be heard" I hope that it will be along an analog path that shows the benefit of having an audiophile grade phono preamp.

Are there features and components in the ICBM-2 that can be incorporated in 978 to handle bass management for the phono source? I have an original ICBM that works great as an analog high/low pass filter in a dedicated stereo setup that would be terrific in the 978. Regardless, I hope the 978 avoids some of the quirky attributes (double bass to the sub and the speakers have to run full range) of the 990's Bypass mode which is the only way to avoid digital processing.

I would expect the Model 978 to offer a straightforward option for analog bypass at stereo inputs. After all, every unit they've developed from scratch except the original Model 1050 has offered this, and only the Model 990 (based on someone else's platform) had the sorts of quirks you mention.

As for bass management, I kind of doubt we'll see something analog just for a single stereo input. For one thing, it is adding extra cost and complexity to a feature that many owners will never use. For another, they already have (or will have) a product that can provide such functionality for folks who really want to keep everything in the analog domain: the upcoming ICBM-2. I would expect the ability to convert that input to digital, apply bass management and other processing as desired, and convert back to analog - it's not as pure a path, but depending on how good the DACs are (and we've been told to expect very good quality parts there) it could be a very transparent way to achieve bass management.

I was not aware that other Outlaw products didn't share the 990's goofy bypass mode. How was analog bypass handled in other Outlaw products?

Many folks who want to add a turntables to their 978 are probably going to using sat/sub speakers that need bass management and I think most vinyl aficionados would prefer a pure analog path. Maybe the RR2150 is better example of how analog bass management could be implemented versus the ICBM-2. It just seems counter intuitive to take an analog source and put it through an ADC, process it (including room correction?) and then back through a DAC for playback. Much has been said about the quality of the DACs in the 978 but I suppose to achieve transparency they, along with the ADCs will have to be very good. Much of the resurgence in vinyl is based on how it sounds and it would unfortunate to not be able to hear albums "...as they were intended to be heard."

It's been a lot of years since I had a Model 950, so I may be forgetting something, but in analog bypass mode the stereo signals went to the left and right channels with only volume control. The sub was inactive, unless you wanted to use the 6CH input with a separate phono pre-amp (in which case you had analog bass management using an 80Hz crossover). I think the Model 1070/Model 970 was similar.

None have offered the RR2150's bass management flexibility for analog sources, but then again they are different products with different focuses - the surround processors focused on doing bass management in the digital domain first and foremost, with analog bass management provided as a perk for folks with multichannel analog sources. I don't know how practical it really is to build in the RR2150's analog bass management capabilities on a surround processor that is focused mainly on HDMI.

If you convert the analog source to digital, I'd expect that you would be able to apply any digital processing that you wanted to, including bass management, matrix surround processing, and room correction. It may seem counter-intuitive, but some would argue we're already getting away from an intuitive configuration when we pair a traditionally two-channel analog device like a turntable with a traditionally digital surround system like a home theater. We get to a point where you probably need to choose: here it "as it was intended" (analog pass thorugh, limited or no bass management), or apply some or all of the full suite of digital tools now available to you.

If you pick the former, I wonder how much content exists below the typical front channel -3dB point on most recordings that would make missing out on having the subwoofer really a problem? In vinyl's golden age, we didn't have subs and lots of "full range" speakers rolled off around 40Hz or so. Of course, if your record collection includes a lot of pipe organ recordings, the answer to my question could be "lots of content."

I probably lived through "vinyl's golden age" and in the last couple of years I've rediscovered a lot of great music that is only available on vinyl. I got excited when I re-read Scott's post about the 978's phono preamp and how this pre/pro might pull double duty for HT and vinyl. I agree it is probably unreasonable for the 978 to offer bass management in both digital and analog domains but it would be a very cool if it did. If the 978 handles analog bypass as you described then that would be a big improvement over the 990 in particular for those with full range left and right speakers. Those with bookshelf or small speakers would get less performance if they choose bypass and almost force them to allow digital processing of the analog signal.

Understanding the limitations of my 990 I set off a couple of years ago to assemble a separate stereo system that combines many vintage components with newer ones such as an outboard DAC (for CD's and computer playback) and an ICBM for my satellite/sub speakers. But the heart of this system will be a turntable so I can relive some of those "golden" analog times and tunes.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to getting the full scoop on the 978's features. My 990 is getting "a little long in the tooth" and now with so few pre/pro choices the 978 should find an eager market when it arrives.

Gonk, I think it's been long enough that you don't remember this correctly. From page 6 of the Outlaw 950 user manual:

STEREO BYPASS button (see page 31)
Defeats the DSP processing section and provides an unaltered, full-bandwidth stereo signal to the Left and Right channel outputs on the rear panel. However, the subwoofer DSP crossover remains active and bass frequencies are available at the subwoofer output should you wish to augment your front LR speaker’s low frequency performance. The word BYPASS appears in the FRONT PANEL DISPLAY. Pressing the button again returns the unit to the previously selected DSP mode.

JimboG:

I am a new 990 owner, but isn't what you are describing the "dreaded" double bass (assuming your front speakers can go lower then the cutoff frequency for the subwoofer DSP)?

I'm pretty sure the double bass of the 990's bypass mode is a result of the L and R's bass being summed and sent to the subwoofer. I have "small" speakers that don't go much below 80Hz and the bass is significantly louder in bypass mode. I imagine if someone was using full range speakers up front the bass would be even more pronounced as they would produce bass as well. In that case it might make sense to turn off the sub when in bypass mode.

If the 950's DSP is active for the sub I imagine it avoided doubling the bass. If that scheme was used in the 978 it would be an improvement over the 990's bypass mode. Maybe a 950 owner that can confirm its bypass operation.

I use pretty good sized main speakers with active woofers. I have them set to small, crossed at 60hz and have never experienced noticable bass increase from the 990 in bypass mode.

Would be nice to see a product page for the 978 like this on the "products" section of the web site that is updated with the current info. There was one for the 997 that is now shown under the "Discontinued items" section. We've got pictures and we've got some limited (though updated) specs, it would be nice to have it all in one place.

Just a thought.

This link was included with the "update" e-mail many of us received on Friday, although it hasn't yet been added under the "products" tab.

Thanks. I missed that. That's what I was looking for.

But you still can't find it on the "products" section of the web site. I'd hate to have to constantly go find my email any time I want to refresh my memory on the specs.

You can go to the Model 990's page and replace the "990" with "M978". I suspect, though, that it will get added to the Products page before too long.

If you follow gonk's suggestion, be sure to use a capital "M". A small "m" doesn't work.

Forgive me if it has already been mentioned, but will the 978 support native DSD decoding? The ESS DACs can handle this, but I wonder if Outlaw is planning on including this feature. This (along with the DACs) would make it an automatic purchase for me. I was hoping Emotiva would add this feature, but it is not going to happen in their current lineup.

Wow. This place seems dead. I guess everyone is waiting.

Yep, there's nothing to discuss - it's all been hashed and rehashed. We're just leaning on the bar here at the saloon, waitin' for Marshall Peter to swager in with the release date. I think I'll have another beer and tequila...

Ok, so what is the verdict on the DSD? Is it not licensed?

I don't think we've heard either way.

Not sure when it popped up, but the 978 is on the "products" section of the web site now.

It's been there since early last week, IIRC.

IIRC? If I read correctly? Where? Am I missing something?

On another note. I hope that it has Dolby Headphone (as I've mentioned elsewhere). The 997 was going to have it. I hope the omission from the description page doesn't mean it won't have it.

"If I Remember Correctly", I believe.


I don't know if it's there or not, but the feature list is still rather "high level" - we are likely to see it grow or other features pop up in the manual later.

What you believe is indeed what I meant. I guess I should stop using that old-fashioned acronym.

Does anyone have the dimensions of the 978? I did not see it listed on the spec page.

Thanks Bob

No, but I think it is similar in size to the Model 990.

Assuming a width of a little over 17" (a very good assumption, IMO) the posted photos indicate a height of 6.5", including the feet (yes, I have printed the pics and done the measurements and calculations). So it's at least an inch "shorter" than the Model 990, which is easy to confirm by looking at the respective photos.

The depth is unknown at this point... as I have indicated previously, I am hoping for no more than 16" which should be easily achievable since the 978 is a clean sheet design and Outlaw isn't forced to use an existing chassis designed for another component, as was the case for the 990.

> I am hoping for no more than 16"<
Me too, I built a custom cabinet based on the 950 which is just about 15" deep. 16" would be perfect.

"The DACs are from ESS's ultra-high performance Sabre family and are similar to the ones that have received rave reviews for their implementation in the Oppo Blu ray players."

So do we think that the DACs are Sabre's Reference DAC (BDP-95) or are they the still good, but lesser Ultra DAC?

It's hard to say. The BDP-95 was one of the first products (if not the first) to offer the ES9018. Design of the analog section for the Model 978 might actually pre-date design of the analog section design for the BDP-95, or at least be from the same general time. OPPO Digital also had an existing working relationship with ESS because of the BDP-83SE, which could have made it more practical to push some boundaries and be one of the first to design around the newer chip. For those reasons, it's possible that Outlaw ended up working around a previous ESS Sabre32 chip like the ES9006 (which is the same chip used in the BDP-83SE's eight-channel analog output) or ES9016 (the chip used in the BDP-83SE's stereo analog output). Frankly, I'd be tickled to have either the ES9018, ES9016, or ES9006 in a surround processor. Having heard both, the differences are subtle, even when the ES9018 is given the advantage of an even more robust and aggressive analog board design.

Thanks for the insight Gonk. I have a BDP-83SE and a 95, and the 95 (in stereo) sounds noticably (moderately) better on my system.

I know that Oppo did other things to improve the sounds besides the DACS, but I sure would prefer to have the Reference if it was possible.

Keep in mind that the BDP-83 doesn't have ESS DAC's, but instead Cirrus (albeit one of Cirrus' best chips). The 83SE got the ESS DAC's. Moving to the 83SE or 95 from the 83 or 93 makes some pretty noticeable changes that include the ESS chip. I ran the BDP-95 in my stereo setup for a bit and thought it had a bit of an advantage over the 83SE when both stereo analog outputs were compared, but the 95's stereo output is using an eight-channel DAC just for two channels (bridging four channels for each output). The eight-channel analog outputs of the 83SE and 95 are a more accurate comparison for what an ESS DAC in a surround processor can do.

Under the A/V feature list for the 978 is a "quadruple crossover". Can anyone explain what this is? Also, as far as features go - one thing I'd really like the 978 to have is an adjustable turn on volume.

There are four separately adjustable crossover points for bass management. The front speakers have one user-adjustable crossover, the center speaker has another, the side surrounds have a third, and the back surrounds/front heights have a fourth. This is the same arrangement that was used in the Model 990. This allows users to tweak the bass management to suit their speakers.


I would also hope to see this included. The Model 990 had it, and I really liked it.

Man I hope this thing isn't too far out, I don't know how much longer my 970 will last...

And I'm getting really nervous about my 950!

I'm wondering how I'd hook up my 6.1 system. Currently still using my old Outlaw 1050 and, it was designed with 6.1 in mind. Not sure what I'd do to hook up my rear center, looking at the back of the 978. It's just not feasable to tear my ht room apart to make room for a 7.1 system.

I assume you'd just hook up your center rear speaker to the left rear input on the 978, the way I do with my Integra DHC-80.2. I think most high end AVRs and pre-pros with 7-channel surround use just the left rear channel to accommodate a 6.1 system.

I would expect the same as WWP3 - it has been standard for a while for 7.1 receivers and processors to use the left back surround as the output for the back surround in 6.1 setups, with a menu option to select a single rear surround.

To avoid looking at the entire thread, can someone direct me to the current/lastest list of features?

The one I'm most curious about is whether the 978 will have 2 independent sub outputs. And then with XT32, whether they can be calibrated (and room EQ'ed) individually.

Feature list: http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/M978.html

Latest Update: http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubbthreads/ub...an=59#Post87532

Thanks. The gallery picture has 2 sub outs, but nothing about whether they are individually EQ'ed with XT32:



But that *is* one benefit of XT32 in the Denon 4311CI over just XT in the Marantz AV7005, for example.

(See, I'm trying to decide whether to do a shoot-out with the 4311CI vs the AV7005, or wait for the 978 to compare to the AV7005. )

This is the Audyssey feature that independently calibrates multiple subs:

http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/sub-eq-ht

Hopefully the 978 has it.

The 978 almost certainly will include Sub EQ HT... every other AVR or pre/pro which has MultEQ XT32 also bundles Sub EQ HT.

BTW, Sub EQ HT does not EQ multiple subs independently, as you implied in your previous post. What it does do is calibrate independently the delay and level for 2 subs (to maximize their combined output at the main listening position). It then EQs their combined output as a single "virtual" sub.

Is there *any* flavor of Audyssey that does EQ 2 subs independently?

Seems to me, the best way to do it would be to EQ each sub individually, *then* EQ them together with the main speakers.

If one sub has a "problem" frequency that the other doesn't, EQ'ing them together without first doing it individually wouldn't seem like it would give the best results.

I suppose you could use a dedicated sub EQ box on each sub 1st, then use Audyssey over top of that, which would do the same thing ... except for the added cost of those 2 sub EQ boxes.

Looks like a single SVS AS-EQ1 sub EQ can do it with XT32:

IMO, EQing the subs independently only makes sense if they are operating in stereo mode (i.e. they are each reproducing different program material). For HT applications where both subs receive the same signal (either from the LFE track or redirected bass from the satellites), the way Sub EQ HT operates seems ideal to me. I can't imagine what advantage independent sub EQ would provide in the HT setting.

Each sub can produce it's own unique set of interactions with the room. Therefore IMO, the best solution is to EQ them individually 1st, then collectively.

If one sub has a "problem" freq, and the other doesn't, seems to me that dealing with that freq only from the sub that produces would be the best approach. The incoming signal, stereo or mono doesn't matter. It's the interaction with the room that matters.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

When two subs are reproducing the same signal, the only thing that matters is how their combined output interacts with the room. Equalizing them separately in such a scenario only complicates matters and offers no improvement to the final outcome. That's precisely why Sub EQ HT operates the way it does.

I think Sub EQ HT works the way that it does because it doesn't have the processing power to do it individually.

And I think individually EQ'ing multiple subs first, then the combination can give you better results than just doing the combination alone. Especially over a listening area, not just for one spot.

The SVS box can do this, and JBL's BassQ too.

Even if the subs are acting in stereo, the important part would seem to be, how they interact with one another. Typical speakers operating above the sub range don't produce the bass nodes which subs do and don't interact with one another as much. It then seems that the only way to integrate two or more subs is to tame the overall effect vice trying to tame the individual effect since any real world application will have to deal with the bass nodes from both speakers. Also stereo subs may produce different signals but since they are LFE they are essentially directionless so the "stereo" effect is pretty much negated.

Definitely not. Modern receivers like last year's Denon 4311 can EQ 11.1 channels already, so another fractional channel (subwoofer output below 250Hz) won't strain the processing chip. You'd never be able to support your belief with measurements, because they would demonstrate that the opposite is true. EQing the acoustic interaction of multiple subs can produce better response AND greater consistency over a wider listening area than EQing each sub independently.

E. F. Hutton has just spoken... for those old enough to understand the reference.

I was hoping you would find this thread at some point, Sanjay.

Yes,unfortunately it is well with in my frame of reference age wise and well said. I enjoy all the knowledge I have gained since joining this forum.

I remember those commercials. Now, do you remember his daughter (actress Dina Merrill)?

The name certainly rang a bell, but it took a trip to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. I have seen several of her films and TV shows but can't honestly say I remember her in any of those roles. "The Player" would be well worth watching again to see her in the twilight of her career... terrific movie, btw.

Back to topic...

You are ignoring the fact that I am suggesting to EQ individually 1st, then overall 2nd. Not just individually.

And SVS told me over the weekend that either way can work. And they *have* tested in a bunch of real rooms. And that's one reason why they offer the capability in the AS-EQ1.

I can't speak for Sanjay, but I for one fully understood what you were suggesting in your previous posts. By all means go for it, if it will make you happy.

It's important to point out, though, that you will have difficulty finding anyone to suggest that what you are doing confers any advantage whatsoever, other than someone who gets to sell you an expensive piece of equipment by doing so.

Not ignoring it at all, just pointing out that it makes no sense, since the second round of equalization changes the settings that originally made the response of each sub flat, thereby rendering the first round of equalization pointless.

Whether you want them to not, the two subwoofers will interact with each other. Rather than take my word for it, anyone reading this thread can try it at home. Equalize two subs so that each one is flat at the listening position. Without moving the measuring mic, turn on both subwoofers. Notice that the response from two flat subs now looks like a roller coaster, because their interaction wasn't taken into consideration. I suppose you could then do a second round of equalization, but now you've just changed the original EQ settings to what they should have been from the begining.

A better, simpler, easier and cleaner approach would be to measure the interaction between the two subs, since that's what you're going to hear anyway. IF it is possible, move one or both subs around to see if you can improve the frequency response, in which case you'll minimize the amount of correction that the EQ has to do (always a good thing). The box was designed and built by Audyssey. They allowed the option of EQing each subwoofer independently because the box can take in a stereo input signal. Two separate signals require two separate equalizations, since their interaction can change based on content. At the time, Audyssey used to EQ each subwoofer channel independently, like the 3 subwoofer outputs on the Denon AVP1 (again, because each output could carry a different signal). They have since wisened up and now send the same mono signal to each AND globally equalize their interaction.

If the above doesn't convince you, Kevin, so be it. I'm done.

One sub. The ongoing wisdom has been that if you have a dedicated means of EQ'ing the sub: SMS, Velodyne DD, AS-EQ1, RABOS, etc; use that first, then use Audyssey over top of that. A lot of people have expressed that they get better results that way than just with Audyssey alone.

So now with two subs, Audyssey can do a better job alone w/o first EQ'ing each sub individually? When EQ'ing two subs together is a lot more difficult than one sub by itself ... specifically due to their interaction?

If each sub is EQ'ed individually first, Audyssey is given a more uniform response to start with, to then EQ the combined response.

I always understood that the rationale behind using dedicated subwoofer EQ tools (SMS-1, AS-EQ1, RDES, etc.) prior to using overall room correction tools like Audyssey was that it was the only practical way to merge the two forms of EQ. The dedicated tools frequently had more available bands of EQ available specifically for the sub and could do a better job of getting subwoofer response flat, then the room correction addressed the full-range speakers and did whatever it could with the subwoofer. (In early room correction and even some current models, their sub EQ was of limited capability, which just reinforced this idea.) The SMS-1 is the only such sub EQ I've used, and while it has multiple sub outputs it operates with a mono output and applies the same EQ to all of the subs.

Despite my promise not to, I feel compelled to stick my nose in here again to take issue with the quoted statement. It is patently false, and makes me suspect you have to completely rethink your concept of what happens when two transducers interact.

Audyssey has no more difficulty EQing a pair of subs reproducing the same signal (which it sees as a single virtual sub) than it does EQing a single physical sub.

That scenario works because the response of the subwoofer doesn't change due to interacting with another subwoofer. Not a question of better or worse, but what is being EQ'd. If you EQ each subwoofer independently, when they'll never be heard that way, then you're EQing the wrong thing (and wasting your time). That would be like EQing a subwoofer in the middle of the room, where it is easier to get a flatter response, then placing it in the corner where it is going to reside before EQing it again. Why bother with the first round of EQing when no one is going to hear the sub from the middle of the room? Likewise, why EQ each sub independently when no one will ever hear it that way. Why is it more difficult? You measure the bass response, and minimize the peaks and dips as best you can. What difference does it make how many subs are physically connected to the EQ? That uniformity disappears the moment you turn on both subwoofers. Try it for yourself and see.

In case there's still some doubt after Sanjay's excellent post, I'm tempted to revisit my "virtual sub" analogy. Turning on the second sub does not actually change the response of the first sub (or vice versa); rather their combined output is now heard as a new virtual sub whose response is different from either physical sub heard individually, and whose raw response can then be equalized to achieve the desired response.

Equalizing the 2 single physical subs independently before equalizing them together will certainly change the response of the virtual sub, but in a completely unpredictable and not necessarily favorable way. In addition, it wastes time and money and adds unnecessary complexity. It's simply a bad idea.

I don't see it. If you individually EQ each sub so that the phase, distance, amplitude, and freq spectra is what you want at the main listening positioning, and then you add them together, their responses should just add together. Where's the interaction? The 2 subs' physical locations are different. But what EQ'ing is supposed to be doing, is to make it so that they sound the *same* at the main listening position. (Or as much as possible the same, given their different physical locations.) Essentially, you're just co-locating 2 different sound fields over top of each other. (Hard to explain.) As if you had one speaker exactly where you're located, and then you add another one in the same exact spot. All you're doing is doubling the volume of something that should be "correct" in the 1st place: the soundfield of each sub at the main listening spot.

Gary- with your virtual sub idea: if each individal EQ system is doing what it's supposed to, the new virtual sub created from one plus another would simply be the two fields added together. No interaction. The only way *interactions* occur is if things *aren't* in phase so they don't add together properly. And let's say that there are some phase issues introduced by EQ'ing those 2 subs individually. The responses of each sub are still smoother than w/o 1st individually EQ'ing then, and yet still, that's why you run Audyssey over top of their combined response to deal with that.

And if it was such a "bad idea", why are there solutions out there in the market?

And why would SVS have told me that it can work both ways?

Does Velodyne say in their manuals, for example, that if you have two Digital Drive subwoofers not co-located, *not* to use the EQ system because it's a "bad idea"?

In a way, all the arguments each way don't matter. I have one sub now, but I've been debating getting another one for years, but haven't yet. If I did, I'd try both ways, and then I'd see which way would work better.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1364666

I went from one to two and then back to one and Audyssey did a good job of compensating for the changes.

Suppose the subwoofer that you EQ'd flat is sitting right next to an open door. If I closed that door tight, will your subwoofer still have a flat response? If not, why?

The response would of course change (boundary reinforcement, or not). But I don't typically open and close doors when I'm watching a movie though. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Phase seems to me to be the most immediate potential problem. If the two locations create phase cancellation, calibrating them separately and combining them would not reveal that cancellation. Beyond that, I get into a level of detail that I don't trust myself to be sufficiently informed on, but I could see EQ adjustments being made to help one sub overcome a dip or reduce a peak that could be naturally smoothed out by interaction with the other sub (which, due to a different location within the room, might be cancelling out or lessening the magnitude of the problem spots for that first sub). In both scenarios, adjusting the two subs as a unified pair would be quicker, easier, and better sounding.

It reminds me of one SMS-1 owner who had multiple subwoofers and found that his placement of those subs had already achieved enough "flattening" that using a separate sub EQ gained him nothing. Looking at each sub individually would have led him to do a lot of EQ work, whereas looking at the whole revealed that he needed very little actual adjustment.


The pessimistic answer to that would be "because they sound cool and can be sold more easily as a result." There are other less-than-optimal product ideas that are very popular for marketing reasons, or sound popular at first but eventually fade away. (Case in point: TV manufacturers are starting to re-consider "smart TV's" with all sorts of network functions built in - leaving such functions for a Blu-ray player or standalone device or receiver, all of which are duplicating those functions these days, apparently made more sense to consumers.)


Since Audyssey already had the ability in the firmware, it sounds like they just left it there for greater flexibility. And technically it can work - it just may take more effort and may yield a result that is no better than the alternative.


Do the DD subs have the ability to slave one sub to the other, or do you have to set up each individually? Since they built the EQ hardware into the sub, you kind of have to EQ each separately unless there's a master/slave option.

This is not easy stuff...


This is only likely to be true if the 2 subs are physically colocated, a situation where they are in phase at all frequencies and both elicit the same set of reverberations in the room. If they are equidistant from the listener but not colocated, they will still be in phase at all frequencies but I suspect their reverberant soundfields will interact in a way which cannot be predicted from their individually measured responses (unless they are outdoors away from any barriers or in an anechoic chamber, not typical HT environments). If they are physically separated and not equidistant from the listener, their phase relationships will vary with frequency and again their reverberant soundfields will be different. The experiment which Sanjay suggested (and which I have to assume he has performed) will prove this one way or another.

Btw, which EQ solution do you know of which equalizes phase for non-colocated, non-equidistant subwoofers? The only one I know of is Sub EQ HT.


See above.

Bottom line... I will be quite happy, and confident that I am optimizing my overall bass performance, by allowing Sub EQ HT and MultEq XT32 to handle the combined output of my 2 subs (when I get them) without any preliminary hanky-panky. If you want to go through the additional steps which you propose, are willing to spend the additional money and time to do so, and are comfortable with the added complexity, go for it. I still think it's a "bad idea", but it's your decision to make.

OK, so you would be pressurizing the room differently with the door open vs the door closed. What if you added a second pressure device, like a subwoofer, would the response change? Doesn't matter how the subs are EQ'd, I'm just asking whether the response would change.

Kevin, on further reflection I am willing to admit that if you were to use a device such as the SVS AS-EQ1 (which performs EQ in both the frequency and time domains) to individually equalize 2 subs, it is quite possible that their actual summed output in a typical room will come close to their mathematically summed individual responses. Again, it remains to be seen whether doing this prior to equalizing the subs' combined output will confer any advantage (and I won't be doing it for all the reasons mentioned) but if this is indeed your intention, it's quite possible you will come close to accomplishing your goal.

Keep us posted.

I meant to jump in sooner but I had to crack some books on this one.
Two things going in:
1. Superposition holds.
2. Standing wave room modes are independent of sub location.

Superposition is important because it basically means that the response of the sum is simply the sum of the individual responses. Where it get complicated is that the output of the sub has elements of Amplitude, Frequecy and Phase and most EQ programs only show frequency and amplitude and maybe a phase shift and give you no idea what the absolute phase is (Never played with Sub EQ HT).

The room modes are important because adding extra subs will not change the room modes. What it will do is move the peaks and valleys of the standing waves around. Note the same effect is achieved moving a single sub around in the room: The modes are the same, peaks and valley move. (Opening door, moving walls, etc. WILL change the room modes)

So what I would do if I were designing the system would be to measure the individual sub responses AND the combined response then apply individual corrections to each sub to equalize the combined response.

Yes. But you'd still be EQ'ing the 2 subs' interaction too, in addition to individually.


Ok, I see what you're getting at. Only EQ individually, but EQ individually so that the combined response is what you want it. That's another further step forward from what I'm suggesting.


You get it !! Yes, in the end, I don't know if you could get better performance or not from EQ'ing individually plus the total, vs just EQ'ing the sum total of the response. But theoretically, I like the idea of EQ'ing individually 1st, to give Audyssey smoother profiles to work with when EQ'ing the sum total of their interaction. In effect, it's an attempt to minimize the two subs' interaction before EQ'ing the sum total.

Kevin, I've understood what you were proposing all along but a) I didn't think you would accomplish your goal and b) I didn't think it would be worth the cost, time and complexity. I am strongly drawn to "simple" and "elegant" solutions and still very much believe point "b" to be true but am willing to reconsider point "a", assuming the conditions I mentioned in my last post are met.

Makes the first round of EQ pointless, because you're EQing each sub under conditions it will never ever be heard in (i.e., by itself). That's like manually EQing the sub flat with the door open, and then closing the door and letting Audyssey EQ it again under the conditions it will actually be heard in. Heck, you don't even know whether some of the settings in the first round of EQing are making things more difficult for the second round.

You say "pointless", I say that I'm giving Audyssey smoother profiles to work with than w/o EQ'ing individually 1st. You say I wouldn't even know if individually EQ'ing 1st is helping or hurting Audyssey's EQ'ing the sum total response, I say, that's why I'd measure to see if there's a difference or not.

What I don't understand is that all 3 of you (Sanjay, Gary, and Gonk) keep trying to argue against this. Have any of you tried this yourselves and know that it won't work? Have any of you seen real test results that show that it cannot work? You're all arguing from a theoretical viewpoint. Gary at least is willing to consider that it could work better. I have convinced myself from a theoretical standpoint that it *could* work better. ... And then I'd measure to confirm that or not.

No you're not. You're EQing each sub flat under conditions that Audyssey will never ever hear. The moment Audyssey fires up both subs together, those individual profiles disappear. You may have pulled down a 6dB peak from one of the subs that would have been acoustically cancelled by interaction from the other sub. So now when Audyssey fires up both subs, it has to deal with a 6dB dip that you created. Of course. Why do you think I keep saying "rather than take my word for it, try it for yourself"? I didn't just wake up one day and decide out of the blue that two subs, each EQ'd flat independently, wouldn't sum to a flat response together. Do you think Audyssey arbitrarily decided to change the way they EQ multiple subs? On the top of the line Denon receivers and pre-pro, Audyssey equalized each of the three subwoofers independently. Denon is planning on upgrading their flagship models to include, amongst other things, the most advanced version of Audyssey that will equalize all three subs together. Do you think such a significant change is based on just theory or real world measurements?

OK Sanjay. Please post your graphs that show that when you EQ'ed two subs individually then the sum total, vs just the sum total, that you got better results with the latter.

In fairness, unless you've tried this with the 2 subs time aligned physically (i.e. equidistant from the listener) or electronically, I don't think you can make that statement categorically. That realization is what made me slightly soften my stance.

It hasn't changed my mind regarding the questionable premise or overall wisdom of what Kevin wants to do, but that's another matter.

Don't have any graphs to post, which is why I keep repeating that folks try it for themselves rather than take my word for it. At least then you'll understand why you got the same response in this thread as you did in the AVS thread you started.

BTW, it was at least 6 years ago when this was demonstrated to me. I had recently gotten the room correction upgrade to my MC-12, when an acoustician friend tried to convince me that I should be running my two subs in dual-mono rather than stereo (when set to dual-mono, the Lex equalizes both subs together). I remained skeptical until he brought over his measuring kit and an outboard equalizer and proved me wrong.

Ack, too late, I already did. Oh well, if Kevin's measurements make me look like a fool then so be it.

BTW, you can do some interesting things by playing with time alignment. If the subs don't have a phase knob, then you can slip the delays to each subwoofer so that their combined responses give you better results (by lining up the peaks and dips from opposing subs to cancel each other out more efficiently). Like when using a pair of subs for modal cancellation, you want one sub out of phase with the other, so time aligning them both correctly would defeat the purpose. Further, adjusting the time alignment of the global subwoofer signal can result in a smoother blend at the crossover region. For example: if you're crossing over at 80Hz, then play a 80Hz signal through the subs and speakers, adjusting the delay of the subwoofer signal till you get max level on your SPL meter (meaning they're in phase).

Finally, the whole "time domain correction" thing should be taken more as marketing than something separate from amplitude domain (frequency response) correction. When you see a peak on an amplitude response measurement, that extra energy comes from sound at that frequency hanging around in the room for a much longer time than other frequencies. If you pull that peak down, you minimize the ringing (which can be verified by checking the impulse response or waterfall graph). If you can smoothen out the response so that you hear all the frequencies at the same level, then no particular sounds will dominate nor mask other sounds, and you'll hear the kind of bass articulation from your subs that "time domain correction" promises to deliver. See page 8 of this white paper.

I'll have to peruse fellow Canuck Floyd's musings over the weekend... too busy today. I'm certainly aware that phase and amplitude issues are hardly mutually exclusive.

Understood. It was just the two diagrams on page 8 that I was pointing to as relevant to this discussion, although the rest of the paper is a useful reference as and when you have the time to digest it. Unfortunately, time domain correction is being marketed as an added feature to consumers that aren't aware that it happens automatically with amplitude domain correction in small rooms.

Venturing briefly off topic, is this a recent trend, Sanjay? Who's doing the marketing?

I hear it mostly from dealers and salespeople, and it still keeps popping up on various forums.

Thankfully, the trend is waning amongst manufacturers. Seven years ago, when Meridian and Lexicon introduced room correction to their respective surround processors, all they talked about was correcting in the time domain (e.g., reducing long decay times) instead of improving the frequency response. Soon after, Audyssey was separating itself from the competition by promoting their ability to measure and correct in the time domain (you can even see it in the literature for the SVS subwoofer equalizer that Audyssey made). Nowadays, those companies barely mention time domain correction, instead just talk about overall improvements.

The good news is that the more research that is done into room correction, the less complicated it seems to become. The most recent round of blind testing from Harman demonstrated that listener preference for room correction came down to two main factors: a perceptually flat target curve (as opposed to measured flat) and smoothness across the range (the fewer peaks and dips, the more it was preferred).

I have the 195 lb SVS PB12-Ultra/2 now, and one obstacle to getting two subs was that I had it in my mind to get rid of that one for 2 new "matching" something elses. But I've come across mentions now that you can successfully use 2 different subs together. So ... maybe someday sooner. One issue is that right now, admittedly with the lowly RS meter, I have measured response more or less flat down to 11 Hz. (Room/corner gain.) If I get another sub, I lose some of that because the SVS's output would be reduced by 3 dB or so by adding the other one. (But yeah, after integration, maybe I get smoother response up where I can actually hear it. ) And then the discussion here about how to EQ two. If just EQ'ing two together can work as well as individually then plus the total, that saves me some money too because I wouldn't have to bother with the individual EQ part. All things to consider. I suppose the bottom line, to bring this back to the Outlaw 978, is that with the Outlaw SSP and XT32, that is a genuinely valid way to get started with a 2 sub set up.

Hey Outlaws

I don't know if this was asked before but anyone have any guesses as to what the price may be when (if) the 978 is finally released?

Thanks

I don't think we have an official answer on that, but I'd guess between $1,300 and $1,500. I could certainly be wrong on the low side, but don't think it would be more on the high side.

Thanks Gonk.

I was thinking maximum $1599 which is the cost of the 7500 I bought but under $1500 sounds "affordable".

Now for your expert advice. I am in a query about my sound improvement.

What would be my next best improvement?

Firstly I have an Onkyo 906 used as a pre/pro driving my Outlaw 7500. I also am running a Samsung BD-C6500 7.1 BD player. I have the operation hooked as 7.1 analogue, since my HDMI board was fried, as all 906 owners are suffering. The cost of repair to my 906 is prohibitive.

Now for the improvement.

Choices are as follows.....

1. Keep the 906 and get an Oppo BD-93 and hook up HDMI for
sound and picture.

2. Keep the 906 and get an Oppo BD-95 and hook up HDMI for
for picture and analogue 7.1 for sound.

3. Sell the 906 and get the long-awaited Outlaw 978 pre/pro
and hook up the Samsung HDMI for both sound and picture.

4. Any other suggestions in line with where I'm focusing on that I have not have thought of.

Part of my thinking is the 4k upconversion chips on the Oppos and the 978. Would such upconversion improve Bluray or is it only for DVDs. Would they make a difference?

If your choice is number 3...then what sound improvement should I expect with the 978 pre/pro over the 906 AVR when driving the awesome 7500?

I don't want to be pumping a lot more money.

Thanks

I would tough it out until the 978 comes out. It sounds like the 906 is on its last legs, but maybe not. The 978 will give you the flexibility to hook up anything you want. Since there is no 4K material out there, I would keep the c6500 until it died, especially if you want to save $$$ for the future.

XenonMan you are THE END!

Thank you for your great input. I don't know too much on these things which is why I am learning. I will go with your advice and wait for the 978. Would balanced connection from the 978 to the 7500 and also from the 978 to my subwoofer (SVS PB 13 ultra w Sledge amp) be the better way to go?

Thanks

Balanced connections probably won't make much difference unless your cable run is so long that you pick up noise with RCA connections.

With your HDMI board dead in the 906, aren't you going to have to run HDMI to the TV and multichannel analog to the 906?

This is a good solution for a few reasons. First, the BDP-93 has a very respectable analog section, not to mention support for almost every optical disc format you can find. Second, it gives you a player that can be used later with a different surround processor.


It's an extra $500. Granted, I adore my BDP-95, so I can't call this a bad choice in any way. Once you replace the 906 with something new (like a Model 978), you may not continue to use the BDP-95's analog output - with the 978 in particular, I'd think you'd likely prefer to switch to HDMI audio since the 978 is also using an analog section based on ESS chips. At that point, you'll be leaving a fancy and expensive analog section unused.


If the Model 978 were available today, I'd certainly do this. With the Model 978 still in development, you have to be willing to stay with the 906/Samsung combo for a while longer.


There's a hybrid solution, of course: sell the Samsung to help fund a BDP-93, then later sell the 906 to help fund a Model 978. The move to a BDP-93 would give you sound that's equal to or better than the 906 gave you when the HDMI board worked (based on experience I've had with an Onkyo 885 - processor cousin to the 906's predecessor, the 905 - and both the BDP-83 and the BDP-93), and the BDP-93 would still be a good partner for the Model 978 via HDMI later.


The video processing doesn't scale up to 4k, which is OK since no commercial displays work with 4k. (4K resolution is 4096 by 3072 pixels.) The processing does provide output up to 1080p (1920x1080). That is the resolution that Blu-ray uses, as well, so the processing benefits for Blu-ray are limited - mainly the benefit is coordination with displays that run at lower resolutions, since the player or processor uses a video processing chip that is better than most TV's include and thus can more gracefully scale down. The biggest benefit is for DVD's, though, which must be both deinterlaced and scaled.


We don't know what the Model 978 will sound like, so we can't make any definitive comments about benefits relative to existing hardware.

The balanced connections are mostly for noise rejection from external interference. I run the balanced connections to my 7500 but only because the cables were free and I didn't want to spent $$$ on interconnects which I think are usually more expensive than they are touted. I have both the 7125 and a 7500 and neither has an issue with interference. Good quality cable from BlueJeans cable will serve for either connection without killing your budget.

Just thought I'd mention that I did read Floyd Toole's paper a few days ago and while much of it was not news to me, it certainly is an excellent "back to basics" summary which, among other things, clearly makes the point (regarding the interrelationship of amplitude and time domain correction) to which Sanjay refers.

And thanks, Sanjay.

If, like me, one is planning to use Blue Jeans Cable interconnects, their balanced cable is actually just under 50% more than their high quality unbalanced cable ($71.50 vs. $48.50 for a 10 foot stereo pair). So in the overall context of an entire surround sound system, the extra outlay for selected runs of balanced cable shouldn't be too prohibitive.

One feature I sure hope the 978 will have - the ability to just do a simple pass through of video with no processing at all, especially on the HDMI inputs.

Can anyone tell me if the 978 will have HDMI pass-through when the unit is in "standby" mode (or off)? I am hoping that it will support using my TV (which would be connected via HDMI to the cable box THROUGH the 978) for both audio and video such that the kids/wife don't need to engage the full 7.1 system just to watch (and hear!) the news.

Hello

First post here, I have been reading and waiting for several months now on the 978 "I know its a short time compared to allot of you"

but anyway somehow I had missed the fact that the 978 will not have network capabilities. Is this the general consensus was there some kind of announcement stating this? And then the pictures backed that statement up?

I feel like an idiot, I talked my Nephew into waiting for this processor and we both improved our home networks with NAS and Gigabit adaptors. lol

We were planning to upgrade our networks anyway so we could stream music and video but I guess not with the 978.

Maybe I will just tell him the 978 has been released and it didn't show very well..Ha Ha

I don't really trust the new Emotiva pre/pro coming out so maybe the Marantz.

Tracy

Personally I don't feel a network streaming device is a "good fit" to be incorporated into any pre-pro. The shifting sands of technology in that area mean you can get devices for well under $99 that may or may not be obsolete in a VERY short time. A quality pre-pro ought to last nearly forever...

I agree with Renov8r!! Processors should attempt to become universal connections for support devices such as streaming. The ability of large companies to provide whole lines of devices with varied capabilities means that in 6 months or so those devices are eclipsed by some newer model with a new version of some support device. In order to maintain those processors in the price point the designers make the primary mission of the processor weaker in performance. An all in one HTIB unit can be had which will stream and connect to your iPod and HTPC and play CD/DVD/Blurays all at the expense of quality audio and video.. In 6 months or so it will also e obsolete. I think HDMI is a creation of those people who are willing to upgrade.

While having a network connection on the pre-pro isn't mandatory, you've got to admit that it has become de rigeur for mid-tier and higher end consumer gear. Would I use it? Probably not. However, it does open up some opportunities:

1. painless network firmware upgrades
2. streaming media from local devices over the network (pads/phones/NAS/etc)
3. alternate control method for the unit (there's nifty android and Iphone/Ipad remote control software out there for a wide variety of receivers)

One of the disadvantages of being this late to the party is that you might miss out on some of the more "cutting edge" convenience features like network connectivity in an effort to speed things along. Not a particularly important feature for me, but that's the way the consumer market seems to be heading.

Like the 990? Time marches on.

Not a deal breaker for me, either, but I probably would use it, especially for the things you mention, even if there are well-known alternatives for the first two. And over time, I think I would miss the option of bi-directional network control, for which the 978 offers no alternative (see the Emotiva XMC-1, for comparison).

Things have changed since the Model 978 was first announced; I suspect that the lack of a network connection will be a sore spot for many.

Agreed. And as this extended release delay drags on, their feature set is only going to look even more "stale" when compared to competing equipment in the same price range. Time is not Outlaw's friend in the fast moving world of home theater processors. By comparison, the 990 was a bit ahead of the curve at the time of its release, but it hasn't been able to remain feature competitive now that we're **SEVEN** years into its product life cycle pending the always over the horizon release of its successor.

It might turn out to be more financially prudent for them to simply concede the race and continue selling processors from other companies while they focus on gear where they can differentiate themselves.

Best,

Can't agree with this... network connections don't become obsolete. As new services become available, they can simply be implemented (or not) with firmware.

If the pre/pro manufacturer doesn't offer a network service you want, you are free to add an HDMI-connected device which does.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In my way of thinking source components are a better natural home for the kinds of content oriented services that often change their terms / offerings.

While I certainly don't deny that certain amounts of convenience can be had by incorporating an Ethernet port for firmware updates, the overhead of having to build in circuitry and code to make these seldom used options a reality are not enough to make me say it is that much better than a USB connection.

Finally if your desire is to have some kind of "digital hub" it is my contention that such a product is fundamentally different than an audio- centric pre-pro. Beleive me I know that the range of products that purport to enable you to stream content to multiple zones in your home in relative fidelity / ease are far larger than the handful of products that actually fulfill this promise. I doubt those are waters the Outlaws would currently find profitable to dive into...

Originally Posted By: renov8r

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In my way of thinking source components are a better natural home for the kinds of content oriented services that often change their terms / offerings.

While I certainly don't deny that certain amounts of convenience can be had by incorporating an Ethernet port for firmware updates, the overhead of having to build in circuitry and code to make these seldom used options a reality are not enough to make me say it is that much better than a USB connection.

Finally if your desire is to have some kind of "digital hub" it is my contention that such a product is fundamentally different than an audio- centric pre-pro. Beleive me I know that the range of products that purport to enable you to stream content to multiple zones in your home in relative fidelity / ease are far larger than the handful of products that actually fulfill this promise. I doubt those are waters the Outlaws would currently find profitable to dive into...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I looked at source components as a streaming hub but they didn't seem to offer all the codecs I was interested in using. Many of them offered quite a few just not the ones I deemed best suited me. They are limited on input output ports

I also looked into very nice DAC's but LAN ports on these seem to be rare. Inputs are few and I need to stream audio and video and I am not sure they will, I gave up quickly when I had a hard time finding reasonable priced DAC's with LAN ports.

HTPC seemed to be the ticket but audio fidelity was always a question. After many hours of research and a great deal of discussion on audio forums I didn't feel comfortable with a motherboard, processor, sound card combination I felt would do the job. Everyone agreed that it really came down to the dac that was in the HTPC.
And if I was just passing digital data through the HTPC why would I need it?

Really the only component to stream digital data that makes sense in a relatively high end "home theater / audio system" is the brain of that system, the pre/pro or AVR. Fundamentally it is the perfect choice.


The pre/pro already has a high end DAC, It processes digital and analog information, it has a ton of inputs many digital and I can access my music with ease. The pre/pro is already playing in the DA playground how hard could it be to add LAN to it. I am not sure why my computer or my NAS would be any different then any other digital component other then the number of codec's they are capable of running.

I cant remember if I read or watched this on TV but the CEO of Samsung talked about his company. He said that in 5 to 10 years all digital media will be streamed through the internet.
If you buy it or rent it chances are you will stream it. There is already more music bought and downloaded on the internet then sold in stores.

Blockbusters, Hollywood Video, Hastings are all but gone around here. I really don't care about streaming directly from the internet. I am more concerned about streaming very high quality from my NAS or computer.

P.S these last several posts are a yes to my question right? "The 978 will not have a LAN port for sure." Sorry still willing to wait if there is a chance. lol

Tracy

Well I just found the post that said no network ports. Man I was really looking forward to this pre/pro.

I am sure it will be awesome, good luck Guys.

Tracy

Tracy: I am in complete agreement with your comments about having the ability to stream digital media in the pre/pro.

With streaming ability in many bluray players built in and also the ability to decode almost anything (OPPO) why duplicate that function in a processor? You are already going to pay a big chunk of moola for a processor

I don't have an OPPO. In any case, OPPO's players(along with many others) don't support iTunes. I have burned all of my CD's using iTunes and Apple Lossless Compression. My alternative with Outlaw is to spend around $225 for a second Logitech Squeezebox. On the other hand that functionality comes with many networked pre/pros and AVR (e.g. Marantz AV7005).

Originally Posted By:XenonMan

I agree with Renov8r!! Processors should attempt to become universal connections for support devices such as streaming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't agree with you more I think that is exactly what pre/pro's should be.

The only difference between us is I see the LAN as just another digital port to hook up my streaming devices, like my NAS or my computer.

The OPPO to me is a work around as far as digital steaming. It is very affective and it works fine but why have it in the source component when it really should be in the universal connection component the pre/pro.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By:XenonMan

With streaming ability in many bluray players built in and also the ability to decode almost anything (OPPO) why duplicate that function in a processor? You are already going to pay a big chunk of moola for a processor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cant believe that the addition of a LAN port would increase the cost of a pre/pro very much.
The parts are cheap just look on some of the computer build it yourself sites and you will see. Now multiply that by 5, 10, 15 thousand units and you could probably pay pennies on the dollar.

Software might be spendy but I would think it is pretty simple. Now R&D is expensive but again 5 or 10 thousand units evens that out.

Others have done it at low price points like Marantz and maybe the new Emotive.

I also believe that adding this port to the 978 would only delay the release by 6 months and I for one am willing to wait...lol

Tracy

Hi:

>The only difference between us is I see the LAN as just another digital port to hook up my streaming devices, like my NAS or my computer.<

I am not sure if that is exactly the same thing, I connect my Cable, Squeezebox and BD into my 950. The 950 accepts those digital singles, processes the sound but it does not control the source, e.g. select tracks. Wouldn’t you need a UI of some sort on the processor to handle streaming even it is is done from another client? I certainly would not want to see the processor loaded down with Netflix Apps and the like.

I would like to see a network connection for firmware updates and a UI to control the processor itself. That would be usefull.

Bob

Thats a good point. Although I am not sure if I can send music to a ethernet port on a pre/pro from my NAS or computer using my computer, or if I have to draw that music to the processor using its own interface. I don't have one with a LAN port yet. lol




You know I just assumed it would come with a on screen UI at least for settings and setup. Its just a computer after all how tough would it be to add a simple UI. My eyes are getting old and a on screen UI is a must have for me.
I obviously need to read allot more on the 978 it keeps getting further and further away from me.



I agree I have little interest in this aspect of streaming as of right now. I really just need a connection for my NAS. However I think allot of people do internet streaming and I think very soon it will show huge growth. I also hope the quality of the feeds will vastly improve.

I am not sure that those small interface programs like netflix would have much influence on the pre/pro's processor. I don't know the technical aspect of those programs but they don't seem to affect the performance of my TV, blu-ray players, PS3,ect.

For me it boils down to, People who are going to purchase a pre/pro right now have a choice. Buy a processor with a ethernet port now or buy another one in 2 or 3 years when all pre/pro's will have ethernet capabilities. I am going with the LAN setup now so hopefully I wont need to upgrade in just a few years. I am sure that streaming to the processor is the future, But I could be wrong. lol

Tracy

I suppose some folks want a prepro with a few terabytes of SSD storage and others would prefer one that has wireless connections and others want one with hooks into Pandora.

For me as long as the thing has great sound quality with a reasonable amount of digital and optical inputs, modern room correction and well documented list of IR codes I'll lay down a fair amount of cash...

digital and optical inputs and modern room correction. pretty cutting edge stuff.

I read a story about a guy who used hanger wire for his speaker cables maybe we could incorporate that.. lol

Tracy



Sorry EEman fixed it.

That was XenonMan

heh heh j/k

Maybe the hangers are made in the USA

The hanger story first appeared (as far as I know) in an Audioholics forum:

>However I think allot of people do internet streaming and I think very soon it will show huge growth.<
I agree but that is why I purchased the Squeezebox.

Bob

100% agree with bobm's statement above. All my components (squeezebox, xbox, bdp) all have the network capability they are specifically designed for. I have network capability on my Onkyo (flac streaming), the Squeezebox is much better as it is integrated with my system in the living room as well.

I think trying to sell a home theater processor in today's market without network connectivity is going to be a tough sell. That doesn't mean that it won't sell at all, but when everyone else has that feature....that might have flown a year ago, but not now.

Best,

I just repeated the story I read on Audioholics about the coat hanger test. Suits me to a TEE though. I don't get all caught up in the hype and generally call a spade a spade. I wish I had thought of the trick.

As far as making the 978 into a streaming machine I don't care at this point. If Outlaw had originally scoped it in I would be good with it. However with the production date slipping day by day I just want the damn thing out. I originally went with separates because I wanted the components designed for the function to perform their job as best as their design allows. The pre-pro is the body of the spider and all the rest are legs. I want the body to coordinate the legs. I figure the legs can be designed for specific functions and will be better than if they were part of the whole thing. By necessity the pre-pro has to have a great output section and a lot of inputs and a volume control. All the source components can be had off the shelf as each of us demands. Adding the price of streaming to the 978 was probably much harder than adding another HDMI port for a squeezebox or a Roku to plug into.

Agreed. I may lament the lack of an ethernet port on the 978 but it's moot at this point. It ain't happening.

I ended up buying a DHC 80.1, and now that I'm considering replacing it I came back to see where Outlaw was, and it seems like only yesterday we were all waiting 1 1/2 yrs for the vapor wear 997..which is listed as a discontinued processor.. never made is more accurate. I can wait for Christmas again, but at some point I'll just buy a good balanced audio pre-pro and ditch the receivers for a video switcher. I get tired of waiting for EE's to do their thing. I can appreciate making a good product..just timely is better.

Why is that? Are you having trouble with it?

I have checked out your pictures of the new processor & am impressed ! Love the design of the front bezel & the option of getting away from the bland grey - it's got pizazz ! How many DSP modes will it have over and above the normal cast of characters ? Without a due date, I doubt if I can wait to upgrade my system.

Speaking personally, I'd prefer not to see source-level functionality put into a pre-pro. That includes a music or media streaming functionality. Ethernet would be great for, as previous mentioned, updates and IP control however.

That said, the built-in tuner is a source - I'd love to see it removed too.

What are the odds we might be able to get a glimpse of the on-screen display any time soon? That ability, over HDMI, is a huge reason I'd like to upgrade from the 990. That and one of the balanced outputs on the 990 is dead.

Great request, twistybox. A look at the OSD would be a good confidence builder at this point.

This is one of the best analysis I have heard concerning the 978. Can't add to it.

Thanks Xenonman