Who Did It?

Very disappointing news. I would like to know who the mysterious "North American competitor" was that convinced the factory to stop work on the 978. I will put them on my boycott list.

I'll second this motion

Agreed. Since we know from Mr. Tribeman that it was a competitor that sells in brick-and-mortar stores, it does help narrow the field a bit, but I think for the sake of the consumers imposing a bit of justice here, we should get to know. After all, we the consumers got screwed over too; because of a competitor who didn't want an even playing field, we will now never get to enjoy this product and the advances it would have yielded. We deserve to know who is responsible for this. There's probably a confidentiality agreement that prohibits Outlaw from doing so, but there are always ways to find these sorts of things out. (If not, Outlaw could do quite well to share it with us.) As a preventative measure, I'll simply not buy anything sold in brick-and-mortars until I know specifically who to boycott. One company screws up the whole party for everyone... kind of like the football coach who makes the whole team run when one guy is late. It's an effective punishment.

I will say that the e-mail was very diplomatic, so I'll tip my hat to Mr. Tribeman and the others at Outlaw for trying to stay above the fray on this.

I would like to know as well!

all we probably need to do is figure out who the Chinese factory is owned by. Then it should be easy.

It should be easy if you look at competitors who are using Audyssey XT32 (Onkyo, Integra, Denon) and where their products are manufactured.

Why are people blaming this other electronics company? They were doing nothing more than protecting their own investment and making sure the factory honored its existing agreements.

You should blame the factory for taking the contract with Outlaw in the first place. And Outlaw for signing up with this factory, whether or not they knew of their involvement with the third party. Checking and double-checking for conflicts is a pretty important step to take when choosing a partner.

Agreed, but why did it take till the stage of final approvals? Poor taste if that is the case.

We don't know the details so we can't say "they were doing nothing more"... What we do know is the company stifled competition, the manner in which it occurred appears shady, and the timing is peculiar. Which reminds me Gibson purchased a large stake in Onkyo in January of this year. Conspiracy theories abound.

I think the other company is taking heat because of the odd timing and the fact that, as a brick-and-mortar distribution model, technically don't compete head-to-head with Outlaw. It would be like Cambridge asking BBK not to build OPPO players because they both sell BD players with similar feature sets. (Granted, it would be doubly weird in that case, since Cambridge BD players are usually clones of OPPO, and deeply unlikely since OPPO has at least some peripheral corporate links to BBK.)

There is clearly some blame to be had between the factory and the other company. Did the company "black list" Outlaw several years ago and only now enforce it? If so, the factory did Outlaw an injustice by pursuing the project anyway? Did the company "black list" Outlaw just now? If so, it is a difficult-to-justify tactic to hurt another company even though the two distribution channels mean the two companies don't compete directly. Either way, it feels a lot like bullying on the part of the other company. Granted, we probably will never have all the details, but that's just the way it looks from where I sit.

This is complete and total speculation ...

When you add up the clues, there really aren't that many options. What company is based in North America (note they didn't say US), makes modern pre/pros, builds in China, and sells in B&M stores? Narrow that down to companies that would have the clout to pull something like this. Then narrow that list down to a products that compete in the same price segment as Outlaw.

I think it was NAD.

Possibly Parasound, but I don't know where those are made.

Emotiva just bought Sherbourn, right? Is Sherbourn headquartered in the U.S.? That's my personal bet.

And I thought Parasound was out of the SSP market?

Bingo:

http://www.sherbourn.com/



The only "gotcha" is this:



That would no longer be B&M.

I don't know that Sherbourn would have enough clout to cause a factory to abandon a product that they had invested that much time and money in (since there's a lot of lost work for the factory as well as Outlaw involved in killing the Model 978 now). Plus their status as a subsidiary of Emotiva (or however the two are related now) would make it hard to classify them as a true "brick & mortar" sort of outfit.

Sherbourn used to be B&M, but maybe they aren't any longer.

There are a lot of smart people here and on AVS. It won't remain a secret for that long in terms of who the other company is. The list is pretty short as it is. Personally, I don't consider Anthem and Outlaw competitors.

But it might be NAD ...

They don't even have an XT32 SSP either. What a way to cut out the competition before it even exists !!

ATI? But I would imagine that Outlaw's relationship with them is pretty good. There is also Audio Control and their Maestro SSP, but I wouldn't think they'd view Outlaw as competition either. Anyone else anyone can think of?

I personally believe that the two most likely B&M suspects are NAD and Anthem. Being a Canadian it pains me to say that.

NAD has recently released the feature poor T 187 processor ($3K) with Audyssey MultEQ XT that is made in China so the 978 really could have hurt them big time.

As for Anthem, while their two processors are made in Canada (AVM 50v & D2v), their AVRs are made in China. Nonetheless, the 978 would have competed with at least the lower end AVM 50v ($6K) and I believe quite favorably at that.

I forgot to add... unfortunately for these two Canadian companies, I'm not considering either of their offerings as I just don't like their design approach, their feature list and cost/quality ratio. Like I said in the other thread, I've got my sights set up on Marantz's AV7007 and possibly AV8007.

After reading the letter this morning about the 978 I felt like I had been punched in the gut. I was really pulling for Outlaw on this one. I was checking the Emotiva lounge and saw this post by an Emotiva higher up.

From Lonnie:

"I personally would just like to say that I am very sorry to hear this. I can honestly say I know exactly how he feels and it is not good. With anyone who ventures into a collaborative project with an outside company these things happen and have happened to us on many occasions. At this point I am sure he feels as though he has let his customers down in some way (I know I always did), anger towards the OEM, regret for his people who have labored long hours and invested much as well as disappointment in the substantial monetary investment that was made.

This is not an easy time for Peter and I encourage all here to extend to him all the good will and well wishes. Contrary to popular belief no one here is celebrating this. In fact it is quite the opposite. I actually enjoy the competition as it drives me to build better products. The demise of the 978 is actually not good for anyone, especially you, the consumer.

So to Peter and his team, I am truly sorry and wish you all the best. Hang in there; in the long run this will be nothing more than a bump in the road.

Lonnie"

Nice comment from Lonnie. As Lonnie points out, Emotiva and Outlaw share a similar place in the market (even though their product lines cover different ground), and that market's consumers lost one choice when this happened. What's bad for both companies' consumers can be seen as bad for the shared market as a whole. I think the celebrating is likely in whatever office generated the idea of triggering the death of the 978.

It is rather encouraging to see Emotiva take a high road on this. While I suppose the cynics might believe this is merely the politically expedient way to gain new customers I suspect that folks who toil against the onslaught of "me too" products share more common traits than differences.

Funny thing too is I have been involved in audio as a hobby and the broader field of electronics as a vocation long enough to know that those who dance on the grave of their compeititors very often seal their own fate. The wise learn from the misfortune of their peers and hopefully can alter their own trajectory to make a better end-point more likely...

Even for those who may been lining up to take their metaphorical swing at the "bully" who pulled the rug out from under the 978 might be wise to examine the hows and whys of what has really transpired -- in the increasingly TIGHT confines of higher performance audio components the steps that BOTH traditional nameplates and upstarts need to take to ensure their survival are becoming increasingly desperate. I would caution those that feel compelled boycot a firm or to "roll their own" understand that in doing so they may further hasten the demise of firms of making even the sub-components needed to keep the audio landscape viable.

For those who remember seminal moments in the history of other consumer electronics firms I hope this becomes a chapter more like Apple's cancelation of clones tthan like the debacles of other firms...

Really in the "big picture" of trying to get MORE people atuned to the worth of high quality home theatre / audio systems this is a dark day. To think that folks that are increasingly unable to justify ANY discretionary spending will be forced to probably double their outlay for products of similar features will do other that SHRINK the whole market is sad....

The ‘who’ is going leave a bad taste in many mouths, not just because of what they did, but their timing. Yes, it would be normal for a competitor to insist that a non-compete agreement be kept, if, in their view, the distribution method means little. The average B&M store consumer is going to know nothing about the Outlaw 978 situation, so bad feelings among a relative few against the ‘other company’ won't amount to a flea on a camel when it comes to ‘other company’ sales.

What is suspiciously nefarious is that Outlaw’s product has been in development, known both ‘in the industry’ and publicly, for quite some time. Why not speak up sooner ... much, much sooner ... unless your aim was to allow Outlaw to use up time and resources first, not just to enforce a non-compete clause. The only way I see this as not being a ‘bleed Outlaw’ action is if the ‘other company’ had somewhat recently signed a contract with the Chinese developer, long after Outlaw, then flexed muscle – the Chinese company choosing profit (or the promise of it) over principle. If the ‘other company’ did indeed sign a contract with the Chinese company in order to get at Outlaw, at first saying ‘no problem’ to the Chinese company regarding the Outlaw product development, then later saying ‘yes, there is a problem’, this would be an indication that this latest part of the scenario was indeed corporate warfare. Who knows, once the 978 is laid to rest, the Chinese company may see the ‘other company’ say ‘thanks, but our project is now dead’ as well.

Best analysis to date. But we're all just speculating at this point.

It hasn't been mentioned, but I presume the 998 is now also dead? Remember, the 978 was based on the 998's chassis.

If so, that's the THIRD sucessive prepro Outlaw has cancelled.

I don't believe that Outlaw formally announced any firm plan for a product to be more advanced / robust than the 978, only a desire to, at some future point, attempt to have some product that had some of the advanded features that may have been percieved as more esoteric than those of the 978.

I suspect that the recent disappointment AND THE FACT that the previously covert development of the "lil' alternative" to the 978 has been made public will invite speculation as to what goes into the "new" flagship.

A "wish list" for such things will probably be a fun new topic...

Actually, I believe the 998 was annouced first and the 978 came second because of continued Trinnov problems.

That is correct. The Model 998 was to be the successor to the Model 997 that was mentioned in Outlaw's letter today. Like the Model 997/Sherwood 972, the Model 998 was to employ Trinnov. Implementing Trinnov was going to take forever, so they decided to take the hardware they'd been developing and release a version of it with Audyssey (initially MultEQ XT, later MultEQ XT32) and then later try to untangle Trinnov if possible. The Model 998/978 would both have the same basic hardware, I believe, although it was somewhat dependent on how things worked out with Trinnov.

It seems like the problems with the R972 (and by extension, the 998) were not with Trinnov, but with other aspects of the hardware stack. Trinnov is applied post-decoding.

Have I mis-interpreted things?

Best.

Without having been involved with the testing its pretty difficult to know for sure, but it took SN a number of releases to get the R972 functioning correctly and based upon comments and reviews it appears to have still had some issues. One can easily envision a scenario where more memory was required for the Trinnov processing and that in a hardware design with a fixed, unexpandable amount of memory, this lead to design trade-offs that impacted other parts of the stack. Optimizing and rewriting code to free up memory(perhaps at the assembler level) is never easy and requires really talented coders.

I think ritz is right - while Trinnov may have needed some tweaking, there were other issues that appeared to have nothing to do with room correction. It sounded to me like Outlaw was fairly pleased with Trinnov. I think there were other problems that drove Outlaw's decision

So back to "Who Did It?"...we have an eyewitness account (technically hearsay...but work with me here) that the perp is "headquartered in NA", they obviously build stuff with this partner in China / had the opportunity to commit this crime, and they must have motive - presumably they have some claim to be an Outlaw competitor (channel aside it seems/perhaps). There has been some talk of does "so and so have enough clout" (i.e. do they have they "means" to commit the crime), but it doesn't take much clout in a "us or them" shakedown...just more clout than "them". To summarize ideas in this and other posts, it seems the only suspects that meet or might meet all three of the must-have requirements are:

NAD, Anthem, Parasound, and ATI/B&K

....right? In a lineup I think that is order of most-likely to least-likely.

ATI seems least likely for lots of reasons (do they even build anything in China?)...although a move like that would certainly account for Mr. Tribeman being caught completely by surprise.

Parasound seems unlikely...and do they build anything in China?

Re Anthem, the 978 would arguably be a competitor to the MRX recievers...and maybe to the AVM50v (which while much more expensive is at least available...forcing some folks waiting for the 978 to hide a few K from their wives / take more aggressive steps...and while the 50v itself is not made in China it doesn't mean that Anthem couldn't use MRX-building clout to keep out another competitor to the MRX line and the AVM50v in one shot). It also seems likely that Anthem would use a similar partner as Outlaw...their build-stuff presence in Asia is relatively small I would think and they might be drawn to the same type of partner.

Until we learn more, NAD seems the best match according to our information and consideration of opportunity, means, and motive. Their processor(s) have generally been in-line with the 978 in price (at least at the lower end / 1-model-back). They sell B&M (and would generally be referred as such a company), and in addition to that they are also easily and increasingly available online - increasing their motive in stopping the 978. The fact that they don't have MX32 yet is a HUGE reason to block the 978...NAD processor sales would go to zero online when the 978 comes out, and it would probably impact their B&M too. Plus it seems NAD has been increasingly "sophisticated" lately in developing their business - they and their parent are expanding their channels, offerings, and visibility....keep Outlaw out of the ring and the NAD/PSB combination is better positioned to battle Anthem/Paradigm, D&M, etc.

I have my own theory based upon a google of D&M Holdings Bain Capital. D&M is "a Bain Capital portfolio company". Bain is headquartered in Boston.

What popped up was the a link to a job posting on July 11 2012 on CareerBuilders.com for a Regional Sales Manager position at D&M which stated "We are currently seeking a Regional Sales Manager to direct efforts to achieve sales goals for our Denon, Marantz & Boston Acoustics brands in our Direct to Consumer business. This positional will frequently consolidate support functions for the region to provide efficiencies of scale."

Seems like plenty of motive to me for a traditional B&M company headquartered in North America. A shipping 978 could directly threaten AV7xxx and AV8xxx sales.

Bain Capital? I can think of a whole bunch of jokes about that possibility. Might not be funny though.

Just a guess, but I'd have a hard time believing it was D&M, only because I'd be surprised if Outlaw would still offer Marantz products if that were the case. Maybe I'm wrong.

Technically D&M Holdings no longer exists. It is now D+M Group and they are headquartered in New Jersey not Japan.

I also don't see this being something that D+M Group would do. Aside from the partnership they've had with Outlaw that allows Outlaw to sell some Marantz gear, it just doesn't seem to fit.

Yep after reading some of M Codes postings over at AVS I agree gonk.

Long time lurker, seldom poster here...

I disagree. This will become public information, and sooner rather than later, what with the internetz and all. The PR shitstorm that follows will be exactly the kind of "free market solution" that results from cutting a "competitor" off at the knees.

I'm also in the camp that thinks the 978 platform surfaces in the domestic Chinese market inside 6 months. This is not a knee-jerk xenophobic reaction, but simply a reading of the complete disregard they have for IP rights. How the eff does Outlaw get shutout without so much as design rights?

Informing customers why a long-awaited product has been killed was something that Outlaw really had to do, but outright including the names of all the other players could interfere with future business for Outlaw. Sure, the announcement from Outlaw may trigger a series of events that identifies all those other players, but that is part of the "free market solution" (to borrow the term) that Outlaw can quite reasonably say isn't due to their actions. By refusing to offer the names, Outlaw takes the high road, in a manner of speaking. That can benefit them in other business negotiations.


You may well be right. In fact, you probably are. It is likely that the factory would choose not to use the platform (or at least any obviously recognizable parts of it) for North American or European products, but it is very possible for something sold domestically in Asia to be derived from this design. As for the last question, I think you've already answered your own question. They might have grounds to call in the legal counsel and file a lawsuit in Chinese courts, but no realistic hope of getting any meaningful concessions from the effort. Writing it off as a painful lesson and walking away may be the most fiscally responsible course of action.

From a purely generic contract law / intellectual property rights stand point the circumstances could have gone down the same way with US based contract manufacturing partners. Of course the details of if / how / where the "still borne" product could see the light of day for a US firm are a whole lot different due to , among other things, the long history of these sorts of cases being litigated . I seem to recall that men back to Eli Whitney and Alexandar Graham Bell were involved in these kinds of controversies... China is eons behind in that regard, and may have reason why they never really want to "catch up" to courts in the West. Frankly even firms like Siemens, Nokia, Alcatel and other Euro-Zone firms have legal separations for their US divisions for largely political reason back home.

The thought occurs to me that with the current unemployment situation, the wind down of activities related to high tech military electronics that were rushed into production to support Iraq and Afgahanistan which should free up skilled electronics assemblers in California , as well as the favorable rates for business investment that there should be more opportunies to "on shore" certain consumer electronics activities. It would great if Outlaw could work the "proud to be made in the USA" angle into a viable future offering....

And yet the dollar is stronger now than it's been in awhile, so while that's a pleasant thought, it will remain a pipe dream for all but the most boutique, cost-no-object brands.

First, when we are told: "This topic has been moved." we
should be told to where is has been moved.

Second, and more important, in light of the recent shocking
announcement about the model 978, we should be told what North
American company put the pressure on the Chinese OEM and what
is the name of that Chinese OEM who broke their contract with
Outlaw.

The fact that neither was named makes me very suspicious.
What? The names have been withheld to protect the guilty.
Please don't tell me that legal issues prevent the disclosure
of any names. I'm not going to believe you.

I am so very close to losing any sense of credibility with Outlaw ...

Paul

Wow, I didn't realize D&M was now "D+M" and based in NJ. My bad.
I don't feel as confident as others that the identity of the guilty party will be known with certainly at some point. End even if so, that might take a while. Plus gathering information now will help discern between fact and rumor at some point in the future. So a updated list of the suspects:

1) NAD
2) D+M Holdings
3) Anthem
4) Parasound
5) ATI/B&K

If it was D+M, I think Outlaw would still offer their products, at least for as long as it takes their current supply or commercial arrangement to run out. Outlaw doesn't sell Marantz stuff to help Marantz, they do so to keep some processor revenue coming in to keep their staff busy, keep some activity on the site, keep processor+amp packages going, etc., and maybe make a little margin on the business while they are at it. All of those things become even more important with the cancelation of the 978. Immediately liquidating Marantz inventory would be pouting. Revenge takes longer.

I think we can rule out D+M Holdings as most of their stuff is built at Inkel/Sherwood and we know that relationship likely dissolved with the Model 997. I hate to say it but it is looking more and more like Anthem/Sonic Frontiers to me.

Who is vetting these manufacturers? If they worked where I do, there would be a pink slip on their desk tomorrow morning. The past two processors in the tank because the designers/manufacturers were incompetent. Who continues to pick these places?

I long for the early days when truly unique products filled the shelves. Where are the folks that thought up those products? The past 5 years seem to have a different direction than the first 5.

The early days included products developed in the same manner as the Model 978 (including the Model 1050 and Model 950), and maybe the most successful product they've had (Model 990) was developed in partnership with the same company that laid an egg with the Model 997's platform.

Refresh my memory, wasn't the 990 discontinued because the manufacturer couldn't get certain parts?

So the original manufacturer produced the 950 & 1050. I would assume those products were considered successful.
Another manufacturer for the 990, also successful but after a time couldn't continue production do to lack of components. (Poor planning on someones part)
Continue with that same company for the 997 (debacle)
Move to yet another company for the 978 (giant debacle)

See a trend?

The facts that gonk laid out match my reollection of previous Outlaw offerings and it is not unlike what happened in the post WWII era when various smaller American consuer electronics manufacturing concerns were sprouting up. Some of these were firms that had successfully made the transition from selling radios to consumers prior to the war, through the era of dedicating resources to military needs and finally getting on board with the "next new thing" of TV. Probably the most famous / long-lived such firm is Curtis-Mathes. Many of the "classic" hi-fi brand names had similar periods of "turmoil" in how they sourced production... The proliferation of oddly "branded" flat panel TVs of generally mediocre quality / performance seems to be the new darling of SE Asian electronics manufacturing. I really wonder what happened to the folks that certainly had the skills to design / build / market quality products in the era of higher end CRTs and such that once flowed from Japan and other higher wage Asian countries.

I don't think there is anything nefarious about Outlaw's decision to only hint at which competitor forced its manufacturing partner to "knife the baby". The benefit to Outlaw in publicly disclosing such info is nil. For those that were eagerly awaiting the 978's availability the knowledge that another firm may offer a similarly equipped product would send some buyers to that competitor. Further inflamming the notoriusly difficult competitive environement by taking a feud into the eye of the public would be a very risky and a shabby way to conduct one's relationships in a world of shifting alliances...

Are there firms with employees that coud have dodged these pitfalls? Maybe, but as I said earlier, folks seem to forget that even contracts negiotiated between giants in the US micro-electronics world like IBM and Motorola come to unexpected ends; when Apple put an end to the previously negotiated "cloning" of PowerPC based machines it essentially drove Motorola out of the personal computer business and caused the demise of several smaller firms that were both innovative and had many loyal customers. The degree to which this radical shift in strategy was successfully handled by the team that Steve Jobs brought back to Apple is largely the foundation for the firm's current success. If some such shift was instigated by D+M (maybe to ensure the survival of McIntosh more than allowing the creation of an AV70007...) then really there are bigger things to worry about. Does anyone really want to see McIntosh go the way of the IBM's personal computer business, as a division of a firm like Lenovo???


When it comes to the hows and whys of the pricing of US ASSEMBLED audio equipment I think there is a misconception that ONLY "cost no object" brands can be marketed in such a manner. This is false, the decision for esoteric dreamers to price their products like exotic automobiles is a function of their own out-dated fantasies. Market realities are far different. The printed circuit boards and bits like capacitors, resistors, stock ICs and various transistors can be put together here for about the same price as elsewhere. (there are analysts that have verified this is NOT where the cost savings in products like the iPhone come from) Further evidence of this is in the fair number of musical instruent amps and even small scale manufacturers that can sell DACs , tube and even IC two channel (or amp only) products at a competitive prices. Similarly the consensus of most folks that need to hire people with expertise in the kinds of software level design / integration that has to happen for products with licensed DSPs, advanced user interfaces / OSD is that cost savings in these areas are minimal -- any decreased personel costs are offset by the longer development cycle and overrall steeper learning curve. While there are signficant differences in the total "line assembly" costs needing huge facilities and massive logistical support, this is largely offset by the fact that most US based audio firms have so small a volume that the mass scale effects are not significant.

What can be done to get a real product into the hands of consumers that want a great product at a price that tag that does not look like a Buggatti Veryon of audio?? I suspect that with a bit of "bush beating" (ideally through message boards / internet forums , especiallly of those that are advancing the "Maker community" / Arduino...) an appropriately skilled cadre of people could be aggregated to ensure that no one firm would have the power to sink a project. Maybe instead of Outlaw trying to find a more "reliable" manufacturing partner they ought to rethnk their role, let me give an example: In my area (suburbs of Chicago) there are some active "mass builders" that develop large tracts of homes and market them, these mass builders use a variety of labor some of which is from employees, other from independent skilled carpenters / roofers, as well as a range of subcontractoring firms that provide specialized skills / materials like excavation and concrete. There are also many smaller "builders" that largely just market more of a 'custom' home. Most such firms are little more than a "supervisory general contractor" who subcontracts out ALL the actual construction AND the design / engineering. Of course there are also independant general contractors that really just do renovation / additions to woner's specification that compete with more integrated firms marketing "one stop shoppng" for having your kitchen or bath overhauled to achieve some "dream look". Finally there are tradespeople that work for themselves generally getting only a portion of work for any job. In CE it looks like the old school "mass builder" model is dead. The current model seems to have skipped over a couple of iterations of having independant "design professionals" and perhaps getting back to something that is a little more focused on "craftsmen" ( or using ethical partners in perhaps Japan???) will solve some issues, especially given the shrinking market for any quality audio equipment. Honestly to borrow from another "production model" that is common among automotive hobbyists maybe if small firm "pre-pros" were built like a "run" of reproduction headers or similar new cast / plated body parts to restore one's classic car (and maybe that was the 990 model, but lack of communication was the only pitfall) the "dead ends" of the 998 / 978 could be avoided. I think I would be OK laying doing a deposit to reserve my "one of 1500" or whatever the "parts in inventory" production run would have to be to fit the model of getting headers for a muscle car...

Then again I might be nuts and maybe the complexity of today's consumer electronics and the ruthlessness of the marketplace are incompatible with delivering value and quality but at this point I sure think some new approaches are worth trying...

Eastech was the manufacturing partner (involved in development as well) for the Model 1050, Model 950, and Model 1070/970.

Etronics (now Inkel) was the Model 990 manufacturing partner. The Model 990 was developed using their Sherwood R-965/P-965 platform, but with some hardware changes (including XLR outputs and DVI switching) and a ton of new firmware. I don't recall why it was discontinued. I don't remember a parts availability problem (which isn't necessarily anybody's fault - see OPPO Digital's BDP-83 and BDP-80, both of which were discontinued because Sony quit making a critical part and redesigning around a replacement was deemed too expensive to be worth doing). I know it was in production for a number of years, though, and by the end there were more and more people commenting on its "outdated" feature set. At some point, it was appropriate to call it quits.

The Model 997 could easily have been shipped. Outlaw chose not to because their partner, who had already been successful for them with the Model 990, couldn't meet their requirements. Rather than sell something that they knew wouldn't satisfy Outlaw customers, they walked away. Tough choice to have to make. The biggest lesson there was likely to make sure they were more involved early in the design process, even if it was a platform that would be shared with another company. They applied that lesson to the Model 978, which was developed in the same style as the Eastech products (ground-up designs in which Outlaw had active oversight and involvement from the start).

The Model 978 development was apparently going well, as mentioned in the description of Scott's visits to the factory to help oversee design work. Predicting a disaster like that would seem difficult.

I don't buy D+M, because of the current relationship between Outlaw and Marantz, and because I really wouldn't think that Denon and Marantz would consider Outlaw competition. Online sales vs B&M, and the respective size of each.

I don't buy Anthem, because they don't sell a pre/pro in the same price range as the 978 would be. Plus, I view ARC and Audyssey as two separate markets, even though they do the same thing.

Parasound does not sell SSPs any longer. I don't understand why people keep saying they could be the cause. Plus, as far as I know, they manufacture in Taiwan, not China.

And I don't buy ATI/B&K either. Outlaw has a very good relationship with them in terms of their amps.

So that leaves ...

I don't think it can be anyone else but NAD. More similar company size than Denon/Marantz, and it would not surprise me in the least if they have an XT32 SSP coming out in the next 6 months.

Like I said on page 2 of this thread, my top suspects are also NAD and Anthem with the most likely being NAD. I believe that Kevin's analysis is correct. I had the same arguments come to mind when thinking of the other possible candidates.

However since NAD uses it's Modular Design Construction (MDC) architecture where the digital features are basically integrated onto modular PCB cards that get plugged into a socket like a PCI card on a PC, they may release a new MDC module with MultEQ XT32 sometime in the future. Although as I commented on another thread months ago, NAD hasn't impressed me with their MDC concept as some of their competitors (Denon and Onkyo/Integra) have already churned out two new generations of processors and AVRs with MultEQ XT32 while NAD has been stuck on XT during the same time frame (two years) with processors and AVRs that offers less features and cost more. One of the selling points of having a modular architecture is a quicker turn around on new features as all you have to change is a relatively small PCB.

And that selling point is why people so often push for modular surround processor designs for companies like Outlaw. The reality, though, is that nobody seems to have ever successfully made it work. Plenty have tried, including some big names (Onkyo) and some smaller names (NAD). None have been able to translate the promise of easy modular upgrades into actual practice, at least not fast enough or consistently enough to make much of an impression.

The closest I think anyone has come to this are Anthem and Lexicon. Anthem took the AVM20 platform and built off of it for over a decade (and counting), with a mix of new products (AVM30, AVM40, AVM50, Statement D1, Statement D2, AVM50v2, Statement D2v2) and upgrades to those products (adding ARC to existing units, etc.). None of it was truly modular, and most required either buying a new unit or handing the existing unit off to a dealer or the factory for the upgrades. None of it was cheap, either, and at this point there's probably precious little left from the AVM20 (aside from the chassis dimensions and basic layout of the faceplate) in the current hardware. Lexicon's MC12 has been similar, with the basic platform tweaked, upgraded, and expanded over the course of many years. Neither was ever really marketed as "modular", though.

The failure of modular hardware is one of the reasons I think there's hope in using a higher end DSP and pushing as much functionality as possible into software. I like this approach on Emotiva's new processor. It's going to be running linux. That same DSP is available from TI as part of a developer's kit and already running android with a working touch screen. One would think that if you get sufficiently fast DSPs and over-engineer, you'd be able to keep your customers on the cutting edge a bit longer without a forced migration to new hardware. That would be sooper groovy if it could be done while preserving quality audio/video paths.

Best,

It's a sound idea, as long as you can justify the development costs while recognizing that it still represents a risk. The main danger there is in the potential for industry changes to hit you in the signal path (such as HDMI v1.2/v1.3/v1.4). If the latest features that owners want include things like CEC, ARC, 3D video, and 4k video, no amount of over-engineering of the DSP chip and memory resources will help when you also need to re-design around a new HDMI transceiver chip or a video signal path with much more bandwidth.

When I bought my 990 I thought its feature set was generally equivalent to the Anthem AVM-30. When the 978 was announced I thought its feature set was very similar to that of the AVM-50. The 978 would have great sound, cutting edge room correction, all the decoding options which were all Anthem selling points and at a price about $3500 less than the AVM-50. And now those features are available in the top of the line Anthem receiver built in China.

I would agree with some of the previous posts about Anthem being a boutique manufacturer if they had stayed with just pre/pros and amps. However, when they brought out a line of receivers they stepped into a new and much larger arena. Fool me once, shame on you (990/AVM-30), fool me twice, shame on me (978/AVM-50 & MRX700). Anthem had double the motivation to see the 978 shelved.

Anthem doesn't have an SSP in the same price range as the 978. I had considered an AVR quite a few times previously to use as an SSP, but I never did. And I still wouldn't. I even had a 4311 here for a while, but I shipped it back. Never even opened the box. I don't want an AVR as an SSP. I want an SSP. And for those 2 reasons, I don't think it was Anthem.

We may never know who scuttled the 978 but had it gone into production many folks would have given it a serious look. I think this is particularly true for those folks looking at the Anthem AVM-50v given the similarities between their core feature sets. I recall the 978 was supposed to be around the $1500 and even adding a Outlaw 7900 amp would bring the total to about $5000 which is under the price of the AVM-50v alone.

As far as Anthem's top AVR, it retails for $2000. The 978 with an Outlaw 7125 would be about $2500 and could have influenced some to make the move to separates versus buying Anthem's top AVR. If Anthem isn't the culprit I doubt they are shedding any tears that the 978 is history.

Lastly, I couldn't agree with you more; I have no desire to use an AVR as my sound processor. Made that decision long ago and haven't regretted it.

I could be wrong but I didn't think it could be Anthem since they don't have Audyssey or Sabre DACs. Are they even bringing a new model to the market in the next few months? What about Parasound?

One thought that adds to my belief that it wasn't Anthem is this: ARC is completely different than Audyssey. So, could pre/pros (or AVRs) that support one or the other actually be manufactured on the same assembly line?

If it's the same platform, I doubt it. Kind of like (in the old days), you trying to load Windows onto a PowerMac. Can't do it. The hardware is so different, the only way was to emulate the foreign OS. Can't run it directly. So I believe that it's not even possible for the same platform to run ARC and Audyssey.

If it's the same manufacturing line, but completely different parts, then obviously it's possible. But that's not the gist I got from Outlaw's email.

So I think NAD is the most likely candidate by far.

I suppose we'll know who it might be by whoever introduces an XT32 SSP in the next 3 to 6 months !!

NAD certainly seems plausible. However, I hardly think anyone with the coin to purchase NAD products would be cross shopping in the Outlaw corral. So if it does turn out to be them, I think it takes paranoia to the extreme(on NAD/Lenbrook's part). Perhaps there's more going on here than has been mentioned in the final update on the 978. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The 978 is dead and it will be supplanted by a "budget" product. I guess when that product actually ships, we'll see how it compares with other widely available AVR's (with pre-outs) in the same price segment.

Best,

I think too many of you are focusing too narrowly.

Let me draw an analogy from one of my friends that leases commercial space, like in shopping centers and such.

If a tenant, Jane, writes a lease with a landlord that gives the tenant the exclusive right to be the ONLY resturant that serves breakfast and the tenant gets wind of a rumor that the landlord is about to sign a lease with a say a McDonalds , Subway or Dunkin Donuts you can be sure that the tenant is within their rights to inform the landlord of violation of the lease agreement. Now maybe the landlord really does not care that Jane's House of Pancakes is going to court and the judge will award Jane damages becuase the landlord is going to make so much money from the new tenant that it just won't matter, or maybe the landlord will be a "good guy" and use some of the loot from the new tenant's lease to pay Jane to go away. Of course China ain't like a local mall in heartland of America but Jane is sorta like "Outlaw" and "Bad Guy NA based bricks and mortar competitor" is a whole lot like some rich franchise run place in terms of the view of the "landlord" or Chinese contract manufacturer AND let's not forget that Jane does not have to serve a fried egg on an English muffin with Canadian Bacon and American Cheese to "compete" with the Big Bad fast food giant -- Jane's delicious flap jacks are close enough that the fast food giant really is happier with Jane pulling up stakes and if that means she is out of business for 6 months or forever either way it is a good thing as far as the franchise selling more breakfast items...

Maybe it is D+M, protecting the "flank" of either some Denon or Marantz seperate, or even McIntosh. Maybe it is Gibson doing something similar with Onkyo / Integra. Maybe it is NAD. Maybe it is Anthem. Maybe it Harmon or somebody with even a more esoteric mix of offerings. Does it really matter??? We ain't getting any flapjacks for a while and that is bad news!

That's two posts in a row of yours that I agree with.

The only reason, that I would like to know, is that I would like to avoid throwing any business to the B&M Company in the future, if I need to buy a non-Outlaw product.

Well I suppose it maybe kinda would be nice to think that you can sorta help dish out karma to "big bad bully" but I really doubt that even the most evil "Snidely K. Whiplash" of audio company execs really wants to see Outlaw or any other competitor driven into the grave. Fact is that competitor felt threatened and decided to exercise its competitive muscle. I also feel that had Outlaw had more resources at their disposal to offer the partner a really huge incentive to spin off the project that would have shifted the game considerably. Imagine if you were say working to source equipment for a Best Buy "house brand" and you could tell the partner that they'd be building stuff to be in hundreds of national bricks and mortar stores? (or maybe that is exactly what is brewing -- a revitalized Radio Shack or Magnolia plan to offer boutique quality seperates, naw too way out there...)

Outlaw undoubtedly entered into an agreement with the partner at a time when the competitive landscape was very different.

I hope that Outlaw can modify their practices and soon deliver innovative products with good value. The cat only has so many lives...

I do not particularly wish the "bully" competitor any ill effects either, there are frankly too few good choices in the upper tier of AV performance and if this was something that any firm felt they had to do to survive I really fear for choices shrinking sooner rather than expanding...

Interesting theories and speculation, but I think we will never know the whole truth.

I vividly recall the "glory days" of two channel transistorized audio when Radio Shack, Layfette Radio, Playback, Heathkit, and other regional chains had gloriously powerful house brand receivers made in Japan that really gave the big guys a run for their money...

Well, well...theories and speculation. I just want it leaked as to who the UNETHICAL customer is. And, it's not being too agressive to spread the call for a boycott over the internet. Roll over and let the high volume, mass market (yes, the Harmon group IS mass market) companies take all the business? What have we become? Never mind, look at the state of our political system. I withdraw my question.

I myself am deeply saddened by the way the 978 went. I do feel very sorry for the company. At this point I am not going to replace my AVR but will wait a bit to see how things play out for the future. I will probably add a pair of 2200s to my 7500 for that Outlaw 7.1 total power. I agree with you Hank in that I would love to know who this UNETHICAL customer is. And yes the Harmon group is mass market...I agree. I just want good quality without breaking the bank. I was thinking of the upcoming Marantz AV7007 but are THEY the culprit?

Sorry Scott to hear this. I support your company nontheless. Yours is an outside the box company.

So, are you buying in to my "Boycott Everyone" philospophy now? OK I know it's a knee jerk overreaction to a situation that really pisses me off.

What we really need is that inside source who reamins nameless because he isn't authorized to speak on this topic. I have to believe that the industry is small enough that most/all the insiders already know who has done what to whom.

So who lives in Mass who needs their prepro repaired and can, oh, maybe take the service guys out for lunch or a beer or two after work?

While I would also like to know the culprit, it doesn't really matter. It's water under the bridge and I remain skeptical that the 978 would have even recouped development costs given how late and how far behind the feature curve it would have been upon release.

Time to move on.

Best,

What does it matter to you whether Outlaw recouped development costs or not? I don't get that. What I still want in a Prepro has nothing to do with the latest bells and whisles, if that's what you want say hello to Onkyo or Denon.

Don't you think the actual out of pocket development costs must have been rather modest? I mean if the tale as told is to be believed, and they spent much more than even $100k US don't you think they would have had to get something back from the "manufacturing partner"??? I suspect the low cost of development was (back when the deal was originally struck...) VERY appealing to the interests of Outlaw to keep the product affordable AND not jeopardize the health of Outlaw. As the competitive sands shifted and the manufacturing partner was pressure by "another NA based" firm the lack of real "skin in the game" made if relatively easy for the manufacturing partner to accede to the demands of the other NA based firm...

Had Outlaw handed over millions I believe a) they would have likely not been pushed to the curb b) if that happened Outlaw would be retaining legal counsel in the home country of the competitor NA firm to seek damages in a court of finite jurisdiction c) the 978 would have had to be priced far more than the estimated $1500-1800 dollars ... If Outlaw could make even 20% profit after overhead I suspect the "R&D" bill was very low.

Of course to those skeptical of everything Outlaw has said or done I suspect there is a more sinister scenario.

Interesting that Outlaw is having another Chinese company build their entry level pre/pro. Perhaps the relationship with the 978 builder has been rocky for some time? Perhaps the 978 builder was upset they did not get the contract for the entry level unit?

I'll be surprised if the entry level model isn't a rebranded version of something off the shelf.

It was Mr. Plum in the library with the wrench.

That's Prof. Plum.

Maybe Mr. Plum lost his tenure...

At the end of the day, the Outlaws collectively stepped on their peepees. Not once, not twice, but three times with the successor to the 990. OK...so they're going to come out (someday) with a "budget" successor. I take that to mean something that wasn't up to the 978's level. Even the 978 is already outclassed in terms of features by budget AVRs available today. I feel as bad as the rest of you that Outlaw missed the boat, but a "budget" 978 that's slated for release sometime in the future? Maybe next year? C'mon.

Mean Mister Mustard in the factory in Shenzhen.

Partner with someone that has a credible offering in the processor space TODAY at a price point that Outlaw customers can deal with and get on with life.

Best,

So again, why is it that you care whether Outlaw would have been able to cover their development costs on the 978, as you mentioned in your previous post?

I don't "care". I'm simply posting my opinion here, as is everyone else. Why do you "care" so much about following my posts?

Best,

And your opinion illustrates an axe to grind with Outlaw in the vast majority of your recent posts. Most of your posts are whining about Outlaw in one way or another so I thought I'd explore one of your 'opinions'. So why do you dislike Outlaw so much?

Whining? I call 'em like I see 'em. My "whining" seems to have been pretty much spot on with respect to the fate of the 978. I am a customer who has watched the Outlaw brand run into the side of a mountain. All the platitudes and "yay team" stuff doesn't change that. Don't like it? Then don't respond to my posts.

Best,

That's it? In your opinion they've run into the side of a mountain, stepped on their peepee, etc, and you've decided to become bitter about it and whine in most of your posts? I thought maybe they refused to refund or replace a purchase of yours or something.

These things do happen you know, maybe you should just get over it and "move on", like you keep telling others to do.

"Features" isn't the same as good sound quality.

Perhaps you might want to focus on the "made it to production" and "is available for sale" parts and THEN discuss "sound quality". Outside of the Outlaws themselves and a few beta testers, nobody knows what the sound quality of the 978 was like and we'll never know now.

If/when this new processor hits the streets and it can be reviewed, then we'll find out if the sound quality is going to be better/worse or the same as that of other widely available AVRs in the "budget" segment.

Best,

I read Kevin's post as saying that he is interested in budget AVRs because of their sound quality.

Maybe Kevin can clarify. I think it's unlikely that there will be significant variations in sound quality for inexpensive consumer gear and that most folks shopping in that category will base their decisions on features/brand. The trend towards higher quality audio at lower and lower price points continues. Onkyo is being extremely aggressive on pricing and the feature sets on units from the bigger names are pretty amazing, given the cost.

Best,

If we focus solely on the inexpensive consumer gear, I think you're right that sound quality variations will probably be modest. On the other hand, that modest variation will hover around a baseline that does allow room for improvement. I think many of us around here are part of the Outlaw family because we are interested in exploring that room for improvement.

^^^

What Gonk said.

My point was, stuffing a bunch of features into a budget AVR isn't going to guarantee the same or even similar sound quality that I would have expected with the 978 and its analog output stage. "Features" and "sound quality" are not the same.

I had a 950, and I am very familiar with Outlaw's other SSP's. I have also had a budget AVR or two in my lifetime. I most certainly got more enjoyment out of the 950.

I replaced my 950 with a budget AVR and the sound quality seems the same to me. I listen in 2 channel mostly and I think Yamaha nailed that years ago. I still like the idea of purchasing Outlaw gear for the support, both from Outlaw and the community here. If Outlaw comes out with a budget pre/pro that is well reviewed I will certainly order one.

One thing that bothers me is the designer of year that is built into the Outlaw business model. Need a product find a designer. It would seem to me that the larger brands; Yam, Onk,… would have an advantage of consistency working with the same team and manufacturing facility. Perhaps they swap around as well I don’t know?

-Bob

I went from a 990+755 to a budget Denon AVR-1912. I don't perceive a difference in audio source quality. However, the amplification is clearly not as beefy as my old Outlaw 755 and that IS noticeable.

I'm reasonably confident that if I used an $800 Onkyo AVR's pre-outs to the same Outlaw amplifier, I'd likely be unable to tell the difference between that and the 990 in a blind test. And now that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is available in units for well under a grand, that's pretty intriguing as well.

Best,

I'm glad that you two can be happy with a budget AVR. That's not how I feel however.

I've had budget Denon and Onkyo AVRS. Both were inferior in sound quality to my current Onkyo 876. And the 7125 was a step up in sound quality when I added it to the 876. But I think you can get to a point of diminishing returns certainly.

I wonder if people would consider the Onkyo TX-NR818 a "budget" unit? Price-wise, it's only $800, but in terms of features and video capabilities, I'd place it in the same category as much higher priced units. Maybe it's time for Outlaw to jump back on the Onkyo bandwagon? It seems to be a prime candidate for a processor for folks that plan to use external amplification and are on a tighter budget.

Best,

^^^

I believe that that Onkyo cannot set the distances and levels of the subwoofers independently unlike other XT32 SSP's and AVR's. That's a limitation for some.

I believe Kevin's correct. The TX-NR818 appears to be one of the very few (possibly the only) AVR/AVP which does not bundle Sub EQ HT with MultEQ XT32. I think it's been confirmed that for Onkyo products, inclusion of Sub EQ HT starts with the TX-NR1010.

Interesting tidbit for users that are going to deploy more than one subwoofer. There's always the TX-NR3008 and TX-NR3009, but that adds another $500 to the price tag. Perhaps those prices will come down further when the NR3010 and NR1010 sales are ramped up and retailers are discounting the older models even further.

Best,

Who did it =>

Could it be Cary Audio? They are in the pre/pro business, they are smaller like Outlaw, etc. They haven't had Audyssey in the past, but maybe they have a new one coming out.

I figure it would be more likely someone who is coming out with a product using Sabre DACs rather than Audyssey. Maybe this manufacturer was selceted because they could, among other things, offer a good price on the DACs because they could leverage volume from another product?

I doubt it has anything to do with the DACs. I think it's related to the core DSP functionality. A DAC is easy to implement, and they aren't all that expensive. HDMI/all the flavors of DD/DTS/9.1/11.2/room EQ/software/hardware/audio/video/etc, is a lot more difficult to implement and integrate.

The key is the HUGE difficulty in inplementing HDMI. HUGE. Even the big brands have no implemented it perfectly, because it's an imperfect spec. It was not designed for consumer convenience, as we've been told. It was designed to protect content providers.

Could it be Nuforce? they just released a new prepro AVP-18?

Nuforce

Bob

I've got the pic of the back end of the Outlaw 978 and the 2 models are miles apart. The nuforce bares a closer resemblance to an Oppo 93, but not very close.

Do they really have to match up?
I had never even heard of Nuforce until I saw the advertisement in S&V. Nothing I am interested in since it does not include any analog in. I do like the look and form factor. Bob

Actually the Nuforce resembles a 975 without the analog inputs more than a 978.