Next Generation 990 Aesthetics

Thought it would be fun to start a thread with wishes and hopes for the look of Outlaw's next Generation pre-processor. Perhaps someone has sketched or designed their own look. I'm sure Outlaw has already designed their new piece, but it would be fun to see people's ideas nonetheless.

I originally thought of something retro like what the did with the RR 2150:


I have a Mac Pro and I like the brushed aluminum look.

This could be fun, albeit likely too late to directly impact the final product as I also suspect that aspect of the design must be wrapped up by now...

I'm a bit torn on this one. The RR2150 does look sharp, but it could end up being a bit gaudy in many home theater racks. There's also the problem of "matching components" - there was a rather lengthy period in 2005 when folks were chomping at the bit to have amps that looked like the 990 instead of the 950, and Outlaw only had three multichannel amps at the time (755, 770, and 7100) that needed to be updated. With the 7900, 7700, 7500, 7200, 7125, and 7075 all sharing the same style, I bet that Outlaw will want to preserve at least some of the same design cues (curved corners, grooves, black aluminum faceplate) so as to prevent the same problem this time. There could be opportunities for modifications within those constraints, though, which could help visually identify the new generation. After all, the entire middle third of the faceplate could be considered safe for revision without deviating from the amp designs.

You're right, it could be gaudy and I like the round edges as well, but the 990's dark charcoal doesn't work well for me. My adcom 7707 is black with an aluminum stripe in the middle. The black on that unit is a nice black even though the unit is somewhat ugly, but I think it looks better than the 990.

Perhaps the next model should keep the charcoal brushed aluminum and the center strip, if it has one, should be aluminum along with the volume nob and the buttons. It would be two tones instead of three and a little c leaner.

I think they should use all nano-technology. Make it incredibly small and look just like a bullet. I don't know how they would do their connections but ....

Seriously though:

Smaller is better. The new Bel Canto amps are some of the best sounding amazingly tiny things. We need to start matching the style of flat panels with our AV solutions. Not everyone can afford to have everything tucked away in a closet and controlled by a Crestron unit (or even Control4).

If it has to be big... RF remote!

The Bel Canto amps are based off of the ICEPower amplifiers made by Bang & Olufsen. Bel Canto doesn't sell a multi-channel amp and that's one reason why they're so small. Personally, I think they're over priced. You can get nearly the same thing, but in multi-channel versions from Wyred4Sound and D-Sonic. They're not as pretty as Bel Canto's, but they do have mutil-channel amps.

I'd like to see outlaw update their look, but I think Gonk is right when he said it's unlikely to change much because it blends well with their current lineup. A lower profile unit would be a plus.

Okay.. I got bored this afternoon and made my first attempt at the next gen Outlaw Preprocessor.

I hope you like it.

I've always liked the unobtrusive look. I always liked the old HK Citations and Adcom. If they were going to make any cosmetic changes I kind of like the look of the Emo amps less the blue lights...those things would drive me crazy.

I'm not familiar with the Harmon Kardon Citations, but there's certainly a variety of designs on the web. Any specific one you're referring to? I think Adcom's look is okay, but nothing to get excited about and I have the 7707.

I think my version of the next gen outlaw isn't too bad. Looks good, but not too much..

Well the HK Citation that I was referring to was the 20 and 21, I believe. (Been a LONG time as these were out in the late around 89 or so.) They were 2 channel beasts. The reference was more meant more as a comment that I've always liked gear that doesn't have a lot of flashy non-essential stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like it to look nice just not shout "look at me!"...if you know what I mean.

I'm still a big fan of black equipment but I thought maybe a little silver contrast might look kind of cool. Nothing too busy though.

Here's my next gen 990 in charcoal. Hammer and Gonk what do you think? like it, hate it?

I'm neither of those guys but I'm diggin' the charcoal. Nice use of Outlaw design cues, and you could be opening up an entirely new model-naming convention.

Thanks... My girlfriend liked the charcoal as well. It would be cool if Outlaw started naming some of their models after Outlaws. I have the select and enter nob as a scroll wheel and push button in one. The Mute button is on it's own which makes it easy to use if necessary. I think it makes sense.

The LCD screen is taking from the 990 and I changed the color a little. If you squint, you may see the DTS HD Master Audio HDMI adn 1080P marks. Not that it matters.

Retep,

Of the two I think I would opt for the charcoal.
It has just enough "splash".
Great job!!!!!

Thanks Butchgo.

I'm not sure which one I'd personally go with. Charcoal definitely goes more with Outlaw's current line-up as Gonk remarked. However, I like that brushed silver metal/aluminum look too. Since I don't have any other Outlaw equipment but the 990, the silver could work. It would probably be better for a receiver when I think about it.

Retep,

I love the look of the Outlaw amps and the 990.
To me a home theater should be all about sound and video quality and not trying to draw attention to your equipment.
I want my friends and relatives to go home and say oh my God do you belive that????????
Meaning that they could not belive the sound quality and the video quality of what home theater is really all about.
My 990/7500/2200 combo rocks their world and I just love it!!!!

I like that charcoal one. The silver accents "pop" more, while still being less likely to look a bit too bright and shiny for all of those dark home theaters that worry about all ambient light sources. (Plus most of my home theater rack consists of black faceplates...) I think the only things that I'd tinker with if I were doing it are the button layout in the middle (maybe a single row of them instead of the staggered rows?) and the display itself (one part of me still misses the 950's two-line display when it comes to relaying lots of information legibly from a distance).

I definitely agree it should be first and foremost about the quality of sound and video. However it's nice to have good looking equipment as well. Most of our equipment is hidden from view in a cabinet or in a dedicated closet. However, there's no reason not to make the equipment as beautiful as it sounds.

I've never seen the 950 and will have to check-it-out. Ah.. I like the look of it as well. The green on the unit isn't much to talk about. The 950 actually reminds me of NAD equipment.

I toyed with putting all the buttons in a row, but separated them more on function.

It would be super easy to put the buttons in one row and make a larger two line LCD with bigger letters. Perhaps I'll toy with it some more. May also do it in black.

Oh and as you might have noticed, I kept your round corners.

Also, I like the look of the two knobs (symmetry and balance), but I'm not sure how much I'd like the arrangement in actual use. I helped test an internet radio for Outlaw some years ago (a few folks around here may remember hearing about the IR1000, which reached "production-ready" status right about the same time the Librarian of Congress started dabbling in airplay fees for internet radio stations), and while the knob-based interface was surprisingly well thought out I still think that, for some things, the familiar navigation pad is easier to use.

I'd be all over the charcoal color processor, never been a fan of silver colored gear. Nice work by the way.

I can see where you're coming from with the navigation pad, but I find it cumbersome to some degree. I think you could honestly have it both ways because your remote obviously has a key pad. I found the 990 front panel a bit cumbersome with the navigation pad.

The second reason for the nob is I'm used to the feel of a nob for tuning in radio. I have my 990 hooked up to an rooftop antenna and it's great. The navigation pad is a pan IMO when setting presets or finding stations. I like the feeling of gliding through the channel. It also allows you to control the unit with two hands. The current navigation pad is too bunched together and the buttons are too small.

However, I don't use the front panel on the 990 very much.

Excellent point, and when combined with the inevitable issue of "can't please everyone all of the time" I hesitate to say that one approach is better than another...

You're right, everyone has their own preferences. Let's make it modular. Kidding...


I may produce another image with large flush buttons and put them in a row as you suggested. What do you think? It'll certainly make the unit look cleaner. Be interesting to see.

I finally made a minimalist flush version.

Now that is a sharp looking unit. Talkin' about smokin' hot.
Nicely done.

Here's a thought.
How about hiding all of the knobs and buttons behind a fold down aluminum panel?
How often does anybody actually use any of the front panel controls anyway?
Then make the display larger so you do not have to depend on the OSD to program the unit or make any changes on the fly.

I am enjoying this processor porn. I think I like the silver trim around the display on the old image. I agree, a larger display would be helpful (recently started to have to wear glasses). But in either case, both images are very cool.

Well we could just have a huge touchscreen LCD and either no nobs or just a volume nob and mute nob.

I hardly ever use the LCD display. I typically just use the output through the TV. I have the display timeout after 15 seconds. But I find any and all lights on while viewing a movie annoying. Now if I'm just listening to two channel music, then the display would be helpful.

i would have to disagree w/ Butcho. I actually use the front panel input-surround modes buttons several time a week.

But then again.... i'm a tweaker.

i have yet to see a hidden panel gear look really good.

A touch screen would have a cost impact, I'm sure. Classe has done it with their new product line, but at their prices I doubt it was too difficult to absorb the extra cost. As for front panel dors, I agree with tmdlp that they are difficult to implement nicely. They also add cost, too, and it's an approach that doesn't necessarily fit well with Outlaw's traditional design policies (simple, minimalist).

I think the best possible look for the new outlaw would be to have my living room surrounding it. Yeah that would be absolutely fantastic.

I was kidding around. I don't see the point for a touch screen face, it's a luxury item. However, I wouldn't mind a touchscreen universal remote. That could be an option. I'm not terribly fond of the one that comes with the 990.

Still would love some sort of sneak preview from Outlaw. Somehow I think theirs a slim chance that'll happen.

I love the look of your graphite unit. Black and silver would work as well imo. My thoughts on the front panel FWTW.

1) I hate the idea of a touch screen LCD, but a larger 5" LCD for displaying information would be great. Along that line, on the display, I would have all line level inputs be relabelable. After all one person's CD is another person's Squeezebox and a third's Media Center PC.

2) I would get rid of the glowing LCD on the standby button and go with an unlit power button. Conversely I love the lcd indicator on the volume knob like in your first drawings.

3) I would either eliminate the glowing LCD that the RR2150 has on the tone button, reverse it so it is off if the tone controls are out of the loop, or make it a selectable option. Better yet replace it with a number for a configuration option after tuning the hopefully included full range eq.

The flush charcoal version is definitely my favorite so far. I'd rather have one big silver knob as on the current models though rather than a little fingerwheel design as on the flush. I also have no problem with the small buttons on my 1070. Something I particularly like about the current models are the panels used for front inputs. They're set up in a way that I only have to expose as much as I need unlike your larger panel. Putting USB on the front though is a great idea. Being able to just plug right in from the front for updates would be much more convenient (I still haven't updated to the no-audio fix because I can't be bothered to pull it out and drag it around and my girlfriend's laptop doesn't have an RS-232 port).

I really like the current design a lot. The only problem that needs fixing is the screen: it's practically unreadable at any distance greater than a foot.

Not bagging on anyone's suggestions here, but Why in the heck do manufacturers insist on using tiny little VF displays, replete with millions of even tinier little icons?

Just make the GD thing big enough so I can read it from across the room. If it's too bright, then allow dimming or defeat (via remote so I don't have to get up).

4x as big or bigger would be nice; and if VF is too gaudy looking that big then use something else.

Everything is done by remote now-a-days anyway. I don't use 95% of the controls on my current unit's front panel. Just give a couple big-ass knobs to select input and volume when actually at the machine, AND a big-ass display. That's it! OK, maybe a power button too.

Don't even think about any sort of gay JVC car stereo videos or screen-savers. Information only, in English, not abbreviations, scrolling text and hieroglyphics.

Signed, Tired-of-Needing-Binoculars-to-see-the-settings-on -the-Freaking-Stereo.

I REALLY LIKE THE MINIMALIST VERSION IN GREY. The two lines of information in the subtle aqua lighting that is on the 990 now, is a good and readable feature. GOOD WORK! GREAT IDEA!

I think the most useful change to the front of the new pre/pro would be a much larger display. Since the OSD is analog, and, since new TVs and most HTs are digital, one has to either switch the TV inputs to see the OSD and make adjustments....or as I do...use a separate small monitor.

For me it's not a problem but maybe it is for others. There 'tis. Sittin' on top.
Of course, I moved things around----it never stops!!

You're certainly not fooling around with your equipment. I take it you really like those big CD changers. Anything keeping you from getting a music server?

Yamaha: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=560668


I'll make one with a larger display when time allows, unless someone else wants to give it a go.

This might be too gimmicky for Outlaw but, how about making the faceplate removable and make it so you can use it as a touchscreen remote too? It could also be rechargeable when it's back on the unit.

Anyway, mark my words. This will be the next "must have" feature for the Big Box store systems as more people get into home theater and manufactures are looking for the wow factor to stand out.

Retep, they all look great.

I also would like a display that is a little larger as well. Not soi big that it can be seen from 30 feet away, but EASILY read when a few feet away.

Another nice feature would be individual buttons for video sources.

Keep up the good work! It would be cool if Outlaw would actually have a few they could reveal and let current Outlaw owners decide on the final product (how it looks).

As others have said I rarely look at the display checking everything through the OSD. Thus finding a way to keep that with digital sources strikes me as far more important. Still it's very nice to have a visible display on the unit itself. I suspect the reason that displays aren't larger is because they cost a lot more to get even marginally bigger, but maybe not going with the unreadable blue would be a nice choice in the future. Bring in some spouses or other laymen and ask them if they can read it easily from nine feet or so and if not, consider how you can change it.

Same goes for buttons. I like having them so in case I lose the remote or something I still have access, but maybe put them behind a panel or something?

One final suggestion I'd have is to not bother with a really good high-end remote. Far too many companies are trying this putting in flashy learning remotes and all sorts of features. While Outlaw has a great price-point it's still pricey enough that I suspect many of us use third-party universal remotes. The Logitech 676 I picked up barely used for $70 was one of the best purchases I ever made (aside from my 1070 that is...). This means that any money spent on a nice remote is just going to go to waste. I'll strip the codes off it to go into my universal and then it'll end up sitting in a drawer unless I find I need to modify or double-check something on my full-time remote. So yeah, make a decent remote. The one with the 1070 was excellent, but consider looking at it as an area to cut costs. I doubt most of us will ever even use it.

I really must heartily agree with this idea, for several reasons. First, there are any number of buyers who will have already invested (both money and time) in getting and setting up a third-party universal remote and who will simply load the new processor's codes into that, making the added cost of a really high-end remote wasted on them. Second, what defines a really good universal remote varies from person to person. Harmony's remotes are a great fit for some, while others will prefer Universal Remotes, Pronto, Sony or a JP1. If you attach any one of those to your product as a value add ("check out our great universal remote!"), the people who would choose the others if given the choice are going to be dissatisfied.

Finding a good remote for you and your system is something that can be hugely beneficial. I'm actually in the process of contemplating just such a change (looking to get RF support to eliminate the issue of "aiming") and have been mulling over several different options - weighing not only cost but also ease of use for the family and ease of programming for me. (And might I just add, what was URC thinking when the created the software for the MX-810?...)

Ahem... it feels good to have a good hunch every once in a while...

As hinted in this Tech Week article in May 2008, Sunfire and Elan had teamed up to integrate their technologies. I believe that the two companies actually merged, but I am not sure if that went through. Anyway, Bob Carver himself has worked very closely with Elan, from what I hear.

I am now hearing that the new Sunfire Theatre Grand processor (TGP-401) will include a new version of Elan's Olé XL Film Interactive Technology touchpad , which is being called the Olé 2XL which will show "now playing" and other information from the processor right on the touchpad's 2.1" OLED screen which will act as the remote for the TGP-401 and will be programable/customizable. The TGP-401 will be the only A/V receiver in the world with this type of technology.

Edit: another person told me that he thinks the touchpad will only be for the zone 2 stuff. So I guess the rumor is what I would call "fluid". Also, this is all second-hand info and the model numbers, etc. might all be different in the end. Oh yes, and I have no affiliation with either company.

Edit 2: I found a link that has a video from back in January showing the TGP-401 connected to the XL model of the touchpad.

I got tired of editing my previous post, the more new information I found. It looks like this is kind of old news, since this system was demo'd back in January. So my powers of premonition are not as sharp as I thought and I'm back to being a mere mortal.

Also, I am not clear if the touchpad is wired or wireless. But, it is only a matter of time before this is commonplace (IMHO).

I agree -- basic remote.

Please allow a way to turn off ALL lights on the front of the unit for nighttime viewing.

I've got mixed feelings about a device like this. On the one hand, having a way to directly see lots of information from my processor right in my hand seems really cool. On the other hand, you start getting into a situation where that device is trying to replace a good universal remote, and that's a tough nut to crack - each person has different preferences, and there are several companies that cater solely to those different preferences with great effectiveness (Philips Pronto, Logitech Harmony, and URC being the big three in that regard). Adding cost for something like this will end up hurting some people who already have an ideal remote solution and don't need to pay for it.

Here's what this idea does make me think about: network connectivity. Allow a user to connect a network cable and see what's happening in their processor through a web client or a custom app, and you can offer all of these capabilities as a completely separate purchase (either a little network device or an app for something like an iPhone).

Yeah, or inject that info to the display outputs.

Having the information itself is handy, but being able to control things (adjust channel trims temporarily, change surround processing mode) without seeing anything on the front panel (which might be in another room or simply blanked out for light control purposes) or on screen (which would distract other viewers) has a certain "gee whiz" sort of appeal. How much money that "gee whiz" is worth is less clear-cut, of course...

I think it would be great to setup nearly any feature through the front display, but I certainly don't need a big display. Mine is almost always off. I setup my system, so I know what's going on 99.9% of the time.

What I'd like to see is outlaw offer remote control options. Maybe a very very basic remote as a standard option and then some more advanced remotes as options, but at a discount. So you could get a touch screen remote etc. Maybe they could partner with a remote company.

You thinking of something like becoming an authorized dealer for URC or Harmony?

What is needed, in my opinion, is a standard methodology for interactive communications for audio/video electronics. Whether the medium is bluetooth, RF, etc., the data layer could be some XML-like EDI format that both sides (remote and unit) can interpret. This could also enable unit-to-unit communications, i.e. your cd player telling your processor what is playing or telling the remote to go dark when your movie starts playing and to light up when the movie ends.

If the standards are kept open, you could just purchase your favorite "remote" form factor from anywhere you want, perform some sort of "handshake" with the unit, the unit itself could store and send the remote all it needs to know (commands, codes, etc.), and voila! every company that charges $400 to program your remote would be out of business. I said "remote" in quotes because eventually I think we will go to some sort of universal personal electronics device (like an iphone) that would take on any "personality" you want.

I wouldn't be surprised if a company like Sony, who has a reputation for integrating their products in innovative ways, would start something like this.

Something like that. Just partnering with them and allow a little choice, but not the entire line. That certainly would separate them from other manufacturers. I gather they already license some of their products for the current remotes.


Personally I would jump at the MX-880 as an upgrade option.

It's not a bad idea - offer two or three URC (or Harmony) remotes, and toss in an Outlaw-standard setup file for the component it is sold with.

Currently, Outlaw uses UEI remotes for their equipment, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do something separately with another company in parallel with that. They even used a URC remote for the Model 950 (a rebadged SL9000, to be specific), so there is at least some small history between the two companies.

I agree, this would be a great feature. Imagine, just connect your laptop to the processor or receiver and be able to control everything.

This can be done either through TCP/IP or through a bluetooth connection, maybe even a USB connection. Actually, USB will be the easiest - just connect the laptop, start a custom app and you are able to adjust any setting with a click of a mouse.

However, I doubt that the Outlaw team has the resources to develop such an interface.

I think this sort of approach would have the most value if it allowed remote (particularly wireless remote) interface, which probably wouldn't match up well with USB. After all, firmware updates have already proven that very few of us have computers near our systems. From that standpoint, TCP/IP (probably through some sort of web-based interface, since it would be platform agnostic at that point) would seem like the ideal approach. However you slice it, it's a significant development investment (mainly on the software side, as ethernet connectivity is getting easier and cheaper to integrate every year). Balancing that investment (and the associated cost increase the final product would probably experience as a result) with the number of customers who can actually use it is one of those debates that I'm glad I don't have to be part of - there is no right answer, just varying degrees of wrong. At some point, it will probably become an easier thing to justify. Right now, it feels to me like it is sort of on that borderline between "what a cool concept!" and "maybe they should try to include something along these lines?"...

Well if you're going to go that far, you could slap on a few more ethernet ports so it acts as a switch and throw in a wireless card and make it so all your other units can use the pre/pro connection. Then there's no need to hardwire your system. Wireless connection with the ability to connect your blu-ray player and other networked units.

I think building in a switch and wireless repeated is just going to jack up manufacturing costs. Anybody can buy such a device - if they need it - for minimal cost, while some folks will already have one or some comparable solution already in place.

The problem I've seen with many peoples home theater systems is that they don't have a wired jack hooked up. So they need to purchase extra equipment. But a lot of equipment is just coming with an ethernet port. The PS3 has wireless and it makes it simple. Having wiress build in is great. Just seems like a logical step to put in in a reciever or pro-pro with a switch. Instead of buying more equipment to make an extended network.

You can't buy a wireless repeater for this type of system, you'd have to buy an access point client and even then those work with a single piece of equipment which would need to be a router is you wanted it to work with several pieces of equipment.

To achieve what we're talking about (wireless with a switch), they'd be building a wireless access point and a network switch into the processor. It's a lot of work compared to just slapping an ethernet module under the hood, and it will then go unused for folks with no home network (who thus aren't using the ethernet connectivity on any of their equipment anyway) and folks who already have wired or wireless connections in place. When you can get something like this for $40, it's probably hard to justify the expense of building that into a surround processor. There's also the potential headache and support cost associated with providing an interface for configuring the wireless access point (encryption and the rest) through the receiver's user interface and fielding tech support calls related to it.

I guess that if it were me designing it, I'd rather let the customer get whatever they need to best serve their network than try to build a solution in and then support it. Of course, I also pulled four network cables through my attic to my entertainment center a couple of years ago, so my perspective may be clouded by that...

What we are really asking for is what I have heard called a PC home theatre unit. If we were going to design a system for ease of hookup why would we not make a Pre/Pro that only get input from something similiar to a laptop which is wireless for all other components. That way all the other components could output wirelessly into the laptop and it would feed the Pre/Pro which would still output to an amp. Does anyone know of a wireless card which would accept the output from a OPPO BDP-83 and feed to a laptop much like my wireless home network functions now. If you had such a setup you could extend the output from the amp and make wireless speakers each with their own amplifiers. It would completely eliminate the wires and make it possible to use any piece of equipment anywhere in you house and you could set your equipment up in a closet. The remote would be something like a iPhone with wireless access to your home theater. If we look around a little bit I'll bet we can eliminate all of the equipment we now have and replace it with all new stuff that has a whole new set of problems. Anyone know if this equipment already exists. All of this sounds like it could be done right now, kinda like your grand dads system in the 50s when they started the Hi Fi craze, Eh?

There are some whole-house audio distribution systems that have wall control units that double as an amplifier and receive a signal wirelessly. I can't remember where I saw that.

In one of my earlier rants I said that what is really needed is a standard. Not just an ethernet plug or some other kind of plug, but a standard data interchange protocol.

For a while I have started to wonder if the video game industry has replaced the "adult entertainment" industry as the pioneers in home entertainment technology adoption. I believe the video game industry would be the first to drive some device-to-device communication revolution. After all, a successful video game makes a lot more money than a successful movie nowadays. If the video game designers want their games to be able to be played by a Nintendo DS user against a PSP user wirelessly, well... money talks... The game console is poised to become the center of every home entertainment system. As a Linux zealot, I am sad to say that Microsoft may have actually out-maneuvered everyone in that race with their Xbox, and who better than Microsoft to coerce the hardware manufacturers into building some inter-operability into their systems. Heck, Microsoft has been doing just that for about 30 years before they even had their own hardware. Which means that instead of an open standard, we will all be buying software licenses from Microsoft to install in our preamplifiers. For some interesting reading, check out Apple TV. This is starting to remind me of the Newton, an Apple PDA that came out about 5 years before anyone realized they needed one. Once again, Apple is limiting its potential in order to keep their customers as happy hostages.
...end of conspiracy theories...
I now return you to your previously scheduled program.

About has hard to justify as building it into a PS3. The problem with that solution is your building another network. My is not hardwired and would be too difficult to do. I have a central router (home built) with a few access points and repeaters. My home network is primarily wireless with only the office hardwired. I could do your solution with a bride, but I really don't want to go out and buy another router, switch or access point. Not when I've seen how easy it is with the PS3. Built in wireless makes sense and isn't that much of a cost for OEM's.

I've read numerous forums where people do not plan to use ethernet because their home isn't setup for it. They don't want to deal with the hassle of setting up a bridge. Having it built-in with a switch is a cost I'm willing to pay for if it was available. I'd be stoked. One less piece of equipment I need to buy.

But I haven't seen anyone do it. Funny thing is, every company wants you to hook up your home theater to the web, but their isn't really a clean solution unless you are hardwired, which will never happen in my house. To much overhead for that.

The PS3 doesn't have a switch - it just has wireless ethernet. The PS3 is also a bit of an "odd duck" in the marketplace - it requires a network connection for online gaming (which has become an integral part of many video games these days) and its price point is dictated as much by the potential for associated software sales as by actual hardware costs. Moving closer to a "typical" home theater component, devices like the SqueezeBox have wireless because they exist solely to be on a network, but for a long time Slim Devices offered a version of the SqueezBox that omitted wireless for a $50 or so savings. Meanwhile, HD-DVD and Blu-ray players with ethernet connections have so far been wired only, as have surround receivers and processors from folks like Onkyo and Denon.

I wonder how much hassle it is to set up a wireless access point as a bridge compared to setting up a wireless bridge built into a surround receiver. You can plug the access point into a USB port and configure it with keyboard and mouse, then just move it once and stick it where it can get best reception while still facilitating network cabling. On the other hand, you'll be using a remote control (good for entering numbers, less so for typing in letters) to configure the wireless bridge in a surround processor. The configuration requirements are basically the same since you're connecting to the same house network either way. I also recall there being a few products from folks like Linksys that were designed specifically to provide a bridge like the one we're describing, as the XBox and PS2 created a large demand for it. What would really be smart for a company like Netgear, Linksys, DLink, or maybe even 3Com (somebody with the network engineering resources readily at hand) would be a "den data hub" device that offered a wireless bridge, 10/100 switch with half a dozen ports, and a form factor and setup interface that was geared specifically for tying the home theater to a house network. Heck, they probably have something along these lines and I just haven't looked for it...

Never said it did, but was just commenting on the fact that it made it very simple to setup within a network. It also has built in ethernet.

Right.. wired only but some offer net radio. In addition new TV's and other devices are coming wired for the internet.

Have you ever done it? Doesn't sound like it and if you have, then you know it is a hassle. No biggie if your technically savvy. What you pointed out at NewEgg was a router and you would need to use an access point with the router to create a wireless bridge. Your initial router would have to be setup for point to multipoint. Your access point for your second router would have to contain a hard IP address and the MAC address of your router. You may or may not be able to pick that up on a scan. Plus, if you're using a Macintosh there most likely wont be a setup CD, so you better have an understanding of IP addresses and how to setup your computer with a static address. You can also buy and antenna extender if necessary. Which is a lot cheaper than the other solutions.

You wouldn't have to configure a bridge. Your processor receives the IP address and then uses built in software for "internet connection sharing." All on one network, no big deal. No setup hassels. Just plug in your devices and they share the processors connection. You can do this on a extremely small footprint. Embedded on a chip or part of the system software.

right or you could just have the solution that I talked about and not worry about buying an additional piece of equipment.

Look, I see where you're coming from and how you see the solution and obviously I see it differently. I see the Pre/Pro as the brain of a system. All your components connect to it, so why not connect your components ethernet as well. The feature would certainly separate them from their competitors. Obviously you don't need it since you're hardwired, but those of us that aren't might really like a simple solution.

Just wanted to jump in and get my story out there.
I HAD the Pronto RC5200 remote. A good remote! Now after purchasing the MX 3000 I think the Pronto was a Great remote.
I was able to program the Pronto myself never had a problem with it, except that I had to continually operate it by battery. However it happen the docking station has malfunction.
I came into some money and was able to buy some new equipment. Speakers...B&W 804's and I decided to purchase a new remote.
While the MX does the job I thought that the Pronto was more friendly for my situation also more fun to use.
Big point I could program it myself the way I wanted, the macros the way I wanted.
The MX3000 has to be programed by someone in the know. I had someone from the audio store come out to the house for $85.00 an hour. It took three hours to hookup and program.
Do the math.
Impulse buying they call it.
Stupid mistake I call it.
Simplicity is the way to go.
I invested to much money in my remote an advise fellow Outlaws to stay away from such expensive toys.
Speakers....YES....if the finances are there it is a great move, likewise with other electronics. If you have the finances.
That does not mean that I think you should spend a $1000.00 for the likes of a Blu-Ray player if you have the cash.
Think before you invest.
I guess I am not the only one out there who has made unnecessary purchases but I wish I had the know how to program my MX3000 perhaps I would not feel as bad as I do.

I love the look of this. I really hope Outlaw starts to offer both silver and charcoal versions of their products.

I can see the attraction, but I worry that the cost (which will not be insignificant) will essentially be a penalty to the customers who don't need it.
This intrigued me because I have messed with wireless bridging (using a Linksys access point that was a pain to set up as both access point and bridge), so I started hunting around for some detail on purpose-built wireless bridges. My biggest question was how you handle configuring wireless encryption (WEP or WPA, presumably). I wanted to see the instructions for setting up a bridge. I may be overlooking something really simple out there, but what I found included the discontinued Linksys WET11 (which I remember seeing years ago), a replacement Linksys with some poor reviews on Amazon.com, a review of an SMC bridge that was pretty critical of the tedious setup procedure, and this D-Link unit that actually does exactly what we are talking about: a wireless bridge (assuming you set the rear panel switch to "bridge" instead of "AP") with four ports. The manual is close to 100 pages long, and the section talking about the bridge mode spent ten pages talking about how to set it up (logging in through a browser, entering the name of the access point, entering in a pin or other security code, and so forth). That's where I get concerned about Outlaw trying to integrate all of that into a surround processor: they will be the ones fielding calls from folks trying to configure the unit to work with dozens of different access points and network setups. The impact on their customer support resources could be painful if the feature actually saw heavy use. On the bright side, I did also find a D-Link gaming bridge (DGL-3420) with instructions that seemed more straightforward. I still think about the potential pitfalls some folks will encounter when messing with wireless networking (I've provided some free phone support for folks with wireless networks and in at least one case found that it never did quite get set up right, which may be contributing to my skittishness).
True enough. I don't dislike the idea - it really is a cool concept - I just worry that actually trying to do it (especially for a smaller company that does their own customer support) could be opening a can of worms that would cost them heavily, plus the potential first cost passed along to the customer. If D-Link is charging $100 to $130 for a device like this that's tucked into a plastic box when they have the benefit of shared R&D, the cost savings of tucking it inside an existing chassis is likely to be almost zero.

It would be cool and maybe we should invent it!! The hardware likely exists and you could use any Pre/Pro to drive it. It is just a matter of setting up a few routers to accept the output of the various players and other input devices and feeding them to the Pre/Pro so it can output to another router to send to whatever speaker amps are setup with their routers. It sounds hard, but the first one to invent a high quality combo amp/router will clean up. You could position the router amps where you wanted them and they would output to the speakers using lamp cord. You could put them in a coffee table or in end tables. C'mon guys tell me someone hasn't already invented this.

They could cut costs by including a single wireless card and one ethernet port. You could then connect one component to the ethernet port to utilize the wireless or connect a hub or switch and connect multiple devices.

There's various forms of embeded linux that use parts of LEAF as their primary dhcp, firewall, nat etc. They have a very small footprint. Even Linkys/Cisco uses linux. You wouldn't even have to use the entire package, but mainly iptables.
The Linksys WAP54G cannot or could not do WPA between two access points with a bridge. It could only to WEP with a hexidecimal key. It also only worked with another linksys access point or a WRT54G. They kept saying they would release a firmware fix, but it never materialized. I think the latest is 3.04.

You could use WPA with an access point as a repeater or as an access point client.

I hear your pain.

You definitely don't need to have it as complicated as a linksys or D-link router or anything like that. They take it to the extreme.

It can be setup with just a few options. DHCP or STATIC IP for wireless or ethernet. Inernet connection sharing shares the wireless connection only with only DHCP option and if necessary the ability to designate a router IP address, if necessary. That's to say if you're home wireless network consists of more than one network and you need to configure it to 10.0.0.0, 172.16.0.0 or 192.168.0.0 etc Obviously this would be advanced with very minimal options. Basically once you check share internet connection it automatically creates another network as DHCP through the ethernet port. No static addressing or firewalls.

You'd have:

• Wireless:
• Search for access point or wireless router.
• Select ap/router name and enter WEP/WPA key. (saved)
• Use DHCP or manually enter IP address checkbox.
• Share internet connection
  
  • Advanced Options
  • Enter IP addressing
  
  

Option:
Wired:

• DHCP or Manual Address (no shared networking with this option)

Quote:

True enough. I don't dislike the idea - it really is a cool concept - I just worry that actually trying to do it (especially for a smaller company that does their own customer support) could be opening a can of worms that would cost them heavily, plus the potential first cost passed along to the customer. If D-Link is charging $100 to $130 for a device like this that's tucked into a plastic box when they have the benefit of shared R&D, the cost savings of tucking it inside an existing chassis is likely to be almost zero.

I hear what you're saying. Fortunately most of the code is available on the web and is open source. Most of linksys code is opensource, It's just a matter of stripping out all the options giving the uses just a handful of options and automating a few tasks. No web interface or anything like that. You'll already have some security with your home wireless router etc.