Hello Outlaws!

We have just posted the Model 997's preliminary specifications as well as a partial feature list. You may also join our Pre-reservation Status List:

Model 997 Product Page

Enjoy,

Scott

Well aren't you guys fancy? I put myself on the list for notification, but I'll have you know that I'm deeply disappointed there aren't pictures of it there for us to discuss and dissect while we wait. I guess the feature list will have to suffice....

Love the Trinnov details.

Should be interesting to play with the "Before/After Curves" through USB....

Is Hdmi 1.3 backward compatible with previous versions of this interface?

thanks,

John

Signed up, so where is the Beta testing sign-up sheet for the 997, thats right, did that when I purchased the 990/7700 combo.

I am so thrilled to see this unit getting ready for release. This is what I've been waiting for, a kick a$$ pre/pro for a kick a$$ price. Way to go Outlaw.

Yes, it is. An HDMI v1.3 input will function with an HDMI v1.0 source, an HDMI v1.1 source, an HDMI v1.2 source, or an HDMI v1.3 source. It will even work with the video signal from a DVI source, although you'll need to get your audio separately of course.

I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this especially after being told the 997 is basically a "supercharged" 990, will the 997 have a Phono Input, my guess is definitely.

Actually, the word that we've received from Peter Tribeman is "no" - the R-972/Model 997 platform does not include a phono input. I think some of the discussion about it got Peter thinking about an "RR2150-grade" phono pre-amp, though...

A picture is worth a thousand words.

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

Why can't it be viewed via TV, like on the SMS-1?
I don't have a laptop PC.
When doing the firmware upgrade on the 990, I had to disconnect it and hull it upstairs.

I guess the 997 will also not have XLR inputs for a CD/SACD player?

I'm also interested in the XLR inputs for a CD Player.

If you haven't noticed there is a picture of what might be the 997 on the Outlaw Home page. Looks remarkably like the 990. Signed up and can't wait, but I'll have too.

I don't see the image and the one that's on the product(s) page is of the 990.

Both the 997 and 990 show the same thumnail image:

Is there anyone here from Outlaw that knows if the 997 will have XLR Balanced inputs for a CD Player etc ? Would somebody who knows PLEASE answer this Question ?

I haven't been in the Saloon much lately, just occasionally checking for news on the 990 replacement. Well I checked yesterday and holy moly! The 997 looks like one heck of a piece of equipment and at that price is quite amazing. Signed up this morning and can't wait!

Hello gleenee,

The Model 997 will not offer a stereo XLR input.

Scott

No phono - no 997.

Keep the 990 for analog phono stuff and leave the 997 to the digital future.

Not sure what kind of shelf space you got yerself there, X-man, but I just wouldn't have room for another steamer-trunk-sized box. Pretty disappointed in the "no phono" news, as it effectively wipes out several hundred bucks for a good phono preamp, making the 997 much less of a good deal.

I understand being unhappy about a lack of phono input. I and many others would be unhappy to pay for something we will never use.

It not a matter of room for me. I will keep both in separate homes. I agree with those out there that are tired of paying to make systems backwards compatible with analog equipment. There are plenty of owners of LPs who can easily equip their 997 with a phono pre-amp vice forcing the rest to pay for inputs we will never use. At the intro price the 997 is easily affordable for anyone who wants a quality HT platform WITH all the bells and whistles.

I would imagine that the Outlaws looked at the size of the cabinet and decided if they were going to put 4 HDMI in and one out they would have to cut out something or make the cabinet even larger. It only makes sense to get the 997 up to state of the art. After all, how many of us have heard the complaints about the lack of HDMI vs DVI. And now we are going to hear how it lacks a phono input.

and Disappointed

I'm very disappointed that there's only a single HDMI output. I was really hoping for 2 as it would eliminate the need for an external switcher.

My RR2150 has a a phono input -- if it will ever be used.

I don't want to pay for stuff I won't ever even try using. The 997 is perfect for me.

Does anyone know if the 997 will accept DSD via HDMI? I'm thinking of buying the Oppo 980 or their upcoming Blu-ray BDP S83.

Me too!

I checked the large Sherwood 972 thread to see of any mention of DSD support had cropped up, but didn't see anything there. We'll have to wait and see...

Gonk,
Do you have the link to the Sherwood 972 thread?
Thanks,
Butchgo

Any chance for independent sub outputs, for L & R placement?

SN-972 thread info:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=785388&page=25

Read backwards from Page 25 (latest page). Don't bother reading from Page 1 - info is too old (Jan 07) and specs have changed...

Thank you.

Where is the HD radio tuner? Please tell me you put one in...

Well, I suppose I could get a outboard tuner, but geese...
It's also true that this trinova and a QUAD mike is so what I need...biamping capability...WOW.
Umm, but could you shoehorn in the HD radio tuner please? I mean, the bit rate blows away lossy sat radio. Thing is, the Integra includes HD radio, you know.

Even though I didn't see any mention of it I'm assuming the other new lossy audio codecs are supported.

Dolby Digital Plus

DTS High Resolution Audio

I would concur with that assumption.

Blaineh,

I am not sure what the actual bit rate is compared between the two, HD Radio vs. Sat. Radio. My experience with Sat. radio is only with Sirius which has a much better technology then does XM. However, I can say that the sound quality I get from my home receiver driven thru my 990 is quite good! In fact I would say that on some of the dedicated music channels the quality is approaching that of a standard CD. I have listened to HD radio but only in cars and I was less then impressed, granted that could be related to the quality of the car system as well.

Does anybody know what the true rates are for these two technologies? I did some research and found some information thru Wikipedia (which I don't always trust). The following is a quick summary of what they reported relative to the bit rates of the two technologies.

People should not be confused by the term HD Radio it really means Hybrid Digital Radio and not High Definition! In general for HD Radio braodcasting via an FM signal they are allowed around 300Kb/sec, not entirely clear what the exact number is, which to me seems rather strange. However this bandwidth would be for all the different programs that would be broadcast on that particular frequency. Therefore, it will be entirely upto the radio station to decide the the bit rate to be used on any given stream. But certainly there should be enough there for stereo CD quality or even multi-channel programing. However, please note that this bit rate will only be possible if and when the FCC allows a radio station to stop broadcasting its analog signal. So under the current restrictions they are not able to use anywhere near that 300Kb/sec bit rate. Although I could not find any information as to what rates they are using. Also, I could not find whether they are using any sort of compression algorithms, my guess is they are not.

Sirius Satellite obviously is using a radically different technology. First of all the available bandwidth is substantially higher. But granted that bandwidth must be shared among all of the different channels. However, the bandwidth is not shared evenly. In fact there is quite a bit of difference between the channels, i.e. talk shows and news channels get much less of the pipe while the music channels get quite a bit more. One of the ways they pack all of this into the pipe is by using Perceptual Audio Coder (PAC) which is a very good compression algorithm. Here is a short description from Wikipedia:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Perceptual Audio Coder (PAC) is an algorithm, like MPEG's MP3 standard, used to compress digital audio by removing extraneous information not perceived by most people. It is used by Sirius Satellite Radio for their DARS service, and iBiquity has been testing it for their IBOC digital radio upgrade for FM and AM. PAC is very similar to Advanced Audio Coding, the latter sharing many design elements.

The PAC originally developed by Elemedia, a subsidiary of Bell Labs, has a flexible format and bitrate. It provides efficient compression of high-quality audio over a variety of formats from 16 kb/s for a monophonic channel to 1024 kb/s for a 5.1 format with four or six auxiliary audio channels, and provisions for an ancillary (fixed rate) and auxiliary (variable rate) side data channel. For stereo audio signals, it is claimed that it provides near compact disc (CD) quality at about 56-64 kb/s, with transparent coding at bit rates approaching 128 kb/s[citation needed]. In the 1993, ISO-MPEG-2 5-channel test, PAC demonstrated the best decoded audio signal quality available from any algorithm at 320 kb/s, far outperforming all algorithms, including the layer-II and layer-III backward compatible algorithms.[citation needed]

Over the years PAC has evolved considerably. A known software implementation of this codec is CelestialTech's AudioLib. Later, it was considerably improved and renamed to ePAC (enhanced Perceptual Audio Coder) by Lucent. It's available in the AudioVeda music library manager.

The non-capitalized term is used to describe lossy compression codecs that utilize perceptual coding techniques for audio.


As you can see the available bit rates are quite high. My only concern is that it appears that the PAC routine is a "lossy" type compression.

Now having looked at all of that I still come back to what does the side by side listening tests reveal. I have not been able to test it side by side on the same system so I can't answer the question. But it appears on paper that Sirius music channels should hold up quite well as compared to the HD Radio of today. Has anyone out there compared them side by side, what was your experience?

Thanks, I thought hd radio was minimal compression, but that was only a guess.
I looked at the SN product, and I really liked the complement of pushbuttons. It's way too late to ask, but i really hated that the 990 didn't have direct access buttons; just the multifuntion arrangement which requires me to stand there and study the screen and push several buttons just to change sources. I REALLY REALLY hope we get bigger buttons and direct access like the SN product...

Most of my components use either digital coax or optical connections, yet I have no objection to "paying for" the analog connections that go unused on the back of my 990. I also rarely use the headphone jack, but have no problem "paying for" its presence. Really, does anyone use everything that our pre-pros provide? Maybe some do, but I'd wager not most. The "I don't want to pay for what I'm not going to use" argument is specious, at best. And by the way, as a recent "returner" to the joys of vinyl (lots of which also come with a free download so getting the music on your iPod or in your car is no big deal), I truly believe that LPs are a growth industry once again. My local indpendent record store just doubled the size of its vinyl section, and has plans for further expansion. The lack of a phono output is not only disappointing and potentially a deal killer (for me)- it is also subscribing to a school of thought that is at least a few years old and is becoming more invalid every day.

I also listen to vinyl, but did not find the lack of a turntable input on the 950 to a deal-breaker. Plenty of small standalone turntable pre-amps are available. Expensive models cost several hundred dollars, but I am very happy with a less expensive model that was only about $50.

It is not much bigger than 3 or 4 inches, so space is not an issue. As a plus, it amplifies the signal very close to the turntable, so the longer run to the 950 is already amplified and so it is much less susceptible to picking up hum.

It's nice to know that vinyl thrives, however CE manufacturers are faced with a real problem of having to cram more and more connections on the back panels of their units as tech is added, and in prioritizing it is not surprising that they're marginalizing the phono preamp. Units comparable to the 997 (ie Anthem Marantz Parasound) that include balanced outs and HD switching are going the same way.

You may think this is a good or bad thing, but were I enjoying vinyl, I would want a separate phono preamp for two reasons: so I could buy a nice prepro or receiver without limiting my options, and so I wouldn't end up being stuck with a supbar built-in preamp in any unit that I did buy.

Hey Sluggo, point well taken, but I already have a separate phone pre-amp (a holdover from my 950) and celebrated, along with others on this forum if memory serves, the inclusion of a phono input on the 990). I still think that Outlaw could have easily gotten rid of some analog space-wasters (I mean, VCR and cassette deck input/outputs? talk about needless!) and included a decent phono pre-amp in the design of the 997.

Until one can record using HDMI, analogue connections will be required for some form of recording device - be it a DVD Recorder or, in future, BDR (since I doubt that Hollywood will ever permit digital to digital recording.)

And I don't know what they might be, but just as we used to have a set of analogue RCA jacks that could be unjumpered to allow an external processor of some sort, I can imagine a future where one could insert some device in a similar fashion - only through the use of an HDMI connection.

Heck on the phono side, why not an external device that acts as a phone pre-amp / click and pop reducer / dynamic range expander, etc. all in one - with an HDMI output?

Just getting carried away.

OUCH! Please tell me you were just kidding.

For me at least, the whole point of vinyl is it's musical / sonic purity. Dynamic range expanders (not really needed anyway) and click and pop reducers must by their very nature compromise the sound. Analog processing of this type just does not work. Dynamics processors in particular have a horrible time dealing with mixed program material, owing to their one-size-fits-all time constants. For recording, dynamics processing is used all the time, but that is with single instruments, especially vocals, but that's a completely different usage.

And HDMI - are you saying you would want to convert your vinyl analog to digital, then back to analog again before it goes to the power amp? Doesn't that defeat the point?

Vinyl playback offers the most musically direct connection to the original recording artists possible. I sure wouldn't want to muck up that purity with any manner of post processing, especially considering it's not needed.

For the record (pun intended), I would recommend an outboard phono preamp for the highest quality possible from the medium. Also, I would recommend a separate stereo preamplifier for music only listening, with a HT preamp like the 997 feeding it's left and right outputs into one set of inputs of the stereo preamp for movie sound. HT preamps, no matter how good, just cannot match the sonic purity of a dedicated stereo preamp due to the extremely complex and lengthy signal path necessary to accommodate all the HT inputs/outputs/features.

Altec,

well said and explained.

John

OK, I'm only posting this so that Altec's conservative thoughts will look positively progressive. (Actually I think I told him this story once.)

MANY years ago, I purchased a Granada model Victrola at an antique store. It's an ancient acoustical, windup record player circa 1925 (unfortunately, my ex-wife took it in the divorce). When I got it home, I put in an old acoustical recording and, despite the high level of surface noise and the artificial resonances of the acoustical recording (no mics here, they sang into the horn and a needle scratched the wax), there was SOMETHING about that recording that sounded incredibly real. My only explanation was that some aspect of the performance was directly conveyed in that primitive recording process that was missing with the advent of electrical recording.

Would I want to listen to music that way? Absolutely not. But it taught me that A.)I'm crazy (high likelihood), or B.)the human ear is capable of resolving incredible subtlety in sounds, no matter what compromises may be in place.

Sooo, there is something that IMO is even more direct than electrically recording vinyl playback and that is acoustically recorded vinyl playback.

OK, it's time for me to return to the secure area. I'll write again when the doctor lets me near the computer. (Sure beats writing with crayon.)

We now return to our conversation about the 997 (which I'm HIGHLY anticipating, by the way.)

It's hard to follow behind bob's post (glad they let you trade the crayons for a keyboard, by the way), but I think it's worth remembering what we're facing when talking about a modern SSP. There's the long-familiar aspects of home theater (component video inputs, coaxial and optical audio inputs, and a 7.1 analog for those stubborn multichannel analog sources). There's the new face of home theater (HDMI v1.3, with its army of new audio codecs, its digital video, and its ornery HDCP police). There's the bevy of speakers to support (7.1 output, bass management, time delays, channel trims, RCA/XLR output requests, calls for multiple subwoofer outputs). There's the long-familiar video switching (including transcoding composite and s-video to component for those random devices like VHS, LaserDisc, and some game consoles as well as the component inputs themselves). There's the new era of video processing (transcoding all those analog sources to digital, scaling and deinterlacing, 3:2 pulldown, video bypass modes, and so forth). There's an expectation of room correction (be it Audyssey, Trinnov, or some other creature). There's a remote that is expected to control the SSP and probably whatever other devices are around it (although I still prefer a third-party universal so I can get just what I like). There's an interface for installing firmware updates, maybe an RS232 port for integration with fancy control systems, and the occasional request for a network interface. There's a second zone for feeding those dining room or deck speakers. There's even the radio, which is no longer merely AM/FM - now we're asking about HD Radio, XM Radio, and Sirius as well. The only reasons we see stereo analog inputs at all is because we need them for those same devices that we're keeping composite and s-video for (and because by "simply" feeding them through an ADC we can lump them in with everything else) and for the occasional high-quality analog source (which could be a standalone DAC, a high-end CD player, or - yes - a turntable with phono pre-amp). After all of that gets taken care of, is there still time / energy / budget to include a phono pre-amp of significant performance (something on par with what the RR2150 got)? If something is going to give in all of this, it's not surprising that the phono pre-amp is high on the list, especially since many home theaters aren't going to include vinyl.

Well put, Gonk...my post earlier started with details like yours, but I'm glad I edited down, yours is much better.

The most important thing to remember about this unit is that it cannot be all things to all people. Being that it is a Home Theater preamp, it must be all things (or as close to it as possible) to the HT enthusiast, all other considerations are secondary.

In this forum and others there are tons of posts from stereophiles jumping through hoops to maintain separate listening settings for their HT and 2 channel listening in the same setup. While it's good that people have been able to do so (and my admiration to those who did for their fortitude), it's clear that the two specialties are becoming divergent in enough ways that high quality all-in-one solutions will fade away.

I'm with you guys on the 997 not having a phono input, my dedicated H/T room is simply that, for gaming, movies and watching the satellite, have no desire to listen to music in that room, if I wanna listen to music, I go to the 2-channel setup in the game room. I only asked about the phono input for another guy on another forum. The 997 not having a phono input by no way makes a deciding factor on my purchase of the 997, as a matter of fact, once the pre-order opens I'm hoping to be the first in line to place my order (provided I have the funds at the time).

So are we assuming that the 2 channel capabilities of the 997 will be somehow inferior and therefore should need a stereo receiver? Is Outlaw going to downplay the 2 channel capabilities of this rig? I doubt it. I live in a loft, which is essentially one big room, and 2 separate audio systems is simply not possible. I think it's great that people can have two setups, and I would if I could, but in the meanwhile I threw my cassette deck in the trash years ago so I don't need or want those analog input/outputs, and I still maintain that us turntable users (and no, we are not anachronistic old hippies, we just like the way it sounds) could be spared a little spot on the back of this rig for a phono input. Hey, I have no freaking use for the tuner on this thing, but I respect the desires of others to have it. AM Radio band? What does that have to do with home theater?

No, I don't think so, either. However, the number of turntables that you can find in home theater installations is pretty small these days - and those who do have them are more likely to be retaining them for audio quality, not out of simple inertia. As a result, they deserve to be partnered with a good phono pre-amp. Putting such a device into something with as many different requirements already on it is going to start to impact cost for something that most users won't use. Putting a merely functional phono pre in creates an even worse scenario: folks without turntables are still paying for it, and folks with turntables pay for it and then end up wanting to get a separate phono pre to get better performance. It becomes a juggling act / judgment call for the design team, and there is no right answer.

WAAAAAHHHHH!!!! Buy a phono pre amp for crying out loud. If you want that technology because it sounds so much better, then break out the old wallet and go buy the equipment needed to use it. Perhaps we should install quadrophonic inputs for the .0001% of the users who may have ever heard of it.

so much for a discussion of the features and capabilities of the new pre-pro - let's get derisive and dismissive - hope you like the sound of your subwoofer blowing out your windows while you watch your stupid action movies - asshat

Let's keep this civil guys - the truth is that it is basically impossible to satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean people lose the right to be disappointed when a feature they care about falls off the drawing board - no matter how strong the argument is in favor of the omission.

Will the discount apply to original 950 owners like myself? I am still enjoying my 950 very much.

I'm afraid not, the discount is for owners of Model 990's and Model 970's.

Not that I'm going to ever be a early adopter (aka beta tester) for an Outlaw product again, but is there any reason that us 1070 owners who also have been dealing with the same and maybe even worse bugs than the 970 should be left out of this discount if we want to upgrade to separates?

It can't hurt to ask them...

Thanks gonk.

What is the projected date on the release of this processor.

Altec,

Was not joking.

If I'm going to pull out a vinyl record (because I don't have it on CD or SACD) then I prefer to listen to it with a judicious touch of dynamic range expansion and some elimination of clicks and pops.

That's how I prefer it - and I believe it sounds much better that way (and closer to the clean dynamics of CD).

On a new pre/pro I would prefer that all sources fed it digitally - but if I do need to feed it an analogue signal (say from my phono chain) then once there I want it converted to digital and kept that way (for switching / processing / who-knows-what-in-future)until it's then fed in analogue form to my amps. And if I'm going to be moving signals around digitally I'd prefer that it were through a simple single connection like HDMI.

I personally don't see a need (or a "point") to seek an all-analogue signal path. Digital does not offend me - or my hearing.

I'm neither preaching nor trying to convert anyone. Just answering your questions as honestly as possible.

Jeff Mackwood

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

We're not sure - sounds like early part of next year, though.

Why would Outlaw leave us early customers (950) out of the discount deal?

Because the discount isn't for loyalty, it is a sales tool used to entice potential buyers into purchasing a piece of equipment (i.e. 990) that would soon be discontinued.

I would like to see some sort of "loyalty" discount from companies such as Outlaw. Companies who try to use the idea of being part of the "family" or hanging out together in their forums should try and capitalize on the loyalty angle by rewarding all customers.
An example of the loyalty discount happened with a recently purchased new vehicle, $2000 discount for owning the same brand car. Age, value or condition didn't matter, just rewarding me for staying with the brand.

Early on, Outlaw had a "family discount" where an owner of one Outlaw product could get $50 off of another. (I did this when I bought my 750 based on having bought the 1050 previously, and then again on the 950.) As I recall, they replaced it with the package deals due to record-keeping concerns (it would have been more straightforward when they had a product line of two to five items total and a small base of existing customers). It might be cool to see something similar return...

wait

Keta, I'm not referring to the current products' discount, I'm talking about the future product's discount. I sent Outlaw my money when they were new and a real gamble in the marketplace. New, unknown, no financials to look at - they may have lasted a year and then us early adopters would have been left out in the cold. I really liked their business model and NON condescending attitude towards their customers and potential customers, so I really do not understand why us early supporters are left out of the discount deal.

I know that Peter's post is a bit cryptic, Hank, but it suggests to me that we might see something on the horizon that would offer something to customers from back before the 990/970 generation. Could be good news...

SVS has a standing 5% discount for returning customers. Nice deal.

I'm right there with you Hank, I also bought the 950 and 770 early on. When my 950 went south I just went with the "other guy", partially because I was ticked at the lack of loyalty towards someone who had been a long time customer.

If Peter chooses to extend some consideration to owners of older Outlaw gear like me (... perhaps I should have phrased that "older owners of Outlaw gear" ) I will obviously accept it with thanks. However, I've gotten superb performance and satisfaction (not to mention great customer support) from my 950 and that alone will keep me returning to Outlaw.

In the meantime, any news on that 997 release date? Huh? Huh?

Hey guys, just curious if the 997 will accept a 7.1 LPCM stream from my HTPC (ATI 4670)? I hope in the future all of the kinks will be worked out for computers to bitstream the HD codecs, but that might never happen either! I assume it will, but I figure I should ask, just to be safe.

As I understand it, the 997 will accept multichannel LPCM (including 7.1) as well as bitstreams of the new formats via HDMI.

Thanks Gonk. I figured it would, but I thought I better ask. I am looking forward to the 997. I loved my 950; but bought the 970, which is good, but not great. I am hopeful the 997 will be great!

Hi Gonk,

Will there still be a 990 style Bypass mode for those of us who have invested in high end CD transports and DAC processors?

I currently enjoy all the benefits of the 7.1 surround for HT as well as using the 990 in Bypass for Stereo listening. This is a great feature.

The 950 owners have been heard and recognized!

• Original owners of our "First Generation" products, the Model 1050 receiver and the Model 950 processor, will receive a $100 discount** on the purchase of a Model 997. Even though these products are long out of production, we want to show our appreciation for those who have been a part of the Outlaw family from the beginning.

The 950 owners have been heard and recognized!

• Original owners of our "First Generation" products, the Model 1050 receiver and the Model 950 processor, will receive a $100 discount** on the purchase of a Model 997. Even though these products are long out of production, we want to show our appreciation for those who have been a part of the Outlaw family from the beginning.

Thanks, Peter.

OK, I might consider the 997 in spite of its omission of a phono preamp (and for the skeptics I ask only that they LISTEN ATTENTIVELY to good recordings in both CD and LP versions - try Sheffield - played back on equipment in the $500 range; I have nothing to say to the sneerers and vice versa) as long as it offers biamp capability, as I understand the Sherwood receiver does. Does it?

this $200 might be my incentive to throw down on the 997.

+1

Yes! The original prepro owners have not been forgotten. As good as the 990 is, I never felt the need to upgrade from my 950, but looks like the 997 will meet my needs.

I LOVE my 990, but I bought it only because I ran out of patience waiting for it's replacement (I wanted HDMI's--and more of them). I have an old Technics turntable that I still use and I deeply appreciate the phono input that the 990 provides, since the processing power of the 990 with those 5 2200's and my Maggies makes my albums sound better than I ever remember 'back in the day'. I have to admit that I am going to struggle with the 997's lack of a phono input, and it just might be a dealbreaker for me.

But what I really want to address in this post is the attitude that 'I won't pay for what I don't use'. I find that argument trite, self-centered and shallow. All along my audio journey that began in my early teens back in the 70's, every piece of equipment that I have purchased has had features that I didn't or couldn't use (i.e. what do I need an AUX for?). I don't remember the thought ever crossing my mind that I 'paid for' this or that when I shouldn't have had to.

Part of the issue here is just how many different features are getting packed into a surround receiver today. We're not only talking about having more stereo analog inputs than one person might need (like that AUX input when the TAPE and PHONO took care of your input needs just fine), we're talking about so much more. Manufacturers have to decide where they put their money (and thus their product costs), and the list is really kind of staggering.

You "need" HDMI v1.3, so you need an audio DSP section that will process and when necessary decode a plethora of formats (PCM stereo, PCM multichannel, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, DTS-ES, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD High Resolution, DTS HD Master Audio, and maybe even SACD DSD). You also need matrix processing modes (DTS NEO:6, Dolby Pro Logic II/IIx, maybe some weird "DSP" modes like Jazz or Stadium, 5 Stereo, 7 Stereo). We also "need" room correction, so that DSP needs to be able to offer something similar to Audyssey or Trinnov - or at a minimum, something like Cirrus's in-house room EQ (sometimes called SNAP and sometimes re-branded by a specific manufacturer). We also need robust bass management, channel trim, distances adjustments, and an audio buffer for audio/video sync. That's just the audio DSP section. Now we need to allow for analog bypass of that audio DSP section, out of respect for the trusty turntable as well as other sources that are natively analog or are using a really good DAC. To feed in signals, you need to include several HDMI inputs, some coaxial and optical inputs, some stereo analog inputs, and a 7.1 analog input (although I can see a time in the not too distant future when the 7.1 analog starts to fade away).

We also have a video section. We need those same HDMI inputs already mentioned, but we also need some component video and some legacy composite and s-video inputs. Many of us would like to have the ability to keep things simple by having all of our disparate video sources lumped together into a single output, which means transcoding composite and s-video to component and converting those analog signals to digital for the HDMI output. (Of course, some folks want to bypass video switching in the processor, so they actually have no interest in this.) We also want on-screen setup menus to help us with this steadily more complex hub of audio and video data, so that's got to get worked in. We would also like to see a good video processor to help those standard definition video sources look less "low res" on our high definition TV's.

Since this monstrosity has become the center of everything, we may also want it to be able to control everything - which means a universal remote control, something that can be as simple or as complex as you decide to make it. We may also want to have it pipe audio and video to other rooms in the house, which means a second zone with its own controls. Of course, we may already have a really good universal remote and we may not want to fish wires all over the house, in which case both of those features cease to matter to us.

I guess my point is that you are exactly right that the notion of "I won't pay for what I don't use" is impractical - no product will ever offer exactly what someone needs and no more, because the permutations just listed are too numerous, complex, and variable. Instead it's a balancing act, and we and the manufacturers we shop with have to juggle feature lists as best as we can.

Wow! that was quick, gonk. You are exactly right--what we ask of a pre/pro in this day and age is nothing short of herculean. And people like the Outlaws have countless hard decisions to make in design and pre-production. And for my money they mostly make the right ones. But that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed when one of those decisions affects a feature that some people (like me) take for granted.

I have been around the "surround-sound" stuff for what seems like forever (I actually have an old SAE analog time delay from around 1980). The evolution of this expansion of stereo and it's integration with video and television and then computers is fascinating for me. And maybe the biggest struggle for me when considering the 997 isn't that I might have to buy an outboard pre/preamp, but that the absence of a phono input really marks the end of an era and the death of the 'Glory Days' for me and many of my generation that actually LIVED the Maxell magazine ad photo (you know the one).

I want to retract my use of the word "dealbreaker" since it was far too strong a word to describe what I was really thinking. That doesn't mean I'm not going to struggle.

While I understand the need for a variety of inputs that I may not use I question why there are so many of certain input types. For example, why does the 990 have five composite, S-video and their corresponding analog audio inputs? These inputs take up a lot of valuable real estate on the increasingly crowded back of receivers and pre/pros. It would be interesting to get an idea from the Saloon members on how many of these legacy inputs they really use. My guess is that a few folks use a lot of them but most use two or less. I use one set of analog audio inputs from my OPPO 980H.

Given the resurgence in vinyl I don't consider phono a legacy input. My HT is really my family room where I listen to a great deal of music and I've toyed with the idea of getting a turntable to play some of my old (and well worn!) records and the 990 affords me that option. Yes, there are options with a separate DAC but its too bad the 997 won't have a phono input. I hope phono wasn't eliminated in order to have a half dozen composite/S-video inputs on the 997.

I doubt that phono was dropped as a space issue - I suspect it's more of a cost issue.
The Model 990 is based on a platform that is now more than four years old (maybe closer to five years, actually) - it was probably more appropriate to have that many of these inputs at the time the platform was designed. Looking at this page , I don't think we're going to see as many "entry level" analog inputs. I'm going to call it four analog AV inputs and two analog audio inputs. Those likely serve two purposes: legacy support (for the VCR's, LD players, game consoles, SMS-1's, and the like) and "defining" inputs. Historically, we've grafted coaxial, optical, component, and DVI/HDMI inputs on to the basic inputs that were initially identified with each of those legacy "entry level" connections. And before we get too upset about the "high" number of these inputs, let me toss out this thought: those four AV and two audio inputs are not enough by themselves to let us fully use the array of other inputs that surround them. Sure, the multichannel analog input is probably a separate entity, but that still leaves half a dozen coaxial and optical inputs (or one for each "entry level" input), three component inputs (almost one per "entry level" input), and four HDMI inputs. For that array of "upper tier" inputs to be reasonably useful in a large system, we are likely to need at least a couple inputs that are independent from any analog stereo connections. If they do something like that, it would be a first significant step down the road toward limiting those legacy inputs to a couple connections over in a corner. It is not something that has really started to catch on yet - I was looking at the rear panel diagram for an Onkyo 885 processor recently, and there are analog stereo for each input plus composite and s-video for each video input.

Another thing to think about in this equation: the second zone, which is typically an analog pre-amp with rudimentary video switching - for that to work, you need to either include some of the old connections or you need to figure out a way to have a parallel DSP section and extra DAC that can steer all those digital audio and video signals to the second zone.

I agree the 990's age is a good reason it has so many composite/S-video and corresponding stereo inputs but as you noted the Onkyo continues the tradition of including so many legacy inputs. A quick check of Anthem's AVM-40/50 shows it does the same. I guess these connections are pretty cheap in comparison to the phono components. No doubt we will need a certain number of these inputs/outputs if nothing else for convenience (e.g. composite out for an auxiliary screen for those that have projectors) but I think it is time to start paring them down. If nothing else fewer connections might allow designer/manufactures to spread the connections out and make it easier to plug and unplug cables! Tight connectors in tight spaces make for colorful language at times. The current method of handling extra zones seems to be the most cost effective way; no need for the extra DSP section.

If you want to discuss useless ports, let's talk about balanced outputs. In a home audio system, these perform no purpose whatsoever; but manufacturers like Outlaw now are compelled to put them on because some marketing genius (at some competitive company a few years ago) decided it was a great selling point and forever thereafter the uninformed audio fanboys insist on having them. If you don't have balanced outputs, you must not have a very good product, huh? Yeah. Right.

Do I express myself too vehemently? Well, I feel vehemently about this ridiculous waste of money, resources, and backplate real estate.

I vehemently agree! btw, will the 997 ONLY have balanced outputs?

Nope - it will have the standard RCA's as well.

Thanks Gonk. I had assumed (or read) it had both, but all of a sudden I....lost my mind.

That's OK - it didn't get far before we caught it...

As one of the early contributors to this discussion about that the 997 should have that it doesn't / has that it shouldn't, I will ask one question about phono inputs: Can well-reproduced CDs surpass, or even completely equal, well-reproduced LPs? I'm referring only to audio quality and realize cost is a decisive factor as always, so let's put in a cost ceiling of $1000 for turntable, arm, cartridge, and preamp on the LP side vs. player and DAC on the CD side. The fact that the platform the 997 is based on has abandoned phono reproduction implies to me that musical quality is no longer very high in manufacturers' priority lists, and that deeply saddens me.

Typo correction: "this discussion about WHAT the 997 should have", not "THAT it should have".
Re the rest, I guess I should face the fact that HT, in the last analysis, isn't about music. Too bad, all around.

Typo correction: "this discussion about WHAT the 997 should have", not "THAT it should have".
Re the rest, I guess I should face the fact that HT, in the last analysis, isn't about music. Too bad, all around.

I think that's a question that can't be definitively answered. It can be answered, but any answer will be debated without resolution.

I still see more than one way to interpret the omission of a phono section. One is that they don't care about high performance two-channel audio quality. Another is that they recognize that the quality of phono section that could be included in a product of this type would not offer the sort of performance that a discerning ear and good vinyl setup would deserve, so they omitted it entirely rather than furnish something that was inherently limited.

I can think of two situations where balanced outputs would be a good idea: 1) when the amp and pre/pro are located in a noisy electrical environment and 2) when running self-powered speakers where the signal cable could encounter some electrical interference. As I understand it the balanced configuration defeats degradation of the signal in those cases. I imagine most folks don't have either of these situations and standard RCA/coax work just fine. However, I like the balanced outputs/cables just in case #1 above occurs and the XLR connectors on balanced cables are more robust.

AvFan:

(My intention here isn't to get into a conflict, but just to play devil's advocate. )

You raise two good points. However, those situations tend to be unusual and can be addressed in other ways. If pre/pro vendors think that phono preamp usage is rare enough that they can acceptably omit a phono input on their hardware (and, even though I'm a vinyl guy, I think this is a reasonable omission), then the two situations you describe should also fall into the "so rarely encountered we can ignore them" category.

Nonetheless, for purely marketing reasons (which the CE industry/fanbase has tacitly forced vendors into) we all have to pay extra for those seldom needed connectors.

I certainly agree the two examples I used are rare (even though I wanted some self powered M&Ks at one time) and your analogy is good. No conflict at all. The benefits of balanced vs unbalanced debate has consumed a lot of energy and I don't want to heat up that discussion. I can see the marketing angle for a particularly feature but I wonder what came first; the consumers buying products with balanced outputs and the manufacturers responding or the manufacturers pushing them?

An executive in the industry once indicated to me that manufacturers/marketing came first.

In its way, it was a clever strategy for distinguishing a product in a crowded marketplace, but we're now all paying for it. Pointlessly, IMO; gratefully, in the opinions of others.

Hey, glad to see this discussion back on a civil, interesting track. Gonk, I need to play devil's advocate here so please indulge me. If the omission of the phono section was a quality decision, what on earth are composite video inputs doing on the back of this thing? Is there a lower-quality way to watch video? Anyone out there using these for anything other than maybe a mini-monitor for 990 menu viewing? Would have gladly had the cost of those yellow relics funneled into a decent phono stage, but I guess we could go around and around on this (kind of like a nice slab of vinyl...;-) forever...

Composite video is a different issue than phono preamp. The phono preamp is a question of audio quality, while the composite video input is a question of compatibility and legacy support. There is no way you could connect a VCR or other video source (like my SMS-1) through a processor without a composite input - there's no outboard "transcoding box" that will make it component video. If you remove it entirely then you are telling your customers "I don't care if you want to hang on to that VCR, old game console, camcorder, Video iPod, or the SMS-1 that we sold you - you can't use it with our processor." That's a touch rude...

Here's a loosely related question: "why do Blu-ray players typically have composite outputs?" (After all, who on Earth is going to buy a Blu-ray player and hook it up to any display that only has a composite video input!?!?) The answer I've gotten is that leaving a composite output helps in troubleshooting customer setups by eliminating resolution compatibility and other issues.

Gonk: Aside from what you correctly suggest, some people may use the composite output to feed a multiroom system. So far, those are mostly analog only.

OK, I'll jump in...Regarding the xlr outputs: the back of my rack is a maze of wires (isn't your?), where ac power cords from the many components cross path, this is never good. I try to avoid it, but I can't always. My amps are in a nook behind the tv, and again, inputs are too close to ac lines, and plasma noise. Balanced lines are a huge plus! Even on a .5 meter run to my xover, the sound was better "fuller" with "fatter midrange" when I switched to xlr! Regarding the phono input, I have plans to set up a nice turntable. BUT, there are many grades of phono preamps, and I want something either class A or tubes or both. Some want a lower cost unit, just for old Christmas albums or george carlin, or whatever...The point is, now you can take your pick, phono pres at the low end could be had for a "song", and for guys like me and my maggies, I won't be sick of spending for the included pre. It would make me wonder what they left out in favor of it! Also, keep in mind that the phono is a very low level device, as such it could pickup much internal noise from the 997, till it's boosted to higher unbalanced levels. It's best to do this in a seperate box, close to the actual turntable, no?

Yeah, it would seem to me to be kind of foolish to sell your flagship pre-pro without balanced outs when your flagship amps have balanced ins.

I've got a question: will the 997's tuner be able to pick up HD radio?

Don't know - I haven't seen any mention of HD radio for the 997 or its Sherwood sibling the R-972, but I haven't been seeking it out either so I could have overlooked it.

November....It seems like January is a long way off.
I was hoping to hear by now an affirmative launch date for the 997 as well as some reviews from the likes of Home Theater magazine and Sound and Vision.
At least the reviews by now.
How does Outlaw think the 997 will fair without any independent reviews before the sale date?
I read that Outlaw intends or hopes to release the 997 by the holidays but more likely after the holidays...January. Undoubtedly it seems that the idea of launching the sale date of the 997 without any reviews would be a hugh mistake.
The OUTLAWS do not make those kind of errors. I do not think that the 997 will be released prior to January and not until after January.

I am off today with one of my friends to look and listen to the Integra 9.9. He is ready to buy.
I am considering holding him hostage until Outlaw releases the goods.

Why would you see reviews before a release date? The reviews from sources like Home Theater or Sound and Vision will follow months after we have seen it ship to consumers. They have to have hardware before it can be reviewed. That's the way it always is - and has to be, unless you want them to design it, build it, stock it, and sit on it until a professional reviewer can use it, write a review on it, put it in the queue for publication, and it finally appear (which would take up to six or even nine months for a print review, and probably at least four months for an online review - if the reviewer made it their top priority, which they have no reason to).

My Model 950 and Model 990 reviews came pretty quickly after they launched (albeit not as quickly as my OPPO beta test reviews for obvious reasons), and I'm seriously considering a Model 997 purchase such that you might see a similar review from me shortly after launch. In fact, mine might even include a curious surprise (I'm not telling yet, and it's unrelated to anything Outlaw, but it's an idea that I think folks might like). The initial feedback is going to come from consumers - people who like the feature set, like the price point, and are willing to use the 30-day trial period to give it a try. Those consumers and forums like this one are the first source of useful feedback.

I think a January release is the earliest we might see something, but that's just me guessing - and I really suspect that it's likely late January or February. I could certainly be wrong, but Sherwood hasn't even got their R-972 in production yet and I have to think the Model 997 will need to follow behind it at least some.

Also, January sounds like it's a long way away, but I'm staring at a project that's in our office right now and due to go out in early January - and when I look at it, I feel like January is breathing down my neck!

Same here, January is just around the corner. New budget to prepare for, audit at the end of December, New Board coming in in February. Help I need more time!!!!

It would certainly be great to have it out for the holidays as it would make a nice gift. On the other hand, I want a fully functioning product rather than a half-baked product.

This has been a very interesting discussion and I accept (with some regret) Gonk's point that the omission of a phono preamp by the makers of the Sherwood-Outlaw platform may have been realistic recognition of the limits of available quality at this price point. But my October 29 message ended with a question: Will the 997 have biamp output capability, as I understand the forthcoming Sherwood receiver does? No one has addressed this. Since it would require an on-board line-level crossover with adjustable high- and low-pass filters and level settings, I imagine the answer is no. You could put in a pretty good phono preamp circuit for the same cost and it would probably appeal to more users.
But still it would be nice if someone told us. Hello?

There are a lot of interesting questions that I would enjoy seeing answers to - the question of biamp output capability included, although as you say I suspect that the answer is "no" (even if you could include the controls needed to implement active biamping, the potential for people to mis-use it is worrisome). Alas, Outlaw is likely keeping quiet until they can offer more complete answers. That leaves us with the fun of theorizing in a vacuum, which I happen to have been practicing quite a bit for a couple months now ...

On the balanced-outputs points, I would think it would cost a lot less to throw those in than to include a quality phono preamp. And I use one single balanced output today - for my subwoofer (AvFan's #2 case of a "powered speaker").

I would think a lot of folks use a balanced connection for the subwoofer (or should) - in my case I have a rather long noisy run (I guess that is both cases #1 and #2)...and so there is a HUGE reduction in noise for me in that case, enough for that alone to a purchasing factor for me, even if I am "paying" for the others but not using them : ).

Add in more circumstances like blaineh's noisy environment and add in some now ~legitimate marketing hype of bobliinds original point and I would think the business case and the rear-panel-real-estate case to include balanced outputs is very clear. ("now legitimate" because they are trying to sell product after all, and there are some battles you just don't fight)

Re rear-panel-real-estate, a TPA of the same size as a receiver should have plenty of room for balanced outputs in place of speaker outputs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gonk:
[QB] Composite video is a different issue than phono preamp. The phono preamp is a question of audio quality, while the composite video input is a question of compatibility and legacy support. There is no way you could connect a VCR or other video source (like my SMS-1) through a processor without a composite input - there's no outboard "transcoding box" that will make it component video. If you remove it entirely then you are telling your customers "I don't care if you want to hang on to that VCR, old game console, camcorder, Video iPod, or the SMS-1 that we sold you - you can't use it with our processor." That's a touch rude...

Thanks Gonk, you are truly the voice of reason, but I can't resist prodding your logic just a bit, if for no other reason than I suspect you might actually enjoy the give and take. Isn't the absence of a phono input also saying "I don't care if you want to hang on to that turntable - you can't use it with our processor."? After all, one can easily go online and buy a composite to s-video (and vice-versa) converter cable for a heck of a lot cheaper than a decent phono stage, and that would solve that issue for VCR die-hards. Why the inconsistency?

I'll go along with this one. For one thing, I would think that we'd get rid of s-video before composite - simply because the number of devices with s-video that don't also have component video are pretty small. My S-VHS VCR from 1995 and my SMS-1 are the only two I have that fall in this category, and the SMS-1 would work equally well via composite as via s-video. There's also LaserDisc, of course, and some older game consoles (Dreamcast, for example). There's even a precedent - the pictures from CEDIA showed that OPPO's Blu-ray player will retain composite video but omit s-video. As a result, I figured that we'd see the s-video connections follow the composite video connections into oblivion (if they didn't get eliminated first), making the converters you mentioned not terribly useful.

Just to play with the "devil's advocate" perspective a bit more, here's another scenario. We still have analog audio inputs, since both the turntable and the VCR need it. We have to decide whether to drop a phono preamp or composite video inputs, but s-video inputs will stay no matter what (looking out for those LaserDisc players). If we include a phono preamp, it will not be as good a quality as a separate phono preamp, so the owner may still elect to put a standalone phono preamp in the system. The VCR is not S-VHS, so composite is the best we have. The surround processor can pipe composite video and s-video straight into the video processor, where it gets deinterlaced, converted to digital for HDMI output, and possibly scaled to an HD resolution. If we keep the composite input, it's a straight shot into the video processor (and thus the "best" picture quality possible). If we drop the composite input, we need to find an adapter that converts to s-video. Can we assume that a composite to s-video adapter provides transcoding without image degradation? Probably not, as this process is not simply changing plugs - s-video splits the picture out into two signals, and if that split is not handled right you may get visible artifacts. If we eliminate the phono preamp, the alternative will most likely be of better audio quality. If we eliminate the composite input, the alternative will most likely be of worse quality and could certainly not do more than equal the quality. One could argue that those video artifacts are not enough justification to retain the inputs, because nobody in their right mind should even be using composite in this day and age, but that gets back to the idea of whether a manufacturer is being rude to their customer base or not. (How's that for coming full circle! )

Oh Gonk, you have outdone me sir, just sign me up for a 997 and and the new "Outlaw Outboard Phono Stage" - I give up! If there is anyone out there seriously looking to "up-res" their non-SVHS VCR to "hi-def" resolution (they must own some pretty pristine vhs cassettes, I would imagine) then I say, set aside a corner of the 997 rear, label it "weirder than turntable owners section" and let them have at it!