Your specific complaint was that they were compromising the design of the amp section, and I agreed with that. Good amp manufacturers do not borrow from receiver amp designs to build power amps, though, so that doesn't hurt processor designs. Specific examples can be found in the pictures in my sig. You can see what the insides of several Outlaw amps look like. They share no design lineage with receivers.

I still haven't heard an example of DSP section compromise, analog audio stage compromise, or video processing section compromise associated with receiver design. Those are the areas that may in some cases end up in processors. For that matter, what happens in lower-model receivers doesn't have any actual bearing on what happens in Outlaw's processors (particularly the Model 998, which is reported to be a new ground-up design by Outlaw and their new manufacturing partner). I'll get into that in a moment.


Re-using design components does happen, certainly. Companies like Onkyo and Denon will develop a platform and then implement minor tweaks several times to produce subsequent model years. That's a necessary part of the process when your product life-cycle is a year or less. Even there, though, a lot has to be replaced entirely every few years to keep up with changes in technology. New video processing, audio processing, room correction, and other key pieces of the puzzle require building new board designs from scratch and developing entirely new code. This process is complex and time-consuming, and it requires a lot of work to get stable and reliable operation. Products like Sherwood's R-972 and Emotiva's UMC-1 are proof of this. It's worth noting that both of those products were newly developed from the ground up. The R-972 retained the dimensions of its predecessor and some front panel design cues, but the guts probably retain no more than 1% or 2% of the R-965's hardware. Likewise, the UMC-1 retained nothing from the LMC-1 that preceded it. Both products experienced multi-year delays and were still launched prematurely. In contrast, the Onkyo Pro PR-SC886 retained most of the 885's hardware and had some firmware refinements - and I think it benefited from that. (Of course, it only worked because there was no need to integrate any really radical changes - they had a year to learn from the 885 and make improvements, but they didn't really do anything terribly different with the hardware.) These specific examples don't support the idea that re-use is detrimental or even as prevalent as you suggest.

The idea that there is large-scale component re-use also doesn't necessarily apply at all well to companies like Outlaw. Unlike companies like Onkyo and Denon, with their once-a-year new product releases, Outlaw will develop a processor and keep it on the market for several years. By the time it is replaced, changes in the industry have been significant enough that there is very little that can be re-used. Newer DSP chips are available that do more and cost less, and when you design for the new chips you have to build new DSP boards from scratch and develop all new code. Newer video processing options are available that do more and cost less, and again you have to build new boards and write new firmware to implement them. Changes in the industry (and in the DSP sections) mean that the input requirements have evolved, so you need to design brand new input boards to support the new mix of audio and video inputs. Maybe you could re-use a good analog audio section? Again, you may now be able to get newer and better DAC's, thus triggering a new board design. You may need a new board design anyway since everything around it is new. What's left? The physical chassis, the power supply, and maybe some secondary parts like radio tuner, headphone amp, and phono pre-amp. Even there, you're probably going to be better off taking a fresh look at all of that. As a result, each new product retains precious little physical relationship to its predecessor. The notion that Outlaw is plucking the guts out of a cheap receiver and building a processor around them isn't supported by the facts. On the contrary, this thread has value to Outlaw because they have stated that they are going back to the design approach they used on the Model 1050, Model 950, RR2150, and Model 1070/970 - which means they are starting with a blank piece of paper and building from there. If they were going to build the Model 998 by taking something off the shelf and slapping a new faceplate on it, our input would have no value because it would be too late.


I have a hard time believing that most people want ten sets of composite video inputs or a dozen 12V trigger outputs on a surround processor in 2010. I've been helping people figure out how to set up their home theaters, discussing things we like and dislike about different products, and otherwise floating around debates such as this one for quite a while now. I've heard a lot of ideas batted about. A few of the ideas you've suggested have turned up at a more modest scale (6 HDMI inputs rather than 10, 2 HDMI outputs rather than 3, a 4-port network switch rather than 16). There are a lot that I simply haven't ever seen voiced before now, on any forum. Many folks never use the IR ports, and those of us who do have never wanted more than one or two inputs and maybe an output or two. I've never heard anyone ask for 10 IR outputs, and still don't see a reason for a manufacturer to include that many. (That's not to say I don't see a way in which it could be used. I have an IR distribution system with a six-port distribution block and another four ports on an RF receiver. Those ten ports feed a mix of signal cables and IR flashers that distribute IR remote commands to every component in my equipment rack. If I had a processor with an IR distribution block built in to it, I could replace that distribution block and just connect the RF receiver to the processor. If I ever replaced the processor, though, I'd have to re-build that IR distribution system. I don't have any interest in merging that function into my processor.) Lots of us use 12V triggers, but I've never seen people asking for 10 of them. Most folks are content with just one, while a few may like to have two. Many folks never use the second zone, and those that do have always been comfortable with it being a stereo output, with some interest at times in a subwoofer output. Nobody has ever complained that it wasn't multichannel. (Besides, as previously noted, implementing that would be hugely impractical if you wanted the second zone to be anything other than a mis-calibrated mess.) As I've explained, there are very real reasons why these ideas aren't practical for a product like the Model 998.


Why does it matter what power rating the amps have? We aren't powering them with this 12V signal. We aren't delivering the audio signal from this 12V signal. All we're doing is saying "if you see some current over this connection, turn yourself on." If the designer planned for the daisy-chaining and you don't make any one chain so long that you exceed the designer's planned chain length, there is no harm in doing so.

The Model 990 had two trigger outputs. If one trigger was daisy-chained through three monoblocks and the other through four monoblocks, you would be fine. Those two trigger chains match with the design of the trigger controls on the Model 200 and Model 2200. Or, if you don't like that, there are other solutions. Use the signal-sensing mode on all seven amps and don't bother with a trigger. Or use one trigger to control switched outlets on a power conditioner and control all of your amps that way. (By the way, this means the amps can't draw any power when off - which is the ideal solution for your goal of minimizing stand-by power consumption. it's also the way I have my system set up, with my five-channel amp, two monoblocks, and my powered sub all powered on and off based on a single 12V trigger to my power conditioner.)


I'm all for giving folks options. I just described three separate options that can work very nicely with a monoblock-based system and no more than two 12V trigger outputs. But those options must be balanced with the overall design intent of the product and some practical limits.