I'm afraid I don't understand the objection you have to processor design, then. You suggested that specific components have been squeezed to save space, compromising quality. The only example of such design compromise you have identified is the power amp section in surround receivers.


Not sure what you mean here.


There will never be an "end-all, be-all" surround processor. If I assume that Outlaw will build such a product - at any price point - I am going to end up disappointed. These products are too complex and the industry too quick to change. Plus, there is variation in what people need. The ideal product for one of my co-workers would be inexpensive (probably under $500), easy to use, and offering a minimum of three or four inputs. My ideal will be a more powerful and robust product, with a higher price tag. My "dream" (beyond my budget's reach) would probably be something else again, although the differences between it and my ideal are generally subtle improvements.

My examples of previous products (Outlaw Model 1050, Model 950, Model 1070/970, and now the Model 998) were not changing the innards of some previous product. The associated boards were developed specifically for those products, based on feature sets that Outlaw defined. The firmware had to be developed specifically for those products, as well. They had to use some off-the-shelf chips, of course, but if you're going to object to somebody using an existing DSP chip, DAC chip, ADC chip, and video processing chip, you are going to be waiting a long time before buying a processor or any other consumer electronics product. They are not unique in this approach, either. The few instances that receiver and processor development intersect are usually with higher-end receivers, not the cheap ones.

When you talk about fitting things in, you seem to have been suggesting that the companies are crowding the components into smaller chassis and thus producing an inferior product. When we were talking about amp sections, I could understand that. If we're not talking about amp sections, I really don't understand what components are being crowded in that are giving us inferior products. It isn't the internal circuit boards, certainly, as I haven't seen a surround processor yet that was unreasonably cramped under the hood. Are you talking about rear panel connectivity?

If you have some specific surround processors in mind that were built from existing "base plates" that inherently limited their potential, I'd be interested in knowing what they are, but I still see no reason to condemn the entire industry's efforts to design good surround processors. Without some real world examples, I think suggestions that Outlaw is going to develop a deficient product are baseless.


I had to read the last sentence a few times to understand. You were theorizing that Outlaw was changing partners and using Sherwood to develop the Model 998, right?

First, Sherwood has built some good products, although they do have a consistent history of being late. The R-965 and P-965 were good-sounding units, even if their user interface wasn't very friendly and their bass management was basic. The Model 990 was based on that platform, but with some significant revisions (balanced outputs, DVI switching, completely re-written bass management, and a totally different user interface).

Second, the Model 997 was going to be based on the R-972, but Outlaw cancelled it because of Sherwood's problems with that product. It was those problems that led Outlaw to change manufacturing partners - from Sherwood to someone else.