950 beta testers, confirm my bass mgmnt setup (1 Viewer)

[Bob_L]

If the current description of the 950 bass management is accurate, that is, if the 5.1 analog input ALWAYS sums the five channels along with the .1 input to produce the .1 output, then I would assume the Outlaw 950 is not compatible with Outlaw's own ICBM.

Anything you would do by way of bass management in the ICBM would be destroyed as soon as you connected it to the Outlaw 950 and it created its own summed subwoofer output.

ASSUMING THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION IS ACCURATE AND I'M NOT MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING, it looks like somebody goofed BIG TIME here, guys.

However, I always remain skeptical because of the vast opportunity for miscommunication on forums despite the best intentions and serious efforts on the part of the contributors.

 

[brian a]

Agreed. I'm actually thinking that this is a misunderstanding as well. That's why I'm hoping a few other folks with these units will chime in and clear this up. it shouldn't be hard to test at all. Just hook a CD player up to the LR of the 5.1s and see if the sub is active with the switch in both positions. That should do it, right?

 

[Will]

I think it's about time for the outlaws to put up a FAQ on the bass management of the 950. i was also thinking that since they put the composite to s-vid back in based on user demand (I assume) that maybe they will address this issue while they have the chance before shipping. Maybe that's part of the delay?

I was wondering about that too. I was also wondering if they might address the complaints people have been voicing for awhile about how the 950 does time alignment (the four surrounds channels are time aligned the same currently), since the Cirrus Logic algorithms are being updated as I understand it now, anyway.

 

[brian a]

Bump..

Anyone with a 950 out there? Has Outlaw asked people not to talk about this or do you guys just not have the time to try it out?

 

[Dzung Pham]

I have a feeling that RAF and merc have found this problem and are trying to verify what is going on with Outlaw before they respond. It has been verified by at least one member on the Outlaw forum though and I really can't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a mistake on the part of Eastech/Outlaw. Hopefully, our representatives will lobby to get this fixed asap.

 

[Will]

Dzung,
You might be right. If so maybe we'll hear soon from our representatives on how their lobbying efforts on our behalf have panned out. Ditto perhaps for time alignment on the surround speakers issues, universal volume settings, and other issues mentioned as concerns in the past, to our lobbyists.

 

[brian a]

I'd agree with that, but it's clear from past posts that Merc, at least, isn't seeing this behavior. I was hoping he could come in a say that the info posted on the Outlaw forum is wrong.

 

[Patrick R. Sklenar]

Brian et al,
I exchanged a couple of emails with John the other day and he mentioned being buried (by something unrelated to the 950) right now. I'm sure he'll speak up when he has a chance to get to a computer. I just don't know when that might be. And since I don't have a 950, I can't test and report on these issues for you. Sorry. If you want to call Outlaw and ask them to send me a unit so I can do so, please - be my guest!

 

[John Morris]

and he mentioned being buried (by something unrelated to the 950) right now.

Hi Pat: Actually I'm burried in 950s right now. As many of you know from RAF's posts, there are some very last minute, make that very last second, changes that may, or may not take place depending on a whole bunch of issues, not the least of which is getting the 950 out the door, ASAP. I'll report back, with all I know, as soon as the final unit is set. One thing is for sure... as good as I thought the first beta unit sounded, these last two have sounded even better. The difficulty with this is trying to hit a moving (Cirrus)target and trying to decide when to stop upgrading the initial 950 units and just ship them. Stay tuned...

 

[brian a]

I vote test the changes that have been made and ship them. Don't make 'very last second' changes and ship them without adaquate testing. I'd bet that it was that type of decision that got us where we are in the first place.

At some point in time holding production and fixing the issues that came up was replaced with making a bunch of new changes to the 950 before shipping it out. That seems to go against everythink that they've said about taking the time to get it right.

If they are still deciding on changes to make, I think they should burn the units in for at least a week after that decision is made to minimize the possibility of another bug showing up in the field.

In short, more testing; less changes.

 

[Dzung Pham]

From what I've read so far (see Turbo's post on this Outlaw thread), it looks like something like the Sony TA-P9000ES will be mandatory for many users of the 950. The only way it would not be required is if you only have one device that requires analog bypass AND you don't mind using the 80Hz bass management crossover. If you want a full range stereo signal sent to your speakers, you will have to trim down the subwoofer signal each time.
Full range multichannel bypass frankly does not seem to be implemented correctly at all. Incredibly, users of Outlaw's own ICBM will also require something like the Sony TA-P9000ES because it seems impossible to disable bass summing on the 950. It's strange because it seems like it would have been easier from a design and production standpoint to NOT have used the bass summing circuit in bypass modes, especially when they had a product that would have been quite complementary to a true multichannel bypass.
On the brighter side of things, the 950+Sony still puts you at less than the retail price of the 950's closest competitor, the Rotel RSP-1066.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Sorry, I have been reading all the bass management 5.1 posts and think I have this right, but I still have to ask:
If I want to use the 5.1 analog input, with the 80 Hz analog crossover, I'm OK, right?
And if I don't need to use straight analog 2 channel bypass mode too, I'm OK?
TIA!

 

[Dzung Pham]

Kevin, based on the info that's available, you should be good to go. The BM problems crop up for people who do not want the crossover and want to use the full range signal.

 

[brian a]

That's right. 5.1 analog with an 80Hz crossover seems to work as expected.

 

[Serge Breton]

i have not been following this thread nor the bass management thread found over in the Outlaw forum until today.

From what i gather so far, the analog bypass is simply not a TRUE analog bypass. There should only be the volume control in the signal chain; that's it. To be an analog bypass, there should be no processing involved whatsoever. This better not be the case since one of the reasons why i'm purchasing this processor is due to the praise the beta testers have given this unit in analog bypass mode. A problem like this i would imagine would or should have been seen during the beta test. Sure the 950 sounds good which is the most important thing but all the features like the Triple crossover, etc don't mean squat if the processor is not doing OPERATIONS PROPERLY to begin with. Regarding "Double bass" or best described as the inability to turn a subwoofer on or off is a basic and essential bass managment option that i would expect to see in the 950 and even in todays cheap receivers. The speaker level settings is a minor issue, this one is something major. Tell me this isen't true please.

 

[John Corkery]

Well, I just read this thread at the Outlaw Saloon:
http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000258.html
So, it seems that these analog bypass bass management issues are, in fact, true. It also seems that they aren't going to be fixed, but to make up for them Outlaw is going to integrate their ICBM's features into the 950--although I don't really know how this last minute bonus would make any difference to those who are concerned about the analog bypass issue.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the complexity involved here, but wouldn't it have been completely logical to only send a signal to the sub when speakers are set to small and have no signal sent (except for LFE on 5.1 recordings) when speakers are set to large? Are there many people out there who would set their speakers to large and still want a lowpass filtered signal sent to their subwoofer?

 

[Will]

Outlaw is going to integrate their ICBM's features into the 950

Is this true? What ICBM features will be in the 950 that weren't in the 950 previously? The analog crossover is still fixed at 80 Hz, isn't it?

 

[Jon_Koc]

Actually,
Outlaw is not "adding" anything. The poster , not an Outlaw rep, insinuated the included features were a form of the ICBM. Although he may be right, it is no where near as detailed as a full ICBM which can no longer be used between a SACD and this unit. Assuming of course all this is true.
I honestly expect to recieve some type of email late this afternoon. Thats about the same time the sent out the last one. Hopefully they will clarify all this at that time.
I SOOO need a little info to brighten my weekend up.:star:

 

[John Corkery]

The poster claimed that "everything you do on the ICBM you can now do in the 950." He also claimed that he spent two hours on the phone with "Peter" who apparently developed the ICBM. It would seem pretty irresponsible of him to post false information on Outlaw's own site...

(I'm referring to the post by "JJ" which is currently the second to last post on that page. The post that follows it is by Scott, the forum's administrator. If the information that JJ posted was way off the mark, wouldn't Scott have deleted it or provided more accurate info?)

 

[brian a]

But nothing has changed. They are just clarifying the way it works. Scott even links back to his posts on the first page of the thread. It still works that way. I think it was well put by one of the outlaw forum members, it's like having an ICBM with all the knobs stuck in one position.