Outlaw Audio (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

And even EastTech will outsource things too. Nonetheless I personally welcome approaches that provide good value and good service. Wait till digital amps mature a bit but then if they drop too much in price the Stereophile crew won't like it...sigh

 

[Robert Elliott]

Gee Mary,
Perhaps it is my advanced reading skills but your point seemed obvious; Outlaw provides R&D and Eastech provides production and lowers the cost to Outlaw in exchange for the right to OEM the product to other companies. The relationship has been well understood and established for at least two years. It is old news already.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I'm still not seeing what the argument is.

Outlaws does the R&D and design, and Eastech manufactures it for them.

Whenever a company outsources manufacturing, by definition, there has to be collaboration. Design rules, "integration" of Outlaw's ideas into actual software and hardware (and feedback back to the designers when there are unforeseen problems), meeting specs at the end of the line, etc.

I work for a semiconductor company. Some products we "fab" in-house. Some we outsource. All of the designs are ours.

 

[Peter_James]

I started this thread about Outlaw. This is the product that I am most interested in.....by a long shot!
But read the e-mail I got today from Scott at Outlaw.
__________________________________________________ _
Thanks for contacting the Outlaws!
At this time we do not have representation in Israel. Unfortunately, it is just not economically or logistically effective to sell direct to other parts of the world. Besides the added shipping, duties, and taxes you face, service and support are even more difficult. Thank you for understanding.
Best Regards,
Scott
__________________________________________________ ______
Bummer!!!! I am bummed. Looks like its off to to cheapo Onkyo receiver for me :frowning:
Anyway, I do understand their position...its not cost effective for them to be in every market at this point. I am still bummed though.
Maybe I should tell them that I will be their rep here
hehehe guess not.
Anyway, thanks to the Outlaw team for a quick response, now I will just have to turn my energy towards another product.
P.J.

 

[Chu Gai]

I'd imagine that over in Israel you might also have other choices that aren't present here in the States. By any chance, have you looked into that possibility?

 

[Philip Hamm]

Who cares about the semantics. All that matters to me is that I got me a real nice sounding pre/pro for under $900.

My guess (FWIW) is that Outlaw does about 5% (or probably less) of the R&D, and Eastech does the rest.

 

[randy bessinger]

This question is best answered by John Kotches as he is "in the industry so to speak" but anybody that knows is welcome. The question is how many engineers does Outlaw have and what is their composition (electrical etc.).

 

[Bill Polley]

I seem to remember reading an interview a few years back where Peter Tribeman said there where seven principal people in Outlaw Audio. The way it read I went away thinking that there were 7 top notch, established designer/engineers, each with decades of experience. That, however, comes from memory of an article written a while back. I was VERY interested in Outlaw when the 1050 first came out because Mr. Tribeman was also president of NAD in the 80's and founded Atlantic Technology in the late 80's. I have enjoyed several products from both of these companies. (and still use 6 of these products).

 

[randy bessinger]

There is no question that they have a long history "in the industry." I am sure they have a lot of knowledge and industry contacts but I am not sure that qualifies them as "engineers"-designers maybe. I think Kevin was not "seeing the arguement" and there may not be one, but this is what I see as the difference.

Is the Outlaw company essentially a group of very knowledgeable "sales and executive" types selling rebadged products at a discount as there amps and cables would suggest or are they an innovative design and engineering company selling their own designs as their 950 and bass control product would suggest? There is no question that they are a group of "industry insiders". They may be both of the above, but there seems to be a lot of debate on the latter with no real proof.

I don't think that Peter invented Dolby surround but I could be wrong. I know dolby noise reduction was invented by Ray Dolby (and I believe his team invented surround) and I know Jim Fosgate developed Dobly Pro Logic 2 (analog-then converted to digital by someone else). Of course Ray or Jim could be an "Outlaw".

 

[Peter_James]

I'd imagine that over in Israel you might also have other choices that aren't present here in the States. By any chance, have you looked into that possibility?
__________________________________________________ ____

Well, actually there are very few choices here that are not DOUBLE the price of what you can find in the states. Krell, Rotel etc. That is why I was looking to Outlaw.

The search continues.......

P.J.

 

[Mary M S]

AntonS: Mary, what's your point? That Outlaw did not design the 1050 nor 950? Well, then you made it.

Let me reword the point that I may have mangled in too obtuse a manner for readers. The point that Outlaw conceptualizes and design implements their own products.
Maybe I perceive the chain which runs from concept to product differently from those that seem to feel you have to own the factory that builds it. Though perhaps one of the worse case examples of efficiency of dollars, - Did subcontractors spend a lot of time jockeying for NASA’s budget dollars to collaborate on initial production and design (according to NASA’s parameters) of a space shuttle. Since NASA doesn’t build the entire shuttle in a factory staffed by NASA next to the launch pad, I guess they just shopped around for any ole shuttle off the shelf to paste the NASA logo on? Do you really think the capability to conceptualize, design, implement a final product is not engineering (conceptually) if you have to collaborate with the subcontracted ‘factory’ engineers where in part or totality the hardware/software is produced? Although the Rockwall, Lockheed Martin, Thiokol Propulsion engineering teams would probably rather be left to their own devices than overseen by NASA engineers, I doubt they are. Since Outlaw can use the benefits of hiring production without the inherent bloat of politics, special interests, and management heavy redundancy, they can use this method quite successfully.

I feel Outlaws prices to me (the consumer) reflect their successful implementation of outsourcing manufacture the “one thing’ as you call it.
I don’t feel at all lonely in my ‘impression’ that Outlaw is an innovative Co. with their own designs and products separate from the masses. I see that some hold a similar opinion of Outlaw.

BEGIN QUOTES:

“Have you ever asked for directions while on vacation and gotten this response from the guy at the gas station, "Oh no buddy, you can’t get there from here, no doubt about it." You just want to say, "But you can get anywhere from here; it just may not be easy!" That’s how the early adopters of both DVD-Audio and multi-channel SACD felt when they were told by the industry that "You have this wonderful new format to enjoy music with, but we have engineered in some functional inadequacies that will yield the actual implementation in your system an impossibility." Or in other words, "You can’t get there from here."

Maybe we need a new map

The folks at Outlaw Audio saw this coming. It was one of those prophetic announcements that foretold of a problem many did not know existed and with the same fell swoop gave us a solution. Being an early adopter of multichannel music, I simply could not wait. Talk about the right product at the right time.”
December 2001
Soundstage: Reviewers Choice Award
Jeff Fritz
-------------
“A look at Outlaw Audio's web site makes it appear that the company's avowed specialty is audiophile quality at mass-market prices. If the ICBM-1 bass management system is anything to go by, they’re good at it…. am afraid that Outlaw can beg for this component -- it ain’t going back. If you, like me, have one or more hi-res audio players, and if they have either no or only vestigial bass management when playing back DVD-A or SACD material, then you need this box. It will also serve you well if you have a separate preamp and multi-channel power amp, as it can go between the two and sort out your bass management worries.”
Richard Elen Aug 2002. Audio Reveloution
--------------
“I'm fixing a hole where the rain gets in, and stops my mind from wandering.
Enter the people from Outlaw Audio and their cleverly named ICBM-1. The Integrated Controlled Bass Management device is designed to fill one of the holes that is missing for first generation and second generation DVD-Audio players, namely bass management. If your multi-channel DVD-A or SACD player has no bass management capability, or you find the options not palatable or compatible with your system, the ICBM-1 is designed to help you out. ….The ICBM-1 hits the target dead on and is well worth the asking price in even relatively modest systems. Outlaw is not getting this sample back, so I'm mailing them a check. As I add other multi-channel sources, they will get checks for additional ICBMs.”
John Kotches, Editor PC/Home Theater
---------------
“Summary:
The ICBM-unlike any other product I know of on the market. My unit is the "Magnepan edition" and is used in a Magnepan home theater system”
Audio Review individual consumers ratings: Reviewed by : Doug, Audiophile.

END QUOTES

If Outlaw just shops platforms and sticks their badge on it. What about the ICBM? Do you see any others on the market? Its won awards from Sterophile GTHT. S&V etc. and is considered reference standard for Bass management in the Industry. I really don’t think a generic base management unit was sitting on a shelf in some OEM factory gathering dust and only Outlaw thought to purchase and stick a badge on it. I seem to remember in 2001 on the Outlaw forum seeing Outlaw post in newsletters that the design and concept of the ICBM was a direct response to Outlaw noticing consumers grips concerning the lack of bass management in SACD and DVD-A. They saw a need and conceived and launched a product to address this oversight in players and decoders. I don’t believe they ‘shopped it off a shelf’, - they invented the idea. Seems pretty design or engineering oriented to me for a company.
The ICBM is solely Outlaws and gained them respect as a company who could produce and originate a product no other company had conceived of. Is the respect in the industry for the ICBM lessened or Outlaws design initiative ability in question because it’s built (out-source) in a factory they don’t own?

Again professional reviewers seem to acknowledge credit where credit is due. And didn't the ICBM win an 'inovative' award. To a company that thought of something no one else had. (I just don’t get the impression that Outlaw’s out shopping factories in the A/V equivalent of prefab units to stick their logo on).


I have to speak to Outlaw about a shipment; I’ll ask some of the questions that popped up in this thread if opportunity arises.

 

[Bill Polley]

From the Atlantic Technology website:

1975 - Atlantic's Peter Tribeman founded Audio Pulse, leading the company's design team to develop the world's first consumer oriented digital time delay system. The Audio Pulse Model One was one of the very first attempts at delivering realistic multi-channel sound to audio aficionados at home.


1982 - Led a consortium including Dolby Labs and Lucasfilm to assemble and publicly demonstrate the first Home Theater System utilizing the Dolby Surround matrix. This included a hand-built "black box" that would later become known as the Dolby MP (motion picture) matrix decoder. This decoder evolved into the first generation home Dolby Surround decoder. Lucasfilm provided a 20 minute Dolby A encoded 1" master video tape of selected action sequences from The Empire Strikes Back for this presentation. An identical tape was later submitted to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for an Oscar nomination for best soundtrack - which it won.


I also found a U.S. Patent with his and 3 other names on it for an "audio system which achieves a concert hall reverberation effect from a stereo input signal. From two stereo input signals the audio system produces quadraphonic signals suitable for application to four speakers in the pattern of a quadraphonic sound reproduction system. The system applies the stereo input signals to a front pair of speakers substantially without alteration while reverberation is added to the stereo input signals for application to the rear speakers which realistically reproduces the impression of concert hall acoustics in the sound reaching the listener from all four speakers. The reverberation is provided by a channel signal delay scheme in combination with a channel interconnection network which achieves long reverberation times with a high echo density that eliminates objectionable, discrete echo effects." dated 1976.

Finally, the 950 and its clones are produced in Malaysia by Eastech and some of their amps were made in the same facility that makes ATI amps. How does that make Outlaw not the designer or engineer? Lets say I own a factory that is tooled and set up to make light bulbs. GE comes in, likes our facilities, and tells us to make a certain light bulb. Then Sylvania walks through, loves the attention to detail, the cleanliness, and the efficiency we have, and asks us to make their light bulbs for them. Are these light bulbs now a GE design? Or better yet, if I originally made off brand light bulbs for second market firms, and GE liked my plant and offered to pay me a decent sum to build their light bulbs, would both the GE and Sylvania bulbs really be my design? Maybe they give me their design and specs, and then I source out the parts needed and build them to the other company's spec. If I see a problem, being in the industry of light bulbs myself, I can work with GE to correct the problem and better the final product. That still would not make the GE lightbulb my design, would it?

 

[Bill Bradstreet]

I agree that just because you have amps you aren't using in a receiver you don't lose flexibility when you want to upgrade. I just plunked down some money for a 950. I chose this because I didn't want the extra amplification. I didn't want to use more space in my rack to store a larger unit.

Actually, I think having a receiver gives you more flexibility. Resale isn't a problem with audiogon.com. That site makes it very easy to sell used equipment. For me, I can use my old receiver that was being used to control my second zone as a garage receiver or a master bedroom receiver. This is more flexible because the receiver has the amplification built in.

 

[AntonS]

Mary,

ICBM was a neat product at the time, but it's not fair to compare it to the 1050 or 950. ICBM is just a bunch of crossovers, nothing spectacular in terms of design and development.

Now, what's so innovative about 950? It's just another sound processor, tinkered to the lower-end market. Oh, don't start on "it sounds as good as costing five times more" - whole bunch of reviewers have found that it does not.

The point that Outlaw conceptualizes and design implements their own products.

Yes and no. Sometimes it's a yes, when they have the resources to design and build a product (ICBM). Sometimes it's a no, when they don't have the resoucres and therefore have to go with what's already abvailable. The 950 does not seem like it's their product. I really doubt that they even had a lot of influence on the design of 950, otherwise I believe they would have implemented few things differently.

I feel Outlaws prices to me (the consumer) reflect their successful implementation of outsourcing manufacture the “one thing’ as you call it.

Vast majority of consumer electronics is made in China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. What's new? That's one of the reasons why many decent receivers have very decent prices. I personally have nothing against it.

Let me tell you something about the price of 950. You say that the price is so low because the Outlaws have implemented some very successful production model. I say the price is so low because the 950 has rather simple design with corners cut quite in few places. Just take any pre/pro or reciever and start cutting the cost: cut off half of the processing power, remove few memory chips, simplify data paths, go frugal with software, etc. What will you end up with? Right, the 950.

 

[Peter Loan]

What a productive discussion this has turned into.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I say the price is so low because the 950 has rather simple design with corners cut quite in few places. Just take any pre/pro or reciever and start cutting the cost: cut off half of the processing power, remove few memory chips, simplify data paths, go frugal with software, etc. What will you end up with? Right, the 950.

You could argue that this makes it an audiophile piece. The 950 is a very focused machine with absolutely no waste, no unused or unnecessary circuits. I will tell you I certainly don't miss the 5 or 6 "Hall", "Jazz Club", etc. stupid DSP modes that my previous preamp and receiver have had. And other than better HD switching, what could you want more than the Outlaw 950 provides? True it does not have Onkyo 989 type "easy upgradability" but that's not a concern to me (or most). What looms beyond DPLII 6/7 channel Cirrus Surround that I really need? A better remote would be nice, but many or most people buying this class of a pre/pro will want a Pronto or other higher end remote anyway. The remote is workable. Gold connectors on the back? They look nice, but let's get real - they make no difference in sound quality. You don't see gold connectors in pro recording studios and there's a reason.

 

[NickSP]

So if Outlaw designed/engineered the 950 then they must have also designed/engineered the Atlantic Technology and the Sherbourn units, right?
I don't understand why some of us are going so far as to credit Outlaw that much. Why can't we accept the fact that maybe Outlaw got the 950 OEMed with maybe a few minor changes? I see a lot of people here convincing themselves that they got a product designed and engineered by Outlaw when that does not seem to be the case as the AT and Sherbourn are almost identical.
If Outlaw went somewhere in Asia and just put their logo on the unit and if it really performs well, then who really cares who designed and engineered it?

 

[Chu Gai]

got a point there Phil...let's leave out some more things and then we can jack the price up! atlantic's not licencing it from outlaw.

 

[David S]

Oh, don't start on "it sounds as good as costing five times more" - whole bunch of reviewers have found that it does not.

Anton - your going to dig this back up - this was beaten up what over a year ago. 1)"it sounds as good as costing five times more" was marketing stuff/some by the Outlaws, a lot by the forums/net, and 2)"whole bunch of reviewers have found it does not" grossly overstates the actual/real world results. Its the vocal minority throwing a "hissy fit" that your referring to, and actually a "whole bunch" of USERS have found it sounds great.

$899 + shipping + 30 day return = no brainer! Bye the way how bout the "noise" being reported on the new $2500 B&K Ref 50? It just goes to show, launching these products is a process and I for one feel the Outlaws have been impecable in their customer service!

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Peter Tribeman is also part of the executive staff of Atlantic Technology. In fact, his personal email id includes ATL in it!
I guess a few questions would be:
1) How many "design and R&D" engineers does Outlaw have compared to Eastech? And you could add "dedicated to the 950" for an even better Q. And then what is the percentage of the company of each?
2) How much do Outlaw and Eastech spend on R&D/design? (Likewise, respectively, on the 950 as well.) What percentage of revenues for each is that?
In a way, it doesn't even matter. You can't buy an Eastech pre/pro, and the AT and Sherbourn units aren't even available yet (or at least in large numbers), as far as I know.