We are expecting too much from our new equipment. (1 Viewer)

[Ricky T]

Jeff,

THX Ultra2 creates stereo rear centers from 5.1 sources, so you get 7 discrete signals during 7.1 playback. It's not just certification.

On the subwoofer distance: wouldn't this enable the processor to properly "delay" each and every bass signals redirected to the sub? And the LFE signal too.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

THX Ultra2 creates stereo rear centers from 5.1 sources, so you get 7 discrete signals during 7.1 playback. It's not just certification.

I think "7 discrete signals" is not accurate, since the rears are matrixed, but that's another thread. Ultra 2 is pretty new isn't it? Refresh my memory, how many pre/pro's have it?
Besides, the quote I was responding to also mentioned Ultra and Select, seeming to imply that any THX certification is better than none.

 

[Sankar]

Im not sure why you would be adjusting the volumes of the various speakers after they have been calibrated. This does seem to be very common as I am finding out. I am still in the dark as to why you would do this though.

I too am in the dark on this one, but have seen a friend of mine do this all the time (to the extent that I can rarely enjoy a cd or dvd at his place)! I for one set my levels using a sound level meter and leave it at that for all my listening needs. However at the other extreme, he will adjust his speaker levels for every song/movie (believe me .. this can be rather irritating!). I have spent countless hours going over this with him to no avail (including setting his levels for him using Avia). At the end of the day I have come to the conclusion that this is a very personal thing (I doubt very much that its a "control" thing) ... and for such a person, the 950 would not be appropriate. In his case the Denon receiver's remote provides a one button adjustment for his ever changing volume requirements.
One person's "gee-gaw" is another person's breath of life, I guess.

 

[Robert George]

THX Ultra 2 processing does indeed create a split back surround. This gives 7.1 distinct channels of audio information from a 5.1 source.
Very true that there are differing opinions on the usefulness of basic THX processing (consumer). My opinion, based on many years of experience with many differents system configurations, is that any processor designed for film soundtrack reproduction that does not at least offer THX has an option has a major limitation. I personally would never own a pre/pro used in home theater that did not include THX processing, even if I don't always use it.
Outlaw's decision to not include THX in the 950 may indicate this difference in philosophy, but I would bet it is more related to keeping cost down. If the latter is true, I think they do their potential customers a disservice. If adding THX to the 950 raised the retail price by, say, $200 - $300, then it would be well worth it, imo.
Then again, it is just as likely the Outlaw 950 could not achieve THX certification as it is designed. From my limited knowledge of THX certification, I know there is considerably more involved than simply putting in a chip that does the basic processing chores. A redesign would be very expensive and perhaps Outlaw simply did not think having THX certification was worth it.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Im not sure why you would be adjusting the volumes of the various speakers after they have been calibrated. This does seem to be very common as I am finding out. I am still in the dark as to why you would do this though.

It's for those "heretics" who use those DSP's like Dpl II and CES sr on this unit.

 

[RichardMA]

As far as asking for too much; All I need from processor
is:
-Very good quality sound.
-Solid build quality (Onkyo/Integra receiver case
makers take note)
-Support for every single sound standard out there.
-A built in equalizer for each channel.
-Silence from non-playing channels when using the
device with voices at 75db or so.
-A hand held remote with buttons for each function instead
of multi-layered menus of commands.
-The ability to upgrade either via hardware or software.

Do not need video switching.

 

[RAF]

A couple of comments from the wide variety of responses being generated here.

Quote:

AntonS,
I have to ask the question. Have you ever used a 950?
Based on Mike's comments a little further down the thread I tend to doubt it, but please correct me if I'm wrong on this. And, if your statements are based on conjecture rather than experience, then this is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. While people are certainly entitled to their opinions, if those opinions can be back up with actual experience then they are, to me, far more credible. Where do you come up with the idea that $450 would be a fair price for a 950? Is this something else that you are pulling out of a hat or have you really done some comparative listening?
When Mike started this thread it was addressing expectations from equipment. The 950 came into the mix because the many recent discussions here involved conjecture based on unavailability. Now that the 950 is shipping in some quantity most of the noise has died down since the 950 is apparently delivering on its basic promises so the naysayers have to move on to something else. Apparently some of them have taken up residence here.

 

[Jed M]

To get this back on topic.
Mike, in the first post you write:

But when someone reports on the incredible sound quality of the piece, the inevitable happens...a multitude of questions arise from the peanut gallery concerning what magic tricks it can or cannot perform.

Whatever do you mean?

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I stand suitably corrected on the "cinema re-eq". I took a quick look through the manual and didn't see it, but remembered it had it after I posted. :b
I *didn't* say all that I listed would be desirable by everyone, but someone *did* ask what the 950 was lacking.
And, by the way, I personally think that a distance/delay setting to the sub *is* important. My Sony TA-E9000ES has it, and that design is over 3 yrs old! Plus, if you do the math, at 80 Hz, the wavelength is 13.75 ft. So if the difference in distance between the mains and sub to you is greater than 1/2 that (6 7/8 ft), then you *are* likely to get the time alignment wrong between your sub and mains when you adjust the phase to be correct. And it is audible. I've measured it and heard the effect on my system. But the caveat is, a lot of people believe that time alignment doesn't matter so much, because most main speakers are not even time aligned within themselves.
Will the lack of a distance/delay setting for the sub prevent me from getting one? Nope. But my sub is right next to my left main speaker.

 

[Lewis Besze]

My previous receiver a Denon 3801 had a setting for the sub delay/distance.My 2 subs are in the fron corner some 4-6ft from the corresponding mains so naturaly I thought I need compensation,so I engaged it on the Denon.However when I bought the 950 I had a fear that this feature's lack there of would compromise the blend and phase relation of the mains and sub,not too mention the surround.Well my ears and even some measurments "said" otherwise,however the crossovers are set differently now[Denon don't have any adjustable crossover],so maybe that can account for the improvement as well.Having said that I really wouldn't sweat this feature.

 

[Mike Knapp]

THX Ultra 2 processing does indeed create a split back surround. This gives 7.1 distinct channels of audio information from a 5.1 source.

As does the Cirrus processing included on the Outlaw....this point needs to be dropped as well as the cinema RE-EQ, second zone, and input selectors.
It really seems as though there is a great deal of mis-information circulating about the Outlaw product. That is sad.
The Outlaw will not be the end-all for many people. Some like the gee-gaws. Some think superflous features make a product better. Would power windows make an F1 race car better? The Outlaw is not an "entry level" processor....it is just sold at an entry level price. The sound quality will be indistinguishable from products costing 3 times its price. If you think that the extra gee-gaws are worth the money then buy what you need and be happy. I have done the evaluations and the Outlaw will stay in my rack, replacing some really admittedly fine (and more costly) equipment.
I wish I could get an RPTV without a sound system in it. I dont use the TV sound....ever. For me it is a wasted "feature". There are many features on the uber-receivers that are a silly waste of electronics to me. If you dig 'em, then go for it. I assure all of you that if you come to my place for a visit, you will be blown away.
I talked to Robert G on the phone last night. I have heard his system, within the last month even (with all the gee-gaws). It sounded fantastic. I still prefer mine. Im willing to bet that when he gets down here he will think mine sounds fantastic but will prefer his. (except for the music part. If he prefers his music reproduction over my separate audio system I will have to slap him around a little )
Buy what you need and be happy with it, I know I am.
Mike

 

[IraSWeiss]

Mike:

The ability to convert composite and s-video to component is a valuable and very rare feature (in receivers, the Kenwood Sovereigns and their predecessors and Pioneer 49tx have it, i'm not sure about the Denon 5803) and an invaluable one for the wife acceptance factor. Anything I can do to make using my systems easier for my wife to use is greatly appreciated, and I frankly feel that such a feature should eventually be included in all receivers and pre-pros.

Any minute loss in quality from a conversion is more than made up for by the screams of "I can't get this to work" when I'm trying to do something else.

In the June issue of the Stereophile Guide to Home Theater Michael Fremer commented favorably on this feature in an otherwised mixed review of the Kenwood VR-5900 receiver.

 

[Ricky T]

Mike,

What other equipment have you used for your evaluations (in your system)?

 

[Mike Knapp]

Ricky,

If you are wondering what equipment I have had in my rack....ther isnt enough space here to list them all.

Most recently I have had the Marantz AV9000 and 5 MA500 mono blocks doing the Home Theater end.

You can click on the little house in the header of this post and see what I am currently using.

Mike

 

[Mike Knapp]

Ira,
I have one word for you....macros.
Mike

 

[John Tompkins]

The sound quality will be indistinguishable from products costing 3 times its price

Its this kind of blanket statement that spur this issue on. Statements like these ruffle my feathers..but you are free to say them
How bout this, I prefer (for two channel reproduction) the(289.000) bottlehead foreplay tube-pre to my 6000.00 lexicon, so therefore the bottlehead beats things costing 20 times more.

 

[Mike Knapp]

I stand by it. Ruffling or not. And I base it on my experience with both.
John, as for your edit. If you limit the comparisons to the two channel realm I accept that statement. And in fact I even agree with it, again based on my experience with both.
Mike

 

[Jeffrey_S]

Marshall and Mike,
Since you asked, here is my somewhat short list of significant features the 950 is lacking that some of the other more expensive pre/pros have:
1. Memory for settings (as others have pointed out).
2. Sub and surround individual speaker distance settings (as others have pointed out).
3. If what has been reported by new users is correct, a clear sounding AM tuner.
4. The ability to turn off the on screen display. And while I'm on the subject, s-vid to component conversion would at least make the on screen display useable when viewing thru component out.
5. Ability to trim sub and center channel with fewer button presses. Yes I know a macro would work but I've heard that it takes around 7-8 button presses on the remote to do this. Some discrete codes would have been nice. And yes, I have found the need to adjust these settings with some DVD's. For the most part, I also leave my settings alone.
6. Software Upgradeability .
Now, I don't think that any of these are deal breakers for me so long as the 950 sounds as good as reported in my home theater.
John,
I also love my Bottlehead Foreplay!
Jeff

 

[Bill Lucas]

Lexicon MC-12 the "king of kings"? There are many that would disagree wholeheartedly and endorse the Meridian 861 and its' Trifield multi-channel music mode. Others would choose the Casablanca II or Krell or whatever (although I can't imagine why ).
Mike's topic and point is an excellent one. If you want the ultimate in flexibility then you should be prepared to pay for it. If you want a bargain basement, solidly performing piece then you *may* compromise on features that you believe to be important.
Ira,
Mike is dead-on with the macros comment. There is nothing I'd like less than degrading a video signal by doing upconversion through a receiver or surround processor. There's a reason they are called surround processors and not video processors.

 

[Gail M]

Never run your video through a switcher or converter unless you have run out of inputs on the display and have no choice. I have said this many times. You all do what you like.

With my limited experience, I usually defer to the expertise of folks, like Mike and my lesser half , who already have made the mistakes that I'm gonna avoid. However, I can personally attest to what Mike said above. We currently have 3 component video output components(DVD player, HDTV Tuner, HTPC), and each one of them has output which looks slightly different from each other. If we used a video switcher, and then only one input on our HDTV, we would be limited to adjusting that TV input for perfect viewing using ONLY one of those sources. Instead, by using the three HDTV inputs(two component and one VGA/RGB), we can tweak each one individually so that all of the images look perfect, regardless of whether we are watching a DVD or HDTV. This may soon change though as we are considering getting a JVC DVHS which will give us four component outputs for only three inputs...?