or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › OUTLAW 975
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OUTLAW 975 - Page 13

post #361 of 443
What 4k display do you have?
post #362 of 443
None yet, but I'm looking towards the future, plus my BDP-105 can upsample to 4K so it makes sense to be able to switch it.
post #363 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post

None yet, but I'm looking towards the future, plus my BDP-105 can upsample to 4K so it makes sense to be able to switch it.

Do some research on HDMI 2.0 first. wink.gif
post #364 of 443
Has anyone tried using a Logitech remote with the 975 yet? I saw mention of a URC, but if anyone mentioned a Logitech, I missed it; I’ve been real happy with my Logitech 550. My Onkyo TX-SR707 (purchased June, 2010) is dying, and I may be forced to go the way of separates in the form of the 975/7125 Combo…
post #365 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post

None yet, but I'm looking towards the future, plus my BDP-105 can upsample to 4K so it makes sense to be able to switch it.

It doesn't matter at all that the 105 upconverts to 4X resolution (not 4K... 4K is 4096, 4X is 3840, and UHD is not 4K it is 4X the resolution of HDTV).

It doesn't matter that the 105 upconverts to 4X resolution because every UHD projector or video display available so far already will upconvert every input to 4X resolution so it doesn't matter what you send to the display, the display is going to convert it (in fact, the display MUST convert every input to 4X to be usable with HD sources). I've seen both the Sony projector (extended use in my own system 2 different times) and flat panel and both of them upconvert to 4X resolution superbly, no way is an external disc player going to do a better job that either of those displays. The Sony projector isn't exactly UHD... kinda hard to categorize since it has a native aspect ratio that's not shared with any other current video display and can actually display 4096 pixels for some image formats if you have the right sort of screen.
post #366 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Dave,

I realize the cost issue but including a 7.1 analog input would not have cost much more to add IMO. The other factor is with the 975 offering legacy video inputs one would think the same would apply for a 7.1 analog input.

Bill

Yes, it would have cost quite a lot more because there is no direct analog signal path. Every analog input is digitized, processed (if any) converted back to analog and sent to the outputs. If there was a 7.1 analog input with the same "no analog signal path" architecture, they would have had to add 6 more channels of analog-to-digital converters. And the price would no longer be $549... it would probably be $600 or $649. Completely changing the architecture to support stereo and analog signals without digitizing them (and without allowing ANY processing of them) would have required a completely different product design that would have been considerably more complex... and more expensive.

People always seem to think it only would have cost "a little bit more" to do something different that what was done... that's rarely true. If it were true, it likely would have been done that way. My guess is that their SOC (system on a chip) is one of the critical components that allows the cost of the entire unit to come in at $549... change to some other SOC with a more elaborate feature set and you end up with a much more elaborate circuit architecture... possibly requiring 4- or 6- or 8-layer circuit board instead of a much less expensive board with fewer layers (and far simpler and faster-to-layout circuit traces). The actual engineering of devices like these (processors, et al) is rarely what consumers think it is.

No doubt the legacy video connections were already part of the SOC so there was almost no work and little cost involved in including them... ditto for the FM tuner. But if they'd selected a SOC that did NOT have legacy video capabilities, it would have been damn expensive to include those connections.
post #367 of 443
This is why choices are good.
You want 7.1 and direct analog, the UMC-200 is your choice.
You want legacy video, then the 975 is your clear choice.
It really depends on your needs.
post #368 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

Yes, it would have cost quite a lot more because there is no direct analog signal path. Every analog input is digitized, processed (if any) converted back to analog and sent to the outputs. If there was a 7.1 analog input with the same "no analog signal path" architecture, they would have had to add 6 more channels of analog-to-digital converters. And the price would no longer be $549... it would probably be $600 or $649. Completely changing the architecture to support stereo and analog signals without digitizing them (and without allowing ANY processing of them) would have required a completely different product design that would have been considerably more complex... and more expensive.

People always seem to think it only would have cost "a little bit more" to do something different that what was done... that's rarely true. If it were true, it likely would have been done that way. My guess is that their SOC (system on a chip) is one of the critical components that allows the cost of the entire unit to come in at $549... change to some other SOC with a more elaborate feature set and you end up with a much more elaborate circuit architecture... possibly requiring 4- or 6- or 8-layer circuit board instead of a much less expensive board with fewer layers (and far simpler and faster-to-layout circuit traces). The actual engineering of devices like these (processors, et al) is rarely what consumers think it is.

No doubt the legacy video connections were already part of the SOC so there was almost no work and little cost involved in including them... ditto for the FM tuner. But if they'd selected a SOC that did NOT have legacy video capabilities, it would have been damn expensive to include those connections.

Doug,

Thanks for your thoughts on this smile.gif. To me unless one has a need for legacy video connections the UMC-200 is clearly the better prepro. I'm really surprised that Outlaw went with a prepro with no direct analog signal path.

Bill
post #369 of 443
I really don't understand the surprise that the 975 is what it is. It was clearly designed to be a low-cost surround processor, not a stereo analog control center. The 975 would be ideal for someone already running a good analog stereo system with it's own analog stereo preamp. The output of the 975 for the front channels could go into the stereo preamp (ideally through home theater bypass inputs in the stereo preamp) and all the home theater sources would be connected to the 975 and all the stereo analog sources would be connected to the stereo preamp. Simple as that. $549 surround processors are going to equal the analog stereo sound quality of a really good analog stereo preamp anyway... it's just not going to happen at that price point and it is unrealistic to expect high-end stereo analog performance in a $549 surround processor

When you design a $549 surround processor, by definition, it is not going to be all things to all people. It either works for you or it doesn't. Who knows, maybe Outlaw has a $1200 processor with 9.1 or 11.1 channels in the works with an analog signal path, better power supplies, 7.1 analog inputs, room correction capability, etc. But it won't be $549 with those levels of features, you can be darn sure of that. The circuit boards will be much more costly to produce and the component/parts count would be way up over the 975. It would be a completely different class of product. Frankly, it's pretty surprising there's an FM tuner and legacy video connections at this price point. Other choices were excellent... not having network/internet apps (YouTube, Netflix, et al) is FINE since most people are going to have a disc player that has those things already. If not, you can get a fairly inexpensive new disc player that has all the network/internet apps you are interested in. I'm even a bit surprised there is any video processing in the 975 at all. You'd think at that price point HDMI switching would be about all you'd get.
post #370 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

I really don't understand the surprise that the 975 is what it is. It was clearly designed to be a low-cost surround processor, not a stereo analog control center. The 975 would be ideal for someone already running a good analog stereo system with it's own analog stereo preamp. The output of the 975 for the front channels could go into the stereo preamp (ideally through home theater bypass inputs in the stereo preamp) and all the home theater sources would be connected to the 975 and all the stereo analog sources would be connected to the stereo preamp. Simple as that. $549 surround processors are going to equal the analog stereo sound quality of a really good analog stereo preamp anyway... it's just not going to happen at that price point and it is unrealistic to expect high-end stereo analog performance in a $549 surround processor

When you design a $549 surround processor, by definition, it is not going to be all things to all people. It either works for you or it doesn't. Who knows, maybe Outlaw has a $1200 processor with 9.1 or 11.1 channels in the works with an analog signal path, better power supplies, 7.1 analog inputs, room correction capability, etc. But it won't be $549 with those levels of features, you can be darn sure of that. The circuit boards will be much more costly to produce and the component/parts count would be way up over the 975. It would be a completely different class of product. Frankly, it's pretty surprising there's an FM tuner and legacy video connections at this price point. Other choices were excellent... not having network/internet apps (YouTube, Netflix, et al) is FINE since most people are going to have a disc player that has those things already. If not, you can get a fairly inexpensive new disc player that has all the network/internet apps you are interested in. I'm even a bit surprised there is any video processing in the 975 at all. You'd think at that price point HDMI switching would be about all you'd get.

I understand that one can not expect much from a prepro that lists for $549. My surprise is that Outlaw always had prepros that had very good analog sections. So one did not need to add a preamp with HT Bypass. To me even at $549 the 975 has a very limited appeal. So if one adds a preamp with HT Bypass now the cost is up well over $1000. So I see no bargain there where one could get the UMC-200 for $699 ($599 on sale). Or just get an AVR with preouts if one wants more up to date features.

Bill
post #371 of 443
And then of course some may prefer the aesthetics and take a hit on some features that they may not desire as strongly as form factor.
Edited by amatuerholic - 4/21/13 at 5:19pm
post #372 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

My surprise is that Outlaw always had prepros that had very good analog sections.
So does the current one, at least compared to previous models. Just because the input is digital doesn't mean that the analogue section isn't very good.
post #373 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

So does the current one, at least compared to previous models. Just because the input is digital doesn't mean that the analogue section isn't very good.

I think he was referring to the fact that analog signals are being digitally converted also, not that it can't take a digital source and output good analog.
If you have say a reference CD player, you can't really be listening to it's analog performance anymore because if you feed the analog out of the player, the 975 will re-digitize it again.
Kind of defeats the point, don't you think?
post #374 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Just because the input is digital doesn't mean that the analogue section isn't very good.

This could be true but from what I understand the 975 does not have any form of analog bypass and that all inputs (including analog) are digitized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post

I think he was referring to the fact that analog signals are being digitally converted also, not that it can't take a digital source and output good analog. If you have say a reference CD player, you can't really be listening to it's analog performance anymore because if you feed the analog out of the player, the 975 will re-digitize it again. Kind of defeats the point, don't you think?

boot,

Thanks for this post as you are making my point much more clearly than I did smile.gif.

Bill
post #375 of 443
I currently have an Outlaw 990. I've had it for 7 years and have had absolutely zero issues with it whatsoever! I've never had to contact Outlaw for anything! This is the reason I'm leaning heavily toward the Outlaw 975. I don't use my system at all for 2 channel analogue audio. I only use it for watching TV and movies, and occasionally playing video games. I was considering the Emotiva because it does have room correction unlike the Outlaw. I'd be interested to see what it would do in my very unique and problem home theater environment. The only reason I'm upgrading from my 990 is because I'm upgrading to 3d and I can no longer survive with the old school DVI video of the 990.

I'm wondering if anyone is in a similar situation and upgraded to the 975? My biggest worry is that the 975 won't sound as good as my 990 but from what I'm reading, it seems that for what I use my Pre/Pro for, the 975 should be right up my alley.
post #376 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Meno View Post

I currently have an Outlaw 990. I've had it for 7 years and have had absolutely zero issues with it whatsoever! I've never had to contact Outlaw for anything! This is the reason I'm leaning heavily toward the Outlaw 975. I don't use my system at all for 2 channel analogue audio. I only use it for watching TV and movies, and occasionally playing video games. I was considering the Emotiva because it does have room correction unlike the Outlaw. I'd be interested to see what it would do in my very unique and problem home theater environment. The only reason I'm upgrading from my 990 is because I'm upgrading to 3d and I can no longer survive with the old school DVI video of the 990.

I'm wondering if anyone is in a similar situation and upgraded to the 975? My biggest worry is that the 975 won't sound as good as my 990 but from what I'm reading, it seems that for what I use my Pre/Pro for, the 975 should be right up my alley.

Have you visited the outlaw forums?
post #377 of 443
Yes I have. There's alot of bantering about 2 channel audio quality and analogue inputs. That's not my concern. I'm looking to hear opinions from people who use there pre/pro for the same thing as me. I use it for HT, and watching ball games. I like Thunderous audio with impressive sounds coming from the surround channels. I want to hear from people who use the 975 for what I intend to. Especially those who are uprgading from a 990.
post #378 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Meno View Post

Yes I have. There's alot of bantering about 2 channel audio quality and analogue inputs. That's not my concern. I'm looking to hear opinions from people who use there pre/pro for the same thing as me. I use it for HT, and watching ball games. I like Thunderous audio with impressive sounds coming from the surround channels. I want to hear from people who use the 975 for what I intend to. Especially those who are uprgading from a 990.

If all you are missing is HD audio, a bluray player with 7.1 outs is all you need.

Then you can get the shock and awe of the latest bluray sound tracks with what you have now.

Save yourself from the HDMI nightmare.tongue.gif
post #379 of 443
I was close to buying an oppo 103 and doing just that. Now I'm thinking that for the same money, the outlaw could do more for the same amount of money, than the oppo.
post #380 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Meno View Post

I was close to buying an oppo 103 and doing just that. Now I'm thinking that for the same money, the outlaw could do more for the same amount of money, than the oppo.

It can't stream media or play any format like the OPPO.

I would get the oppo. Your 990 is a champ sound wise.
post #381 of 443
I can stream media from my Tivo. I can add a roku and add more options to choose from with a roku. Not a huge deal. I'm more concerned with the OSD. Thats something I really missed in the 990. It sounds like the oppo doesn't have much of an OSD. Anyone know how the OSD is on he emotiva 200?

U think my 990 would sound better for movies and TV than a Outlaw 975 or an emotiva 200?
post #382 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Meno View Post

I'm more concerned with the OSD. Thats something I really missed in the 990. It sounds like the oppo doesn't have much of an OSD. Anyone know how the OSD is on he emotiva 200?
I find the Oppo OSD quite adequate for its internal settings. I do not like it for Pandora, as all the text is too small for no reason. "Ink" is free in video!

The UMC-200 OSD is likewise adequate. It's a series of tables accessed by a row of tabs. The navigation is sometimes a little non-linear, but what I like is that you can exit the menu, see if you like the change, and if not, re-enter the menu tree exactly where you left off. I have not seen that before. smile.gif
Quote:
U think my 990 would sound better for movies and TV than a Outlaw 975 or an emotiva 200?
Decoding the m/c analog in the Oppo will sound basically the same as any other of these options. Where the biggest opportunity for a sound difference comes in is the UMC-200 as it has EQ facilities, either automatic or manual.
post #383 of 443
>>>U think my 990 would sound better for movies and TV than a Outlaw 975 or an emotiva 200?

Sound quality of movie playback takes much larger differences to be audible than sound quality differences for stereo music. I'm not sure whether it's because most of us grew up listening to stereo and have more experience with it or whether the complexity the additional center and surround channels add simply gives our brains much more work to do (hearing sound from all around rather than just from 2 front speakers) that it makes small differences in audio quality disappear. My experience is that if I hear a fairly significant difference in stereo music playback (digital source, just for consistency here), when it comes to movie sound, the difference will be just BARELY noticeable. Once when I thought I couldn't hear any difference between two versions of a scene where there was a gunfight in the Guggenheim museum in NYC, someone who had spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME WITH THAT SCENE pointed out that you could hear a SLIGHT difference in the quality of the echo in the huge space after a gunshot. And I mean it was a SLIGHT difference. Nothing I'd ever sweat over.

So lets say we have a 100 point scale for sound quality and in the case described above, the "better" processor was evaluated as having a sound quality of 70 for movies and 70 for stereo music. The "worse" processor would likely be evaluated as 69 for movie sound and 60 for stereo music (or something like that). If the stereo music playback "score" is inconsequential for any reason (maybe you already have a stereo preamp you like, for example), and there's a big differential in price between the "worse" and "better" processors, the lower-cost product might be the obvious choice... IF the feature set includes what you need/want.

The situation I describe here is universal. I've NEVER heard products with significant sonic differences when playing stereo music sound very different at all when playing movies. I'm pretty sure all the extra spatial information changes how we hear/listen whether we like it or not. Perhaps the surround environment produces a more lifelike listening experience and that shuts off the ultra-discriminator circuit that is in place when we are listening to just 2 speakers. Having video present with sound is a HUGE factor here also... that takes a lot of "brain time" to keep up with also. So you have more channels of sound AND video distracting you from differences that weren't necessarily huge (but still audible) so those differences just melt away. But I find even removing the video and listening to multi-channel music with no video still produces mostly the same effect of causing audible differences to melt away to relative insignificance unless they are quite large differences.
post #384 of 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

>>>U think my 990 would sound better for movies and TV than a Outlaw 975 or an emotiva 200?

Sound quality of movie playback takes much larger differences to be audible than sound quality differences for stereo music. I'm not sure whether it's because most of us grew up listening to stereo and have more experience with it or whether the complexity the additional center and surround channels add simply gives our brains much more work to do (hearing sound from all around rather than just from 2 front speakers) that it makes small differences in audio quality disappear. My experience is that if I hear a fairly significant difference in stereo music playback (digital source, just for consistency here), when it comes to movie sound, the difference will be just BARELY noticeable. Once when I thought I couldn't hear any difference between two versions of a scene where there was a gunfight in the Guggenheim museum in NYC, someone who had spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME WITH THAT SCENE pointed out that you could hear a SLIGHT difference in the quality of the echo in the huge space after a gunshot. And I mean it was a SLIGHT difference. Nothing I'd ever sweat over.

So lets say we have a 100 point scale for sound quality and in the case described above, the "better" processor was evaluated as having a sound quality of 70 for movies and 70 for stereo music. The "worse" processor would likely be evaluated as 69 for movie sound and 60 for stereo music (or something like that). If the stereo music playback "score" is inconsequential for any reason (maybe you already have a stereo preamp you like, for example), and there's a big differential in price between the "worse" and "better" processors, the lower-cost product might be the obvious choice... IF the feature set includes what you need/want.

The situation I describe here is universal. I've NEVER heard products with significant sonic differences when playing stereo music sound very different at all when playing movies. I'm pretty sure all the extra spatial information changes how we hear/listen whether we like it or not. Perhaps the surround environment produces a more lifelike listening experience and that shuts off the ultra-discriminator circuit that is in place when we are listening to just 2 speakers. Having video present with sound is a HUGE factor here also... that takes a lot of "brain time" to keep up with also. So you have more channels of sound AND video distracting you from differences that weren't necessarily huge (but still audible) so those differences just melt away. But I find even removing the video and listening to multi-channel music with no video still produces mostly the same effect of causing audible differences to melt away to relative insignificance unless they are quite large differences.

+1 excellent post.
post #385 of 443
Thanks for that post. I do agree with you. When I was more into two channel audio, I could get so into the difference in sound between one set of speakers compared to another. I have an M&K THX 150 system and I love it! However being as though I use it for 7.1 movies and TV, its more about the surround effects and the thunderous sound of my monster MX350 sub.

The two Pretty/Pros are essentially around the same price. I have to choose between the Emotiva which has an OSD and room correction, or the outlaw that I'm sentimentally attached to after my 990. Oh boy, what to do!
post #386 of 443
OSD? On Screen Display or something else? The 975 has on-screen display (volume, mute, setup menu, etc.).
post #387 of 443
I read that the volume, etc, cannot be displayed on the screen using HDMI. Is that false? If the Outlaw can do it, I will certainly go with the outlaw. If not, I'm either going with the emotiva or I will get an oppo and run the video direct from the oppo to the PJ.
post #388 of 443
Sounds like you read what you read backwards...

The on-screen display ONLY works with HDMI connections. If you have an analog display (component, composite, S-Video)... no on-screen menus.
post #389 of 443
^^ I think the problem is that Mr. Meno wants to see the volume adjustments on the screen, as we do with TVs. AFAIK, the 975 does not offer that display.
post #390 of 443
Yes, the 975 does display volume, mute, etc. on-screen when using a display connected via HDMI. When you have an on-screen display of the setup menu, you always have on-screen displays for volume, mute, etc., unless you are Sherwood who somehow managed to produce their first Trinnov-equippd room correction AVR without the onscreen displays everybody expected. The only products (besides that Sherwood AVR of a few years ago) that do not have on-screen displays are products that only offer HDMI switching and you have to do everything via the front panel display. There aren't many of those... Cary has a $4000 audio-only processor with HDMI switching and no video capabilities at all (and no other types of video inputs). But they sell a companion video processor that has all the bells and whistles and provides onscreen displays for audio information and video information when you use their 2 products together.. But if the product accepts analog video and digitizes that and converts it to HDMI and has an on-screen setup menu, and can upconvert or downconvert resolution as needed... those products have a video processor on-board and 99.9% of the time, that means functional on-screen displays for volume, mute, surround modes, setup menu, Audyssey or other room correction or auto-setup software, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › OUTLAW 975