The next five graphs were taken using analog input signals and collecting the output at the speaker terminals.

A 1 kHz input signal produced 0.05% THD, which is very close to spec. Notice also the lack of peaks at 60 Hz and its harmonics. This indicates a nice clean power supply with no AC ripple.

For IMD measurements, using 1 kHz and 1.5 kHz input signals, the peaks were a bit higher than were seen at the pre-out, but still low.

Again, the IMD peaks were higher than at the pre-out, using 5 kHz and 6 kHz inputs.

At 10 kHz, THD was within manufacturer's spec.

As with the other IMD tests at the speaker out, the peaks were higher than at the pre-out, using 10 kHz and 11 kHz input signals.

The frequency response, when the signal was passed through the digital processing circuitry, was 20 Hz to 20 kHz ± 0.7 dB.

In the Bypass Mode, the frequency response was extended to 10 Hz - 60 kHz ± 1 dB.

Conclusions

For $899, the Outlaw Audio Model 1070 Receiver is quite a bargain. It has enough power for small home theaters, the sound is neutral, and it incorporates a clip protection feature that keeps the sound from being severely distorted during loud passages. The Benchmark score seems reasonable, given the 1070's price point. These scores will mean much more as we begin to accumulate Benchmark test scores for receivers and SSPs in various price categories.

The Outlaw 1070 Receiver is a clever product from a fine company, and at less than $1,000, I don't think any consumer would be unhappy with its purchase.

- John E. Johnson, Jr. -

Manufacturer's Response:

Although we are pleased with your observations on the audible performance of the Model 1070, we were somewhat surprised to view the “sea of red” in the “ pass/fail” observations in your review.

Before getting to specific items, we would like to comment on your  categorization of the Model 1070 as a “mass market receiver”. We  respectfully disagree.

In our view, a "mass-market receiver" is priced in the $200-$400 range and often claims inflated power specs and offers few of the  features required by the informed home theater enthusiast. A knowledgeable customer will recognize that Model 1070's robust amplifier and 7 x 65 WPC (ALL channels driven) power spec, its high-end features such  as comprehensive analog and digital bass management options, software upgradeability, DVI switching, lip sync delay, amplifier triggers, and much more, clearly makes it an “enthusiast” product.

At the same time, the Model 1070 clearly rejects "mass market" features such as a dozen DSP modes, ("hall, stadium, night club etc"), that are likely to be meaningless to the Secrets reader. (In a poll of our customers, 95% of those responding specifically asked us to avoid these useless "features".) We went to great lengths to target the
Model 1070's feature set to the knowledgeable consumer, many of whom we believe are your own thoughtful and analytical readers who share this same philosophy. We suspect that like Outlaw customers, they do not have a mass-market mentality.

Regarding the specifics of testing against your "Benchmark" criteria, we agree that it is an interesting approach. In fairness to both your readers and manufacturers may we suggest that that it would be helpful for Secrets to post those standards, in full, on your web site. That would enable everyone to know exactly what your expectations are, so that readers may compare them to their own "perfect receiver" and determine if what is important for Secrets is relevant to their  particular needs. Seeing that list would also assist manufacturers such as Outlaw by providing a "check list" that would be helpful in the product planning process.

It is certainly a reviewer's duty to call the shots as he or she sees them. At the same time, we believe that the notion of "pass" or "fail" should not be applied to many of the items in your list. Please let us explain this point of view:

We agree that when a product is tested to see if it meets its own stated specifications (such as power), or against known and published industry standards, the product either "passes" or "fails". However, to "fail" a product for items that are specific design decisions, such as the inclusion or not of THX or the selection of time, distance or dB
increments for settings, places an arbitrary judgment of "failure" on a product that does everything it says it is supposed to do. In the more subjective areas (such as having or not having a feature such as THX), not meeting your Benchmark is not a failure of the product. Rather, it simply indicates that the product does not do something the way you would prefer. Some will agree with your requirement that a product operate in a
particular way or have a specific feature and some won't. In our opinion, that type of subjective judgment should not be labeled in a "pass/fail" manner. For example, to "fail" a product for not delivering 25% above rated spec for stereo output might mislead the casual reader to think that there is "something wrong" with the amplifier section, when in reality it has met its published spec. If a product had a higher spec, wouldn't it simply be  more appropriate for the manufacturer to quote the increased figure?

May we suggest that a better way to accomplish the benchmarking of a product would be to establish a set of criteria, as you clearly have, and then to apply a one to ten (or similar) scale to assign points against how a product fares. The resulting total “score” may not only be used to judge the product against the standard, itself, but also against competitive products. We would welcome a test of the Model 1070, or any
Outlaw product, in that environment. Test schemes similar to this suggestion have long been used in automotive reviews as well as in our own audio/video world.

Concerning the particulars of the review, we would like to offer some corrections of fact along with a few explanations as to why we chose to include or exclude certain features, or implement them in very specific ways:

Bass Management: We disagree with your observation that most receivers have good bass management. While some brands or models do, we have noticed that in most cases the opposite is true, with many "mass market" receivers offering only a bare minimum of bass management functionality and flexibility. More importantly, we believe that the Model 1070 has the most comprehensive suite of bass management options available on ANY receiver at ANY price in any market segment.

For example, while most receivers offer a limited range of crossover frequencies, and apply them globally to all speakers (e.g. You may choose only one crossover frequency and every speaker in a 7.1 setup must conform to that choice.), the Model 1070 is among the very few receivers at any price that offers a four-way bass management system for all inputs. This allows the user to select different crossover points for the
front left/right, center, surround and surround back speakers, accommodating systems with different speakers at these locations. This means that every speaker in a 7.1 system can be optimized for its size and power handling.

Where most receivers have no bass management on the “7.1 direct” inputs for use with today's DVD-A and SACD players, and tomorrows BluRay or HD-DVD products, the Model 1070 provides a choice of analog (fixed 80 Hz.) or digital four-way crossover selection, as well as allowing for true “bypass” when bass management is done in the source
player. We know of no other receiver in the market today that offers this array of options.

Distance Settings for Delay: We agree that it would be nice to have them in six-inch increments. However, this level of precision adds additional cost to the product in return for a benefit that would be limited, and only make a difference for the left and right speakers. The influence of room reflections, particularly at a typical seating distance of ten to twelve feet or more from front speakers, makes it nearly impossible to  reliably identify a six-inch difference in a blind A/B test. Furthermore, in a multi-channel setup with room reflections and refractions factored in to the listening field, six-inch increments tend to be totally irrelevant.

DVI: Your "Benchmark" views the option of DVI as a "fail". We find this rather interesting and respectfully disagree. One need go no further than the Secrets site to read discussions about the many reported difficulties with HDMI. You have personally documented those difficulties with your satellite receiver. Our decision to choose DVI switching was made after careful consideration and has been explained to our customers at great length. The compatibility of DVI with HDMI sources for all current video standards, the reported lack of compatibility of HDMI devices with one another in real life applications, and the fact that HDMI is such a moving target such that any implementation in use today might be subject to obsolescence, validates our position. This is not a "fail" at all in our minds. Where some brands have chosen to not offer either DVI or the currently more problematic HDMI, at this point in time we view DVI as a more stable and trouble-free means to switch digital video.

Power On Volume/Max Volume: Please note that this feature is available on the Model 1070 through a setting in the System Configuration menu.

Volume Scale and Speaker Calibration Level: You are correct that channel calibration is available in 1dB increments, and we feel that is sufficient. However, the Model 1070 is rare among competitive receivers to offer adjustment of the volume level in 0.5 dB increments via the remote control.

Downmix: This feature is available for 5.1 sources, and it may be activated in two ways on the Model 1070. First, you may simply turn off the center and surround speakers and the unit will automatically downmix all signals to the front L/R. Alternatively, the user may select Stereo as their surround mode. We apologize if the manual did not make this clear, but the feature is there.

Again, we repeat that we are delighted with the audible performance aspects of your review of the Model 1070's performance and are very appreciative of your overall reaction to this product. However, since this review will remain on your site for quite awhile, we wanted to clarify some factual errors and address other points we feel strongly about.

Best Regards,
Peter Tribeman for The Outlaws

Note from Editor: We are considering adding a point system to the Receiver Benchmark. An initial article on our criteria for SSP Benchmark tests is located HERE. I have also added it to the text of this review.  Note 10/10/05: We have moved to a point system, and the 1070 review has been updated.

After confirming that some of the features are indeed present in the 1070, I will amend the Benchmark section of this review. Note 10/10/05: The 1070 review has been updated to include the fact that these features are present.

My definition of mass market receiver is that it is a receiver designed to be sold to the masses, i.e., many consumers. That means it is mass produced on an assembly line, rather than being hand made in small numbers. For a small company, this could mean being manufactured through OEM procedures (built by a large company that makes products for numerous companies, based on specifications supplied by the smaller companies). Note 10/10/05: I have removed the term Mass Market, since some consumers feel this is derogatory. In any case, it is not a necessary term.

As the price of the product goes up, it becomes less "affordable" by the "masses", so the concept of mass market becomes less clear. At what point does it now become intended for a small consumer base? Well, the $199 receiver is really intended for a small consumer base too, isn't it?

We might break the receiver mass market into several groups. The first group would be the consumers who just want to plunk a receiver into their den and watch some movies, and who don't really care about hifi per se. They would be satisfied with a receiver bought at CostCo, up to $300 in price.

The next group is probably interested in hifi per se, but some can't really afford much of a system, so they spend $300 to $600 for a receiver.

The third group understands home theater and wants a good receiver, but can't afford the ultimate. They spend $600 to $2000.

The last group wants the best, and budget for it. They spend $2000 and up.

Of course, these are just some suggested groupings. The point is, that even the big spenders are buying something that was mass produced.

Receivers that are not mass market are often built by hand, in small numbers compared to the mass market product. They usually have customizable configurations and upgradeable PC boards, while the mass market product might have an RS232 port to upgrade the software only. They tend to be in the multi-thousand dollar price range. The Theta Casablanca SSP that I use for reference is $18,000. That is a lot of money, but I have been able to upgrade it to the latest model through successive board replacement over the past several years. That is a major portion of what I am paying for with this SSP.

It is the same with my Lexicon MC-12B SSP. I upgraded to a new PC board a few months ago, to add Auto-EQ. The MC-12B (fully balanced) is $14,000. Both of these SSPs are incredibly flexible. For example, with the Casablanca, I have four subwoofer outputs, one each for the front left/right, one for the center, and one for the rear. That is because I have four subwoofers. I can configure the crossover with different types for each channel, rather than just the frequency, such as Linkwitz-Riley or Butterworth, plus the slope. The Lexicon MC-12 uses four microphones for Auto-EQ, rather than the single microphone one gets with mass market receivers. It uses eight Analog Devices SHARC^® processors to analyze and determine the proper EQ. A mass market product will typically use just one processor.

In any event, the term Mass Market is not pejorative. It is just a term, nothing else.


JEJ

 

© Copyright 2005 Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity Go to Table of Contents for this Issue Go to Home Page

Terms and Conditions of Use