Outlaw 1070 receiver, best reciever for under a grand!!

[3db]

According to Home Theater magazine, its the best sub 1000 receiver out there scoring on their scale, a 98 out of a 100. They were amazed with its construction and the sound it produced. Moveover NAD, a new receiver has been crowned

[JeffreyDurbin]

Yada, yada, yada.

I think Outlaw equipment is pretty high quality but I don't flog it like I just lost my friggin' virginity!

[3db]

Yada, yada, yada.

I think Outlaw equipment is pretty high quality but I don't flog it like I just lost my friggin' virginity!

Just mentioning what I read yesterday while standing in front of a magazine rack.

[Jim Clark]

I got invited over to an internet bud's home this coming Saturday to check out his new 990 prepro. It will be my first exposure to Outlaw gear so I'm looking forward to it. Seems I'm in the prepro market, again.

jc

[Tarheel_]

According to Home Theater magazine, its the best sub 1000 receiver out there scoring on their scale, a 98 out of a 100. They were amazed with its construction and the sound it produced. Moveover NAD, a new receiver has been crowned

I read the same review, but read some spin from the author. And, notice there is a large ad from Outlaw just a few pages prior to the report. Go figure.

missing features;
- DVI only, so the newer/improved HDMI is missing from this AVR.
- No backlighting for the remote
- No auto room correction which can be found on much cheaper AVRs.
- Can't remember, but i don't believe it does a second zone

Sure, their internet price is low, but compare this price to street prices from the bigger boys and it doesn't appear to be such a value. My opinion, this receiver is already outdated when compared to the newest AVRs being released.

[3db]

I read the same review, but read some spin from the author. And, notice there is a large ad from Outlaw just a few pages prior to the report. Go figure.

missing features;
- DVI only, so the newer/improved HDMI is missing from this AVR.
- No backlighting for the remote
- No auto room correction which can be found on much cheaper AVRs.
- Can't remember, but i don't believe it does a second zone

Sure, their internet price is low, but compare this price to street prices from the bigger boys and it doesn't appear to be such a value. My opinion, this receiver is already outdated when compared to the newest AVRs being released.

Everyone is so hung up on features that they are missing the boat when it comes to sonics. I'd put sonics over features anyday. Until HDMI becomes stabndardized which its not, why put it on a receiver. At least DVI isn't going to change anyrtime soon. Backlit remote doesn't make it sound better.

I'd rather see a company put their dollars into the preammp/amp section then add features. Like NAD, theres something to be said for understated simplicity but with the power to deliver the sound cleanly

[ericl]

Everyone is so hung up on features that they are missing the boat when it comes to sonics. I'd put sonics over features anyday. Until HDMI becomes stabndardized which its not, why put it on a receiver. At least DVI isn't going to change anyrtime soon. Backlit remote doesn't make it sound better.

I'd rather see a company put their dollars into the preammp/amp section then add features. Like NAD, theres something to be said for understated simplicity but with the power to deliver the sound cleanly

hear hear. (or here here?)

It's this race to cram as many bells and whistles into the box that causes audio quality to take a back seat. It would be nice if these big manufacturers would try and give us the best sound for the money.

[GMichael]

hear hear. (or here here?)

It's this race to cram as many bells and whistles into the box that causes audio quality to take a back seat. It would be nice if these big manufacturers would try and give us the best sound for the money.

I thought their goal was to get them the most of our money for the sound.

[N. Abstentia]

I agree about the bells & whistles crap.

Why waste money on a nice backlit remote when 98% of the users will be replacing it with a Harmony or Pronto anyway?

Give me the sound quality, keep your 'audio jewelry'.

[edtyct]

3db,

HDMI was intended to be fluid from the start; as long as it survives, it will probably be subject to change. It's hard to see what the revisions will be down the road, although it's clear that 1.3 will be able to carry the hi def versions of DD and DTS. The big change for 1.2 is SA-CD capability, or, more accurately, one bit audio. DVI is a done deal, but the video world is not going to stand still for it; it may be even more subject to obsolescence than the current HDMI standard. At this point, DVI's 8 bit limit for video doesn't create much of a problem, but when the content offered to consumers supports a higher bit rate along the entire chain, DVI will be at a decided disadvantage, even compared to HDMI 1.1. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy an SD DVD player now with the current HDMI standard, or even with DVI (if I had a handle on the possible problems with black level and color space). But to me, the advisibility of buying a DVI receiver rather than an HDMI one is not so obvious. I do believe that the sonic obsolescence of HDMI 1.1 and 1.2 in the face of HDMI 1.3 will be mitigated somewhat by the analog alternative--the same 5.1 analog outputs/inputs that we have now. But when hi def, or even better-appointed standard def, hits the market, DVI may not have the same kind of recourse in analog component connections, if only for copy protection purposes (apart from copy protection, analog component theoretically can handle state of the art hi def, but its high-frequency response, and ability to withstand noise, may well give the digital format the eventual nod on style points, though digital video has its drawbacks as well).

Ed

[Woochifer]

Everyone is so hung up on features that they are missing the boat when it comes to sonics. I'd put sonics over features anyday. Until HDMI becomes stabndardized which its not, why put it on a receiver. At least DVI isn't going to change anyrtime soon. Backlit remote doesn't make it sound better.

I'd rather see a company put their dollars into the preammp/amp section then add features. Like NAD, theres something to be said for understated simplicity but with the power to deliver the sound cleanly

I think that HDMI is important for anyone who plans to use their receiver for video switching, especially if they have not yet made the upgrade to HDTV but plan to do so soon. HDMI IS the here and now standard for digital video -- it's pretty much standard on all new HDTV models right now and most new DVD players. HDMI's a secure digital video standard, and that will be required on HD-DVD and Blu-ray. The newer DVD players coming out and a lot of newer receivers are HDMI 1.1 compliant, which means that in addition to digital video the connection can carry PCM, DD, DTS, AND DVD-Audio signals as well. HT receivers have been a bit slow in adding HDMI, but they've definitely gotten on board now and by this time next year, I don't think you'll find too many receivers outside of the entry level ranks without HDMI switching. There's no guarantee that future HD components will allow for HD resolution through the analog component video connections, since piracy paranoia is dictating a lot of things nowadays.

I will agree that the amp and preamp sections are important, but I would also add that in my listenings, the differences between comparably priced receivers have been subtle, which indeed make the feature sets on receivers the biggest difference makers. And it's not like the receivers at that $1,000 price point are totally ignoring sound quality.

[EdwardGein]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use this as part of any selection criteria but just remember in most cases, whatever the product or magazine, these places only consider for the most part advertisers of their magazine.

[kexodusc]

I like Outlaws amps but the 1050 receiver was one of the worst receivers for the money I've ever played with. Those who know me know I don't bad mouth equipment very often, I can't remember the last time I said something negative about a piece in fact. What I remember about the 1050 (my brother had it for a mere 2 months until he sold it on Audiogon - ata profit mind you, so not a total loss) was it was full of power, looked like a quality reciever, but sounded like any typical $300-$500 a/v receiver. Except without all the features. And yes, when competition is offering a comparable product with more gizmos for the money, they are important. I use most features on my receiver.
Considering the 1050 ran about $600 brand new he was quite disappointed. Maybe we had higher expectations from all the audio-hype on the internet, but to put that unit in the same class as a NAD or Rotel receiver was stretching it. Not even close. He ended up being an early buyer of the RX-V1400 and used it as a pre-pro (which is where I got the idea from), and bought some Parasound stuff for his stereo.

Considering how great their amps are (huge value there), I can only assume it was the pre/pro section that was 2nd rate. I haven't heard any of their pre-pros, but hopefully the new receiver is a step up considering it's gone up in price. As far as amps go, I think Outlaw is great, kind of like how NAD use to be, but I can't help but wonder if the pre/pro side of things is an afterthought to them. 2 years is a long time though, maybe they got it right this time around.

Moral of the story, don't believe the hype, and always demo before you buy.

[Tarheel_]

I agree about the bells & whistles crap.

Why waste money on a nice backlit remote when 98% of the users will be replacing it with a Harmony or Pronto anyway?

Give me the sound quality, keep your 'audio jewelry'.

Your mistaken, 98% of users will NOT be replacing their remotes with $100+ remotes.
It's obvious you have never owned a decent factory remote. My AVR came with a wonderful remote that controls all my components, the macros work like a charm, and the backlighting is a must during movie watching (DVD controls).

The bells and whistles are a big consideration, especially since convinence is a major selling point. Plus, the audiophile can always add a separate amp and use all the bells and whistles without compromise.

[N. Abstentia]

I gotta disagree. I'd bet that most everyone on this board that has a sub $1000 AVR uses a remote other than the one that came with it.

What AVR do you have?

[drseid]

Everyone is so hung up on features that they are missing the boat when it comes to sonics. I'd put sonics over features anyday. Until HDMI becomes stabndardized which its not, why put it on a receiver. At least DVI isn't going to change anyrtime soon. Backlit remote doesn't make it sound better.

I'd rather see a company put their dollars into the preammp/amp section then add features. Like NAD, theres something to be said for understated simplicity but with the power to deliver the sound cleanly

Can't argue about wanting to focus on the sonics over features... Just one problem... I tried Outlaw's pre/pro and it sounded *awful* with my speakers. It lasted all of 1 month in my system before I jettisoned it..

I should point out that the folks at Outlaw are the nicest and most honest in the business. I truly wanted to like the product (especially at its price point)... but my speakers tend to reveal the limitations of the electronics driving them, and the Outlaw had plenty of problems in my system (their monoblocks too). I hope the new receiver sounds better than my prior experience.

As for Home Theater Magazine... I gave up my subscription a year ago when they switched to the new scoring system. In the new system, just about *everything* gets a 95+ score... so a 98 does not mean much anymore, IMO. Really too bad, as I used to love the Magazine when it was in its heyday years ago -- now it is just another advertisement focused magazine with all positive reviews and no credibility.

---Dave

[Woochifer]

I gotta disagree. I'd bet that most everyone on this board that has a sub $1000 AVR uses a remote other than the one that came with it.

What AVR do you have?

Actually, I still use the remotes that came with all of my AV gear. The Yamaha remote that came with my receiver (MSRP $800 in 2001) was the only learning remote in the bunch, so it's the closest thing that I have to a universal remote. My recent SACD player purchase just added yet another one to the pile, and I need to use it in order to toggle between the CD and SACD layers, and the 2-ch and multichannel tracks.

Thought about trying out one of the Home Theater Master remotes, but I've always had other priorities in mind when accounting for the cost.