Are the "Outlaws" for real?

Jayctoyz: Thanks for the kind words. I do what i can with what i have and try to share the limited knowledge / experience that has wandered my way. Either way, the bottom line is to enjoy what you have or find a way to get something that you can enjoy : )

Warehouse: That was a great find and very informative website. Thanks for posting the link. Not only did we learn about the actual performance of the 950, this link exposed me to another interesting item. I am refering to the program that David used to calibrate and measure the performance of these units i.e. TrueRTA. I'll have to check into this program as i think it might come in VERY handy if it has this type of resolution and is as easy to use as he makes it sound. Thanks again... Sean
>

I would also like to start "scientifically" testing my equipment but what comes out on paper isn't necessarily what your ears like. Maybe the equipment is flat across the band but my ears aren't!

There is a free download of the TrueRTA and it is pretty useful even though you don't get the whole picture.

As for the Outlaw 950, I found another document that shows that it's actually a clone of another mfg.

http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/avhardware/clone_prepros.php

Maybe this is a good thing since the other units costs so much more, but it makes you think twice about the 950.

Another good find Warehouse. We call this "badge engineering" within the industry as the only thing that is changed ( in many cases ) is what name or "badge" the component ends up wearing.

I do have one problem with the article though. It stems from this quote: "Being a EE myself, with experience in working with reference designs for OEM purposes, I know that the changes one can make are minor at best, so I find that response a bit perplexing."

I disagree with this to a very great extent. It is possible to use the same power supply, chassis, circuit board, basic circuit design, etc.. and come out with a VERY different product. If this were not the case, "tweakers" wouldn't be gaining anything by swapping / bypassing / upgrading parts and manufacturers wouldn't be coming out with revisions 1, 2, 3 & 4 using nearly identical circuits in the same box. Even though the writer did us a favor by covering such a topic, he tainted the total package by adding in that last statement. The scary part is that many EE's think the same way that he does i.e. it all measures close, so it will perform / sound the same. As any of us that have ever modified circuitry can attest to from first hand experience, such is not the case. Then again, the EE's designing many of these products never get to see or use them at all. If they did, they would surely be more user friendly : ) Sean
>