Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 15375 times.

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« on: 12 Aug 2010, 04:27 am »
 
Why did I choose the RR 2150?
   I have owned a great number of amps in the past: integrated, receivers and separates. My choice of the RR2150 at this juncture does not reflect a changing taste.   It is greatly economic. I just can’t justify dropping kilobucks on an amp right now. Old, used amps don’t sit well with me because I have seen electrolytic storage caps dry up and explode in as little as 12 years.  I cannot justify a tube amp at this point—simply to avoid the money pit that they can be.  That is...endless tube rolling and tweaks.  The RR2150 was chosen because the expense is set.  $723.00 is all I am really spending. That's a fraction of the cost I'd eventually spend on a Jolida JD502 or Dynaco ST-70 getting tube rolling or mods done. I will state that I was considering an NAD product.  That is because NAD uses excellent parts and has a more refined product than almost everything in their price class.  The only downside is that NAD amps really aren't that powerful. When it comes to solid state, I prefer a little too much vs. “almost” enough.  The NAD wasn't quite “steel-fisted” enough IMO. NAD is musical and revealing, but not quite there, in terms of dynamics.  At least they err on the polite vs. harsh side. The RR 2150 has gotten impressive reviews, even from the relentlessly condescending (to affordable gear) Stereophile magazine. Other e-zines were more direct and less aloof in their assessments. I liked Home theater, Enjoy the music and about.com more than snottio…err stereophile.  I decided to give it a shot. For purposes of this review, I am going to stick to the $299 to $3,999 price range.  I could throw in my high end ss amps or tube gear, but I wanted to compare apples to apples.  That is:  modest to high priced receivers or integrated amps. They do a good job for casual listening with often very good musicality. On paper, they are electrically well executed.
   
   Too much junk in the trunk.
   Compare some 1980’s counterpoint components to modern A/V components.   I have opened the case of both.  In the counterpoint, you find copper shielding and space between components. Under the hood of modern mid-fi lies a forest of daughter boards are unshielded and separated by just a few millimeters.  This looks like they are begging for interference.  Oh, I am sure they have been tested in some way.  Some even use some decent components.  But there is a reason mid-fi receivers tend to sound harsh or opaque and I hypothesize that this is a big part it.  To test my hypothesis, I build some faraday cages out of copper sheeting.  I shielded the transformers and case.  It was obvious to me, and everyone else that heard the components that there was an absence of the previous glare and stridency.  This may, or may not always be the case, but it does explain why seemingly well built integrated units just don’t sound as clean as separates.  It also explains why there is either a smearing of the signal or harshness.  I suspect in the case of a receiver or integrated, skimping in the low-signal level pre-amp section is the biggest detriment.  The other detriment is that some surprisingly beefy looking amps simply lack a proper transfer function or don’t meet rated output.  Deceivers…oops, I mean receivers are the biggest culprit.  “170 watts” is often a real-world 30 watts per channel: not even close. And 50 watts per channel will often get dusted by a 30 watt tube amp.  It’s all cheap mid-fi mass marketing and a numbers game hyperbole. Poor power supplies, poor shielding, and poor transfer function.  There is not one single a/v receiver that is crammed full of processing chips that sounds high end and transparent to me…none. There is just too much junk in the signal path, and too much interference from too many boards. I understand a degree of “sonic purity” that minimalists prefer.  I am not a minimalist, but again…no “maximized” set of features have show me they can be the sonic equal of something designed just for 2 channels.
   
   
   Where does the Outlaw fit in?
   None of the receivers I have heard from Denon, HK, Yamaha, Sony, Pioneer etc..  are in the league of a Sim Audio or Bryston integrated. Pro reviews imply that the RR-2150 is.  It does make sense that if you cut out the overhead of huge magazine ads and esoteric names and markup, you can offer a product that performs like high end, but doesn't have the pretentious price.  I was around when hi-fi started becoming cost-is-no object in the late 80's.  Price tags inflated dramatically, but often performance did not.  In fact, some high end gear measured badly and sounded underwhelming.  Even this day, the price tag forces the snooty, pinky-extended audio types to respect the product more than it may deserve.  The very name “Outlaw” does not carry with it the beluga caviar-and-XO brandy image that the vanity or formulated exotic names have.  I dare say that “Outlaw” flies in the face of that crowd. By the non vanity or exotic name alone...never mind price, the Outlaw RR2150 will not be taken seriously by audio snobs like it deserves to be. Maybe I can answer where it belongs after listening.
   
   My listening environment:
   My setup is in a 26x16 room with carefully measured speaker and sofa listening positions. There is nothing between the speakers except a VMPS new larger sub crossed at 60hz.   IMNSHO, there is no substitute for a listening environment sans obstacles between the speakers or being too close to walls, or in too small a room for a given system.  I am not going into the specifics of my system, because unless you have EXACTLY what I have, in EXACTLY the same room, your mileage will vary. The parameters required to drive power-hungry speakers like ATC and B&W are entirely different than driving horns, stats and planars.  Some thrive on voltage transfer, some thrive on current transfer.  Some need both.  Horns can be particularly fussy because the lowest level noise can be really in-your-face obvious. No one in their right mind would consider single-digit wattage from a flea-powered SET proper amplification for B&W 802’s. Yet some mega-powered solid state amps sound pretty arid or harsh on horns.  It’s all synergy.
   
   Unpacking:
   It never fails.   When I am at work, FED EX drops by in the morning and leaves a tag.  When I am off work, they ALWAYS show up in the afternoon- meaning I have to sit around waiting for them. That, or drive for an hour to the fedex hub to pick it up.  I was pleased at the heft and solidity of the RR-2150. That inspires confidence. I totally dig the art-deco design, it's really nice looking.  Come to think of it, I like art-deco period.  This is the Chrysler building of receivers.
   
   Personally, I am glad there are no onscreen menus for the RR 2150.   I have had plenty of bad experiences with receivers that become bricks when you suddenly find that the HDMI or video menus go down.  Some have gone down due to software issues, others have burned out.  That left me unable to use most of the receiver’s functions. I also didn’t want to have a display on just to listen. I immediately ruled out any components that relied on that technology from a 2 channel system. I like avoiding that too much junk in the trunk routine.
   
   I chose eclectic types of music to give me a good sense of scope of the RR2150's abilities.    I really dig a good sounding tuner.  My past favorites have been the Yamaha T-85, Carver TX-11A, Nakamichi ST-7 and Onkyo 8080.  I was hoping the RR was in that vicinity.  The first thing I listened to after unpacking was NPR on FM.  I listened to both NPR talk (like car talk and “wait wait don’t tell me” )  classical, jazz and new age stations.   Listening to FM, it was obvious from the outset that the voices sounded natural.  They didn’t have that midbass bloat associated with a lot of receivers.  I cannot ascertain if the tuner has a superior ability to get the signals, but I can say the end result of the output is better vocals and better music. So, at least I can determine that the tuner section does sound very good when compared to my favorites.  I’d have to split hairs to really get a winner.  It would be like choosing a favorite daughter or something.
   
   
   Digital sound.
   I am using both FLAC and ALAC files via USB input. Here is where the outlaw showed me that it does belong in that class of integrated amps that run in the 3-4 grand range.   The one thing these amps do that even some very well equipped av receiver’s (AVR) don’t is ambience.  That is, recovering the decay and timbre of instruments.  Standard receivers sound pleasant, musical but they are abbreviated.  Playing back something along the lines of choral work to the soundtrack from “O brother, where art thou?”  is an instant stand out.  Where a standard AVR would reproduce something decent sounding, I have yet to hear one that retrieves special cues like the outlaw.  When a recording is done with real fidelity (never mind the overproduced pop of today)  the echoes from a voice or instrument should describe the recording space.  Listening to “Cantate Domino” you should be able to hear the internal space of a cathedral.  I have not heard an AVR do this.  Nor have I heard an AVR  sort instruments and layer them like this.  Music isn’t just a flat plane in front of you and one mass of sound.  Instruments have their own space.  Playing Sonny Rollins or Al Hirt, the horns sound like they are physically there, directly in front of you with great focus.  The image does not drift.  Nor do female vocals like Eva Cassidy, Diana Krall or Jennifer Warnes flatten out or congest like I was getting from any one of my receivers. Despite it’s 1957 vintage and mono recording, John Williams guitar recital really blooms realistically, a very faithful and vivid acoustic guitar image is painted in the space between the speakers.  I have heard these on many systems and I know how good they are supposed to sound. The musicality of the RR 2150 kept making me impatient to hear another tune…and another.  It was nice to hear previously opaque sounding recordings really shine.  When a Zildjian A custom cymbal was struck, the warmth, sheen and decay were all there beyond mid-fi capabilities. The cymbal really takes on that shimmer of B-20 bronze alloy.
   
   BASS
   I liked fiddling with the “ICBM” bass management system.   I didn’t EQ bass for my mains, but I set the crossover for 60hz.  I was impressed by the definition. AVR bass tends to boom and be less defined and controlled.  This is great for explosions, not great for fidelity of music. In addition to bloating bass, AVR’s allow bass to murk up the rest of the recording, make everything sound less definite and clean.  I like that there are toroidal transformers here, not cheap/noisy iron core.  There also seems to be more than adequate storage capacity as dynamic peaks and headroom do not struggle.  I can tell plenty of current is on tap and bass damping is on the money. It’s a nice power tranny. That is, never wooly and never over damped. I have heard some mega-amps that choke bass too much, and it sounds unnatural that way.  Not here. It hits the spot, never overdamping or sounding wooly.
   
   Summary:
   In the years before outlaw, I’d say that the level of detail, layering and musicality the RR 2150 delivers was only available if you were willing to drop 3-4 grand.   In the modern age, things are designed in the USA, and built in China to specifications, and sold internet only.  That, with the lack of pretense does in fact mean that what cost the consumer to buy a North American built integrated of high quality a few years ago and sold at a hefty price to support boutiques and magazine ads, now can be had for $723.00. There is no question that the RR2150 is on equal footing sonically with anything in that price range.  That USED to be what I aimed for, because the all-on-one AVR’s don’t perform that way, and quality integrated amps used to come at a premium.  I don’t worry about that anymore.  As trite as it may seem without actual test equipment, I firmly believe that the RR 2150 delivers it’s rated power and then some.  The sound is smooth, never bloated, detailed and clean.  It doesn’t suffer from the veiled murk of run-of-the-mill midfi.  Call the Outlaw the “  Hors-la-loi sonique”, sell it in a boutique for $3,499 and it would be the toast of the aloof hi-fi press.   I’ll settle for $723 shipped, and the same performance normally associated with that price point. It gives you plenty of that “you are there” experience without pretense or excuses.
 
   I have to say, the Outlaw RR-2150 exceeded expectations.   It was a great investment that far outperforms AVR’s and integrated amps in the price range and beyond.  It does not cease to amaze me with it’s sonic delicacy and yet solidity when called for.  It has the kind of dimensionality and layering alien to this market.  I have gotten liquid music from trumpets that just pour out into my listening room.  If you are willing to compromise sonics for A/V features, this isn’t the component for you.  But if you want to laugh heartily at someone who spent 3-4 grand to achieve the same thing, then have at it.  I do not hesitate to call this amp a top-notch performer and a winner in every aspect. I am glad I got one now, because who knows, in a few years they could pull a Shanling and triple the price. That’s my .02…your mileage may vary.
   
   
   Here is some recommended listening.    Get classical and jazz, as they tend to be much higher fidelity than rock/pop.  Also note that pre-1990’s analog recordings tend to be superior because they aren’t over processed with pro tools.  Analog recordings are not as badly compressed so that instruments are at one dynamic level.  There is also certain blandness to recordings that have been through too many adjustments.  And incidentally, to really run a component through its paces, you have to include some of all of this…several hours of eclectic listening. Never jump to conclusions…always take your time.
   
   Female vocals:
 -            Eva Cassidy
 -            Jennifer Warnes
 -            Holly Cole
 -            Jacintha
 -            Celine Dion
 -            Enya
 -           
   Male Vocals:
 -            James Taylor- gr hits
 -            The Eagles- 7 bridges road, no more walks in the woods
 -            Steve Perry- Various with Journey
 -            Randy Travis- always and forever
   
   Orchestral:
 -            Holst the planets:   Charles Dutoit/Montreal symphony
 -            Space spectacular- Telarc
 -            Anything conducted by Furtwangler
 -            John Williams- film collection
 -            Trumpet spectacular-Telarc
   
   Keys:
 -            Nojima plays liszt
 -            Glenn Gould
 -            Horowitz at the Met
   
   Strings:
 -            John   Williams (guitarist)  guitar recital (2cd)  Mono, 1957
 -            Anner Blysma- Bach cello concertos
 -            Jacqualine du pre- Elgar concertos
 -            Rob Wasserman- Solo
 -            Violin adiagios-various
 -            Celtic guitar-Michael Hromek
   
   Various:
 -            Al Dimeola- kiss my axe
 -            Bela Fleck- last flight of the cosmic hippo
 -            Andreas Vollenwieder- down to the moon, white winds
   
« Last Edit: 13 Aug 2010, 02:14 am by Construct »

nonoise

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 294
  • A republic, if you can keep it.
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #1 on: 12 Aug 2010, 05:42 am »
Great review there Construct. You've piqued my interest.

mcgsxr

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #2 on: 12 Aug 2010, 03:16 pm »
That is one thorough, well thought out and communicated review.

Nice work, and glad to hear that you are happy with the Outlaw - they do appear to produce good quality products at a great price point, and I am happy that you have found a piece that makes your day!

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #3 on: 12 Aug 2010, 03:40 pm »
That is one thorough, well thought out and communicated review.

Nice work, and glad to hear that you are happy with the Outlaw - they do appear to produce good quality products at a great price point, and I am happy that you have found a piece that makes your day!
Thanks! (I was inspired by Steven Rochelin's  ETM review---it didn't take a "down the nose"  approach.)

I was skeptical because it wasn't that long ago that you got mediocrity below 3 grand.  This unit would make a very nice preamp on it own.  Now that I have had it for a couple months, it has opened up.  It's really enjoyable to hear nuance of strings and non-woody sounding brass from something that doesn't cost over 3 grand.  This is a good unit, much better than things for $1,500 a few years ago.  The layering is superb, not in the league of something like a nice tube amp...but it's close. it is solid state in terms of bass and attack, but it almost sounds hybrid in terms of allowing lushness and dimension.  It's no joke.

bummrush

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #4 on: 12 Aug 2010, 03:41 pm »
Nice nice nice writing ,In this day and age nice to see and hear of such a decent product.

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #5 on: 12 Aug 2010, 04:04 pm »
Nice nice nice writing ,In this day and age nice to see and hear of such a decent product.
QC and good stuff is not as common as I'd hoped.  More and more companies (ranging from Harmon Kardon to Krell)  outsource designs to China.  And they don't always work.  Emotiva, for example has been experiencing some QC issues with the preamp, and even a few amps.  So far, Outlaw's QC record has been very good.  It all starts with QC.  I don't care if it's $500  or $5,000... if it doesn't work correctly for YEARS it's useless to me. 
I recommend NOT buying HK AVR's or Emotiva preamps at this point.

davidrs

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 473
  • Which do you value more, happiness or truth?
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #6 on: 12 Aug 2010, 05:07 pm »
Hi Construct,

Terrific write-up.

Had the RR2150 in my third system fed by a Logitech Squeezebox Duet.

Wish I had been able to justify the third system and keep the RR2150. Has an amazing amount of versatility built in.

Great to know you are enjoying the component.

- David.

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #7 on: 12 Aug 2010, 05:17 pm »
Hi Construct,

Terrific write-up.

Had the RR2150 in my third system fed by a Logitech Squeezebox Duet.

Wish I had been able to justify the third system and keep the RR2150. Has an amazing amount of versatility built in.

Great to know you are enjoying the component.

- David.
Thanks... and yes--- right now I have 3 systems.  HT (surround), 2 channel (critical listening) and bedroom (background).  As much as I like the bedroom on occasion, I really can't justify it.  I am either reading or sleeping, and music would be soft background.  Economics and time forge our decisions. I just don't need money in another rig.  I imagine building some GR or other 2 way kit speakers to improve my bedroom system but then I think... why? It's another expense and I really would not get the use out of it. Lavishing a system with expensive gear is pointless unless it's REALLY used. My pet peeve is people with so much money they buy systems I could never afford and spend 95% of the time listening from another room while they do something else. 

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #8 on: 12 Aug 2010, 06:06 pm »
I mentioned Enjoy the music...they review "as is"  not "as it should be if it was 20 grand and they bought a full page ad from us." I am going to soapbox a little here...
The top 6 ways for a reviewer/publication to break the faith and make them lose credibility with me:
1.  Condescend/Talk down to lower cost products.  TAS, UHF and STEREOPHILE are often relentlessly condescending to appease the snobs when it comes to reviewing lower cost products.  They don't take anything at face value...it's usually some backhanded compliment at best.  Like "Not bad ...for the price..." Which leads me to:


2.  Write extreme exaggeration:  it's one thing to be enthusiastic, but I have read things that are over the top and far beyond what a boutique product should deserve.  This includes calling some small $13K speakers "A bargain."  Sure, it's all relative, but there are speakers that cost $3K that go toe to toe with $20K speakers.  So by that reality, $13K should go toe to to with $60K, and in the case of Alon for example, they don't.  Don't tell me that a product can warp the fabric of time and space when it's actually less impressive than $1,800 Vandy 2CE sigs.


3.  Pad the tally.  Expensive gear gets all the leeway in the world and the obvious flaws are glazed over.  The ALON circe (and Revel products)  was given a too generous "B"  for it's flawed performance and then due to price, it was upgraded to "A".  That act annihilated the credibility.  "A" should be zero compromise at any price.  Not "A"  because it's more expensive.  That is intellectually disingenuous.  Imagined conversation at stereophile.  Reviewer: "Boy, that $13K  speaker is pretty lame, it deserves a "D"  but I am thinking "C"   just because they are expensive and buy ads."  Editor:  "At first thought, it's expensive so it MUST be at least a "B".  Oops... they spend HOW much on ads?  Oh crap.  Make it an "A".


4. Wear  bias on your sleeve.  Why do idiot reviewers proclaim how much they dislike something but they have to review it anyway?  Some of these reviews (see rule #1)   are thinly disguised bashing sessions for products that aren't paying for big ads.  Hmm.. Less than $13k?  let's tear this thing a new one."  or "I hate "X"  type speakers and I begged not to do this review. ( So I begrudgingly  took the stick out my ass to do my job because the boss told me to.) This attitude sours people by stacking the deck.  This puddle of pig vomit that hates the (speakers/components) I use is going to give his "Objective"  review?  GMAB! 


5. De-emphasize and damn by faint praise.  In the case of my outlaw, it was *obviously*  a good sounding component on $38k speakers.  Stop there.  DO NOT rationalize, explain away or downplay it because it's only $723.  It sounded great--FULL STOP.  Don't tell me how it's "Not quite as good as a $22K amp"  Tell me why the $22K amp is JUST BARELY more resolving despite over 20 times the cost.   

6. Be clueless.  I hate reviewers that try to BS their way into making the reading think they have a grip on the technology.  They make declarative statements that are clearly in error, and the associate and editor-in-chief misses it too.  A tube cannot reproduce 20khz?  HUH?  Mass damping not accomplished? Toe in a speaker that says not to in the manual than complaining it sounds narrow?  In an effort not to look clueless they try to word around it.  And that makes them lose all credibility.  It's one thing to bend the English language to do your bidding, it's another thing to blow smoke. Reach needs to= grasp.


-END OF LINE-

srb

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #9 on: 12 Aug 2010, 06:21 pm »
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I personally just can't get behind the look.  If it didn't have such contrived styling, I truly believe Outlaw could have sold twice the number of units.  As far as it being "retro", I don't recall any component from the past looking anything like that.  Perhaps "modern deco".
 
But I'm glad it's a good sounding unit.  I would like to see them bring out a tuner-less integrated amplifier version.  With more mainstream styling, of course.
 
Steve

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #10 on: 12 Aug 2010, 06:23 pm »
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I personally just can't get behind the look.  If it didn't have such contrived styling, I truly believe Outlaw could have sold twice the number of units.  As far as it being "retro", I don't recall any component from the past looking anything like that.  Perhaps "modern deco".
 
But I'm glad it's a good sounding unit.  I would like to see them bring out a tuner-less integrated amplifier version.  With more mainstream styling, of course.
 
Steve
True.. some of my favorite styling are the industrial/elegant designs like passlabs x series and even emotivas simple black with bright blue led lights. The art deco looks better to me than a plain case that I'd normally see for $1,000.

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #11 on: 13 Aug 2010, 12:21 am »
After 2 months, the unit definitely exhibits better micro-dynamics than before the 100 hour mark.

poseidonsvoice

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3836
  • Science is not a democracy - Earl Geddes
    • 2 channel/7 channel setup
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #12 on: 13 Aug 2010, 01:44 am »
Construct,

Next time you write a review, shoot me a PM. You have a talent, and yes, I would agree the Outlaw RR2150 is a steal.

Maybe we should send you an Emotiva A/V processor for review...

Thanks for the outstanding read of a clearly overachieving product. When I piece my HT together, Outlaw is on my short list.

Anand.

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #13 on: 13 Aug 2010, 01:54 am »
Construct,

Next time you write a review, shoot me a PM. You have a talent, and yes, I would agree the Outlaw RR2150 is a steal.

Maybe we should send you an Emotiva A/V processor for review...

Thanks for the outstanding read of a clearly overachieving product. When I piece my HT together, Outlaw is on my short list.

Anand.
I appreciate that...
Ohhh the verbal damage I hath wrought...  :icon_lol:
Sorry, I had a couple woodchuck ciders...
I am considering an emotiva power amp in the future. The outlaw would make a decent pre-amp, but 100 watts won't cut it for VMPS RM2/FST speakers.  Those need no less than a stout 200 wpc amp with proper current transfer.  (Sorry Rotel...)

Wayner

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #14 on: 13 Aug 2010, 08:17 pm »
As an owner of the Outlaw RR2150, there are a few flaws that were not mentioned, that I am going to. First, the remote volume control is horrible, Even the slightest touch puts the volume at a position that was not wanted. This is a major flaw to the unit, a reason why I gave it to my bride to use in her sewing room. The next flaw is it's horrible push-button logic control. To put it simply, without the remote control, changing a station is totally cumbersome. If you do not do it every day, you will forget the sequence required, and end up changing things that you did not wish to change. The programming of stations is also idiotic and a very poor design indeed.

The other flaw that was just left out of the design was the capability to send a USB signal back to the computer. This would have made the product a benchmark for archival folks, but Outlaw did not think of this feature at all.

I do agree with most of the review, that for the current price of $599, it is the best 2 channel receiver out there, regardless of it's flaws. I'm on the fence with the "retro" styling, but occasionally as I walk by it, it does look cool, but at an extra cost that offers no value to the music.

I also found that the instruction sheet led the owner to hook up the reciever's speakers out of phase because one set of speakers had the hot and neutral swapped. Oops.

I still would recommend it.

Wayner  :D

srb

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #15 on: 13 Aug 2010, 08:21 pm »
I do agree with most of the review, that for the current price of $599, it is the best 2 channel receiver out there, regardless of it's flaws.  I still would recommend it.

Not that it would change anything you've said, but for reference it is $699.
 
Steve

Wayner

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #16 on: 13 Aug 2010, 08:28 pm »
Wow, I just had a flyer (e-mail) a short time ago and it was $599, honest. So I went to the website and it is now $699. Inflation in a hurry. They are also out of stock.

Wayner

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #17 on: 13 Aug 2010, 10:06 pm »
I forgot to properly review the remote.  In honesty, I didn't use it much at all.  I did read an older comment about the remote motor. It does not move in a smooth, linear manner. I don't necessarily need the USB for more, but it would be nice. I read somewhere the $599 was b stock.  I do agree tha proper function in a plain box is far better than putting money into cosmetics. In all, still worth it for the Sonics.

Wayner

Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #18 on: 13 Aug 2010, 10:10 pm »
$599 was A stock, but perhaps summer clearance. They obviously have had a clearance as there is no stock left.

Wayner

Construct

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 659
Re: Outlaw audio Retro-receiver RR2150
« Reply #19 on: 13 Aug 2010, 10:32 pm »
Naturally , I ended up getting one just after the price went back up. Still, no regrets.