If it's based on similar chipset to outlaw, it may have bass management bug when using room EQ
Yes it has do a search for outlaw 976 review
This is a rather good way of spreading bad information. If you had read the review and knew what this was about, then you should give the context to see if "bug" is the right take. If you hadn't read it and just repeating another paraphrasing, then you are propagating falsehoods. Weeks or months later, someone else will be repeating the same falsehood without understanding what that was about and everybody will assume something is broken in that device. It doesn't do anybody any favors.
The review from which this propagated is likely this
https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/outlaw-audio-model-976-7-2-surround-processor-review.3778/
The relevant section is:
Earlier, I referenced a certain quirk inherent in the TI DA808 chipset. The problem is the signal flow path that TI has chosen and what this does to the final product. The way in which the chip operates, the PEQ is applied to the discrete 7.1 channels before bass management. After EQ is applied, bass management is applied, which redirects a portion of the signal to other speakers. Here in lies the problem: you are EQ-ing the source, not the speaker, and that isn’t intuitive since the EQ’s purpose is to correct the speaker and room. This is problematic because if you are trying to remove the effects of room modes in the low frequencies, intuitively you would select the subwoofer or LFE channel to apply EQ. However, problematic low frequencies are likely coming from the main channels and being redirected to the subwoofer. Consequently, you need to apply that cut to the main left and right channel. This process can be a bit confusing at first, but once you understand how it works, applying EQ is very simple and very effective. This quirk would certainly not keep me from recommending this product (or owning it myself).
Once I identified the problem, I was able to make great use of the EQ, but I can absolutely see this non-sensical signal path causing problems for other end users. While talking with Ben, he indicated he was working on an EQ instruction document for owners, designed to ensure they make better decisions than I initially did. In my case, it turned out to be an invaluable tool. I only wish that TI would move the EQ filters after the bass management so that the EQ is being applied to the speaker, not the incoming signal.
First of all this isn't a bug nor is it literally characterized as the reviewer as a bug. Second, EQing upstream of bass management and EQing downstream of bass management are both valid techniques and practically in use. The reviewer is mistaken in stating that as non-sensical being used to one particular way of doing this himself.
Anyone who does Dirac on a PC with a downstream AVR doing bass management is doing Dirac EQ upstream of bass management. To do this correctly you
need to measure with the bass management engaged. What this effectively does is to make each crossed-over speaker look like a full range speaker to the EQ system and this works just fine.
Since the reviewer's experience and preference earlier has been to measure each speaker separately without bass management, he was confused by the Outlaw applying the filters generated with bass management being done downstream. In that kind of a measurement, you would need to have the bass management be upstream of EQ application. But that isn't the only way to do it. This is where the reviewer is off-base.
It isn't a problem as long as it is clear what is being done and
therefore the measurements are done with that in mind (as the reviewer admits above).
What you want to avoid is the following scenario:
Do the measurements without bass management in place downstream but apply the filters generated downstream of bass management in use. This is exactly the wrong thing that happens if, for example, you use say JRiver to do bass management in the player but use a Dirac plugin to do Dirac EQ (the measurement tones get generated by the plugin downstream without bass management in place) downstream.
I suspect all AVRs that allow bass management separately from EQ (especially if they do crossovers in analog) do bass management downstream of EQ. So, it is far from being non-sensical or even unusual.
In my set up described
here where all of this is done in software, I can do either with a click and drag and have chosen to do bass management downstream of EQ. The reason has to do with bass management being more than just crossovers. It includes channel balance between sub and mains as well as phase alignment between sub and mains. If the balances and phases are out of whack an EQ system that does not have its own bass management inside will generate incorrect or sub-optimal filters if you measure without bass management in place to correct those. But as long as your measurement set up is consistent with the order of those, it works fine. There are some theoretical pros and cons to both but in practice, it doesn't really make a difference which one you use as long as the measurement is consistent with order.
I don't own any of the equipment being discussed here but have recommended them to people.