I've been running the 950 for a couple of years and have been pretty happy, but am considering upgrading to the 970 or 990.

One of the things I don't like about the 950 is that when I change channels on the TV (via my cable box, which is connected to the 950 via coax digital cable)there is a dealy before I get the audio. It takes forever for the 950 to decode the audio (all channels are digital, no analog to digital lag). Has this been resolved with the 970?

I have two LD's and a VCR connected to the 950. One LD and VCR via composite input and the other LD via S-Video. When the composite is transcoded via the S-video output to my TV the picture is really grainy and of very poor quality. Since the 970 can transcode via the component (and even let me see my menu on-screen, too cool)this is what I would use as the output to my TV. so how does the 970 handle the video conversions?

The 970 appears to have better DAC's then the 950. I would like to hear your opinions on how they compare when using a digital input from say a DVDP utilizing the 970 DAC's, for DD, DTS, etc. Movies/concerts sound allot better?

In my current set-up I use the analog inputs of the 950 almost exclusively. I like the analog filter provided with the 950, but it's fixed at 80Hz, as is the one on the 970. But, the 970 also provides a digital crossover with more flexibility. How is it implemented?

Since it's a digital crossover seems the analog signal would have to be converted to digital, filtered, and coverted back to analog at the output. I realize this gives more flexibility for SACD/DVDA, but it seems at the expense of the straight through path. Any of you guys experiment to see how different the two sound, even at the same 80Hz crossover? Outlaw, how about a varible analog filter?

Other than balanced outputs, DVI switching, auto calibration, any reason to get the 990?

My primary concern is performance. The extra money for the 990 is not a showstopper, but one of the reasons I like the 970 is because they still have the analog filter option. I like to keep the converions to a bare minimum and keep the path as straight and uninterrupted as possible for my music.

I've seen where some say the 990 sounds better, but I'd really like to know why. Seems like the 970 should sound at least as good. Especially when I see someone say it's much better in the by-pass modes. Huh?? Outlaw?

Your time and input is appreciated.

My wife was also very dissatisfied with the 950's signal acquisition time (the audio delay when changing channels). This behavior is needed to some degree, as the unit needs to know what the incoming format is before processing it (don't want to apply the wrong processing and generate random noise), but it is possible to decrease the time required to do that to the point where it is nearly unnoticeable. I understand that the 970's signal acquisition time is quite a bit improved over the 950's, but without using a 970 myself I can't say what sort of delay might exist on the 970.

I'll let others speak to the quality of the video transcoding, but the 950's transcoding (composite to s-video) was a feature that Outlaw nearly disabled because they weren't really satisfied with its behavior. I haven't heard any complaints about the 970's transcoding, so I suspect it would resolve your problem.

When you say that you are using the analog inputs of the 950, are you talking about the six-channel analog inputs? Since you're talking about the analog bass management, I'm guessing that's what you mean. As you appear to have already realized, the digital option on the 970 converts the incoming signal to digital and applies the digital bass management before converting back to analog. As for a variable analog crossover, I think they call it the ICBM - and I'm not sure how easily it would integrate into a processor.

As for the difference between 990 and 970, both offer DVI switching, but the 990's DVI inputs can be assigned to any video input while the 970's are permanently assigned to specific inputs. Both units use the same Cirrus 49400 DSP, so both have AV sync delay and Pro Logic IIx. Since you already have a good amp in your Model 755, you probably wouldn't use the 990's balanced outputs, but the auto calibration is a handy way to jump-start calibration. The 990 has an extra couple inputs and the ability to edit the labels for video inputs. The 990 also has better DAC's than the 970, which is why it sounds better - the DAC's and a couple of the "smaller" extra features (assignable DVI and component inputs, editable video input names) are the main reasons that I have no intention of stepping down from my 990 to a 970.

You've mentioned preferring to keep an analog signal path all the way through the unit, but for DVD-Video I would seriously suggest giving the digital input to either of these units a try - not only does it give you Pro Logic IIx capability, but the Cirrus 49400 and DAC's (particularly the 990's DAC's) may actually yield better results than the Sony's decoder and DAC's.

There is basically no dealy on my 970 (after turning off the auto polling feature, which caused a lengthy delay_.

Well that can be doen on the 950 as well, but for the DVD input some DVD's are DTS and most DD encoded, so the "auto" setting should be left on.
I think the question is if the 970 faster then the 950 in the "Auto" mode?

John is talking about a different setting - the auto-polling feature on the 970 allows the unit to revert to the analog inputs if the digital input is idle (something that the 950 and 990 will not do). The 950 did allow you to "lock" the unit onto a specific format, but as you point out that ability was really only useful for inputs that always saw the same signal format (like CD players).

Ok, thanks, but you haven't answered my question.
Is the 970 lock on faster to digital signal then the 950, especially DTS ES?

My understanding is that the 970 locks on appreciably faster than the 950, but I have a 990 (which locks on extremely quickly) so I can't speak from personal experience.