To me, video switching is more trouble than it's worth unless the receiver is capable of converting between all interfaces. I have a Hi-Fi VCR with composite only connections, a DSS reciever with composite and S-video outputs, a DVD player with composite, S-video and component outputs, and a tv with all of the above inputs. If the A/V receiver can't up-convert composite and S-video into component, I still have to use multiple inputs on the tv.

So, my suggestion would be to make a receiver with NO video switching and either pass the savings along to the customer or put it into better audio/surround sound.

As a complimentary component, design a video switching/conversion box to which all video sources would be connected and converted to any other video format for connection to the video monitor. This component should be IR controlled by the receiver remote and programmed such that choosing "Source 1" on the receiver simultaneously connects the "Video 1" input to the monitor.

So for those people who have a tv with sufficient video inputs, they don't have to pay for the video switching in the receiver. And for those that want the video switching, they can buy the external, high quality, video switching and conversion box which would functionally integrate with the receiver. There might even be some quality pay-offs by separating the the high-power components in the receiver and the high-frequency, more interference-prone video section.

Matt

PS Do we get any royalties for marketable suggestions?

You make some good points, all of which I believe explain why the 1050 has fairly basic video switching -- to do any less would look extremely abnormal and would penalize many users while offering little cost savings, but to do any more would begin to increase unit cost. And composite/S-Video to component is pretty complex -- limited to upper end units, far removed from our humble friend the 1050.

A pure video switcher could be pretty cool -- particularly one that can be programmed to accept the receiver or pre/pro's input signals and change between inputs at the same time.



- I think only if by "royalties" you mean "nothing" or perhaps "the opportunity to buy as many units of said marketable product as your heart desires / pocketbook can stand"

------------------
Gonk

I completely agree with the total NO Video idea. It seems like every AV item I have wants to control it all. I dont like the idea of daisy chaining signals and such only to downgrade the signal. I say leave the video switching up to the TV/monitor and let the reciever worry only about the audio.
And if there was a way to focus on better sound and components in lieu of the video, I would pay extra!
Also to the Outlaw gods that are listening, please include AB switching next time please :-)

I agree with everythig said in this thread so far. But only as it applies to the next pre/pro. I think that what we're talking about here is a bit too high-end to be really worthwile for a receiver.

A separate video switching box is a Good Idea, especially if it can upconvert EVERYTHING to component. My goodness, that would save me a lot of remote fiddling and make video switching actually worth it for me. It would also have to at least maintain the original quality of the signal. I'm not expecting a deinterlacer or line doubler; just good ol' 480i on component with OSD. I'm guessing that the switcher would also be overlaying the OSD.

Another advantage is, you can remove ALL video circuitry from the pre/pro, which could (I'm not saying will, but could) remove some interference there. And, of course, allow resources to be better spent on better sonics.

One difference, though, is that I think the video switcher would have to be connected to the pre/pro with some kind of proprietary cable, both for control and for transmitting OSD data to the switcher. The switcher should NOT have an IR eye.

This also allows people who don't like video switching to not pay for it. Best of all worlds! Even better, it allows the Outlaws to release the one first, and then focus on the other, and not recall one because of bugs in the other.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Or at least if it has an 'eye' [for stand alone operation] it can defer control to the link wire if present.

I am not clear on what would need to be done to sync the audio and video source if you have an external unit, but I must agree - a unit that takes in all video sources and sends out a component signal to the TV would be great. I was reading the specs of ATI's latest AIW product and they are using the graphics chip to 'clean up' the cable signal coming in. I'm not sure if the 'audio purists' would object to that or not, but it seems to a novice that it would make a welcome addition. I think for normal analog TV signals some processing could make a very visible difference.