Dan,

I consolidated a list on this page: http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/7/t/000294.html

I'm working on consolidating it down further and perhaps you can help.

I've seen several references here and there to HDMI v1.3's automatic lip sync feature and what is required for it to work. As I understand it, the entire signal path needs to be HDMI v1.3 to make the feature work: source device (HD-DVD, Blu-ray, DVD, cable/satellite, or whatever), receiver or processor, and display. It's a catch that I haven't seen mentioned as often as I'd expect, but it's also a catch that makes perfect sense - every step of the process that is capable of performing some form of video processing (and thus delaying the display of the video signal) needs to be able to contribute to the calculation of the necessary audio delay required to keep the two signals synchronized. I agree that Outlaw and others need to make sure the capability is there in their HDMI v1.3 products, but it seems like it'll be a long time before many people are able to use the feature - and in the meanwhile, the rest of us will need to have the good ol' manual AV sync adjustment controls so we can work out the needed delay for each input. It makes me wonder if all the excitement about HDMI v1.3 is going to create a bunch of capabilities in our receivers and processors that we'll never get to use. First there's TrueHD and DTS-HD MA decoding (which, even once somebody starts building a player that is capable of outputting those bitstreams to a receiver, may still not be available as undecoded bitstreams because players will need to decode to PCM internally to support interactivity features), and then there's automatic AV sync (which will require users to own an entire HDMI v1.3 signal path that supports the feature before it can be turned on).

This is something that I think is certainly appropriate when using a chip like the Reon or Gennum, and worthwhile (albeit with perhaps less complexity) for other chipsets. The danger here, though, is user interface complexity. Someone who is familiar with video processors and all of the settings that they can offer may take it in stride, but there will need to be consideration for somebody just getting into home theater (or into separates from a "simple" surround receiver). That doesn't mean these adjustments can't be included, but they need to be managed somehow so that you can use them if you need them but don't have too much staring you in the face. No matter how good the hardware is, it's useless if you can't get it to work - and unlike Anthem, who can rely on dealer networks to set up units for customers who need help, Outlaw has to design something that a consumer can reasonably take out of the box and set up with just a user's manual in hand.

This is in some ways an extension of my previous concern. How many folks have 2.35:1 projection systems and anamorphic lenses? Even if the hardware will do it without adding cost, there's still a lot of programming (which does add cost) involved in getting this implemented - and the result is going to be even more complexity in the interface for a feature that most users won't even understand the purpose of, much less use (or, possibly even worse, use when they shouldn't).

As others have said, nice list. I agree with Gonk on the keeping of composite and s video outputs and inputs and maybe scaling back the quantity of those inputs. I am not so certain of badging this next gen as an HD prepro would be a good marketing move. From what I can see HDMI is a constantly moving target. I read somewhere that version 1.3b is a certainty and version 1.4 looks like a distinct possibility. With issues like that happening, I would think it is extremely difficult if not impossible, for a small company like Outlaw to call an HDMI spec the one they WILL use in the next prepro without shooting themselves in the foot. Unless perhaps it is only used to pass video along, and still require one to connect a digital cable for audio. If I am correct DVI already does this. One cable for video and another for audio. Admittedly, HDMI 1.1 can do that, at least.

Unless you have the capability to run new products out every 12 months ( Yamaha, Onkyo etc ) you might want to stay away from HDMI as long as you can until the Spec FINALLY settles down.

Sorry, did not mean to rant on like that!

For a 990; a sms-1 and tonal adjustments for the speakers with accross the board osd tv display for sound, for any speaker set-up. Then mixed speaker set-ups could be used a little more easily;(better sound);is what we want anyway. For video, just pass it through to the display the way it came in to the 990. Personally I like the 990 the way it is, thats why I bought it. I dont think outlaw should bend over backwards to keep up with the other this and thats for the HDMI specs 1,2,3,4,? until this really settled.

HDMI will never be settled. That's a fact. At least we know what HDMI 1.3 can do and perhaps build towards that goal.

Outlaw should work with the HDMI group as well as Silicon Optix for the Reon-VX chip, so they implement things correctly. Something Onkyo seemingly failed to do!

The Reon-VX is quite powerful, and I'm sure you can have per input adjustments if you turn them on. This is very important. As anyone who calibrates their displays knows... no two components calibrate alike and there are two distinct color signal requirements for SD and HD video. You can't just do a global setting.

Dan

HDMI has to be settled at some point, and it should be happening sooner rather than later (although I have my doubts about the likelihood of that). Clearly the HDMI group has less consideration for the consumer than we'd like based on what they have done with HDMI to date, but the continual revision process is in no one's best interests - and serves no practical purpose - if it continues forever. And we know what HDMI v1.3 can do, but are those capabilities actually going to be used by the formats that it was developed to support? Players can't currently pass a TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream even when using early v1.3 transmitter chips, but even if the chipsets supported it, will the software allow it? Or will the software force the player to decode these bitstreams so that features like interactive menus, alternate commentary tracks, and downloaded content can overlay their respective audio onto the soundtrack? Automatic AV sync will be handy once it is available throughout the entire signal path, but how many cable/satellite boxes and standard DVD players are going to move to a more expensive v1.3 chip just to support this feature? We don't even know what future format might support the expanded color depth features.

If the Reon is the chip they use, I'd agree that it would be appropriate to coordinate with the chip maker to optimize the implementation - just like they'd coordinate with Cirrus or TI or whoever they get their DSP chip from. Onkyo was moving very fast to get these HDMI v1.3 receivers out in order to grab a big chunk of the "I need v1.3" market, and I doubt there was time to do more than get the chip working and crank up the assembly line.

I wish I had participated in this discussion long ago. I admire the thoughtful contributions and Outlaws' responses. I wish them even more success than they had with the 990.

I have had my 990 for a couple of years now and I love it. I am a research addict and have never doubted that I made the right choice at the time. It is a great product. The only feature I truly wished for then is the first one in this list.

If the 990v2 looks like the 990, maybe I can fool the wife. I won't be able to do that if the price exceeds $1500. So, SantaGonk here is my list:

1. Like gband, I am using the Behringer DEQ2496 for equalization (two actually, for L/R/Center/Sub). I would like to see the digital loop option because not only am I making extra conversions between the digital and analog domains, but the analog signal going into the 2496 varies with the volume control. It would be nice if I could use balanced analog connections at "line level". That said, I would much rather have the digital loop as discussed earlier.

Equalization is a dirty word to many, but done properly within the digital domain, I think the good far outweighs the bad. I would be THRILLED if the next 990 had a parametric EQ as easy to use and robust as the 2496. Then you could forget the digital loop thing.

2. I love the second zone functionality of the 990. I wonder how much it would cost to run only digital inputs into the 990 and have it provide two channel automagically for the second zone. In other words, no duplicated analog sound connections would be required. It is rather a moot point, because I already own all the extra cables.

By the way, I am curious about two things: what percentage of users utilize second zone functionality and how many of those utilize video. Is video necessary for the second zone?

3. The first place I would look to reducing costs would be in cutting most of the standard def video inputs (see number 2) and analog sound inputs. Keep the phono, aux and a tape loop along with one composite and s-video. It looks impressive to see all those jacks on the back panel, but most of the time I look at the front.

4. In some ways, I yearn for the days of separates. With all that we ask of a processor, I think it might make sense to consider separation of audio from video functionality. What I propose is that the only video processing that would occur is a single pass through HDMI connector which would grab the audio portion of the data and do whatever was required for lip sync.

The moving target of HDMI has been discussed many times here, and that is part of my reasoning. If your video output device has adequate quality, just get an HDMI switch - you can get a 3 to 1 for $40 now. If you need more video processing horsepower, choose the component that fits your needs. It will probably have HDMI switching built in. If something new happens with video, buy a new video box, not a new processor.

I would hope that most of us investing this much in a system would have a remote powerful enough (with macros and possibly Ir emitters) to control this extra video device.

I think the approach of the original 990 was pretty good. If it only adds $40 retail for a 4 to 1 HDMI 1.3b deep color 1080P 340 MHz switch, then you may as well. Otherwise, don't bother. I would never consider that the 990v2 should do any video processing.

I know I am ignoring component video, but maybe that could stay just as it is in the current 990, except with fewer standard def video inputs that would be converted to component. This is also how we get the setup menus for the 990.

If the 990v2 were custom designed for me, I would let my display device handle all video inputs, with the exception of multiple HDMI handled by the separate switch. The only video functionality the 990v2 would have would be the single HDMI pass through to extract sound.

In all my blathering, I didn't make my most important point:

I don't want all the gadgetry associated with video in my processor. I don't need a THX label. I don't need a pretty display because it sits in a closet. I want it to do one thing above all else - SOUND GREAT!

Within a retail price of $1500, give me the best audio I can get. Give me 24/192 processing with the best DACs that the price will afford. Give me extraordinary sound field processing. Give me the best analog parts (that make a discernible difference). While you're at it, throw in that parametric equalizer.

Sorry I got so worked up. I think I'll go walk the dog now, because I don't expect my processor to do it.

SoundOfMind raised some interesting points. I agree with some. For example I've never thought THX necessary or relevant. To me I think it's "hype".

Concerning video processing/switching: It's a nice convenience but to me it's not important. Sound is what counts for me. I can always get an outboard switccher if needed. Certainly many of us feed HDMI directly to the TV. HDMI for audio in is a necessary for the upcoming.

Concerning the paparemtric (or other) EQ: a nice idea, but I doubt that the pricepoint and direction for outlaw will likely make it inclusive. I wouldn't mind being wrong, however. To that end a processing loop or two would be nice and very inexpensive [if there is room on back panel]. Still, the EQ inserted between pre/pro and amp works well, and I think this must be the way yours is hooked-up. Mine is that way.

Though there has been forum discussion about deleting the composite and/or analog inputs and outputs I doubt (and hope) this will not happen. Having them is so helpful (and inexpensive) and many of us still use some of these. Only negative might be the real estate on the back panel, as other things are incorporated, i.e. not wanting the size to grow.

Concerning ZONE 2: for me this is such a big plus. In fact the wife was watching TV tonight, while I listened to a CD thru Zone 2 and my headphone circuit. I tried to HP jack and it works well, but kills the room audio. Additionally it limits the listener to dynamic phones. Now there's nothing wrong with those, but some us like our STAX electrostatic HPs.

Furthermore ZONE 2 gives me a feed thru to my DVD recorder for copying VHS and laserdiscs. I know I could use RECORD-OUT bus, but then I would have to have THAT program on. Zone 2 allows recording/copying while watching or listening to something else. If they want to transcode digital to analog that;s fine, but please let;s keep the analog, as they are so convenient.

Now here is something I would really like: While each channel can be trimmed/manipulated in the CHANNEL CALIBRATE screen it sure would be nice to have a front panel separate, indexed control for each. Still the volume control currently would be a master.

Just some ramblings from someone who feels audio is more important.