I want a reasonably priced receiver or pre/pro with NO video switching. The Bryston SP1.7 (now being replaced by the SP2) is just way too expensive.
I do not use the video switching in either of my systems.
Does anyone else out there want a product with NO video switching?

i dont use video switching through my receiver (though i have had to in the past), but i think most people want it. depending on how much gear you have and how nice of a tv you have, will dictate the need. it is safer to put it in rather than take it out for sales purposes. i think there is a convergence of audio and video rather than a divergence, hence the term home theater.

plus who knows what will be the next great thing requiring another input that you dont have available on your tv.

its not like we would be saving any money without the video anyway.

There are some people who would like to be able to get a receiver or processor without video switching, but it's rare and probably becoming more rare. Eliminating the video switching would allow them to reduce the cost some, but the number of people who need video switching is large enough that the potential market for such a device would be sparse. Putting the video switching in a separate chassis (which is basically what Bryston has done) gives the consumer a bit more flexibility, but then the overall package cost of the audio and video components is going to be higher than a competitor's all-in-one unit. (That's not an issue for Bryston, since the combination of SP1.7 and SPV-1 sell in the same price range as a Lexicon MC-12 or a Meridian, but it's a more crowded market with narrower ranges in price for companies like Outlaw.) Plus there's probably even less manufacturer interest now than in the past in trying to develop products with this approach since HDMI is playing such a significant role in upcoming source components like Blu-ray players, HD-DVD players, and some cable and satellite receivers. Since HDMI carries both audio and video, it is going to make including video switching in a receiver or processor even harder to avoid.

Yes, I agree that most people want the video switching (even if they never use it). But I would think that anyone who owns an external scaler would not need the video switching. Companies like DVDO and Faroudja have sold a lot of units, right?
Also, HDMI is a step backward that I do not want to make unless I have to. I have a projector with a DVI input. This is better for me than HDMI because DVI can run longer lengths (or so I read). DVI is also better because it screws on. HDMI just falls out. I would think most people with projectors would rather be able to run longer video cable than send audio to a projector with no speakers with a crappy little connector that falls out. I will be sad if the Playstation3 only has HDMI, because it is an inferior connection.
Is anyone out there that agrees with me that they want a receiver with NO video switching?

HDMI can run at least as long as DVI, actually, although I agree that the connector on HDMI is not a great design.

You're not the only one - I've read posts here and elsewhere from others who don't want video switching - but it is a rare interest.

I stand corrected - It looks like HDMI may go a little longer than DVI.
For me, the absolute minimum distance to run my video is 21ft. I still choose DVI, though now I do not feel as strong about it as before.

i agree hdmi sucks. i dont really find it an enormous benefit to have the audio and video crammed into one cable, because as you mentioned - sometimes one doesnt want the audio to go where the video is going. in a sense this forces us to use video switching in our processor, because the hdmi will need to go both places (projector and processor) and it would be simplest to go to processor then out to projector. plus as you have said the hdmi connector is cheap. lucky for us, technology changes quickly and hdmi will be overtaken by something else.

Since HDMI is a digital signal with different ‘bits’ for audio and video, the signal can be sent to various devices. A particular device recognizes and picks off the bits that it needs and either passes on or ignores the rest. Carrying the video and audio in the same bundle of cable digitally will not cause the same problems as trying to do so in the analog realm.

The length of any data cable run can be extended to a fair degree by making the cable out of ‘better stuff’ than the standard light-duty multi-conductor cable or even further by using ‘converters’ of some type.

Back in my ancient work history, trying to carry RS-232 serial digital control data over long runs was problematic because RS-232 is an ‘unbalanced’ connection format. If enough hum, noise or signal degradation took place, the gear on either end would not be able to recognize the data. To extend the run, we would either break out the connector to individual, multiple BNC connectors and use high quality coax instead of the usual serial cable, or convert RS-232 to RS-422, RS-422 being a ‘balanced’ connection format, run the cable for a good ways, then convert back to RS-232. This conversion process did not convert the data in any way, only the cable format. In extreme cases, we could use converters from wire to optic fiber and back again.

The HDMI data is certainly transfered at higher rates than the old serial contral data I was using, but similar principles apply in getting the signal from point A to point B. In any case, long run HDMI cable may not be an off-the-shelf item in consumer stores, but there are bound to be ways to accomplish long runs for projectors or other gear that will not compromise the integrity of the data being carried.

I'd also like a pre/pro without video switching but I doubt Outlaw would sell one.