Since almost every DVD player known to man is moving to HDMI and away from the pointless DVI, is there any plans to convert the DVI to HDMI in the future?

I say pointless (DVI) because in provides nothing more than a component video cable other than the fact that it is digital (WooHoo - Yawn)

Also, did I understand correctly that one of the component video inputs will upconvert to the digital output?

By the way, sorry if it sounds like I am completely dumping on the 990. Not so, Other than the choice for digital connections, I think it is bad a$$!!!! Great product guys!

The DVI switching is completely independent of all other video sources - the 990 will not convert any of the analog video signals to DVI. Sorry.

There's been a lot of debate back and forth about the topic of DVI and HDMI, and I'm going to be lazy and sum it up by copying a paragraph from my review .

Some people online have expressed concern about Outlaw's decision to incorporate DVI switching in lieu of HDMI – HDMI is, after all, the almost guaranteed interface of choice for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (or for a single unified format, if the talks currently under way are successful). I've been doing a good bit of research on this issue, since it is so fiercely debated, and here's what I've come away with. First, an HDMI implementation produced today is almost certainly not going to be hardware compatible with Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or any unified HD video disc format – the standards for the HDMI audio support under those formats remains incomplete. For that matter, SACD may not be compatible (Sony has granted permission for SACD to be transmitted across HDMI's audio path, but that will be incorporated into the next version of HDMI). Basically, HDMI as a digital audio connection is still maturing, and producing a product with the current generation of HDMI is very likely to leave consumers with an incompatible product in a year or so. So what about the video switching aspect? There has been trouble reported about losing blacker-than-black data when HDMI sources are connected to DVI displays, so can the Model 990 switch HDMI? The Model 990's DVI switching is a pure signal pass-through system (I think of it as a "mechanical" switch, a way of swapping cables for me, although that is technically somewhat inaccurate). This means that the pin-compatibility between HDMI and DVI will allow HDMI signals to pass through DVI adapters and the 990's switching without any change to the data, meaning that blacker-than-black data in an HDMI source will survive to reach a display. If that display uses a DVI input and you lose blacker-than-black data at that point, that is an issue unrelated to the Model 990. If the display has an HDMI input, the Model 990 would be a purely transparent portion of the signal path leading to the display and no data would be lost. For switching of digital video sources, the Model 990's DVI inputs (which can be assigned to any video inputs) and output are a great solution.

My question would be:

It makes total sense to use only the video portion of DVI/HDMI, I cant see people arguing that point much. But why not have HDMI as the default physical port and let DVI users buy the adapter. It seems silly to release a new piece of hardware where the default is the old standard. It would have looked better on the specs and caused less of an uproar.

I can think of one simple reason (not necessarily a real good one, but simple): confusion. People see an HDMI input and assume it will provide an audio input, especially as the standard evolves and it starts appearing in more places. If they have an HDMI port that is actually a DVI port with an HDMI adapter built in, you'll have people who don't realize the subtle difference (there's a reason for the "F" in "RTFM") and get all bent out of shape.

Gonk, I have to agree with your post in it's entirety concerning HDMI. I was in the beginning of this debate on the flip side, that is I was thinking that it was a fault for Outlaw not to have included HDMI with the 990. After reading many articles on the subject, and talking with many Techie's. I have come to the opposite conclusion. I believe that we are at least a few years away from anything truly viable for both video and audio with HDMI formats.

Being new to surround and all the tech stuff related (yes I have and love a 990 & 755) I have to ask the question: "Does it really matter that DVI doesn't carry audio?" You assign whatever audio source/format you want to whatever video you want. I may not understand, but I don't see the problem.

jhunt1 - Not sure what you mean by HDMI not being viable for at least a few years. My cable STB already has audio and video on HDMI, as do several Universal DVD players not to mention a lot of the new displays handling audio and video over HDMI. It is only the Pre/Pros that are lagging behind but hopefully they will catch up later in the year. This is today so I'm not sure why you think it is not going to be viable for a few more years.

nfaguys - The attraction to audio over HDMI (DVI was never designed to do audio)is for hi-rez multi-channel sources that exist today and for future HD versions of Dolby Digital and DTS. S/PDIF just doesn't have the bandwidth of Firewire or HDMI or even DVI for that matter.

I think jhunt1 is referring to the fact that today's HDMI is an intermediate step, one that may not be compatible with tomorrow's (full fledged) HDMI - until it is fully developed and ready to be implemented, any use of HDMI (and there is certainly a significant and growing share for HDMI) is a sure-fire video approach alongside an audio form of "planned obsolescence." TV's can risk it because we're not going to care that we can't pipe SACD or Dolby Plus to our TV. Universal players can do today's formats fine (Dolby Digital, DTS, and DVD-Audio - and in another HDMI generation SACD will join those ranks, although that may require buying a new universal player). Budget receivers (like Panasonic's digital amp receivers) can do it because they are something of a "throwaway" product bought mainly by folks who aren't going to get as deep into the hobby as we are and won't mind that their HDMI port won't handle all HDMI sources. Surround sound processors with a four-figure price tag (even ones with a "1" in the first spot) could generate some serious consumer disgust if they have a port that is perceived as "half useless" in a year or two - that's why I believe they are lagging behind (that and the longer development cycles for these products, since they lack the resources of the electronics giants like Sony and Matsushita).

Hello Obie_fl, viable = capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: Both Audio and Video products currently on the market that utilize HDMI only passes 2.0 digital audio, and not full-blown 5.1 surround sound audio. These products include A/V Receivers, DVD players/recorders, and HDTV’ Clearly, it will take time for the audio companies to include full-blown HDMI switching capability as it took several years for component video switching to become commonplace. A handful of DVD players include HDMI output. Sending both digital audio and video signals directly to the TV via HDMI does simplify matters up converting those already pristine DVD images to near HD quality. Audio, on the other hand, from that DVD player will only be sent at Dolby Digital 2.0 quality. for the time being if you are passing digital audio from your DVD Player or Satellite Receiver, I suggest that you use either the digital coax or digital optical output found on the back of the unit. The bottom line, It could very well be years before true 5.1 HDMI reaches the masses. Digital audio and 1394 are here today, and are proven technologies that can pass all types of digital audio signals.These are the connectors of choice to pass all types of stereo and surround sound.