Facinating discussion...I for one would like to have the ability to variably downnmix C info to L/R from a discrete source; whether the 990 has mixing capability I could not say, luckily the outlaws know the answer!
My maganpan 20 ribbons L/R far outpurform the maggie CC2 Quasiribbon (though that limitation is made less by using a ICBM in recombine to remix 200hz and below to the bass panels of the biamped mains.) Of particular use would be when guests arrive for the film, I would like to have a macro to give, say, 90% intact center, and for my wife and I only, I'd like just, say, 20%; the rest mono to the mains.
I am thrilled to see the post from Scott stating that they are working on a software update and are reviewing issues talked about here. My hat is tipped to them for that...as I have written before, I am REALLY disappointed with the display vidio out and panel info (no signal type info such as PCM 48k/44.1, or DD 2.0/5.1, no current mode display, this makes it difficult to choose what mode is appropiate. I had this with the 950!). This is such a important issue for me due to my not having a way to see the 990 from listening position, and rely instead on a remote dedicated CRT, though walking behind speakers to look at the panel doesn't help either as no data type info is there either. I had been so upset about this that I considered putting back and returning the 990 during my 30 days. Thing is, it DOES sound great; better than the 950 for movies, really good for PCM upsample. My early concerns about DD sounding poor appear to be related to incorrect spaeaker distance settings due to my using a outboard digital xover on the mains...still no time to evaluate DTS (new baby and all)

Indeed.

I don't understand why some people, when presented with the limits of what is possible given application of a particular philosophy to product design (open access to various implementation details), reject the philosophy soley on the basis that some extremes cases of its application may not be economically practical or legally possible.

I continue to believe that (a) increased openness about the 990 design and implementation and greater access to internal processing options benefits Outlaw and it's more progressive customers; (b) this can be done without great cost to Outlaw in the simplest of cases (orthogonal feature applicability).

The biggest argument against any such opening up is "We don't have the time to implement that now," which would be perfectly reasonable. But, some indication of what might be possible in the future, at least an acknowledgement of enough of the internal architecture, would be welcome.

That's because "some people" see more practical alternatives.

There's nothing to stop a hammer manufacturer from putting a philip-head screwdriver at the base of a hammer so that it can serve double-duty and do the work of two tools. However, you don't see any hammers like this because screwdrivers already exist and are a more practical tool for that application.

Similarly, the type of functionality that you want (which, let's face it, is the ability to remix a movie soundtrack), is more practically done with an inexpensive mixing console. Not being "economically practical or legally possible" are valid reasons for not squeezing that functionality into home theatre pre-amp/decoders.

This isn't something specific to the 990. There isn't a single HT pre-pro that has the sort of re-mix capability that you want. And that's not based on some rejection of a "particular philosophy", but just a matter of practicality.

Similarly, the type of functionality that you want (which, let's face it, is the ability to remix a movie soundtrack), is more practically done with an inexpensive mixing console.

And what is a mixing console but software, in the digital domain? Why should I have to buy an outboard unit, that works in the analog domain, when all the hooks for a digital mixer are already there?

The point is that I view the 990 as being built up of several hardware and software modules and I'd like greater control in how those modules are wired up, so their facilities are fully utilized. The supplied operation should be a default, or manufacturer-selected "product" made upon this platform. But, it is frustrating when the platform is not exposed as part of the product.

This philosophy would also permit those who do not like the UI to write their own, if so inclined, and not have to accept Outlaw's view of what is the most user-friendly.

Many of the choices made in developing a product on a platform are arbitrary and there is no guarantee that the manufacturer made the right decisions regarding how to put the bits together. This does not mean the entire design and architecture has to be exposed, but a few hooks would increase tha applicability of the platform greatly.

Not being "economically practical or legally possible" are valid reasons for not squeezing that functionality into home theatre pre-amp/decoders.

Except that applies to extremes of the philosophy of open design, and not to all cases of exposure. It would be folly for Outlaw to make Macrovision defeating configurable, for example. But, there is much they can do without such questionable bits.

This isn't something specific to the 990. There isn't a single HT pre-pro that has the sort of re-mix capability that you want. And that's not based on some rejection of a "particular philosophy", but just a matter of practicality.

Take a look at some of the image processing capabilities, particularly deinterlacing choices in Linux PC-based HTPCs. There are cases where the deinterlacing algorithm is plugable. DD decoding is also often available, making it a pre/pro in my book, though the legality of doing that is questionable. Finally, the difficulties of doing all this in software and not DSP firmware, are that a very powerful processor is required, which means a noisy fan, and all that entails.

No doubt the 990 is based on some type of platform. Exposing more of that platform would go a long way to understanding some of the more odd parts of the 990's operation and create the possibility for community-supplied enhancements, or if the platform was simply documented, but not made available at a lower level, informed suggestions regarding same.

Why should I have to buy PC when there's a computer built into my microwave oven? Even in this age of software based devices, there are still different tools for different uses. All the hooks for a mixer are not in the 990, despite what you may want to believe. I suppose some one could design a HT pre-pro that has the functionality of a studio mixing console built into it, but the demand for such functionality is so non-existant that no one has done it. Zero, zip, nada. And is this the product model that you're holding the 990 up against for comparison? A noisy fan and questionable legality? Honestly, rather than have a HT pre-pro with those problems, you really would be better off with a mixing console. It's what recording engineers use when mixing (or re-mixing) movie soundtracks, so it is the right tool for what you want to do.

Duplicate post.