The 990 looks and seems like an excellent product. What are the chances in another year or two to get a version 2 990 with HDMI?

My DVD player can pass DD and DTS over HDMI. Also my display only has one HDMI input. I'm thinking that XBox 360 will be HDMI. Also it appears that Blue Ray and/or HD-DVD will be HDMI.

So what do you all think? Chance to get v2 990 w/ HDMI, and while were are asking for miracles how about 3 or 4 HDMI inputs...

Literally the only thing that would hold me bck is the DVI connections.

Regards,

Charlie

I know that you can get DVI-HDMI cables, but I have read about issues with doing this. Most common is the inability to pass Blacker Than Black.

Edited to clarify statement about XBOX 360/Blue Ray/HD-DVD.. I meant them as separate entities.

When using "straight through" DVI switching, as the 990 does, there is no issue with the alledged "Blacker than Black" issue.

Based on what Microsoft said in May at E3, and more importantly what they did NOT say or show, the Xbox 360 will probably NOT have BluRay or HD-DVD. Current betting is that unless they make a last minute course correction, the HD playback for movies will be in the "WMV-HD" format only. Microsoft has been VERY close about what the actual connections on Xbox 360 will be, and it is worth noting that NONE of the units shown either at their press conference or on the E3 show floor were positioned in such a way as to allow anyone to see the rear panel. Insiders indicate that the current plan still seems to point towars analog Y/Pr/Pb connections via a "dongle" similar to what the current Xbox uses and that there will be NO HDMI on the 360.

You shouldn't have any problems in using the 990 with the DVI-HDMI cables.

There was quite a bit of discussion about this a while back, but it has been a while. Basically, for purely video switching, the 990's DVI inputs and output are capable of switching DVI and HDMI without any issues at all. We poked and prodded at it in some detail (including a few e-mail exchanges with Outlaw to verify our assumptions with the design team), and confirmed that HDMI video signals can be switched without any concerns about "blacker than black" data loss. You can even now get DVI-HDMI cables from Outlaw now (they're only listed on the order form, no information elsewhere yet). As for audio, however, the final HDMI audio specs remain in a state of flux and the potential for the final form (the one that you would have on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player) to require different hardware is what drove Outlaw to stick with a purely video switching solution and to use DVI connections to avoid any confusion as to whether audio is supported or not.

The PS3 will support Blu-Ray media and will have an HDMI output. I haven't seen as much information about the XBox360, but it sounds like PodBoy's kept up with it and if the information he's seen is correct then the PS3 is likely to be the only next-gen console with a digital video output.

I think its safe to say that its still very much in the air if the xbox 360 will have dvi or hdmi. After meeting with Microsoft and seeing it at E3, IGN.com believes it will have dvi or hdmi, but I am sure there are others that believe it won't. IMO it would be a huge mistake to not include at least DVI, but that is only my belief.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/608/608394p4.html

Jed:

Hate to differ, but I also was at E3 and have had subsequent meetings and similar. At this point the real issue is that they are playing it VERY close to the vest and it is one of those "the people who know aren't telling and the people who are telling probably don't know" sort of things.

It is true that MS is being very upfront about the part HD will play in the Xbox 360 strategy, but when you compare the image quality of Xbox 360 to PS3, admitedly no one has yet been able to do side by side, PS3 appears to have the edge. I go with the the "if 360 had HDMI they'd have said so" camp. Since they didn't I'm guessint it won't.

Then again, anything might change between now and the launch date, but with the disclaimer that I'm possibly wrong, I'd bet no HDMI unless it is accompanied by a last minute change to HD-DVD, and that seems not to be in the cards, either.

Thanks for the input. I guess the thought is that there is no chance for a v2 because it does not appear to really be necessary. The biggest issue to me was the passing blacker than black.

As far as the xbox 360 goes, we will have to wait and see. Hopefully Microsoft made the wise choice and included or have an option for HDMI and /or DVI.

Thanks for the replies....

Charlie

Remember that the video output of the xbox and the xbox360 is determined by the type of plug attached to the unit. The unit itself has a proprietary plug. Getting Component, S video, RCA, HDMI or DVI is just a question of releasing another cable adapter. If Microsoft decided there was not enough demand to produce a first party HDMI/DVI cable a third party company could produce it just as well and most likely will. For example, the xbox does not have a VGA connector made by MSFT (there was not enough demand to warrant it) but there are connectors for this made by other companies.

As for HDDVD and BlueRay it will NOT be in Xbox 360 because it will does not and will not exist for the xbox360 timeframe (November 2005). Microsoft has stated that they are flexible and would include it once it is available (they are also very wary about what will happen between HDDVD and BlueRay). Sony has touted BlueRay but admitted to developers (in private less publicized events) that this may change depending on the state of the market for the March 2006 time frame. At this point joining either camp is probably a bad idea and it makes sense to wait until the dust settles (VHS vs. Beta war comes to mind).

More thoughts:

>> Sony hasn't really said where the "March 2006" intro date applies, either at E3 or subsequent PS3 related events. Don't be surprised if the March date is for Japan, followed by North America a few months afterward and then Europe and ROW even later into the year. Regardless, they seem committed to BRD for a variety of obvious reasons.

>> Microsoft, on the other hand, has been more than cagey about many of the details surrounding Xbox 360. Since we didn't get to see the rear panel of the unit at E3 no one has said for certain if they will continue the notion of using a variety of different dongles to determine the output connectivity or go as Sony will by including "hard" connection jacks for HDMI and digital audio. Current guessing is that they WON'T have hard HDMI jacks, and it's unlikely, theoretically possible, that they would be able to do a "dongle to HDMI" cable.

>> Some of the details still uncertain are if the optical drive in the 360 will be user upgradeable, which would give them the ability to start with a standard red laser drive and offer a migration path later, presuming that the internal HW can deal with the selected high def DVD format. We're all still guessing about this one. MS and Toshiba have ties on the computer side of things for HD-DVD, but that may or may not influence the world of Xbox. You're quite correct that they're in a time crunch as it is, and that there WILL be loads of "HD" on the initial 360 platform, but it's likely to be output only from red-laser based games and through conventional Y/Pr/Pb component outputs.

Yikes, it's a mess! With all of this, the Outlaws' decision to keep it all simple and go with DVI for now in parallel with tried and true analog component seems to be a wise choice.

I think that the addition of two switched DVI ports was a marketing ploy and a mistake.

I won't go into what HDMI is or isn't, or what it may become. However, if you are interested you can go to the following link and start some reading. hdmi

It is also my opinion that the capabilities of HDMI 1.0 and 1.1 are not fully understood by most. There are lots of opinions flying around, and most of them are wrong (sort of like debates on why the RLC parameters of speaker wire don't fully describe the characteristics of that wire).

I think that Outlaw would have been better served by having 3 HDMI inputs and 1 output. These should have been connected to the processor so that the audio could have been pulled directly off the line, if so desired.

As I currently understand it, all you have is a DVI switch. So what? I don't think that this adds much capability, especially when the newer HDTVs are including 2-3 HDMI input ports.

I vote for a 990 with 3 HDMI input and 1 HDMI output port!!!!!!

Rat - That is pretty much the Pre/Pro I want too.

Having said that, point me to another HDMI 1.1 Pre/Pro and I'll buy it. Outlaw has said the interface isn't ready and I agree. Several 1.1 receivers have been announced but I don't believe any are actually shipping, not to mention the lack of 1.1 sources available at this time.

The only Pre/Pro with HDMI 1.1 that I have even heard about at this point is the Anthem. I'm sure others will be announced at CEDIA but announcing and shipping products are two very different things. What happens when HDMI "1.2" is approved and the new Hi-Res versions of DD and DTS show up? There’s no guarantee that these 1.1 machines will be able to be upgraded with firmware to accommodate the new standards.

I have no doubt Outlaw and others will eventually have a HDMI Pre/Pro, but suspect it is a ways off yet. If you view the 990 as a very nice update to the 950 and an interim processor until the “real HDMI” processors get here I think it is hardly a “mistake”. Now if only they would have put a Firewire interface on the 990.

True enough, but prudence might dictate that it is better to wait for hardware that supports what HDMI will become in the long term, with the rumored 1.3 or later that will be needed to deal with the audio codecs on high def DVDs, rather than bet on 1.1/1.2 solutions. (And as noted, 1.2 isn't even approved yet -- though that ought to be sooner than later.)

No one really knows yet if any current 1.1 product will be able to flash-upgrade to a 1.3 or higher standard, but chances are high that the answer may be no since a new HDMI rev may well require new chips on both the receive and transmit side. WIth that hanging over their heads, the Outlaws probably did the right thing in providing some sort of digital video switching for those who need it, without locking HDMI partisans into something that may soon be obsolete.

There is also the issue of cost, and one has to believe that the 990 would have had to endure a significant cost up if full HDMI capability, not just the switching offered by current entry level products was added.

What you REALLY want is not only HDMI switching, but the ability to accomodate long term format changes as well as the ability to not just switch the incoming signals, but "take them apart" so that the audio streams can be sent to the audio DSP for in-receiver processing. At the same time, if you do THAT, then you may as well also do some video upscaling so that all incoming video is processed and scaled to an output that matches the resolution of the video display.

All possible, but NOT cheap, and certainlly not something that can be done at all, let alone with any measure of quality, in a processor that has the price of the 990.

You have to believe that Outlaw is planning for what will be the ultimate course, but reasonable sanity checks say that such a product from them, or anyone else, is 12 to 18 months off, particularly at a 990-like price.

Actually the new arcam AVP-700 has HDMI switching, it uses the same AV Processor and costs twice as much as the outlaw. I honestly just don't think I can justify the price difference.......

I agree with the firewire. It should be included also.

I'm not sure why, but separate pre/ processors seem to lag a generation or so behind the receivers. Just look at the Denon 4806 or the Yahama RX-V4600 for HDMI inputs/ outputs.

The newer HD TV, DVRs, DVDs, satellite boxes, cable boxes have HDMI ports. They work. So, there must be current solutions to the HDMI version problem(s), if they actually exist.

Brubacca: Do you have a link for the Arcam?

Actually it is not up on the Arcam website yet. There is a lengthy discussion about it over at the AVS forum under the AMP, Processors section.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/

I also saw a little information on it at the distributors website.

www.aslgroup.com

The HDMI situation is a little convoluted. It is still evolving. I guess since our HT gear is more computer than audio equipment we can expect that trend to continue.

Good Luct.

I've been very disappointed that Firewire never caught on in the audio market. I don't think it is ever going to be a big player in the audio world as it looks like HDMI is going to supersede it.

Quote:

I'm not sure why, but separate pre/ processors seem to lag a generation or so behind the receivers. Just look at the Denon 4806 or the Yahama RX-V4600 for HDMI inputs/ outputs.

The Denon 4806 is HDMI 1.0 isn't it? Is the Yammie 4600 even available yet? I believe it is one of, if not the first receiver to have HDMI 1.1. Yep, the Pre/Pros lag behind because most of them don't have the deep R&D pockets the Japanese CE companies have. Most of the Pre/Pro companies have to wait for a chip solution while the Denon’s, Yamaha's and Pioneer’s just roll their own in house. The same is pretty much true for Firewire.

Quote:

The newer HD TV, DVRs, DVDs, satellite boxes, cable boxes have HDMI ports. They work. So, there must be current solutions to the HDMI version problem(s), if they actually exist.

The present sat and cable STB’s are HDMI 1.0 AFAIK. For their needs all they require is HDMI1.0 to pass DD. Personally I would want to use my HDMI to receive Hi-Res audio, which is added to 1.1 (DVD-A) and the rumored upcoming 1.2 (SACD). Who knows what 1.3 will bring to the table…HD Dolby and DTS??? Are you really willing to bet that the Yamaha 4600 will be able to be upgraded to handle those formats? Personally I think I’m going to wait out the HDMI standards until it settles down a bit, and that’s coming from someone who really wants to see a high bandwidth audio interface whether it be HDMI, Firewire or something else.

The Arcam is just a switcher isn’t it? The Anthem seems to be the closest to having an HDMI solution in the Pre/Pro world that I would consider. Maybe by next year this time things will be better.

obie: you seem to have a very good understanding of the technology and how it is used?

If you go to pricegrabber.com, you can find several etailers that claim to have the Yahama or Denon.

The problem with this audio technology is that it is like computer technology. You have to make a decision as to when you get off the train and commit to a decision. When you get off the train, it leaves, and goes on to another station. Whether it is HDMI 1.0 or 1.1 or 1.2 or X.X or some other technology, it will be superceded by something else in time.

I really think that Outlaw made a bad decision. They should have gone with HDMI.

There is another variation of this option and that is to have removable/ replacable circuit cards. One of the receiver manufacturers is currently doing that. That would be a slick solution. But, it does require that you give a lot of thought to your inputs and outputs, and software.

Rat:

The confusion behind current and future HDMI standards is undoubtedly the reason why Outlaw went with DVI: does the job, does what it says, and promises no more than it does. With HDMI, any solution available TODAY is more than likely NOT going to be upgradeable to 1.3 or beyond. If you bought today on the basis of HDMI and then found within 12 to 18 months that an upgrade was not possible due to hardware limitations, wouldn't you be REALLY tanked? That's why I think the Outlaws did the right thing -- they could have as easily avoided the whole dilema by not having EITHER DVI or HDMI, but at least they provided an option for those who have the requirement for digital video switching.

The architecture issues required to accomodate future HDMI "revs" and deliver full Rx/Tx with processing, as opposed to simply providing switching is, as I have detailed elsewhere, VERY expensive and complex at this point in time. A card-cage type arrangement is nice for computers, but as the product you have referred to proves, it, too, isn't cheap.

As has been debated often enough, what works for the high volume world of computers where the chip folks provide reference designs and then third party companies design and make the cards just does not work in the competative, yet relatively low-volume world of consumer audio/video components. You simply can't compare the two channels, their products, and the way in which those products are developed.

I'm afraid you also don't take into account the fact that as high volume devices, computers are less expensive than surround processors. Other than the very small segment that upgrades yearly, most consumers keep their systems for a considerably longer time than they keep a computer between upgrades. Thus, saying that it would be fine to go with a standard (oh, say HDMI) when you KNOW it will require a new box at high price within a short time just doesn't cut it.

Reading through this I've had another thought on the whole HDMI thing.

I've seen several people begging to have HDMI switching, but my question would be why? As I understand it, the only difference between DVI and HDMI is the latter also includes more pins for an audio signal (TBD) to share a single cable. Why on earth would you want to have a pre/pro just pass that audio signal to your display? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of having a pre/pro in the first place?

And if you want some method of pulling off the audio inside the unit, then it's no longer just switching, is it? Now we're back to the discussion of the fact that there is no standard for the audio side of things.

I definitely think the Outlaws made the right choice using DVI switching. It provides people that have a need for DVI or HDMI video switching the ability to do so without the possibility of incompatibility in the near future.

Just wanted to chime in and agree with Gonk, Owl’s_Warder, PodBoy and others who are not upset by DVI switching on the 990.

For those of you whining about not having HDMI on the 990, since the 990 can switch either DVI video or HDMI video with simple adapting cables:

Are you really that upset about having to run two cables from your source, one for video, one for audio, instead of just an HDMI cable carrying both?

Are you going to hang your head in shame or feel you’ve lost your bragging rights if your neighbor buys something with HDMI connectors on it that in the end performs no more functions than the 990 but is either sonically inferior and/or costs two or more times as much?

Are you, after spending thousands on your total audio setup, a big chunk of which were your front, center and surround speakers, really going to complain that you can’t use and HDMI cable to pass audio to the speakers imbedded in your HDTV display, if your display/projector even comes with speakers?

Do you think that if the 990 had HDMI connectors now that there will be no changes in chips or hardware for the next ten years and all you would need to do to stay current with every change in audio/video standards for the foreseeable future is to keep the processor’s software/firmware updated? Or are you straying into that area of impossibility where you would like the 990 to be ready now with everything that will be developed over the next five to ten years? Since HDMI 1.2 is still cooking, and any HDMI 1.3 or beyond is still vaporware . . .

What functionality would you would gain by having a certainly soon-to-be-outdated version of HDMI now?

OK, perhaps some apology is needed for the above rant, but when it comes down to practical use and functionality, I think some people are making much ado . . .

I'll bite on that semi inflamatory post. It is NOT about bragging rights.

It is partially about being able to run one cable between the device and Pre-Pro. I'm not concerned about that audio getting to the TV. It is pobably moreso about decisions made. Meaning I made a conscious decision when purchasing my display and DVD player that HDMI was the way I wanted to go. Right, wrong or indifferent that was the decision made.

Wouldn't it be just as easy for DVI users to use a DVI-HDMI cable?

Your point is well taken that the HDMI standard is a moving target. Do we actually have any guarentees that a hypothetical HDMI 1.3 will actually still work with current DVI for video? (Although I agree that it probably would) Personally I would have been very happy with the "current" generation of HDMI, which passes DD and DTS signals also.

It doesn't really appear to be whining. I asked a simple question, what are the chances of this happeneing. It was not intended to be a huge philosophical debate.

Personally I think that the 990 is still the processor to beat. My main concern was passing Blacker Than Black. Gonk and PodBoy set me straight on that.

Thanks all for your facts and opinions. Isn't life great. We get to debate such trivial things.

Charlie,

PS... What is holding me back is my impending wedding and the fact that all funds are going with us to Nappa, Sonoma and Oahu!

Maybe I've misunderstood something, but these are the advantages of HDMI (real or promised):

1. One cable for video and audio.
2. One cable for multi-channel audio (DVD-A and SACD)
3. 12-bit digital video (DVI supports 8-bit)

So, for my tastes, the HDMI is the obvious choice. Not only does it reduce the tangle of wires needed, but it does everything better than our current connections.

On the audio-side, we can keep multi-channel audio in the digital domain and then allow the pre-pro to do bass management and time correction. No more digital-to-analog and analog-back-to-digital nonsense over 6 cables.

On the video-side, we can pass up to 12-bits of info (vice 8-bits in DVI), which can go a long way towards smoothing out the picture. Now, of course this requires the electronics in the TV to handle it as well, but the potential is there.

In theory, some day we will get a universal transport which just pipes digits over a single hdmi to our pre/pro and TV. We won't have to pay for all of the software and redundant electronics of our current DVD players. I could live with that!!!!

Engie:

One addition that you already refer to. While HDMI does have a theoretical advantage in being able to accomodate video beyond the 8-bit limitation of DVI, form a practical basis, that doesn't mean anything since there is nothing in the works to deliver 10-bit, let alone 12-bit, video. Not now, not soon, not likely for a long, long time. It's not just in the display at the sink end, but all the way through the content creation and distribution chain; nothing there is going to be all 10 or 12 bit end-to-end for the foreseeable future.

Yes, we all agree that one-cable would be nice, but running one cable each for audio and video from source to processor, and then one cable only (DVI or HDMI, your choice) from processor to display is just fine with me for now.

So does that mean 1080p HD displays coming out soon utilize 8-bit digital video too?

There seems to be a big hype/push for 1080p as the next replacement for 720p/1080i displays. Whether we can take advantage of it in the near future is another story.

That is what I understand, wild_gopher. Those 1080p will still use the existing DVI/HDMI digital video input as far as I've heard. And for all the hype around 1080p, it is worth pointing out that we have no existing sources for a native 1080p signal. You can get 720p and 1080i natively from HD sources (which will eventually include Blu-Ray and HD-DVD once the next format war actually reaches store shelves) and 480p, 720p, or 1080i upscaled by some specialized DVD players, but currently the 1080p displays are going to have to settle for generating 1080p internally from lesser sources.

Of course, that doesn't mean a 1080p display is a bad thing! It's still a reasonable and logical improvement of existing HD display technology, although I would expect it to be a lot less profound than the change from standard definition to HD.

I own the 990 and am fine with DVI switching, but I think to chastise people who want HDMI is stretching things a bit. Is there anybody here who would prefer DVI inputs over HDMI (1.1) inputs?

Gonk & Gopher:

BEWARE of the 1080P displays. Scaling of SD material can look UGLY if not done right. However, the reality is that it IS going that direction with regard to microdisplay based projectors, at least for rear projection. Fine at the end of the day, as noted by the Gonk-a-rama, but keep in mind that nothing will be distributed to consumers in the US in a format other than 720P or 1080I for the foreseeable future.

Jed:

Your admonishment noted. Since I'm in the midst of this it is important to say that sure, I'd prefer HDMI over DVI, but that give the cost burden to do HDMI correctly at this time means that I'm also satisfied wtih DVI as opposed to similarly priced products that don't have ANY capability for digital video switching. You are correct to add a note of sanity. I guess it should be said that I don't think that anyone is chastising those who want HDMI, but rather that we are trying to put reason to the discussion as it pertains to the decision made to include DVI in the 990 while still keeping the price where it is for the market as it stands today. For NOW I offer that the Outlaws did the right thing. For a product they might introduce 18 months from now, when things have settled down and the TOTAL technology package (Rx/scaler-processor/Tx) is more affordable, I think the standard we'd hold them to will be different.

IT seems to me that Outlaw would have avoided a huge amount of controversy if they would have included "Video Only" HDMI instead of DVI (which of course is video only by design). In that way nobody could complain it does not have HDMI switching, it looks more current in the specs, and people with DVI would have to buy the adapter not the other way around (which is as it should be since its the older standard). By not trying to include audio in the HDMI connector you would not have to be concerned about the changing standard. In addition the price of implementing it would be the same. I fail to see why they chose DVI versus HDMI(video only). I completely understand why you would choose NOT to include audio since the standards have not been defined for HDDVD or BlueRay or next generation audio CD audio transport. Regardless, I find myself like most people using the TVs digital inputs and if they run out I would get an autosense switch. Two are not many inputs and you will most likely need an external solution regardless.

Thanks but trust me I'm as clueless as the next guy.

Quote:

The problem with this audio technology is that it is like computer technology. You have to make a decision as to when you get off the train and commit to a decision. When you get off the train, it leaves, and goes on to another station. Whether it is HDMI 1.0 or 1.1 or 1.2 or X.X or some other technology, it will be superceded by something else in time.

Very true, good analogy.

Quote:

I really think that Outlaw made a bad decision. They should have gone with HDMI.

I can't really agree with this. First when you say HDMI do you mean switching or inputs? If switching then yea it's a slight marketing coup. If you mean HDMI input do you think Outlaw should have just sat on the 950 until they had a "real" HDMI Pre/Pro ready? Keep in mind this may be a year or more away.

Quote:

There is another variation of this option and that is to have removable/ replacable circuit cards. One of the receiver manufacturers is currently doing that. That would be a slick solution. But, it does require that you give a lot of thought to your inputs and outputs, and software.

For a number of reasons this just hasn't worked in the A/V CE world.

Agreed HDMI switching is basically the same as DVI switching in today's world. However, the audio signals aren't what are carried on those extra lines, I believe they are control signals that describe the destination's capabilities. In fact I believe you could send an HDMI 1.0 signal signal through a DVI cable to an HDMI destination and still get audio. The point I'm trying to make is the extra lines have nothing to do with the audio data itself. The physical HDMI standard has been locked for some time it is the protocol (software/firmware) layer that keeps changing.

Personally I have no real desire for DVI or HDMI switching in a Pre/Pro but I have even less of a desire to keep all those analog video connections, but that is another rant. The real potential and I think you realize this, although it is not clear from the above post, is the high bandwidth interface into you Pre/Pro. This is very important for the existing Hi-res audio formats (SACDs & DVD-A) and the upcoming Hi-res versions of DD and DTS. It also enables the video scaler to move into you Pre/Pro. These are the reasons I’m chomping at the bit to get HDMI “inputs”.

folks: come on now, we are talking about a "simple" DVI switch. It doesn't do anything except switch the two inputs.

Right now, I can see no use for such an item in my HT, but that is my HT. I would have left it off, saved the money for something else that had more functional use.

In the review that Outlaw references, the reviewer cited the DVI instead of a HDMI as a negative. Small, but interesting point.

As for the price, I'm still at a loss to define exactly what you get for a $1000 - $10,000 pre processor that isn't in a $1000 - $6000 receiver. I brought up this question on another board and, I'm afraid, I didn't get any answers.

For example, what does the 990 do that a Denon 3805 won't do (DVI switching and balanced pre outputs excluded)?

Comments/ Thoughts?

What you presumably get is better quality of sound. People wold argue that a $20,000 Meridian system will sound much better than a $1,000 Denon system. People would argue that a Outlaw 990/Amp package will sound better than a Denon 3805 (the 3806 is being announced soon w/ HDMI). It is not about what it does differently, but how it does it.

You also supposedly get better quality hardware.

I have a friend that purchased the current generation Denon 3xxx AVR when I purchased my B&K equipment (about 8 years ago). He has had his repaired twice in that time. I have not had any repairs.

I say presumably and supposedly because different people hear different things. The honest truth is that the biggest determining factor is the actual room that you put it in. Any system can sound drastically different from room to room.


warning.. warning..
This will take us to a whole other philosophical debate about separates .vs. receivers! or Japanese Mass Market .vs. specialty brands... Lets just say that it has been hashed and rehashed.


Good Luck,

Charlie

Brubacca: yes, I could understand and agree that a more expensive unit could be made with much better components and quality control. NO DOUBT about that!! Since I tend to keep my gear a long time, that would be a positive selling point for me.

But, from a technical standpoint, why should the sound that you get from your mucical CD player or cable box sound any different UNLESS there is some "pre emphasis" or surround sound algorithmic differences in the pre processor/ receiver?

The signal going to your receiver or pre processor should be amplified in a linear form. With the specified amplifier frequency bandwidths and THDs, either the above sound modifications are being made in the unit or the listener is simply full of BS. Linear amplification means just that. The output is a linear representation of what the input was, just more power.

Multiple double blind receiver/ amplifier tests have shown that educated listeners can NOT tell one amplifier from another, IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH THEY ARE LISTENING TO BEFOREHAND!

So, I am leaning toward one of the newest receivers (with the features that I want) with 2 or 3 Outlaw monoblocks to drive the fronts and maybe the center from pre outputs.

Of course, I'm still open to the argument that convinces me that there really is some profound benefit for a separate pre processor.

Anyone else want to give a try?

O.K. I'll take a stab as far as a pre/pro goes over a receiver.

1. Build quality. Decent caps, well dressed chassis (as in how the internal wire connections are routed), external connectors (gold plated vs. not; chassis mounted vs. PCB mounted).

2. Features. Balanced outputs and possibly inputs (for the front channels). Higher-bandwidth component video switching.

3. Isolation. Without high-level amps in the chassis with the low-level preamp, you get far less cross-channel distortion.

4. Amplification. Receivers tend to have lousy amps for the surround channels, concentrating on left, centre, and right. It is recommended that the same headroom be available for all channels.

While I won't argue that one can't tell quality amps apart (though I have my favorites, and settle on $500 a chanel as tolerable, pricewise), double blind, just about any separate amp will be better than the amplification available in a receiver.

Your choice to go with a receiver and separate amps for the channels that matter is a wise one, though, if the receiver is really good, you might find it is the surround channels that are lacking, and not the front ones. BTW, I am not impressed with the M200's specs, esp. above 10 KHz.

Rene: thanks for the input!!!!!!!!!

I will have to take a closer look at the M200s frequency response. I was under the impression that it was pretty flat from 20Hz to 20,000Hz. Is there another brand of monoblocks that you recommend? 2 channel? 3 channel?

There was a significant double blind test (I'll see if I can find the reference and post it later) where listeners COULDN'T tell the difference between a $600 receiver and a $12,000 amplifier.

Amplifier quality: Agreed! From what I have seen, in a receiver the price point dictates what the power supply capability is. 1/8 and 1/3 of full capability seem to be current price points.

The was an article on a different thread discussing power supply design. The conclusion was that with very loud listening levels you needed 40% of the full RMS, all channel, capability. I haven't found any metrics that give the power distribution in either a 5.1 or 7.1 system. But, I believe that most of the power is in the front and center channels. My thesis is that if I can off load the power requirements of a reciever for the fronts and possibly the center channel, then the internal power supply should be sufficient for the surrounds. Maybe only the fronts need to be off loaded. I sure would like to see some metrics on the power distribution and I suspect that they exist, somewhere.

Rene: I went to the M200 spec page and looked at the spec window. I did not see a power spectrum that would show response above 10 KHz. All it said was 200 watts at 8 ohms, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, less than .05 THD.

Do you have a link for the power spectrum?

TIA.

Alais when to jump in HDMI 1.1 1.2, 1.3, 1.999??? Here is one answer if you want to spend 5 Grand. Onkyo's Future Proof Receiver! The TX-NR1000, 150 W X 7 into 8 ohms. 2 HDMI inputs, 1 output, 2 Firweire. That should be good for the Rat. Anyway it is good for the future cuz it has modules that you can pull out and replace, which you will need to do right away since when it was released the HDMI was only 1.1, the 1.2 is on the way!

kosman: yes, I have looked at that one. $5,000 is a little steep, but not out of the question.

At $5,000 the question that I would end up asking is would it be more cost effective to get something else now (somewhere between the price of the 990 and an Anthem AVM20) and replace it outright in a couple years time (once the format war has made some real progress)?

Although there is no way in that price range I would buy this over other similarly priced processors, I will commend Onkyo for being a stand up company for actually updating their products. That 989, or whatever it was, was updated for years (it still may be). I have never owned an Onkyo product but they gained my respect.

gonk: that idea has crossed my mind several times. However, right now, my attention has been focused on the new Samsung TVs. Initial reports have been rather promising, but there may still be issues with lip sync/ video lag, and 5.1 transmission from the optical output port. These could be show stoppers for this TV.

After I figure out which HD TV I am going to get, then I will focus on the audio upgrade.

The comments here have been helpful.

Onkyo also has the user over a barrel to buy the modules in the future. They could charge whatever they wanted for them. Most likey for such a small market they would be the only one to make them.

integra onkyos master makes great equiptment.. and whomever spends 5 g's on a reciever wont mind dropping some more coin to keep it current.. i have to admit i own a onkyo 801 and love it .. it is in my game room ... i love the net radio .. its hooked to my router and i love club977... great sound .. also can route my mp3 's straight to it .. very nice and modernized .. i have my 990 in my main ht room and it still astonishes me .. sound gets better every day...