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 . . .