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”.