I'd expect any new release to get a 7.1 mix (and hopefully TrueHD will catch on, as the idea of a lossless soundtrack appeals to me), but as for catalog titles I'm not so sure. Dolby Digital 5.1 was standard for new releases pretty quickly with DVD, while DD 2.0 and 5.1 were pretty jumbled up on catalog titles. If there was an EX or ES mix done, it might be cheap to carry over to a 7.1 mix (albeit with mono surround back), and there may be some marketing benefit to remixing the surrounds to get 7.1 for "special edition" releases.

I haven't seen any reliable projections of how many titles will get onto the formats over the first year or so. It's possible that experience with DVD will lead at least some studios to quickly go to day-and-date release for new material. What I wonder about is how many catalog titles will get proper HD transfers and what the learning curve will be in that regard.

I've more or less decided to pick up a PS3 some time next year (probably not in the first wave, but probably not too long thereafter) in part for the Blu-ray support, but I don't plan to buy much media until there's a pretty clear resolution to the format war. It's a much harder sell for me to move from DVD (especially with the Oppo and my HDTV getting along so well with my current library) to either format than the move from VHS to DVD was.

I would have loved Firewire too but hey I'll take HDMI. Sure HDMI is a moving target but I'd take it today just for the DVD-A and SACD support and the prospect of PCM hi-res 8-channel software down the road. I have no problem with the new audio codecs getting decoded in the players, if anything that will leave more horsepower in my PrePro to do other cool things like room correction EQ-ing. I believe HDMI is a viable solution today but I think people get hung up over the HD-DVD and the HDCP FUD.

I'm in no hurry to upgrade to HD-DVD but I'm starting to hear and see things that indicate Blu-Ray may get here faster then I originally thought. We should hear a lot more at CES in January. It's anyone’s guess though as to whether the new audio formats will be supported.

I’ve also been a big proponent of keeping analog video out of the PrePro but with HDMI I’ve done a 180 and wouldn’t mind having one super processor doing my audio and video. I wouldn’t even bother with analog video scaling just give me a PrePro with nothing but digital A/V inputs. Shot give me digital outputs too and I’ll have an all digital system with smart digitally powered speakers.

obie-fl: dream on! Before buying the 990 I tried to configure an HTPC as that one single box but it's not ready for prime time yet. I also looked for a processor with digital outs becase my DEQX accepts digital inputs--but no soap unless I was willing to spring for $10K for a Meridian that had no DVI or HDMI inputs. Digital speakers is obviously the way to go. Just a matter of time before they become the next "must have." But they're done done selling us all the analog stuff they can yet. The high efficiency high quality Class D amps that are emerging will eventually change all this.

In order to avoid that hangup you refer to, I settled on 7.1 analog. It sounds just fine. It will work fine with the new HD players too--they will all have to have decoders in them.

Blu-Ray will be here sooner than expected....we'll soon see.

Been there done that with the HTPC, agreed royal PIA.

One of the attractions to HDMI for me is the promise of Meridan style systems for us "normal" folks. Can't wait to see what kind of PrePro Outlaw can come up with a year or so from now.

Yea I hear you I went with the 990 for much the same reasons as you but I still hate the fact that if I want to actually process DVD-A or SACD I have to do an extra A/D. It is just the system engineer in me.

Ever wonder how many DA/AD steps, pre-amps and processors a sound track goes through before it reaches your ears? I don't like the extra digital conversions either but I am less than certain that they make a real world difference if done well. Same for up-sampling. In some cases users report unreal gains, while in others they report no difference.

What could be wrong with sending bitstreams to a processor which contains digital crossovers, phase compensation, inter-driver delay adjustment, and room equalization which is then output to each driver of each speaker where it is converted only once? Maybe even feeding a true digital amp. Nirvanna if you believe in digital processing. The sound of death I suppose for a vinyl record and tubeamp-phile.

But this is off thread and doesn't help Juan make a decision. Let's try another thought. There are lots of happy satisfied 990 users out there. Thus they have a good resale value. They also have a 30-day money back guarantee. How can you lose?

You can set your CD player up on two different inputs and set one for your CD-players analog out and one for the digital out. See if you can tell the difference and which DA is better. On my system the 990 decodes digital just about the same as my Denon 3910. I would be hard-pressed to tell you which I liked better. Thus I have no problem with 7.1 analog input for a while even if I believe like obie_fl that a purely digital data stream with the fewest possible DA/AD/DA conversions should give the most pristine reproduction.

Unfortunatly, in my humble opinion, Sony Corp has once again doomed both new formats to a certain eventual death, by remaining steadfast in their historical stand as a company that will NOT share profits with other companies, even if they have a better (or equal) technology.
Now, you can debate whether Blu-ray is better than HD-DVD (or vice-verse), but lets look at history:
Remember Quad? It was a great idea, but died (almost-I still quad) because everyone thought they had a better way of decoding and didn’t want to share the $$. To be able to listen to all the great records and tapes of that era, you would have had to own at least 3 (or more) decoders. Consumers said ‘No Way!’. Then, years later, we got ’surround sound’. What is that? Sounds just like a ’New Quad’ to me. So far so good. But wait. Here comes DVD-A and SACD. Once again Sony decides it will make only players that will play SACD and not DVD-A, because they don’t want you to buy DVD-A’s. Why? Because SACD is their baby. So today we have a small market for DVD-A and a small market for SACD, when we could have had a LARGE market for a single format, if the manufacturers had worked together and actually ADVERTISED this single format (when was the last time you saw ANY advertising for either format? Not a disc with SACD or DVD-A, but an add for a Hi-definition format? Never?) .
Blu-ray and HD-DVD will suffer the same fate as all the previous excellent formats, simply because the large corporations can’t (read: WON’T!) streamline it into a single choice for consumers, thus enabling us to buy a single player and a single format. Besides, how many different formats do you really need ANY movie or hi-res audio in?
Sorry to be the voice of bummer, but this is the reality of the new formats.
Rock on,

Lonster

As consumers, we vote with our pocketbooks. I wrote Sony and told them I would never buy another Sony product and I won't even though I want a Sony projector. Not only do they create format wars (you forgot VHS versus Betamax--and Betamax was much much better--I still have one that works great), they have zero customer service. Did you ever talk to a real person at Sony? I'm not sure any real people actually work at Sony. For all I know the company is run by the robots they make. All they have is webpages that don't have the answer you are looking for. They don't care about customers--they are in the business of selling not satisfying. It's really too bad that such great technology is stuck with a company with such lousy policies.

Invention means different. Compatibility is at least partially incompatible with invention. In fact, while incremental change is compatible, quantum change is incompatible (ever put a VHS tape in a DVD player?). There is a tough balancing act between compatibility and original creativity. This is only an issue when two or more divergent products compete for the same market niche. Consumers would like one format (I sure would) but the way free markets work is that we all get to vote on which format survives. If none does as you suggest, then it means none was sufficiently compelling to survive and succeed.

Not always.
Sony has a great product with SACD. They also 'own' alot of music and video titles. Yet because of the conflict with the competition (DVD-A), they have slowed production and releases of new and re-worked material almost to a halt. There is nothing wrong with SACD (or DVD-A for that matter), and no better technology to replace it right now either.
We loose because Sony says we loose.

Lonster
P.S. I love SACD and DVD-A. I also hate Sony for many of the reasons you quoted.

Audiobear,
I did just what you suggest and have my CD67SE both Analog and digital into my 990. And the compared the 2. They are very different to my ears anyway. As for better? Can't say, but different. On some CD's the analog sounds better, on others, the digital. BTW the analog is done with 990 in bypass.
My preference right now is either bypass or digital upsampling. I'll probably end up with the digital mostly for convenience (set it and forget it).

Fascinating. I never tried the analog-digital input comparison on more than a couple of CDs. I will try a couple of dozen next weekend and see if I find the same thing. I wonder why you have this result. Anybody else try this?

Yes, you need to bypass everything in both the player and the processor that could effect tone etc, and the volumes must be within 0.1 dB which is hard to do. Studies have shown that small volume differences are audible.

I use the dig-in on CDs and DVDs too. Obviously, DVD-A and SACD are passed through analog.

It would be interesting to hear from others what their impression is of analog versus digital input.