OK, I might consider the 997 in spite of its omission of a phono preamp (and for the skeptics I ask only that they LISTEN ATTENTIVELY to good recordings in both CD and LP versions - try Sheffield - played back on equipment in the $500 range; I have nothing to say to the sneerers and vice versa) as long as it offers biamp capability, as I understand the Sherwood receiver does. Does it?

this $200 might be my incentive to throw down on the 997.

+1

Yes! The original prepro owners have not been forgotten. As good as the 990 is, I never felt the need to upgrade from my 950, but looks like the 997 will meet my needs.

I LOVE my 990, but I bought it only because I ran out of patience waiting for it's replacement (I wanted HDMI's--and more of them). I have an old Technics turntable that I still use and I deeply appreciate the phono input that the 990 provides, since the processing power of the 990 with those 5 2200's and my Maggies makes my albums sound better than I ever remember 'back in the day'. I have to admit that I am going to struggle with the 997's lack of a phono input, and it just might be a dealbreaker for me.

But what I really want to address in this post is the attitude that 'I won't pay for what I don't use'. I find that argument trite, self-centered and shallow. All along my audio journey that began in my early teens back in the 70's, every piece of equipment that I have purchased has had features that I didn't or couldn't use (i.e. what do I need an AUX for?). I don't remember the thought ever crossing my mind that I 'paid for' this or that when I shouldn't have had to.

Part of the issue here is just how many different features are getting packed into a surround receiver today. We're not only talking about having more stereo analog inputs than one person might need (like that AUX input when the TAPE and PHONO took care of your input needs just fine), we're talking about so much more. Manufacturers have to decide where they put their money (and thus their product costs), and the list is really kind of staggering.

You "need" HDMI v1.3, so you need an audio DSP section that will process and when necessary decode a plethora of formats (PCM stereo, PCM multichannel, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, DTS-ES, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD High Resolution, DTS HD Master Audio, and maybe even SACD DSD). You also need matrix processing modes (DTS NEO:6, Dolby Pro Logic II/IIx, maybe some weird "DSP" modes like Jazz or Stadium, 5 Stereo, 7 Stereo). We also "need" room correction, so that DSP needs to be able to offer something similar to Audyssey or Trinnov - or at a minimum, something like Cirrus's in-house room EQ (sometimes called SNAP and sometimes re-branded by a specific manufacturer). We also need robust bass management, channel trim, distances adjustments, and an audio buffer for audio/video sync. That's just the audio DSP section. Now we need to allow for analog bypass of that audio DSP section, out of respect for the trusty turntable as well as other sources that are natively analog or are using a really good DAC. To feed in signals, you need to include several HDMI inputs, some coaxial and optical inputs, some stereo analog inputs, and a 7.1 analog input (although I can see a time in the not too distant future when the 7.1 analog starts to fade away).

We also have a video section. We need those same HDMI inputs already mentioned, but we also need some component video and some legacy composite and s-video inputs. Many of us would like to have the ability to keep things simple by having all of our disparate video sources lumped together into a single output, which means transcoding composite and s-video to component and converting those analog signals to digital for the HDMI output. (Of course, some folks want to bypass video switching in the processor, so they actually have no interest in this.) We also want on-screen setup menus to help us with this steadily more complex hub of audio and video data, so that's got to get worked in. We would also like to see a good video processor to help those standard definition video sources look less "low res" on our high definition TV's.

Since this monstrosity has become the center of everything, we may also want it to be able to control everything - which means a universal remote control, something that can be as simple or as complex as you decide to make it. We may also want to have it pipe audio and video to other rooms in the house, which means a second zone with its own controls. Of course, we may already have a really good universal remote and we may not want to fish wires all over the house, in which case both of those features cease to matter to us.

I guess my point is that you are exactly right that the notion of "I won't pay for what I don't use" is impractical - no product will ever offer exactly what someone needs and no more, because the permutations just listed are too numerous, complex, and variable. Instead it's a balancing act, and we and the manufacturers we shop with have to juggle feature lists as best as we can.

Wow! that was quick, gonk. You are exactly right--what we ask of a pre/pro in this day and age is nothing short of herculean. And people like the Outlaws have countless hard decisions to make in design and pre-production. And for my money they mostly make the right ones. But that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed when one of those decisions affects a feature that some people (like me) take for granted.

I have been around the "surround-sound" stuff for what seems like forever (I actually have an old SAE analog time delay from around 1980). The evolution of this expansion of stereo and it's integration with video and television and then computers is fascinating for me. And maybe the biggest struggle for me when considering the 997 isn't that I might have to buy an outboard pre/preamp, but that the absence of a phono input really marks the end of an era and the death of the 'Glory Days' for me and many of my generation that actually LIVED the Maxell magazine ad photo (you know the one).

I want to retract my use of the word "dealbreaker" since it was far too strong a word to describe what I was really thinking. That doesn't mean I'm not going to struggle.

While I understand the need for a variety of inputs that I may not use I question why there are so many of certain input types. For example, why does the 990 have five composite, S-video and their corresponding analog audio inputs? These inputs take up a lot of valuable real estate on the increasingly crowded back of receivers and pre/pros. It would be interesting to get an idea from the Saloon members on how many of these legacy inputs they really use. My guess is that a few folks use a lot of them but most use two or less. I use one set of analog audio inputs from my OPPO 980H.

Given the resurgence in vinyl I don't consider phono a legacy input. My HT is really my family room where I listen to a great deal of music and I've toyed with the idea of getting a turntable to play some of my old (and well worn!) records and the 990 affords me that option. Yes, there are options with a separate DAC but its too bad the 997 won't have a phono input. I hope phono wasn't eliminated in order to have a half dozen composite/S-video inputs on the 997.

I doubt that phono was dropped as a space issue - I suspect it's more of a cost issue.
The Model 990 is based on a platform that is now more than four years old (maybe closer to five years, actually) - it was probably more appropriate to have that many of these inputs at the time the platform was designed. Looking at this page , I don't think we're going to see as many "entry level" analog inputs. I'm going to call it four analog AV inputs and two analog audio inputs. Those likely serve two purposes: legacy support (for the VCR's, LD players, game consoles, SMS-1's, and the like) and "defining" inputs. Historically, we've grafted coaxial, optical, component, and DVI/HDMI inputs on to the basic inputs that were initially identified with each of those legacy "entry level" connections. And before we get too upset about the "high" number of these inputs, let me toss out this thought: those four AV and two audio inputs are not enough by themselves to let us fully use the array of other inputs that surround them. Sure, the multichannel analog input is probably a separate entity, but that still leaves half a dozen coaxial and optical inputs (or one for each "entry level" input), three component inputs (almost one per "entry level" input), and four HDMI inputs. For that array of "upper tier" inputs to be reasonably useful in a large system, we are likely to need at least a couple inputs that are independent from any analog stereo connections. If they do something like that, it would be a first significant step down the road toward limiting those legacy inputs to a couple connections over in a corner. It is not something that has really started to catch on yet - I was looking at the rear panel diagram for an Onkyo 885 processor recently, and there are analog stereo for each input plus composite and s-video for each video input.

Another thing to think about in this equation: the second zone, which is typically an analog pre-amp with rudimentary video switching - for that to work, you need to either include some of the old connections or you need to figure out a way to have a parallel DSP section and extra DAC that can steer all those digital audio and video signals to the second zone.

I agree the 990's age is a good reason it has so many composite/S-video and corresponding stereo inputs but as you noted the Onkyo continues the tradition of including so many legacy inputs. A quick check of Anthem's AVM-40/50 shows it does the same. I guess these connections are pretty cheap in comparison to the phono components. No doubt we will need a certain number of these inputs/outputs if nothing else for convenience (e.g. composite out for an auxiliary screen for those that have projectors) but I think it is time to start paring them down. If nothing else fewer connections might allow designer/manufactures to spread the connections out and make it easier to plug and unplug cables! Tight connectors in tight spaces make for colorful language at times. The current method of handling extra zones seems to be the most cost effective way; no need for the extra DSP section.

If you want to discuss useless ports, let's talk about balanced outputs. In a home audio system, these perform no purpose whatsoever; but manufacturers like Outlaw now are compelled to put them on because some marketing genius (at some competitive company a few years ago) decided it was a great selling point and forever thereafter the uninformed audio fanboys insist on having them. If you don't have balanced outputs, you must not have a very good product, huh? Yeah. Right.

Do I express myself too vehemently? Well, I feel vehemently about this ridiculous waste of money, resources, and backplate real estate.