I pose this as a question not as a statement. I’m a 990 owner and while I love the 990, going DVI instead of HDMI really hasn’t panned out has it? As we prepare for the 997, most blu-ray players and HD monitors are coming into the market with some kind of inner networking ability. I have a Pioneer blu-ray player and a Samsung monitor, and while Samsung is DLNA certified and Pioneer has their own proprietary "interface" system, the two pieces of equipment can “talk” to each other to some degree. Beyond rudimentary video and audio settings, they control power for each other, and the remotes recognize and control each distinct piece of equipment. Through DLNA, the Samsung can access my computer-based media files independent of the 990 (great for photos – not so great for video and audio).

The next generation of monitors just shown at CES will all be networked for access to remote media sources over Cat 6 and WiFi. My question is, how will the 997 fit into and work with these new home media networks? Or is the 997 as a stand alone audio/video processor - as opposed to a a/v media server - already obsolete?

990 with DVI didn't pan out? I'm thinking it did/does as intended. DVI or non-audio HDMI, why fuss over the choice? If an earlier form of audio/video HDMI had been included in the 990, that included HDMI audio standard would now be lacking some desired capabilities, wouldn't it? So Outlaw saved their 990 buyers a few bucks by not including a less-than-a-working 1.3 HDMI standard in the 990. I don't have a problem with that.

It seems you are saying that any about-to-be-sold processor that isn't also a media server is already obsolete. In some ways we're back to the 'all-in-one' versus 'separates' issue. That's part of the choice, isn't it? - including whether or not there is some kind of coordinated, interfacing control. If you really want the kind of integrated-control-of-everything you allude to, you're going to replace all the non-network components of a separate system or wait for an 'all-in-one'. Personally, I see such networking like sprinkles on a cupcake - not a deal-breaker. Additionally, like HDMI was a couple years ago, still needing broader/better cross-platform implementation before it becomes something more than ‘sprinkles’.

This could be an interesting topic. I can see people wanting the "all in one" approach, however I can also see people wanting stand alone systems. I have a friend who shares this hobby with me. He has the ability to stream audio/video throughout his house - I find it amazing. He has hard drives with hundreds of movies that he can access. Still amazing but for him. Personally, I prefer the dedicated systems. One system for each area with no sharing. I have different systems in areas of my home. That is how I like it (and I have a great wife!). So my friend and I have different approaches to enjoying music and movies with equal respect to each others views. If we really look at electronics in general, most items could be characterized as "obsolete" before their out the door. No one can really keep up. In regards to the 997, I look forward to hearing about it and eventually buying it. Will it be dated? Maybe but I don't think it was intended to be marketed to those who have to have the latest and most integrated, but rather to those who have a passion for movies and/or music.

As far as HDMI, I still do not get the impression that it a perfect interface. How many installers are still using component?

I disagree that DVI was a bad choice. There are any number of products from the time the 990 arrived and later that offered (and in some cases still offer) HDMI ports that don't allow audio input. The 990's DVI ports still do the exact same thing that those HDMI ports do: switch video inputs.

The HDMI "interfaces" you mention are forms of CEC, a feature that was implemented (sort of) with HDMI v1.3. HDMI v1.3 was published over a year after the 990 started shipping, and easily a couple years after the 990's DVI switching was designed. HDMI v1.3 hardware took even longer to be designed and to arrive on the market. Even then, it took several more years for CEC implementations to be anything but a headache because there was no full set of standards and each manufacturer did things differently. I've only stopped seeing TV reviews lament the compatibility problems associated with CEC in the last six or eight months, and prior to that almost every TV review I read that mentioned CEC included at least one source component that failed to operate properly when used with the TV. It's entirely possible that the 997 will offer some degree of CEC compatibility, although personally (having recently tinkered a bit with CEC) I find that the benefits are marginal at best - a good universal remote will do all that CEC offers and then some.

As for the 997 and networked home media clients, I see media devices like that as just one more source to connect to the surround processor. Do you want to have a Blu-ray player or DVR built into the 997? I don't. Integration is unnecessary, as the media client need only offer audio and video outputs (an HDMI output would suffice, but it's not required) and it becomes functionally the same as a Blu-ray player, DVD player, cable receiver, or any other source you might have. Integrating such a rapidly evolving technology as network media clients into a platform that should expect to spend several years in production is a much better way to invite "obsolescence" than letting the media client remain separate.

I'm no fan of CEC or the interactivity of HDMI as currently implemented. It's very awkward to work with. As an architect and technologist having spent years working on "smart house" technologies, I get the same sense that Samsung and other manufacturers don't get it when it comes to interconnectivity. At the same time I do think there's great potential in connectivity and to networking our components.

Gonk, I'm not looking for a one size fits all solution, but I am interested in maximizing the connectivity and communication of my separate devices. I try to buy the best component for the money (hence my 990), and I'm a strong believer in separates.

While I think Outlaw makes great preamp processors and amps it seems to me that the 990 came out before the market had really settled. It's pretty hard to find an HD monitor that even has a DVI connector, and using a DVI to HDMI convertor cable loses many of the simple functions that made it to the next HDMI spec. Perhaps Outlaw could have done a better job of future proofing if they had looked at where the market was trending.

Before I invest in the 997 I have to ask a couple of questions. Where does Outlaw (and the Outlaws) believe the market going to be in three years? What is the market potential for networking HT media devices? And finally will Outlaw provide that device - a server/processor - that will connect computer-based media and other source devices (perhaps one that has an upgradable database of source devices and an intelligent interface)?

Is there anyone out there now that can predict what the future will be and design a processor to allow all future devices to be connected to it? Not being an audio engineer I would seriously question anyone that claimed they could do this. The mother of invention usually dictates what is around the corner as far as new devices. 10 years ago did anyone foresee the conversion of music to a file format that would allow its use with an amplifier and large speakers stored on a device with no moving parts and smaller than a credit card. Companies tend to shy away from investing significant capital in R&D until they think they have a market to sell it in. The Outlaws did future proof the 990 to a great extent simply by providing video 5 and the USB input. Both of those inputs are long established connections with very few interconnect problems. Not so for the much ballyhooed HDMI and its handshake requirements which vainly try to slow down piracy (think spitting in the ocean). Only in the last year has HDMI approached anything like a standard format. Before that its inability to transmit the most basic of audio signals doomed it to mistrust among most of the people who wanted it most. How many people have HD DVDs which will become essentially 8 track players in a few years. Anyone own a Betamax deck out there that can attest to its high quality and nothing to play on it.

The decision to go with DVI vs worthless HDMI was a very good choice by the people responsible for developing and bringing to market one of the best dollar value processors out there. If the 997 skipped HDMI for similar reasons, it would still be as good a value as the rest of the industry because there are currently no media for the new codecs and HDMI is no better than analog with DVI.

I am sure Outlaw will face the future just like the rest of us and hope it can stave off its competitors by providing the best value equipment out there.

What do you lose by going HDMI-to-DVI through the 990? I can't think of any: the video signal is unaltered, and the audio can even pass through to the display if you use dual-link DVI adapters (based on several user reports).

Let's ask a different question: if Outlaw had elected to hold off on the 990 until they could do HDMI for both audio and video, what would that have meant? They might have been able to do HDMI v1.1 with a delay of maybe a year - possibly more, as it would have forced some pretty significant changes to the existing Sherwood hardware platform. That would have given them HDMI audio support, but the lack of v1.2/v1.3 is widely perceived as "outdated" (was even seen that way before the v1.3 spec was published). Outlaw surely recognized that market perception. If they'd chosen to waith for HDMI v1.3 then we'd very possibly still be waiting for the 990 (over three and a half years after the 990 started shipping). After all, the 990 uses a Cirrus 49400 and moving to the 49700 would have been a logical progression, but the 49700 chip was delayed at least a year and a half. All of a sudden, instead of a May 2005 release with DVI the 990 might have been a fall 2006 release with HDMI v1.1 or a fall 2008 (or later) release with HDMI v1.3. From that viewpoint, the 990's use of DVI continues to make some sense.

The other aspect of "future-proofing" is the use of DVI rather than HDMI video switching (which I still say rather adamently should be licensed separately from full HDMI implementations with a separate logo somehow - maybe "HDMI Video"). The big problem with using HDMI ports for switching is confusion. I've lost count of the number of receivers or processors that I've had to pick through a user manual or run a series of Google searches to determine if the HDMI ports support audio or not. Even a month ago, I ran into a co-worker who thought that all HDMI inputs support audio and video - but manufacturers are still (in 2009) producing entry-level receivers that have HDMI inputs that can't handle audio of any kind. The use of DVI instead of HDMI may create some concerns about DVI / HDMI compatibility for potential 990 owners, but it also avoids the problem of customers buying a 990 under the assumption that it will do HDMI audio.
The market for surround processors is finally going to calm down a little now that HDMI v1.3 is in place. The processor generation that the 997 will be part of includes HDMI v1.3, room correction, and internal video processing. What will come after that? I honestly don't know - there are likely to be some refinements in those technologies, but I don't see anything looming close on the horizon to add significantly to the equation. There will be something new eventually - but there always is, and if you wait to buy until that next big thing is available you'll be watching TV on a 19" analog CRT and listening through the one speaker built into that TV. Personally, I think it'll be a bit longer before we see the next major "new thing" for surround processors.

Network media devices are a completely different matter. There are a lot of different options out there, many competing, and a scarcity of dominant standards. You've got SlimDevice's Squeezebox, Sonos, Roku Labs SoundBridge, and other devices for audio only. You've also got AppleTV, game consoles (XBox360 and PS3), and a number of other devices that can handle audio and video. These can range from a couple hundred dollars to upward of $10,000 (if you mix in something like Kaliedescape). Then there are DVR's (either standalone or built into cable and satellite receivers). Then there are devices that let you download video content - Roku's Netflix box, Amazon Unbox, Vudu, and the like. It's a very active market, but there's a lot of turbulence and fluctuation. It's likely that people who get serious about it may use several different devices for different things. That's the biggest reason that I think letting a media client stay separate from the surround processor is the smartest choice. Let it be a source - it deserves to be. If media clients become as simple, established, and unchanging as AM/FM tuners, then maybe they should be integrated into the surround processor. Even then, though, I don't see it as a necessary inclusion.

Should Outlaw get into that market with a product? I don't know how easy that would be for a company structured the way they are - there's a lot of risk if the horse you invest R&D effort into loses. On the other hand, there have been some suggestions in this thread that Peter Tribeman's upcoming January announcement might be a partnership to sell something like this - although there are plenty of guesses there that would go in a different direction, so it's hardly guaranteed.

How many millions of dollars were lost by both the winner (Sony) and the loser (Toshiba) in the Blu ray vs. HD DVD war? I think that Outlaw is similar to Oppo in that they must wait for a given technology to 'mature' as Oppo has done with their upcoming Blu ray combi player.
Sony always seems to be the 800 pound gorilla, and their decision to not include multi-channel analog outs on the PS3 has forced users like me to step up to a processor like the 997 in order to get hi-rez surround audio.

Now that the Outlaws are offering the Vudu XL (that's $999 vs $229 for an Apple TV and the difference is - 1080p vs 720p?), they've added the digital media source I was asking about to their line up. The Vudu can be set up on a wireless network, which again begs the question, why aren't network functions designed into the 997? Perhaps the benefits would be minimal, for example automating firmware upgrades. Beyond USB wouldn't it be worthwhile to add an ethernet port?

I'll again ask the counter-question: what do you want your surround processor to do with a network connection? There are several possibilities, of course.

Do you want it for firmware updates? Personally, I'd rather see a USB port that can pull firmware updates off a USB stick than an ethernet port that downloads updates over the Internet. It's got to be cheaper, which means less cost for consumers, and it doesn't get into the question of how to establish a connection (which could involve investing in a wireless bridge or a long cable run if it's the only network-equipped device in the rack). That's become my favorite way for updating firmware on disc players. Failing that, the 990's USB-to-PC approach with a more streamlined software interface would work for me.

Do you want an ethernet port so it can be a media client? This is the most common reason for the request, but I've owned a couple such devices now and I still think integrating something like that into a processor is most likely to be disappointing. To avoid incurring significant extra cost, it'd likely result in a marginal product (something very basic that is not likely to satisfy the people most interested in seeing it included). It'd be potentially straightforward to add audio support without much significant extra hardware or software, for example, but adding support for video formats would entail including some likely significant hardware and firmware that would otherwise not be required. Why pack all that into a surround processor when you could put it in a separate chassis?