Modular always sounds appealing, but history tells us that it isn't well suited to the home theater market. It's been tried by several manufacturers. In each case, it has been expensive to design, time-consuming to design, expensive to build, and frequently victim of technology changes that exceed the capability of the modular design to compensate for. The pace at which video processing and audio processing have been changing in the last four years has been so rapid that it is easy for limitations in the main board or a need to re-design the entire central DSP section (and all the associated firmware) can easily render a platform like that "obsolete" by making new modules prohibitively expensive to develop.

Besides, at some point the chassis design becomes unwieldy. The Model 990 and Onkyo 886 are both 7.75" tall. There were a lot of people who either struggled with the 990 or elected not to buy it because it was too big to fit in their furniture. You don't see many components taller than 7.5" or 8" because anything much taller than 6" is prone to being hard to fit into typical furniture or equipment racks. Increasing the height to 9" or 10" (or more) is going to turn off a lot of people, especially when the industry has just finished pushing home theater design to a single AV cable that was supposed to reduce wiring clutter and allow these things to get smaller.


It is odd, and my point is that it's odd enough that the best solution is to find an effective way to fit it into the input/output mix that the marketplace can support. Asking a manufacturer to build a one-piece solution for your specific (and very unique) case is not a practical option because you may be one of a half-dozen people in the world who might want to buy it. At that point, they'd have to charge $100,000+ (maybe a couple times that) to recoup their investment. That's why I've been trying to point you toward solutions that can work with as few extra pieces as possible and as seamless an overall interface as possible.


There is something that can function like DenonLINK: HDMI. It even carries video, too, which DenonLINK can't do.

A proprietary interface like DenonLINK is rarely a good idea. Denon could do it because they were big enough and sold enough "flagship" level gear that they could afford the R&D costs. It gave them a way to support SACD and DVD-Audio digital audio transport without waiting for industry-approved open standards (IEEE-1394 and eventually HDMI) to arrive. Meridian did something similar, and they were able to do it for the same reasons (R&D budget and equipment prices that could support the necessary investment). For standard DVD content, DenonLINK is unnecessary. For Blu-ray, the format is based around the idea of using HDMI, again making DenonLINK unnecessary.

Also, I never wanted 10 sets of 7.1 analog inputs. I suggested having one 7.1 analog input (a necessary feature) and pointed out that the ten composite inputs you described would each require a corresponding stereo analog input.


Pro Logic IIz is not an 11.x format. Pro Logic IIz adds height channels in the front, which is done either by re-tasking the rear surround channels (7.1) or adding two channels in addition to the rear surrounds (9.1).

The only processing mode I know of that can potentially achieve 11.1 is Audyssey DSX, which provides front "height" channels and side "wide" channels. You would need to combine DSX with some custom bass management (an LFE sub output and probably left/right sub outputs) to achieve 11.3 (eleven full-range channels and three discrete subwoofer channels). You can call a product "11.3" by having three sub outputs, but some would argue that it's a misnomer to do so if the three sub outputs all get the same signal. The funny thing about the products that currently support DSX is that none offer more than nine full-range channels, and quite a few only offer seven. So while in theory DSX can produce 11.1, in reality nobody has tried to bring a product to market that supports all of those channels.

Honestly, when I saw your feature suggestions I thought you were joking. It is pretty obvious by the thread trail that followed that you were serious. At the end of the day, you're dreaming of a unit that does not exist anywhere and is unlikely to ever exist anywhere. As gonk points out, the unit would cost a ton of money to the limited number of potential end users. Even after spending that much money, you wouldn't necessarily even have a unit that sounds any better. But you could sure hook up a bunch of outdated equipment to it...

I wish I was joking, I was looking for something with all round features set that's all

it would be nice if we had something to cater for this type of setup that's all.

the amount gutting that's been going on in the avr market, I would hope that standard practices like these didn't take effect the processor market..

networking functions have started to become a standard option on the high end avr's and pre-pro's i would of like to see this to be expanded up on, while most likely not being practical, It was a feature I saw some promise in when seeing it deployed on the joytech xbox 360 style av network switch..

I've also found sometimes integration of expansion devices may have an undesired affect where it comes to av switching through IR, the ultimate aim I was suggesting was something that reduces the need external device which take extra power resources...

considering the average pre-amp is between $5,000-25,000 given that price range you would think something could be done, when you're looking at the average 4/1-6/1 av switch between the $200-$300 per unit, you quickly think of something better to use which reduces power consumption cost's..

while the 8/4 unit looks appealing to use, in the realm of ht it would seem a waste of space..

To cater to a setup with a surround processor, there needs to be a market for it. As I understand your posts, you are envisioning a pretty massive gaming setup focused on providing instant access to just about every game console manufactured since the early 1990's, with surround sound and multiple options for video display. You also are interested in having this access (including HDTV and surround sound) in more than one space, I think. I don't think that a market for such a device exists. Maybe I'm wrong, but in all of the home theater forums I visit I've not encountered other people requesting this same level of massive legacy device connectivity. I haven't even encountered the interest in multi-zone surround sound that you have made mention of, and discussions of building network switches into surround processors has been spotty and never discussed on the scale you suggest. I don't want to say it's a market of one person, but it may very well be that way.


I've seen some high-end receivers include network media clients, but I haven't seen them include data switches. There is also an argument presented by some people (myself included) that integrating a network media client onto another device (be it a surround processor or a Blu-ray player) is inherently inferior to having a purpose-built network media client (AppleTV, Roku, Popcorn Hour, etc.) that connects via HDMI just like all our other sources.


Any time we assemble a home theater system, we are designing a one-of-a-kind product. We don't often think about it that way, but we really should because it's a pretty accurate way of describing it. The product is built from off-the-shelf components that we select, arranged in the room based on our decisions, assembled using the cables that we choose and connect, and controlled using a sequence that we develop. In some cases, it's a really simple design: a VCR and a TV. The product that you have been describing is extremely complex and unusual, and as such it requires careful decisions on your part to get right. You need to determine what consoles you want, how to arrange them to allow easy access to them and their controllers (most of which are wired), where to locate display(s) and speakers, where to install the non-gaming components that you've mentioned (surround processor, amplifiers, cable box, DVD or Blu-ray player(s), VCR, turntable), how to handle the wiring and power, and how to control all the different pieces efficiently (universal remote control(s), IR distribution system, possibly RF-to-IR, etc.). It is absolutely possible that a not-so-great choice in equipment selection or layout when trying to integrate this many pieces will have an undesired effect. That's why each part of the overall design is important.

Your aversion to IR control seems to be related to a desire to have some other form of communication between components that allows automatic control without remote signals. The problem is that there is no such standard available unless you want to invest in something like Crestron via RS232 (which still, at some level, relies on commands from the remote). You've mentioned "RIHD" a few times, including a desire for dedicated RIHD outputs. The problem is that RIHD is Onkyo's proprietary name for HDMI's Consumer Electronics Control (or CEC). Many of the big companies have made their own "flavors" of CEC, and until just the last year or so compatibility between brands was very hit-or-miss because HDMI hadn't initially bothered to get a really well-established standard in place (again). These days, CEC is fairly reliable. Unfortunately, it is of limited practical use even when each component supports it in a compatible fashion. It is also an integral part of HDMI, not a standalone connection. HDMI-equipped TV's, processors, and disc players can use it to select the correct inputs, turn things on and off, and pass along basic transport controls (although the latter has always seemed pretty pointless to me). Non-HDMI devices can't support CEC. That's why a good universal remote is the best solution, especially when paired with an IR distribution system and RF-to-IR control.


First, I would question your "average" pre-amp price range. The $5,000 to $25,000 range is the domain of companies like Anthem, Lexicon, Classe, McIntosh, and Krell. There is nothing average about those companies, their products, or their price tags.

Second, we have already discussed why processor manufacturers aren't eager to build products with the quantity of legacy AV inputs your proposed system would require. Those quantities raise manufacturing costs, make their units larger, drive them to create more and more separate inputs (with setup menus and remote buttons for each), and increase overall complexity. Let's take your recent list of ten game consoles, then assume that you still want your turntable, VCR, tape deck, cable box, and a DVD or Blu-ray megachanger as well. We'll also assume that you're using a 9.1 speaker setup (Pro Logic IIz) and a constant image height HD front projection system (HDMI). You need a phono preamp, stereo analog audio input for tape deck, probably six composite video/stereo analog audio inputs, at least three component video/stereo analog audio inputs, and at least four HDMI inputs. Then there's the 16-port network switch. There's also AM, FM, and satellite radio tuner antenna connections, at least a couple coaxial digital audio connections, three or four optical digital audio connections, a USB port, some 12V triggers, IR input and output connections, a 7.1 analog audio input, and both balanced and unbalanced 9.1 pre-amp outputs. You want room to grow, so add an extra component input and at least two more HDMI inputs. You also want to be able to have something connected to each input, so you now have at least 19 separate inputs on the remote. You also have 19 separate sub-menus to configure each input (audio source, video source, video processing, audio processing, triggers, custom label, and whatever else). That's cumbersome. It increases design costs, manufacturing costs, and shipping costs. It makes the unit huge physically, which people don't like because it doesn't fit in their furniture. And there will be very few people who actually use more than a third (or a quarter) of those 19 inputs.

What about power consumption? Well, I described a system earlier that used two outboard AV switches to integrate your 10 consoles in with a fairly normal processor. Each of those switches uses a single AC adapter for power. Those AC adapters draw perhaps 5 watts each, or 0.01kwh per hour for both switches. That's 0.24kwh per day. At a utility rate of $0.10/kwh (which is more than I pay here, but less than some people pay), that's $0.02 in electrical costs. In a month, that's $0.60. In a year, that's about $7.20. If incorporating all those extra inputs on the processor increases the cost $1000 (which I think is probably conservative, considering the lost sales such a unit would experience due to its size and excess legacy inputs) and the two switches I proposed cost $40, the simple payback is 133 years (save $7.20 per year by spending an extra $960 in first costs). And that assumes that the processor's standby power draw is unchanged by the scope change we've described, which is not guaranteed in light of how much extra stuff we are talking about packing in there.

ok gonk what do you pay for a pre-amp, I would say $700-1,200 is what you likely pay for and spend, that same pre-amp over here retails for double to triple the amount it's worth where I live, when you take a look at onkyo, yamaha, denon, marantz, pioneer and any other brand you wish to compare with..

not sure about the states, though in my kneck of the woods, RIHD has been available for 15-20 years Yes I will admit there could be compatibility issues between vendors, RIHD via HDMI may be a lic. trademark by onkyo..

IR link controls have been available for many years, it's just not in the realm of hdmi..

what I suggested may not be a practical solution in 1 unit as you say, though it is a nice option to have as a backup, given all the gaming mode options you see within the onkyo, denon and yamaha lines of avr's and pre-amps, you would think it would be a perfect fit to have this type of option available in the outlaw pre-amp..

So you aren't in the US? Useful information. I agree that it alters the price range involved. Where are you?

RIHD is not 15 to 20 years old. It is Onkyo's name for CEC, which is just a few years old. RI is the name of an older connection type used by Onkyo, and I agree that RI has been around for a long time. Similar connections have been used by other manufacturers (Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony, etc.) for just as long, although each uses a different name for it. In each case, they allow IR signals received by one component to be passed to other components. I had a Pioneer CD player in college that used Pioneer's version of this - no remote and no IR sensor, but the Pioneer receiver's remote had transport controls and the receiver's IR receiver picked up the commands and passed them to the player. This feature is similar to the IR ports found on the Model 950 and Model 970. The Model 990 had similar ports, as well, but it required an interface module when used with certain IR systems. These interfaces are close cousins to simple IR distribution signals, but because there is no single industry standard there will always be some compatibility issues. It also doesn't solve any control problems because it doesn't have any sort of independent "language" - it is just relaying remote control signals. The IR distribution stuff I've been suggesting operates similarly. Having an IR input and an IR output or two is worthwhile, and I'd prefer one similar to what the 950 and 970 used rather than the type of ports on the 990. Having ten of them, though, seems like overkill - especially in a gaming system where the consoles don't even have IR inputs.

CEC is not an IR link, it's a protocol for relaying commands based on the state of other devices. For example: turn on a DVD player, the TV connected to it turns on and changes to the HDMI port that the player is connected to. Turn the player back off, the TV turns off, too.

Australia

the ir control support is for the amps and other hardware that supports ir control..

besides the onkyo, my sharp and jvc supports RIHD as well. for the sony i will need to check it for support, though this is besides the point.

due to local distro's I keep my single disc dvd players in service, I can't always rely on the multi disc's to play certain disc's at a full 100% playback..

I don't know that much Outlaw gear has ever made its way down to Australia. I've traded some emails with the owner of an OPPO Digital DVD player who was in Austalia, though.

I would expect the Model 998 to have a 12V trigger, which is meant to turn on amps. Outlaw's amps don't have an IR connection on them, nor do any other amps I've found, but most amps built since surround started started making real inroads into the home market have some sort of 12V trigger.

outlaw most likely hasn't been in Australia before..

though multi zone outputs are all but standard on most mid-high end avr's and are standard on most pre-amps in 1 way or another..

though how many you have depends on what space you have to play with within the chassis you got, given nobody bother's with building a bigger chassis nothing ever improves, it's more the case of fitting what you can in, in the smallest space possible adding and loosing features left, right and centre..


there is never a happy medium.. when designing a pre-amp/processor

I can say with certainty that Outlaw has never distributed in Australia. There may have been a product or two wind up there over the last eleven years or so, though.

Multi-zone outputs are fairly common. Outlaw's had them on the 950 and 990, and it's likely that the 998 will have them as well. However, multi-zone outputs are stereo rather than multichannel, and they are almost always purely analog - I've described them as stereo analog pre-amps tucked inside the unit. It's less about physical space (if you look at the Model 990, you'll find that it has a healthy amount of space available under the hood) than it is about first cost. Creating a multichannel second zone requires building in costly duplicate surround processing capabilities. Put simply, it means packing two surround processors (two DSP chips, two multichannel DAC sections, two sets of memory, two user interfaces) into one chassis. Nobody does it because the cost would be significant and the number of people who use it would be very small. Folks who want to have multiple surround sound setups simply have to buy a separate surround processor or receiver for each setup. If you wanted to have the exact same audio going to two separate setups, you could use either splitters on the pre-amp outputs or use both the unbalanced and XLR outputs (the 998 is almost certain to have XLR pre-amp outputs) to feed the same signal to two amps and two sets of speakers. I don't recommend it because that is not an optimal approach. One setup is going to have to operate with the other setup's speaker distances, trim settings, EQ, and Trinnov settings. Really, if you want to have multiple surround installations under one roof, each should have its own surround receiver or processor.


For receivers, I agree that many of them (especially at the lower price points) tend to squeeze too much into a small box at the expense of compromises - mostly compromises relating to power amplification. I disagree with this sentiment for surround processors, though. Looking at the dominant surround processors on the market over the last ten years, I've seen nothing in the designs that indicate compromises in performance or feature set based on chassis size. For that matter, surround processors have in general remained the same size or gotten bigger, in spite of the fact that HDMI offers the theoretical potential to reduce the rear panel ports. As I have noted, the Model 990 was already about as large as is practical for most cases (and too big for some people). Making it bigger isn't going to improve anything. Are there some specific surround processor products you have in mind when you talk about "smallest space possible" and "losing features"?


I think a happy medium can be found. In 2005, I think the Model 990 came very close to finding that happy medium (as much as any product can) compared to products near its price point. I think that even when you hit that a happy medium, though, it is not going to satisfy everyone.