USB, ethernet and phono would be my top picks.

I've got to admit I'm still on the fence about the 998. Not the unit itself, but whether I really need it in my situation. My oppo decodes the uncompressed audio on BDs so there is not an overriding need for a pre/pro to handle this task. The oppo also does a very nice job upconverting DVDs using ABTs video processing. The two things that could sway me are Trinnov and the quality of the video processing for 480i sources. I guess we will eventually know if Trinnov is worth the upgrade for acoustically challenged rooms (like mine!). Is there any hint on who will implement the video processing in the 998?

I have an oppo too and I don't have an urgent need to upgrade other than the bug in my butt. On the other hand, I now have more HDMI components than my TV has inputs for and the audio is being fed to the 990 via interconnects and spdif. So for some sources I'm using component video and audio because of the limited inputs on my tv. I'm also not taking full advantage of the audio capabilities. If the 998 has 5 or more HDMI inputs, then I'm golden. I never thought I'd need that many, but I'm already there and I think I'll be adding a few internet based components in the future.

However, after reading this review of the Sherwood 972, I'm very interested in future trinnov based surround processors. So I'll wait and suffer through fairly good audio and video.

here's what I'd like to see in a processor, given the size reduction in the 1.4 spec hdmi I would like to 6 hdmi in 3 hdmi out 2x zone 1's lcd & pj use 1x zone2 based on 1.3 if 1.4 can use standard hdmi then all well and good, I would also another bank of hdmi ports to cater for 1.4 spec devices..

since I got alot of gear the isn't hdmi compliant I would say the need for need for a bank of s-video and component connection with atleast 2 composite inputs
for digital spdif should suffice for 5.1-7.1 while it's nice to have multiple analog audio connections though having 5-10 connections would likely make the unit so big it would be a bitch to to store it in a rack..
a plugin lan rack would be a nice feature similar to what you see in cisco rack mounts having a built-in lan rack to cater for things that require a lan connection..

having something that is configurable from a processor might be a good solution for gear that requires a lan connection..
i'm slowly working on upgrading gaming consoles though I still got many things that I use are still based on older tech so I can't remove from the processor for the time being..

having to source lan external to the processor can be a pain

Probably too far along in the build phase too change much now.9 HDMI ports and a bank of S-video connections seems to be on separate sides of the aisle as far as retaining currency.

The HDMI v1.4 spec doesn't change the connector - no size reduction, and no locking connector. The smaller connector offered in the spec is meant for camcorders only, and if the HDMI v1.3 smaller HDMI connector is any indication it may not get adopted very quickly. Even if it does, all people will need is a cable with that small connector on one end and a standard HDMI connector on the other - no need to include the smaller connector on a processor.

There is no reason for dedicated HDMI v1.4 ports. The only thing that HDMI's endless versions have done well is to support backward compatibility. A v1.4 port will work with any device from v1.4 on back to v1.0.

As for the three outputs, I think we beat that subject to death earlier in this thread. There are good justifications for two outputs, but supporting a third is going to either be of limited use or (depending on how serious you are about a second multichannel zone) would add significant cost that 99% of users don't need.


I started to ask what you mean by "component connection with atleast 2 composite inputs" but I think we've also gone over the subject of legacy AV inputs endlessly in this thread. I've also explained the reasons that implementing what you want is cost prohibitive, and the solutions that can be had for little cost that can achieve what you want without building a one-off product.


An 8-port or 16-port switch is inexpensive and small, especially when you've already made room for half a dozen game consoles and several disc players. Sticking it into a surround processor still seems excessive to me.

gonk the point of legacy inputs is so we can use existing hardware..

since I still own vhs I still need to able to use composite..

given what I heard and seen I believe hdmi 1.4 uses a smaller connection than standard 1.0-1.3 connections, it's just not a firmware update for hdmi 1.4 it's also a board change, now whether or not the existing connection can support hdmi 1.4 I can't say though if it is a different connector I would say the choice of having hdmi 1.3 and hdmi 1.4 in the same chassis would much be preferred..

a 8-16 port switch might be as cheap as chips in the states though in other countries it is not always the case...

at the moment I only have 2 items that support hdmi that is the xbox 360 and the onkyo dv-cp 704..

given the I have have playback issues with most of my dvd's in 1 form or another I still find the need have older dvd players in service as what faults 1 player picks up may not show on another player as the laser pickups may pick faults in other area's of the disc....

thus is why I'm looking for multi component in and multi spdif fibe optic in, multichannel analog while i'd like it I doubt it will be any benefit over digital..

I've never said we should omit composite video and analog audio. On the contrary, we do need to see some. I've questioned the quantity, that's all.


Using HDMI v1.4 is a board change because it requires a different transceiver chip, but it does not change the connector. If you've heard and seen information suggesting that, you've been misled. HDMI v1.4 does include an optional smaller connector as well as an automotive connector, but it retains the existing connector as the standard.


The states is Outlaw's target market. Additionally, the number of potential 998 owners who would want to pay extra to have such a device integrated into the cabinet is extremely small


The Model 998 will have to include one 7.1 analog input as well as some optical and coaxial digital inputs. It will also have to include some component video, composite video, stereo analog, and probably s-video inputs. All of these are required for support of legacy hardware such as you describe.

We should be realistic about what Outlaw is going include in the 998. For one it is already spec'd and will limit its support for the legacy components. It will support some but it won't be geared towards that as a primary focus. For those of us that have legacy gear we need to find another solution. If you have a lot of older gear the 990 is available on various sites and will support the older gear just fine. It might be possible to use the output of the 990 as an input to the 998 for DVI and Toslink. It would be pretty confusing but I think it could work. You could use the 990 as a big patch board.

I agree that some legacy inputs should be there, and while I don't currently use most of those, I'd still like the option to have them.
However, they should be limited to somthing like 2 inputs each. I hat when I look at the back of a high end avr and see 6 or 7 composite and 6 or 7 s-vid inputs.
A big waste IMO.
I'd rather have a small amount of those, then put the extra effort into other more modern connections like HDMI.

I also agree that something like an 8-16 port switch built in is not a viable consideration.
There are not many people who would desire that function, and as Gonk said, it can be added on externally for little cost.

-----

Now, another possible scenario I may be interested in is the MCH and/or stereo analog inputs.
I have never owned an Outlaw avr or preamp, but is it correct that their processors are able to do bass management on the analog inputs without digitizing the audio?
I wonder if there will be similar type situation with the new model. T'would be nice if so.