Given the fact that it exists in test mule form, its probably a little late to cut it. I also think it would put the 978 at a major competitive disadvantage. I think we would all like to see the 978 come to market, but past that, we would like Outlaw to be around to support the 978. Releasing a non-competitive pre/pro wont help them survive in a competitive environment.

The flip side is that a good ABT2010 processing solution will do a better job than 99% of the TV's made in the last five years and 99.999% of the TV's made prior to that.


I also doubt that video processing is a problem. ABT was a pretty good partner for OPPO Digital when they were developing the 983H and BDP-83, so I would expect pretty reasonable support from them here as well. Cutting it isn't really an option, though - both because of the delays required to re-tool and replace it with something else (need deinterlacing) and the need to be competitive.

On video processing specifically I simply disagree that the lack of video processing automatically makes the 978 pre/pro uncompetitive. But that's a matter of opinion and I can agree to disagree. I do agree its probably too late to cut it specifically from the 978. My "cut it" comment was intended to mean cut it from the general Outlaw pre/pro playbook (if it's a sticking point).

I also read gonk's helpful explanation that video processing is a natural progression from video switching. I'm a bit skeptical of that - to me his explanation sounded more like a slippery slope than a natural progression. However, the last part of his explanation argues that the technology has commoditized to the point where the chipsets are mostly self contained and easily integrated. And that is persuasive to me, but that also removes video processing from the list of features that makes it difficult for small companies to compete with the big boys.

But I don't want to get hung up on the specific example of video processing in the 978. The general theme is that Outlaw cannot hope to win a feature war with the big boys. And as long as the typical mainstream consumer demands feature bling, Outlaw cannot hope to woo the typical mainstream consumer. So if they want to stay in the pre/pro market (which is debatable in itself), they need a unique value proposition to entice a relatively small niche of loyal customers.

I believe you. So ... TVs can be perfectly competitive with barebones video processing but processers/receivers cannot. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Depends on the market. Remember Pioneer's Kuro line? They had excellent video processing and really good plasma technology - most of it developed by Pioneer. They are part of that 1%. The problem was that the other 99% included a lot of really, really inexpensive stuff (Vizio, etc.) that included only the necessary functionality to get video signals converted to the displays' native resolutions. Those displays that just did the bare necessary video processing are part of the reason that the standalone video processor developed in the first place. It's why early HDTV's were so consistently bashed when it came to displaying SD sources (consumer-grade video processing tech was still too new and wasn't up to the challenge). There are a lot of projectors and flat panels around that do offer really good processing, and in certain market sectors that processing is an expected function. Most of us aren't the target audience for those products, though, and the more affordable displays are often the ones that need help the most. Displays that wanted to be counted as equal to the Kuro panels had to have equally good processing. Displays that wanted to sell in large quantities on Black Friday were the reason people started gravitating to surround receivers that included a Reon or ABT chip.


Let's walk again through the logic for video processing to see why there basically has to be something there, because it also shows where your "keep it simple" argument can be applied effectively.

If Outlaw were to eliminate video switching from the processor, video processing would cease to be a concern. Simple. However, the whole point of new processors today is to support HDMI connectivity. HDMI merges audio and video into a single connection, whether we like it or not. As soon as DVI and IEEE.1394 both failed to take hold in HDMI's shadow, it became inevitable that splitting audio and video functions apart at the surround processor would be almost impossible. We've got to get HDMI into the processor, and then we have to get HDMI video back out to go to a display. The most economical way to do that is to switch HDMI inputs. If we're only switching HDMI inputs, that's one thing - all the HDCP handshaking issues are present, but you could potentially keep it "simple." How many people will have a system that is exclusively HDMI, though? And how many who have some legacy video components (or want the ability to have them) will accept switching the video separately? Some people would like that approach because it makes for a clean signal path. Most customers won't see it that way, though. They want to have the analog video sources transcoded to HDMI so they can connect a single HDMI cable to their TV. Once you do that, you've introduced video processing. It could be very basic (a video ADC chip that can handle anything 480i, 720p, and 1080i and a deinterlacer so you can get at least 480p digital output), but it is basically a functionally complete video processor. The only question is whether to go cheap on that - use a chipset so anonymous that you don't say what it is because nobody cares - or spend a bit more for something that can actually help your marketing team. You're investing money and development time either way. One may cost more per unit built, but the development effort range for that choice may be anywhere from only modestly more to much more depending on what you want to include in the software.

An example could help here. I just helped a co-worker replace a Rotel RSP-1068 processor and RMB-1075 amp with a Marantz SR5005. One of the things he liked most was that he can now leave his TV set to a single HDMI input and the receiver will switch his two video sources (one component, one HDMI) automatically. It is enough to allow his wife to be willing to operate the system (using a good universal remote that they've had for as long as the RSP-1068) without his help. Only the basic controls are necessary to satisfy users like this - who will end up being a large percentage of the customer base for a product like the Model 978 or Model 998 - so there's no need to develop something like Anthem's AVM50v and D2v offer. In fact, going that far is probably going to be a bigger support hassle in the long run, as most users aren't going to be able to work through all those extra controls. Video processing is important - but it doesn't necessary need to be a Sigma Designs processing section with a thousand and one tweaks available separately for each input (as is offered by Anthem). It just needs decent performance and some basic options. Without that, though, there is a real risk of failure when it comes time to sell enough units to make a profit.


I think that once we move past the new "core" feature set (HDMI connectivity; some legacy digital audio, analog audio, and analog video connectivity; audio decoding and matrix surround processing modes; video switching with some essential video processing capabilities; and some flavor of automatic speaker setup and room correction software), you get into a lot of things that have to be carefully evaluated before trying to include. That "core" list is fairly daunting for a smaller company, but it's hard to conceive of a processor omitting any of them without being established as a specific niche sort of product. (The upcoming ICBM-2 could be considered such a niche product, with two 9.1 inputs and an optional volume control that make it act essentially as an analog surround pre-amp with bass management.) Some things can be managed. For example, integrating a good video chip with a pretty solid foundation (like the ABT2010/2015) and implementing a basic set of controls along with a full bypass isn't as costly as integrating it as a full-blown, full-function "external processor in the box" while allowing folks who really want to go that far to use the bypass mode and add a high-end external processor. Each time you omit something, somebody is going to object, of course. Leave out network media support? Someone will tell you that they just took the processor off their shopping list. Omit Netflix streaming or Pandora? Same deal. Scrap web-based control? Ditto. Include an eight-channel DAC instead of a ten-channel or 12-channel DAC, forcing PLIIz or other "front height" or "front wide" processing modes to be used by disabling back surrounds? Same problem. It's all a balancing act, with about ten times as many variables to consider now than was the case five or six years ago. You and I both would agree that leaving some of those functions out of the mix is a smart decision, and for the most part I think the Model 978 as we've seen it described has followed similar logic. Others will, of course, feel differently.

Just a quick question or thought: First off I am not plugged into the business side of the industry enough to know the actual development timelines,(However in the industry that I was a part of the IC manufacturers would have pre-release announcements, seminars of upcoming products and design help to start the design process way before our product with the new features would be announced) but is there anyway that the Outlaws could know of upcoming "features" , such as DTS Neo-X, a year or so ahead of announcement so it could be developed IE: DTS to manufactures " We have DTS Neo-X ready for licensing, here is what you need to know to implement, announcement in X time from now, get developing?

Gonk,

Don't laugh but I'm still using a Hitachi rear projection TV That I bought 7 years ago. I am using a Kenwood 8004 Trio Amp that I replaced $100 worth of Electrolytic parts for my Two front Channels (Using Two Polyglass Vifa Drivers with a Seas Aluminum/Mag Tweater). I am using another European/Japanese Sony 500 ES amp for my surrounds for a pair 15 year old B&W 600 Speakers. I Bought the Outlaw 970 preamp 2 years ago to replace my older sony DA-50ES Receiver which finally died. Now mind you this is no slouch of a receiver because it was made before Sony started cutting corners. I am currently running this in a quad speaker configuration with a phantom center channel. I thought I was seriously going to have to upgrade all of our equipment due to all the new HDMI requirements. Guess what...for Christmas we got a new panasonic Bluray player that Changed everything. We hooked up the Blu-ray player and the DTS signals were processed extremely well...so much so that now the speakers basically disappear when we put in the higher fidelity Bluray (A very immersive sound field emerges) as well as even better picture quality with greater control over the aspect ratio. We had to buy an external HDTV tuner for the older HDTV. We are currently using all Component video connections. After hearing about all the failure rates of the newer plasmas and huge costs of going LED LCD we are sitting on the sideline because the picture quality of my old Hitachi TV can only be exceeded by the Very best of the new LED TVs. To make a long story short the older Outlaw 970 has done an admirable job in decoding audio signals using the optical digital cable and we are in no rush to buy any new equipment until the Hitachi dies. Basically, I'm saying we can now live with what we got with a $150 Bluray player that improved our entire system. Everything shined with an improvement of just one component in our system. Amazing really. :>)

As a matter of fact I own a ten year old Toshiba 1080i RPCRT that is still working beautifully and until it dies, I have no interest whatsoever in any of the new technologies. As far as the restrictions of component video related to HDMI, there is a solution to this issue. You might want to check out the following websites: "HDFury.com" and/or "Moomecard.com". It would mean ordering either of them from Taiwan, however, either of these allow an HDMI to component connection to your monitor PLUS the added advantage of you now being able to use the HDMI connection out of your Blu-Ray player to maximize its video processing capabilities and upscaling of standard DVDs not available through a component connection. Also should your monitor continue to work and you desire to upgrade your AVR/Pre-Pro to attain (Dolby TruHD and DTS Master Audio) through the AVR, either of these will enable you to do this as well.

whether it be 978 or the 998, I think they should make the unit modular, make the unit a big as possible, hdmi 1.4 10-16/4 or atleast expandable to this amount over time..

with input daughter boards I would say should support s-video component 5.1-7.2 analog and toslink.. 2nd-4th zone output to 7.2 rca or xlr.. 11.3 in primary zone..

up-convert all soundtracks to hd audio where possible...

3d support as an upgrade feature at some stage....

pro cals should be standard...

price range 2,500-5,000..

the biggest failure with the umc-1 is the lack of support with hd codecs, I feel with the this unit emo dropped the ball in a big way, they seem to softcode firmware to suit suit missing hardware sometims it works sometimes it doesn't..


the idea of more hdmi removes the need to add a secondary AV switch similar to the denon hdmi expansion switch or mounting gear on a 8x4-12x8 distribution pre-amp

as for tv's as long as it works be happy with what you got..

gonk if you ever think upgrading led you might to consider buying in bulk it will likely be be cheaper if you you do..

If we ever want to see it on the street we need to stick to what it is. At this point they can't redesign it. It has to hit the street as is and hopefully that will be soon. I don't think we will see it before September but I hope I am wrong.