Feature Suggestions?

It was hard to tell from the announcement if the 998 development is too far along for any changes or modifications, or if all of the features are locked in.

If there is any flexibility, I'd like to suggest the following:

• Ethernet connection for firmware updates, media library connections, and/or internet radio
• Built-in HD radio, along with high-quality AM/FM tuners
• Larger display, with dimmable settings. The 990 is hard to read across the room. A larger panel would make that easier, and the ability to set different brightness settings would be really helpful for various applications. For example, in a darkened home theater room, the 990 is glaringly bright. But, if it were any dimmer, it would be very hard to read in a sunlit room.
• Front panel USB port for firmware upgrades. If an ethernet port can't be used, this is the second best solution. Please, don't put it on the back of the unit, though. It makes it really difficult for those of us with rack systems to try and contort our arms to reach the port, without being able to see it. If it were hidden behind a panel on the front, upgrading the firmware would be a piece of cake.

The 998 looks like a very intereresting product. I can't wait until later this year to see all of the features, and hear it's all of it's capabilities.

Scott

I would like to see at least one set of balanced inputs for a CD or external DAC. Also include a headphone jack and phono input.

Here is my suggestion -- lossless headphone virtualizing so the device can be used as an awesome headphone preamp (esp. suitable as no big power amp stage needed for this use).

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=82883#Post82883

I would like to see good, old-fashioned phono inputs.

I second that request!

I, too, would like to see the phono input remain. I'd also like to see a better remote - similar to the Logitech ones. As an aside, I wonder if the Outlaws have ever contemplated getting into tube gear. That would be something I'd be interested in.

As far as the 997 goes I wasn't going to get one - quite happy with my 990. If this new 998 is that much ahead of the curve with respect to its features it may be too tempting to pass up.

Don

Phono inputs for me also. It is a major factor in my decision between an onkyo and outlaw.

Bernie

A second on the Balanced inputs. At least one set. The ability to use as a source direct throughput would be especially fantastic. A rack mount option would be nice too - all my stuff is racked.

Am I going mad, but I've searched the site and can't find either the news release or details about the 998.

Can someone help?

Thx
Rob

It's posted in the Announcements section.

Thanks for this. It certainly looks very nice. I wish the Outlaws would state a date for release. After the problems around the 997 and the hit their credibility has taken, I think they owe it to us.

Rob

A specific release date is an unrealistic request for anyone. While I've never worked in electronics, I've worked in manufacturing long enough to know that projecting a quarter for release of a new product is about as close as anyone can come.

Yeah, I think the Outlaws have learned a hard lesson. My guess is we won't see much in the way of specific dates until the units have "gone gold" (if I may use a software development term here) and are either on the water, or in the warehouse.

One bit, twice shy... Sucks for people like me, hungry for information, but I don't blame them one bit.

I'm playing with a UMC-1 in the interim, so I'm patient. Though I am anxious to overcome some of its limitations, it meets a majority of my current needs. Still, I am looking for a good excuse to re-purpose the UMC-1/LPA-1 combination to the TV in the family room, so I can go with a more feature-complete processor in the theater, and possibly a 7200 for amplification...

Oh, and so I don't totally threadjack here, my feature requests are as follows:

• Network connectivity, with DLNA or similar capability to stream media from a server
• Firmware upgrade via USB stick - sorry guys, but I don't trust the network!
• Proper 1080p24 handling via passthrough.
• Video and Audio settings on a per-input basis (the global video setting is my biggest peeve with the UMC-1).
• Don't make Trinnov a black box - let me see (and please, let me tweak!) what it's doing.
• Oh, and please give us a killer processor/amp combo deal!

--Brett

I would like the 998 to decode a DSD bitstream.

That was mentioned in the announcement:

Requested features for Model 998, in no particular order of preference:


1. Back-lit Remote Control (see Oppo BDP-83 remote)

2. Panel display that is not only dimmable, but may be completely turned-off; this is a feature highly prized during movie watching (again, refer to the Oppo BDP-83)

3. No cooling fan! Design it to dissipate any heat with heat-sinks only.

4. Top-quality audio (it's all about the sound).

5. Top-quality video (it's almost all about the sound).

And features that don't need to be included:

a. Satellite radio.

b. 3D video. Get real, this always seems to come and go throughout the years, and I don't really feel like wearing a pair of glasses just to watch tv; my vision is just fine thank you.

c. Streaming audio and/or video.

d. Wireless connectivity.

e. Anything associated with gaming.

f. Any other fad that will disappear in the near future. Simply do audio and video processing without the gimmicks; I'd rather have the money going into the quality of the sound and video instead of useless "bells and whistles."

An additional feature request, which is not really a feature, but is of the utmost importance:

MADE IN U.S.A. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I posted a smaller version of this in the going going thread, but I fall in the camp of wanting the wireless network and streaming audio/video in the unit itself. After having purchased one Squeezebox, I really don't want to have to buy another to extend the functionality, especially when the new owner Logitech keeps reducing the quality of the DACs. I really don't want to have to keep buying separate devices that significantly duplicate the functionality that IMO should be built in the processor portion of a pre/pro. That just adds to the overall cost of the system and provides little or no benefit. This would enable us to buy devices like the Oppo BDP-80 as opposed the BDP-83 or SE.

A specific feature I would like to see included is some sort of embedded Linux system with a removable SD chip (full/mini/micro - I don't care) that drives a lot of the functionality through software. In conjunction with network connectivity and software/firmware refreshes, this seems like an excellent and relatively low-cost way to gain significant flexibility and future proofing for the entire system. The removable SD memory chip for memory would allow Outlaw to offer additional features in the future that were not possible with the memory the unit shipped with (e.g. the equalization feature not available on the 990).

Additionally, I would love to see two rear panel USB ports and possibly an eSATA connection.

Finally, please include Dolby Volume for those of us who watch commercial TV.

This all sounds really cool, but I still think (at least from where I sit) that it belongs in a separate chassis. Here's why:


Adding all of this functionality to a surround processor is adding cost to it. Embedded Linux system? That's basically a hacked-down PC that's tucked in there alongside the existing (non-Linux) audio and video processing. It's going to add a non-trivial cost to the Model 998 that many users don't want to spend. It also means that you are locked into whatever architecture and support the Model 998 is able to provide, and to upgrade it you'd need to either replace the whole thing or buy a standalone media client. If you want to have a single really good analog section, that shouldn't be a problem - the 998 can provide that for any media client with coaxial, optical, or HDMI output. Having it in a separate chassis lets people pick the product that they want and suits their needs.

That one's already in there, according to the announcement.

Gonk:

Missed the Dolby Volume part. Thank you for pointing this out.

As far as the hacked down PC portion being a non-trivial item, I am not sure I agree. After all a Cisco WRT54GL wireless router which includes embedded Linux retails these days for under $54.00 Linux is embedded in a lot of devices these days from cell phones to DVD players. However, my thrust was not so much for the added functionality as a way of being able to do things with a general purpose processor and software rather then using custom logic chips and the like. Its a lot easier to patch software then work around the inherent logic flaws that might be burned into a chip even if you have firmware upgrade capability.

Umm, you weren't alone! I'm still curious how it implements for those who have it already...

Having recently been laid off, I'm probably in the perfect timeframe for looking at the Model 998!! I really look forward to the development of this pre/pro over the next few months. Trinnov really has my attention.

I think it's in the 998, but a good headphone jack is something I really miss. I can't use the one on my Marantz now that I've got an amp connected to it without changing trigger settings or otherwise getting really creative.

JP

Gah - not sure how I missed that, but there you go. See, they're listening to me even before I open my mouth!

Based on recent history, even an estimate based on the quarter is likely to be a complete shot in the dark.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Based on what I saw in the announcement, I'd be pretty surprised if this thing saw the light of day until sometime in mid-late 2011. I doubt many "old timers" are going to hold out for that long (especially those that were strung along for a couple of years on the 997) so I suspect their real hope with this is to advertise and attract a new crop of customers.

Maybe they'll have better luck with their new line of speakers. I suspect we've reached a point in time where small niche players just don't have the budget to effectively play in the theater processor game. Might be better for them to just cut bait on a branded processor and focus on what they're good at, rebranding Peter's amps and trying to leverage their license for the new speaker designs. Leave the capital/time intensive processor business up to a well-funded partner like Onkyo and get on with life.

Best,

Don't know if it will be compatible with Trinnov, but some sort of tilt-EQ feature would be handy. For music recordings, it would allow you to quickly brighten or warm up a recording. For movies, it would allow you to set a house curve to your tastes. The recent room correction comparisons done by Harman demonstrate the usefulness of a feature like this.

This is likely something that can be added via programming and not need any hardware changes:

If a 'sleep timer' is a part of the feature set, change the programming from

1) Wait X minutes
2) Power off

to

1) Wait X minutes
2) Start a loop with 60 (or 120) iterations
3) Volume down by one dB (or by .5 dB)
4) Wait 2 seconds (or 1 second)
5) End Loop
6) Power off

This way, instead of 'power off' suddenly cutting the sound, the volume will be reduced by 60dB slowly over two minutes, or even to zero if the volume was not that high to begin with, before the 'power off'.

Netflix streaming

My suggestions carry forward from some of the pet peeves that I have my the Onkyo 886.

1. On the 886, the sub outputs on Zones 2 and 3 are next to useless (for reasons I won't go into.) Please build in flexible bass management controls (selectable Xover point and adjustable levels would be great - perhaps with a calibration tone to make the job easier and more accurate.)

2. Show real-time plots of Trinnov's effect(s) - and allow post-auto set-up tweaking using those plots. Even my Pioneer 1019 receiver that I bought new for $400 and use in my secondary HT shows great post-EQ plots etc. The Onkyo 886 shows me: nada. Zilch. And it allows no post-auto EQ tweaking. All tweaks start from scratch. (And while I'm on the subject of auto-EQ etc.... In my main HT I don't use the Audyssey on the 886 (it does more harm than good) however Pioneer's Auto MCACC on the 1019 does an incredibly good job. I'd be happy if Trinnov performed as well as MCACC where the two have comparable features (like level, distance, and EQ settings.) That Trinnov is supposed to be better is merely a bonus.

3. Wired, wireless, and USB firmware upgrades. Hey! I like having options. The 886 gives me none. I don't need content streaming; I have some of that with my Sony BD player now and by the time the 998 hits the market just about any semi-quality BD player will come with it anyhow. So long as one piece of gear in my racks supports it (and it might as well be the cheapest and easiest component to replace) that's all I need.

4. And finally, it should have one feature that was the main reason that I bought the 886: it should NOT be made in China!

ps. to Peter and the rest of the Outlaws: you've handled this extremely well!

How about a well-thought-out and organized onscreen menu system? Prepros have become way too sophisticated now to be held back by these clunky, nonintuitive interfaces you see out there. I don't mean just nice and shiny - the Denon 3808 in my BR has a nice looking interface that's still confusing as hell. It's all about finding what you need without looking through every submenu out there.

And while we're on the subject...an iphone/ipod touch app (like the one that Pioneer has for their upcoming line of receivers) would be soooo nice. Not likely, I know...but who wouldn't buy the 998 if one was made available?

I'm going to energetically second sluggo's comment about a well thought out onscreen menu. I don't need pretty colors, shiny graphics, and need swirling do-dads, but I think that putting the effort into really thinking through the menu interface would offer real benefits to the users.

And perhaps a series of onscreen menu's, one for "normal everday" usage that family members might see and a "configuration set of menu's that might include all of the options. As long as we are at it, how about an XML based configuration, so that not only the default and current versions of the configuration file are saved but previous versions. That way if you make a tweak and it doesn't work out, not everything is lost.

Gonk - I know you seem to be worried about the cost/complications, but as I read what people want, the more it seems like an embedded Linux control system is the easiest way to get there. Heck if Outlaw really wanted to do it right, they could have an option to run remote support (with the owner's approval) and perhaps run a series of diagnostic programs/review log files that would not involve shipping the product back and forth. If a unit was found to have a bug, they might even be able to put on or test patch code on the problem unit (again with the owner's approval).

i have a 3808 also and i thought the GUI was well done. the network player sucks and is the worst software ever, but navigating the functions of the unit are quite good IMO.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Compared to the unit it replaced, the Denon was a revelation. However, I don't use my bedroom system as often or tweak it as much as my main system, and even though I read the manual through when I bought it, I still have trouble finding what I want in the menu.

That being said, you're more likely to find competent interface designers in the web trades, not electronics manufacturing, and that bears out in many examples even today, so from that aspect the ones that try are to be commended. I hate to bang the Apple drum here, but one reason their products are so well liked is that the interfaces are generally consistent and structured in a way that's rewarding to the user. You find a few phones that ape the iphone form factor, but you find a lot that ape its interfaces. That's what I'd ideally want - an interface that every other manufacturer would want to mimic.

I know I'm asking a lot, but with the money we plunk down on prepros/receivers/etc and as customer-centric as Outlaw is, I'd like to think they will see room for improvement there.

PS Jinma...your concert photos are very impressive. You must use some fast glass.

thanks! Go support live music!

i would guess your unfamiliarity is why you dont like the GUI. but as i hear folks requesting a network media player i cant help but discredit it. if a company with deep pockets for R&D like Denon cant seem to put out a unit that works smoothly then Outlaw might be better served to concentrate on the key needs of a pre/pro instead of all the extra possible features(which will never end to add to the list). so far i have yet to see any device function as well as a Squeezebox or Sonos for network audio, so why not add that key component to your system as a separate? after all we all see the advantage to separates right? IMO this is the exact downfall of all the big names, they try to over load the unit extras and never give you real quality anything.


....a side note, i heard a roomer that the graphics were contracted to apple for all the on-screen of the 3808's generation AVRs, hence the pretty appearance. not sure that was ever a concrete fact though.

Well, it's pretty hard to make feature suggestions for a product that's so far out on the timeline, so I'll just keep it simple and say "not made in China." Go for Japan or better. There's a new technical feature on the block every 6 weeks these days, but build quality can last a lifetime.

FWIW, the issue with receiver interfaces is that you don't really have much processing power to work with, so your options are quite limited. The CPU muscle in those things is specialized for audio/video processing, not interface design.

Please put the jack for the Trinnov calibration microphone on the front. Getting to the back panel can be a real pain in some installations.

PS, I think you've handled the whole 997 situation well. I was planning on the 997 but was getting cold feet as it was getting left behind by newer technology advances (other than the Trinnov processing).

You are absolutely right. Not only will the Trinnov microphone jack be on the front panel, but we will also provide a longer cable.

Peter

- Balanced outputs

- 5 HDMI inputs (or more)

- Gigabit ethernet (reason below)

- Media library streamer! It would be so awesome if there was a GUI with an easy file/folders view of a PC on the network and stream all my music to the 998. All formats too - from .mp3 to .wav to mulit-channel flac. That would be HUGE. Maybe if licensing and costs are an issue with this, an "option" for this could be offered at a higher price to justify your costs?

Thanks Outlaw! We are still behind you. Glad you are going back to how you used to do things.

Decode DSD
Phono input ONLY if best quality parts, including Moving Coil pre-amp are used. Most vinyl guys go for excellent phono preamps.
As rbpett suggests: Media library streamer.
Balanced outputs.
To pay for the above, leave out AM/FM radio, satellite radio and internet radio.

Please enable a way to save all customized settings, and a way to easily recall them when things go wrong. In these complex units I expect that resetting the unit will be required from time to time, and having to go through a complete recalibration process will be painful.

I've been reading these threads concerning feature suggestions but I'm wondering what about the sound quality aspect? Since Outlaw plans to use another manufacturer, do they plan to upgrade the internal components as well as the better DACs they plan to use? Currently I'm using the DACs from my Denon 3930ci since they are much better than the 990 DACs so I'm forced to use the analog outputs. I also purchased the Sim I-3 integrated amp to power my front speakers for both 2 and 5 channel along with the 990/7500 since the Sim was a huge improvement in sound quality for both 2 and 5 channel.

Hopefully we will be able to save the settings externally on the USB drive

Outlaw won't be able to make everybody happy but I agree, quality phono over radio tuner any day.

Could you explain further? Are you wanting to avoid using an analog passthru? Or you think a DSD decoder in the 998 would be better than a DSD decoder in the SACD player? Or you want to be able to post-process SACD audio with bass management or other?

I think that the ability to decode DSD would be appropriate to include, but there's a wrinkle to it that people may not always think about. Unless you have a bypass mode that skips the DSP section entirely and DAC's that can convert DSD directly to analog (in which case you will need to be content to havd absolutely no bass management or other DSP), that DSD bitstream is going to be "decoded" to LPCM. Most SACD players that can output DSD over HDMI can also convert it to LPCM, making DSD support a nice touch but not a "necessary" feature.

I take it as a given that the 998 will "eat" a DSD signal as well, and with at least the same level of functionality, that the Onkyo 886 does. (And I agree with Gonk's comments on the matter.)

Gonk makes a good point. It used to be assumed that a processor had better D/A conversion than a player, but that is not necessarily the case anymore. However, shouldn't a stereo only SACD, for which bass management may not be an issue, benefit from a 'pure' DSD feed (via HDMI) to a processor that can be set so that it doesn't convert the signal to LPCM?

I still think that you've got to spend a pretty penny to get better D/A in a player than in a processor, and even when you do you still have to compromise on the surround processing (bass management, speaker distance settings, room correction). Aside from the BDP-83 (which can compare favorably to the Onkyo 885 and Model 990) and the BDP-83SE, you basically have to go north of $1,000 to get such a player. If you're looking at a processor with the feature set of the Model 998, that probably doesn't make a lot of sense.

DSD to LPCM is a different animal that D/A conversion, though. The value of retaining the audio in DSD rather than converting to LPCM is difficult to pin down. Some folks have said staying with DSD sounds better. Some folks have said LPCM sounds the same or better. Most of the discussions have been surrounding the output from a player, though, and not signal format internal to the receiver or processor - and the truth is that there are not a lot of receivers or processors available that can accept DSD at the DAC. If the Model 998 had DAC's that could accept DSD, I would be entirely in favor of a bypass mode that let DSD to straight to the DAC's. I also think that it's appropriate to support DSD input, even if it must get converted to LPCM internally. But I don't know if I would want DSD support to drive the analog design, as it is a compromise to bypass the DSP so completely (especially with Trinnov under the hood). If the best DAC for the job has DSD, then a digital path through would be smart. If the best DAC for the job needs LPCM, then so be it.

Call me an old fogy, but I like having a AM/FM tuner in the processor.

Well then call me a young fogy and please keep the "Sirius/XM Satellite Radio Ready" interface as well.

Each time a new processor appears on the horizon, the idea of eliminating the tuner comes up. I think the tuner always sticks around because too many people simply expect it to be there. It is a modest cost for something that, if omitted, has the potential to turn off more people than it pleases. Sirius/XM support and HD Radio support seem to be the other half of the question - if you leave AM/FM in, which do you add? Satellite, HD, or both?

I find it mind boggling that people think the value/price equation in a pre-pro excludes media streaming capabilities and wi-fi but includes support for formats that are effectively dead to all but a relatively few (e.g. SACD and vinyl) and for which they probably already have multiple separate components or even separate systems for. I guess the differences are what makes the world go round, but I am not sure.

Personally, I think that the Oppo BDP-83se has a lot of the guts that would make a great pre-pro especially if combined with the Trinnov system for the audio/room configuration. Drop the Blu-ray player, add in all of the extra connections, embedded Linux system with plenty of added memory and wire/less support and IMO you would have a product that noone else could touch. I think Outlaw could even do it for price-point they are shooting for.

I think it makes perfect sense. The surround processor is, by definition, the hub for all audio sources. It has grown to become the hub for all audio and video sources, but it is still the device to which source devices are connected. You therefore want it to be able to work with the source devices you own. That would include DVD, Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-Audio, cable or satellite, game consoles, and even older technology such as vinyl. A phono pre-amp is a nice convenience feature for vinyl owners, although as long as you have stereo analog inputs and an analog bypass mode those users can still get by. DSD support is a nice feature for SACD owners and can probably be included for little or no cost, although multichannel LPCM support and a multichannel analog input will be enough for almost everybody to get by. Composite video, s-video, stereo analog, coaxial/optical inputs, and component inputs are still necessary to cover the existing hardware that we all have around. It's part of what defines a surround processor. Leaving connectivity off because it will only support old technology is not a great way to promote customer loyalty.

For decades now, though, we have been dealing with each new source technology by creating new source devices for the technology. That was true for cassette tape, CD, VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray. The only source that has routinely been built into our processors is a radio, and even that is sometimes left off. Why does network media suddenly need to be integrated into the processor? Why wouldn't it be just as well served by someone producing a good quality, robust standalone source device? It would allow you to purchase the network media support you desire without having that desire dictate your surround processor purchase.

I'm not disputing that we will probably see more and more examples of surround receivers and processors that offer network media support. I don't agree with it, but that's not going to stop Onkyo and others from using it to add one more bullet point to their feature lists, and that will create a trend that folks will tend to follow. My concern is that we are needlessly over-burdening this central component, and that we could get better quality network media support in standalone products. Here's a theoretical example: let's say the Model 998 ships this December with some form of cool network media support (DLNA and maybe even something like Vudu or Netflix). Around mid-2011, RedBox finally kills off Blockbuster and celebrates by rolling out a direct competitor to Netflix streaming video. At the same time, Google creates some brilliant media management app that works with cloud computing and lets us all store a terabyte of music and movies in our gmail accounts. One or more companies (OPPO Digital, Outlaw, Logitech, Apple, Roku, and/or some entirely new company) rush to capitalize on these new developments and build products that offer a friendly user interface, options for wired and wireless networking (I'll take wired, thanks, but I recognize the value of wireless), and a handy HDMI output all rolled up in a simple box. Do I replace my new Model 998 with a brand new processor so I can use these services, or do I keep the 998 for four or five more years and buy a box that plugs into a spare HDMI port on my 998? Odds are that I'll do the latter, and then the network support in my Model 998 (if I was using it in the first place) becomes a waste. The Model 998 needs to be able to stay on the market for several years after it is released. The market focus for network media could change three or four times between now (when design decisions need to be or already have been made) and then. Part of what Outlaw prides themselves on is trying to design the right product. That's why they've left off all those silly "hall" and "jazz club" surround modes. It may be that the right decision (unless they have some slick trick up their sleeves) is to let a dedicated device handle the network media duties.


The analog section certainly is excellent, as is the video processing. But that's one tiny piece of the puzzle. The architecture is built around a System-on-Chip that isn't suited to being used in a surround processor - the chip was designed from the ground up to serve in a Blu-ray player. You would have to throw out everything except the nice analog board and the ABT2010 chip. You would also have to add a lot of things that don't exist. To use a rather iffy analogy, it would almost be like complimenting me for producing a good air distribution design for a room and then asking me to do an equally good lighting design for that room - the two are going into the same ceiling and serving the same space, but the fact that I did one well doesn't mean I can apply that to my advantage in trying to design a completely different system.

Much like the Mediatek SoC chip in the BDP-83, TI and Cirrus build chips from the ground up to serve in surround receivers and processors. They aren't based on a Linux kernel, and they aren't going to run a Linux kernel efficiently (if at all). You could duplicate their abilities with hardware that ran a Linux kernel, but you'll have to re-write all the underlying code that already exists and you'll probably end up spending more on the hardware required to run that new code. It's going to be costly and it's going to slow down development. It could be an interesting research project for a company like TI or Cirrus, with the resources available to put years into it and the potential to recoup the R&D costs by licensing the resulting product in large volume. I just can't see it being practical for a small company like Outlaw to pull off, especially with the time pressures that exist now. I've been wrong before, of course, so maybe I'm wrong here too. Every time I think through it, though, I wind up at the same place.

Consider being able to say this to your friends:
"I use my NetBook as the remote; can run everything here."

Outlaw can Wi-Fi an HTML dashboard (graphical) style interface that allows a user to see and control all of the device's functions. Since it works on your laptop or mobile device, you can tweak or view settings without interrupting the movie or your spouse. Give it the ability to repeat learned or embedded IR codes for other devices, you may have the biggest buzz since the model 1050 made the cover of Stereophile.

Just a thought

-Mike H.
Atlanta

Using my iPhone or PC as a remote for the Model 998 would be cool, but I wonder if it would just be a gimmick unless the unit was being connected to a Crestron or similar system. I've found that even though I have the ability to control my AppleTV with my iPhone, I only use it when I want to type in a search topic for something (touch screen keyboard beats scrolling around on a non-querty box of letters). The RF universal remote that already controls all of my devices is more practical for general use. Plus my five-year-old doesn't borrow the universal remote to play games or take pictures of the cats.

Of course, that does bring up the other side of the coin: having an Ethernet interface for Crestron control would probably make some people very happy (even moreso than having RS232 control). And being able to make setup changes via my phone or PC without interrupting people using the system would also be pretty snazzy. Yeah, that would be slick.

I have to agree with Gonk on this. To my mind media streaming is best handled off platform, where the focus can be on maintaining compatibility with existing formats and codecs. While it's not the most complicated issue in the world, why would or should Outlaw try to reinvent the wheel on this, especially when their market segment probably has a media streaming capability that can simply be added on through existing inputs?

As for the Linux issue, I have to ask what the perceived benefit of a Linux-driven system would be here? Most of the activities that a prepro needs to do well depend so much on their hardware (ie, good DACs, current HDMI controllers, analog circuits, etc), and it's not as if Linux would bring any added functionality to the table.

My first thought from a manufacturing perspective is the added hassle. Having a linux-based box would make the unit at risk to tweakers and hackers like any other linux system, and that means a ton more support calls and headaches dealing with users that tried to install a mod they read about. It also means your customers will be far more likely to expect you to add or update functionality for every little thing every time they don't like something, you know, "because it's all in linux, so it'll be easy."

Sounds like someone needs to add a HDML output to my laptop and I download some fancy software and plug into the 998 for all my streaming needs. Lets not redesign the 998 to do everything everyone can think of or we'll end up with a Magnavox boom box without speakers.

The pre-pro as the centre of life, the universe, and everything.

That pretty much sums up my expectations.

In my main HT I currently have eleven (11) source A/V components connected in some way, shape, or form, to my Onkyo 886, including phono (MM), cassette, S-VHS VCR, Hi-8 VCR, two LD players, HD Cable PVR, DVD recorder, CD/DVD-V/SACD player, CD/DVD-V/A/SACD player, and a Blu-ray player. And I'm not counting the 886's tuner section as a source.

If it's HDMI-equipped I could probably handle one or two more source components.

Being able to apply today's surround modes to yesterday's recordings is a big plus for me.

My Blu-ray player is connected to my home network via ethernet cable and since my home server and main router are very close by, running another cable to a future pre/pro to tap into that content and the internet is not an issue.

As you can see I tend to not discard formats, still use all of them from time-to-time, and expect that any future pre/pro give me as much, if not more, flexibility than what I currently have. If that costs me a little bit more, I'm willing to pay.

Finally as I was typing this I wandered over to my cassette collection (~180 tapes, most of them dubbed from LPs using very good gear for its day) and scanned through it. Probably 25% of that content I don't have anywhere else in my collection. So I pulled out a tape of The Garfield Band that I made in 1978, popped it into the Nakamichi, set the proper EQ and engaged Dolby B NR and am now really enjoying some tunes that I've not listened to in probably three decades! And yes, that tape still sounds great! I took time away from this message to listen to several tracks using Zone 2 and a single stereo amp / pair of speakers. Then I ran it through the whole system with PLIIx applied. Wow!

That's what I meant by my opening sentence.

this is what ive been saying. quality over quantity.

I am in for the Tuner, Phono input, & Headphone jack

Emotiva UMC-1 has a switch for MM or MC for the phono input. Don't see why Outlaw couldn't do the same???

I've got a request that shouldn't break the bank.
New remote codes for the 998.
A lot of us have 990s that will be religated to a secondary, sometimes connected, system when the 998 comes out. It would be nice to be able to have one set of codes for the 990 and another set for the 998 so we don't keep activating one when we're trying to instruct the other.

An easy to navigate menu system and an overlay (HDMI) for running information such as volume ect. The small display is an issue for some of us who are getting older.

no its just a problem. unless your very close its hard to read.

A web GUI would be nice to configure each source and input, a rack mount bracket would be nice, an aluminum volume knob would be nice (something that has the feel of a denon receiver) and come through with HDMI 1.4 compliance. Leave the streaming crap out of it that will just complicate things, especially since boxee box will be coming out soon for $200 and trump anything that outlaw could design in a reasonable amount of time. http://www.boxee.tv/box

What about on On Screen Display ("OSD") that overlay's the current video source like a heads up display in an aircraft such that you can still see the video source as well as the ghost graphics? My 990 is in a cabinet, and even with the cabinet door open, it is too far away for practical use. And, the current 990 OSD only works when you switch TV input sources and then activate the OSD. Therefore, any time I want to check settings (including whether my Zone 2 is on), I have to get up and walk over to the 990. Why can't there be an option that allows overlaying ghost graphics onto the current video source for a couple seconds upon switching sources and inputs or upon toggling a button? From a layman's perspective, it seems like this would be a simple thing to provide in the 998 if the 998 is doing the video switching--it could just interject the graphics when necessary.

On a similar note, please make the secondary zone display graphics in the 998 work independently from the rest of the display. I shouldn't have to activate the normal display (like turning the volume up) simply to know if my secondary zone is on and activiated and piping music to a remote location in my house.

Ed.

A decent phono preamp.
Source direct/bypass mode switchable from the remote for BOTH stereo and multichannel analog sources.
Analog SQ needs to be a clear step up from the Integra/Onkyo -- which is really the only dig against them.

And PLEASE lose the 2150 look! The look of the 990, 970 and the amps all match. That is a much better idea.

I could go either way, ha! But really I'm in the camp where I wouldn't mind them removing it if they came out with a separate tuner that worked with all radio, hd radio, satellite, net streaming etc.

So if outlaw came out with a separate that tuned in all sorts of different types of music from different mediums, then I'd buy it. One of the features I'd like to see is being able to have a tuner that allowed you to store stations in one location for the different mediums. So when I switch to the next preset I may hit my satellite or net radio station or hd radio station. That would be ideal, but probably not realistic. Not that it couldn't be done, but I haven't seen anyone do it. In this scenario I wouldn't need a built in tuner, but that doesn't necessarily bode well for others.

I don't listen to radio very often. When I do, it is usually AM radio and not for music. So for me, I would want it included because I would hate to have to put another separate in my system for a medium I rarely use. With that said, I like the idea of a multi-source separate, I just wouldn't want to be forced into buying it because my pre/pro didn't have a tuner.

A front panel USB port to update firmware is an absolute necessity.

What I have found in some products with tuners is that even when listening to other sources, the tuner stays on so it's flying as soon as the selector switch changes. This can affect the audio quality of the other sources due to myriad mechanisms. As long as the power is switched off to the entire tuner section when not in use, it will not cause such problems.

Not really a feature or something that is very likely, but I would love to just get a bi-monthly or even monthly progress report on the 998's development.

Good idea Pete. Not a promised ship date (which always changes, for good reasons), but a progress report so we can plan for it over a range of months. Q4 this year? Q1 next year?

I have been in the market now for about 6 months and 3 things keep me from pulling the trigger on any purchase of a pre/pro

1.Paying for features that do not elevate sound quality
2.New "upgrades" in the content i.e. 3d, Blu Ray interactive etc
3.Sound quality

Number three is the biggest. I came down to Primare and Cary as most eligible candidates based on sound quality. That is for 2 channel or multi. Primare is a close second. The Cary is an audio only product and yes the users can't tweak it into another form, but for the essential function of making quality sound, it has few rivals. So here is a suggestion to Outlaw, or rather a couple of suggestions.

Start with the sound! Build a platform for best sound quality at a disruptive price point! Make all this other stuff about features modular! Or use the Cary concept of 2 boxes. If the sound excels, I mean high end quality, the price point can elevate slightly and still dominate the market. The NAD 175 should be the target. Make it sound better and at around the same of slightly less and you could not keep them in stock.

I make this point because I watched the BLU Ray version of Avatar over the weekend. It is 90% the experience in some fashions and exceeds in others. If you do not have a video display that is roughly the same proportions as an imax, a lot of the psycho visual and acoustic effect is lost. Sure 3d may be cool in theater but that gives us all a reason to get out of the house.

Sound Fellas! Focus on the sound! It a drug to some of us and if you keep delivering you will have addicts er customers for a long time.

System:

990
B&K Ref 200.5
Rogue Audio Metis (HT theater bypass for 2 channel)
Oppo 83se
quad 22l2
Quad Center
PSB Alpha Rears
Jolida 100a
Lynx Aes16 audio card and DIY music server
Benchmark Dac

I would love to eliminate the 2 channel, save some money, and add more content, but the sound from the 990 or any sub 2k pre/pro just doesn't make listening enjoyable.

humbly yours,

PS

Forgot the REL t2. for those that worry about sub base features not being available in analog, it is a great alternative. For movies it adds enough ( and I know this is subjective) punch but for music it is superb and relatively ( again I know that term is subjective) affordable.

I guess I am what is referred to as a troll. I have been reading with interest and ultimately sadness of the demise of the 997. That caused me to expand my horizons and hence the Primare and Cary inquiries. But to make my point about the importance of analog first, go to a snooty high end store that carries the new NAD digital amplifier. Listen to Let it Be, you will be impressed. Then ask to play the vinyl version on an entry level tt and system. There is reason our ears are analog receptors and this little exercise will remind us of why we got hooked in the first place. I know there are digital possibilities out there that close the gap, but none I can afford. That is why focusing on the analog and exceeding all expectations is the key to the company's success. Then they can focus on features and speakers etc. Sound, it is what it is all about.

Since Outlaw already has a 2 channel machine and everyone and their brother beat them to death about the 990 not having HDMI, when it was in its infancy, and are still hitting the dead horse, why would I expect them to abandon the replacement for the venerable 990 in search of an all music analog machine. I think they are headed down the right path.

Personally I enjoy my gear for what it does and doesn't do. I like simple and Outlaw fits that bill quite nicely. It is a well thought out flexible piece of gear that gets it right for the most part and doesn't force me to sell off one of my children to own it.

here's what I'd like to see processor..
11.3 channel support
adequate chassis height, enough space between components
10 hdmi inputs
3-4 hdmi output
10-12 spdif digital optical
3spdif output
10 component input
3 component output
10 s-video in
3 s-video output
composite optional 1in/1out
10 rihd inputs
12-16 port network switch with a min of 4 port dedicated to dl-4 (denon link 4 type interface support) with proper port associations with option of adding a second switch in.
11.3 balanced and unbalanced with dip switch selector..
2-3 7.1-9.3 zones 2/3/4 with unbal/balanced to secondary receivers/processors
dab/sat radio, and iptv support
phono and tape support
twin power supply on hotswap

if going a OS route i would look a ssd option for hard drive use and usb for keyboard and mouse

side note: the reason I was suggesting the option of adding the network switch with the option of expansion because sometimes space within a area is a premium you can't always add in a network switch to cater for all the network compatible consoles and various other network detached devices, it would be nice to have a network switch built in for a change..

I would like to put in another vote for an iPhone/Touch app for control or for an interface for PC control using a web browser interface. I know many think of this as a gimmick, but for A/V fans like me with impaired vision, such technology now offers us a chance to independently use our gear without sighted assistance. With blind accessible devices like the Touch and iPhone or with the use of screen readers on a PC or Mac, having a control system through these devices would give us full access to settings, functions and controls.

It is not difficult at all to make an app accessible, there are guidelines available in the developer's kit that make it very easy to do. You would be surprised at the large percentage of apps, even games that seem too graphics intensive that are accessible. I don't know how hard it would be for a company like Outlaw Audio to add app development to their skills, but I do know that it would not be too hard to make the apps accessible if they did.

Just my half a wooden nickel.

Chris

I want everything Redman6 wants and I want it by the end of the week for less than $1000.00.

Wow!!! That's an impressive list, but not one that seems particularly practical and one that I dare say would appear to a microscopic market. I think it's safe to say the Model 998 won't be this product.


With what processing mode to generate 11.3 content? PLIIz with rear surrounds gets you to 9.1, leaving two more channels and an extra pair of sub outputs to provide processing for. Does some of Audyssey's new tech get you to this point?


RIHD is a proprietary Onkyo control system. Even if they could incorporate it, I'm not sure why you'd want 10 RIHD outputs.


Unless Outlaw decides to be bought by D&M Holdings, there's no way to get Denon Link included.

I went through and counted individual jacks, just out of curiosity.

• RCA audio input: 32 (phono, tape, 10 stereo pairs for the s-video ports, and a 7.1 input)
• RCA audio output: 30 to 50
• coax or optical in: 10 to 12
• coax or optical out: 3
• XLR output: 14
• HDMI ports: 13 to 14
• RCA video input: 31
• RCA video output: 10
• S-video in: 10
• s-video out: 3
• network jacks: 12 to 16
• power: 2

I may have missed some, but that's 116 to 138 RCA jacks (lumping in any opticals with that group), 13 s-video jacks, 14 XLR jacks, 13 or 14 HDMI ports, 12 to 16 RJ45 ports, and two IEC sockets. There's also the ten RIHD jacks, AM/FM and satellite antennas, and probably a USB port. For comparison, the Model 990 has 74 RCA jacks, 9 s-video jacks, 8 XLR jacks, 3 DVI ports, a serial port, and one IEC socket. At 7.75" high and with adequate (albeit not extravagant space) between jacks, the Model 990's rear panel is packed. Such a device, assuming the standard 17" rack width, would be probably 18" tall or larger.

Although very unrealistic, would be fun even to just look at. Unless inputs and outputs are moved to the sides as well, this thing would be a tower as gonk points out..

I would love to just see the ipod/ipad app functionality along with the features already announced.

when you factor in 7.1-11.3 analog connections your rca count would be alot higher..
adding the the spdif/toslink

the composite video 2in/1out (config monitor only for output)2 ins to cover vcr and lp laser disc..
s-video/component either/or inputs and outputs: choice of video inputs is a requirement, analog stereo support for components that require..

example: if the processor was going analog multichan over all inputs for ausio. 5.1 (60 in/18 out) 7.1-7.2 (80-90 in/24-27 out), 9.1-9.3 (100-120 in/30-36 out) 11.1-11.3 (120-140 in/36-42 out..

it will likely be cheaper doing a stereo solution for primary 2chan and use spdif, for multi chan audio dropping the excess requirements for more analog inputs to cover the 5.1-11.3 analog audio spectrum.. reducing the amount of cables required is always a plus.. where possible..

for rihd support i'd likely say a 16-32 port solution would be a requirement, never liked the option of daisy-chaining multiple components together, for components that support rihd i prefer each component to have its own connection for commands..

This thread is meant as a place for folks to toss out ideas, so it all belongs here. Still, I'll toss out some counter-arguments for this specific case:


Plenty of HDMI inputs makes sense. No argument that more is better. I would think that for most systems (even those with game consoles) 5 or 6 would suffice, but I wouldn't object to there being 10 just in case. My gut tells me that it isn't a good match for the price point Outlaw's interested in. Still, I'm cool with the idea.


Outlaw would do well to consider two outputs. That being said, multiple HDMI outputs are complex.

If you have independent output control for those three, you just built the video portion of three processors into this thing. That includes three video switchers and three video processors, not to mention an interface with discrete control of each somehow. Most people won't need it, but every owner would be forced to buy it. That's going to turn off a lot of customers. And frankly, if you have HD running to three separate displays and want each to operate autonomously, you're probably better off buying three separate processors.

If you allow a single active HD video source (as is the norm), having multiple HDMI outputs is manageable but still not simple. Many processors with two HDMI outputs only have one active at once, and they do this for a very good reason: HDCP and EDID handshaking with multiple displays is not something that HDMI was built for, and it doesn't work gracefully (if it works at all). If someone needs to split their HDMI output three ways and have all three active at once, they may be best off getting a standalone HDMI splitter. They exist, but they're not cheap and they are not immune to system interaction problems (compatibility between components in the signal path).


If the system has as many as 10 HDMI sources, how many component sources will it have? I can see three fairly easily (Wii, an older DVD player or recorder, maybe a cable or satellite box that lacks HDMI or DVI), but getting past that becomes difficult. Tripling that number and adding one is entering a whole different realm. A modern HDMI-centric processor probably deserves three component inputs, although I could see arguments made to reduce that to two.


The odds of someone running such a complex multi-display setup today and not having HDMI on those multiple displays are vanishingly small. If it happens, an outboard component splitter of some sort can meet the need. Building the cost in and asking every customer to buy it is counter-productive, especially when a significant number of owners won't even use one component video output.


If you have all those component inputs, I can see needing an equally large number of digital audio inputs (some mix of coaxial and optical), but you can't omit analog audio. For one thing, we're already looking at 10 (about to be 20) legacy video inputs, and some of those will be limited to analog audio only. Since gaming is part of the discussion, the Wii is an obvious example of a source with no digital audio output. Additionally, leaving off a 7.1 analog output is going to represent a glaring and potentially fatal omission. The industry drove us to a reliance on multichannel analog connections thanks to DVD-Audio, SACD, and Blu-ray. Some people will want to use existing gear with that connection. Because HDMI audio is present you only need one, thankfully, although some people would probably look at the quantity of other inputs listed here and wonder why a second 7.1 input wasn't included.


Again, why so many s-video inputs? I have used s-video more than most people over the years, I suspect, but even when my system's entire video signal path used s-video (VCR, DVD player, DVD recorder, cable box, and game console) I couldn't have used that many inputs. Today I don't have a single s-video cable connected. You could probably toss in three s-video or composite inputs and cover 99% of your customer base's needs with room to spare. Heck, you could probably make a case for dropping s-video entirely and just having a few legacy composite inputs.


But unless Denon builds it, DenonLINK can't be included. They don't license it out to other manufacturers - it's proprietary. Besides, it's something of a dinosaur these days (although Denon would probably balk at that statement). HDMI can do everything that DenonLINK can do without being proprietary.


I tinkered with the proposed rear panel in AutoCAD the other day, and figure it would be at least 12" tall (assuming minimal blank space). To be easy to hook up, it'd probably be at least 15" tall, which makes it twice as tall as a Model 990 and very nearly a perfect cube. At that point, the front panel design would be difficult, to say nothing of shipping or integrating the thing into people's cabinets.

It's an interesting concept, but I still see no way that it could be a practical product. The costs for all of this would be significant, and the market would be very limited (which would in turn raise the costs even more due to economy of scale). Today's home theater is HDMI-centric. I don't enjoy saying that, as my dissatisfaction with HDMI's licensing team is pretty well-established, but it's a clear fact. Component video isn't dead yet, but its days are numbered. (Blu-ray players likely won't even offer a component output within the next two years, for example.) S-video and composite video still serve a purpose, but that purpose is much smaller and less significant than in the past. There have been posts in this forum for probably five years now advocating a substantial reduction in s-video, composite video, and stereo analog inputs on new processors. We haven't necessarily seen it yet, but I think the day is coming. A processor that includes a huge increase in analog connectivity (both audio and video) would be a niche product. Outlaw needs something mainstream that can sell as well as the Model 990 did in its heyday.

For that, I've got a separate idea: an outboard "legacy AV box" that could switch between various sources (composite and component video, stereo analog audio and a few digital audio inputs) and then output a single signal (transcoded component video and digital audio, perhaps) that went to the surround processor. That would let those older devices (particularly PS1, SNES, N64, GC, DC) connect easily while tying up a single input on the processor. The harsh truth is that building a modern surround processor with enough inputs to support simultaneous connection of every game console built in the last 15 years is not an economically practical concept for any company to develop. A legacy box like I describe is itself probably difficult to justify, although you could potentially find some good AV switching solutions that would serve a similar purpose.

snes: composite, s-video
n64: composite, s-video, component?
gamecube: composite, s-video, component
wii: composite, s-video, component, Hdmi?
ps1 and ps2: composite, component s-video..
ps3: composite, s-video, component, hdmi
xbox: composite, s-video, component, dvi
xbox 360: composite, s-video, component, dvi, hdmi (gen2)
dream cast; component, s-video?, component (for earlier cd based sega hardware you'll need to check what's available in the way of connections and cables..)

from game cube to dream cast you will need to check what analog audio connections are supported via adapter cable..

though you can see what i'm getting when talking about legacy support especially if you want multi channel on cd/dvd based consoles

I wasn't looking at spanning across hdmi for pj use, I was more thinking about doing a format set per pj..
in the case of lcd tv use, I was using 1 as a movie display whether if be connected via hdmi or via component
1 set for 2:40, 1 set for 16:9, the last set for tv....

the only time i would consider multi spanning across pj's is if i had the space to do an omni/imax type layout..

i'm trying reduce using external av source splitters as i'm already using this method and there little way to control the unit with irhd and would you like to have a rack full av switches to support 15-30 odd consoles

if I wanted to greedy i could of said whack in analog tuner to cater all the rf based consoles..

RIHD isn't just used by onkyo. jvc, sharp and sony use it for universal control for all in 1 switch..

would you really need analog audio connections for every device that supports 5.1-7.1 or better surround modes...

composite is dead for years.. as long as it doesn't require anything above 640x480 res..

S-video isn't dead just yet, 720i and 720p will be possible, you might be able to do 1080i at its max throughput, though 1080p will be a nono due to hardware limitation..
component will be the last to die as it can support up to 1080i..
scart is an unknown entity
hdmi is going to be king for the foreseeable future though i don't see the console makers will look at porting their older console to hdmi..

console usage is only 1 option of end use of the processor/preamp

I do understand your problem when the goal is support for all of the consoles you mentioned:

• SNES: composite or s-video for video; stereo analog for audio.
• Nintendo64: composite or s-video for video; stereo analog for audio. No component video, which isn't surprising since it simply didn't exist in the marketplace at that time.
• GameCube: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog for audio.
• Wii: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog for audio. The Wii has no digital outputs, so no HDMI.
• XBox: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog for audio. The original XBox did not have DVI. It also didn't have a digital audio output.
• XBox360: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog or optical digital for audio; and HDMI for audio/video on later models. It has never had DVI, either.
• Dreamcast: composite or s-video for video, stereo analog for audio. I'm pretty sure it's a no go on component, though.
• Playstation: composite or s-video for video, stereo analog for audio.
• PS2: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog or optical for audio.
• PS3: composite, s-video, or component video for video; stereo analog or optical for audio; and HDMI for audio/video.

Of all the consoles listed, the only ones with an optical output are the PS2, PS3, and XBox360. For everything else, you need a stereo analog connection for audio. There were also only two with HDMI output and six with component (last two generations for Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony).

That's a total of ten consoles right there. If you mix in any older stuff (Sega Genesis, Atari 2600, and so forth) you just add to the challenge, although by that point you're looking at RF demodulators that provide composite video and analog audio. Let's be realistic: no surround processor manufacturer is going to design a product with the express purpose of supporting direct connection to a decade and a half or two decades worth of video game consoles (most of which are long discontinued and rely on audio and video connections that are seeing less use by the day). It is simply impractical to develop such a product, even without considering the minuscule customer base that will actually make use of it.

All that being said, I will toss out a theoretical system based on a theoretical surround processor (we'll call it the Waltuo 899). This unit will have at least four HDMI inputs, three component inputs, and four composite video inputs. It will be used in conjunction with all ten of the consoles listed above, a standalone Blu-ray player, and a cable or satellite receiver. There will be a good universal remote (I'll use my URC MX-900 for this example). There will also be two of these switches, both with remote controls.

• HDMI1: Cable/satellite receiver
• HDMI2: Blu-ray player (universal BD, DVD, DVD-A, SACD, and CD)
• HDMI3: PS3
• HDMI4: XBox360
• Component1/Optical1: PS2
• Component2/analog stereo: Switch1
  • Switch1 Input1: Wii (component/analog stereo)
  • Switch1 Input2: PS1 (component/analog stereo)
  • Switch1 Input3: XBox (component/analog stereo)
  • Switch1 Input4: GameCube (component/analog stereo)
• Composite1/analog stereo: Switch2
  • Switch2 Input1: Dreamcast (composite/analog stereo)
  • Switch2 Input2: Nintendo64 (composite/analog stereo)
  • Switch2 Input3: SNES (composite/analog stereo)

Once all that's wired up, we write a series of macros for the universal remote. You have a dozen sources to choose from under the "WATCH" screen. When you pick one, the remote sends a command to select one of the seven inputs on the processor before switching to the screens that control that device. If you picked a source that connects to one of the two switches, the remote also sends a command to select the appropriate input on that switch in the same macro. The result is a system that seamlessly integrates two conventional sources and ten game consoles into the system - all with nothing more than some planning, a good universal remote, and two inexpensive switches. You could add an eleventh console easily, and you could even add another switch if you needed to (allowing you to go up to 15 consoles). If I worked at it, I could probably even do something close to this with a Model 990, although the conventional sources would get a bit crowded.


Hmmm... Separate displays for different aspect ratios is pretty complicated. I'd say it's needlessly complicated, in fact. First, the only two ways to get a 2.35:1 display are CIH projection (anamorphic lens, video processing to properly stretch the video source, and usually some good masking on the screen for the times when you roll back the lens to shoot 16:9 content) and one or two Philips 21:9 monitors that cost a fortune (if you can even find one). Once you've invested in one of those, you ought to use it. I'd say that if you do want this sort of setup, a single HDMI output to a good CIH setup (front projector and anamorphic lens) would be the most graceful solution. That would give you a great display for 1.78:1 through 2.35:1 movies, 1.78:1 HD television, and any big-screen gaming you want to do. You could then use a second HDMI output to a "daily use" flat panel (LCD or plasma), and the more common dual HDMI output solutions (with one output active at a time) would accommodate you just fine.

Not sure about your question. Analog audio is the only option on most of the consoles on your list. If you want sound, you have to use analog audio. The only consoles that offer a digital audio output are the PS2, PS3, and XBox360. Those three can provide multichannel audio via Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Except for those three, all of your audio will be stereo at best. Some (such as the Wii) will include decoding cues for Pro Logic, which provides a way to get "intentional" surround sound from those stereo sources when you apply Pro Logic II processing. For others, you will be using a matrix surround processing mode such as Pro Logic II or Neo:6 to get surround sound from that stereo source.


Composite is certainly around solely for compatibility purposes with older or more basic hardware. The only source I have which can't offer any better than composite is our daughter's LeapFrog. Even my VCR is S-VHS, and thus has an s-video output. Of course, when we're discussing hardware from the 1990's or before, composite is pretty much king: s-video was very rare and component was outright unheard-of until late in the decade.


S-video is fading rather fast, mostly because the gap between it and the more ubiquitous composite is so tiny when compared to HD connections that we're all starting to use. S-video can not do HD resolutions. It can't even do 480p. Like composite, it is limited to 480i (or 576i if you are dealing with PAL, which I doubt many of us are).


Component will be around a while, although there are efforts by AACS to kill it because it is the only widely-used analog video connection that supports HD resolutions. AACS has a phase-out schedule that will first restrict component to 480i and then delete it from hardware entirely for any source component that uses AACS encryption (which at present is just Blu-ray, pretty much). Because it's analog, though, it's already becoming less widely used than HDMI.


SCART is a European entity. No presence in the North American market, and thus not on Outlaw's radar.


Sony and Microsoft will focus their attention on HDMI output. We'll see what Nintendo does, since they felt no need to even put an optical or coaxial output on the Wii. I agree, though, that nobody is going to revise existing non-HD platforms or discontinued platforms to offer HDMI. It would be an utterly pointless exercise with no practical value, and it would be pretty expensive.

Here's another thought regarding all the older consoles. It doesn't have the fancy automation of my earlier concept, but it could be practical depending on how the system is used. If you take everything except the current generation (PS3, 360, and Wii) and maybe the PS2, the consoles are basically all designed around 480i video and stereo audio. The PS2 could get lumped in with the current generation since it had optical output. Connect the current generation (and maybe the PS2) directly to individual inputs on a surround processor, and then configure the front panel input to use composite video and stereo analog audio. Then each time you pull out a legacy console, you plug it into the front panel input. That's three connections to make. Unless the room is set up with all ten consoles on display and ready to operate in place (drive or cartridge slot accessible, controllers at hand, etc.), this may actually be necessary anyway.

Seems like someone should be making a box which accepts all the legacy inputs and outputs component, optical and maybe HDMI so it can be input to a pre-pro.

I thought about that, too, but even then I wonder how much market would exist for something like that. If it were simply a switcher (lots of composite and stereo analog inputs) with a remote control, it would be practical - such things already exist. If it also had video switching that could transcode composite to component or ADC's to convert analog audio to an optical output, that would be a more specialized product. The hardware would cost more to build, and the market interested in it would probably be smaller. That gets into the realm of folks like Zektor. Really nifty video switching gear, but also pretty darn pricey. The Clarity switch, for example, will handle many of these tasks (switching eight component inputs and three composite/s-video inputs to component output, converting analog audio to digital, and converting digital audio to analog). The 8x8 has eight outputs (component, stereo analog, and coaxial digital at each output). The 8x4 appears to have half the number of audio and video outputs, which would still be overkill for our case but not as much so as the 8x8. Costs aren't listed, but since the comparatively simple HDS4x2 costs $600, I wouldn't expect the Clarity to be cheap.

go and check the for s-video, the last i looked it supports 720x576 as a default resolution...

the issue with the external av switch is the availability to support RIHD, so it can be switch when not in use and is very much a flawed option ad you need direct line of sight to use it, not sure about the commercial market though most ir av switches you buy in the domestic market, don;t support this feature, sadly I don't own svhs vhs player I only got a oldie which only supports composite..

most of the commercial based units I hazard a guess wouldn't support rihd either..

it's just not a simple of writing macos eit5her

i'm trying to reduce power consumption as much as possible..

also note i'm already using multiple av switches, i'm trying to reduce power point use..

i was planning to use a extension cable for the controllers anyway..

anyway I was using console as an example anyway, I was trying to reduce the requirement for more points to cover the option of owning multiple network consoles

not mention the units that aren't networked..

while scart may be european, we're all not based in the US or Canada..

I only comment on scart because it may support hdmi resolutions that's all..


yup I think nintendo went more for the retro gamer market on its release of the wii..
when i get 1 i'll let you know what connection it has..

I am familiar with s-video. 576i is PAL, as I mentioned earlier. PAL is a video format used in Europe, basically the European version of standard definition. In the US, we use NTSC, which is approximately 720x480i. The 720 is the horizontal resolution, not the vertical resolution. It is not HD.


RIHD wouldn't help avoid line of sight for control. As I said before, RIHD is not an industry standard, which is why you are correct that no AV switches will support it. Neither will the TV, cable or satellite box, or a lot of otherwise very good disc players. I don't have any devices that use it. There are superior options that are manufacturer agnostic. The remote I mentioned is one - it can do a lot of things that a device with RIHD can't (including RF control that means you don't need to worry about line-of-sight). You can see my review of it here. I was serious when I described macros as a truly seamless solution to your problem. It is more capable than RIHD would be. These switches will also work fine with your VCR (composite video and stereo analog are covered). And if you really want to turn the switches off when the system is off, use the trigger output to connect to a power conditioner with switched outlets and turn them off when the processor is off. Even when/if they're on, you're talking about AC adapters that draw a tiny load - on par with the charger on the cordless phone sitting on my desk.


What sources do you have? I'm curious about the setup.


Networked? Not sure what you mean by that.


SCART is only used in Europe, and even there it isn't heavily used for HD. We are on a forum for a manufacturer that has no distribution network in Europe. SCART shouldn't be included on the Model 998.


I already listed the available options earlier. It comes with a cable that has composite and stereo analog. You can buy a cable with s-video and stereo analog or a cable with component video and stereo analog. I have one, and I'm using component video and stereo analog.

I never scart should be included I was using it as input source to tv as example.. with the amount of converter plugs on the market.... as I said I wasn't sure on scart resolution that's all


scart is a non issue anyway..

my current setup goes like this
tv av2
sony vhs
av switch 1
xbox1
ps2
cable box
jvc dvd player
n64

tv av2
av switch 2

snes
sony 5-disc dvd player
onkyo 6-disc dvd player

+ network switch
reducing 3 switches to 1 saves on using multiple 9-12 volt power paks to power them not to mention the power board real estate that consumes..

my ultimate gain is to loose as many switches as possible
a 3 output hdmi option allows me to extend to a secondary receiver for an outdoor entertainment area..

I want certain options when I fork out over $4,000AUD in a Processor/pre-amp

I want all bases covered if possible..

given most processor/pre-amps are usually no bigger in size to avr counterparts, I would like someone to design something for practical use not something that uses shared resources way to much.. which uses the either/or principle..

I want to see a processor/pre-amp have a greater shelf life than the 2-3 year until the great hype comes out.

for inbuilt network something similar to a cisco module could be used..

I think making the pre-amp/processor more modular in design makes for a better outcome for the end user.

actually go back to the design board, redesign the chassis to improve air flow, when everyone keeps using the same old ref design from existing models nothing will ever improve the use of it, always cramming shit into the smallest chassis possible isn't the way to go..

If I'm reading your list right, you have no surround processor or receiver at present and little or no HD gear in the mix. Is that correct?

There are four game consoles (one with optical audio output, two that can do component video, and two that can only do composite or s-video). There is a VCR (composite and stereo analog audio) and a cable box (non-HD, so s-video and optical/coaxial digital outputs are possible but not guaranteed). There are also three DVD players. That adds up to nine sources, although you could potentially consolidate down to seven if you reduced it to a single DVD player. It's a large system that is very video-centric (no pure audio sources). I'll take a shot at setting up this system with a Model 990 and minimal outboard switching (one switch, to be exact) assuming for the moment that the component video switching might be of value:

DVD: DVD player (Component-DVD for video and optical1 for audio)
Video1: Cable box (Component-Vid1 for video and coaxial1 for audio)
Video2: Switch1 (composite video and stereo analog audio)
Video3: VCR (composite video and stereo analog audio)
Video4: PS2 (Component-Vid2 for video and optical2 for audio)
Video5: spare
7.1 Direct: spare composite connection that could be used with the 7.1 Direct analog input

Switch1 Input1: XBox
Switch1 Input2: N64
Switch1 Input3: SNES

If the TV doesn't offer better than s-video or composite video inputs, all three component connections can be replaced with composite connections and the system still works as described. Likewise, the cable box can use stereo analog audio if there's no coaxial or optical digital output.

I'm going to make a possibly harsh prediction: the Model 998 may not have an input selection that is well suited to non-HD systems that employ numerous legacy video sources. To be competitive in the market today, it will need to be geared toward HD video and the sources that most often accompany HDTV - a good number of HDMI connections and some component video, with composite video and s-video being secondary. That is what drives today's surround processor market, and it reflects the systems that are most likely to end up with a $1000+ surround processor in the mix. On the bright side, the used market offers a wealth of really good older gear that can serve non-HD systems like that very, very well. Looking just at Outlaw, there's the Model 990 and the Model 950 (both of which have five or six composite/s-video inputs). There are also products from Anthem, Rotel, NAD, and others that have a wealth of analog audio inputs and healthy support for composite or s-video sources.


I've found two great tools for dealing with AC adapters. One is the PowerSquid. Another is a very short extension cord (even shorter than this one), although I can't find a source for a shorter one right now. Both let you put a bunch of AC adapters onto a single power strip without having to throw away half the outlets.

I question the value of three HDMI outputs for the reasons I've already described. HDMI isn't like the old analog video sources, and it doesn't split easily. If you have multi-zone HDMI, you are duplicating some very expensive components by doing so and most users won't use the duplicate pieces. There are more graceful options.


The problem we have is defining what "practical use" is for the majority of the customer base. I've operated a pretty complex home theater setup for quite a few years now (including a total of four or five disc players at one point), and aside from a year or so with an outboard HDMI switch I've never used any separate source switching. The people I know who have home theaters frequently operate with noticeably fewer sources than I have. For them, having ten video inputs is massive overkill. Having thirty is just silly...


What defines the end of its shelf life? The production life? The only way to keep a product in production for more than three years is to either upgrade it to the point where it becomes a new product (think Lexicon MC-12) or convince the entire industry to quite changing standards (think five versions of HDMI in seven years). Or is it the useful life? There are folks with Model 950's still happily chugging along, and the first 950's shipped about eight years ago. There are Model 990 owners still happy five years after it arrived on the market.


I question the value of integrating a network switch into a processor because it gets away from the point of separates, but others certainly feel differently. As for modular designs, it has been tried quite a few times - never with great success. In each case, the company has struggled to develop new daughter boards and support new technology, and customers have ended up with a product that can't grow and change but that cost them 50% more than a comparable product because of the extra engineering and production costs involved. No thanks.


Surround processors generally don't have problems with airflow and heat rejection, since all the major heat sources are the amp channels that are in a separate chassis. The Model 990 actually had a lot of free space under the hood and a pretty nicely laid-out rear panel.

given the stories I've heard on how hot hdmi boards get, adequate cooling is a must....

the option of onboard lan save space of having to deploy a external 16-24 port switch to cater for all the consoles I wish to add for lan and net gaming....
at the moment i'm looking at multiple 24 port switches for running iptv, ip phones and so forth throughout the home, I was trying to reduce aux switches for consoles that's all.. a inbuilt solution for networking is a practical solution for me..

sorry forgot to add the yamaha tss-10 to the mix for 5.1 soon to be replaced..

I know hdmi doesn't split easy, though it was just 1 option I was looking for, given what i've seen people do in regards to monitor displays in the ht arena.. If 2 hdmi out is possible I think 1 extra hdmi out should be possible bringing the total outputs to 3..

I'm looking at future proofing as much as possible..

i'm also looking for 11.3 setup aswell.

not sure if multi multichan out would be practical for me not many options for input as far as I know for analog use, going a digital spdif route would be my preferred route for matrixing 5.1-7.1 sound tracks where possible..

80 inputs to support 7.1 and 24 outputs to support zones 2, 3 and 4 probably wouldn't practical option for analog support..

eventually i intend to go the route of dvd stackers, given the size of my dvd collections..

What stories have you heard about heat from HDMI boards? Also, have you heard of or seen instances of HDMI boards having insufficient ventilation space? I ask because I tend to be more aware of these sorts of issues than most (keeping things cool happens to be my day job), and in the hierarchy of heat-producing components inside AV equipment, I would put HDMI boards down around analog audio and video boards. That leaves them at the very bottom of the list. Audio DSP and video processing chips are probably the highest heat-generating components in a surround processor, with the power supply probably a close second and everything else way down the list. Even those are cool-running compared to the real heat sources in a surround system. The biggest heat-generating sources in a home theater system are the display (LCD, plasma, and CRT all make pretty good space heaters) and audio amplification. HDMI chips simply don't put off that much heat. I'd also offer the observation that Outlaw's designs have historically done a good job of managing heat rejection. They are already thinking about it properly.


A switch does take up some space, but it's going to take up almost as much space when it's tucked inside the surround processor's chassis as it will separately. It will also bring 16 to 24 additional cables to the most congested point in your system wiring. A separate network switch, on the other hand, will allow for more effective cable management and will take up a modest amount of space compared to the 10 or more game consoles you are describing. Combine those facts with the fact that probably 99% of Outlaw's customer base will need either no network switch support at all or at most a four-port or five-port solution (something that is easier to fit into an equipment rack when needed), and you can see why I am opposed to any sort of integral network switch - doubly so for a 16-port switch.


The TSS-10 is a very basic HTIB ("home theater in a box") with no video switching, one analog stereo input, and two optical digital audio inputs. It is a radically different animal from what we are discussing. It does cram a ton of stuff into as small a box as possible. There are six channels of amplification - including the sub - in a 3.75"x11"x8.25" box along with the audio switching, audio DSP, DAC's, and an ADC for the stereo input. Contrasts to the Model 990 (and thus presumably the Model 998 as well) are countless. About the only thing the two products have in common is the fact that they output sound.


Two HDMI outputs is possible, but most manufacturers are implementing them as an "either-or" arrangement, not two that are simultaneously active. They also aren't implementing any sort of second zone HDMI output. These decisions are made for practical cost-related reasons. Adding a third output would be an "either-or-or" design. It isn't practical.


The industry hasn't adopted a standard for 11.3 yet, so you may be looking at a need to update your system again in the future when it does happen. That is in the running to be the next "great hype" we'll see (something you were complaining about last night), but considering how little interest there has been from studios to produce 7.1 tracks on Blu-ray I suspect that any 11.x systems will be relying on matrix surround processing to expand 5.1 and 7.1 sources to the extra channels.


Multiple multichannel output zones isn't really practical for anyone. An implementation like that is going to need lots of amps, a space issue that you may not have been factoring in yet. It would also be easier to control if you had separate multichannel processors or receivers for each multichannel zone, assuming you need those zones.

SPDIF is limited to 5.1 lossy compression. You are likely to be more interested in HDMI as a source, at least for new sources like Blu-ray. This is because it supports 7.1 audio and lossless audio (multichannel PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio). However, most of the sources you have been discussing to date have been legacy consoles that only offer analog stereo audio. Debate over optical, coaxial, and HDMI connections (to say nothing of previous interest in DenonLINK) don't even enter the equation. Analog stereo is simply not that widely used in modern home theaters, so manufacturers aren't going to be able to justify putting lots of stereo analog inputs on their processors. At the most, we might see a quantity similar to what is found on the Model 990 or Model 970. There may even be fewer.


The problem I see is that the system you are contemplating is extremely atypical. Cable box and DVD changer are normal enough. A couple or three game consoles are also fairly common. Everything else on your list is unusual to such a degree that no manufacturer can design around them. Likewise, 11.3 is not yet an industry standard and multiple multichannel zones are impractical because they require building multiple separate surround processors into a single chassis.

yes I know the tss-10 is htib, I'm looking to replace it

the onkyo dvd player support hdmi

yes I know what I talk of seems a odd features set

though I don't expect to fill in 1 go restricted the current 5-6

With the amount devices in the market and soon to be released to the market..

given what I seen joytech come up with in the past av network switched..

it would be a nice option to see added to the processor line..

make the chassis higher and make the unit a plug-in modular design gives the option of expansion over time..

going the modular route gives the option to add component that you wouldn't commonly see as a integrated component which expands the feature set the unit has..

as for Denon link, I thought having something in place that can function like DL might be a good feature to have that's all.. I think you misunderstood analogue 5.1-7.1 while it's nice to have it, though I think it is overkill to support it, 2-3 yes across 10 no..

the 11.3 is for IIZ that's all,,

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.

when you start to compare different models within the onkyo and denon lines (as example)you see the failures when something new comes along the 1st thing to get the chop is usually the amp section, with a pre-amp this is ne-gated by amp you associate with it and which ever speaker combo you decide to run with..

the option of the 10-14 12v outs was the option to use monoblocks to power the speakers to start with..

the option to pass through 3-4 isn't a preference i like, the option of 10-14 gives me the option of running 2-4 multi channel amps or the option of of running 7.1-11.3 in a monoblock setup, I prefer each amp have their own 12v trigger. i never liked the daisey-chain principle..

the option should be there if you choose to run with it, each person to their own flavour for connecting amps..

Again, these feature suggestions are way out there. These suggestions are supposed to be for Outlaw. We barely get a few titles with actual 7.1. When can we expect the 11.3 stuff to be mainstream enough to justify any company building a processor with that numbers of channels supported? I prefer to stay closer to what a company like Outlaw has the capability to build. For the 11.3 system how do you get discrete sound to the 4.2 channels which aren't processed.

If we can replace the "RI" control ports (not RIHD) with a mix of IR connections (input and output) and 12V triggers, I think we are in agreement on the kinds of inputs and outputs that the Model 998 should have. I think the only point where we disagree is on quantity of inputs, quantity of outputs, and whether the second zone is stereo or multichannel.


So your complaint about processor designs always being compromised is actually the tendency for receiver designs to compromise amplifier design to allow incorporation of new features and hit a desired price point? I agree with the sentiment in many cases, but I don't think it makes much sense to complain about processor designs based on that. It also isn't a universal truth for receivers.


First, your 7.1 to 11.3 setup is going to have seven to 11 monoblock amps. The other channels are powered subs. Why have 14 triggers when that is three to seven more triggers than you have trigger-equipped monoblocks?

Second, if you look at Outlaw's monoblocks, they each have a trigger in and a trigger out. That is done because it is impractical to cram all those triggers onto the rear panel. Daisy-chaining is a valid solution for triggering a gaggle of monoblocks (or is it a flock?).

Third, Outlaw recognized that triggering on a whole surround system worth of monoblocks is a challenge. That's why their monoblocks all have a signal-sensing mode that removes the need for any trigger at all. Designing a feature that addresses the problem for the users who actually have the problem (monoblock owners) seems like a more graceful solution than throwing extra connections onto a product that is more often owned by multichannel amp owners than monoblock owners. Then you have a trigger or two, which can be used by multichannel amp owners and by people who want a trigger to control other devices (like motorized projection screens).


See my second and third points above. If you design a product that has every option that ever user might need, you'll never get the product to market. You'll spend years just trying to finalize the feature list, then you'll have a product so expensive to design and build that the project will collapse under its own weight.

what happens to the lower models gonk, will end up in a pre-amp in 1 form or another, look at AVS as example 90% of the people on there tend to use external amps because the internals are crap..

it don't matter who builds the pre-amp/processors when you keep using the same design from previous models and keep using the same chassis, you start to build flaws into a system..

it's just cosmetic looks you see between models..


while what I say may be impractical for most people, it was only a concept, you will likely find more people would support these features than you realise gonk, though nobody will openly voice this opinion as it is harder to submit it to final production stage, though it's a nagging option that most will have in the back of their minds even if it isn't acted upon though each to their own train of thought..

yes I realise amps can be used in a daisy-chained for the 3-12v triggers, as that is the way they were designed to function, personally i never liked daisy- chaining to many items in 1 row, especially when looking at amps that use above 300 watts..

my plans are to built 2 cinema rooms 1 with outlaw amps, and 1 with emo or similar amps.. just looking for 2-3 pre-amps to suit some of needs that's all

If you could use the HDMI out from one processor to feed the HDMI in to a separate processor it would provide all the connections you could ever use for legacy and would make it easier to have all the peripherals in one place. You would have to be able to bypass one processor or the other if you wanted. Think of the numbers of remote controls which no one in the family understands. AAAH, the bliss of feeling needed!!

Your specific complaint was that they were compromising the design of the amp section, and I agreed with that. Good amp manufacturers do not borrow from receiver amp designs to build power amps, though, so that doesn't hurt processor designs. Specific examples can be found in the pictures in my sig. You can see what the insides of several Outlaw amps look like. They share no design lineage with receivers.

I still haven't heard an example of DSP section compromise, analog audio stage compromise, or video processing section compromise associated with receiver design. Those are the areas that may in some cases end up in processors. For that matter, what happens in lower-model receivers doesn't have any actual bearing on what happens in Outlaw's processors (particularly the Model 998, which is reported to be a new ground-up design by Outlaw and their new manufacturing partner). I'll get into that in a moment.


Re-using design components does happen, certainly. Companies like Onkyo and Denon will develop a platform and then implement minor tweaks several times to produce subsequent model years. That's a necessary part of the process when your product life-cycle is a year or less. Even there, though, a lot has to be replaced entirely every few years to keep up with changes in technology. New video processing, audio processing, room correction, and other key pieces of the puzzle require building new board designs from scratch and developing entirely new code. This process is complex and time-consuming, and it requires a lot of work to get stable and reliable operation. Products like Sherwood's R-972 and Emotiva's UMC-1 are proof of this. It's worth noting that both of those products were newly developed from the ground up. The R-972 retained the dimensions of its predecessor and some front panel design cues, but the guts probably retain no more than 1% or 2% of the R-965's hardware. Likewise, the UMC-1 retained nothing from the LMC-1 that preceded it. Both products experienced multi-year delays and were still launched prematurely. In contrast, the Onkyo Pro PR-SC886 retained most of the 885's hardware and had some firmware refinements - and I think it benefited from that. (Of course, it only worked because there was no need to integrate any really radical changes - they had a year to learn from the 885 and make improvements, but they didn't really do anything terribly different with the hardware.) These specific examples don't support the idea that re-use is detrimental or even as prevalent as you suggest.

The idea that there is large-scale component re-use also doesn't necessarily apply at all well to companies like Outlaw. Unlike companies like Onkyo and Denon, with their once-a-year new product releases, Outlaw will develop a processor and keep it on the market for several years. By the time it is replaced, changes in the industry have been significant enough that there is very little that can be re-used. Newer DSP chips are available that do more and cost less, and when you design for the new chips you have to build new DSP boards from scratch and develop all new code. Newer video processing options are available that do more and cost less, and again you have to build new boards and write new firmware to implement them. Changes in the industry (and in the DSP sections) mean that the input requirements have evolved, so you need to design brand new input boards to support the new mix of audio and video inputs. Maybe you could re-use a good analog audio section? Again, you may now be able to get newer and better DAC's, thus triggering a new board design. You may need a new board design anyway since everything around it is new. What's left? The physical chassis, the power supply, and maybe some secondary parts like radio tuner, headphone amp, and phono pre-amp. Even there, you're probably going to be better off taking a fresh look at all of that. As a result, each new product retains precious little physical relationship to its predecessor. The notion that Outlaw is plucking the guts out of a cheap receiver and building a processor around them isn't supported by the facts. On the contrary, this thread has value to Outlaw because they have stated that they are going back to the design approach they used on the Model 1050, Model 950, RR2150, and Model 1070/970 - which means they are starting with a blank piece of paper and building from there. If they were going to build the Model 998 by taking something off the shelf and slapping a new faceplate on it, our input would have no value because it would be too late.


I have a hard time believing that most people want ten sets of composite video inputs or a dozen 12V trigger outputs on a surround processor in 2010. I've been helping people figure out how to set up their home theaters, discussing things we like and dislike about different products, and otherwise floating around debates such as this one for quite a while now. I've heard a lot of ideas batted about. A few of the ideas you've suggested have turned up at a more modest scale (6 HDMI inputs rather than 10, 2 HDMI outputs rather than 3, a 4-port network switch rather than 16). There are a lot that I simply haven't ever seen voiced before now, on any forum. Many folks never use the IR ports, and those of us who do have never wanted more than one or two inputs and maybe an output or two. I've never heard anyone ask for 10 IR outputs, and still don't see a reason for a manufacturer to include that many. (That's not to say I don't see a way in which it could be used. I have an IR distribution system with a six-port distribution block and another four ports on an RF receiver. Those ten ports feed a mix of signal cables and IR flashers that distribute IR remote commands to every component in my equipment rack. If I had a processor with an IR distribution block built in to it, I could replace that distribution block and just connect the RF receiver to the processor. If I ever replaced the processor, though, I'd have to re-build that IR distribution system. I don't have any interest in merging that function into my processor.) Lots of us use 12V triggers, but I've never seen people asking for 10 of them. Most folks are content with just one, while a few may like to have two. Many folks never use the second zone, and those that do have always been comfortable with it being a stereo output, with some interest at times in a subwoofer output. Nobody has ever complained that it wasn't multichannel. (Besides, as previously noted, implementing that would be hugely impractical if you wanted the second zone to be anything other than a mis-calibrated mess.) As I've explained, there are very real reasons why these ideas aren't practical for a product like the Model 998.


Why does it matter what power rating the amps have? We aren't powering them with this 12V signal. We aren't delivering the audio signal from this 12V signal. All we're doing is saying "if you see some current over this connection, turn yourself on." If the designer planned for the daisy-chaining and you don't make any one chain so long that you exceed the designer's planned chain length, there is no harm in doing so.

The Model 990 had two trigger outputs. If one trigger was daisy-chained through three monoblocks and the other through four monoblocks, you would be fine. Those two trigger chains match with the design of the trigger controls on the Model 200 and Model 2200. Or, if you don't like that, there are other solutions. Use the signal-sensing mode on all seven amps and don't bother with a trigger. Or use one trigger to control switched outlets on a power conditioner and control all of your amps that way. (By the way, this means the amps can't draw any power when off - which is the ideal solution for your goal of minimizing stand-by power consumption. it's also the way I have my system set up, with my five-channel amp, two monoblocks, and my powered sub all powered on and off based on a single 12V trigger to my power conditioner.)


I'm all for giving folks options. I just described three separate options that can work very nicely with a monoblock-based system and no more than two 12V trigger outputs. But those options must be balanced with the overall design intent of the product and some practical limits.

I wasn't comparing avr's to pre-amps, I was using them as an example only..

developments happen everywhere that's a given..

just because you change innards of something doesn't make it the be all, end all solution considering you're using the base plate to build from it is a certain that anyone building a pre-amp it doesn't allow you to build better in some cases as some items will get the chopping block that's a given as you need space here you remove space from there to fit certain options in..

I've had the pleasure of configuring and setting up a sherwood 5.1 separates system and I'll tell you this for free, I wouldn't trust sherwood to build a pre-amp as far as I can throw them, for them to develop something outlaw to use I think it will be like the Co they went to for the the development of the 997 i would expect it to be another no show after 1-3 year development cost down the drain..

when comparing the lmc-1 to its predecessor I think you go from high end to entry level going from 1 model to the next..

Most peoples opinions of lmc-1 are this, great concept, poor implementation, still bug fixing to this day and its look looks more like a entry level avr than a pre-amp..
emo has gone from 1 extreme to the other when you start to compare the lmc-1 to its predecessor..

when buying a pre-amp you are buying into the whole option of using existing tech with the unit, now how far you go is entirely up to you, though personally if you're only going to cater for the the new gear you may aswell be building a entry level avr in the guise of a pre-amp.. as all you will end up with is something that resembles the lmc-1 in form and half function..

I'm afraid I don't understand the objection you have to processor design, then. You suggested that specific components have been squeezed to save space, compromising quality. The only example of such design compromise you have identified is the power amp section in surround receivers.


Not sure what you mean here.


There will never be an "end-all, be-all" surround processor. If I assume that Outlaw will build such a product - at any price point - I am going to end up disappointed. These products are too complex and the industry too quick to change. Plus, there is variation in what people need. The ideal product for one of my co-workers would be inexpensive (probably under $500), easy to use, and offering a minimum of three or four inputs. My ideal will be a more powerful and robust product, with a higher price tag. My "dream" (beyond my budget's reach) would probably be something else again, although the differences between it and my ideal are generally subtle improvements.

My examples of previous products (Outlaw Model 1050, Model 950, Model 1070/970, and now the Model 998) were not changing the innards of some previous product. The associated boards were developed specifically for those products, based on feature sets that Outlaw defined. The firmware had to be developed specifically for those products, as well. They had to use some off-the-shelf chips, of course, but if you're going to object to somebody using an existing DSP chip, DAC chip, ADC chip, and video processing chip, you are going to be waiting a long time before buying a processor or any other consumer electronics product. They are not unique in this approach, either. The few instances that receiver and processor development intersect are usually with higher-end receivers, not the cheap ones.

When you talk about fitting things in, you seem to have been suggesting that the companies are crowding the components into smaller chassis and thus producing an inferior product. When we were talking about amp sections, I could understand that. If we're not talking about amp sections, I really don't understand what components are being crowded in that are giving us inferior products. It isn't the internal circuit boards, certainly, as I haven't seen a surround processor yet that was unreasonably cramped under the hood. Are you talking about rear panel connectivity?

If you have some specific surround processors in mind that were built from existing "base plates" that inherently limited their potential, I'd be interested in knowing what they are, but I still see no reason to condemn the entire industry's efforts to design good surround processors. Without some real world examples, I think suggestions that Outlaw is going to develop a deficient product are baseless.


I had to read the last sentence a few times to understand. You were theorizing that Outlaw was changing partners and using Sherwood to develop the Model 998, right?

First, Sherwood has built some good products, although they do have a consistent history of being late. The R-965 and P-965 were good-sounding units, even if their user interface wasn't very friendly and their bass management was basic. The Model 990 was based on that platform, but with some significant revisions (balanced outputs, DVI switching, completely re-written bass management, and a totally different user interface).

Second, the Model 997 was going to be based on the R-972, but Outlaw cancelled it because of Sherwood's problems with that product. It was those problems that led Outlaw to change manufacturing partners - from Sherwood to someone else.

As it happens, I am very familiar with the LMC-1. It was an entry-level unit, as is the new UMC-1. Yes, the LMC-1 was very possibly based on an existing AVR design (the initial development cycle was very short enough to suggest as much), but details are hard to come by. Yes, the LMC-1 was very buggy. It was abandoned (discontinued) without many of those bugs being resolved. The UMC-1 will hopefully fare better - the latest beta firmware suggests that they are making good progress at last.

The LMC-1 doesn't have an Emotiva predecessor. There was the DMC-1 prior to the LMC-1, which was a Sunfire processor with a new faceplate. I don't consider the DMC-1 to be the LMC-1's predecessor, however, because it was a higher-tier product that was available concurrently with the LMC-1. Trust me, the LMC-1 and UMC-1 are comparable. As proof, look through the history of the UMC-1 and you'll find that it was originally called the LMC-2.


Of course we have to buy existing tech. When buying a pre-amp, I buy a unit with the features I need and the performance I desire. I don't expect a processor to have all the latest bells and whistles, because receivers are generally at the leading edge in that regard. If I need features that are still at that bleeding edge, I have to decide whether to get a receiver and use its preamp outputs or wait until a processor arrives with those features.

This is my suggestion that would set the 998 apart form any receiver/processor on the market: Allow me to use every input on the unit. Here is what i mean.

I am currently using an Denon AVR-889, (i've also owned sony, onkyo & Kenwood) it has 4 hdmi, 3 component, and 5 composite AV inputs. (it has many additional audio inputs but this doesn't concern them) that makes 12 video inputs. the AVR-889 only has 4 assignable video inputs. this means after the 4th input is plugged in the remaining 8 inputs will never be used. and can never be used because you can only assign 4 AV sources. I have more than 4 AV sources and can not use them. (list below)

Here is my Suggestion, have all the inputs available in the setup menu, be able to turn them "on" and "off" and rename them however you like. when you scroll through your inputs only the ones you've turned "on" will be seen. the other will just then be ready to be used. allow the option to change your audio input (optical, 7.1 in, etc) Once the audio inputs are gone then its just not an option.

I can't be the only person with this frustration. Why should i pay +$1000.00 for a receiver/processor to only be able to use a quarter of it? the only option is to use an inferior splitter to get all my sources connected.

Denon AVR-889
sony up converting DVD (hdmi) (i'd rather use this for dvd & SACD than my ps3, saves the life of both)
PS3 (Hdmi)
Xbox 360 (Component)
DVR (Hdmi)
Apple TV (Hdmi)
Wii (Component)
HD-DVD (Component)

I think you raise an excellent point here, and this is an issue I've also noticed - particularly on newer products that have added more HDMI inputs, scaled back the number of analog A/V inputs, and used the tradition of having those analog connections define the inputs. A slightly more robust option would be to have a number of "virtual" inputs with discrete commands on the remote (suitable for integration with macros on third-party universal remotes) that could be assigned to HDMI, component video, and coaxial/optical connections.

what use to be on entry level gear is no longer there...

on the lower end gear you will not likely aux outputs for zone 2/3

basically looking in comparison with the umc-1 and the onkyo 608, basically the same kit with minor difference 1 has an amp where the other don't..

though both have similar layouts in regards to component inputs with another minor difference no outputs for pre-amps on the 608..

the irony with the low end avr's most are billed a secondary avr's meant to be connected as a aux unit to a primary avr as an example onkyo 707-708 as primary with a 608 feeding a second room....

I would hope to see something released to compete with the avp, I would hate to see a repeat of the UMC-1 which should targeted high user instead of the low end user market..

don't get me wrong I think there is a market for low input/output pre-amps as long as it is a working platform with no to minor issues though saying that if a Co is going to go to that extreme you may aswell build an avr and be done with it.. because they failed at separate pre-pro design, from the pre-amp POV..

If you wanna run with the big boy think big in the way of inputs as for a certain amount of a purchase price you are buying the portability and support legacy inputs and outputs (within reason) in a pre-amp system and there shouldn't be a need to have to run multiple av switches to support legacy components..

now how the new software act's with the old gear that's a different can of worms, it would be nice if the new software would complement instead conflict with the older hardwares software, the problem happens when they don't think about backwards compatibility within newer codecs..

it would be nice having the newer codecs processing the older codec improving the basis of synergy between the 2

We seem to have discarded the subject of what might be desirable on the Model 998?


Why is a lack of zone2/3 support on entry-level receiver models relevant to this discussion? I never expected lower end gear to have a zone 2 output (much less a zone 3 output). That is something that has trickled down the product lines a bit compared to the past, but it has always been something that you had to spend a bit extra to get if you wanted it. And on those higher-end models that did offer it, zone 2 support has always been stereo only and purely analog in nature. I would expect there to be a zone 2 output on the Model 998, and I would expect it to be analog only.


The UMC-1 is of interest to a lot of people specifically because it is much less expensive than most surround processors, more in line price-wise with mid-level receivers. For surround processors, it is the entry level (based mainly on price). If they can get the unit's listed features all working well, it could be a nice piece of gear and well-suited to many applications. It isn't especially relevant to discussion of the Model 998, though.

The Onkyo 608 retails for $600 and sells for under $500 online. The UMC-1 retails for $700. Considering the fact that the UMC-1 costs at least $100 more and is a different category of product (surround processor rather than surround receiver, thus without any amps tied up in the price tag) I would expect there to be some things missing from the 608 compared to the UMC-1. One omission is pre-amp outputs. Onkyo wants you to spend a bit more and buy the 707 to get pre-amp outputs, as the transition between 6xx and 7xx models is a significant one for them. Receiver manufacturers have been doing that for a long, long time. As for saying that they have similar layouts, I would have to say that this 608 rear panel and this UMC-1 rear panel don't have much in common. Both have five HDMI inputs on the rear panel, one HDMI output, and AM/FM tuners. Past that, the similarities dry up pretty fast. The 608 lacks a 7.1 analog input, pre-amp outputs, detachable power cord, 12V trigger, and IR input/output (although it has Onkyo's "RI" port - note the lack of "HD" at the end - and Sirius support). The UMC-1 has an extra component input, one less composite video input, more coaxial and optical inputs, s-video inputs, several 12V triggers, and IR in and out.

If your point is to suggest that the internal hardware in the 608 is going to wind up in a surround processor, I'd be interested in some specific evidence to support it. It sure didn't end up in the UMC-1, since the two rear panels share no commonality in layout. Onkyo has consistently based their surround processors on their top-of-the-line surround receivers, but if you compare the rear panel of the 607 and 608 to the rear panel of the 5007 you will find that there are no points of similarity that would suggest they are using the same boards in both products. They even use different DAC chips and different video processing chips, meaning that the analog stages and video boards are different designs. There may be some firmware code that carries over across multiple products, but I doubt that any signal-path components are common between the two products.


Actually, since the second zone outputs generally have their own volume control, you can simply get a stereo power amp (even something modest like this little amp) to power the speakers in that second zone. If you had a stereo receiver lying around, it would also work. A surround receiver like the 608 is actually overkill for that application.


Again, if you look at Emotiva closely, you will find that the UMC-1 is marketed as their entry-level model. Had they launched it without the major bugs it has encountered, it would probably be a very successful product in that market by now. It may still do well, if it can get debugged in a timely manner. If you want a higher-end product from Emotiva, you need to wait for the XMC-1. That will be the replacement for their old DMC-1 (a repackaged Sunfire design).

If you are talking about what Outlaw will be offering with the Model 998, that's a different story. The Model 998 is not intended to be comparable to the UMC-1. Outlaw is keeping details under wraps at this stage (a wise course of action) but what they've described is an updated version of the Model 990 from a performance standpoint with a very current feature set. It won't compete on features and performance with products costing five times as much, but it can be expected to offer a lot of performance for the money while also being economically feasible for a lot more people and nicely equipped on features. By the way, even those super-expensive units aren't going to do many of the things that you have suggested in this thread.


Within reason is the key. Within reason. It applies to everybody, big boys included. I agree with Kenm80's comment about being able to use the numerous HDMI ports and still having inputs available to use some component and legacy video connections. That means smart design of the user interface and some thoughtful balance of HDMI, component video, composite video, s-video, digital audio, and analog audio connections. But I will say again: if you want to connect two decades worth of game consoles to a home theater at the same time, you will not find anyone building a modern surround processor with enough composite video and stereo analog audio inputs to accommodate them all directly. The entire concept is unreasonable. If you want to do that, you must accept that there will be external switching. I understand why it appeals to you, but it isn't justifiable for a processor design to include all of that. That's why I've tried repeatedly to suggest solutions that might minimize the external switching required.


You completely lost me here. What old software are you talking about? How can new codecs process old codecs? Codecs don't process other codecs.

If you are talking about the new lossless audio codecs, I think legacy support has already been pretty gracefully addressed. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD soundtracks both contain core Dolby Digital and DTS tracks that provide legacy audio support via coaxial or optical. If you are talking about the control options we've discussed at some length, that's more related to a lack of industry standards: proprietary control connections ("RI") vs. more generic IR connections, different implementations of IR connections, and the stupid proprietary implementations of CEC ("RIHD" and "Viera Link" and all the other names). If you are talking about 12V DC triggers, there is again no official industry standard, but the 0-12V format is pretty prevalent and frankly works well enough to be a successful "unofficial" standard. If you are talking about legacy hardware that only offers composite video and stereo analog audio, the issue is totally unrelated to software or any codecs. It is entirely a matter of what the old hardware offers for connectivity.

Feature suggestions:
- headphone port on the face like most recievers have. This is crucial to people like me with young children who go to bed early.
-how about a processor that displays and decodes mp3 files via usb?! possible? Could we avoid the need for ipod or zune or harmony etc by just plugging an external usb hard drive full of music right into our pre pro?

what i was referring to was having the new codec reprocess the old codec to improve it that's all

But what old codec are you referring to? If you mean audio via Dolby Digital and DTS, both are lossy compression algorithms. The damage is done the moment the audio engineer feeds the master into the encoder, long before it ends up on a disc that we can drop into a player. Any extra processing done by the surround processor or receiver after decoding (which is technically possible through techniques such as upsampling, none of which have any relationship to the codecs used to compress and then decompress the new lossless audio formats) can only do so much because the original data was discarded by the encoder in the first place. It's the same reason that upscaling DVD's can never truly match a native HD signal - no matter how good the video processor used or how good the original DVD transfer was, it can't equal having the pixels available from the start.

More on "outboard" a/v switches, and related to the virtual inputs:

I'd also like the feature to rename each audio/video input. Ideally, this would also extend to naming & control over external a/v switches. Perhaps this leads back to a horrible proprietary command system. BUT, if the receiver could control the external switch and integrate it with one UI, that would be nice.


For example, I could have two virtual inputs labeled "snes" and "gamecube" -- but they would both map to the same physical input (connected to the external a/v switch). The receiver could then automatically command the external switch to the right input for that device.

Perhaps this sort of functionality is better suited for a harmony-like remote.

Bringing back an older topic (sorry, just getting started on this thread now!)


Sounds great.


I'd agree with this. But I'd also propose that "Leaving connectivity off because it will only support NEW technology is not a great way to promote customer loyalty."


Yup, and it's a serious PITA.


It seems to me like this statement contradicts the stuff above. Why not replace "network media" with "HDMI" --
"Why does HDMI suddenly need to be integrated into the processor? Why wouldn't it be just as well served by someone producing a good quality, robust standalone upsampler/video-converter/video-switcher?"

I think we can all agree that a network media server is a (nascent) source of audio & video. The internet is also a source, although less defined, with zillions of standards, and even more proprietary stuff.

One of the nice things about DLNA is that it is a standard -- in much the same way that HDMI is a standard. The quality of the DLNA standard isn't up to where HDMI is today. But it's probably about where HDMI was at version 1.0 (but with more interoperability issues, due to crappy software vendors and little formalized testing).

I don't see much difference between saying "We should support HDMI (1.4) because it's a new standard" and saying "We should support DLNA (version whatever) because it's a new standard".


I'd argue that a receiver should NOT support proprietary standards (as much as I want it to for my own use ). So Netflix, Amazon VOD, even YouTube & Hulu, etc should be right out. Besides, there are lots of DLNA media servers which support these proprietary standards as input, and output a standard DLNA media stream.


I think there are perfectly reasonable arguments for why NOT to support DLNA. However, I don't think that saying it's not future proof is a good reason. With that same argument, you should say that it shouldn't support HDMI, since (as you said) there have been 5 versions in the last 7 years. BTW, there have been fewer version of DLNA in the same time period.


So, good reasons NOT to support it:

• Too much work to get reasonable schedule/quality/price-point
• Not enough user demand.
• The oracles tell you that DLNA won't be around in a few years

But that said, I think there is user demand (I want it!), and my oracles tell me it'll be around for a while.

However, I can still totally understand a decision that it will be too complex & costly.

I agree that the ability to edit the inputs' names is a great feature that should be included. Much like a good universal remote, this is something that seems minor but can be a huge plus in the eyes of a spouse or family member. From the moment I first had this feature (with the Model 990), I became a huge fan of it.


Extending the input naming out to specific inputs on a switch would be more difficult. Feasible, certainly, but at a price. Basically, you would need to have a switch built specifically to interface with the processor (probably using RS232) as well as enough inputs established in the processor's interface (both the unit's setup menus and the discrete remote codes) to cover all of the switch's inputs in addition to the processor's direct inputs. It'd be more practical than the idea of ten composite/analog stereo inputs, but it would also be something that sees limited use in the market.

The remote control is the most effective alternative, as you've noted. Configure a single input on the processor as the point of connection with a switch, label it "old games" or something similar, and create separate devices on the universal remote for "SNES" and "GameCube" and "Dreamcast" - each of which select both the "old games" input on the processor and the appropriate input on the switch. You don't get the convenience of having the processor's front panel say exactly which console is active, but the remote at least does say that.

Great point. Both are certainly true. That's why there must be a balance, with support for both old and new tech. Inevitably, new tech probably deserves a significant share of the available resources, but going too far in either direction can be detrimental.


Why does HDMI have to be integrated? Just kidding. In the case of HDMI, we need it in the processor because it's carrying audio - specifically lossless multichannel audio for which there is no other industry-supported digital connection available. Frankly, even before HDMI took root, surround receivers and processors had already evolved to provide both audio and video switching, so HDMI's presence basically reinforced that trend.


DLNA is a pretty widely used standard, but it is a source standard. Blu-ray is a standard. DVD is a standard. I don't want them integrated into my surround processor. As you note, DLNA support can be a rocky road. My point in suggesting that network media capabilities may be better served in a separate chassis is that it fits well with the processor's strengths in managing sources. Certainly not everyone agrees with me, as a number of manufacturers have embraced DLNA and other network features as a great way to separate their products (receivers, Blu-ray players, and TV's) from the rest of the market.


I'm less worried about DLNA support in a processor being "not future proof" than I am in it being "not robust enough to justify itself." As you say, HDMI is a perpetual gamble because they make it a moving target. Technology is always moving, so even if HDMI doesn't roll out a new version next year we still have the potential for some other emerging tech to come roaring in. We each have to decide when it is the right time for us to make a purchase as we travel along that ever-changing technology landscape, and designers have to figure out the best point at which to lock in their feature lists and move forward. If the Model 998 could include a really fabulous network media tool, that'd be great. I'd change my tune - for that specific implementation. If the options were merely average DLNA support (at some cost premium) or no network media support at all (without the cost premium), I'd lean toward the latter.


I agree with you that DLNA's going to be around for a while, as are some various flavors of streaming content (Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, etc.). Demand will certainly be there for these. If anything, it will presumably grow. My main reason for being leery of network media support in a processor is your first reason: it seems likely to be cost and time prohibitive to develop a truly robust solution, leading to something that feels too much like an afterthought or "me too!" sort of feature.

Hi

Was on the wait list for the 997, but think going to their own platform with the 998 was a smart move. I like the new front panel design even though it won't match my Emotiva MPS-2 amp I bought a year ago to go with the 997 I thought was coming out shortly. Am way more interested in high quality audio, than the video. The Trinnov system is the biggest reason I keep holding out for Outlaw, since I have a less than optimal room to work with. The other features that others have mentioned that are of interest to me, are:

Trinnov microphone input & headphone jack on front panel.

HD & internet radio with high quality AM/FM tuners.

phono pre-amp.

balanced XLR CD input.

ethernet connection in addition to USB.

Well organized on screen menu system, perhaps thru a link to your computer (preferably Apple based)

happy2

What I'd like to see is something exactly as you linked -- but with hard-wired control that could be supported by a model like the 998. Connect the external switchbox to one of the analog inputs, connect the control cable, and assign the control to the analog input. Then, let the processor's software convert "input 2" to "input 2.1" through "input 2.4."

Granted, I can do this with IR, but I'd rather not *need* to.

Another "wish list" feature for me would be to integrate the functionality of something like the Global Caché GC-100 into the device, which I expect could be done pretty inexpensively if it already has IR out and network in.

But honestly, the feature list as announced is pretty compelling; just give me lots of HDMI inputs and uncompromising sound quality (including full bypass modes) at a reasonable price and I'll be happy.

Not sure what other have to say yet, no time to read it all right now, but I will throw a few thoughts into the hat...

For my processor (audio/video), I tend to cater toward the minimalistic approach.
I like mine to do all of the basic features and do them very well. Especially things like the DRC, high quality analog input/output sections, analog BM, DSP implementation, DAC/ADC, ect.
I hope Oulaw realizes this approach as well, and puts the extras in there after the basics have been perfected.
All the bells and whistles are fun, but if the basic features are lacking or problematic, this puts the unit at a disadvantage in more ways than one.

In keeping up with the current market, I hope that ethernet type connections will be implemented, if even in a minimalistic approach, like for firmware updates.
I've had to update the fw on my 3 yr old Onkyo, and it was a virtual nightmare.

Upsampling options for to 192KHz for audio would be a really nice feature too.
I'm sure I'll come up with lots more... just getting the foot in the door.:)

Onkyo receiver/processor firmware updates... Scary stuff - I've messed with that a bit myself. The announcement suggests that the 998 will use a USB stick for firmware updates, similar to the OPPO disc players.

If it is as easy as the Oppo BDP-83 then it will be a fine tool. I updated my BDP last weekend and it took all of 15 minutes including the download.

I took the easy way out with the upgrade on my BDP83. Had the CD firmware update sent to the house.
Let me say Oppo's customer service seems to be as courteous, and problem free as Outlaws'.
Called them up to ask a few questions and in two to three days received the disc.
No problems. However for some reason I had to repeat the upgrade a second time.
I have to say that I am not as computer savvy as a lot of people on this forum seem to be. I do wish that I was not intimated about these upgrades. As of the writing I still have not done the upgrade on the 990.
I hope Outlaw makes the upgrades for the 998 as simplistic as possible for people like myself. The idea of a disc for the Oppo upgrade was great.
If I do pull the trigger on the 998 I certainly will take my time making the decision.

rubbersoul, I, too have the BDP-83. Have not seen any word of updates. Have checked their site by way of the in-unit web update link. You mentionned a CD firmware upgrade. Please advise where the info for that update can be found. Thanks in advance.
Cheers!

This page always lists the latest firmware (both production and any public betas that are available). They release new firmware fairly regularly, as required for disc compatibility fixes, bug fixes, or new features.

Depending on how long you've had it, there have been new firmware releases. The public betas are generally optional unless they offer something you want or need (quick compatibility fix for a new release, fix for a bug you've been bothered by). They are typically stable enough for use, but OPPO plays it safe and doesn't start using those versions on the players they sell. That's saved for the production firmware releases. It's good to stay pretty current with those releases.

If you have the BDP-83 connected to the Internet (as required for using BD-Live), you can turn "firmware notification" on and the player will tell you when new firmware is available and ask for permission to install it. Otherwise, check the site from time to time to see what's new. If you don't have a network connection to the player, I like the USB update procedure. It's a very good technique and easy to do - all you need is a USB memory stick.

I did mine using the USB option. The firmware version I now have had only been released a few days before and I think before that it was the "public Beta" version. I primarily updated so I could watch the Avatar BD that I had read needed the update to play. I read somewhere that the people in Hollywood have been updating the DRM in the discs, which requires the updates to players to use the discs. So, it doesn't appear to be something that Oppo or other manufacturers forgot, but rather one they planned for, when they made the players firmware updating easy.

Avatar works on the BDP-83 with the 1224 firmware (released around the first of January) and any version since then. Other players were not so lucky and required updates on launch day for Avatar.

Disc compatibility problems are the result of several factors. Some of it is looseness in the BD spec, although I think that's improved since the first year or two. Some of it is weird BD-Java code. Some of it is also DRM, as studios have frequently changed the DRM being used but haven't always given out test discs for manufacturers to use in updating existing players to be compatible with the new DRM. They also don't always do the best testing of new discs - they'll test on the PS3, of course, but sometimes they don't do much beyond that.

Thanks for the comments about the firmware updates for the BDP83. I do have the network connection, and check about once a month manually. Last I checked, about the beginning of May, I had the most current updates.
Cheers!

Unless you manually load a public beta (using USB or CD), the network update will keep you current with production firmware only. That's not a bad thing, mind you. Just want you to be aware that if you want to use the public betas, you'll need to load one via USB. After that, you can use the network update and you'll have the latest every time (either public beta or a "beta"-tagged copy of production).

OPPO OPPO everywhere! :p... lol

So is there a current list of features that the 998 definitely WILL have?... or are we still too early?

(Apologies if this has been mentioned already)

I would like to see DSD to analogue direct in the 998, i.e. accepts DSD over HDMI and processes with NO conversion to PCM before the DAC stage.

This feature needs a true DSD-capable DAC e.g. ESS Sabre32 or similar.

You ought to be used to OPPO discussion by now.

We do have at least a partial list from the original announcement:

• Multiple 3D-Ready, HDMI 1.4 inputs and outputs, including a front panel jack for connection to digital cameras and camcorders.
• On the audio side, Dolby Volume, Dolby PLIIz, high-performance DACs and balanced audio outputs.
• Also on the audio side, our commitment to the Trinnov Optimizer has not changed. We have heard and evaluated Trinnov and assure you that it is the real deal: far ahead of any room correction system we have ever heard, at any price. With this new product, we will implement Trinnov so that it works the way it is meant to be used - and heard! Trinnov is fully on-board with our plan, and they are now exchanging details with our engineering teams.
• On the video side, there will be state-of-the-art video processing and scaling when you want it, and full bypass when you don't. The interface and menu system will be straightforward, easy to use and powerful, all at the same time.
• Direct USB software upgradeability without the need for direct connection to a computer or the need for any loader programs. You'll simply download the new software to a USB drive when needed, plug it into the front panel, and the processor will take it from there.
• Barring any unforeseen complications or component price increases, this new processor will be close to the price range of the Model 997.
• $200 credit for past Outlaw processor customers will still be valid on this new unit.

I don't think we'll see more than that for a while.

Sometimes you need a break from all that man.
OPPO is so popular now... infiltrating all the roads, alleys, cracks and crevices of the internet.
That's a good thing though.
When a company like OPPO does something so well, you want to be a part of it, and you want to spread the word too.
For the same reasons, my interest has also now been sparked by Outlaw.

Those are some pretty nice features for the 998 so far though.
The part underlined kinda gives me goosebumps (in a good way).

It is remarkable how widespread awareness of OPPO's products has become. As for the Trinnov stuff, I'm also very curious...

I'd say oppo's becoming the standard kit for almost everyone in the ht arena..

more speculations to come by the looks of it..

HiFi too, they do a great job with SACD and DVD-A also!

Does anyone know if the USB connection on the 998 can be used with the iPhone for audio and video performance?
example youtube

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.

Hard to say. Certainly on the Model 950 and Model 970/1070, they offered an analog bass management solution that was pretty convenient and unique - a rear panel toggle switch provided the option of engaging or not engaging an analog bass management circuit based around an 80Hz crossover point. The Model 990 was the only Outlaw processor not designed from the ground up by Outlaw (being derived from the Sherwood R-965/P-965 platform with some significant hardware and software modifications), and as a result it lacked the analog bass management. Instead, it had ADC's on the 7.1 analog input and applied the same digital bass management used for digital audio inputs. With multichannel audio sources now so heavily shifted to HDMI and some sort of comparable bass management offered by most of those players, the need for including it may have waned a bit compared to what we saw in 2002 (when the Model 950 arrived).

Well sir, in that case, my proposal doesn't sound too promising.
In any case though, I would remind Outlaw that even though the digital interface of HDMI has definitely become the mainstream connection, there are still many users who like the analog audio sound.
Many of those users may choose a higher end amps and or preamps, and just as well, those with legacy gear forced to use analog connections to get the best sound with the latest audio codecs may not care if the analog connections are digitized.
However, there is that small-yet-significant crowd that may like to use analog for music, and hdmi for movies.
This crowd, and also the all-analog crowd, may want to use the analog connection in the processor but not appreciate the digitizing of the audio.
At the very least, I think Outlaw should offer a passthrough mode, even if the advanced BM for analog isn't there.

Personally, I use the 2CH analog output of the OPPO BDP-83SE for my 2CH music listening in my media room.
One reason what makes both Outlaw and OPPO such good companies with good products, is that for the most part, they have high quality products at reasonable prices for what the consumer receives in return compared to the overall a/v market.
This creates a situation where an enthusiast can have a very high quality setup for less out of pocket expense than what most "audiophile setups" typically cost.

However, if an analog user has to use different equipment in addition to something like the 998, then that makes the setup more costly, thus negating the best setup you can have for less out of pocket expense.
That, and the fact that it may force analog users to look elsewhere for a processor that is analog passthrough friendly.
My TX-SR805 that is now 4 yr old technology, is still an outstanding processor and MCH amp, and it offers at least passthrough for analog audio.

Now, if Outlaw were to have such outstanding world renown DACs in their 998, that even analog audio connections come out sounding better after digitizing, then maybe my whole point is moot.:D

It's all really too soon to tell, but I would expect some form of analog pass-through to exist. Certainly the presence of Trinnov would tend to steer most users toward a digital input anyway (at least for multichannel sources) but we'll have to wait to see what they decide to do for the analog inputs. We may see the Model 998 retain the rear panel toggle of earlier processors, or we may see something else entirely.

And so we wait. I hate getting involved with a discussion like this so soon before a product is released.
It seems to make the wait then seem so much longer.

I know ethernet and wireless has been discussed, but I would love to see built in 802.11n/g/b and an ethernet port, but allow for internet connection sharing through both interfaces. In my house my internet connection is far away and then there's several access points. With ethernet sharing I could connect a hub or switch to the ethernet port and then connect my oppo and tv etc to the 998 and they'd all have access to the net. Conversely you could connect the ethernet directly to a router or modem and share the wireless with other devices such as the PS3, Wii, XBOX 360, iPad, phone or laptop. Granted I could buy a bridge and do essentially the same thing, but it would be nice to have this in 1 unit.

I could also see this as an add on option with a usb port on the back that allows you to purchase a wireless car separately.

the problem is 2 inputs isn't enough.. how many external av switches do you want to integrate

if you look at my current setup you can understand why the need more external inputs is needed..

while I only got 1 component that uses composite I have a min of 10 items that can use s-video, component, stereo, multichan analog and spdif digital.. while I don't expect to see multiple multi chan analog connections, I think a mix of s-video component, stereo and spdif could be a nice a nice setup deal..

dvi is a good option though with hdmi being available dvi has become a obsolete connection for digital video which only has realms in the pc frat..

does anyone know of an rf-av converter box..

was planning to add the nes, sega's older consoles to the mix..

while my options might not be realistic for the US customers, I'd be a international customer looking for certain features where the size of the processor isn't a factor, larger the better is all I'll say at a reasonable price..

as for the network switch that was an optional feature where you may have a space constraint where it isn't possible to an external network switch, it is easy enough to plugin a daughter board than it is trying to add in a 8-24 port network switch..

an option of a plugin module to cater for all the network desires of each piece of hardware that has network connection..

all in all the expansion of the current network module is a need thit is required given the things we may want to connect to the processor..

Redman6, you need to look at the 990 on audiogon for the inputs you need. No one is going to build a new lagacy system like you need. It looks like you are big into video systems vice HT or audio. The 990 is likely to be overkill for what you need. Maybe you should check out a music retailer online as they may have gear more in line with what you need.

We may be beating a dead horse here, but what the heck...


What two inputs are you referring to? If you mean the Model 998, we have no definitive numbers on input quantities. If you mean the Model 990, the only input type limited to two is DVI. Based on your current equipment list, that might be perfectly satisfactory for your needs.


Based on your equipment list, I count three that are limited to composite (SNES, N64, and VCR). As for the rest, I don't know the specific DVD player models in question well enough to know which ones offer component video only and which also offer HDMI. When using multiple DVD players, you will always need to figure out how to resolve connectivity - I speak as one who at one time had as many as three DVD players, an HD-DVD player, and a BD player in the system simultaneously (all run through a Model 990, I might add). The challenge relates to both audio and video, although with DVD players the audio is generally simplified: use coaxial or optical, unless it is a DVD-A, SACD, or Blu-ray player - in which case you'll want either multichannel analog or HDMI v1.1+.


No argument. It's all a matter of quantities. One 7.1 analog input is appropriate, as are a few component inputs, a few composite and/or s-video inputs, and some associated stereo analog inputs. I don't include coaxial and optical in that list, but they need to be there too - for analog video sourecs, audio-only sources, and even some digital video sources. I use coaxial digital audio with HDMI video from my HD cable box because the Onkyo 885 acquires the audio signal noticeably faster that way.


DVI isn't appropriate for inclusion in a new design, but DVI-to-HDMI cables and adapters are easy to come by and will allow HDMI video switching through the 990's DVI connections just fine. You don't have to be using a PC to use the DVI switching.


What you are looking for is an RF demodulator. In the US, Radio Shack usually sells them for about $20 or $30. An RF coaxial signal goes in, and composite video and stereo analog audio come out.


It's not a matter of US or overseas. It's a matter of the quantity of legacy inputs that you want to have built into a modern surround processor. As I've said (over and over and over again), it isn't economically justifiable to build something with all those inputs when most consumers are asking for those inputs to be phased out in favor of HDMI. The solution in your case, no matter how much it displeases you, is one or two large external switches with IR control and a good universal remote that supports macros. That combination can provide seamless automation even with the abnormally large number of sources you are interested in connecting.


Simply designing a daughter board that integrates into the rear panel and provides an optional network switch (whether 8-port or larger) adds cost, even before you factor in the cost of the daughter board itself for customers who want it. I haven't priced network switches in Australia, but in the US a network switch large enough to serve a very sophisticated home theater can be had for under $60. That is, quite simply, the most graceful and cost-effective solution for 99.99% of users. It costs about what Outlaw would have to charge for a "daughter board" or integral switch - probably less than Outlaw would have to charge - and only the folks who need it will have to pay for it. Personally, I don't need it. I've got a five-port switch behind my computer monitor that connects to the four network drops I installed behind my equipment rack, and those four drops meet my current needs with some room for growth.

RF (de)modulator


Not to be confused with the PU-36 Space Modulator

well i still got gear that is pre hdmi I wish to use..

economically adding the daughter board lan the may not be warranted, though I thought it was a nice option to have, considering all the items coming out with networking features and existing hardware that already has it as standard.

most processors come with network port
what's the harm adding 8, 16 or 24-48 ports..
for 10/100 gear starts about $50 for a 5-8 port
gigabit pending on switch features starts about $250 for 8ports, 450+ 16ports, $500-1,500+ 24-48 ports..

Many of us have pre-HDMI gear that we wish to use, and we can - and do - use it. That will not change with the Model 998.

If a surround processor has a network connection, that RJ45 jack is tied to an Ethernet adapter. The only hardware involved that has any direct relationship to a network switch in that component is the RJ45 jack itself. Everything else is separate and different. If you want a built-in network switch, do you really think it will be magically cheaper than a standalone switch that is produced in very large quantities by companies that do nothing else? Outlaw would have to buy the guts of a switch from one of those companies and put it in their product. Sure, they could add a 5-port or 8-port switch to the processor for under $100 (which is still more than that $50 port we're talking about for a separate switch), but if the companies that make switches for a living are charging hundreds of dollars for gigabit switches, you should expect the same sort of price for integrating gigabit into a surround processor. There's no good reason to add 5% or 10% to the price of a surround processor to include a network switch, but adding 20% or more to the price to include a gigabit switch is insane.

given some of the new features slowly showing avr's and processors in regards to network setup..

while it may not be practical to support a switch within the chassis of the processor..

though as i said it would be a nice feature to have non the less..

I think a 8-24 port plug-in module is do-able just look at the business gear cisco makes.. 90% of that is a plug-in module base....

it's just a matter of having enough space to add the lan switch module in..

then again most think of outside the box when thinking of networking..

A built in switch would be cool, but then again you would still need to connect to a router and you can buy switches for less than $20. That's one of the reasons I wanted to have wireless and ethernet built in so you could connect either way, but have built in internet connection sharing, so multiple pieces of equipment could share the 998's connection. There's a few ways of going about this, but it would make sense to me.

Past few days I looked into ethernet bridges and access points, but Linksys (cisco owned) seems to be fazing out both in place of routers only. The problem with all of those companies is that when bridging you pretty much have to stick with 1 manufacturer's equipment. You cannot use a linksys access point with d-link router as a bridge or access point client. It's pretty lame in my opinion because you can use any wireless card in a laptop, which is essentially the same card used in those pieces of equipment. Additionally there's been all kinds of issues with the recent N equipment. Having a build in wireless and ethernet client would eliminate those problems because it would be more like a laptop.

A major hurdle is how/what the internal os supports and if it is possible to add that type of client without ground up development. I don't know what the 998 uses or how easy it would be to add additional software. But I think it would be awesome and allow for great adaptability in the future.

But I do hope they do not follow the same path with regards to bass management routing as Emotiva has taken with the UMC-1.

Since Emotiva went off in a completely different direction (one that nobody seems to agree with, including folks like Roger Dressler), I don't think there's much danger of their approach being duplicated by Outlaw.

I would expect what ever outlaw releases will likely have similar features to what emotiva has, though the way outlaw deploys it that's another matter altogether..


from what I've seen of the UMC-1 on the outset it looks good functions ok though bugs gal-lour within its firmware..

they seem quick to add new functions before addressing existing faults, hoping the new features will suddenly correct the old 1's though, I suspect they need someone with an auditing background and programming background to walk through their firmware to fix mistakes and so forth to fix minor and major faults within the system, failure to do this will likely make the UMC-1 a lemon in precessor (pre-pro) arena..

look's on the other hand not sure what they are trying to compete against though I suspect given its rather limited connection options it looks like it's trying to compete with entry level avr's instead of its competitors within the processor (pre-pro) world, hats off to them is they succeed in the project, though limited connections means limited options for some people..

He's talking about the fact that Emotiva tried (unnecessarily) to re-invent the way the signal path works when doing bass management: they are applying EQ, distance settings, and several other adjustments before the high-pass crossovers, low-pass crossovers, and summing of low frequency signals with the LFE channel to produce the combined subwoofer signal. It's not the way other manufacturers do it, and it's a bad idea because the distance delays get applied before the steering takes place and because it forces the EQ-ing of the speakers to all address the lowest frequencies (reducing the number of EQ channels available to resolve problems in the lowest octave bands, areas that frequently need a lot of help). It's probably one of the UMC-1's biggest design problems, along with the inability to provide a true video pass-through. The other bugs are certainly problems (issues getting the EQ to operate, problems with audio signal acquisition, HDMI handshaking problems, etc.), but that's one that they've declared to be a design feature - therefore not something they see any reason to "fix." Like mach128, I sincerely hope (and expect) Outlaw to not copy that particular page from Emotiva's playbook.

I suspect, what the software designer had in their shop was different to what the final release product was.. now playing catch-up due to the difference in internal hardware is likely the hurdle they have yet to overcome.

sometimes removing hardware to save weight and its functions in aid of half compiled software derivative may not always function the way it was intended to function a poorly designed tree likely doesn't help matter either..

it is more implementation than anything else which is the likely route cause of most of the issues with the UMC-1, until they address this I doubt it will be a true functioning piece of hardware until it gets addressed, until then it is a watch this space mentality with the UMC-1..

there likely a need for a proper volume tree which likely doesn't exist in its correct form.. I suspect all issues relate to eq and main vol and sub vol sets before and after you apply all the surround sound, bass management is only a subset of instructions, though is eq hasn't been dialed in correctly then no amount manual crossover hertage you use will never correctly set your mains, surrounds or subs, ref settings for thx will likely void any manual settings you configure..

you actually need a fully adjustable thx sub, having the perameters locked is likely causing most of the issues..

sometimes cutting hardware that has a specific function to save weight can lead to instability within the firmware because it is constantly looking for the hardware which keeps throwing a spastic tantrum in irq errors because it is now missing the certain piece of hardware to function the way it should function..

while some functions can be done by software alone sometimes it still requires the hardware to be there to function the way it should function though in some cases it may not work without it being there.. it isn't always easy reprogramming code to pickup the slack of the missing hardware..

I to agree letsa hope that outlaw doesn't copy that part of emo's handbook.

I had been waiting for the UMC-1 for near 2 years now (preorder list and all) and watching the 997 progress at the same time. Am I no EE but I do believe the the UMC-1's hardware platform is good, most users report of its impressive musicality etc.. Bugs are not fun, but I guess most can be fixed; what I'm really sad about is the EQ/bass management/delay routing implementation which is a design choice and will likely not change. So I'll be watching the news about the 998 closely now...

I've seen some others pose similar theories back when the UMC initially launched and the reports from Dan Laufman that it was working "perfectly" in December were proven to be inaccurate once the unit reached consumers. The firmware developers were contracted from India and the hardware was built in China. If there were hardware changes that caused things to go awry, it would have been easier to fix by keeping the code that worked "perfectly" in December and have the factory return to the original specs. That wouldn't fix the design decisions like bass management and video pass-through, but it would help with the other issues. They have focused solely on firmware, though, so I think the likelihood of an unannounced hardware change in production units being the culprit is slim to none.

you never know Gonk..

playing catch up can be a bitch at times..

If there's a USB port for upgrades, how about the ability to plug in an external drive with movies on it?? Or the ability to stream movies over the network (if it'll have an ethernet port)?? I would LOVE these features and the receiver would truly be the heart of my home theater!!

Feature request:

A quick, one button push OSD screen with all pertinent source signal info, including video resolution, bit depth, audio sample rate, codec, bit depth, channel count and most importantly, for compressed codecs, the dialog normalization offset/value.

Excellent request! I'd love to see that too.

I like this as well. I've long desired a button that reports input audio format (including channel count), current audio processing, input video resolution, and output video. I'd want it to show up on the front panel, since I normally disable on-screen pop-ups like this, in which case it would tend to be either a single button that cycles through different bits of data with multiple pushes or a single button that triggers a series of front panel reports automatically shown in series. The 885 has a button that does a little bit of this, but it stops short of what I'd like.

Would be nice if there was some sort of parametric EQ or tone control that was independent from the room correction system, so both could be used together. The room correction would be automated; used to minimize the room's unwanted contributions. The PEQ would be manual; letting you adjust the overall sound to your personal taste.

More useful with music than with movies. The film industry has standards that mixing rooms adhere to. No such reference in the music industry. Heck, I have garage band CDs that were mixed in... well, a garage. (Must have sounded bright in there, because the high frequencies are completely rolled off.) Access to a PEQ would help compensate for that.

I like this as well. But I would want a setup or at least a toggel feature that allows for either on screed display or front panel display so that both the on-screen-display-supporters and the front-panel-display-supporters can benefit from the feature. Additionally, as I stated before, I would want the on-screen-display information to be displayed in ghost fashion over the existing video being displayed.

Outlaw has traditionally designed OSDs that don't obscure the primary display but offer a secondary display format for tech. info. I'd like to see this same philosophy followed. If you want to see all of this, buy a secondary display, don't burden your family and guests with it.

Sanjay.... That is a great request. I wonder if there is an easy way to implant this on top of Trinnov processing......

FEATURE REQUEST:

HDMI pass through when the SSP is in standby, either last selected or assignable. Great for sat/cable sources when the family doesn't want to fire up the system.

Koyaan, with all due respect, I don't understand your position. First of all, by "ghost" image OSD text, I mean that the text is semi transparent over the current video such that you can still see the entire video image AND still read the OSD text. Therefore, I can understand Outlaw not providing an option/toggel for such a ghost OSD overlay onto the current video display based on cost and/or technology limitations; but I cannot understand an argument for not doing so based on some imagined burden to family, guests, and perhaps other Outlaws that do not want that option. The burden on family, guests, and other Outlaws comes in when you are forced to access either a secondary display or blank out the current display to simply find out what settings are currently active and/or change one or two of those settings for the currently playing media. In fact, I am sure I am not alone in hearing "what are you doing" or "put the video back on" when I have accessed the current blanked out OSD format offered by the Outlaw 990. I was a Navy F/A-18 pilot in my younger days and was lucky enough to use one of the first Heads-Up-Displays--I now just want a heads up display for my TV!

I definitely welcome other viewpoints on this topic because this is a big "want to have" option for me based on "ease of use" considerations. But, admittedly, the lack of such an option will not sour me to Outlaw 998 (but neither would the complete elimination of S video and composite connections--which "old" technology is still on others' want lists (to each his own)).

Ed

I think Sanjay's suggestion hits on a question I've had about Trinnov. I listen to more music through my system than movies and I've wondered; Is there a good summary of how Trinnov works when listening to music in stereo? Can Trinnov be easily turned on and off without having to go into the setup menu? I'm thinking about how I can program remote macros for each activity (movie, music, CATV, game, etc) and access to Trinnov commands.

At this point, I don't know that there is a great overview. The only product offering it is still the R-972, and it has struggled so much that I'm not sure that it's a great metric for how Trinnov works ideally. It does appear that Trinnov offers different options that influence how it is used - the 3D remapping that is perhaps one of the most interesting capabilities is not necessarily required.


This probably depends mostly on how it is implemented - so at this point, it's anybody's guess. I could see a scenario where folks would only want the 3D remapping for certain sources, though.

I guess make sure it is a separate system than room correction.

BTW, you're the only person I know (at least locally) that has any experience with Trinnov. When you had the Sherwood in your system, did turning on Trinnov lock you out of any adjustments or features?

I agree with you 100%.. And it should be switchable for those who don't want it.

I think Yamaha has gotten it closer to "perfection" than anyone else... volume at the bottom of the screen when making a change.

If you want more info, you hit the STATUS button on the remote and you get a full screen overlay for both Audio and Video info, including Dialog Norm offset..

One of the other things that Yamaha has also gotten right, which I haven't seen used by anyone else, is System Memories. They will store a multitude of setting which you can then change with one button push.

For example, you can have your default settings for speakers (let's say Small with various crossovers), video scaling settings, etc on Memory One... then you can store a different setting for your speakers (i.e. large) and store only that information info in Memory Two.. you can choose to store all or only selected parameters per Memory... there are also 4 separate Volume memories as well. it's pretty cool. Then to recall, there are dedicated buttons on the remote, or you can use the Web Browser control to access them.

The Denon's will provide the same information, however it is buried in the menu a couple of clicks deep. And Anthem uses a 2 line overlay which cycles through the info with each press of the button.

And Pioneer has taken a different route with their newest receiver, the SC-37... they went with a two way RF remote which mimics the front panel display, so you can see the volume, source, etc. on the remote. (they also have an iPhone app that gives you a bunch of info..)

It would have to be a "post decode" type of processing.... curious what kind of DSP it would require.

The 972 locks you out of everything when Trinnov is engaged... no speaker settings, etc.. you can, however, turn it off after it measures and go and make changes to the distance, etc...

On a side note, after 24 hours of having it in my system, I had found and reported around 6 major issues to SN, including a full scale digital noise blast about 5 feet from my ears.....

I am so glad that Outlaw has gone down the road they are.... I cannot wait to see what they are going to come up with.

Sure. If it is global, then it can occur after format decoding and surround processing but before slicing-n-dicing the signal (bass management, time alignment, etc). However, if it is on a per-speaker basis (as Onkyo/Integra have implemented), then it would have to be one of the last steps before output.

BTW, having tone control or manual EQ per speaker brings up an interesting use: timbre matching. Measure a sweep through your centre speaker, measure the same sweep through your left front speaker; adjust the left speaker to more closely match the centre. Then do the same with the left front and left side, working your way around the room.

We're not talking perfection here, just getting different speakers in different locations to sound more similar to each other than they normally would. At the very least, it would bring a level of consistency to your system that it's never had before. Good grief, I hope the 998 allows a little more flexibility than that. I can understand locking you out of features when using the Speaker Re-mapping function, which relies on phantom imaging to re-align the soundstage and could be ruined by futzing with critical parameters such as time alignement, levels, etc. But when using Trinnov just for room correction, you should have access to some controls that allow you to shape the sound to taste. Ouch. That can't be good for someone who relies on their ears to make a living. Likewise. Even though it was a difficult announcement for Outlaw, I secretly smiled at the news of 997 being replaced by the 998.

I discussed this with Curt Hoyt, who pointed out that the output signals from the Trinnov process cannot be altered in any way, or it will disrupt the various remapping functions. Same as moving your speakers after alignment. But it is perfectly fine to put it just as Sanjay mentioned--prior to bass management.

I thought that's Trinnov's job . It seemed to do that rather well in my short time with a 972. Then the manual PEQ can be a kind of "useful" tone control, and in that case, I'd like it to be ganged across all channels.

One of the issues with using Trinnov innards for user taste adjustments is that those tweaks cannot occur in real time. You can make an adjustment in a menu, but you will not hear it until Trinnov recomputes the filter coefficients. So it's better to keep user tweaks in a separate module ahead of the Trinnov -- unless of course what you're adjusting is part and parcel of Trinnov's unique process.

Which is why I said "I can understand locking you out of features when using the Speaker Re-mapping function, which relies on phantom imaging to re-align the soundstage and could be ruined by futzing with critical parameters such as time alignement, levels, etc. But when using Trinnov just for room correction, you should have access to some controls that allow you to shape the sound to taste." How does Onkyo manage to give users tone control on a per-speaker basis without it being part and parcel of Audyssey's unique process? Audyssey isn't recomputing its filter coeficients each time you turn up the bass. There's no reason to lock the user out of those kind of adjustments if you're using Trinnov solely for room correction (no speaker remapping).

The biggest , and only gripe I have on the 990 is the fact, if I want to access my 990 settings, I have to black out whatever I am watching On the TV.
I came from a HK635, which I still have,that when any adjustment is made, ie Volume, surround modes etc, could be seen at the bottom of the TV when making a change. When accessing menu options on the HK 635, you could still see the material being watched on the TV.
So I agree a heads up display would be my choice also.

When you said “shape to taste” I read more into it—like applying some EQ. Trinnov does have a “target curve” capability same as MultEQ. Ignoring that, I suspect that the lockout we see happening in the 972 is not a result of careful thought, but because that's what they happened to do. Maybe it was the easiest solution?

Sure, it's easy to design a product with room EQ and separate tone controls. Thus far, no one has bothered to design a product like that with Trinnov. In the case of a Trinnov product, it would have to be done prior to the Trinnov block, but that's not a problem.

Correct, that is what I meant: EQ or tone controls. My point (in response to what Marc had said about the 972) was that I could see locking out those features when using speaker remapping but not when using only room correction. Again, not so much for movies, where things are standardized, but more for music listening, where there is lots of variation in program material. Sean Olive blogged about the latter: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

Anyone mention digital audio on zone 2/3... this is a major gripe of mine on the current/future onkyo models

The... thread... is... alive... again...

Nice point Wrong Hombre.:)

I am unclear as to how it works with zone 2 video/audio in receivers such as the onkyo x007 models, but on my 806 i cannot play anything from hdmi digital coax or toslink in zone 2, and the manuals for the x007s seems to say no digital audio output on zone2/3 in a fashion similar to the manual for the 806. I am building a home theater room with a tv for general purpose viewing and an electric screen for big movies. If the zone 2 can play video but no audio from hdmi, well then buying a prepro like this defeats the whole purpose of a zone 2 hdmi out, right? Am I missing the boat?

The second zone in most receivers and processors is basically a separate analog audio pre-amp. Doing more requires duplicating at least a DAC and possibly much more - you could handle up to PCM stereo if the second zone had its own DAC, but to go beyond that would require a separate audio processing chip for the second zone (decode DD, DTS, etc. and transcode down to PCM stereo to feed the DAC). Second zone video is often handled similarly (composite output requires composite inputs, component output requires component inputs) for the same reasons. That being said, I can see where supporting digital audio into a second zone could be pretty handy for some users. It could be done - it's just a matter of cost.

I don't know that I've seen any products that offer HDMI into a second zone yet. Multiple HDMI outputs typically feed two separate displays in the main zone (flat panel for normal use and front projector for movies, for example), while the audio goes to the same place either way. For your application (TV for general purpose viewing and projector with motorized screen for big movies), that's exactly what you'd need. Audio would go to the pre-amp outputs no matter which display you're using, and you would just toggle between the two HDMI monitor outputs.

So iirc the 998 is planned for 2 hdmi outs as layed out by gonk. I still reckon that zone 2/3 digital would help me at least, as I use my macbook to play music from itunes or pandora when I throw parties, and toslink would be preferable, just to cut down on cord clutter (and maybe a marginal benefit to audio quality), but analog outs from the macbook work as well anyway. It seems, however, with the increasing popularity of hdmi ( even considering the likewise decline of toslink and digital coax) that digital zone 2/3 would be a good feature suggestion nonetheless. So consider a feature suggested.

Yes, the two HDMI outputs should cover you for the projector and TV.

It's worth considering digital audio for second zone - but I wouldn't assume it would support HDMI. If we see folks start offering digital audio support for a second zone, it's more likely to be coaxial/optical only and probably just PCM stereo (no Dolby Digital or DTS). Grabbing HDMI audio for the second zone would require including a second digital audio processor and second HDMI transceiver under the hood, with a substantial extra cost and complexity. There may be a simple solution, but I wouldn't count on it.

I feed one of my iPod docks to the CD input analog channel and then out the Zone 2 output to the spare channels on my 7125 and then out to the back of my house for music at the pool. While it certainly isn't audiophile grade, it sounds great out at the pool.

The Denon i have in my livingroom has zone 2 digital audio that I feed my outdoor speakers with via an Adcom amp. Its really nice to stream my music outside while I work, and mean while my kid watches something else on TV via the same unit. The Denon is proving to be a solid machine while my 970 is looking at its third trip to Outlaw in the first yr of owning it.

They should at least pay for shipping both ways.

they have, Outlaws have been awesome to deal with, it just to bad Ive had to deal with them this much.

Feature suggestion:

This was just announced. Surely it's too late to add but just in case:

Airplay from Apple: http://www.apple.com/itunes/whats-new/#airplay

They're claiming it will be available in speakers and AV Receivers. Pretty cool. I use an Airport Express now.

Just throwing this out there.

I was looking at some of the new Apple announcements. I agree that it's likely too late to add something like this, unless Apple decided to partner up with Outlaw back in January (which, as neat as it would be, is pretty low on the probability scale).

I'm curious to see what features from the new AppleTV might be passed along to existing AppleTV owners via firmware update. It's a different platform (don't think the old ones ran any form of iOS), so I don't hold out much hope there.

Google is going to have a pretty full-featured set-top box announcement shortly as well. I don't think there's any way a niche manufacturer is going to be able to keep up with the speed of development in that space.

Marantz shows up as an Apple partner and it looks like the Marantz SR 5005 has a bluetooth accessory available that might allow streaming of audio much like Airplay. Maybe the 998 could include that kind of bluetooth device too.

For Airtunes, you can always get an Airport Express for under $100. It has both optical and analog outputs (on a combo 1/8" jack). Having this technology built into a preamp/processor or receiver would be neat, but not *that* much better integrated than a small external device connected to an optical input.

For what its worth, I don't believe that Apple has worked out the kinks in Airtunes enough to take this next step. I really love the idea, but their actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. At least in my house.

Hi there,
Im responding to GONK's comment re: "I don't know that I've seen any products that offer HDMI into a second zone yet. Multiple HDMI outputs typically feed two separate displays in the main zone (flat panel for normal use and front projector for movies, for example), while the audio goes to the same place either way. For your application (TV for general purpose viewing and projector with motorized screen for big movies), that's exactly what you'd need. Audio would go to the pre-amp outputs no matter which display you're using, and you would just toggle between the two HDMI monitor outputs."

But first let me begin with a quick intro, I'm new here and I am seeking further info about the 998 such as product info, issues, availability, release dates etc... I run a custom High-End AV in Sydney AU and wanting to test OUTLAW's 998 if possible..

Second, in response to GONK's comment above, I wish to inform you that a UK brand by the name of ARCAM ie ARCAM AVR600 has two HDMI O/P and it has a switcheable auto priority (via GUI), or enable both O/P and yes both O/P supports Audio over HDMI..

want to know more then go to www.arcam.co.uk .

Regards to all
cheek0

I just read through the AVR600's manual. It does allow HDMI2 output to serve a second zone, but it does so by slaving the second zone to the main zone - it has to use the same input. It was also interesting to see that Arcam's manual specifically recommends against using HDMI2 for the second zone, advising instead that you should use analog video due to the complexity of using HDMI for the second zone.

Replying to myself...

Or now you could get an Apple TV for $99 - HDMI and Optical outputs.

Airport Express vs. Apple TV pricing is typical Apple. They make you feel like it is a good deal to get their new product based upon their own pricing of older ones. My whole family has migrated to Apple and now we have an iMac, three MacBooks, countless iPods (classic, nano, Touch) and I use an Airport Express to connect my 990 to iTunes on the iMac or MacBook. I'd use the Airport Express should I get a 998 if it isn't wifi capable. It seems to me a wifi connection in a pre/pro would be very handy for firmware/software updates but mostly to stream audio and video. If Apple charges $99 for an Apple TV the hardware for the 998 should cost a lot less. Then again the $99 could be based upon the end user purchasing content and therefore be artificially low. Arrrgghhh.

I think the pricing is also partly a result of pressure from other products in the marketplace (like Roku's player). I doubt Outlaw could match the feature set of an AppleTV for $100, even when integrating it into an existing chassis. Unlike Apple, they can't count on profits from people spending money in the iTunes store to help recoup R&D costs.

I'd rather pay for sound and video quality as opposed to the latest gimmicky feature which becomes obsolete in a year. For any kind of media nothing beats a good HTPC which you can always tweak and upgrade. Alternatively, you can always get a cheap box like Popcorn Hour, Apple TV or Boxee Box which you can always recycle in a couple of years and replace with a new one. No half-baked feature built into a receiver will ever come close.

The only thing that I like is what Pioneer did with their latest networked receivers - you can install an app on your iPhone to use your iPhone as a receiver remote control. However, a small outfit like Outlaw IMHO does not have the money to develop something like this which is nice but superfluous.

Is there an actual public list of the features that will really be in the box? Does anyone know if it will use the same serial (or IP?) protocol as the 990?

There is this post which includes some details.

Don't know yet. In the past, they're retained some basic IR commands even when they had processors or receivers built by different manufacturing partners, but I don't know if the same would be true of serial protocols. I'm not even sure if they've said either way whether it'll have an RS232 port. (They might have said, but I've never had a reason to implement serial controls so I don't keep close track of it.)

I do home automation systems so good serial and/or IP control is a virtual necessity. (hint to anyone in power...).

Regarding the 978, I've already made known my request for Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (with bundled Sub EQ HT... all current implementations of XT32 include this) on the "Christmas" thread.

I would also like to see finer "granularity" in the available crossover frequencies for bass redirected from the sats to the sub, i.e. every 10 Hz from 40 Hz to 120 Hz (rather than every 20 Hz). So, if I get my way, the available crossover frequencies might be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 150 and 200 Hz.

Perhaps the main issue I have with the Trinnov implementation in the SN R-972 is that if one tries to tweak crossover frequencies after Trinnov calibration, the entire room EQ and spatial optimization suite is disabled. Audyssey at least lets you do minor tweaks without penalty.

For the typical HT enthusiast, Trinnov is a little over the top. The Audyssey suite is pretty incredible for the typical user. I can't see how the Trinnov system would improve my system but I really wanted to try it out.

Any chance the 978 will have a phono stage?

In addition to the feature "suggestions" I made above (and I am adamant about their inclusion in the 978), I hope to see shallower cases on the 978/998 relative to the 990, which apparently was forced to share its enclosure with the SN R/P-965. There's simply no need for all that bulk in a pre/pro, which restricts rear access and precludes many installation options. No more than 16" deep including all front and rear projections, please.

Thanks.

That's a good point, and one that seems rather reasonable. The Model 950 didn't have as much happening internally, but it was developed from the ground up as a surround processor and was under 15" deep. With the Model 978 and Model 998 sharing a faceplate (and possibly a basic chassis as well) that was developed from the outset as a surround processor rather than a receiver, we have a reasonable shot at something under that 16" mark.

I will be curious to see the differences in the 978 vs 998 (aside from Audyssey vs Trinnov).

I'm sure it is a bit early to see the specs in each, but prior to the 978 release:
I'm very interested in timing difference between releases and differences in feature/hardware specs.. Hopefully we will know more on the 998 prior to the 978 release to help us know how "inferior" the 978 is. Not sure that it will be too inferior.

Trinnov has me curious, but so does Audyssey XT32 (assuming the 978 has this)

Pure speculation on my part, but I doubt it as I'm sure they are trying to keep costs down. The only really good phono stages that are included generally come on uber-expensive equipment. If you're truely serious about a phono preamp, and want to keep your costs down, get a stand alone model. I'm amazed at the quality of my Cambridge 640P.

I got an outboard phono preamp 5 years ago for only about $50 and could not be happier. Remember that the signal from a phono cartridge is at a very low level, and therefore it is susceptible to picking up noticeable interference and hum. Boosting this low level signal on short cables to a preamp right next to the turntable eliminated the interference.

So even if the 978 has a phono stage I will not use it.

I love the phono stage on my 990. Haven't used the one on my 886 but I will soon.

I have another minor suggestion for the 978, much less critical than my previous requests. I'd like to see it offer onboard HDCD decoding, to be able to take advantage of the 978's promised high-end DACs, as opposed to decoding HDCD in the player (if available, and likely with inferior DACs if so) and necessitating an analogue connection between the player and pre/pro.

Thanks again.

I would guess it is too late to change the 978 too much. It might be a good idea for the 998 though.

Given the "true state of the art DACs" promised for the 978, the HDCD decoding issue really shouldn't require anything other than firmware support and (possibly) licensing fees. If not available at launch, it could be implemented by a subsequent firmware update.

It is also possible, such as with the Oppo BDP83, to decode HDCD in the player and output it at full resolution over HDMI into the AV processor. Thus it's not essential to do in the processor.

If that is indeed true, that would make the BDP-83 rather unique in that respect... I'm not aware of any other player that can decode HDCD to PCM at full 20-bit resolution without also converting to analogue. In fact, it seems to me that I saw a discussion to that effect on this forum while the 83 was undergoing beta testing, and, IIRC, gonk made a suggestion that the 83 might have the capability you describe, but I was subsequently unable to find any verification in the online manual. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however.

In any case, I don't have a BDP-83, although I will likely be buying a 93 when it becomes available. I'll certainly be looking closely into its HDCD capabilities at that time.

It's technically trivial--the decoded HDCD data that feeds the DAC is fed in parallel to the HDMI driver.

I have one. It's in there.

I've got a reasonably extensive library, and have only one HDCD dosc my BD-83sSE plays it to my complete satisfaction).
What do you have on HDCD that makes this important?

I have been reading about the much better sound quality that is possible with computer audio, & wondered if the 998 will have a group C USB DAC that supports sample rates up through 24 bit / 192 kHz?

Happy2: I too would like a computer audio feed. However, I don't understand why a separate DAC is needed. It would seem that once the USB signal is received and selected for processing, it would go through the same digitial processing (or not) and DAC as any other digital signal. Am I missing something? I can understand a unique DAC on a device like the RR2150 that is otherwise entirely analog but not on a digital processor.

73Bruin: This is all new to me, but as I understand it, you are right, you don't need a separate DAC, it is the proper USB DAC.# Group A supports sample rates up through 16 bit / 48 kHz.
# Group B supports sample rates up through 24 bit / 96 kHz.
# Group C supports sample rates up through 24 bit / 192 kHz. I got this from the FAQ on audiophilecomputer.com.

Most of the things that I would like have already been covered. I do want to include my strong suggestion and support of wireless communication internally and not with a out side or add on Box or repeater.

Since a phono preamp is now to be a feature of the Model 978, and if it's not too late, I'd like to see said phono preamp include a (switchable) infrasonic filter, say -3 dB at 15 Hz with a 3rd order roll-off, like the one on my old Apt/Holman preamp, a tour-de-force design "back in the day". IIRC, a similar filter was also part of the phono preamp topologies of early "classic" NAD receivers, as PeterT will surely remember.

C'Mon Man!! Maybe you can use your old preamp as an input to the 978.

Since I sold it 26 years ago, I'm afraid that option is no longer available.

I used to own the Model 1050 AV Receiver and loved the sound and ease of use, it has been by far the best audio receiver I've ever owned. I am very interested in the Model 978, however I really would like my next Receiver to include AirPlay. The Pioneer VSX-1021 has what looks like a great implementation where an iPhone or iPad app can both turn on and off the Receiver as well as choose music and adjust volume. Is this something that could be included in a future product of yours? Thanks!

AirPlay won't be in the Model 978 because there's no network interface. The same is true for a smart phone app to provide control. You could get an AppleTV for $99, though, and connect it to any processor or receiver to get AirPlay along with a number of other functions (including control of the AppleTV via the Apple Remote app).

I think the 978 pretty much hits the sweet spot of features to price assuming it will be priced at or below $1500. My 990 continues to work well and so I'm in no rush to buy a new processor and will wait on the 978. I did notice, and maybe it was mentioned before, that the 978 does not include a USB digital input on the back panel. That has been a convenient input on my 990 when I wanted to hook my laptop directly to my system to play music. Monoprice offers a USB to HDMI adapter for 2-channel use that costs $30 that might be a solution but the 990's USB input is certainly handy. I agree with Gonk that an Apple TV is a good network solution in particular since it can be easily upgraded/changed and the hardware in the pre/pro won't become a stranded asset. Do we have any idea if the second zone outputs will use the high quality DACs?

I would like to bump part of my post from Mar. 2010 for Outlaw's consideration in the 978 successor processor



As a clarification here, I would want the best possible DAC's in the pre-pro (and a high quality stereo ADC). That way I can run all digital input where possible and be able to take advantage of whatever correction systems are included.

I see the imbedded Linux system as a way for Outlaw to potentially fix problems easier and offer new functions and features (possibly as an added cost options).

I am pretty sure this ship has sailed. It is too late now to change much internally to the 978.

73Bruin is talking about the successor product. The 998, not the 978.

Most receivers and processors that feature Audyssey room correction typically offer what I like to call the "Audyssey triple play" that includes MultEQ XT or XT32, Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. Have Peter or Scott ever mentioned whether this will also be the case for the 978?

I hope it will at least include Dynamic EQ on top of MultEQ XT32 because one doesn't always listen at reference volumes like 85 dB SPL or more. So if you want the keep most of the benefits that MultEQ XT32 brings when listening at lower volume levels, you pretty much need Dynamic EQ too! Tact's RCS digital room correction for instance is also dynamic.

With more internet related devices being added these days, I would like to see a per input initial sound level setting.

Discrete IR and Serial (RS232) codes for mute ON and OFF, Headphone output ON and OFF please. The headphone one is especially important as even with some intelligent remote/controller setup for the 990, it's a bit of a wait until the output switches over.

I'm also assuming that the dynamic EQ component of Audyssey will be present, it's insanely valuable in an AV pre-amp.

i recently become interested in outlaw 978/998, especially in the 998 because of trinnov, i won't get a new system for a while so hopefully at least model 978 will come out(am am sure audyssey xt32 pro is great as well). i don't care about networking or poor quality streaming like spotify. i have read that 978 will have a "audiophile" phono stage and on board ad converter, this is pretty usefull since i then only need a turntable in order to rip winyl, since the quality of vinyl decreases by usage it's pretty valuable being able to get a digital version of the album on my pc. i know model 978 has coax s/pdif output, however that requires a pc with spdif input(some motherboards has internal coax spdif input) and coax spdif cable(added cost). being able to send audio over usb would be valuable.

many pc:s today lacks hdmi output but almost all has usb. having bout audio and video over usb 3.0 would be even better but i don't expect that.

As for video processing i havn't found a single unit that fits me, my next monitor will be atleast 2560*1440, i would like to have 3840*2400. But amost all receivers and prepros is limited to 1080p which is becoming very outdated. Even laptops has 1080p these days. Ipad 3 has 2048*1536. Converting and processing for every single resulution up to 4096*3072(and all lover resulutions) will make the prepro futureproof.

There is no such thing as "state if the art video processing up to 1080p". Spending $$$ on video processing for a low quality 1080p monitor is just stupid, these money is better spent on the monitor, i hopes outlaw 998 will be better at this point. As for 978 the right thing to do is to get it out so soon as possible. Changing anything this late is a terrible idea.

Nobody knows about the 998. For now we are still trying to get out the 978. As for greater than 1080p, that is the standard of what we have and it is NOT outdated at all. Most movies do not even get the most out of 1080p as it stands. To get a true 2k or even 4k picture, they will have to rework bluray to something better. I won't go into the subject deeply here but bluray is on it's last days or formidable years. Samsung and Sony said this among many others.

The 978 will be a state of the art processor but configuring it to pass through a picture that has not seen the light at this point or whenever is not priority. It will be a while before we can get a much higher quality picture AND the movie studios all must jump on board with this. The tv industry is hurting bad and Sony is bleeding financially on their tv division.

You will need a lot of patience for a better tv format.

Monitors with greater resulution than 1080p has bean here for a while, when i bught my pc more than 2 years ago there was quality ips monotors with 2560*1600 and 2560*1440 to buy, since my budget already was tight i got a low quality 1080p tn monitor(mistake). Bluray sacd dvd etc is getting outdated as well. Most pc:s today can play 1080p and beyound. Instead of getting expensive bluray players people will get htpc:s. Streaming and electronic selling is taking over. Lossless streaming and even streaming in 24 bit 96 khz is here http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/qobuz/1.html

I don't know about any affordible 4k monitors but a am sure it will come. I am sure movies with good resulution(1080p isn't) will be more common. The biggest problem with todays movies is the compression. I have spend some time making videos and the size for raw uncompressed fraps files is huge. I made a uncompressed 1 hour long video in sony vegas pro one time but there was a problem, the size was several hundred GB. I doubt video processing for low quality bluray films matters really. Quality upscaling and processing matters for gaming. Ps3 and xbox 360 has a actual res of 640p(mostly). Wii has 480p and wii u will feature true 1080p. Pc gaming is a differwnt story. Multi monitor setup is pretty common, one setup was one 2560*1600 monitors and 2 with 1600*something.

Fun reading:
http://xkcd.com/732/
http://hometheaterreview.com/youtube-offers-4k-video-streaming/

anjora, equipment at the resolutions you're discussing will be too expensive for most people for quite some time. Also, there's the movie studio issue.

beyond 1000's comments are relevant.

Hank:

I don't think you are correct about the price points for 4K type monitors. Its pretty easy to find 24" PC monitors that do 1920x1200 for under $600. Using a single 50" sheet would give you enough pixels to do all of the 4K resolutions. Even allowing for extra manufacturing costs and more expensive electronics (to upsize/interpolate 1920x1080), one could probably see this in the $3-4K price range. I don't know if you have seen a 4K picture, but it is pretty stunning (I saw a 4K demo using a clip from the Sound of Music at UCSB - it was the Do-Re-Me hill top scene and you could see the individual blades of grass)

I do think that you are correct about the movie studio issue at least in the short term. Longer term, I would expect that their desire resell 4K versions of their film libraries will lead to a solution.

We won't likely see another TV format for 10+ years. It took HD at least 20 years to catch on, and even though nearly every product you buy today supports it, I still see most consumers playing back non-HD content. While I'm a techie, none of my friends are - and none of them knows even how to set up an HD source properly. I can't count how many times I've had to fix incorrect aspect ratios on their systems - I can't watch anything on a TV unless it's in the correct aspect.

So there's a solid reason for not worrying about formats that won't be around for a while. But, IMO, there's also reason to dump older technologies. IMO having a phono stage makes absolutely no sense at all on this kind of product. If someone is serious about phono, then they're better served with a dedicated phono and 100% pure analog pre-amp.

While the 978's backplane looks a lot cleaner than many other products in this segment, there's still room for simplification. Just make sure the balanced connections remain. I can't imagine spending any amount of money on a pre-pro that didn't have balanced connections, so I'm glad to see the Outlaws have included them with the 978.

73Bruin: $3 - $4k is an astronomical price for a 50" display - wow.

twistybox: I agree with your first paragraph, and given 73Bruin's cost estimate of a 4k 50" TV/monitor, adoption of that amongst consumers would take a L O N G time. The majority of consumers are happy with 720p. 1080p is still a party for them. We must remember that us audio/video nuts are a small minority.
I also agree with leaving out the phono input on the 978. Take $50 off the my cost and delete it.

I put $2350 into my Parasound Halo JC-3 phono stage. Granted, that's probably more than a lot of (most?) vinyl lovers are going to pay for their phono stage, but I don't know anyone with a turntable valued at more than $500 who's running it into a phono input on a receiver or a pre-pro. They've got a dedicated separate phono stage device of some sort.

So by all means, delete the phono input that's not going to be used anyway, and save the money.

But this is all irrelevant chatter, isn't it? Isn't the consensus here that the hardware is set, and it's got what's being described as an "audiophile-level phono input?"

Streaming content on the Internet, specially at 1080P, is highly compressed and won't touch the quality for the same movie on a Blu-ray disc. Digital video technology allows Internet streaming providers to compress the picture to make it less demanding on bandwidth, but boy do you loose on PQ! This is the same situation we saw with the DVD versus satellite TV or the digital cable TV era all over again, the resolutions may have been the same but the PQ sucked compared to DVD, big time!

A friend of mine uses a HTPC to watch Blu-rays and my Oppo BDP-83 or any other BD player simply puts his HTPC to shame on his 55-inch Samsung LCD HDTV. I don't know of any HTPCs that are cheaper than a very good quality $200 Blu-ray player that can also stream all kinds of services through the Internet and DLNA.

Since when did SACD get outdated? Have you ever listened to a good quality hi-res SACD, DVD-Audio or Blu-ray Audio recording on a decent or good quality stereo or multichannel system? New SACD releases are coming out every week. Up to date, there have been over 7800 titles released on SACD, up from around 7000 one year ago. This market for audiophiles is far from dead. I've yet to see any multichannel high resolution audio download or streaming service, they're all stereo.

A computer monitor and an HDTV are two different display devices targeting different needs. When you work on a computer monitor, ideally you'd like to have the largest possible resolution (within reason) as this gives you a larger virtual desktop upon which you can open and display more documents simultaneously to work more efficiently and increase productivity, specially on a modern multitasking OS environment. Furthermore, you sit very close to a computer display allowing your eyes to resolve the finer details that a larger resolution like 2560x1600 or greater yields.

However when watching TV, normal people prefer watching at much greater viewing distances than when looking at a computer display as they relax comfortably on their sofas. Studies have shown that the average HDTV viewing distance in US homes is about 9 feet (2.74 meters). The human eye for 20/20 visual acuity can resolve details in the order of 1/60th of a degree (or 1 arc-minute). At that 9-foot viewing distance, the optimum screen size for a 1080P HDTV is 69 inches, smaller than that and you gradually begin to loose details as your screen size decreases. Other studies point out that most consumers buy HDTVs that are too small in size for their eyes to be capable to resolve all the detail shown by the 1080P HDTV they purchase because their viewing distance is too far with respect to the screen size at a 1920x1080 resolution.

When you move onto 4K (4096x2160P) territory, the issue is further compounded. At that resolution and when watching from 9 feet away, your eyes begin to see the benefits of 4K at about 83 inches in screen size and only realize the full potential at around 144 inches, i.e. a 12-foot screen size! At this point, you might as well get yourself a projector. Most consumers don't have the room and available wall space to accommodate a projector, that's why consumers buy mostly screen sizes in the 55-inch category. Watching a 55-inch 4K display at 9 feet won't add much to your viewing pleasure other than that provided by the increased color space that is used in 4K displays. No doubt 4K screens are on their way, some are already available in the form of projectors and some LCDs may come out by year's end, but until the prices drop down significantly for very large displays, the benefits will be marginal, unless you sit like 5 feet away.

As for 4K video content, I can guarantee you that this content will be available on physical media before streaming services. A consortium of Japanese companies has developed the Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) that can support capacities of several terabytes. We don't even know yet if the movie studios will go along as they're very paranoid about the possibility of having their very high resolution content like 4K being pirated. It's difficult enough to stream 1080P content properly with it's bandwidth requirements and for consumers to have affordable bandwidth to support it. Now imagine the demands for 4K that will be over 4 times greater.

One last comment, if you were to argue that DVD's resolution isn't adequate, I think that's a very defendable viewpoint. However, you state that 1080P isn't good resolution when it actually has 6 times more resolution than DVD. I find this a very narrow-minded and jaded opinion. Have you ever seen a well mastered 1080P Blu-ray movie on a quality display like a Pioneer Kuro, a good quality plasma or any good quality LCD screen? I suspect that you've being watching compressed streamed 1080P content on a small low quality LCD screen or computer display. Resolution isn't the only criterion for PQ and in the calibration industry, it's considered to be less important than certain others. ISF for instance considers that the most important criteria for picture quality are - in the following order - the contrast ratio, the color saturation, the color accuracy, resolution, followed by others. So there are three other aspects of PQ that are deemed to be more important than resolution in regards to PQ.

No lets by all means redesign the 978. That way it stays vaporware and we never have to know how it performs. Those of us who have waited for 3 plus years to see this thing remember when Outlaw asked what features we would want and the PHONO stage was one of the highlights. Don't believe that the 978 is some newly designed device that only caters to the newest formats. It was designed for sound all the way around and for those of us with large record collections that phono stage is a must. Most here don't have very expensive turntables but if we did I doubt we would spend big $$$ for a separate phono stage that cost more than the 978.

Agreed, let's be done with it and bring it out already! It has been too long of a wait. Anyway, these things are always going to get outdated at some point in the future.

As i wrote earlier i am not interested in watching movies. You are correct about the bandwidth issue with high resulition video. I agree that 1080p is enough for movies, but i use my pc for other things. Video streaming will get better by time.

As for dvd-audio and sacd:
The main benefit from going from cd quality is the mastering quality. I was able to hear differense between 24 bit 48 khz and 24 bit 44.1 khz in blind test but i hear up to about 48khz so it's not really suprising. I have read some info about sacd and the conclusion is that cd is technically superior sacd (and vinyl as well) the reason 90%+ of all cd:s sound crap is becuase of loudness war. The only reason for sony starded with sacd was to prevent poeple to copy it illegaly.

What I was commenting on my earlier post is anything ABOVE 1080p MUST be marketable to the masses at a "Masses" price, plain and simple. Nobody except a few of us audio/videophile nutheads would consider spending any more than $1500 on today's tv pricing. The 978 will be meant to pass through at least a 1080p picture. Hopefully it is upgradable.

Anjora I understand you are not interested in watching movies but a 2k or 4k picture has to be produce in mass so that the MOVIE watchers can justify the change from their newly-bought flat panels. Ten years from today is about right for 1080p to last. The tv manufacturers want consumer sales which is what their factories can be tooled for in order to make any sort of overhead on this "no margin" category. They need the next BIG thing that the masses will buy.

Face it...you and I will be at the mercy of Joe Sixpack who buys at Best Buy, Fry's, Wally World etc, etc.

What will bring 4k to the masses is likely to be next generation gaming consoles. The suported resulution is ofcourse one thing and the actual used is another. Expensive graphic cards will drive up the price of the unit. Lover price usally results in more sales. Still there was a few(inimportant) titles on ps3 and 360 that had true 1080p resulution.

High qality pc monitors over 1080p has been pretty affordible. 2560*1440 is usally more affordible than 2560*1600. I wouln't call $500 for a monitor expensive.

Sorry Hank, but you must be having long term memory issues. First top of the line TVs like the Sony XBR line still have MSRP's in the $3,500 range (e.g. XBR-55HX929). It was only a few years ago that other top of the line TV's could and did sell for close to $6K. Do a google on the 50" Pioneer Kuro FD111 if you don't believe me. Hell when I purchased my rear projection Toshiba it wasn't unusual to find 50" 720p plasma's with burn in issues selling for over $4K with some units in the 8K price range. Nor was it that long ago when buying a 1080p TV commanded a substantial premium (as did the first 3D units).

Yes, prices have come down, because of demand and the economics of silicon. Will it take 20 years for 4K resolution? I very much doubt it. Nor will it require source material. All it will take is a good scaling chip. If you recall, it was DVD's with their 720x480 maximum resolution that drove early adopters to wide screen TV's. At that time, sales started picking up, broadcast TV was 4 or 5 years away from the first digital broadcast and satellite was digital but of SD quality (640x480). It was a long time before bluray came out.

Sorry 73 Bruin, you're ignoring the point. Those astronomical prices aren't reachable by most people - only a few well-heeled. No, it won't take 20 years to get to 4k, but there won't be affordable products anytime soon. To restate the obvious: most people are happy with 720p and thrilled with 1080p.

Also, what beyond 100 stated in post #90277 above.

Hey, why are we discussing 978 features? It's too late. Let's talk about fun stuff, like start a football style "pot" as to number of weeeks until the 978 is available for shipping?

I agree. The 978's features are locked in. The hardware has been locked in for a while, and my guess is the "software" side is only being tweaked to function correctly. Software features are locked in by now as well. The 998 is still a dream away, so maybe someone should start a thread specific to the 998's suggested features?

Me too.
Scott said in his March posting that the certification testing usually takes about 2-3 months. Not sure I buy that. In my experience 3 months is kinda the minimum. I going to be conservative and say 4 1/2 months. Now the question is: Will Outlaw do a production run and ship units to their warehouse early, risking re-work/re-programming, assuming that all will go well with certification testing? Or wait until the unit is fully tested to kick of production? I'm going to say they'll kick off a little early because testing is going so well (I'm an optimist) and they'll be ready to ship shortly after testing is complete.

Part of me wants to say it's going to be a July 4th, Independence Day Sale but I think my official date is August 15th to hit the Labor Day holiday.

Labor day at the earliest and likely Halloween. I hope it isn't too scary.

Ha, ha, ha! Good one XenonMan.
I was previously thinking mid-October but I now think, it'll go into mid-November, say November 14th. Hope I'm wrong though and that it's sooner.

Actually, I am not. I am describing the prices and conditions that led to the current day. Here's a quote from Sound and Vision from July 2006 describing a Samsung Plasma HDTV with an MSRP of $3500. "Spotted online for as low as $2,800, the HP-S5053 appears to be a ridiculously good deal for a 50-inch flat-panel HDTV".

If you want to see the high end, google the price the Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite FD111 from 2008. Or you can search the forums to see Outlaw selling its refurbished Sony OO6 Qualia's at $6K down from $13K.

If what you stated is true, we would not be at our current price points. It was plenty of sales at "astronomical" price points that led to manufacturers building more glass fabrication plants and ultimately lower prices (supply and demand).

As for beyond100's point, I don't think it has a lot of credence for two reasons. One, there are still TV's selling for above 1500 even at the high volume dealers like Costco(and this is at the end of the model year). Two, I don't think the bottom end ever drives the market. If that were the case, we would all have black and white CRT TV's. Nor would Apple be the world's highest valued company.

In either case, I don't think consumer's will drive this any more than then it was consumer demand that led to 3D TV's becoming available. It was manufacturers thinking that they could increase profits by offering this feature. I am sure it will be the same with 4k.

Hey 73Bruin

The $1500 price tag is a roundabout figure I threw in. Of course more expensive tvs will sell but what I am saying is that the masses and I mean the majority of those buyers just bought 50 to 60 inch models. Nobody is about to toss them in ye ol' garbagio just yet. Some of those people are on the 2nd set. Any 4k tvs will be specialty for now. Not for a very long time will the market be viable for such sets UNLESS the tv manufacturers just throw them in at near current prices and discontinue 1080p. This of course has to fair well with the movie makers. The AVS division in my company sells only what is the better price. The $2300 units are....just sitting there in the back collecting dust. Over 90% of our customers are even coming with competitors' flyers to price match if we are a wee too expensive for them.

Anjora

Gamers are not going to persuade the manufacturers to make a mega expensive tv just for them. It would be nice but I feel it is a long way away.


If it ain't under 2k it ain't being paid by me even if it's 8k resolution.

Beyond: I certainly agree that 4K HDTV's when they will come out will be specialty items selling at a very profitable price point for the manufacturers and retailers. However, I expect like we have seen with 3D HDTV's they will over time come down in price. This will be especially true if the profit from a lower priced (but still more expensive 4K HDTV), is greater than the profit associated with 4 23" to 32" HDTVs.

What I think could keep 4K HDTV's at bay is OLED with its much higher contrast ratio's and better color. Of course they are starting out at $8K.

"...starting out at $8k." There you go. I'm not going to argue with you, 73Bruin. Beyond and I are stating that the large body of consumers aren't going to pay what a 4K big screen TV will cost for quite a while. And, TV glass fabs weren't built based on a few people buying newest, expensive sets. The fabs were built in anticipation of future sales of higher volumes of flat panel form factor TV's.

Time to move on to another topic.

if you are using a tv for gaming on consoles then there is no point of going above even 720p atm, if next gen consoles support higher resulution than 1080p i am sure people will wan't that high res monitors, just as a lot of people got 1080p monitors for ps3/360.. streaming in bluray quality should be possible. a 90 min long video on a dual layer 50GB disc allows a bitrate of 72Mbps, this is fully possible to stream with good broadband.

hdmi can't send 4k with higher refreshrate than 24hz. displayport 1.2 allows 3840*2160, 60hz. to take full benefit of 4k streaming you will need a broadband of about 1GBps(and some way to stream in that quality). i beleave 2560*1440 is becoming standard for pc monitors since apple is pushing out computers with 1440p. most pc users that are serius with their monitors will get a resulution of atleast 1440p and ips panel.

i can just hope hdmi will get dropped in favor of something better, displayport 1.2 seams to be more common than hdmi for good graphic cards some graphic cards doesn't have hdmi at all. it's just time for monitors to have dp 1.2 as well. then companies like outlaw won't have to spend 2 years getting hdmi 1.4a to work good.

An interesting article on the WSJ website today addressing the future of cinema. What TV's are eventually produced will need to depend on what source material is produced by the studios. This gives a little insight into what may (or may not) be coming to a theater near you.

Sorry but you are the one arguing. I have posted examples of higher prices in the past to explain what I believe to be a rational market moving to lower prices. You keep restating the same thing without any facts to back it up. You remind me of the people who said there wasn't a consumer market for PC when IBM PC's were selling for over 3K in 1982/83.

I'm not the only one here stating that your 4k dream is not consumer affordable and will not be for some time to come - simple as that. I'll leave the last word to you and I'm through with this topic.

When 4k comes out...... it will be overpriced until the cost comes down after Visio starts making them . Once that happens we won't have any content except when Shrek 5 comes out free with the free glasses and seizure medicine.

it's out already. the cost is about $8k atm. i don't think it will take that long time for it to get below $2k(mounts not years). for movies a better format than bluray is required to get good use of it, about 1TB maby, the challenge will be to get it out to the market. the price then need to be somehow affordable. 2160p has the benefit of perfekt scaling. it is 2x*2x of 1080p and 3x*3x of 720p.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/sharp-is-ready-for-intel-s-3840x2160-displays/15560.html#

There won't be any true content though. Everything will have to be scaled. I for one will wait until the content is available. My OPPO will be in service for a long time.

The number of people that are "excited" about anything related to Home Theatre seems to be vanishingly small right now. The blame for this has as much to do with the collapse of traditional brick and mortar showrooms as anything. While I am not going to blame any company for hastening this situation I wonder if a "recommended feature" for the future of not just Outlaw but Home Theatre in general might be RETAIL DISTRIBUTION???

Call me nuts but I have a gut feeling that the handful of retailers with actual functioning showrooms might jump at the chance to offer even a 978 and associated amp for a fair price IF that would also support broadening the potential base of customers AND strenghtening their INSTALLATION / CALIBRATION / INTEGRATION business....

Crazy?!?

after some reading i decided that i will go for something better than audyssey xt32 pro. outlaw 978 isn't a alternative then. unless trinnov will be good/fully implemented in 998 that won't be a alternative either. the quality of the room correction is more important than everything else together in a prepro. i am willing to spend up to about $5000 for a prepro that's really fits me, i will just have to find/wait for it.
-at least 20 mic measurements should be possible.
-so much as possible should be tweakable
-a high quality calibrated mic should be included from start. anthem is a precursor here.
-i want correction down to about 10hz, not having to have additional correction for the sub in this area would be nice.
-there is other standards than hdmi. the effective bitrate of hdmi 1.4a is only 8.16 Gbps, dp 1.2 offers 17.26Gbps which is enough for 3840*2160p60 with 30 bit total colour depth. almost all prepros and receivers seams to have issues with hdmi, audio dropouts, etc.
-good dacs is of course a must, but good adc is also valuable, especially if it's gonna have included phono stage. since cd:s is a victim of loundness war vinyl often is the only alternetive.

Well, I would suggest that you have a very short short list. Is there even anything on it at this point?

the only real must have is sound quality, for good sound you need to have stuff like good room correction. video processing is good to have but i am note sure if i will ever find a prepro that fit my needs. i might have to get a separate unit for video processing. i will have to consider separate video processing unit and have a audio only unit.

I would disagree that the room correction is the most important feature. It actually is more of a convenience and will not work well in all rooms. Overall basic SQ is more important than what room correction does. Without high quality circuitry up front the RC will be garbage in garbage out.

correction is needed the most in lover frequencies. at high frequencies it's hard to get correct data, often included mics is very cheap and it's natural that more harm than good will be done, you might not be able to tweak a single thing either. correction up to higher frequencies also requires more dsp power for equal result in lover frequencies, becuase of this anthem prepros as default limits the correction to <5khz.

both arc and audyssey pro is way to limited in tweak ability. a good room correction gives pre-set values based on measurements but let the user do how change settings like where equalization will be done and how much. Adam may want correction for the sub 5hz...100hz and fronts 50hz...3000hz but while Eva may have mains doing all the bass and want correction 40hz...1000hz. since every sub is different its important that the user has full control. sub correction below 20hz is important for me since i will use sealed subs with some 15+inch drivers.

Just do the corrections manually then you are guaranteed success.

Anjora, unfortunately you can decide to spend $10k on a pre-pro and you still won't find what you're looking for. No one makes the product you described at any price. And it's doubtful anyone will do so anytime soon. I would not hold my breath to see DP (Display Port) on a pre-pro. It doesn't make any sense to do so since that standard has absolutely no traction in the theater space.

Room correction is a form of automation to manipulate settings that should be able to also be manually tweaked. You don't need that automation to achieve great results.

Honestly, the 978 sounds like a great product, easily besting, on paper, products from others costing 5x the price.

As i wrote earlier i will have to consider stand alone video processing, this will add cost but money isn't my issue. But we don't know yet, if 4k becomes standard then displayport may become the new standard. This is much about the next gen consoles. As for 4k movies we simply have to wait for something much better than bluray(up to 10 TB). I am a little sceptical against hdmi 1.4a, it seams to be more troubles than benefits over 1.3 and the bitrate is still inferior to other standards.

http://en.community.dell.com/dell-blogs/direct2dell/b/direct2dell/archive/2008/02/19/46464.aspx

There is a unit that has great sound quality & fabulous room correction: ADA Rhapsody Mark IV/Trinnov TEQ-12. Unfortunately we are talking $40,000 MRSP !!!

$40k is about twice what i am willing to spend for the entire system. i think 1/3 for electronics and 2/3 for speakers, subwoofer, room threatment is a good allocation.

i am sure outlaw 978 will be a good example of that good electronics doesn't have to cost a fortune. i doubt it is that easy to hear difference between dacs but the cost of these chips is generally very low and maby only 1% of the cost for the entire system. still even the best dac ships has lover SNR than 24bits(144dB), ess sabre chips seams to be pretty close 24bit performance.

No room correction algorithym is going to tame a bad room but it can help automate the process a lot. Even the best systems cannot account for subtle changes in the room and only yield one optimal position. If you want to tame your room, by all means use a room correction system but more as a starting point than the final arbiter of what is "right". Half the fun of having a complicated system is the tweaks we make to have it sound as good as it can. Although we refer to these systems as "room correction" they are really just fancy "room measurers" with some built in algorithyms of how someone thinks you will like the sound. In all actuality the only way to "correct the room" is to correct the room.

When i write room correction i mean fine tuning AFTER actually correcting the room and getting good speakers, it doesn't have to be outomatic at all. A transperant eq and powerfull DSP:s is a must if you are serius about the sound, as i have understand this is genirally NOT the case. The equalization is demanding for the speakers and amp so you wont ba able to compensate for poor drivers.

While I agree RC can be a big help it should not be a prime consideration of which processor to obtain. Any newer processor will come with enough advanced RC tools to get your system very close assuming the room is not a nightmare. It is especially helpful with subwoofers and their integration with the mains in a normal room. The type of powerful RC your desire above is not to be had at any price. You would be better off setting up your room with a mind towards balancing the side to side and front to back aspects and then using the RC for final touches. If your room is able to be somewhat symetrical in relation to your system then almost any RC will get you there. You don't have to spend anywhere near $20K to get a great system. Your speakers are the most important part but the most important part is that they are similar in efficiency and performance. You can certainly get high quality speakers systems for seven channels at less than $3K including subwoofer.

Agreed, treating the room with acoustical panels, speaker placement, etc. is important before digital treatment, however some of us don't have the luxury of a dedicated music room. We have to deal with speaker placement & room compromises that the spatial correction that Trinnov promises, seems to offer.

Anjora,

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 isn't good enough for you but it's good enough for Stereophile magazine to award it the "Product of the Year 2011" in the "Accessories" category. I don't know if you realize how MultEQ was developed. In 1996 Chris Kyriakakis Ph.D and Tom Holman (inventor of THX) founded the Immersive Audio Lab at the University of Southern California. It became the technological incubator where MultEQ was developed after several years of R&D by Ph.D students such as Dr. Sunil Bharitkar, a DSP specialist and lead researcher behind MultEQ, over five million dollars of funding through an endowment from the National Science Foundation and more than 100 technical papers published.

How do you establish that at least 20 microphone measurements are required? Most digital room correction systems on the market are single measurement or single listening position based (e.g. Tact Audio, DEQX, Anthem ARC, etc.). Audysssey's MultEQ, Lyngdorf's RoomPerfect and Trinnov are some of the few solutions that support multi-position measurements. Audysssey's MultEQ XT/XT32 support 8 positions or up to 32 when using the optional MultEQ Pro feature/kit, while Lyngdorf's RoomPerfect also supports 8 and Trinnov only 3.

Tweak-ability can be fun but under the wrong hands, it can lead inexperienced users totally on the wrong path and sometimes even more seasoned users.

High quality mikes are great but can be exceedingly expensive. Over the years, I have seen many Tact Audio users spend up to $500 on good quality measurement mikes like the Earthworks mikes for instance and I won't even get into Brüel & Kjær mike pricing. You can't buy the world for a song you know.

You want digital room correction down to 10 Hz resolution only? Tact Audio has been offering 2 Hz resolution for over 10 years already. Audyssey with MultEQ XT32 now offers over 10K filter points. What does that tell you? Considering that the audio bandwidth is like 20 KHz, a little simple math reveals that they also now have about 2 Hz resolution (20KHz / 10K filter points = 2 Hz). Actually Audyssey's probably lower than that in the low end as they report concentrating more filter points in the lower frequencies where they're most needed.

I'm by no means implying that Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 and Trinnov are perfect, nothing in the world is, but they're more adequate than you seem to be giving them credit. But unfortunately since MultEQ XT32 or Trinnov aren't good enough for you, I guess you'll have to continue your search for that holy grail somewhere else, I don't know where though.

Yes there are other interfaces than HDMI like HDBaseT and DisplayPort. Yet no consumer electronics' manufacturers on the market have implemented them on any product. The HDBaseT standard and alliance was formed in mid-2009 by LG, Samsung, Sony and Valens Semiconductor (the original developer) to promote and commercialize this arguably better interface than HDMI. Yet despite some product announcements from Samsung and others more than 2 years ago, those interfaces have not show up on those promised HDTVs or other electronic products. In the CE industry, unlike the computer industry, once a standard is established, it takes a long time for it to be replaced. This usually happens when the existing standard no longer can fulfill a new need. HDMI has already gone through 6 iterations and I wouldn't be surprised if we get to see an HDMI 1.5 that more adequately supports 4K. The irony is that HDMI comes with licensing fees whereas DisplayPort doesn't. This may be unfortunate but that's the way the CE industry works.

On the subject of good DACs, you can can choose the best DAC chip on the market and still manage to mess up the implementation. The design of the analog output stages following the DAC are of the utmost importance. I was reminded of this two years ago by the design engineer from Simaudio, the makers of the high-end Moon electronics line. At the time, they had just come out with their first CD player to use the top of the line ESS Sabre Reference DAC.

Not all CDs are a victim of the loudness war; it's much more prevalent on pop music. You can also record and master vinyl with too much compression you know.

Like others here have said, what you're looking for doesn't exist yet and you'll be waiting a little longer than the 978's release to get what you expect and at the the price point you want, like probably at least 5 years more. In the interim, it may not be a bad idea to pick-up a very affordable 978.

arc is also very awarded, but it's still not what i'm looking for. arc allows up to 25 mic positions and audyssey pro 32, which is more than enough. by correction down 10 10hz i didn't meant 10hz resolution, i meant sub correction in a interval from 10hz(or below) to any upper frequency. audyssey shows correction from 10hz while arc shows from 20hz.

you are correct about the importance of the importance of the components surrounding the dacs, even after considering the impact from surrounding components the effective accuracy should still be higher than cd quality on good circuits. http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

i am considering a interim solution on the electronics front. i would have the same problem for the sub(nothing good enough) if i wouldn't built it myself(4 lms ultra 5400 18 is).

you are correct that it's hard to replace a established standard. in fact dp 1.2 is has been standard for graphic cards for a while now, apple is using it for their monitors and computers. still most pc monitors uses dvi. since dp 1.2 has been here for a while it's pretty likely it will b standard for 4k monitors. if a better version of hdmi comes out it will take a while for it to become common. after spending years getting hdmi 1.5(or whatever) to work good it will take several months to get the certification.

multiple mic measurements is of course only needed in a automatic system. digital eq tends to add artefacts so you have to make sure these aren't audible, this is the case even when making settings manually. you also need to make sure the filter-resolution is high enough, setting 10000 filters manually will take some time if you have to set then one-by-one. this is one of the reasons why i think the a pc should be used during the correction.