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...