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.