I wish I had participated in this discussion long ago. I admire the thoughtful contributions and Outlaws' responses. I wish them even more success than they had with the 990.

I have had my 990 for a couple of years now and I love it. I am a research addict and have never doubted that I made the right choice at the time. It is a great product. The only feature I truly wished for then is the first one in this list.

If the 990v2 looks like the 990, maybe I can fool the wife. I won't be able to do that if the price exceeds $1500. So, SantaGonk here is my list:

1. Like gband, I am using the Behringer DEQ2496 for equalization (two actually, for L/R/Center/Sub). I would like to see the digital loop option because not only am I making extra conversions between the digital and analog domains, but the analog signal going into the 2496 varies with the volume control. It would be nice if I could use balanced analog connections at "line level". That said, I would much rather have the digital loop as discussed earlier.

Equalization is a dirty word to many, but done properly within the digital domain, I think the good far outweighs the bad. I would be THRILLED if the next 990 had a parametric EQ as easy to use and robust as the 2496. Then you could forget the digital loop thing.

2. I love the second zone functionality of the 990. I wonder how much it would cost to run only digital inputs into the 990 and have it provide two channel automagically for the second zone. In other words, no duplicated analog sound connections would be required. It is rather a moot point, because I already own all the extra cables.

By the way, I am curious about two things: what percentage of users utilize second zone functionality and how many of those utilize video. Is video necessary for the second zone?

3. The first place I would look to reducing costs would be in cutting most of the standard def video inputs (see number 2) and analog sound inputs. Keep the phono, aux and a tape loop along with one composite and s-video. It looks impressive to see all those jacks on the back panel, but most of the time I look at the front.

4. In some ways, I yearn for the days of separates. With all that we ask of a processor, I think it might make sense to consider separation of audio from video functionality. What I propose is that the only video processing that would occur is a single pass through HDMI connector which would grab the audio portion of the data and do whatever was required for lip sync.

The moving target of HDMI has been discussed many times here, and that is part of my reasoning. If your video output device has adequate quality, just get an HDMI switch - you can get a 3 to 1 for $40 now. If you need more video processing horsepower, choose the component that fits your needs. It will probably have HDMI switching built in. If something new happens with video, buy a new video box, not a new processor.

I would hope that most of us investing this much in a system would have a remote powerful enough (with macros and possibly Ir emitters) to control this extra video device.

I think the approach of the original 990 was pretty good. If it only adds $40 retail for a 4 to 1 HDMI 1.3b deep color 1080P 340 MHz switch, then you may as well. Otherwise, don't bother. I would never consider that the 990v2 should do any video processing.

I know I am ignoring component video, but maybe that could stay just as it is in the current 990, except with fewer standard def video inputs that would be converted to component. This is also how we get the setup menus for the 990.

If the 990v2 were custom designed for me, I would let my display device handle all video inputs, with the exception of multiple HDMI handled by the separate switch. The only video functionality the 990v2 would have would be the single HDMI pass through to extract sound.