Absolutely! That's an excellent idea. I should have done that earlier this week, but didn't think about it. I fired off an e-mail this morning and caught an Outlaw on his way out the door to New York. Here's his response:

This description of the switching matches my previous understanding of it. The problem with losing the "blacker than black" data going from 10-bit YCrCb HDMI to 8-bit DVI is not the adapters used to connect the two - HDMI and DVI are perfectly pin-compatible, after all, so the data itself comes through the adapter(s) without being altered in any way. The problem lies in how a DVI display processes a 10-bit HDMI source.

I think the reason Outlaw used DVI instead of HDMI is partly perception. Whichever one they used would provide equally effective digital video switching, which is the greatest benefit of either option. HDMI would provide Dolby Digital and DTS audio, but we've already got that with coaxial and optical (formats that people are familiar with, everyone has on source components, and are convenient). It could also provide DVD-Audio, which would be convenient for a few people (those with the handful of HDMI-equipped DVD-Audio players) - most folks would still be wagging half a dozen analog cables from their DVD-Audio player to the 7.1 input, including anyone with a universal player who also wanted to listen to SACD's. What an HDMI input would not do is provide audio for the future hardware that will make the greatest use of HDMI - which while harmless today would be likely to confuse and anger existing 990 owners in a year or two when they tried to use it and discovered that the HDMI they bought doesn't do everything they expect it to be able to do. A DVI connection is clearly different and clearly a purely digital video switching solution. Is this the perfect solution? Heck no, but I don't think there is a perfect solution available today, so any approach will have to accept some compromises.