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.