This thread is meant as a place for folks to toss out ideas, so it all belongs here. Still, I'll toss out some counter-arguments for this specific case:


Plenty of HDMI inputs makes sense. No argument that more is better. I would think that for most systems (even those with game consoles) 5 or 6 would suffice, but I wouldn't object to there being 10 just in case. My gut tells me that it isn't a good match for the price point Outlaw's interested in. Still, I'm cool with the idea.


Outlaw would do well to consider two outputs. That being said, multiple HDMI outputs are complex.

If you have independent output control for those three, you just built the video portion of three processors into this thing. That includes three video switchers and three video processors, not to mention an interface with discrete control of each somehow. Most people won't need it, but every owner would be forced to buy it. That's going to turn off a lot of customers. And frankly, if you have HD running to three separate displays and want each to operate autonomously, you're probably better off buying three separate processors.

If you allow a single active HD video source (as is the norm), having multiple HDMI outputs is manageable but still not simple. Many processors with two HDMI outputs only have one active at once, and they do this for a very good reason: HDCP and EDID handshaking with multiple displays is not something that HDMI was built for, and it doesn't work gracefully (if it works at all). If someone needs to split their HDMI output three ways and have all three active at once, they may be best off getting a standalone HDMI splitter. They exist, but they're not cheap and they are not immune to system interaction problems (compatibility between components in the signal path).


If the system has as many as 10 HDMI sources, how many component sources will it have? I can see three fairly easily (Wii, an older DVD player or recorder, maybe a cable or satellite box that lacks HDMI or DVI), but getting past that becomes difficult. Tripling that number and adding one is entering a whole different realm. A modern HDMI-centric processor probably deserves three component inputs, although I could see arguments made to reduce that to two.


The odds of someone running such a complex multi-display setup today and not having HDMI on those multiple displays are vanishingly small. If it happens, an outboard component splitter of some sort can meet the need. Building the cost in and asking every customer to buy it is counter-productive, especially when a significant number of owners won't even use one component video output.


If you have all those component inputs, I can see needing an equally large number of digital audio inputs (some mix of coaxial and optical), but you can't omit analog audio. For one thing, we're already looking at 10 (about to be 20) legacy video inputs, and some of those will be limited to analog audio only. Since gaming is part of the discussion, the Wii is an obvious example of a source with no digital audio output. Additionally, leaving off a 7.1 analog output is going to represent a glaring and potentially fatal omission. The industry drove us to a reliance on multichannel analog connections thanks to DVD-Audio, SACD, and Blu-ray. Some people will want to use existing gear with that connection. Because HDMI audio is present you only need one, thankfully, although some people would probably look at the quantity of other inputs listed here and wonder why a second 7.1 input wasn't included.


Again, why so many s-video inputs? I have used s-video more than most people over the years, I suspect, but even when my system's entire video signal path used s-video (VCR, DVD player, DVD recorder, cable box, and game console) I couldn't have used that many inputs. Today I don't have a single s-video cable connected. You could probably toss in three s-video or composite inputs and cover 99% of your customer base's needs with room to spare. Heck, you could probably make a case for dropping s-video entirely and just having a few legacy composite inputs.


But unless Denon builds it, DenonLINK can't be included. They don't license it out to other manufacturers - it's proprietary. Besides, it's something of a dinosaur these days (although Denon would probably balk at that statement). HDMI can do everything that DenonLINK can do without being proprietary.


I tinkered with the proposed rear panel in AutoCAD the other day, and figure it would be at least 12" tall (assuming minimal blank space). To be easy to hook up, it'd probably be at least 15" tall, which makes it twice as tall as a Model 990 and very nearly a perfect cube. At that point, the front panel design would be difficult, to say nothing of shipping or integrating the thing into people's cabinets.

It's an interesting concept, but I still see no way that it could be a practical product. The costs for all of this would be significant, and the market would be very limited (which would in turn raise the costs even more due to economy of scale). Today's home theater is HDMI-centric. I don't enjoy saying that, as my dissatisfaction with HDMI's licensing team is pretty well-established, but it's a clear fact. Component video isn't dead yet, but its days are numbered. (Blu-ray players likely won't even offer a component output within the next two years, for example.) S-video and composite video still serve a purpose, but that purpose is much smaller and less significant than in the past. There have been posts in this forum for probably five years now advocating a substantial reduction in s-video, composite video, and stereo analog inputs on new processors. We haven't necessarily seen it yet, but I think the day is coming. A processor that includes a huge increase in analog connectivity (both audio and video) would be a niche product. Outlaw needs something mainstream that can sell as well as the Model 990 did in its heyday.