here's what I'd like to see in a processor, given the size reduction in the 1.4 spec hdmi I would like to 6 hdmi in 3 hdmi out 2x zone 1's lcd & pj use 1x zone2 based on 1.3 if 1.4 can use standard hdmi then all well and good, I would also another bank of hdmi ports to cater for 1.4 spec devices..
The HDMI v1.4 spec doesn't change the connector - no size reduction, and no locking connector. The smaller connector offered in the spec is meant for camcorders only, and if the HDMI v1.3 smaller HDMI connector is any indication it may not get adopted very quickly. Even if it does, all people will need is a cable with that small connector on one end and a standard HDMI connector on the other - no need to include the smaller connector on a processor.
There is no reason for dedicated HDMI v1.4 ports. The only thing that HDMI's endless versions have done well is to support backward compatibility. A v1.4 port will work with any device from v1.4 on back to v1.0.
As for the three outputs, I think we beat that subject to death earlier in this thread. There are good justifications for two outputs, but supporting a third is going to either be of limited use or (depending on how serious you are about a second multichannel zone) would add significant cost that 99% of users don't need.
since I got alot of gear the isn't hdmi compliant I would say the need for need for a bank of s-video and component connection with atleast 2 composite inputs
for digital spdif should suffice for 5.1-7.1 while it's nice to have multiple analog audio connections though having 5-10 connections would likely make the unit so big it would be a bitch to to store it in a rack..
a plugin lan rack would be a nice feature similar to what you see in cisco rack mounts having a built-in lan rack to cater for things that require a lan connection..
I started to ask what you mean by "component connection with atleast 2 composite inputs" but I think we've also gone over the subject of legacy AV inputs endlessly in this thread. I've also explained the reasons that implementing what you want is cost prohibitive, and the solutions that can be had for little cost that can achieve what you want without building a one-off product.
having something that is configurable from a processor might be a good solution for gear that requires a lan connection..
i'm slowly working on upgrading gaming consoles though I still got many things that I use are still based on older tech so I can't remove from the processor for the time being..
having to source lan external to the processor can be a pain
An 8-port or 16-port switch is inexpensive and small, especially when you've already made room for half a dozen game consoles and several disc players. Sticking it into a surround processor still seems excessive to me.
Previous Topic
Index
