Depends on the market. Remember Pioneer's Kuro line? They had excellent video processing and really good plasma technology - most of it developed by Pioneer. They are part of that 1%. The problem was that the other 99% included a lot of really, really inexpensive stuff (Vizio, etc.) that included only the necessary functionality to get video signals converted to the displays' native resolutions. Those displays that just did the bare necessary video processing are part of the reason that the standalone video processor developed in the first place. It's why early HDTV's were so consistently bashed when it came to displaying SD sources (consumer-grade video processing tech was still too new and wasn't up to the challenge). There are a lot of projectors and flat panels around that do offer really good processing, and in certain market sectors that processing is an expected function. Most of us aren't the target audience for those products, though, and the more affordable displays are often the ones that need help the most. Displays that wanted to be counted as equal to the Kuro panels had to have equally good processing. Displays that wanted to sell in large quantities on Black Friday were the reason people started gravitating to surround receivers that included a Reon or ABT chip.


Let's walk again through the logic for video processing to see why there basically has to be something there, because it also shows where your "keep it simple" argument can be applied effectively.

If Outlaw were to eliminate video switching from the processor, video processing would cease to be a concern. Simple. However, the whole point of new processors today is to support HDMI connectivity. HDMI merges audio and video into a single connection, whether we like it or not. As soon as DVI and IEEE.1394 both failed to take hold in HDMI's shadow, it became inevitable that splitting audio and video functions apart at the surround processor would be almost impossible. We've got to get HDMI into the processor, and then we have to get HDMI video back out to go to a display. The most economical way to do that is to switch HDMI inputs. If we're only switching HDMI inputs, that's one thing - all the HDCP handshaking issues are present, but you could potentially keep it "simple." How many people will have a system that is exclusively HDMI, though? And how many who have some legacy video components (or want the ability to have them) will accept switching the video separately? Some people would like that approach because it makes for a clean signal path. Most customers won't see it that way, though. They want to have the analog video sources transcoded to HDMI so they can connect a single HDMI cable to their TV. Once you do that, you've introduced video processing. It could be very basic (a video ADC chip that can handle anything 480i, 720p, and 1080i and a deinterlacer so you can get at least 480p digital output), but it is basically a functionally complete video processor. The only question is whether to go cheap on that - use a chipset so anonymous that you don't say what it is because nobody cares - or spend a bit more for something that can actually help your marketing team. You're investing money and development time either way. One may cost more per unit built, but the development effort range for that choice may be anywhere from only modestly more to much more depending on what you want to include in the software.

An example could help here. I just helped a co-worker replace a Rotel RSP-1068 processor and RMB-1075 amp with a Marantz SR5005. One of the things he liked most was that he can now leave his TV set to a single HDMI input and the receiver will switch his two video sources (one component, one HDMI) automatically. It is enough to allow his wife to be willing to operate the system (using a good universal remote that they've had for as long as the RSP-1068) without his help. Only the basic controls are necessary to satisfy users like this - who will end up being a large percentage of the customer base for a product like the Model 978 or Model 998 - so there's no need to develop something like Anthem's AVM50v and D2v offer. In fact, going that far is probably going to be a bigger support hassle in the long run, as most users aren't going to be able to work through all those extra controls. Video processing is important - but it doesn't necessary need to be a Sigma Designs processing section with a thousand and one tweaks available separately for each input (as is offered by Anthem). It just needs decent performance and some basic options. Without that, though, there is a real risk of failure when it comes time to sell enough units to make a profit.


I think that once we move past the new "core" feature set (HDMI connectivity; some legacy digital audio, analog audio, and analog video connectivity; audio decoding and matrix surround processing modes; video switching with some essential video processing capabilities; and some flavor of automatic speaker setup and room correction software), you get into a lot of things that have to be carefully evaluated before trying to include. That "core" list is fairly daunting for a smaller company, but it's hard to conceive of a processor omitting any of them without being established as a specific niche sort of product. (The upcoming ICBM-2 could be considered such a niche product, with two 9.1 inputs and an optional volume control that make it act essentially as an analog surround pre-amp with bass management.) Some things can be managed. For example, integrating a good video chip with a pretty solid foundation (like the ABT2010/2015) and implementing a basic set of controls along with a full bypass isn't as costly as integrating it as a full-blown, full-function "external processor in the box" while allowing folks who really want to go that far to use the bypass mode and add a high-end external processor. Each time you omit something, somebody is going to object, of course. Leave out network media support? Someone will tell you that they just took the processor off their shopping list. Omit Netflix streaming or Pandora? Same deal. Scrap web-based control? Ditto. Include an eight-channel DAC instead of a ten-channel or 12-channel DAC, forcing PLIIz or other "front height" or "front wide" processing modes to be used by disabling back surrounds? Same problem. It's all a balancing act, with about ten times as many variables to consider now than was the case five or six years ago. You and I both would agree that leaving some of those functions out of the mix is a smart decision, and for the most part I think the Model 978 as we've seen it described has followed similar logic. Others will, of course, feel differently.