Likewise, I would rather do it physically than electronically (I don't see how room correction is metaphysical). By that same logic, I would rather listen to discrete multi-channel than 2-channel sources processed to surround, just as I would rather watch real hi-def video than standard-def scaled to my 1080p display.

But that belies the very reason we have surround processing and video scaling: for instances when we don't have multi-channel audio or HD video (respectively). Likewise, electronic room correction isn't a replacement for room treatments, it is for instances where you can't treat the room physically.

For most consumers, it is very difficult to find a panel that will pull down a 6dB high-Q peak centered at 43.5Hz without affecting adjacent frequencies. For people in those situations, it is more practical to use a parametric EQ; even easier if the measuring and equalization are done automatically. How do you know that? XT distributes filter taps evenly across the audible frequency range, even though it does little good (could even make things worse) in the higher frequencies. By comparison, XT32 concentrates more filter taps in the lower frequencies, where problems are the most audible and correction can yield the most improvement. XT32 also treats multiple subs more intelligently, calibrating each sub (setting levels and distances) independently but equalizing them together (i.e., essentially EQing their interaction in the room). XT equalizes each sub separately, even though we never ever hear them that way during playback.

Taken together, both those differences make the improvements of XT32 audible over old XT, even in rooms that are well treated (unless you believe that rooms can be perfectly treated, leaving zero problems to fix electronically). The room doesn't have to be "whacked beyond control" in order to hear the improvements that automated room correction can achieve. Even the most professionally treated home theatres use equalization as a finishing touch; they wouldn't be doing that if it was a "minor consideration".

And yet, I still would not base a decision on upgrading my processor on which version of room correction it had. For me, it IS a minor consideration when compared to the other attributes I want in a processor.

I think you are level headed enough to know that at this point Outlaw is beyond "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and the relative degree of non-disclosure of appearance / features of the 975 has to be offset by the less than rosy outlook that even the most ardent support of Outlaw must now have toward any pre-pro / multi-channel receiver again displaying its badge...

Make no mistake, the competitive pressure on all manufacturers of home theatre gear has NEVER been higher and whatever competitor forced the hand of the manufacturing partner is likely to be just as actively sniffing around to prevent the 975 from ever seeing the light of day.

Meanwhile Outlaw well knows that every day that goes by with them merely selling a two channel receiver is another day that they give up the cash flow that comes from their bread and butter multi-channel amps and subs...

So how is it that this competitive pressure on all manufacturers of home theater gear has not prevented Emotiva from releasing 3 or 4 processors? You make it sound as if Outlaw is being singled out, that their next processor, the 975, is being deep-sixed as we speak.

I beg to differ. One of the main reasons Outlaw has had trouble is that HDMI made everything else obsolete, and also many times harder to manufacture or bring to market. Even the big boys like Denon had bug issues and delays.

I certainly cannot disagree that HDMI has given major headaches to many A/V firms. The rapid pace of change that is not uncommon in the world of software driven standards committees is rather different than the glacial pace that most audio products typically "evolve"; every read up about how the RIAA phone equalization curve came about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#History

Your math does not seem quite right regarding Outlaw's most obvious web centric competition -- http://gdgt.com/emotiva/av-receivers/ I seem to recall that they have more than their fair share of problems too... I think this a little like the "big guys" of motorcycle manufacturing targeting true premium products from the likes of Harley Davidson and not group off on their own... like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawa_Motors

The bottom line on the brutal nature of competition amongst A/V products marketers is no secret. Any business journal is filled with tales of former "marque" names being part of "house of cards" types private equity deals and shedding multiple product offerings, often at the point in one's line where such products hold maximum appeal http://axiomaudio.com/tips_separates_electronics.html. The "marketing overload" that has long been the drum that the "big names" pound in the retail channel works directly against Outlaw's MUCH lower overhead which enables them to offer the EXACT kind of products that KILL the margins of the "big name" premium offerings at significantly smaller margin. The reason that Outlaw can survive on such meager margin it also what leaves them all the more susceptible to the demands of "bigger fish". The rampant abuse of "intellectual property rights" that does help some Asian based manufacturers to leapfrog their competitors also leaves open a door to firms on both sides of the problem to resort to more "old fashioned" business tactics...

http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/strong-arm-law

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/column-chinas-strongarm-tactics/966241/0

Not trying to convince you that you should, just pointing out that I disagree with your reason (better room correction doesn't make much improvement unless the room is "whacked beyond control"), since I've heard newer/better room correction make a noticeable improvement even in well treated rooms.

HDMI is the main reason for the 978 delay, I'll lay odds. HDMI, as I've stated, is incredibly complex and is still not perfectly implemented.

The reports that were posted did not single out HDMI so much as they highlighted the fact that the relative complex interactions between ALL the software that was needed to provide the digital source routing AND room correction AND UI features was far more time consuming than previous iterations of products. The decisions to test "edge case" situations that filled the RAM when using multiple room correction readings caused changes in the amount of memory that was deemed acceptable and those HW changes required additional changes in the firmware...

In summary the whole decision to utilize a "super premium" room correction (which most mainstream home theatre customers at tis price point demand ...) was I believe the bigger hurdle in the shift for the 978. There is probably something to be said that the lessons learned from the 998 failed HDMI effort helped to ease the transition to HDMI 1.4a. I think there is also a little bit of the "Vietnam War fought by WWII Generals Problem" -- problems that cropped in the last battle were addressed but NEW problems got neglected (and some of things neglected were the 'business side'..).

{As an aside I sorta wonder if the Trinnov folks worked better with the Sherwood Newcastle people as the tech was "newer" then or if Trinnov is less resource intensive than Audyssey, an interesting question that hopefully will be addressed by a firm that has experience with both...}

Overall the "shifts in thinking" are what DID NOT happen fast enough to get EITHER product from inception to production. Modern consumer electronics is more like "guerrilla warfare" that the more staid pace of previous offerings / battles...
These "shifts in thinking" are not unique to home theatre equipment. I recall that when automakers made changes to how "integrated" the entertainment / navigation systems on their vehicles were some choose to partner with firms like Alpine or Pioneer while others partnered with MSFT and still others tried to cob together enough talent in-house. Even today there is WIDE variation in what sorts "features" the in-vehicle systems support. Fortunately in most cases these are not "make it or break it" type differences for the car makers as most still offer some relatively "low tech" option too.

In contrast for a firm like Outlaw that cannot really afford to have a broad range of product offerings the painful process of trying to build a "core" feature set that is high enough to offer good value means that they when there are stumbling blocks an entire part of their business is absent...

The bottom line is that the "getting victimized in China" thing was a rookie mistake...one that Tribeman should have seen coming from a mile away and one that even casual observers were discussing well in advance of the hatchet coming down. He's been around the block a few times and should have known better. Whatever.

A "budget processor" isn't going to save this brand from obscurity. I really hope they've got something else up their sleeves.

The bottom line is we will never know who did what to whom. Everything after that is just guessing or axe grinding.