The 990, 997 (IIRC) and 978 all suffered from a lack of memory issues. So I hope one lesson, that Outlaw learns is don't be stingy with the memory. Its cheap (and will get cheaper over a production life). It also allows products to get out the door sooner, vs having to wait while code is being rewritten to fit into a memory space that is too small.

It might not be a case of "stingy" so much as the sad fact that "embedded systems" tend to be GENERATIONS behind the current "general purpose" computer systems, http://embeddedboard.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/comparison-of-embedded-processor-families/ . Some of most popular the system-on-a-chip embedded controllers use memory very sparingly and the decision to increase even "file access space" type memory can have negative consequences on things like start-up and routines that force a re-scan for settings (it is my hunch that this sort of problem is what lies at the root of the Sherwood 972 issues, I could be wrong but if that is the case it would explain why no "patch" will ever be able to fundamentally fix some of its problems...) .

I suppose the alternatives (like relying on a full blown interactive OS like Linux) may be one way of addressing this sort of problem, but from an 'efficiency & elegance of design' view (which most engineers tend to have to one degree or another...) it is more than a little like replacing a family sedan with a Greyhound Bus. I suppose there is not too much harm in having luggage capacity of 8 tons and seating for 56 (along with an on board lavatory! -- Motor Coach International but "overbuilding" is rarely either the way projects start out OR a viable way to "turn around" a stalled project. (And of course having a 12L 410 HP diesel motor idle while you drop the kids off at soccer practice would be the A/V pre-pro equivalent of having GHz class CPU and associated power supplies / cooling fans whirring around while you want to listen to music / TV shows, and carving out probably $250 or so toward non-AV specific HW is nutty too...)

And the motor coach costs quite a bit more than your standard minivan.

There are quite a few tradeoffs that go into the decision of where to draw the line between application specific and generic processing. Processing speed, cost and flexibility/performance all play off against each other. For example if you want more speed you'll either have to pay more or give up some flexibility. How well you strike a balance between those factors essentially determines how well your product will sell. If your product has what people want at a price they are willing to pay they'll buy.

I also think that the Sherwood problems are resource related. I'm sure the algorithm had to be simplified significantly to get it to fit on the 972. A change of basis from one vector space to another is dicey enough when you have a linear time invariant system. Start throwing in nonlinearities and I wouldn't be suprised if the simplified solution wouldn't converge for a large number of cases.

I must admit after all the speculation about the three previous Outlaw pre/pros that never came to be I am skeptical of getting into a discussion of what the 975 will offer. However, I recently stepped back to look at what my needs are and I may be OK with a stripped down (by today's standards) pre/pro. I don't think I need video processing; my Pioneer plasma does a pretty nice job with cable signals and my Oppo has ABT processing in it. Room correction; it would be nice but I'm not displeased with my current room configuration and the sound from my 990. Lastly, I want to use HDMI for all my sources (cable box, Oppo Blu-Ray, Apple TV, X-Box, etc). Add some nice DAC/ADCs to the equation and the latest decoding and it may be all I really need. Only one extra would be nice, but not entirely necessary, is a good MM/MC phone preamp for those of us with a vinyl addiction. Outlaw could leave off all but one S and component video, use unbalanced channel outputs (most don't have noisy electrical environments that require balanced), maybe only have one component video input and one output, and call it a day. We'll just have to see what they are beta testing......

Once you've had a good room correction system in place, it ceases to be a "nice to have" and moves firmly into the "must have" category. I used to be a doubter myself. There's no way I'd ever purchase an AVR or processor without what I considered to be the best room correction system within my budget. It makes a very noticeable difference. Even the lower end MultEQ XT does a pretty good job in my relatively odd shaped listening room now and I've since auditioned XT32 and agree that it's a definite improvement over XT. For me, the next processor is either going to be equipped with Audyssey XT32 or (less likely) the Emotiva TaCT-based solution (if that survives user scrutiny after being in the market for a while). Time will tell.

Best,

I disagree that a room correction system is a necessity unless you have a problem room. My 1st separate prepro was the 950, which had no room correction. I was able to place the speakers properly, but the low end was very boomy, had hot spots and dead spots, and no tweeking of the sub was able to correct it. I spent over $2,000 on room treatment, bought a 2nd sub, and finally got the room sounding great. My next prepro had MultiEQ and I was quite dissatisfied with the results. I liked the sound of the room better with no correction. I thought perhaps that XT32 would produce better results, so my next prepro, which I recently purchased, has XT32. It is admittedly better than MultiEQ, but I still prefer the sound of the system with MultiEQ turned off and the speakers balance manually with a good SPL meter. Although it might be difficult to buy a fully featured prepro without room correction, on my next prepro purchase I would prefer to have one without room correction. Bottom line is that I believe room correction is only important if you have a problem room where the speakers cannot be place optimally, and that one would be much better off to treat the room than have the prepro try to correct it without room treatment. Room treatment may be a more expense route, but I think it produces better results.

I think I'd prefer to spend that $2k on a long list of other things instead of "room treatment," but I'm kinda funny that way.

Your room has as much or more effect on the sound of your system as any other single component. You can get by spending less on room treatment, but the rest of your system can be the best most expensive equipment you can buy and it will not reach its potential unless your room is properly treated and sounds good. After the results I had, I am a true believer in room treatment.

No worries. Honest disagreements are inevitable in something as subjective as sound quality. I would prefer to have the electronics compensate for room issues.

Best,

If it can be done reasonably, best to deal with any problem where the problem originates. Electronics are not going to reduce excessive room reverberation, for instance, but I'm still in favor of electronic analysis and adjustment hand-in-hand with room fixes.