I'm in the market for a pre/pro and the 975 may just be the answer. As an owner of their 7700 amp, I love the look and performance. The 975 has this same look and ease of use, I really like that, not that I don't tinker but good design is a must. Again the 975 seems to do just that, from it's look, remote (both shipped and to be shipped replacement)to the manual's ease of operation, and not to mention the price - kudo's Outlaw!

I've read the latest review from HTR and scanned Outlaw's online manual. It seems to have almost everything I'm looking for in a pre/pro. But the 'almost' part is where I'm stuck.

What I find bothersome, from the review and Outlaw, is the lack of EQ. Not that I'm a big fan of XT, MCACC or other programs, I do use them. They dial in some issues better than without them - I still tweak the results afterwards. Understandably, they decided against going with the onboard EQ as it didn't meet expectations. But it still would have been nice to have manual EQing as opposed to bass/treble only. I was very happy when I bought my old receiver to find they had both. Even in the old days when I was running stereo I used an external EQ. Tailoring the sound was infineatly better than just bass/treble. I don't know if this can be implimented with a firmware update but it would make my decision alot easier.

I see Emotive just released the UMC-200, which does nearly everything the 975 does and includes both auto and manual EQ. However, Emo has had too many problems with the UMC-1. This new pre/pro will have to be near perfect to make any real headway. That and I've never liked their design - I know how that sounds Marantz has the 7005 and after reading many reviews and posts it seems to warrant consideration, except it's 3X the price (at least here in Canada).

Here's hoping that the 975 can knock one out of the park!

The 975 allows you to manually EQ the room but does not have an auto distance sensing program or a room EQ program such as Audyssey. It will allow you to custom set the speaker levels as needed but you will use an SPL meter with a white noise signal or the built in calibration tone. Once you set the speakers up you can adjust it to your room as you prefer.

The 975 allows the user to manually adjust the relative channel output levels, aided by its built-in calibration tone generator and either one's ear, or an SPL meter. I don't know of any multi-channel pre/pro or receiver that does not have this most-basic capability.

The 975 has no "EQ" capability - either automated or manual - unless one (by a huge stretch) considers its bass management capabilities as such - which I'm not suggesting we do.

I think it's important, in this and other discussions, to maintain a consistent set of terminology.

This is not a criticism of the 975.

I know I can set distance myself and levels, LFE trims...etc, via a sound meter. But I do not see anything beyond the bass/treble adjustments, ie: multiband equalization. I don't care if it has "auto calibration" like Audyssey or MCACC, only something more than just bass/treble to cover highs and lows. The new UMC-200 has 11 band EQ's for each channel in both auto and manual flavors. The chips used in the 975 may not allow or are unable to offer this feature. Again the 975 may be fine without this feature. This may also be one of the reasons that the UMC-200 is more expensive. Only time will tell.

I don't have much use for 11 channels of parametric EQ. I like my speakers and prefer to hear them as I bought them. I primarily use EQ to smooth out the bass frequencies below 200 hz. Rearranging the sound of the speakers artificially using an equalizer seems to be muddying the waters when it comes to looking for accurate reproduction in both music and movies.

I'm glad your happy with your speakers but as the saying goes, your milage may vary.

The absolutly finest home system I've had the pleasure to listen to sported 4-24 band EQ's. I swear the band was in the room. I could actually hear them breathing and could place them in the room...it just doesn't get any better! So "muddying the waters" hasn't been my experience. Good EQing isn't just for low frequencies but a requirement for "smoothing" out all frequencies...but that's just my humble opinion.

Other way 'round. Using an equalizer to removed your room's unwanted contributions (peaks & dips) results in less muddy sound and more accurate reproduction (i.e., you hear less of your room and more of what's actually on the disc).

I respectfully disagree. Without having a lot of test gear and a reference of the sound as it was recorded how do you set it up other by what sounds good to you. I prefer to adjust my room rather than the actual sound.

I tend to agree with you, XenonMan. My guide is: the fewer electronic components between the source and my ears, the better. As you allude to, the exception is that sometimes you can't smooth tall bass peaks enough with room treatment alone, and IF you can't get rid of listening spot suckouts by moving your sub(s), you might need a bit of boost.

I am sure folks here know much more about this that I do, but my very limited understanding of the process is there is a lot more to “eqing” a room than attempting to flatten a FR. The whole subject of frequency in time domain which gets real complicated very fast at least for me. At some point I would like to return to researching that process but I remember many folks suggesting to treat the room first before making any attempt at eqing. -Bob