or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 97

post #2881 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I agree. You want to "zero in" on the improvement. Start with large extremes, I.e. +10, then +9, +8. there will be a value when the response is clearly worse. When you get there, start backing off in the direction of improved sound. And don't forget negative values as well. Point is, somewhere between -10 and +10 there will be a "best" value. If it is the same as the original Audyssey-calculated distance, so be it. Nothing wrong with that. I ended up adjusting Sub1 by +6.4 ft, and Sub2 by -.1 ft.

I'd went the other way--starting from the current distance and going incrementally up/down. It's worth a try to start with the extremes and go from there.

As to what to use with mains+center, what about 'All Channel Stereo' as an alternative to DLII, at least with the OmniMic and Denon? Isn't the Denon essentially cloning the monophonic signal to all channels?
post #2882 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

In fact, thinking about it, I also use PLIIx to get the centre channel working too. (I is PLIIx guiys - someone will correct me if I have misspoke there).
 

Not sure I agree with using PLII, Keith. The audio test signal is mono, so sending a mono signal will result in 100% of the test signal coming out of the center channel. This means you are testing the splice to the center channel, not the left and right channels. I don't know how to send an equal signal to all three channels. Perhaps OmniMic can do this (I am an REW guy).


Right, but I think he is saying he first performs the left/right/sub testing and then uses PLIIx to see how just the center channel fits with the tweaks.  I do the same thing.

post #2883 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Not sure I agree with using PLII, Keith. The audio test signal is mono, so sending a mono signal will result in 100% of the test signal coming out of the center channel. This means you are testing the splice to the center channel, not the left and right channels. I don't know how to send an equal signal to all three channels. Perhaps OmniMic can do this (I am an REW guy).


Ah yes - you are right Jerry. I did this once or twice to test the centre channel splice, but also ran a separate L&R signal on the same occasions. Nowadays I just use the L&R. I learned nothing useful from trying the centre channel as well. Thanks for reminding me what I actually did :)

post #2884 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
During that visit, before striking out at connecting, we had put on the old lady shotgun/escape through the sewer scenes in Ratatouille, so we put that on after Clapton. I immediately noticed the tightened shotgun blasts as well as a more cohesive and enveloping ambiance in the sewer.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


What an image, Jeff! wink.gif

 

:)  I like that sequence too (and the thunderclap earlier in the movie when Remy and his cousin are cooking cheese on the roof). The sequence Jeff describes is a very useful one for testing all sorts of things - the bass is very deep and tight on the shotgun blasts and when the ceiling collapses soon after; there are also very good surround effects and it is a good test of front/surround integration; as the rats make their escape, there is exceptional use of the surround channels and in my system the heights come into play during the rainstorm; in the sewer the size of the space is well conveyed when things are set up right; also in the sewer there is a good test of front/surround integration and rear/front panning as Remy floats through the 'waterfall'; finally, as Remy is swept underwater, the bass and surround sounds are fabulous and very realistic - so much so I often find myself holding my breath as Remy is submerged, comes up and is submerged again; all in all an excellent little test/evaluation sequence that takes just a few minutes. Great movie too from the every-reliable Brad Bird. His Incredibles movie also has terrific sound, as does his first live action movie, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.

post #2885 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

I'd went the other way--starting from the current distance and going incrementally up/down. It's worth a try to start with the extremes and go from there.
As to what to use with mains+center, what about 'All Channel Stereo' as an alternative to DLII, at least with the OmniMic and Denon? Isn't the Denon essentially cloning the monophonic signal to all channels?

I do left + right. If you want another opinion, PM Craig John, who started this discussion, following advice from Mark Seaton.
post #2886 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

What an image, Jeff! wink.gif

Almost had Smell-o-Vision!
post #2887 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I do left + right. If you want another opinion, PM Craig John, who started this discussion, following advice from Mark Seaton.

I remember reading it a few months ago. The advice made my head hurt:). Essentially it was a series of pairwise optimizations among pairs of mains, centers, and sub(s), and comparing incremental changes, wasn't it? But very rigorous....

For what it's worth, I listen to a lot of MC music (Blu-Ray & DVD as well as legacy DVD-Audio and SACDs) rather than just two-channel, so I like seeing how the three "fronts" capture as flat as bass response as I can get in conjunction with the subs. The only reason I've done mains(+center)+sub for looking at the < 200 Hz response was because I had the powered center, and "all channel stereo" went back to a comment that Noah Katz made on the OmniMic thread a few months ago. But getting L+R and subs right first is certainly a solid base before looking at where the center fits in, powered or not. And I don't "cheat" by going to a 1/12 or 1/6 smoothing, either.

Of course to _really_ test all of this, play with crossovers etc. in conjunction with judicious use of the Pro Curve Editor, it doesn't hurt to actually _live_ in a man cave to have that kind of time.

Pity there's no complied guide to post-Audyssey Pro tweaks. It might come in handy as the knowledge base for Audysssey Pro as we move beyond the "trust Audyssey" level.
post #2888 of 5250
After I did the l/r I did my center by setting the pre pro to mono with mono going to my center . I then optimized the subs with the center by tweaking the center distance . I rechecked with the DVE disk to see if the mid L/R/C pink noise sounds were in the right place . They were .
post #2889 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

After I did the l/r I did my center by setting the pre pro to mono with mono going to my center . I then optimized the subs with the center by tweaking the center distance . I rechecked with the DVE disk to see if the mid L/R/C pink noise sounds were in the right place . They were .

I think this is a good approach. @Stuart: we are all in uncharted territory here. The important thing is that the result sounds good to you.
post #2890 of 5250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

No. They don't publish any type of official roadmap for Audyssey MultEQ Pro. Most especially in terms of bug fixes (other than the occasional unofficial phone conversations that installers have with Chris or Luke wink.gif).
If history repeats itself, they will release another incremental version of MultEQ Pro almost immediately after a new product is introduced to market that supports Audyssey MultEQ Pro.
Then, they *secretly* include some bug fixes into that version of MultEQ Pro. They do not include any comments about bug fixes (if any rolleyes.gif) in the release notes. The release notes will only mention the new products that MultEQ Pro will support.
Rinse and repeat.

Disturbed by your post and the fact that I'd not updated my Pro FW in a year, I exchanged emails with Luke this past week:

"I still have Pro ver 3.4.697.540 downloaded from just about a year ago when I got my Denon A100. I recently reran Pro with my Denon A100 because I upgraded my FR/L speakers. It sounds great, but I was wondering if I should I routinely check for and download the latest version in case there might be improvements to Pro?

Answer:
The new software is to add support for new devices.

F/U question:
So how does the Pro user/installer know when there is a FW "fix" or improvement? Would it be signaled by a new Pro FW version that is not a 3.5 or 3.6 but rather starts with a "4", like 4.0? And/or is there an accompanying announcement on the Installer page?

Answer:
We would have an announcement on our installer web and we would send out an email to all our installers to announce that we have released the new software.
post #2891 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post


Disturbed by your post and the fact that I'd not updated my Pro FW in a year, I exchanged emails with Luke this past week:
"I still have Pro ver 3.4.697.540 downloaded from just about a year ago when I got my Denon A100. I recently reran Pro with my Denon A100 because I upgraded my FR/L speakers. It sounds great, but I was wondering if I should I routinely check for and download the latest version in case there might be improvements to Pro?
Answer:
The new software is to add support for new devices.
F/U question:
So how does the Pro user/installer know when there is a FW "fix" or improvement? Would it be signaled by a new Pro FW version that is not a 3.5 or 3.6 but rather starts with a "4", like 4.0? And/or is there an accompanying announcement on the Installer page?
Answer:
We would have an announcement on our installer web and we would send out an email to all our installers to announce that we have released the new software.


Good info SoM. Worth adding to the 'master post' at the top of the thread?

post #2892 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Disturbed by your post and the fact that I'd not updated my Pro FW in a year, I exchanged emails with Luke this past week:
"I still have Pro ver 3.4.697.540 downloaded from just about a year ago when I got my Denon A100. I recently reran Pro with my Denon A100 because I upgraded my FR/L speakers. It sounds great, but I was wondering if I should I routinely check for and download the latest version in case there might be improvements to Pro?
Answer:
The new software is to add support for new devices.
F/U question:
So how does the Pro user/installer know when there is a FW "fix" or improvement? Would it be signaled by a new Pro FW version that is not a 3.5 or 3.6 but rather starts with a "4", like 4.0? And/or is there an accompanying announcement on the Installer page?
Answer:
We would have an announcement on our installer web and we would send out an email to all our installers to announce that we have released the new software.

I have had phone conversations with Luke stating otherwise. As one example wink.gif, there was a bug in regards to the Sub Equalizer that was fixed in a later release of MultEQ Pro. I cannot remember the specifics any longer as I have sold my Audyssey Sub Equalizer.

We don't need to hound Luke as they clearly do not want to officially announce/discuss/etc bugs in Audyssey Pro. It wasn't that long ago that Luke told me personally that they *optimized* some things in this latest release of MultEQ Pro in regards to crossovers. Nice use of words wouldn't you say? smile.gif Now that I think about it, I think we even discussed this in this thread (and even the example I mentioned above).

Let me put it this way...

Audyssey Pro doesn't contain any bugs and/or Audyssey has never fixed a bug in Audyssey Pro?!

I am a software engineer myself. I know better. Go back through their recent release notes. They have not mentioned any bug fixes. Even when Luke has told us that they have fixed certain bugs.

They have their reasons why they don't *talk* about bugs. For one thing, folks that paid good money to have their systems calibrated by an Audyssey Pro Installer would probably want their system re-calibrated (for free no less wink.gif) every time they heard about a bug that was fixed that may have adversely affected their system. I know that I would. This is one of the reasons why I purchased the Audyssey Installer kit myself.

No worries guys. It's all good.

I vote that we just let Audyssey keep doing what they are doing. And that is providing us with a high quality product, as well as, updated releases of Audyssey MultEQ Pro for free as they come out.
post #2893 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

No worries guys. It's all good.
I vote that we just let Audyssey keep doing what they are doing. And that is providing us with a high quality product, as well as, updated releases of Audyssey MultEQ Pro for free as they come out.

+1 biggrin.gif
post #2894 of 5250
Thread Starter 
^council, I was simply trying to get clear info directly and in writing, to set my mind to rest. Luke seems like a very straightforward guy to me. In addition, he is a very nice fellow and when I called with some questions when I first got my kit, he graciously invited me to call him any time-he quipped, "I can be your new best friend." biggrin.gif

I don't recall if I've had any reason to contact him over this past year, up until last week. Out of respect for his time, I followed the suggestion that he made to another of our members some time ago and which I pasted into post #2:

"Please advise other AVS forum readers to email techsupport@audyssey.com when they have a question.
Regards,
Luke-Audyssey Laboratories Installer Support"

I really don't know what to make of your conversations with him. He has provided a clear and unequivical response to me, so there's indeed no need to "hound" him.

My take is that if it's true that there are secret fixes that might've improved my results, I'd expect that he would've answered something like "It's not a bad idea to verify that your FW version is current prior to doing a new Pro calibration."

Anyhow, the system sounds great and I feel reassured. But will I try to remember to download the latest version before my next cal? Yup. wink.gif
post #2895 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

After I did the l/r I did my center by setting the pre pro to mono with mono going to my center . I then optimized the subs with the center by tweaking the center distance . I rechecked with the DVE disk to see if the mid L/R/C pink noise sounds were in the right place . They were .

One more question in my ongoing drive to develop post-measurement OSD, for you OmniMic users:
When you're measuring a given response, do you simply capture a single live curve after a decent interval, or are you averaging several live curves together to get one average curve for the speakers/configuration in question? Since I would think there's random variation in the measurement of the sine sweep (at least from the way the curve bounces around during the sine sweeps), it struck me that the latter solution made the most sense.

And since I work in the marketing research field in my day job, I think of the central limit theorem and n=30 as an reasonable set of measurements to estimate the effect with a normally distributed error around that estimate, and a Good Thing.

Or is this overthinking the problem far too much?.

I do have some spare time on my hands to _finally_ get as definitive a calibrated Pro results as I can, after all....
post #2896 of 5250
I just used one freeze . But I did it several times with similar results.


I am finding this adjustment is very sensitive to mic placement in my room.
post #2897 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

I just used one freeze . But I did it several times with similar results.
I am finding this adjustment is very sensitive to mic placement in my room.

You and I both....enough that I'm finding what I thought of as a reasonably flat bass response and curve edited adjustments aren't so stable unless you literally replicate the mic/stand placement on a particular spot, within a few inches. Am I missing something?
post #2898 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post


One more question in my ongoing drive to develop post-measurement OSD, for you OmniMic users:
When you're measuring a given response, do you simply capture a single live curve after a decent interval, or are you averaging several live curves together to get one average curve for the speakers/configuration in question? Since I would think there's random variation in the measurement of the sine sweep (at least from the way the curve bounces around during the sine sweeps), it struck me that the latter solution made the most sense.
And since I work in the marketing research field in my day job, I think of the central limit theorem and n=30 as an reasonable set of measurements to estimate the effect with a normally distributed error around that estimate, and a Good Thing.
Or is this overthinking the problem far too much?.
I do have some spare time on my hands to _finally_ get as definitive a calibrated Pro results as I can, after all....


I just capture one curve, but repeat it a few times to see if it is consistent. Your averaging idea seems good but TBH I can't be bothered - the difference may well be small and can't actually be heard so I take the lazy man's route I am afraid.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/27/12 at 2:22am
post #2899 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

You and I both....enough that I'm finding what I thought of as a reasonably flat bass response and curve edited adjustments aren't so stable unless you literally replicate the mic/stand placement on a particular spot, within a few inches. Am I missing something?

No, you are not missing anything, nor is it that your mic is a few centimeters different than the calibration mic. It is the nature of low frequencies. And this carries over to level-matching where I think some sophisticated algorithms are needed to perceptually match sub level to mains ... simple SPL meter won't do it.

Jeff
post #2900 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post


You and I both....enough that I'm finding what I thought of as a reasonably flat bass response and curve edited adjustments aren't so stable unless you literally replicate the mic/stand placement on a particular spot, within a few inches. Am I missing something?

 

This is exactly whay I am OCD about mic placement, even though I have been told many times that it obsessive to use a tape measure when determining the measurment points.  Obsessiveness=repeatability....

post #2901 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

This is exactly whay I am OCD about mic placement, even though I have been told many times that it obsessive to use a tape measure when determining the measurment points.  Obsessiveness=repeatability....
Are you sure that repeating the measurement position(s) repeats the results?
post #2902 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post


Are you sure that repeating the measurement position(s) repeats the results?

 

Jeff, it is my experience that when an attempt to keep the variables as consistent as possible (measurement points, mic height, ambient noise, etc), the variability in the calibration results are minimized.  This is especially important when the purpose of the new calibration is to assess a change in equipment, different speaker placement, etc.  Keeping other variables consistent allows one to isolate the effect to the equipment change.

 

Of course, it is not possible to have exact repeatability, I'm only suggesting that an effort towards repeatability has value.

 

If you are implying that there is a random nature to the Audyssey software, I don't subscribe to that belief.

post #2903 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Jeff, it is my experience that when an attempt to keep the variables as consistent as possible (measurement points, mic height, ambient noise, etc), the variability in the calibration results are minimized.  This is especially important when the purpose of the new calibration is to assess a change in equipment, different speaker placement, etc.  Keeping other variables consistent allows one to isolate the effect to the equipment change.

Of course, it is not possible to have exact repeatability, I'm only suggesting that an effort towards repeatability has value.

If you are implying that there is a random nature to the Audyssey software, I don't subscribe to that belief.

Geez, I feel like I'm a bomb thrower....and at the risk of wading into a personal dialogue between Pepar and AJ:
If low frequency measurement has inherent variability from measurement to measurement, it's an argument for replication because a given measurement isn't perfectly measuring the "true" response. On the other hand, above and beyond anything stochastic/random - there's always factors outside of our control above and beyond having the placement identical from test to test, unless you live in a secluded location or an isolation chamber.

In our house alone, there's outside noise from cars & ambulances (we're on the 27th floor of a condo building in Chicago a few blocks from a major hospital and major traffic routes, and it's almost impossible to have dead silence in that environment), neighbors coming on/off an elevator, the dogs deciding to walk around or scratch their ears, etc. etc. Add in "statistical variation" from Audyssey (as it was put a while back when the issue of different crossover orders came up), subtle variations in where the mic is placed for those of us that aren't as OCD as we should be about mic placement, along with the inherent variability in a regression-based smoothing algorithm, and it strikes me that at the end of the day, as much as you want to control for identical measurement, it's an argument for replicated measurement above and beyond that. If the last month or so of chasing my tail on the OmniMic measurement tweak has taught me anything, it's that.

How much replication is needed? Beats me - I thought of the central limit theorem as one guide, but even there, we don't know the population (as opposed to sample) variation around the measurment to tell us just how much measurement is needed to capture the "true" average response. And that's for just one MLP.

Pity there's no app to factor in horizontal/vertical displacement around a measurement position with measured background noise and identify optimal parameters for number of observations to do.

Remind me to kill ccotenj again for pulling me into the rabbit hole - the more I do the less I think I know.....
Edited by sdrucker - 7/27/12 at 11:28am
post #2904 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Jeff, it is my experience that when an attempt to keep the variables as consistent as possible (measurement points, mic height, ambient noise, etc), the variability in the calibration results are minimized.  This is especially important when the purpose of the new calibration is to assess a change in equipment, different speaker placement, etc.  Keeping other variables consistent allows one to isolate the effect to the equipment change.

Of course, it is not possible to have exact repeatability, I'm only suggesting that an effort towards repeatability has value.

If you are implying that there is a random nature to the Audyssey software, I don't subscribe to that belief.
Maybe I missed the context of the discussion redface.gif, but my context was measuring LF response. Above Schroeder, I'm sure we have the same thinking on repeatability.

I do think that there is some aspect about MultEQ that is not as fixed as you think though. It has been posted that Luke (at least IIRC) has commented that a revision of Pro handled crossover recommendations differently. For me that manifested itself when loading a saved AMD file and being presented with a different lineup of crossovers than when I had previously loaded it.

Jeff
post #2905 of 5250
Those graphs supplied by Audyssey dont have indication the hz and db Does it begin from 20hz across and 0db and up?
post #2906 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Those graphs supplied by Audyssey dont have indication the hz and db Does it begin from 20hz across and 0db and up?

Are you talking about the before/after graphs provided by Audyssey Pro? They are of very limited use. They show spatial averages, 1/6 octave smoothed. A spatial average hides any information about seat-to-seat consistency. The "after" graph isn't a measurement of the real situation after running Pro but only a calculation based on the initial measurements.

If you want to know what's really going on you would need to do your own measurements. Frequency resolution and smoothing should be better than 1/20 ocatve at low frequencies. Look at multiple points within the listening area. This will give you a better picture of how good the situation really is.

Something like this:

post #2907 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Are you talking about the before/after graphs provided by Audyssey Pro? They are of very limited use. They show spatial averages, 1/6 octave smoothed. A spatial average hides any information about seat-to-seat consistency. The "after" graph isn't a measurement of the real situation after running Pro but only a calculation based on the initial measurements.
If you want to know what's really going on you would need to do your own measurements. Frequency resolution and smoothing should be better than 1/20 ocatve at low frequencies. Look at multiple points within the listening area. This will give you a better picture of how good the situation really is.
Something like this:

Ive done the RTA with my HAA calibrator but mind you at 1/12 octave which wasnt too bad, but yes I was curious about the before and after graph?
post #2908 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Ive done the RTA with my HAA calibrator but mind you at 1/12 octave which wasnt too bad, but yes I was curious about the before and after graph?

http://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_multeq_xt32/
post #2909 of 5250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Those graphs supplied by Audyssey dont have indication the hz and db Does it begin from 20hz across and 0db and up?
The first vertical dark line from L to R is 100Hz, the second is 1000. The horizontals are 5 dB. As has been pointed out, it is the smoothing that limits the usefulness of Pro as a measuring tool.

Personally, I think of the Pro graphs as a useful, if somewhat coarse, guide to what Audyssey "sees". Here's my take on it.

It goes without saying that one should endeavor to set up the room/speakers/sub(s)/acoustic treaments (formal or informal) in such a way that Pro shows a relatively smooth, even Before graph. That is very desirable and indicates a room Audyssey should be able to correct quite well. However, undesirable lack of smooth/even FR on the Pro Before graphs is not unusual and is simply an indicator of obvious remaining room/speaker/sub placement issues. The uneven Before response may still be quite correctable by Audyssey.

An After graph that still shows the problem means that Audyssey has calculated that it is unable to correct the problem. One could reasonably conclude that the problem is audibly compromising SQ. Further interventions are needed. Use of a more sophisticated measurement system such as OmniMic, REW, etc., is needed to provide quick and accurate feedback of the results of those interventions.

A smooth After graph means the room will very likely sound very good with Audyssey engaged. It does not mean that the SQ cannot be further improved upon. It does not mean that a more accurate system won't see some problems smoothed over by Pro. And if such problems are found with such a measurement system, further tweaks (such as adjusting delays) could further flatten response and potentially improve SQ further.
post #2910 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

The first vertical dark line from L to R is 100Hz, the second is 1000. The horizontals are 5 dB. As has been pointed out, it is the smoothing that limits the usefulness of Pro as a measuring tool.
Personally, I think of the Pro graphs as a useful, if somewhat coarse, guide to what Audyssey "sees". Here's my take on it.
It goes without saying that one should endeavor to set up the room/speakers/sub(s)/acoustic treaments (formal or informal) in such a way that Pro shows a relatively smooth, even Before graph. That is very desirable and indicates a room Audyssey should be able to correct quite well. However, undesirable lack of smooth/even FR on the Pro Before graphs is not unusual and is simply an indicator of obvious remaining room/speaker/sub placement issues. The uneven Before response may still be quite correctable by Audyssey.
An After graph that still shows the problem means that Audyssey has calculated that it is unable to correct the problem. One could reasonably conclude that the problem is audibly compromising SQ. Further interventions are needed. Use of a more sophisticated measurement system such as OmniMic, REW, etc., is needed to provide quick and accurate feedback of the results of those interventions.
A smooth After graph means the room will very likely sound very good with Audyssey engaged. It does not mean that the SQ cannot be further improved upon. It does not mean that a more accurate system won't see some problems smoothed over by Pro. And if such problems are found with such a measurement system, further tweaks (such as adjusting delays) could further flatten response and potentially improve SQ further.

The trick is not to have a smooth "before" graph but low seat-to-seat differences. A spatial averaged graph with widely varying point-to-point responses might look smoother before than a graph with low seat-to-seat differences.
A spatial averaged graph is not a meaningful indicator if the initial situation is good or bad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)