or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Integra DHC-80.3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Integra DHC-80.3 - Page 103

post #3061 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

But, I am wondering if true 4k from the disk is not another false hope. Several years ago, there was all the excitement about deep color. It was a must have feature that all the manufacturers pushed, and it seemed good on paper. Yet, not a single deep color disk has ever been released. It seems that equipment manufacturers may be creating false hopes and are way ahead of what the studios can and want to release technologically.
Even so, once 4k discs appear, might not there be other new tech features that we need, a newer HDMI version, or more discrete sound channels, for example? Personally, I am going to wait on the whole 4k thing until I see what the new disk format offers and until we see 4k disks starting to appear on the shelves at stores.
Its a lucky dip as you say fitzc ; whats the odds of this vvvv happening ; I would rather folded space tech this is at least backwards compatible with todays players cool.gif Not to mention how close you have to sit to even perceive 4k - a projector and large screen being prerequisites smile.gif Have a feeling there would be less expenditure too somehow ...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/5/prweb9512515.htm
post #3062 of 4252
How many of you Integra 80.3 owners considered buying something like a NAD M15 HD2 or the basic Anthem processor instead?
post #3063 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post

How many of you Integra 80.3 owners considered buying something like a NAD M15 HD2 or the basic Anthem processor instead?

I have the essentially identical Onkyo 5509 and I haven't considered these others at all. Anthem has its own room EQ which, by all accounts, is very good but no better than MultEQ XT32 and I am not sure what the NAD has. Room EQ is the one essential for me because my room is not very good without it and as I have XT32 and also the Pro Kit, I cannot see me moving away from that unless  something unquestionably superior (at an affordable price) presents itself. 

 

I am of the belief that the room and the speakers make for 99% of what we hear and that electronics contribute only a tiny part of the end result, so I would not want to spend thousands of $$$ more on a prepro for a minuscule difference in SQ. 

 

What is it about the two units you mention that brings you to pose the question? If the suggestion was that either of the other two 'sounded superior' in any way to the 80.3/5509, then you'd be talking to the wrong guy there :) My view is that their influence on the final sound is so small that it is insignificant and therefore all three will sound essentially the same. I'd love to see a DBX test on the three to prove the point! ;)

post #3064 of 4252
The M15 HD2 has just MulteEQ XT - not the XT32 version.

The M15 can be had for 5039,36$ here, while the Onkyo 5509 goes for 3301,65$ - from Germany the 5509 can be had for 2591,59$ incl. delivery.

I have an Sunfire Seven-Signature power amp - fore sure 2 classes about the official onkyo/integra amp. I somehow feel that it deserved a great processor.

My dilemma is about choice between extra functions or superior music playback. I am sure that M15 is better for music playback,but how good it is for movies I do not know. It is only 7.1 processor, but do have the MDC modular upgrade option.....


BTW - the ISFccc in the 80.3/5509 - does it have Color a Management System? I would like to know that before ordering a JVC X30 :-D



DBX???
post #3065 of 4252
Thread Starter 
^^^^

If you are so sure the NAD would be so superior for music, why wouldn't you buy it? I have never understood when people say a component is good for movies but not music (or vice versa) - the component really doesn't know the difference, correct? To me, sound is sound - either it is reproduced faithfull to the source or not.
post #3066 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post

The M15 HD2 has just MulteEQ XT - not the XT32 version.

 

 

That would totally rule it out for me. XT32 is a huge step up from XT.

 

Quote:
The M15 can be had for 5039,36$ here, while the Onkyo 5509 goes for 3301,65$ - from Germany the 5509 can be had for 2591,59$ incl. delivery.

 

 

There is no way I would pay more for a prepro that has XT. I bought my 5509 from Germany - much better price than here in the UK.

 

 

Quote:
I have an Sunfire Seven-Signature power amp - fore sure 2 classes about the official onkyo/integra amp. I somehow feel that it deserved a great processor.

 

The 80.3/5509 is a great processor. And XT32 just leaves XT standing, especially wrt to the bass. I would go as far to say that there is just no way that the final sound quality from an XT-equipped unit will be as good as from an XT32-equipped unit (unless you have a very heavily treated room where the difference between XT32 and XT matters less - in that case I would say the 5509 and the M15 will sound identical).

 

Quote:
My dilemma is about choice between extra functions or superior music playback. I am sure that M15 is better for music playback,but how good it is for movies I do not know. It is only 7.1 processor, but do have the MDC modular upgrade option.....

 

 

I dont want to get into the discussion about analogue versus HDMI for music reproduction, but if you are wanting the benefit of XT32, then the benefits of that outweigh any alleged superiority of using analogue (you obviously have to use HDMI to get the benefits of XT32). IMO. ;)

 

Quote:
BTW - the ISFccc in the 80.3/5509 - does it have Color a Management System? I would like to know that before ordering a JVC X30 :-D

 

It does but it doesn't go as far as that you would expect to find in a dedicated video processor. It will give you control over “Brightness”, “Contrast”, “Hue”, “Saturation”, “Color Temperature”, "Red Brightness”, “Red Contrast, “Green Brightness", "Green Contrast", "Blue Brightness", "Blue Contrast", Gamma and maybe some others I can't recall. Used in conjunction with the CMS in a display it can be pretty good.

 

 

Quote:
DBX???

 

I meant ABX really, sorry. A double blind test where the subject is presented with two known samples (Sample A and sample B) followed by one unknown sample X that is randomly selected from either A or B, with no knowledge of what make A or B is.  It's the only meaningful way to evaluate whether one unit is different to another - sighted tests have no scientific value.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 10/8/12 at 10:50am
post #3067 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by TL5 View Post

^^^^
If you are so sure the NAD would be so superior for music, why wouldn't you buy it? I have never understood when people say a component is good for movies but not music (or vice versa) - the component really doesn't know the difference, correct? To me, sound is sound - either it is reproduced faithfull to the source or not.

If you listened to a AVR and a good 2 channel preamp I think you would prefer the 2 channel for music.

Movies are played using various processing (Dolby, DTS, etc. Stereo music is not processed in a good preamp. All AVR.s do not sound the same with 2 channel music either IMO.
post #3068 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

If you listened to a AVR and a good 2 channel preamp I think you would prefer the 2 channel for music.
Movies are played using various processing (Dolby, DTS, etc. Stereo music is not processed in a good preamp. All AVR.s do not sound the same with 2 channel music either IMO.

I would concur. I don't find the 80.3 lacking for movies of course, but still trying to sort out music. Get different results with different mics.
post #3069 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jima4a View Post

I would concur. I don't find the 80.3 lacking for movies of course, but still trying to sort out music. Get different results with different mics.

Does it offer different calibrations for music and movies? NAD has a special "music NAD curve".
post #3070 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jima4a View Post

I would concur. I don't find the 80.3 lacking for movies of course, but still trying to sort out music. Get different results with different mics.

Does it offer different calibrations for music and movies? NAD has a special "music NAD curve".

 

Audyssey offers a music curve in the 80.3 and a movie curve. The music curve doesn’t feature the HF rolloff. More info here:

 

a)7.   What are the Audyssey 'Movie' and 'Music' curves?

post #3071 of 4252
Thread Starter 
This is what confuses me: If some pre/pros are much better with music than others, wouldn't those same qualities carry over to movies? Is it the analog output section that makes the more expensive pre/pros (Like the Bryston SP3) sound better, than say an Integra 80.3? When people say one sounds better than another with music, do they mean just digital sources, analog sources or both?

I guess some beleive basically all electronics sound the same, and others feel some are good with movies but just OK for music. I don't want to spend more than I have to, but I don't want to compromise music at the expense of movies either.
post #3072 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by TL5 View Post

This is what confuses me: If some pre/pros are much better with music than others, wouldn't those same qualities carry over to movies? Is it the analog output section that makes the more expensive pre/pros (Like the Bryston SP3) sound better, than say an Integra 80.3? When people say one sounds better than another with music, do they mean just digital sources, analog sources or both?
I guess some beleive basically all electronics sound the same, and others feel some are good with movies but just OK for music. I don't want to spend more than I have to, but I don't want to compromise music at the expense of movies either.


My first 5.1 product was a Sony receive 50ES something - long time ago. Had good detailed surround. But had massive difficult time driving my big JBL fronts. Then I augmented it with a Sunfire Cinema Grand 5x200W power amp. It was a major upgrade.

The next step was to replace the Sony receiver with a Thule PR350 processor. What a massive night and day improvement for music playback. Ok - this processor was more than 2x the price of the Sony receiver. But the upgrade for surround was not that big.

I have the feeling that these big Onkyo/Integra processors have lots of xtra processing, like THX and Room-correction that them sound better in movies than the more sparse purist gear...

The first time I heard THX processing vs. not, was on some expensive Proceed gear 15+ years ago, and it for sure increased the size of the "bubble" I was sitting in during movies...
post #3073 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey offers a music curve in the 80.3 and a movie curve. The music curve doesn’t feature the HF rolloff. More info here:

a)7.   What are the Audyssey 'Movie' and 'Music' curves?

Thanks. That FAQ is really nice. For a moment I was worried that THX processing and Audyssey was mutually exclusive.
post #3074 of 4252
Code:
I have a question concerning updating the firmware of my 80.3. It Has been a year that I've had my 80.3 and I have only done one update since.. I see now that there are several updates that I haven't got. Are there any precautions that I should take prior to doing the 7/5/12 update? My current version is 1041-0400-0110-1101
post #3075 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post


If you listened to a AVR and a good 2 channel preamp I think you would prefer the 2 channel for music.
 

Nope.  I listen to multichannel music a lot.

post #3076 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by TL5 View Post

This is what confuses me: If some pre/pros are much better with music than others, wouldn't those same qualities carry over to movies? Is it the analog output section that makes the more expensive pre/pros (Like the Bryston SP3) sound better, than say an Integra 80.3? When people say one sounds better than another with music, do they mean just digital sources, analog sources or both?
.
I try to look at it from the position of what your reproducing TL5; a multichannel movie mix with sounds coming from all directions trying to concentrate on disparate elements ; including foley effects that have been artificially created [ does a gun shot really sound like that ] compared to something people have had exposure to in a live setting and are trying to reproduce as close as possible to the real thing ..

Follows that some like playing 2ch music as purely as possible and that means analog direct with no bass management / room eq so thats another differentiator wink.gif If you like multichannel primarily its an easy decision to pick the 80.3 imo If you like 2ch and the integra doesnt do it for you [though I dont see much/any negativity ] a 2ch pre amp with h/t bypass would be another option with the 80.3 ..
Edited by cwt - 10/10/12 at 12:37am
post #3077 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt View Post


I try to look at it from the position of what your reproducing TL5; a multichannel movie mix with sounds coming from all directions trying to concentrate on disparate elements ; including foley effects that have been artificially created [ does a gun shot really sound like that ] compared to something people have had exposure to in a live setting and are trying to reproduce as close as possible to the real thing ..
Follows that some like playing 2ch music as purely as possible and that means analog direct with no bass management / room eq so thats another differentiator wink.gif If you like multichannel primarily its an easy decision to pick the 80.3 imo If you like 2ch and the integra doesnt do it for you [though I dont see much/any negativity ] a 2ch pre amp with h/t bypass would be another option with the 80.3 ..

Well said.  Of course (and noting the phrase I highlighted in your post), one has to ask why room EQ is OK for surround where the multiple additional channels tend to supplant the effects of room acoustics but it is anathema in the very same room with 2ch music where successful reproduction is hugely dependent on local acoustics?  Could it be adaptation bias?

post #3078 of 4252
It seems reasonable at first that you should get the best sound (closest to what the artist intended) if you apply the least amount of processing to it. Unfortunately, this doesn't take into account the fact that most speakers are highly nonlinear (inaccurate) and that the sound is distorted further by room acoustics. Until just a few years ago the only quality adjustments available to us were careful speaker auditioning and room treatments, either of which can be very expensive in time and money. Tone controls and graphic and parametric equalizers were only bandaids.

Room equalization software, whether Audyssey or one of its competitors, has changed that, but many people haven't realized it. If the audio system already includes high quality speakers and room treatments, improvements are subtle, so it's easy for traditionalists to be nay-sayers.
post #3079 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey offers a music curve in the 80.3 and a movie curve. The music curve doesn’t feature the HF rolloff. More info here:

a)7.   What are the Audyssey 'Movie' and 'Music' curves?

Actually NAD have their own custom Audyssey curve on top of the Reference/Movie and Flat/Music curves. It was developed with the help of none other than Paul Barton of PSB speakers, a sister company of NAD.

As I mentioned above, the T 775 offers not only the standard “Audyssey EQ” response curve, but also a special “NAD EQ” curve, which raises an important question: what’s the difference between the two? I posed this question to Greg Stidsen, NAD’s Director of Product Development, who offered a great deal of useful background information.

First, Stidsen explained that it was a natural choice for NAD to explore digital room correction solutions in general, and to collaborate with Audyssey in particular. This is partly because of NAD’s long association with TacT’s Peter Lyngdorf, Stidsen observed, who “had sold his interest in NAD to pursue the development of the TacT room correction (system) along with V. Bosovik many years ago.” But apart from its familiarity with the Lyngdorf and TacT’s efforts in the room correction field, NAD also had a great deal of prior experience in working with Audyssey co-founder Tomlinson Holman (of THX fame), since “NAD developed the first THX product, the 208THX amplifier.” Putting these two factors together, it was perhaps inevitable that NAD would want to incorporate Audyssey features in its receivers, and indeed NAD worked closely with Audyssey as it developed successive iterations of its systems, including the MultEQ XT system incorporated in the T 775.

But, says Stidsen, the key issue for any room correction involves the fact that “all of these adaptive correction systems base their correction on a measurement of the existing acoustic 'fingerprint' of the speakers and their interaction with the room. The system doesn't know what the overall 'correct' or 'target' response should be; this needs to be programmed into the system. There are several theories about what the target response should be…”

Expanding on this point, Stidsen explains that, “in a nutshell, most speakers are designed for 'flat' response in an anechoic chamber. When that flat responding speaker is placed into a typical room, the bass response is elevated due to 'room gain' and the high frequencies are absorbed by walls and furnishings. The resulting response in the room is very different from the response in the anechoic chamber, which mimics a 'free space' response. All recording engineers use a speaker in a room to monitor their recordings, and the acoustic balance of all recordings reflect this reality. If you make a speaker/room combination 'flat' (an option on the T775) it will sound 'thin' and 'bright' with too much treble energy and not enough bass. The Audyssey setting compensates for this by increasing the bass and decreasing the treble”—a setting that Stidsen and others at NAD perceived as sounding good, but also a little “like a ‘loudness control’ had been applied.”

While acknowledging that many listeners like the effect of the standard Audyssey EQ setting, the NAD team felt that with some extra time and effort it might be possible to produce an even more natural sounding alternate EQ curve—one that would potentially hold even greater appeal for critical audiophiles. Accordingly, NAD worked out an arrangement with Audyssey where, as Stidsen put it, “Audyssey allowed us to include our own target (EQ curve) as long as we also included theirs.”

According to Stidsen, the NAD EQ curve “was developed in the NAD Lab with help from our sister company PSB Speakers. Steve Wilkins from NAD (developer of EARS) and Paul Barton (of PSB) did most of the acoustical measurement and analysis.” The NAD team felt the standard Audyssey EQ curve added “a little too much energy in both the bass and treble (regions),” so that NAD’s strategy was to try for an EQ approach that was “a bit more sophisticated and uses a couple of 'shelving filters' in the treble response and a bit less emphasis in the bass region. Our goal was to leave intact the character of the loudspeaker as it would be heard in a room with favorable acoustics.” Stidsen observes that, “if you have your front stereo speakers well placed and you have a good room, the NAD target curve will sound very similar.”
post #3080 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Well said.  Of course (and noting the phrase I highlighted in your post), one has to ask why room EQ is OK for surround where the multiple additional channels tend to supplant the effects of room acoustics but it is anathema in the very same room with 2ch music where successful reproduction is hugely dependent on local acoustics?  Could it be adaptation bias?
Deeply ingrained thought processes that used to be legitimate maybe . Its not like small 2 way speakers dont need a subwoofer and consequently good room eq for the frequencies that need the most help - the bass smile.gif

btw What selden mentioned about speakers reminds me of deqx ; what would some think of dsp loudspeaker correction ..

http://www.deqx.com/technology.php
post #3081 of 4252
My (perhaps mistaken) impression was that Audyssey and at least some of the other room equalization packages also use FIR filters and do more than the simplistic frequency amplitude adjustment claimed for them on the DeqX page. However, I've never had the opportunity to do a comparison of the results, myself.
post #3082 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

My (perhaps mistaken) impression was that Audyssey and at least some of the other room equalization packages also use FIR filters and do more than the simplistic frequency amplitude adjustment claimed for them on the DeqX page. However, I've never had the opportunity to do a comparison of the results, myself.

Was more referring to what deqx does for the speaker drivers before the parametric room eq is utilised Selden ie the time alignment/phase correction . Agree certainly about the audyssey room eq advantage - its very nice that xt32 incorporates for the bass what used to require a separate sub box smile.gif
Ime very interested in how the TACT systems FIR filters go in the new emotiva xmc1

edit ; found this interesting ;explains how the deqx uses FIR but only for the speakers it seems ; different strategy and not practicable for many speakers it seems ..
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1552-New-DEQX-HDP-3-Express
Edited by cwt - 10/10/12 at 10:14pm
post #3083 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webmonkey View Post

How many of you Integra 80.3 owners considered buying something like a NAD M15 HD2 or the basic Anthem processor instead?

I have not heard the NAD, but I agree with other posters that XT/32 is a significant advance over plain XT. I seriously doubt that the the NAD would outperform an 80.3, except perhaps via the analg inputs. But, again, I have not heard it.

I have much listening experience with the Anthem D2V, since several friends own one. I see and hear no advantage to it. It is very good, but several of us do not think it justifies the extra $$$. Another Integra owner and I would not even want an Anthem in an even swap, if we were forced to live with it. Again, performance via the analog inputs might be better, but I do not need or want that. Probably only people who still play a significant amount of vinyl do. Even so, that difference may be rather small. Having just packed many, many boxes of vinyl for my move to a new home, I am reconsidering whether to hold onto the thousands of Lp's I have. Likely, I will never listen to them again. I do not think vinyl compares to hi Rez Mch for music. But, in this crazy world of audio and the undisciplined worship of individual preferences, some think vinyl is the cat's meow. Ditto for this or that set of sonic signatures on CD playback, which is also of no interest to me.

In any case, I totally agree with Kal, as I usually do. Like he, I am primairily a Mch music lstener, and I am quite satisfied with my Integra. I hear no qualitative difference between music and movies, though hi rez music is often at a higher resolution and is, therefore, somewhat purer sounding than typical 48k Blu-rays. They both sound terrific, though, and I am a very critical listener who uses the standard of live classical concerts as my reference. Generally, a similar live reference standard does not exist for movie sound. So, it is pure individual preference without a live reference, which us not a meaningful, universal distinction, in my view.

I am sure that there are somewhat better sounding prepros against the tough standard of live performance at much, much higher price points, but, mostly, they lack the sophistication of Audyssey XT/32, expecally when upgraded to Audyssey Pro. Therefore, they require a better, more ideal room as a starting point. Even, so, I think the Integra with a Pro calibration cannot be beaten by much, certainly not by the ones you mentioned. But, definitive, comparative listening evaluations are very tough to find. Kal in Stereophile probably has the best comparative listening experience out there. He rates a few prepros higher than the Integra, but he still uses one in one of his homes. That says a lot, I think.
post #3084 of 4252
I will be ordering my Integra DHC-80.3 along with the Integra DTA-70.1 and Integra DBS-50.3 and will bel using XLR hook-ups. I'm getting my 80.3 for $2,550.00, DTA for $1,700.00 and my DBS for $700.00.

I was opting for the DTR-80.3 but heard going to a seperate amp will add better depth and articulation to my surround sound experience.

Peace to all.
post #3085 of 4252
Hello everyone. I will be placing an order for the Integra DHC-80.3, Integra DTA-70.1 and the Integra DBS-50.3. I'm getting the DHC for $2,550.00, DTA for $1,700.00 and the DBS for $700.00. I will be using XLR hook-ups.

I hope I made the right choices.


Peace to all.
post #3086 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigarjohn47 View Post

Hello everyone. I will be placing an order for the Integra DHC-80.3, Integra DTA-70.1 and the Integra DBS-50.3. I'm getting the DHC for $2,550.00, DTA for $1,700.00 and the DBS for $700.00. I will be using XLR hook-ups.
I hope I made the right choices.
Peace to all.

Suggest looking at the Oppo 103 as it does SACD and DVD-A which I believe the DBS does not. It is cheaper also. I am either going to get the 103 or a 95 once the 105 comes out.
post #3087 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

My (perhaps mistaken) impression was that Audyssey and at least some of the other room equalization packages also use FIR filters and do more than the simplistic frequency amplitude adjustment claimed for them on the DeqX page. However, I've never had the opportunity to do a comparison of the results, myself.

Audyssey definitely uses FIR filters in a very sophisticated way. I think almost all modern EQ packages do. The only one I know of that does not is Anthem ARC, which uses IIR filters, a somewhat controversial choice on their part. The Wiki articles favor FIR over IIR from an engineering standpoint. But, that has not stopped Anthem from trying to posit that IIR is somehow better.

I think Deqx is playing fast and loose with the facts in their marketing hype. If they truly have an advantage of some sort over Audyssey, it would behoove them to spell it out. I doubt seriously, that they do, other than a price advantage for a 2 channel box that is easily added to a stereo. Their only point is that they are a stereo solution targeted at traditional 2channel audiophiles, with prices in accord with that. But, I see nothing to interest me from them in the Mch world. The fact that they advertise in traditional stereo audiophile journals means nothing.
post #3088 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

It seems reasonable at first that you should get the best sound (closest to what the artist intended) if you apply the least amount of processing to it. Unfortunately, this doesn't take into account the fact that most speakers are highly nonlinear (inaccurate) and that the sound is distorted further by room acoustics. Until just a few years ago the only quality adjustments available to us were careful speaker auditioning and room treatments, either of which can be very expensive in time and money. Tone controls and graphic and parametric equalizers were only bandaids.
Room equalization software, whether Audyssey or one of its competitors, has changed that, but many people haven't realized it. If the audio system already includes high quality speakers and room treatments, improvements are subtle, so it's easy for traditionalists to be nay-sayers.

Agreed, many traditional audiophiles have not realized the benefits of of room EQ. But, most traditional audiophiles are oblivious to room issues. Most do not have well treated rooms, either. I know plenty of them, including a few equipment reviewers. They just like to live with their heads in the sand looking to ever more expensive components to deliver their subjective sonic nirvana, while ignoring room effects. Having been there and done that myself for decades, I can now say I have never been happier with my music, movies too, than since I discovered Audyssey.
post #3089 of 4252
Hi guys!


A few tech questions about the 80.3/5509:


I see that it has 32/192 DACs - does it have some kind of upsampling to 32bit ?

What are the benefits of 32bit DACs if max input is 24/192?

I understand that from USB stick, it will play 24/192 FLAC files in stereo - but not in multichannel???

can you mix XLR and unbalanced output cables? (e.g. buy quality XLR cables from front and center, and use my old cheaper cables for surrounds/wide/heights)
post #3090 of 4252
XLR cables will not improve sound quality unless you have a problem with noise from long cable runs. I use a combination of RCA (for all but the subs) and XLR. There is no problem with mixing them if you can deal with the gain difference between unbalanced and balanced.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Integra DHC-80.3