or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1274

post #38191 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post
Jeff, I'm not sure about this. I might be mistaken but I recall that Chris, in this thread, once mentioned that MultEQ does provide a high-pass filter for the sub.

Mark
Here's the question I asked Chris a few months ago:

"Anyway my only question here is does the Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 in my Denon 4311 run any kind of subsonic filter?"

And here was his answer:

"It's not really a separate subsonic filter. It measures the roll off of your sub and then stops applying correction below that point.
__________________
Chris"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=32268
post #38192 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
It's clear Jeff, he was punched in the head because DEQ was turned on!
Yes, asked (by me) and answered (by me)!
post #38193 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IceTBC View Post
Here's the question I asked Chris a few months ago:

"Anyway my only question here is does the Audyssey MultiEQ XT32 in my Denon 4311 run any kind of subsonic filter?"

And here was his answer:

"It's not really a separate subsonic filter. It measures the roll off of your sub and then stops applying correction below that point.
__________________
Chris"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=32268
Guys, I don't know how you are, but I do tend to feel some kinda internal pain emerging from the fact that Chris is not being around on this "official" thread, ...there are so many open questions popping up here recently, meanwhile me feels kinda like a motherless child, ...or on the contrary, shall we all move to Facebook, ...arrrgh!
post #38194 of 70896
Well at the risk of getting flamed to death when all I really am is a pretty humble guy:

The last 20 posts or so is exactly why I stay away from this and a few other threads. I end up with so much (well-intentioned) information and disinformation that my head feels like it's been placed in a blast furnace. And that's a pretty rare occurrence for me, truth be told. But, sigh, I'm sure much of it is caused by my tendency to over think/analyze a lot of "shtuff".

Anyway.

I went through it with dynamic eq: with it on it destroyed my rather robust satellites at -10dbs. I was promptly told I was crazy but really, whatever- doesn't matter. The point is that if you search back about 400 pages and look at the discussion that went on you'd find 12 intelligent people with 12 intelligent opinions that shared/rebuked about a half dozen perspectives.

Now I'm just hoping the same thing doesn't go on with subsonic filtering. Consider, JUST TODAY:

I was told:

1. By an audyssey tech: NO freq's are passed below the -3db point of the sub. EXACTLY that.

2. Just in the last 2 dozen posts someone said Chris said it DOES.

3. Someone said Chris said it DOESN'T...with a historic post for 'proof' as I recall.

4. Another said he doubted that it did.

5. Another said he thought it DID.

Are you laughing by now? I am.

As it stands right now I'm figuring it doesn't, but I'll wait for an "official" word that will surely contradict the "official" word (the Audyssey techs declaration, not mine) I received earlier today on the phone, lol.

Don't get me wrong, this thread has real value and provides a wealth of important info and advice, but it seems a few issues really get hammered back and forth with little resolved...or are stretched out beyond the time I can dedicate to an individual internet thread...although I REALLY try.

Sorry guys, prolly just blowing off a little misplaced steam. This whole passive sub thing is just seeming like a lot more work than I ever imagined and I'm hoping when I have everything in place it just falls together with a modicum of forethought...and help from you more inclined folk!

Respectfully,
James
post #38195 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Well at the risk of getting flamed to death when all I really am is a pretty humble guy:

The last 20 posts or so is exactly why I stay away from this and a few other threads. I end up with so much (well-intentioned) information and disinformation that my head feels like it's been placed in a blast furnace. And that's a pretty rare occurrence for me, truth be told. But, sigh, I'm sure much of it is caused by my tendency to over think/analyze a lot of "shtuff".

Anyway.

I went through it with dynamic eq: with it on it destroyed my rather robust satellites at -10dbs. I was promptly told I was crazy but really, whatever- doesn't matter. The point is that if you search back about 400 pages and look at the discussion that went on you'd find 12 intelligent people with 12 intelligent opinions that shared/rebuked about a half dozen perspectives.

Now I'm just hoping the same thing doesn't go on with subsonic filtering. Consider, JUST TODAY:

I was told:

1. By an audyssey tech: NO freq's are passed below the -3db point of the sub. EXACTLY that.

2. Just in the last 2 dozen posts someone said Chris said it DOES.

3. Someone said Chris said it DOESN'T...with a historic post as I recall.

4. Another said he doubted that it did.

5. Another said he thought it DID.

Are you laughing by now? I am.

As it stands right now I'm figuring it doesn't, but I'll wait for an "official" word that will surely contradict the "official" word (the Audyssey techs declaration, not mine) I received earlier today on the phone, lol.

Don't get me wrong, this thread has real value and provides a wealth of important info and advice, but it seems a few issues really get hammered back and forth with little resolved...or are stretched out beyond the time I can dedicate to an individual internet thread...although I REALLY try.

Sorry guys, prolly just blowing off a little misplaced steam. This whole passive sub thing is just seeming like a lot more work than I ever imagined and I'm hoping when I have everything in place it just falls together with a modicum of forethought...and help from you more inclined folk!

Respectfully,
James

That's the problem with the web. Unless you actually know the poster, you cannot rely on the information. Here, at least, the truth usually (but not always) wins out.
post #38196 of 70896
My understanding has always been that Audyssey simply doesn't apply any corrections below the -3db point. My experience would seem to confirm that, as I get good shaking from the buttkickers down to around 5-7hz, IIRC (it's been a while since I've played with test tones). But then again, I'm not sure what Aydyssey would consider the -3db point, as my sub's in-room response is fairly flat to around 13hz. And even that is due to a null at around 10.5hz... by 10hz, it's back up to around -4db. Somewhere around here I've got some plots from when I first got an Audyssey equipped AVR, comparing Audyssey to my previous manual BFD eq'ing. I'll have to see if I can find them to see if there was any difference in the subsonics. The lowest center frequency the BFD can do is 20hz, so any difference in the subsonics is going to be Audyssey's doing.
post #38197 of 70896
I jumped in at the end of the thread, so I had to go back and see what was driving the issue...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post
So I've been scrambling around, hoping to find an amp that will allow me to apply this subsonic filter low enough (sub has healthy ouput down to 13hz) as to not cut into the healthy ouput range AND protect my rather pricey sub from the 2-8hz nasties. End game: such a unit does not exist.
That's not really true... I'm using a BASH 500 plate amp for some of my shakers, specifically because it was one of the few cheap amps I could find that I knew could have the subsonic filtering fairly easily tweaked. It just takes changing out some resistors. I gather you've already selected an amp that doesn't do any subsonic filtering, but it shouldn't be that hard to implement it upstream of the amp. Google can help with the necessary schematics.
post #38198 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darin
I jumped in at the end of the thread, so I had to go back and see what was driving the issue...

That's not really true... I'm using a BASH 500 plate amp for some of my shakers, specifically because it was one of the few cheap amps I could find that I knew could have the subsonic filtering fairly easily tweaked. It just takes changing out some resistors. I gather you've already selected an amp that doesn't do any subsonic filtering, but it shouldn't be that hard to implement it upstream of the amp. Google can help with the necessary schematics.
It is true. Opening up an amplifier to change out some resistors to modify an existing product to perform differently because, well, it inherently does not, doesn't change the fact that one doesn't exist straightaway. Never mind the fact that the vast majority have neither the time nor inclination to take apart a power amplifier to begin with when dsps with appropriate filters can be had for $50.

Further, the real "issue" (not my rather trivial filter scenario) is just as I explained: the sometimes alarming level of conflicting "factual" information that exists in this and other threads can cause a bit of a head-stir. Not the end of the world, just a pain at times.

I understand you have "always" known how audyssey acts in regards to the -3db of the sub, but clearly others here who have been around for years and thousands of pages were not so assured...and likely JUST for the reasons I've detailed.

Stick around for a thousand pages, I can assure you there will more to come. Or, read the last 500 pages for verifiable proof.

I know audyssey about 95% which is fine for me 99 out of 100 days. When something like this does come up, I just stay at it until this thread comes to an understanding...unfortunately that can take awhile.

Thankfully it appears that this issue may be resolved in under 24hrs.

James
post #38199 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson
That's the problem with the web. Unless you actually know the poster, you cannot rely on the information. Here, at least, the truth usually (but not always) wins out.
Agree 100%. Of course I'm glad it's here for a resource, and the good certainly outweighs the bad exponentially.

James
post #38200 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post
Here are the graphs Chris...

these are the left surround




Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post
Just as I thought. MultEQ found the roll off point at about 100 Hz. So, it stops its correction below that point. It also found that the roll off slope of your speaker doesn't have the proper order to integrate correctly with the sub. So, it applies it to the filter and you see it in the response. This is all perfectly normal and operating as expected. The content below 100 Hz (with the proper slope applied by bass management) will appear in your subwoofer.
I think I got confused about the quote of Chris regarding MultEQ applying a high pass filter for the sub.

This is the response of Chris which I was referring to. It seems that MultEQ applied a filter to the satellite speaker so that the roll off slope integrated properly with the sub.

This would be different from a high pass filter for the sub itself. However, it does suggest that MultEQ manipulates the audio signal even below the -3 db point.

Mark
post #38201 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

Speaking of Audyssey bass, and in particular the target curve used for MultEQ XT, I just realized that I may not be getting what is intended below 100 Hz.

I get more of a house curve when I measure the results of Audyssey with REW. I rather prefer it this way, but it renders DEQ pretty useless (sounds way too bass heavy).



The above response is at the MLP with Audyssey ON, but DEQ OFF. It seems the bass should be closer to flat, which I could probably accomplish by turning the sub level down by about 8dB, but the above response is what I get when the auto cal sets the levels. Peculiar?

Just to put some more pertinent data out there in support of finding a solution to what appears to be a problem with the bass levels I'm getting, below are graphs that show the AVERAGE response of 6 mic positions all taken in the same locations that I placed the mic to calibrate Audyssey.

The overall bass level dropped by roughly 3dB, but it is still elevated by what appears to be 5dB on average.

Right speaker + sub, 6 mic position average (there is 1/6th octave smoothing on these even though it says there is none)

Left speaker + sub


Both graphs overlayed


Just get everything out on the table, my 6 mic positions are:

1. MLP (at the backrest of the couch)
2. 1.5 feet to the right of the MLP
3. 1.5 feet to the left of the MLP
4. 1.5 feet to the left of the MLP + 2 feet forward (front edge of couch)
5. 2 feet forward of the MLP
6. 1.5 feet to the right of the MLP + 2 feet forward

I also had a problem with my AVR in which it was not applying EQ to the sub channel (after a faulty firmware update), which was corrected with a subsequent firmware update. It is obvious now (through REW measurements) that the sub FR is improved with Audyssey ON, but it could be possible that there is still some error in how the AVR is calibrating the sub channel. I don't want to jump to that conclusion until we rule out other possible causes though.
post #38202 of 70896
hifisponge, can you show a graph for left+sub and right+sub with all 6 single responses overlaid?
post #38203 of 70896
Anyone wants to upgrade to golden ears level?
http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.co...to-listen.html
post #38204 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I remember just the opposite Mark.

Also, I recall that MultEQ corrects down to the measured -3dB point. Unfortunately after the corrections are made normalization (getting the SPL level back where it was before the corrections) kicks in. That's where the boosting can occur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Well at the risk of getting flamed to death when all I really am is a pretty humble guy:

The last 20 posts or so is exactly why I stay away from this and a few other threads. I end up with so much (well-intentioned) information and disinformation that my head feels like it's been placed in a blast furnace. And that's a pretty rare occurrence for me, truth be told. But, sigh, I'm sure much of it is caused by my tendency to over think/analyze a lot of "shtuff".

Anyway.

I went through it with dynamic eq: with it on it destroyed my rather robust satellites at -10dbs. I was promptly told I was crazy but really, whatever- doesn't matter. The point is that if you search back about 400 pages and look at the discussion that went on you'd find 12 intelligent people with 12 intelligent opinions that shared/rebuked about a half dozen perspectives.

Now I'm just hoping the same thing doesn't go on with subsonic filtering. Consider, JUST TODAY:

I was told:

1. By an audyssey tech: NO freq's are passed below the -3db point of the sub. EXACTLY that.

2. Just in the last 2 dozen posts someone said Chris said it DOES.

3. Someone said Chris said it DOESN'T...with a historic post for 'proof' as I recall.

4. Another said he doubted that it did.

5. Another said he thought it DID.

Are you laughing by now? I am.

As it stands right now I'm figuring it doesn't, but I'll wait for an "official" word that will surely contradict the "official" word (the Audyssey techs declaration, not mine) I received earlier today on the phone, lol.

Don't get me wrong, this thread has real value and provides a wealth of important info and advice, but it seems a few issues really get hammered back and forth with little resolved...or are stretched out beyond the time I can dedicate to an individual internet thread...although I REALLY try.

Sorry guys, prolly just blowing off a little misplaced steam. This whole passive sub thing is just seeming like a lot more work than I ever imagined and I'm hoping when I have everything in place it just falls together with a modicum of forethought...and help from you more inclined folk!

Respectfully,
James

It is absolutely true that sometimes Audyssey ends up over boosting low frequencies. But this is not beacause Audyssey is malfunctioning, it is because Audyssey is measuring the lower frequencies as incorrectly being down, then applying boost.

Measuring low frequencies can be very problematic, and Audyssey is not flawed beacause it sometimes comes up with an innacurate before graph. I found in my room that adjusting the gain on the sub to 12 oclock (-11.5 avr trim found by Audyssey with this gain on my sub in my room) generated a more accurate before graph by Audyssey. maybe it was the signal to noise ratio, maybe it was luck...I don't know and I don't care.

My sub has a -3 db point of 18hz, and when I run a sweep with Audyssey off I can hear the level "ramp up" at 18 hz and really take off at about 20 or 21 hz. A good calibration by Audyssey should sound the same in that region when running a sweep. So the calibration that yielded the most realistic before graph also gives a similiar feel and sound with a frequency sweep. The calibrations that boosted the low frequencies gave a very different sounding frequency sweep. You could tell the sub was being asked much more of it from 15-20 hz, and itreally rocked and rolled from 20-30 hz. Audyssey was doing the correct thing with the data it had, boosting low down. I am still confounded why Audyssey would boost from 15-20 hz when the Before graph indctated a -3 db point of 35 hz! Maybe you cannot interpret the -3 db point from the before graphs. Maybe I am reading it in the wrong way. But the end result was a boost below my -3 db point of my sub.

The moral of the story is that there is no sub sonic filter on Audyssey other than it does not correct below the -3db point according to Audyssey. That may be true, and my experience could be due to factors I don't see or understand.

Lastly, that is why the ears are so improtant with an automatic system. That is also why Audyssey Pro is absoluetly invaluable...you can see what Audyssey is doing.
post #38205 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Guys, I don't know how you are, but I do tend to feel some kinda internal pain emerging from the fact that Chris is not being around on this "official" thread, ...there are so many open questions popping up here recently, meanwhile me feels kinda like a motherless child, ...or on the contrary, shall we all move to Facebook, ...arrrgh!

I agree. I found Chris's reason for disappearing from this thread to be interesting. He said, IIRC, that he had many commitments at Audyssey right now that prevented him from posting here. But then he said he would be posting on their Facebook page. I've had a look at the Facebook page and it's a waste of time, IMO. Fairly basic questions and answers that are already all well-known to anyone in this thread. Maybe that's what Chris meant - he can answer the Facebook questions on autopilot - maybe the guys here are a lot more demanding of his time. Of course, we could all move to FB as you suggest - LOL! Whatever, I agree with you - his presence is greatly missed here.

Kind Regards,

Keith
post #38206 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

Lastly, that is why the ears are so improtant with an automatic system. That is also why Audyssey Pro is absoluetly invaluable...you can see what Audyssey is doing.

My view is that while Audyssey Pro provides valuable data and some target curve editing ability, running REW or XTZ or OmniMic after the fact provides a much more accurate reading of what Audyssey does. The Audyssey curves are way over smoothed to provide the granularity to see all that is happening.

I love Audyssey (Pro) but external measuring has, for me, given me better results to improve performance.
post #38207 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post

My view is that while Audyssey Pro provides valuable data and some target curve editing ability, running REW or XTZ or OmniMic after the fact provides a much more accurate reading of what Audyssey does. The Audyssey curves are way over smoothed to provide the granularity to see all that is happening.

I love Audyssey (Pro) but external measuring has, for me, given me better results to improve performance.

So do you measure using XTZ and then make custom edits to the curve using Pro?
post #38208 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

It's clear Jeff, he was punched in the head because DEQ was turned on!

Yes, but on broadcast/cable delivered content which is either not mixed to cinema standards or has been compressed/re-equalized after the fact.
post #38209 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I found Chris's reason for disappearing from this thread to be interesting.

Same here. Discontinuing the Sound EQ was a bit of a surprise, as I thought they would release an XT32 version. Maybe there are more Manufacturers about to include Audyssey in their AV equipment.
post #38210 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

I think I got confused about the quote of Chris regarding MultEQ applying a high pass filter for the sub.

This is the response of Chris which I was referring to. It seems that MultEQ applied a filter to the satellite speaker so that the roll off slope integrated properly with the sub.

This would be different from a high pass filter for the sub itself. However, it does suggest that MultEQ manipulates the audio signal even below the -3 db point.

Mark

This would be different from a high pass filter for the sub itself. PERIOD.

I'm sure that somewhere down the road someone will cite your post as an example of confusion and misinformation. Quickly read, it could be looked at as casting doubt on whether there is a HPF applied to the sub channel.

Just throwing that out there ....

Jeff
post #38211 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

It seemed to me that Audyssey was boosting below the -3 db point. 15-25 hz was very boosted based upon a frequency sweep. The before graphs with pro indicated a higher -3 db point. Maybe the graphs don't represent the -3 db point......but that seems unlikely. I know Audyssey is not supposed to, but I have no other explanation for it. Maybe it was my sub.

Maybe it was make up gain after MultEQ made significant cuts in the sub's FR
post #38212 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjf_uk View Post

Same here. Discontinuing the Sound EQ was a bit of a surprise, as I thought they would release an XT32 version. Maybe there are more Manufacturers about to include Audyssey in their AV equipment.

Could be. I'd like to see something like the AS-EQ1 but for the full range of frequencies. That way you could use any AVR or prepro you wanted and add Audyssey to it externally. If it was software upgradeable (eg from XT to XT32 to XT64 or whatever), so much the better. And if it could allow storing and recalling calibrations, better yet. I'd buy one of those

Kind Regards,

Keith
post #38213 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

This would be different from a high pass filter for the sub itself. PERIOD.

I'm sure that somewhere down the road someone will cite your post as an example of confusion and misinformation. Quickly read, it could be looked at as casting doubt on whether there is a HPF applied to the sub channel.

Just throwing that out there ....

Jeff

Actually, I'm still not certain as to whether or not MultEQ provides a HPF for the sub channel. Remember that @mastermaybe said that an Audyssey tech told him that it does. The quote from Chris also proves that MultEQ can quite easily provide the HPF for the sub because it does provide a HPF for a satellite. Insofar as filters are concerned, is there any difference between the sub and the satellite? Why would MultEQ provide a HPF for the satellites and not the sub?

So ... yes, my post does cast doubt on whether MultEQ applies a HPF to the sub channel and that was done on purpose because I'm still not sure.

Mark
post #38214 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Maybe it was make up gain after MultEQ made significant cuts in the sub's FR

Could be. The before graph showed a -3 db point of about 35 hz (it is actually 18 hz), and a VERY steep roloff below 35 hz. The after graph showed the -3 db point to be about 30 hz (if I remember right) and a much less steep roloff....like Audyssey boosted the roloff in a sense. But Audyssey may be thinking that it doesn't matter because my sub is "obviously limiting low frequencies" below the measured -3 db point with an internal filter of its own so severely, that the Audyssey boost will be limited by the sub itself internally. But since my sub actually does go down to 18 hz, that boosted roloff belwo 30 hz by Audyssey translated into a severe power eating boost for my sub.

Ah well, doesn't really matter as I was able to get a good calibration.
post #38215 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Opening up an amplifier to change out some resistors to modify an existing product to perform differently because, well, it inherently does not, doesn't change the fact that one doesn't exist straightaway.

You don't have to open it up. It's a plate amp. The appropriate resistor values for various cut-offs are part of the product documentation that either comes with the unit, or can be downloaded from the vendor (I can't remember which). I was simply providing an example I was familiar with in case you were interested, since you seemed so frustrated.

Quote:
I understand you have "always" known how audyssey acts in regards to the -3db of the sub, but clearly others here who have been around for years and thousands of pages were not so assured...and likely JUST for the reasons I've detailed.

I said it has always been my understanding, and I provided an example of how Audyssey behaves in my system that seems to support it. It seems to me that if you're getting conflicting information on how something is supposed to behave, a few examples of how it does behave might be helpful. If "NO freq's are passed below the -3db point of the sub", then I would have expected that to have been a fairly widely known issue, because no one with tactile transducers would want an Audyssey equipped AVR. I understand that it's frustrating when you get conflicting information, especially when it comes from the company that designed it. But unfortunately, that's not uncommon, and you can often get better information from users. Someone with a ported sub and REW could answer this fairly easily.
post #38216 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Actually, I'm still not certain as to whether or not MultEQ provides a HPF for the sub channel. Remember that @mastermaybe said that an Audyssey tech told him that it does. The quote from Chris also proves that MultEQ can quite easily provide the HPF for the sub because it does provide a HPF for a satellite. Insofar as filters are concerned, is there any difference between the sub and the satellite? Why would MultEQ provide a HPF for the satellites and not the sub?

So ... yes, my post does cast doubt on whether MultEQ applies a HPF to the sub channel and that was done on purpose because I'm still not sure.

Mark

MultEQ is applying a filter to the main channel to make the slope conform to a standard for the purposes of blending with the sub at the crossover region. It is not there to protect the main speaker. In this context, is that still considered an HPF? Irregardless, I get your point.

Methinks that features for speaker protection are best provided elsewhere. In fact, liability might be the exact reason why Audyssey doesn't provide it.

Jeff
post #38217 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

MultEQ is applying a filter to the main channel to make the slope conform to a standard for the purposes of blending with the sub at the crossover region. It is not there to protect the main speaker. In this context, is that still considered an HPF? Irregardless, I get your point.

But why would an HPF on the sub be desirable? Content that is -4dB would be audible, but filtered out under your scenario. To me, that is not desirable.

Methinks that features for speaker protection are best provided elsewhere. In fact, liability might be the exact reason why Audyssey doesn't provide it.

Jeff

Honestly, what you say makes a lot of sense. Now if only Chris were around to confirm it. I really miss his presence. I think I will ask him in "Ask Audyssey".
post #38218 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Honestly, what you say makes a lot of sense. Now if only Chris were around to confirm it. I really miss his presence. I think I will ask him in "Ask Audyssey".

That seems to be the only place to get him these days. The Facebook page is just full of people asking stuff like if they should set LPF of LFE to 120Hz and should they raise the XO from the detected 40Hz to the recommended 80Hz and so on. It's a real shame he had to drop out of this thread.

Kind Regards,

Keith
post #38219 of 70896
Well pls report back if he makes news!
post #38220 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Well pls report back if he makes news!

I've sent the question to "Ask Audyssey". If he doesn't respond, I'll send him an e-mail. He can't abandon his most loyal minions.

Mark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)