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 2153

post #64561 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I think Audyssey deserves tremendous credit. I am very appreciative of the impressive HT product development over the past few years-a steady march forward in features and SQ: DynEQ/Vol,  DSX and XT32 have really mattered for me, as has Audyssey Pro being available for hobbyists like myself.  



I've noticed that you are a very fair minded individual.

I think the salient question is often "compared to what?" Audyssey and others may well provide better room & speaker compensation later, but for now, Audyssey has brought me significantly better sound compared to Audyssey OFF.
post #64562 of 70910

^Thanks Gary, and you seem fair-minded to me as well.  Ex: I really appreciated your post thanking Keith and I above on the trim issue. 

 

You're a welcome addition to this community and your perspective is one I completely agree with irt the value we're getting now from Audyssey.

post #64563 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

Lots of studio control rooms behave rather directional (LEDE). When steady state signals (like pink noise) are used for loudness evaluation, the results for equal loudness of front and back speakers will differ.
Sure, but that could happen even without a live-end/dead-end studio control room design, since our hearing changes depending on direction (which has been quantified as head related transfer function).
Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

Did Holman/Audyssey ever report the number of listeners and rooms for their listening tests?
No, but Chris had briefly described the tests as bringing in several professional movie sound mixers and having them adjust their own soundtracks each time the level was incrementally lowered.
post #64564 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


...Chris had briefly described the tests as bringing in several professional movie sound mixers and having them adjust their own soundtracks each time the level was incrementally lowered.

What's the problem with that test? Who else have such trained ears than the pro movie sound mixers?
post #64565 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post
 

I'm really struggling with whether to upgrade to XT32 (Onkyo 818) or try something different (ARC or Trinnov).  My one complaint with Audyssey right now is vocals can seem a bit deep and recessed.  To get around it I use THX Cinema with no Re-EQ when I have that problem, such as last night watching Pain & Gain.  By using THX Cinema no Re-EQ I get rid of both midrange compensation and the high freq roll-off of Audyssey reference curve.  So since two things are changing I'm not sure which one is helping with the vocals.  Anyone have any input on this?  My gut is telling me the midrange comp is the issue for me and I would prefer to not have it which rules out XT32.  I wish there was a cheap way to get Audyssey Pro and XT32 but I don't think there is.  

Tough call.  Sorry I don't recall if you've tried speaker placement (the CC placement/aiming is crucial to dialog, for ex) and acoustic treatments, or if those options are not practical for you, then Pro might be just the ticket for the reasons you outlined, despite the $700 outlay.

 

However  I myself would not invest in Pro without first having and trying XT32. Many report improved dialog clarity with XT32 over XT, me included.

 

I'd also talk with our own jdsmoothie, now at AVS sales, about deals on various AVRs w/ XT32 that are Pro-capable. You can get one for well under $1K, like the Denon X4000.  After I sold my old AVR4310, the A100/4311 with XT32 was net cost under $500 for me. I happened to find a deal on a used Pro kit so total outlay for the 32/Pro upgrade was just over $1K-and well worth it IMO.

 

Here's a post w/ jd's contact#:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1430049/the-official-denon-avr-4520ci-thread/5580#post_23690450


Edited by SoundofMind - 9/1/13 at 12:12pm
post #64566 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 

XT32 is important to me too. But what have they introduced to MultEQ in the last few years? ...

I can understand their desire to expand their business of course. But that can be done without it being detrimental to their existing customers. Or rather, it should be.

Keith I hear you and you're certainly entitled to your discontent.You are a tireless resource here on the threads.

 

Hey, did the price go up?  I thought it was $550 kit&$150 license=$700 for Pro.

post #64567 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

Tough call.  Sorry I don't recall if you've tried speaker placement (the CC placement/aiming is crucial to dialog, for ex) and acoustic treatments, or if those options are not practical for you, then Pro might be just the ticket for the reasons you outlined, despite the $700 outlay.

 

However  I myself would not invest in Pro without first having and trying XT32. Many report improved dialog clarity with XT32 over XT, me included.

 

I'd also talk with our own jdsmoothie, now at AVS sales, about deals on various AVRs w/ XT32 that are Pro-capable. You can get one for well under $1K, like the Denon X4000.  After I sold my old AVR4310, the A100/4311 with XT32 was net cost under $500 for me. I happened to find a deal on a used Pro kit so total outlay for the 32/Pro upgrade was just over $1K-and well worth it IMO.

 

Here's a post w/ jd's contact#:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1430049/the-official-denon-avr-4520ci-thread/5580#post_23690450

Thanks for the info.  Yes center channel is as optimum as I can get it and have room treatments.  I hadn't been following the Pro threads much and had assumed that Pro was sort of on the way out and nothing capable was coming out.  I will have to look into the new Denon's but was thinking like you...try XT32 in the Onkyo 818 and if still not satisfied then jump to Pro.


Edited by primetimeguy - 9/1/13 at 12:26pm
post #64568 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

Thanks for the info.  Yes center channel is as optimum as I can get it and have room treatments.  I hadn't been following the Pro threads much and had assumed that Pro was sort of the way out and nothing capable was coming out.  I will have to look into the new Denon's.  

+1 on this. I'd start with XT32 and see how optimal you could get the room before thinking about the Pro kit. SOM's advice about a Denon AVR is spot-on.

What kind of center do you have, BTW, and how is it placed in your room?
post #64569 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post


+1 on this. I'd start with XT32 and see how optimal you could get the room before thinking about the Pro kit. SOM's advice about a Denon AVR is spot-on.

What kind of center do you have, BTW, and how is it placed in your room?

Center is Athena AS-B2 rated down to 50hz, crossover set to 80hz.  Note in the picture below that it is upside down on top of TV to lower the tweeter closer to level of mains and it is angled down slightly to MLP.  I have had it both ways, sounds better this way.  Also have the AS-C1 in the closet which is the MTM typical center channel orientation but it doesn't sound as good.  

 

 

First reflection points on side walls are also treated but not seen in picture.

post #64570 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post
 

I'm really struggling with whether to upgrade to XT32 (Onkyo 818) or try something different (ARC or Trinnov).  My one complaint with Audyssey right now is vocals can seem a bit deep and recessed.  To get around it I use THX Cinema with no Re-EQ when I have that problem, such as last night watching Pain & Gain.  By using THX Cinema no Re-EQ I get rid of both midrange compensation and the high freq roll-off of Audyssey reference curve.  So since two things are changing I'm not sure which one is helping with the vocals.  Anyone have any input on this?  My gut is telling me the midrange comp is the issue for me and I would prefer to not have it which rules out XT32.  I wish there was a cheap way to get Audyssey Pro and XT32 but I don't think there is.  

 

XT32 is a huge step up from XT and the lesser flavours of Audyssey, so I doubt you would be disappointed. I am assuming that your centre speaker is properly placed and aligned and that it is also of good quality. Your description of 'recessed' vocals does sound like a dip in FR, which could be the MRC.  When you engage the Audyssey Flat curve (which is what happens when you engage a THX mode and turn off Re-EQ) do the vocals then sound 'right' to you?  More forward?  If so then you have your solution there.

 

If you switched to XT32 you might have the same issue - but remember that XT32 works in a different way to XT with far less correction applied above Schroeder so it is possible that you would find it to be an improvement.

 

An alternative that you might consider would be an AntiMode Dual Core 2.0 which has way more flexibility than Audyssey, but it is not a cheap solution by any means. My own research into this unit has convinced me that it has much to offer as a form of electronic EQ.  This is especially so if you have any acoustic treatments in your room or see them in your future.

 

The problem with the others is that they too are expensive (ARC) or only available at a sensible cost in a unit with a poor reputation (Trinnov).

 

We are all waiting eagerly for Stuart (sdrucker) and his upcoming experiments with alternative RC systems and I am hoping that he starts a new thread where he can detail his journey and where we can ask questions and generally try to get involved. Stuart is a very capable and thorough member here, so his findings will be of great interest. He is also a capable user of REW, so he will be able to measure the effects of the experiments as well as give his subjective evaluations.

 

EDIT: posted before I saw your pic and read the accompanying description.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 9/1/13 at 1:09pm
post #64571 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 

^Thanks Gary, and you seem fair-minded to me as well.  Ex: I really appreciated your post thanking Keith and I above on the trim issue. 

 

You're a welcome addition to this community and your perspective is one I completely agree with irt the value we're getting now from Audyssey.

 

Absolutely +1.

post #64572 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post

Center is Athena AS-B2 rated down to 50hz, crossover set to 80hz.  Note in the picture below that it is upside down on top of TV to lower the tweeter closer to level of mains and it is angled down slightly to MLP.  I have had it both ways, sounds better this way.  Also have the AS-C1 in the closet which is the MTM typical center channel orientation but it doesn't sound as good.  




First reflection points on side walls are also treated but not seen in picture.

It seems you did some research:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/476144/athena-b2-b1-as-center-question

Did you try something like a Sanus center channel stand or the Lovan with adjustable elevation, for the more traditional C1 center?
post #64573 of 70910
Prime, have you tried placing the center on a dedicated stand in front of the TV, and pulled the left and right speakers further into the room so all three speakers are equidistant from the MLP? With the left and right speakers further away from the back cabinets, you should be able to get closer to the recommended 30-degree recommended angles as well. Just a thought.

I used to have the center above the display, but was never able to achieve good quality dialog. Remember, placing the center where you have it makes it approximately in the midpoint between the floor and ceiling, which is a null for the mode associated with ceiling height. Moving the speaker out of the null can significantly change its acoustic response.

Edit: Quick-typing Stuart was quicker. The stand he recommends is the one I use, and is a pretty good stand.
post #64574 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post


It seems you did some research:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/476144/athena-b2-b1-as-center-question

Did you try something like a Sanus center channel stand or the Lovan with adjustable elevation, for the more traditional C1 center?

No but didn't like the dispersion characteristics of the MTM as compared to the traditional bookshelf.  My seat there isn't much difference but seats next to me are better.

 

an R972 with Trinnov I thought might help too!  How is yours working out?  I'm very curious as to your comparison between Trinnov and XT32.

post #64575 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post


...Chris had briefly described the tests as bringing in several professional movie sound mixers and having them adjust their own soundtracks each time the level was incrementally lowered.

What's the problem with that test? Who else have such trained ears than the pro movie sound mixers?

 

The problem was that Audyssey failed to take into account that the surround channels are mixed with lower SPLs than the front channels. This has been confirmed more than once by FilmMixer and you can look it up as it is part of the Reference standard.

 

Because of this error, it is quite obvious that if you lower the SPL evenly across all channels, the surrounds will 'disappear' sooner than the mains, simply because they were quieter to start with. If Audyssey had conducted their experiment with channels that all had the same SPL, then their findings would have been in accordance with the other professional acousticians who do not agree that sounds from around us diminish in perceived audibility faster than sounds in front of us.  This is the 'flawed premise' most of us are aware of.

 

This was all discussed at great length earlier in this thread, and a link recently posted to the time of the discussion. IDK if you have just failed to recall this or if maybe it happened when you were on your enforced 'leave of absence' following your altercation with Markus, but if you follow the link batpig posted yesterday, it will bring you up to speed. I also posted a direct link where Roger D and I discussed this, but it seems you didn't read it.

 

EDIT: Because of their error, Audyssey assumed that the reason the surround channels had 'disappeared' faster was because that is the way human hearing works - so they arranged for DEQ to boost the surrounds by about 3dB. Interestingly, FM has confirmed that the surrounds are mixed to 82dB - the exact same difference that Audyssey decided to boost by! The problem is, after applying the 'Audyssey boost' the surround channels are now 3dB louder than the mixer intended - which is probably the cause of all the numerous complaints that DEQ overboosts the surrounds. As you say, the film mixers got it right the first time but DEQ undoes their good work.

 

Personally, I don't mind the overboost on movies but this may be because my room is heavily treated or because my surround speakers are expensive Tripoles or simply because of my preference. But the premise is still a flawed one.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 9/1/13 at 1:17pm
post #64576 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Prime, have you tried placing the center on a dedicated stand in front of the TV, and pulled the left and right speakers further into the room so all three speakers are equidistant from the MLP? With the left and right speakers further away from the back cabinets, you should be able to get closer to the recommended 30-degree recommended angles as well. Just a thought.

I used to have the center above the display, but was never able to achieve good quality dialog. Remember, placing the center where you have it makes it approximately in the midpoint between the floor and ceiling, which is a null for the mode associated with ceiling height. Moving the speaker out of the null can significantly change its acoustic response.

Edit: Quick-typing Stuart was quicker. The stand he recommends is the one I use, and is a pretty good stand.

I second what Jerry has offered and beat me to it while I was doing some PhotoShop trick on your picture. You'll need to find a proper stand for the center speaker coz it's now floating in mid-air (LOL) but here goes:

post #64577 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 

XT32 is important to me too. But what have they introduced to MultEQ in the last few years? ...

I can understand their desire to expand their business of course. But that can be done without it being detrimental to their existing customers. Or rather, it should be.

Keith I hear you and you're certainly entitled to your discontent.You are a tireless resource here on the threads.

 

Hey, did the price go up?  I thought it was $550 kit&$150 license=$700 for Pro.

 

IIRC I paid $600 plus $150 for the licence, BICBW (or it might have included international shipping).

 

Thanks for the kind remarks - appreciated!

post #64578 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by primetimeguy View Post
 

Thanks for the info.  Yes center channel is as optimum as I can get it and have room treatments.  I hadn't been following the Pro threads much and had assumed that Pro was sort of on the way out and nothing capable was coming out.  I will have to look into the new Denon's but was thinking like you...try XT32 in the Onkyo 818 and if still not satisfied then jump to Pro.

You're very welcome.  Though I'm a Denon guy, IIRC that 818 was a high-value model (the lowest MSRP AVR w/XT32).  But AFAIK the 818 is not Pro capable. My basic requirement in any processor at this point is XT32 & Pro-capable.   Again, jd can assist you with analyzing features you want/need vs cost.  AVS is very competitive on prices and is a factory-authorized etailer.  (For Denon, you must buy from such a  fact-authorized dealer or the warranty is not valid.)

post #64579 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

We are all waiting eagerly for Stuart (sdrucker) and his upcoming experiments with alternative RC systems and I am hoping that he starts a new thread where he can detail his journey and where we can ask questions and generally try to get involved. Stuart is a very capable and thorough member here, so his findings will be of great interest. He is also a capable user of REW, so he will be able to measure the effects of the experiments as well as give his subjective evaluations.

Thanks for the plug...and the pressure! cool.gif

So the clock is now ticking....I'll link the group and the REW/HDMI folks once I get at least a preliminary 'reasons why' and a methodology post. The thread's going to be on Audio Theory, Setup and Chat unless anyone wants otherwise.

Of course, feedback and any comparative experiments of alternative (or for that matter co-existing) RCs and charting within the same HT system in your room would be welcome. But the purpose will be inquiry, critical discussion of methodology and testing. True believers (hello, Feri ! biggrin.gif:) should keep their, ahem, enthusiasm, in the usual addresses... smile.gif

If I don't get it rolling by Wed night US time, you can bug me again...

Speaking of co-existence, that means you, Keith with XT32 and your Behringer FBD...biggrin.gif
post #64580 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Prime, have you tried placing the center on a dedicated stand in front of the TV, and pulled the left and right speakers further into the room so all three speakers are equidistant from the MLP? With the left and right speakers further away from the back cabinets, you should be able to get closer to the recommended 30-degree recommended angles as well. Just a thought.

I used to have the center above the display, but was never able to achieve good quality dialog. Remember, placing the center where you have it makes it approximately in the midpoint between the floor and ceiling, which is a null for the mode associated with ceiling height. Moving the speaker out of the null can significantly change its acoustic response.

Edit: Quick-typing Stuart was quicker. The stand he recommends is the one I use, and is a pretty good stand.

I haven't tried a stand in front, waiting until I figure out which plasma to buy as then I won't be able to put it on the top. :)  Very good point about it being almost equidistant from ceiling to floor, had not thought of that before.  As for distances the fronts are back about 1ft more than the center.  That was to get a flatter response out of them in the upper bass.  They are about 1 foot out from the wall now.  Center is 11.5ft from LP and fronts are 12.5ft giving me angle of about 46deg MLP to fronts which is close to THX 45 deg spec.  I prefer the tighter angle since the screen is small (57") and don't want the image pulled too far off screen.

 

Been a while since I've tweaked much in my setup, sounds like it is time for an overhaul....new TV, new center channel position, wider fronts, XT32.  


Edited by primetimeguy - 9/1/13 at 1:52pm
post #64581 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

We are all waiting eagerly for Stuart (sdrucker) and his upcoming experiments with alternative RC systems and I am hoping that he starts a new thread where he can detail his journey and where we can ask questions and generally try to get involved. Stuart is a very capable and thorough member here, so his findings will be of great interest. He is also a capable user of REW, so he will be able to measure the effects of the experiments as well as give his subjective evaluations.

Thanks for the plug...and the pressure! cool.gif

So the clock is now ticking....I'll link the group and the REW/HDMI folks once I get at least a preliminary 'reasons why' and a methodology post. The thread's going to be on Audio Theory, Setup and Chat unless anyone wants otherwise.

Of course, feedback and any comparative experiments of alternative (or for that matter co-existing) RCs and charting within the same HT system in your room would be welcome. But the purpose will be inquiry, critical discussion of methodology and testing. True believers (hello, Feri ! biggrin.gif:) should keep their, ahem, enthusiasm, in the usual addresses... smile.gif

If I don't get it rolling by Wed night US time, you can bug me again...

Speaking of co-existence, that means you, Keith with XT32 and your Behringer FBD...biggrin.gif

 

Great stuff. I am really looking forward to your findings. It may also inspire me to finish my own experiments with the addition of the FBD to the chain. As you know, I have been on a 'measuring break' for a while and just enjoying my movies and my new B.I.G. screen, but it is about time I dug out REW again soon...

post #64582 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The problem was that Audyssey failed to take into account that the surround channels are mixed with lower SPLs than the front channels. This has been confirmed more than once by FilmMixer and you can look it up as it is part of the Reference standard.

Because of this error, it is quite obvious that if you lower the SPL evenly across all channels, the surrounds will 'disappear' sooner than the mains, simply because they were quieter to start with. If Audyssey had conducted their experiment with channels that all had the same SPL, then their findings would have been in accordance with the other professional acousticians who do not agree that sounds from around us diminish in perceived audibility faster than sounds in front of us.  This is the 'flawed premise' most of us are aware of.

This was all discussed at great length earlier in this thread, and a link recently posted to the time of the discussion. IDK if you have just failed to recall this or if maybe it happened when you were on your enforced 'leave of absence' following your altercation with Markus, but if you follow the link batpig posted yesterday, it will bring you up to speed. I also posted a direct link where Roger D and I discussed this, but it seems you didn't read it.

EDIT: Because of their error, Audyssey assumed that the reason the surround channels had 'disappeared' faster was because that is the way human hearing works - so they arranged for DEQ to boost the surrounds by about 3dB. Interestingly, FM has confirmed that the surrounds are mixed to 82dB - the exact same difference that Audyssey decided to boost by! The problem is, after applying the 'Audyssey boost' the surround channels are now 3dB louder than the mixer intended - which is probably the cause of all the numerous complaints that DEQ overboosts the surrounds. As you say, the film mixers got it right the first time but DEQ undoes their good work.

Personally, I don't mind the overboost on movies but this may be because my room is heavily treated or because my surround speakers are expensive Tripoles or simply because of my preference. But the premise is still a flawed one.

Yeah, you always know better, don't you? Have you e-mailed the U.S Patent Office about your findings? What did they say? *Sigh*
post #64583 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Sure, but that could happen even without a live-end/dead-end studio control room design, since our hearing changes depending on direction (which has been quantified as head related transfer function).

Not sure how this relates to perception of loudness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No, but Chris had briefly described the tests as bringing in several professional movie sound mixers and having them adjust their own soundtracks each time the level was incrementally lowered.

So they might have tested only one specific room? This would not provide conclusive data.
post #64584 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Yeah, you always know better, don't you? Have you e-mailed the U.S Patent Office about your findings? What did they say? *Sigh*

So you question whether the information FilmMixer gave is incorrect?
post #64585 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by urwi View Post

So you question whether the information FilmMixer gave is incorrect?

No, I'm questioning whether Keith's interpretation is correct or not? smile.gif

Here's a description on how Audyssey with Holman's connections developed DEQ:

So how did you develop the human model for this?
We work a lot with professional mixers at the university because of Tom [Holman]’s connections. So we did a number of experiments with them. In one of them we put them in front of the console and turned down the master fader, and the first reaction they had to their own mixes was, “what happened to my surrounds?” It turns out that loudness perception is spatial—it falls off faster behind us than it does in front of us. And we asked these mixers, “OK, you’re down 10dB, what would you do to the surrounds to maintain the surround impression?” And they would move it up, and at different levels they would move it up by different amounts. So if you do that with enough people you can come up with a set of rules that mimic what they’re doing.

So we integrated that into Dynamic EQ—as you turn the volume down, the surround levels go up a little or a lot, depending on how far down you are, to maintain the impression of surround. And the best way to demo that is to turn the volume down 20dB and turn off Dynamic EQ, and all of the sound collapses to the front.

Link here.
post #64586 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

You're very welcome.  Though I'm a Denon guy, IIRC that 818 was a high-value model (the lowest MSRP AVR w/XT32).  But AFAIK the 818 is not Pro capable. My basic requirement in any processor at this point is XT32 & Pro-capable.  

To your basic requirements, I would add SubEQ HT, which I believe the 818 lacks as well. Since Prime has at least two subs that are visible, I think this might be an important consideration as well. My recommendation would be to look at the new Denon 4000.
post #64587 of 70910

^Very good point Jerry. 

 

Feri and the rest of you guys on the surround issue-geeze I hope we can please move on.

 

Like batpig said, just reread the extensive discussion on the surround boost issue already posted (that I'd referenced earlier). 

 

Oh, an interesting tidbit-once I got thinking about it, I remembered that FilmMixer had posted that he used RLO of 5 for film:  

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/49320#post_21548006

post #64588 of 70910
Does it matter if the center and the mains are all equidistant from the MLP when Audyssey is introducing delays that should make them time-coherent?
post #64589 of 70910
In theory it shouldn't. However, it can't hurt, especially if you have the flexibility of achieving a symmetric layout. The more you optimize the room and its layout, the less you are asking of room correction.
post #64590 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach View Post

Does it matter if the center and the mains are all equidistant from the MLP when Audyssey is introducing delays that should make them time-coherent?

I think not, ...my L&Rs are also a bit behind the center and the surrounds are much closer, but that's what distance settings are for. smile.gif
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)