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 2163

post #64861 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post


What do you attribute this to mo? Not picking up as much reflections possibly?

 

 

Not Mo, but when I tried this (the procedure is described in the HTS Forum), I immediately noticed that the overall frequency response was considerably flatter, when measured from the MLP only.  I attribute this to the fact that since the mic placements are so close, the frequency response variations due to room position are minimized, therefore Audyssey has fewer variations to compensate for.

 

HST, measurements taken over a wider area than the MLP showed a less even frequency response.  So, whether you think the "tight" mic pattern sounds better or not depends on whether you are sitting in the MLP or not.  For selfish people like Keith and myself (I mean that in a good way), optimizing response at the MLP could be a good thing.  These are my conclusions based on my observations--YMMV.

post #64862 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 

 

There are several things we know. For example, we know Audyssey uses data from each mic location to assess frequency response variations over the listening area, and applies proprietary algorithms to produce filters. We also know that room response can vary significantly from one position in the room to another. So it isn't a big leap to conclude that different mic placements could produce significantly different calibration results.

I have never been an advocate of "tricking" Audyssey by picking mic placements based on some pre-measurements that predict flattest response. I am, however, an advocate of picking a mic placement pattern and sticking with it over and over again to minimize the effects of room response variations. If this makes any sense at all...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post


lol The second sentence directly contradicts the first. nonsense indeed.

 

My apology, Gary, my original post was not well worded.  Let me try it again.  I don't think Audyssey users should over-think mic placements, rather they should follow the general guidelines as presented in the FAQ.  However, once a mic pattern is selected, subsequent calibrations should use the same mic pattern to minimize the calibration-to-calibration variances.

post #64863 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

I wish we had more standardized instructions. 

The 'Audyssey 101' linked in my sig is as close to  standardised set of instructions you are likely to find.

I'd say they are the best set on AVS and was on of the first reasons I found this site a few years ago.

 

Thank you!  They contain the distilled wisdom of thousands of posts in this thread.

post #64864 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

BTW I finally got around to redoing the Audyssey setup with the methodology of clustering around the MLP. The results are surprisingly clearer. I don't think I will ever go back to the Audyssey recommended way of placing the mic again unless I build a bonafide theater.



What do you attribute this to mo? Not picking up as much reflections possibly?

so my room has terrible speaker placement in the surrounds since my WAF depends on having a 'hidden' theater. She's ok with a big screen so long as the furniture it is on is nice, but she can't stand the sight of speakers getting in the way of her beautiful modern furniture. So I have to hide things as much as possible and only can have two unassuming looking bookshelf speakers in sight along with a pair of tiny piano black subs (that must sit much lower to the ground than a BDI 8929, which is pretty low); the center and surrounds are hidden.

So just guessing what's going on is that my setup has a lot of issues and I'm willing to bet there's a lot of variation between 'issues' picked up at the various recommended audyssey mic positions. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the sound that makes it to me from the surrounds is a reflection smile.gif If I understood correctly Auydyssey is going to try and smooth the issues variances out amongst the mic space, so with all the issue variance I have, having it focus at the MLP is probably giving me a lot more bang for buck.

It could be placebo too. I actually didn't expect to hear any difference. The soundstage is much more credible to me now. I'm pleased =]
post #64865 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post


What do you attribute this to mo? Not picking up as much reflections possibly?

 

 

Not Mo, but when I tried this (the procedure is described in the HTS Forum), I immediately noticed that the overall frequency response was considerably flatter, when measured from the MLP only.  I attribute this to the fact that since the mic placements are so close, the frequency response variations due to room position are minimized, therefore Audyssey has fewer variations to compensate for.

 

HST, measurements taken over a wider area than the MLP showed a less even frequency response.  So, whether you think the "tight" mic pattern sounds better or not depends on whether you are sitting in the MLP or not.  For selfish people like Keith and myself (I mean that in a good way), optimizing response at the MLP could be a good thing.  These are my conclusions based on my observations--YMMV.

 


When I redid my Audyssey Pro calibration this week (following changes to the HT after installing a PJ) I observed that my usual pattern is to place the mic positions around the MLP, no more than 12 inches distant from it. This is a much wider spacing than those suggested on HTS (which I continue to view with suspicion) but in my case, where MLP reigns supreme, this seems to give me a good result. I additionally make two measurements in the second seat because I don't want that seat to be left 'out in the cold' entirely.  The result of the last cal is below (OmniMic not REW - my pal has borrowed my REW mic).

 

 

The rise at the bass end is intentional - the response above the XO (100Hz) is within +/-3.5dB, which I am happy with. Any further improvement would be a lot of effort and probably inaudible anyway.

post #64866 of 70910
Hey Keith, for the XO I've been curious about raising it to 100 from 80 since a few people have mentioned they like it more. I'm curious why you raised yours?
post #64867 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Not Mo, but when I tried this (the procedure is described in the HTS Forum), I immediately noticed that the overall frequency response was considerably flatter, when measured from the MLP only.  I attribute this to the fact that since the mic placements are so close, the frequency response variations due to room position are minimized, therefore Audyssey has fewer variations to compensate for.

HST, measurements taken over a wider area than the MLP showed a less even frequency response.  So, whether you think the "tight" mic pattern sounds better or not depends on whether you are sitting in the MLP or not.  For selfish people like Keith and myself (I mean that in a good way), optimizing response at the MLP could be a good thing.  These are my conclusions based on my observations--YMMV.



I've yet to do this and was trying to hold off until I purchase a new sub, mines on it's way out. What stood out in your post to me was, you think your surround speakers are a reflection. I guess I never thought of sound quite that way until I read it and it makes sense to get rid of as many as possible. But I'm also trying to get rid of some of my reflection points first. My room is a challenge though.
Edited by comfynumb - 9/12/13 at 9:31am
post #64868 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

Hey Keith, for the XO I've been curious about raising it to 100 from 80 since a few people have mentioned they like it more. I'm curious why you raised yours?

 

For the record, my crossovers are currently set at 100Hz (R&L), 110Hz (C) and 120Hz (Surrounds and Heights). These were all recommended XOs in Audyssey Pro and in all but the case of the LCR they were the first choice recommendations on my last calibration. Crossover recommendations seem very sensitive to mic placement at the MLP, so even small differences in mic placement can result in different crossovers being offered, or more usually, in a different order. (Pro offers several XO choices, ranked in order of preference).

 

All my speakers are THX certified, so they have no significant response below 80Hz by design, although room reinforcement can make Audyssey believe the front three can go down to 40Hz. 

 

I have very capable subs in the form of dual Submersive F2s. These subs were designed by Mark Seaton to be proficient up to 200Hz, specifically so that they could be used with smaller main speakers or speakers such as mine. Mark did a lot of work with my speakers (M&K S150s) and he found that invariably the result was better if a 100Hz crossover to the SubMs was used. I basically followed Mark's advice to use the 100Hz or 110Hz XO.

 

In general, if the subs are good, I think many people would benefit from 100Hz XOs. There is considerable strain taken off the amp driving the satellites, plus benefits to the satellites themselves in not being asked to work very hard, and it makes good use of a capable sub, which has been designed specifically to handle lower end frequencies - in my case with a 1,000 watt amp in each sub, driving two 15 inch woofers per sub.  This sentence in italics would by my shorter answer to your question as to why I raised mine if it hadn't been for the fact that Mark suggested it to me.

 

Bear in mind I have dual subs and localisation is not an issue at all for me. Why not raise yours to 100Hz and try it if you have a good sub?  Costs nothing to give it a go and see if you prefer it.

post #64869 of 70910
The shortest answer would have been two words: DUAL SUBMERSIVES biggrin.gif
post #64870 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The shortest answer would have been two words: DUAL SUBMERSIVES biggrin.gif



Since my sub is on it's way out and need 1 or two I have questions and their website is being rebuilt. How are their prices for a 15" sealed sub? I'm currently considering a Rythmik 15" or dual 15" model.


Edit: I found a price list online. Pretty expensive, upwards of $2,400.
post #64871 of 70910
that sure is a lot of firepower - thanks for the info.
post #64872 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post


Since my sub is on it's way out and need 1 or two I have questions and their website is being rebuilt. How are their prices for a 15" sealed sub? I'm currently considering a Rythmik 15" or dual 15" model.


Edit: I found a price list online. Pretty expensive, upwards of $2,400.

 

 

Think of Submersives as "category killers".  Once you get a couple of these, you are set for life.  Unless you decide to get four...  :D

post #64873 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Think of Submersives as "category killers".  Once you get a couple of these, you are set for life.  Unless you decide to get four...  biggrin.gif



I just upgraded several things and I didn't want to spend that much. I've heard great things about them and they must be worth it.
post #64874 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

The shortest answer would have been two words: DUAL SUBMERSIVES biggrin.gif

 

LOL. Very good point :)

post #64875 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Think of Submersives as "category killers".  Once you get a couple of these, you are set for life.  Unless you decide to get four...  biggrin.gif



I just upgraded several things and I didn't want to spend that much. I've heard great things about them and they must be worth it.

 

They are. Check Mark's thread for prices of Submersives with the pre-owned 1,000 watt amps. The standard amps are now 2,400 watts and Mark offers an exchange service for those with the old 1,000 watt units so this can save some money. I had no choice but to have 1,000 watt amps as the 2,400 watt units are currently 110v only and we are 230v here in the UK. I went for pre-owned amps and this saved me quite a bit.  HPs are also cheaper than F2s - I went for F2s because they fit my small room more easily.

post #64876 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

They are. Check Mark's thread for prices of Submersives with the pre-owned 1,000 watt amps. The standard amps are now 2,400 watts and Mark offers an exchange service for those with the old 1,000 watt units so this can save some money. I had no choice but to have 1,000 watt amps as the 2,400 watt units are currently 110v only and we are 230v here in the UK. I went for pre-owned amps and this saved me quite a bit.  HPs are also cheaper than F2s - I went for F2s because they fit my small room more easily.



I know you guys are 230v across the pond. So the speakers are new and the amps are used? How does your Submersive compare to others subs you've had? I'm wondering how much of a difference the more powerful amp makes and if that is the only thing different in that sub. Same speaker in both? Marks thread is the one with 8500+ posts? I just don't see the price list. Sorry for all the questions.
Edited by comfynumb - 9/12/13 at 10:28am
post #64877 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Not Mo, but when I tried this (the procedure is described in the HTS Forum), I immediately noticed that the overall frequency response was considerably flatter, when measured from the MLP only.  I attribute this to the fact that since the mic placements are so close, the frequency response variations due to room position are minimized, therefore Audyssey has fewer variations to compensate for.

HST, measurements taken over a wider area than the MLP showed a less even frequency response.  So, whether you think the "tight" mic pattern sounds better or not depends on whether you are sitting in the MLP or not.  For selfish people like Keith and myself (I mean that in a good way), optimizing response at the MLP could be a good thing.  These are my conclusions based on my observations--YMMV.

Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small. That isn't to say I have listened and preferring a single point measurement for 2 channel listening, for just me, but moving to the tighter pattern has yielded near perfect results, and the rest of the room benefits somewhat too from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



When I redid my Audyssey Pro calibration this week (following changes to the HT after installing a PJ) I observed that my usual pattern is to place the mic positions around the MLP, no more than 12 inches distant from it. This is a much wider spacing than those suggested on HTS (which I continue to view with suspicion) but in my case, where MLP reigns supreme, this seems to give me a good result. I additionally make two measurements in the second seat because I don't want that seat to be left 'out in the cold' entirely.  The result of the last cal is below (OmniMic not REW - my pal has borrowed my REW mic).




The rise at the bass end is intentional - the response above the XO (100Hz) is within +/-3.5dB, which I am happy with. Any further improvement would be a lot of effort and probably inaudible anyway.

To prove my point above, this graph was a single point calibration:



And this was one with a 5 point calibration:



Can I hear a difference? I seem to think I can but they are close enough that I am willing to take the small variance in that 1-2khz area to improve the rest of the room. It is still pretty minimal. Keith your response looks incredible. I can't help but mention that few have truly heard a +/- 2.5dB response such as you have, and man, being another one of them, it is something worth aiming for...uh, plus that little bass bump in the bottom end biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif I have actually added an even steeper bass curve since that last graph to improve upon it just a shade, but I curve mine naturally with EQ instead of dynEQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Since my sub is on it's way out and need 1 or two I have questions and their website is being rebuilt. How are their prices for a 15" sealed sub? I'm currently considering a Rythmik 15" or dual 15" model.


Edit: I found a price list online. Pretty expensive, upwards of $2,400.

DIY FTW BRO!!!!!
post #64878 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

They are. Check Mark's thread for prices of Submersives with the pre-owned 1,000 watt amps. The standard amps are now 2,400 watts and Mark offers an exchange service for those with the old 1,000 watt units so this can save some money. I had no choice but to have 1,000 watt amps as the 2,400 watt units are currently 110v only and we are 230v here in the UK. I went for pre-owned amps and this saved me quite a bit.  HPs are also cheaper than F2s - I went for F2s because they fit my small room more easily.



I know you guys are 230v across the pond. So the speakers are new and the amps are used? How does your Submersive compare to others subs you've had? I'm wondering how much of a difference the more powerful amp makes and if that is the only thing different in that sub. Same speaker in both?

 

Speakers new, amps used, yes. Checked and fully guaranteed by Mark prior to shipping. Updated with the latest DSP too.

 

How different to other subs I have experience of?  How different is discount beefburger to 42 day aged Aberdeen Angus?  I can't sensibly compare them - they are just so, so good.

 

The 2,400 watt amp was used by Mark to give more headroom (about 3dB more) for those who needed it. The amp is the only difference - drivers are same in both. Original HPs and F2s all had the 1,000 watt amps. 

post #64879 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small. That isn't to say I have listened and preferring a single point measurement for 2 channel listening, for just me, but moving to the tighter pattern has yielded near perfect results, and the rest of the room benefits somewhat too from it.
To prove my point above, this graph was a single point calibration:



And this was one with a 5 point calibration:



Can I hear a difference? I seem to think I can but they are close enough that I am willing to take the small variance in that 1-2khz area to improve the rest of the room. It is still pretty minimal. Keith your response looks incredible. I can't help but mention that few have truly heard a +/- 2.5dB response such as you have, and man, being another one of them, it is something worth aiming for...uh, plus that little bass bump in the bottom end biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif I have actually added an even steeper bass curve since that last graph to improve upon it just a shade, but I curve mine naturally with EQ instead of dynEQ.
DIY FTW BRO!!!!!



The only thing is I don't have the room to do many projects anymore or the time. If I could order the boxes built already I would consider just adding all the hardware, and buying a pro amp. So other than parts express where do I get the boxes? Parts express boxes looked decent but I thought they lacked bracing.
post #64880 of 70910
diysoundgroup.com

Several guys are buying these kits and assembling them with Stereo Integrity 18's, like I use, or Dayton 18HO's, even FiCar audio woofers, and adding an amp with wattage dependent on how many they want to go for. The SubM's are quite possibly the most impressive commerical offering I have ever heard though as well, and Mark pulled out all the stops when he went to design them. Other good options are the JTR captivators (ported or s2 sealed version) and the orbit shifters, but those are gigantic!!!!
post #64881 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post


Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small.

 

I observed the small bubble as well, so much so that even a slight head movement caused a crisp stereo image to shift.  I found it quite disconcerting, which is why my "tight" mic pattern has 6" spacing.

post #64882 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small. That isn't to say I have listened and preferring a single point measurement for 2 channel listening, for just me, but moving to the tighter pattern has yielded near perfect results, and the rest of the room benefits somewhat too from it.
 

 

It is that very small bubble that would concern me. I know, from testing, that moving the mic a few inches either way delivers a big difference in graphed response, so I am assuming that using one mic position might give an incredible response at the one mic position, but as soon as I shift in my seat (which I do) I would be in 'uncharted waters'. Using several positions which are then averaged by Audyssey in its secret sauce way seems to avoid the issue. By keeping the mic positions within a small 'box' though, it gives me the best of both worlds. That's my theory anyway :)

 

 

Quote:
 To prove my point above, this graph was a single point calibration:



And this was one with a 5 point calibration:

 

Yes - terrific difference. That is the flattest response I have ever seen! But what happens with the one point cal if you move your head a few inches when listening?  I do this a lot during a movie - I am a sloucher in a reclining chair and I do move about a bit.

 

 

Quote:

 Can I hear a difference? I seem to think I can but they are close enough that I am willing to take the small variance in that 1-2khz area to improve the rest of the room. It is still pretty minimal. Keith your response looks incredible. I can't help but mention that few have truly heard a +/- 2.5dB response such as you have, and man, being another one of them, it is something worth aiming for...uh, plus that little bass bump in the bottom end biggrin.gif biggrin.gif I have actually added an even steeper bass curve since that last graph to improve upon it just a shade, but I curve mine naturally with EQ instead of dynEQ.

 

I try to avoid graphitis nervosa if I can LOL. This is defined as a condition which causes the sufferer to make excessive attempts at producing a perfect graph, even if the changes are inaudible :)  I'm not dissing your efforts - in fact I admire them and the resolve that goes into creating them, but personally I am just lazier I think. If I can't hear the difference, I'm happy to accept the result that shows it.

 

As you say, once we get to the heady realms of +/-3.5dB across the range, we are pretty darn good. I love the bass bump too like you. I intend to get around to using REW and the Behringer PEQ to smooth that bass hump a little more to my liking. For now, I am just enjoying the HT after many weeks of renovation due to the (what I thought was) simple addition of a PJ. It resulted in a full remodelling of the room with treatments repositioned, walls and ceiling repainted, carpet changed, seats moved slightly forward and numerous other things that took for ever. 

 

EDIT: not to be outdone, I attach graph showing response from 10Hz instead of the 'standard' 20Hz we use on the REW thread :D

 

 

post #64883 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post


Lump me in the slightly "selfish" category too, but going even more away from the playbook, a single measurement calibration actually yields the absolute flattest response for me at the MLP, but the "bubble" at that point is VERY small.

 

I observed the small bubble as well, so much so that even a slight head movement caused a crisp stereo image to shift.  I found it quite disconcerting, which is why my "tight" mic pattern has 6" spacing.

 

My head movements during a movie are more than slight! LOL.

 

I must try your 6 inch spacing pattern though - mine is a 12 inch pattern. Easy to do and I can always reload the previous cal in Pro if I want to (that, to me, is one of the biggest benefits of Pro - that security of knowing I can futz with it as much as I want and easily go back at any time to an earlier cal).

post #64884 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

diysoundgroup.com

Several guys are buying these kits and assembling them with Stereo Integrity 18's, like I use, or Dayton 18HO's, even FiCar audio woofers, and adding an amp with wattage dependent on how many they want to go for. The SubM's are quite possibly the most impressive commerical offering I have ever heard though as well, and Mark pulled out all the stops when he went to design them. Other good options are the JTR captivators (ported or s2 sealed version) and the orbit shifters, but those are gigantic!!!!



I don't want to get into finishing or assembling the boxes I literally don't have the room. Any other pre assembled boxes? Who makes the SubM's and are they expensive? I don't need 18's though, two 15's in as small of boxes as possible. I'm not looking to shift orbit just add good clean bass biggrin.gif speaking of orbit what are those cylindrical subs you are using?
Edited by comfynumb - 9/12/13 at 11:11am
post #64885 of 70910
Quote:
Yes - terrific difference. That is the flattest response I have ever seen! But what happens with the one point cal if you move your head a few inches when listening? I do this a lot during a movie - I am a sloucher in a reclining chair and I do move about a bit.

In that second graph, the green was the 5 point cal, the blue was a no-audyssey curve. With the 5 point cal I can swish and swash all around my main seat and be in pretty good shape, and the results actually carry a little better to the second row of seating directly behind the MLP at about 20 feet.
Quote:
I'm not dissing your efforts - in fact I admire them and the resolve that goes into creating them, but personally I am just lazier I think. If I can't hear the difference, I'm happy to accept the result that shows it.

I actually was able to accomplish most of that with just additional room treatment, speaker placement, and toe-in to the point that I am basically dead flat with audyssey after every run, regardless of how many positions I run. Could I still improve that 1-2khz area, sure, but if it ain't "broke" don't figit. haha
Quote:
EDIT: not to be outdone, I attach graph showing response from 10Hz instead of the 'standard' 20Hz we use on the REW thread biggrin.gif


10hz is mo-betta. Now lets see how you are doing at 5? haha cool.gif
post #64886 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
 For now, I am just enjoying the HT after many weeks of renovation due to the (what I thought was) simple addition of a PJ. It resulted in a full remodelling of the room with treatments repositioned, walls and ceiling repainted, carpet changed, seats moved slightly forward and numerous other things that took for ever.

 

Pics or didn't happen! :D

post #64887 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I don't want to get into finishing or assembling the boxes I literally don't have the room. Any other pre assembled boxes? Who makes the SubM's and are they expensive? I don't need 18's though, two 15's in as small of boxes as possible.


SUBm is seaton sound: http://www.seatonsound.net/ check the forum link there

Captivators are JTR: http://jtrspeakers.com/
post #64888 of 70910
10hz is mo-betta. Now lets see how you are doing at 5? haha 



I knew a mo betta once and a Jo momma biggrin.gif
post #64889 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post
 
 For now, I am just enjoying the HT after many weeks of renovation due to the (what I thought was) simple addition of a PJ. It resulted in a full remodelling of the room with treatments repositioned, walls and ceiling repainted, carpet changed, seats moved slightly forward and numerous other things that took for ever.

 

Pics or didn't happen! :D

 

LOL. I tried taking pics with my phone but the room is so dark nothing comes out. I will have to use the proper camera. Here's a thoroughly meaningless pic of the PJ screen, taken with the phone, to be going on with LOL. Doesn't seem sharp - that'll be the phone.

 

post #64890 of 70910
Dang Keith! Wish I would have seen that Onkyo deal yesterday! I have some one looking, now the price is back up!
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)