New Arcam 2022 8K AV Receivers w Dirac Live Bass and More...

D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Are you sure about that, any link to the source of info?

Independent if of course better but it likely isn't a big deal if your two subs are identical and are placed equal distance to your mlp. Are you getting the optional DLBC too?

Go to the 1640 mark he says they checked the manual
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
The outputs on the arc am are all independent. It appears to operate much the same as the HTP1 in that regard. Dirac Bass Control is worthless as a product if you daisy chain or otherwise link Subs to a single output.

Check out right around the 1640 mark
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Are you sure about that, any link to the source of info?

Independent if of course better but it likely isn't a big deal if your two subs are identical and are placed equal distance to your mlp. Are you getting the optional DLBC too?
If that reviewer is right then as you stated @ryanosaur doesn't that make multisub Dirac eq worthless at least if you try to run it from the reciever?
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Are you sure about that, any link to the source of info?

Independent if of course better but it likely isn't a big deal if your two subs are identical and are placed equal distance to your mlp. Are you getting the optional DLBC too?
I tried to download the manual to you but audioholics server says it's too large a file. It never from what I can see reading it clearly says if they are wired independent or not.

But it also never says clearly if they are and you'd think they'd advertise that because that's a big deal @PENG And @ryanosaur I'm going to try to contact someone at Arcam when I have time today to get to the bottom of this

That's a huge deal if it's true and something I can't believe they would miss. Thats 500 bucks to add on DLBC and it would be worthless from what I understand if they're sub outputs are all wired in parallel
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Are you sure about that, any link to the source of info?

Independent if of course better but it likely isn't a big deal if your two subs are identical and are placed equal distance to your mlp. Are you getting the optional DLBC too?
So I contacted Arcam technical support directly. The tech guy didn't appear to know much :rolleyes: go figure but he was able to confirm that the sub outputs are wired in parallel even on the av41

Now he spouted some stuff of about how Dirac can once the DLBC is down loaded somehow make each sub independent which is something I've never heard can be done in my life but he also admitted he's never calibrated one using Dirac I contacted Audio Advice to help me out here as well. So I'll let you know more if they tell me

Maybe @gene can help us out with this dilemma when he has some time?
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Of course, if it truly improves the SQ in any way and does a better job than what we can do manually, then even I and @TLS Guy would use RC. :D

If Yamaha were to join the gang and offer DL in their AVR or AVP, I would try it AGAIN. And use whichever sounds best to me.

That’s the motto - try everything and use what’s best.

But if I were to make an educated guess based on experience, I would say that DL (like most RC) will probably improve the BASS, but not above 400Hz. :D

Bottom, I hope Denon/Marantz do in fact offer DL to all models from X3800 and up. And I hope Yamaha follows just like they finally did with Auro3D.

Whether we use it or not isn’t the point. Giving everyone the option is always good.
As you know I set up a 3.1 in my bedroom 3 monoprice encore T6 and 1 PB 2000. I used a denon X3700H. I ran the 3 towers full range and eqd them and the sub as one. Room eq did produce measurable and audible improvements in the BASS and with the bass managed correctly that improved the entire system.

Now I didn't like what the eq did with the rest of the frequency range but you can turn the eq off above where the Schroeder effect takes place

So as long as Audyssey can be configured to only correct the bass response like it can in there new models both in Denon and Marantz I'm a big fan now of Audyssey FYI
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
As you know I set up a 3.1 in my bedroom 3 monoprice encore T6 and 1 PB 2000. I used a denon X3700H. I ran the 3 towers full range and eqd them and the sub as one. Room eq did produce measurable and audible improvements in the BASS and with the bass managed correctly that improved the entire system.

Now I didn't like what the eq did with the rest of the frequency range but you can turn the eq off above where the Schroeder effect takes place

So as long as Audyssey can be configured to only correct the bass response like it can in there new models both in Denon and Marantz I'm a big fan now of Audyssey FYI
Yeah, no matter which Room EQ it is, I think it's best to just EQ the subs and leave the rest alone. I think Audyssey can EQ the subs just fine. I don't see the point of spending thousands to EQ above 400Hz.
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
This seems like a very strange a weird choice. If you have 16 assignable outputs and a room correction protocol that wants 3-4 independent Subwoofer outputs, there should be no reason to nerf the whole system by limiting potential Subwoofer output to two with an internal split.
Based on everything (limited to be certain) I had thought I understood about DLBC, this implementation of Subwoofer Outputs would undermine everything that you would gain from the Multi-Sub BC Module from Dirac.

Alas... Harman and Cos. seem to be making some awkward decisions. I really want to know more about the SDPs even though they are much more expensive.
Unfortunately, at that price, if you are focused on multiple Subs, Anthem seems like the winner right now in the under$10K category.
Perhaps we'll see the Monolith come back when everything gets sorted...

Now, just imagine if D&M offer a processor that could do even just 13.4! 15.4 would be fun for the bigger rooms, but if they just adapted what Anthem did in offering 4 discreet Sub outs to their existing system, that would be tremendous!
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
This seems like a very strange a weird choice. If you have 16 assignable outputs and a room correction protocol that wants 3-4 independent Subwoofer outputs, there should be no reason to nerf the whole system by limiting potential Subwoofer output to two with an internal split.
Based on everything (limited to be certain) I had thought I understood about DLBC, this implementation of Subwoofer Outputs would undermine everything that you would gain from the Multi-Sub BC Module from Dirac.

Alas... Harman and Cos. seem to be making some awkward decisions. I really want to know more about the SDPs even though they are much more expensive.
Unfortunately, at that price, if you are focused on multiple Subs, Anthem seems like the winner right now in the under$10K category.
Perhaps we'll see the Monolith come back when everything gets sorted...

Now, just imagine if D&M offer a processor that could do even just 13.4! 15.4 would be fun for the bigger rooms, but if they just adapted what Anthem did in offering 4 discreet Sub outs to their existing system, that would be tremendous!
Yeah it completely blew my mind I was like you do realize you can't use Dirac multi sub eq on subs not on independent channels right? Your asking me to pay 500 more on top of the 5000 I paid to utilize a feature that can't work? And is one of the main reasons I'd buy this product? Tech responds basically with a lot of sputtering Lol
 
Timforhifi

Timforhifi

Full Audioholic
I have an arcam avr20 and they absolutely have independent preouts. Sub 1, sub 2, and channels 15 and 16 can work for 4 independent subwoofers. Then dlbc will eq, phase align, time delay and get hopefully correct crossovers. Now you can go in and adjust or run house curves however you’d like manually. I’m not a big fan of overly equalizing a room but dirac has been the best in my experience. Still I’d start with good speakers, with proper layout and good acoustics. Won’t need much eq after that.

My arcam avr10 I use for another music system is different. Parallel sub outputs on that one but you can still get DLBC.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
I have an arcam avr20 and they absolutely have independent preouts. Sub 1, sub 2, and channels 15 and 16 can work for 4 independent subwoofers. Then dlbc will eq, phase align, time delay and get hopefully correct crossovers. Now you can go in and adjust or run house curves however you’d like manually. I’m not a big fan of overly equalizing a room but dirac has been the best in my experience. Still I’d start with good speakers, with proper layout and good acoustics. Won’t need much eq after that.

My arcam avr10 I use for another music system is different. Parallel sub outputs on that one but you can still get DLBC.
Yes the avr 20 and the other previous models including the avp20 were all independent preouts however it appears these new models the 21 series are not independently wired
 
Timforhifi

Timforhifi

Full Audioholic
I had hdmi board upgraded on mine and arcam said it’s now exactly the same as avr21. The new models are exactly like old ones, just new hdmi. I can’t confirm that because I don’t have a newer model though, but people on avs and avf have said same thing.

to be honest though, who knows what these companies are doing. Would seem to be a huge mistake if they took out the biggest feature that makes DLBC great. If it was my guess being an arcam user, new are just rebadged older model with new hdmi.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
This seems like a very strange a weird choice. If you have 16 assignable outputs and a room correction protocol that wants 3-4 independent Subwoofer outputs, there should be no reason to nerf the whole system by limiting potential Subwoofer output to two with an internal split.
Based on everything (limited to be certain) I had thought I understood about DLBC, this implementation of Subwoofer Outputs would undermine everything that you would gain from the Multi-Sub BC Module from Dirac.

Alas... Harman and Cos. seem to be making some awkward decisions. I really want to know more about the SDPs even though they are much more expensive.
Unfortunately, at that price, if you are focused on multiple Subs, Anthem seems like the winner right now in the under$10K category.
Perhaps we'll see the Monolith come back when everything gets sorted...

Now, just imagine if D&M offer a processor that could do even just 13.4! 15.4 would be fun for the bigger rooms, but if they just adapted what Anthem did in offering 4 discreet Sub outs to their existing system, that would be tremendous!
In my opinion, people who own more than two subwoofers tend to over think about the need to independently EQ each individually. We all know that just move the sitting position for 1 feet will make a significant difference in the bass response curve anyway. If you use REW you will see it for yourself and would wonder how is the claim of any RC software/measuring technique can create a listening "bubble" for smooth and accurate bass response not against physics!! I am not saying there will be no improvement, but logically it is easy to understand either you create a somewhat compromised bubble or a narrower but more optimized mlp, but not a good size bubble that is optimized everywhere within it while also claiming time align each individual speaker/sub can make an audible difference. Wouldn't such simultaneous claims sound illogical and/or contradictory? I think there are good reasons why it took Dirac Live so many years to finally come up with this DLBC thing, the measuring side hasn't change, and the software, math involved are not rocket science right?

Yes in theory if you time align and EQ each of multiple, say 4 subs you should be able to achieve the following at the mlp:

Assuming DLBC can do the following:
Note: I say assume because there isn't much specific details on the Dirac website about how many subs can be time aligned, is it 4, or more?
1) All 4 subs will be time aligned so cancellation effects can be "minimized".
2) Each of the 4 subs will be EQ'ed individually.

Audyssey Sub EQ's:

1) Audyssey would require you to group the 4 subs into pairs of 2 based on pairing 2 that are equidistance to your mlp.
2) Audyssey sub EQ HT would time aligned the two pairs of 2 subs that are equidistance to mlp.
3) Audyssey XT32 would EQ all 4 as one.

So in theory DLBC is superior in the sense that Audyssey's grouping of two equidistance subs as one is not going to be exact but approximate only.

In practical sense, whatever effects DLBC can gain in terms of less cancellation due to timing/phase differences will depend on their software/algorithm, and such gain may be too low to be even audible when you consider humans ability to resolve the differences in bass response variations in the below 120 Hz range.

That's on time alignment, on EQ, it seems like a complicated analysis to determine if EQ each subwoofer when there is only one LFE channel is "better". It could actually be about the same or even worse, such analysis is better left to someone working on their PhD lol..

My gut feeling based on what I know and understand, DLBC, if done well, is superior in theory and in terms of minimizing cancellations between multiple subwoofers and therefore also overall efficiency and even in terms minimizing bass response variations between the listener's positions. That being said, I am very skeptical about whether one would actually gain in terms of perceived sound quality gain (vs Audyssey, Anthem, Trinnov, MSO etc. when listening to real world music, let alone movies.

I am also willing to bet that even after DLBC gain popularity, there will still be lots people heading for the minidsp+REW, or minidsp+MSO, read the marketing info and convince themselves there are major improvements over auto RC (Audyssey, Anthem ARC, DL etc..).

Such claims of easily audible, or night and day improvements over other's are to me, no difference those who claimed the same about differences achieved by comparing well designed/measured amps and dacs, that if you put them in the same room and do a properly conducted (say by Dr. Olive or Toole), their scores will be all over the map in the subjective scores and yet consistently in the below 60% better vs worse vs same objective scores.

By the way, I don't know if you have try MSO, that many swear by it's effectiveness in doing multiple subs. Since it is free, I would likely try it for fun, really for fun only, because I just can see any audible improvements over what I have now.

Multiple Subwoofers: Optimize Them With Multi-Sub Optimizer Software (diy-audio-engineering.org)

I am not biased against Dirac at all, in fact if and when DLBC becomes available for the PC standalone version I will likely try or buy it for my 2.1 system, yes only 1 sub but unfortunately without DLBC, the stereo PC standalone version can only do 2.0. I just think the whole Audyssey vs Anthem ARC vs DL vs Trinnov, minidsp and now MSO are overrated. One can stick with any of those, focus on doing it right and reap more benefits.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
In my opinion, people who own more than two subwoofers tend to over think about the need to independently EQ each individually. We all know that just move the sitting position for 1 feet will make a significant difference in the bass response curve anyway. If you use REW you will see it for yourself and would wonder how is the claim of any RC software/measuring technique can create a listening "bubble" for smooth and accurate bass response not against physics!! I am not saying there will be no improvement, but logically it is easy to understand either you create a somewhat compromised bubble or a narrower but more optimized mlp, but not a good size bubble that is optimized everywhere within it while also claiming time align each individual speaker/sub can make an audible difference. Wouldn't such simultaneous claims sound illogical and/or contradictory? I think there are good reasons why it took Dirac Live so many years to finally come up with this DLBC thing, the measuring side hasn't change, and the software, math involved are not rocket science right?

Yes in theory if you time align and EQ each of multiple, say 4 subs you should be able to achieve the following at the mlp:

Assuming DLBC can do the following:
Note: I say assume because there isn't much specific details on the Dirac website about how many subs can be time aligned, is it 4, or more?
1) All 4 subs will be time aligned so cancellation effects can be "minimized".
2) Each of the 4 subs will be EQ'ed individually.

Audyssey Sub EQ's:

1) Audyssey would require you to group the 4 subs into pairs of 2 based on pairing 2 that are equidistance to your mlp.
2) Audyssey sub EQ HT would time aligned the two pairs of 2 subs that are equidistance to mlp.
3) Audyssey XT32 would EQ all 4 as one.

So in theory DLBC is superior in the sense that Audyssey's grouping of two equidistance subs as one is not going to be exact but approximate only.

In practical sense, whatever effects DLBC can gain in terms of less cancellation due to timing/phase differences will depend on their software/algorithm, and such gain may be too low to be even audible when you consider humans ability to resolve the differences in bass response variations in the below 120 Hz range.

That's on time alignment, on EQ, it seems like a complicated analysis to determine if EQ each subwoofer when there is only one LFE channel is "better". It could actually be about the same or even worse, such analysis is better left to someone working on their PhD lol..

My gut feeling based on what I know and understand, DLBC, if done well, is superior in theory and in terms of minimizing cancellations between multiple subwoofers and therefore also overall efficiency and even in terms minimizing bass response variations between the listener's positions. That being said, I am very skeptical about whether one would actually gain in terms of perceived sound quality gain (vs Audyssey, Anthem, Trinnov, MSO etc. when listening to real world music, let alone movies.

I am also willing to bet that even after DLBC gain popularity, there will still be lots people heading for the minidsp+REW, or minidsp+MSO, read the marketing info and convince themselves there are major improvements over auto RC (Audyssey, Anthem ARC, DL etc..).

Such claims of easily audible, or night and day improvements over other's are to me, no difference those who claimed the same about differences achieved by comparing well designed/measured amps and dacs, that if you put them in the same room and do a properly conducted (say by Dr. Olive or Toole), their scores will be all over the map in the subjective scores and yet consistently in the below 60% better vs worse vs same objective scores.

By the way, I don't know if you have try MSO, that many swear by it's effectiveness in doing multiple subs. Since it is free, I would likely try it for fun, really for fun only, because I just can see any audible improvements over what I have now.

Multiple Subwoofers: Optimize Them With Multi-Sub Optimizer Software (diy-audio-engineering.org)

I am not biased against Dirac at all, in fact if and when DLBC becomes available for the PC standalone version I will likely try or buy it for my 2.1 system, yes only 1 sub but unfortunately without DLBC, the stereo PC standalone version can only do 2.0. I just think the whole Audyssey vs Anthem ARC vs DL vs Trinnov, minidsp and now MSO are overrated. One can stick with any of those, focus on doing it right and reap more benefits.
Over-think and overkill is the norm with audiophiles. If it sounds great, it is GREAT.

I think some people tend to think that they could improve even if the sound is already good.

But it's understandable in one scenario - when it does NOT sound good.

If it doesn't sound good, then we have no choice but to try to improve the sound. For some, that means trying out "automatic independent multi-sub EQ".

I assume people who want independent multi-sub-EQ because they can't get their bass to sound great with multiple subs. Either that or they just want their REW graphs to look prettier on paper. But it seems very expensive just to get a pretty graph. :D
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Over-think and overkill is the norm with audiophiles. If it sounds great, it is GREAT.

I think some people tend to think that they could improve even if the sound is already good.

But it's understandable in one scenario - when it does NOT sound good.

If it doesn't sound good, then we have no choice but to try to improve the sound. For some, that means trying out "automatic independent multi-sub EQ".

I assume people who want independent multi-sub-EQ because they can't get their bass to sound great with multiple subs. Either that or they just want their REW graphs to look prettier on paper. But it seems very expensive just to get a pretty graph. :D
I think the issue here is that Arcam is advertising DLBC which can eq multiple subs. Up to 4. To get it you need to pay $500 on top of the over $5000 you already paid which is pushing your purchase closer to $6000. You'd think Arcam would wire the AV41 extra sub outputs to best take advantage of how Dirac multi sub eq works. It appears they didn't do that. Customers might want to know that.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Over-think and overkill is the norm with audiophiles. If it sounds great, it is GREAT.

I think some people tend to think that they could improve even if the sound is already good.

But it's understandable in one scenario - when it does NOT sound good.

If it doesn't sound good, then we have no choice but to try to improve the sound. For some, that means trying out "automatic independent multi-sub EQ".

I assume people who want independent multi-sub-EQ because they can't get their bass to sound great with multiple subs. Either that or they just want their REW graphs to look prettier on paper. But it seems very expensive just to get a pretty graph. :D
I don't think there is overthink here. Arcam is offering DLBC for a $500 extra charge. I want to know if they have set up there device to best optimize what they've advertised since I'd have to pay extra for it. That's all.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
In my opinion, people who own more than two subwoofers tend to over think about the need to independently EQ each individually. We all know that just move the sitting position for 1 feet will make a significant difference in the bass response curve anyway. If you use REW you will see it for yourself and would wonder how is the claim of any RC software/measuring technique can create a listening "bubble" for smooth and accurate bass response not against physics!! I am not saying there will be no improvement, but logically it is easy to understand either you create a somewhat compromised bubble or a narrower but more optimized mlp, but not a good size bubble that is optimized everywhere within it while also claiming time align each individual speaker/sub can make an audible difference. Wouldn't such simultaneous claims sound illogical and/or contradictory? I think there are good reasons why it took Dirac Live so many years to finally come up with this DLBC thing, the measuring side hasn't change, and the software, math involved are not rocket science right?

Yes in theory if you time align and EQ each of multiple, say 4 subs you should be able to achieve the following at the mlp:

Assuming DLBC can do the following:
Note: I say assume because there isn't much specific details on the Dirac website about how many subs can be time aligned, is it 4, or more?
1) All 4 subs will be time aligned so cancellation effects can be "minimized".
2) Each of the 4 subs will be EQ'ed individually.

Audyssey Sub EQ's:

1) Audyssey would require you to group the 4 subs into pairs of 2 based on pairing 2 that are equidistance to your mlp.
2) Audyssey sub EQ HT would time aligned the two pairs of 2 subs that are equidistance to mlp.
3) Audyssey XT32 would EQ all 4 as one.

So in theory DLBC is superior in the sense that Audyssey's grouping of two equidistance subs as one is not going to be exact but approximate only.

In practical sense, whatever effects DLBC can gain in terms of less cancellation due to timing/phase differences will depend on their software/algorithm, and such gain may be too low to be even audible when you consider humans ability to resolve the differences in bass response variations in the below 120 Hz range.

That's on time alignment, on EQ, it seems like a complicated analysis to determine if EQ each subwoofer when there is only one LFE channel is "better". It could actually be about the same or even worse, such analysis is better left to someone working on their PhD lol..

My gut feeling based on what I know and understand, DLBC, if done well, is superior in theory and in terms of minimizing cancellations between multiple subwoofers and therefore also overall efficiency and even in terms minimizing bass response variations between the listener's positions. That being said, I am very skeptical about whether one would actually gain in terms of perceived sound quality gain (vs Audyssey, Anthem, Trinnov, MSO etc. when listening to real world music, let alone movies.

I am also willing to bet that even after DLBC gain popularity, there will still be lots people heading for the minidsp+REW, or minidsp+MSO, read the marketing info and convince themselves there are major improvements over auto RC (Audyssey, Anthem ARC, DL etc..).

Such claims of easily audible, or night and day improvements over other's are to me, no difference those who claimed the same about differences achieved by comparing well designed/measured amps and dacs, that if you put them in the same room and do a properly conducted (say by Dr. Olive or Toole), their scores will be all over the map in the subjective scores and yet consistently in the below 60% better vs worse vs same objective scores.

By the way, I don't know if you have try MSO, that many swear by it's effectiveness in doing multiple subs. Since it is free, I would likely try it for fun, really for fun only, because I just can see any audible improvements over what I have now.

Multiple Subwoofers: Optimize Them With Multi-Sub Optimizer Software (diy-audio-engineering.org)

I am not biased against Dirac at all, in fact if and when DLBC becomes available for the PC standalone version I will likely try or buy it for my 2.1 system, yes only 1 sub but unfortunately without DLBC, the stereo PC standalone version can only do 2.0. I just think the whole Audyssey vs Anthem ARC vs DL vs Trinnov, minidsp and now MSO are overrated. One can stick with any of those, focus on doing it right and reap more benefits.
I wouldn't be so adamant on finding the answer to this If I hadn't heard what audyssey eq could do to improve my bass response in my bedroom setup. I am now an adamant supporter of room correction know if done for the bass frequencies because of this experience. It was not an easy integration with 3 full range towers and a sub. But Audyssey nailed it. You know I wasnt always like that PENG. In fact I was completely against any room eq at all. And audyssey multisub eq is done with 2 sub inputs wired independently on the Denon. This is done for a reason. Otherwise they'd just wire it parallel. Now Arcam is offering a prepro for over $5000 that does this same improvement on bass. For up to 4 subs. But it needs to be wired the same way Denon wires they're sub outputs for it be 100% effective.

Audio Advice contacted me today and is going to check with they're installers of the Arcam units to find out the answer to this question. They said they will contact me back Monday I will keep you gentleman informed of what I find out
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Anyone that does manual eq like I usually do knows just how much of a pain in the a$$ it is to level match set distance phase and time align multiple subs with the rest of your system using your own measurements and tweeking them manually. So yeah if room eq can get this right I'm willing to pay for it
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I don't think there is overthink here. Arcam is offering DLBC for a $500 extra charge. I want to know if they have set up there device to best optimize what they've advertised since I'd have to pay extra for it. That's all.
Oh I agree. You're not over-thinking about that. If they are gonna charge this much money, you should know exactly what you're getting.

I was talking about independent multi-sub-EQ in general. If people can get their subs to sound great without independent multi-sub-EQ, they don't need it.

My point is, I think some audiophiles just WANT/DESIRE it even if their bass and system already sound great. :D

But for this much money, yeah, they better give you everything.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Oh I agree. You're not over-thinking about that. If they are gonna charge this much money, you should know exactly what you're getting.

I was talking about independent multi-sub-EQ in general. If people can get their subs to sound great without independent multi-sub-EQ, they don't need it.

My point is, I think some audiophiles just WANT/DESIRE it even if their bass and system already sound great. :D

But for this much money, yeah, they better give you everything.
Exactly, quite often we are dealing with 70% perfect vs 90% perfect (100% not possible!!), and whether that extra 20% theoretically better are in fact realized in real world because of other variables not accounted for such as inconsistent seat mlp when listening to movies/music, mic positions when measuring. Is it possible that sometimes fuzzy is better than exact, when time aligning subs in the case of independent vs grouping...etc..

Audyssey, and I am sure DL too, use fuzzy logic in their algorithm for good reasons, you would think..
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top