Trinnov Altitude 16 Review (AV Processor)

[Fidji]

No. Theta sucks too. Theirs specs are better than Denon's but just barely. All of the AV products are inferior. Let's not run out of ideas and resort to personal attacks. I own the Audiopraise Vanity pro and the sound I can get out of it with my external dacs is better than what I have ever gotten from a prepro. If I can figure out out to manage Dolby Atmos without one, I don't think I will own any of them. I avoided any audio sourced over HDMI for a decade.

I have attacked Trinnov. For one reason primarily. I thought for the price, they could offer better dacs. I was delighted, to see Amir finally inspire them improve the processor. If I have had an agenda that's it. I do sincerely feel it is outrageous for Trinnov to be beaten by Denon. It should not offend you. You should be outraged as well.

Actually, I hadn't considered that since the Trinnov is a PC, it can output audio over HDMI just like my HTPC. I can put the Vanity Pro on the HDMI output and avoid the inferior sound of a prepro.

I am not offended by you or your posts, they are just a little bit tiresome, you know, like that ex-colleague, spamming you inbox with another conspiracy theory. We all know that AVP/AVRs do not perform on the bench as good as standalone DACs. But we also know, that once you get beyond some point it does not matter. Some people here are so blinded by SINAD and other measurements, that they loose the bigger picture. It is just a mirror picture of audiophoolery.

I have no idea, whether you had a chance to compare TRINNOV with Denon in real life. I had, I was using Denon 8500 for couple of months, while waiting for TRINNOV Alt 32 to arrive, and I can tell you, it is not even remotely comparable in any respect [and I have been running Denon on the same set of external amplification] . You can trust me, or not, calling me biased or fooled. I am OK with what I have received for my money. You really do not hear 103 vs 100 SINAD in THE DUNE, but, boy, you DO hear Audyssey vs Optimizer.

In that respect your Audiopraise Vanity is just a piece of useless junk, as I can not watch THE DUNE on it in Atmos. I see no reason to have state of the art 150inches cinema and not be able to watch movies in Atmos, DTS:X or other 3D format just because there is unaudible difference in jitter.

BTW - there are first sessions and reports of listening to new ESS DAC board vs old one - no audible improvement reported, neither for Stereo, nor for movies. Although I would assume SINAD will be somewhere around 105dB now.

Complaining about the price etc, also misses the point completely. It is just your personal limitation, that sees 25k Euro as expensive or bad value. Everybody has different concept of the value for money. Is not cheap, and 25k is a lot of money in absolute terms to spend. But to me - having opportunity to escape reality of last 2 years in my cinema, tinkering, learning about sub placements and Bass Management, improving my set-up piece by piece and e.g. spending 10k for room treatments was well wort it. I could not care less about -3dBdB Jitter or 8dB SINAD difference vs some 100USD DAC>

 

[Adi777]

Do you think Trinnov Altitude 16 is much better than JBL Synthesis SDP-58?

 

[hmt]

Imo yes. The room optimizer can do a bit more than dirac and the plattform of the SDP-58 (Arcam) is still buggy.

 

[Fidji]

Do you think Trinnov Altitude 16 is much better than JBL Synthesis SDP-58?

Is different class, also price wise.
Only Storm Audio is directly comparable to Trinnov. You probably would need to compare it to Emotiva etc,

 

[TimoJ]

Only Storm Audio is directly comparable to Trinnov. You probably would need to compare it to Emotiva etc,

Is it really? Only Trinnov uses PC based DSPs. Storm Audio's implementation is similar to many other models, just with high price tag added.

 

[Bulldogger]

So overpriced for what it is but just like Louis Vitton!

Basically. For the first time, in one place, you can see how some of this stuff measures. Before, there were purely subjective claims. With the measurements on this site, it may at least give some a reason to question all of the subjective claims.

For many years I said the room correction in the Lexicon MC12 was not improving the sound. The owners of the MC12 were livid that I would make such claims. Finally, someone did some blind testing and proved my assertion was true. There are still a lot of excuses. The room correction didn't work, cause, cause, cause..... It was never corrected so I don't care what the cause was. It was bunch of hype.

So now we are here in 2022 and even claims of having the most superior room correction can be objectively compared. How many taps are you using etc? Audioholics did an objective comparison of the upmixers like Auro 3D as well so those claims have been tested as well.

In the end, it is like Louis Vitton. The value placed upon the item is not mainly because it is a better product technically. The value must be for some other reason.

 

[Sam Ash]

Has anyone here had an opportunity to compare the Anthem AVM 90 and the Altitude 16? - Muse in the mix would be nice too.

 

[Adi777]

So now we are here in 2022 and even claims of having the most superior room correction can be objectively compared. How many taps are you using etc? Audioholics did an objective comparison of the upmixers like Auro 3D as well so those claims have been tested as well.

Auro3D vs Atmos. Some people say Atmos is weak against Auro3D. Do you have any experience in this matter? Isn't that bullshit? Sometimes I see statements that Atmos is better for movies, and Auro 3D for music, concerts.

 

[Spocko]

Has anyone here had an opportunity to compare the Anthem AVM 90 and the Altitude 16? - Muse in the mix would be nice too.

This is a HUGE undertaking with much room for error. First, one must assume that the tester has mastered the room correction features of each to ensure that both processors have identical room response - but if one falls short of the other in terms of room correction is it user error or software shortcomings? Second, once both are confirmed to deliver the best room response given their software correction, next up is defining the "reference baseline". Since this will be a subjective comparison, we must have a reference system that defines "creator's intent" so that we can see how far afield the Trinnov or Anthem strays from the source material. In other words, THE ONLY WAY to truly compare each system would be as follows:

1. Rent out the mixing stage used to mix the multi-channel content where the source equipment that authored the original content was used - so this limits your source material to the material that was mixed in this studio with the original equipment used for the mix - keep in mind the original mix was likely done to 40 channels for movie theaters so it will always sound a little better here and there whereas 4K discs are limited to the 7.1.4 home mix
2. The ONLY variable now is the Anthem vs Trinnov plugged into the amps/speakers on this stage
3. Run room correction to the best of their ability to match a specific reference curve
4. Then do A/B/C testing where C is the reference source material that was mixed on this stage with this equipment. How similar do A and B sound to C?

What makes the above likely moot is this: if A sounds closer to C than B, it may only require a few manual adjustments to B and TA-DA now A sounds just like B or vice versa. At some point, there may be content where no matter what you do, you cannot get A to sound any closer to C as B but 98% of the time, it does. However, there may be content where B cannot be adjusted to sound as close to C as A. Does this make it a draw?

Ultimately, when making such comparisons, it always ends up being (1) which system is easiest to set up for the best sound quickly and (2) which is easy to use every day and (3) which has better customer support. Hands down, Trinnov wins 1, 2 and 3 for me. But for those who have access to a studio's mixing stage, the above test can definitely be done; however, I suspect judges will leave disappointed at the lack of differences once all is said and done.

FYI I recently had the pleasure of being in such a stage (Formosa in Hollywood) to watch my friend remix a 90's movie for Atmos release and it was eye opening the decisions he needed to make that expanded the soundfield without changing the movie too much.

PS: anytime someone asks me if it's worth it to upgrade to a Trinnov, I tell them to upgrade to four 16" subwoofers plus any AVR with Dirac Bass Management instead to get a lot more BOOM for a whole lot less!

 

[Spocko]

Auro3D vs Atmos. Some people say Atmos is weak against Auro3D. Do you have any experience in this matter? Isn't that bullshit? Sometimes I see statements that Atmos is better for movies, and Auro 3D for music, concerts.

Auromatic Upmixer was designed at its core for stereo/mono upmixing so it has a headstart but over time Atmos has been improving. More importantly, you can scale the Auro effect with a slider to adjust it to your taste. Whether or not Atmos is weak or strong is dependent on the source/mix. A good native Atmos mix is always better than Auro3D attempting to remix it - however, with a bad Atmos native multichannel, Auro3D does a better job extracting the height effects whereas Atmos is limited to the bad source mix (through no fault of its technology, blame the creator).

 

[Fidji]

Has anyone here had an opportunity to compare the Anthem AVM 90 and the Altitude 16? - Muse in the mix would be nice too.

On the bench, they probably perform the same [see AVM70 review]
And for the rest - this is so individual, that all you will ever get is subjective and biased opinion - and it will wildly differ between owners of each AVP. And of course, you will get lot of strong opinions from people that heard neither.

Absolute amount of people, that could directly compare AVM90 and Trinnov is close to 0, I would say, unless you count some subjectivists reviewers as a solid source of information.

I can tell difference between Denon 8500 and Trinnov [you did not ask for this, but as a process example] - as I have/had both of them connected to my 7.4.4 setup. Audyssey tweaked to max with PC app. I had "independent" persons evaluate sound of my system [question was - "what you do NOT like on Denon sound" - I got couple of answers [e.g. slight hole between fronts and rears due to placement limitation, center clarity in some frequencies, etc. etc.] .
I have played Dolby Atmos demo disc to death in my room to memorize what I hear" - and then inserted TRINNOV into the equation. Again the same drill with Atmos demo disc.t

To me, this is what it takes to "compare", and that is discounting all the subjective biases, and small tweaks along the way ["oh, I did not realize, that FL is 3cm nearer to MLP and if I move this SW by 30cm it will improve FR etc]

Now the shortcomings are gone, immersion is there 100%, stereo sounds wonderful[at least not worse than before]. I can listen couple of dB QUIETER to get the same goosebumps. So I guess, in my set-up, Trinnov is better.

 

[peng]

You can trust me, or not, calling me biased or fooled. I am OK with what I have received for my money. You really do not hear 103 vs 100 SINAD in THE DUNE, but, boy, you DO hear Audyssey vs Optimizer.

Do you think that explained the difference (8500 vs Attitude 16), or did you compare them in stereo direct mode with no dsp too?

BTW - there are first sessions and reports of listening to new ESS DAC board vs old one - no audible improvement reported, neither for Stereo, nor for movies. Although I would assume SINAD will be somewhere around 105dB now.

Are you talking about the Attitude's new ESS DAC board vs the original one, which ESS DAC are they using in the new one?

Not that important either way, just being curious..

 

[Fidji]

Do you think that explained the difference (8500 vs Attitude 16), or did you compare them in stereo direct mode with no dsp too?



Are you talking about the Attitude's new ESS DAC board vs the original one, which ESS DAC are they using in the new one?

Not that important either way, just being curious..

Denon as pre-amp for stereo - was absolutely OK, dead silent [I use Purifi modules for external amplification] so no complaints here. Overall no complaints, Denon 8500 is great piece of gear. I do lack only one Denon model with XLR outputs, then it would be perfect.

Re Denon as AV processor- I really tried, also with inspiration from you re Ratbudyssey and then Multeq-x later. For movies I compared DRC on vs DRC on. At least my impression is, that biggest difference outside of all those phase/impulse things is really Bass Management and quality of data measured by mics.

I have 4 subs now, so SubEQ from Aud was not useful, I reverted to MSO/MiniDsp combo. Trinnov is able to handle this on completely different level. Needs to be heard - e.g. routing of bass signal from center to my full range fronts - small thing, but creates different level of L-C-R coherency, etc, etc.

Stereo - Aud - I just could not listen to corrections above 300Hz - but I have electrostats which I guess are confusing for most of the DRC systems, so for Stereo it is Aud up to 250Hz vs full scope TRINNOV. My room is professionally treated so TRINNOV is doing really subtle adjustments to what is already quite good baseline.

Re ESS - nobody seems to know exact type, but I assume it will be the same change like for the others - AKM is not able to deliver, so they all switched to ESS.. I expect SINAD go up couple of dB.

 

[Sam Ash]

This is a HUGE undertaking with much room for error. First, one must assume that the tester has mastered the room correction features of each to ensure that both processors have identical room response - but if one falls short of the other in terms of room correction is it user error or software shortcomings? Second, once both are confirmed to deliver the best room response given their software correction, next up is defining the "reference baseline". Since this will be a subjective comparison, we must have a reference system that defines "creator's intent" so that we can see how far afield the Trinnov or Anthem strays from the source material. In other words, THE ONLY WAY to truly compare each system would be as follows:

1. Rent out the mixing stage used to mix the multi-channel content where the source equipment that authored the original content was used - so this limits your source material to the material that was mixed in this studio with the original equipment used for the mix - keep in mind the original mix was likely done to 40 channels for movie theaters so it will always sound a little better here and there whereas 4K discs are limited to the 7.1.4 home mix
2. The ONLY variable now is the Anthem vs Trinnov plugged into the amps/speakers on this stage
3. Run room correction to the best of their ability to match a specific reference curve
4. Then do A/B/C testing where C is the reference source material that was mixed on this stage with this equipment. How similar do A and B sound to C?

What makes the above likely moot is this: if A sounds closer to C than B, it may only require a few manual adjustments to B and TA-DA now A sounds just like B or vice versa. At some point, there may be content where no matter what you do, you cannot get A to sound any closer to C as B but 98% of the time, it does. However, there may be content where B cannot be adjusted to sound as close to C as A. Does this make it a draw?

Ultimately, when making such comparisons, it always ends up being (1) which system is easiest to set up for the best sound quickly and (2) which is easy to use every day and (3) which has better customer support. Hands down, Trinnov wins 1, 2 and 3 for me. But for those who have access to a studio's mixing stage, the above test can definitely be done; however, I suspect judges will leave disappointed at the lack of differences once all is said and done.

FYI I recently had the pleasure of being in such a stage (Formosa in Hollywood) to watch my friend remix a 90's movie for Atmos release and it was eye opening the decisions he needed to make that expanded the soundfield without changing the movie too much.

PS: anytime someone asks me if it's worth it to upgrade to a Trinnov, I tell them to upgrade to four 16" subwoofers plus any AVR with Dirac Bass Management instead to get a lot more BOOM for a whole lot less!

Thank you for the comprehensive response. That definitely makes sense and I appreciate your attention to detail.

I know it’s hard to ignore the features and flexibility of the Trinnov, they are most definitely cutting-edge. However, not taking those features or the room correction into consideration, I wonder how the two processors would compare in terms of raw sound fidelity. Having said that, I think Trinnov stands alone for channel count and assignable or definable channels.

 

[Spocko]

Thank you for the comprehensive response. That definitely makes sense and I appreciate your attention to detail.

I know it’s hard to ignore the features and flexibility of the Trinnov, they are most definitely cutting-edge. However, not taking those features or the room correction into consideration, I wonder how the two processors would compare in terms of raw sound fidelity. Having said that, I think Trinnov stands alone for channel count and assignable or definable channels.

It really depends what's important to you? Paying more is about saving time and less about raw sound fidelity if you break down what essentially all these products are doing.
Ultimately, the processor's most important role is to deliver at least the following:

1. Good enough audio fidelity wherein any additional fidelity is wasted as they're not audible enough in real content to make any difference at all
2. All the necessary tools to establish the most realistic and immersive multi-channel movie experience possible by extracting the information provided from the source. THIS is where the various AVRs and pre/pros separate themselves. That means they have to provide some variation of the following
   • room correction to reduce the room's deleterious effects on the sound
   • speaker correction to offset the speaker's flaws in the context of the room's interaction with the speaker
   • speaker placement correction for similiar reasons previously listed
   • bass management for similar reasons listed above
   • accuracy in source extraction and delivery (aka format compatibility like Atmos, DTS:X, Auro3D, etc.)
   • adjustments to improve delivery of a source (aka upmixing, preference curve adjustment, etc.) to your wishes and enjoyment
3. Most processors have the necessary tools and settings to deliver #2 while others may require additional 3rd party products (like REW and a better microphone). Ultimately, you can take a $1,500 processor and spend another $500 on 3rd party tools, plus much research and elbow grease to deliver essentially near the same audible fidelity as Storm and Trinnov.

So if "raw sound fidelity" is your goal and you have the time, you could certainly get your system to a subjectively indistinguishable level of audible sound fidelity as a Trinnov as long as you don't need more than 17 channels - take this IOTAVX 17 channel processor for under $2,000.

However, what these products may lack are the creative "upmixing" options available to create a more immersive experience that the original source may not provide (aka Aquaman's disappointing Atmos mix). Auro3D Auromatic is amazing at expanding an old movie's mono or stereo track into a bubble of surround sound but is not available in all devices (Anthem and IOTAVX lack Auro3D). Clearly, this is not "raw sound fidelity" but rather subjective preference for immersion not originally available in the source material.

IMO, and this is very much my personal position, comparing processors purely on "raw sound fidelity" is pointless because when movie watching, your goal is to be sucked into the storytelling of the movie and so the objective of your processor is to give you all the necessary tools to create that effect to YOUR satisfaction beyond what the source can even provide. Remember that the source movie was originally mixed for Dolby Cinema with over 36 tracks and real 3D audio objects in space. The home theater mix is severely limited and the objects ultimately end up being quadrants of sound more than real objects so already you are starting with a source inferior to the theater experience so you have to elevate this home mix to a level that you feel does justice to the movie experience. Do not limit your determination of an processor's worth based only on "raw sound fidelity" because it would be akin to comparing cars based purely on 0-60 or top speed.

For the sake of argument, if the above IOTAVX ends up measuring as "the best" ever SINAD found on any processor ever made in the history of man, it still wouldn't be worth much if you didn't have the time to spend 100 hours setting it up in order to hear all that SINAD because the 2 subwoofers in your room created a crazy null dip from 50Hz to 60Hz in your main listening position - so technically, on paper, this product would have outstanding raw sound fidelity but you have no way of enjoying it until you correct for that bass cancellation.

 

[Bulldogger]

Auro3D vs Atmos. Some people say Atmos is weak against Auro3D. Do you have any experience in this matter? Isn't that bullshit? Sometimes I see statements that Atmos is better for movies, and Auro 3D for music, concerts.

Well saying Atmos is weak against Auro3D is BS. Most of my time has been a dealer demos. One would need to compensate for the bass boost of Auro 3D to get an accurate picture. I am not really into upmixing music, only movies. So Atmos seems to be the best for my needs.

 

[Bulldogger]

I have no idea, whether you had a chance to compare TRINNOV with Denon in real life. I had, I was using Denon 8500 for couple of months, while waiting for TRINNOV Alt 32 to arrive, and I can tell you, it is not even remotely comparable in any respect [and I have been running Denon on the same set of external amplification] . You can trust me, or not, calling me biased or fooled. I am OK with what I have received for my money. You really do not hear 103 vs 100 SINAD in THE DUNE, but, boy, you DO hear Audyssey vs Optimizer.

I have. Impossible to do in same room with the dealer I visited. The Trinnov Altitude 16 had all of the advantage in the dealer's premier room, better speakers, Trinnov amps and room treatments. Walked next door into another room with a Denon processor and older Classe digital amps. The Denon room was much better. I mean much better sounding except for the bass. The Trinnov room was using JL Audio subs and the Denon room only had a single B&W sub. If you heard the two rooms, I don't see how one could ever buy Trinnov. The reason being was that even in different rooms, it proved that it was possible to get better sound using Denon.

Sure, I realize it was two different rooms, but the Trinnov room had all of the advantages and supposedly better processing. It was here www.modia.com in Houston Texas. I've auditioned the Trinnov processor several times.

I believe it is like the Lexicon MC12HD in its heyday. It is over-hyped. There are a lot of subjective claims. Claims I do not believe would survive scrutiny in a blind test. All one can do is drag the debate back into the subjective arena because the objective data is clear.

 

[sarumbear]

I have. Impossible to do in same room with the dealer I visited. The Trinnov Altitude 16 had all of the advantage in the dealer's premier room, better speakers, Trinnov amps and room treatments. Walked next door into another room with a Denon processor and older Classe digital amps. The Denon room was much better. I mean much better sounding except for the bass. The Trinnov room was using JL Audio subs and the Denon room only had a single B&W sub. If you heard the two rooms, I don't see how one could ever buy Trinnov. The reason being was that even in different rooms, it proved that it was possible to get better sound using Denon.

Sure, I realize it was two different rooms, but the Trinnov room had all of the advantages and supposedly better processing. It was here www.modia.com in Houston Texas. I've auditioned the Trinnov processor several times.

I believe it is like the Lexicon MC12HD in its heyday. It is over-hyped. There are a lot of subjective claims. Claims I do not believe would survive scrutiny in a blind test. All one can do is drag the debate back into the subjective arena because the objective data is clear.

Like @Fidji I had moved to a Trinnon (mine is 16) from a Denon 8500. During the process I also auditioned a Lyngdorf MP-60. In fact all three devices were in my room at the same time and I have plugged both new devices one after another trying each a few times. Trinnov's Optimizer won hands down. If I had a wife maybe Lyngdorf would won as it is a handsome device.

Everything you say above is based on subjective. IMHO, what you believe is wrong and your logic is false. You compared two different acoustic environments. If you have the money test it on your HT system. Often people who cannot afford AVPs at Trinnov level say it is over-hyped.

 

[jhenderson0107]

Recipe for quality audio, listed in priority order:

40%: Well mixed and mastered recordings
25%: Speakers with flat, broadband anechoic response with good directivity, reasonably positioned.
20%: Decent room acoustics
05%: A means of mitigating deliterious room effects below ~300 Hz via measurement and equalization
05%. Convenient tone controls

and

05%: Audibly transparent electronics (sources, amps, etc), functionally matched and suitable for volume demands.

The Trinnov provides audibly transparent electronics with competitive measurement and equalization solutions. It provides more knobs and dials than most other solutions - which appeals to experimenters like myself. It is very well supported. It's price is relatively high, similar to all low-volume, high quality/high NRE products .

The Trinnov is not a magic bullet. It is a quality product that leverages it's 5% control of audio quality well.

 

[Bulldogger]

However, not taking those features or the room correction into consideration, I wonder how the two processors would compare in terms of raw sound fidelity.

Like @Fidji I had moved to a Trinnon (mine is 16) from a Denon 8500. During the process I also auditioned a Lyngdorf MP-60. In fact all three devices were in my room at the same time and I have plugged both new devices one after another trying each a few times. Trinnov's Optimizer won hands down. If I had a wife maybe Lyngdorf would won as it is a handsome device.

Everything you say above is based on subjective. IMHO, what you believe is wrong and your logic is false. You compared two different acoustic environments. If you have the money test it on your HT system. Often people who cannot afford AVPs at Trinnov level say it is over-hyped.

Right. We have to go into a subjective discussion. That's endless. I say it's over-hyped not because I can't afford it. My amps are Krell Duo 300XD, $11.5K, Krell Chorus 5200XD $10.5k, Mcintosh XR200 speakrs L&R $22K, XCS200 center $8k etc., etc.

Let's stick to objective data. Trinnov's performance is inferior to many processors a fraction of its price. Denon has much better objective measurements.