Trinnov Altitude 16 Review (AV Processor)

[Spocko]

BUT $17,000. Yes, if I wanted it, I could buy one. However, that’s just . . . excessive. And that’s not even taking into account its mediocre performance on the test bench.

"Excessive" is definitely contextual. Trinnov margins are slim despite charging so much (this is not Prada or Gucci) and part of the expense is the level of after sales support you get directly from the engineering team at Trinnov. If Denon was to offer this level of personal service from a high ranking expert/trainer who answers directly to the VP of engineering on a Saturday, how much would their AVRs cost? $17K is definitely expensive but you are also paying for worthwhile features of value not just extra thick aluminum billet boxes. Denon does NOT have a dedicated Dolby/DTS software team like Trinnov, they just license the cheapest room correction system available (finally getting Dirac this year). Trinnov is for enthusiasts who want to pick up the phone to ask "so why did you make the software this way? Wouldn't this be better??" and actually get an answer from the guy writing the code.

 

[sarumbear]

And some people like to have their movies upmixed from 5.1 to 9.1.6 or whatever. Maybe you don't. Whatever.

I really, really don't get the argument regarding the delay of the release of the current Dolby surround upmixer and movies - there's just no logical correlation at all. But you may have noticed that there's more than movies available in immersive formats, e.g. music. Even good stuff with sample rates of 192kHz, and the guys at 2l make disks where the only Auro 3D mix is 192kHz and cannot be played back on an Altitude 16 at all. That is the sort of limitation that I did not expect from a $17k processor, much less the $40k 48 channel version.

I bought my Trinnov for watching films and that’s what I do. I’m sorry that you are experiencing issues on a secondary use case from an AV processor.

 

[Zooqu1ko]

I guess I’m looking at a different product. Can you share a link please?

Realiser A16 the world's most advanced 3d audio processor

The Realiser A16 is the world’s most advanced personalised head-tracked 3D headphone processor, rendering 15.1.8ch Dolby Atmos with breath-taking realism.

smyth-research.com

That is the correct product, but it looks like the 32 channel version has been discontinued. Virtualization definitively works with up to 24 channels. Output to speakers apparently not.

That's some bold claims for headphones.
[...]
I've heard of a virtual center channel - how do these headphone perform?

No headphones included, but the Realiser works as advertised with any headphones that can play back loud enough with sufficiently low distortion. Individual measurements of a room to be virtualised and the headphones in questions with your own ears are recommended. That being said, it's not a very user friendly device, clearly aimed at the pro market.

While I have started this, this is offtopic for the Trinnov thread. The most active discussion about the Realiser seems to be at https://www.head-fi.org/threads/smyth-research-realiser-a16.807459/page-9999

 

[Billy Budapest]

"Excessive" is definitely contextual. Trinnov margins are slim despite charging so much (this is not Prada or Gucci) and part of the expense is the level of after sales support you get directly from the engineering team at Trinnov. If Denon was to offer this level of personal service from a high ranking expert/trainer who answers directly to the VP of engineering on a Saturday, how much would their AVRs cost? $17K is definitely expensive but you are also paying for worthwhile features of value not just extra thick aluminum billet boxes. Denon does NOT have a dedicated Dolby/DTS software team like Trinnov, they just license the cheapest room correction system available (finally getting Dirac this year). Trinnov is for enthusiasts who want to pick up the phone to ask "so why did you make the software this way? Wouldn't this be better??" and actually get an answer from the guy writing the code.

I get what you are saying but that’s still where I say you aren’t getting $17,000 worth of value. And that’s the cheaper Trinnov processor. For the more expensive one, you certainly aren’t getting $40,000 worth of value. For that price, you could pay the yearly salary of your own personal AV Tech.

 

[Dimifoot]

Even good stuff with sample rates of 192kHz, and the guys at 2l make disks where the only Auro 3D mix is 192kHz and cannot be played back on an Altitude 16 at all.

I believe I own most of the 2L immersive discs. There is no Auro3d mix in 192Khz.

 

[DrStranger]

"Excessive" is definitely contextual. Trinnov margins are slim despite charging so much (this is not Prada or Gucci) and part of the expense is the level of after sales support you get directly from the engineering team at Trinnov. If Denon was to offer this level of personal service from a high ranking expert/trainer who answers directly to the VP of engineering on a Saturday, how much would their AVRs cost? $17K is definitely expensive but you are also paying for worthwhile features of value not just extra thick aluminum billet boxes. Denon does NOT have a dedicated Dolby/DTS software team like Trinnov, they just license the cheapest room correction system available (finally getting Dirac this year). Trinnov is for enthusiasts who want to pick up the phone to ask "so why did you make the software this way? Wouldn't this be better??" and actually get an answer from the guy writing the code.

Still... overpriced imo. no matter if they have a "dedicated" dolby team or waiting for the phone to ring from some guy who wants to talk code.

And a side note to that, it's ugly too, for that money they could at least done something that looked good... even their microphone is more good looking than their pre & amp's. The PC backplate is awfull, even if its a PC under the hood and is flxible architecture. Stormaudio looks 10 times better.

 

[Dj7675]

I get what you are saying but that’s still where I say you aren’t getting $17,000 worth of value

Let me help you here…
”I get what you are saying but that’s still where I say you aren’t getting $17,000 worth of value" to me.
This is important as it is a value judgement on the importance of the features, configuration tools, channel count offered by this particular processor. It isn't worth it to you and that is definitely fine. But it (and storm for that matter) offer many things that simply are not available in other processors. But when comparing you have to take a very close look at what it can do to determine if it is worth it or not and not simply the price tag and assume it has the same features, tools, and capabilities of other processors. Just my 2 cents. I still believe you are conflating 2 things... price and value. It is very expensive. But can be an excellent value to some as well for what it does....

 

[Gabe]

Illusonic IAPs are rarely talked about here. I wonder how different these are from Trinnov on performance.

 

[sarumbear]

I get what you are saying but that’s still where I say you aren’t getting $17,000 worth of value. And that’s the cheaper Trinnov processor. For the more expensive one, you certainly aren’t getting $40,000 worth of value. For that price, you could pay the yearly salary of your own personal AV Tech.

Will that person process the audio? What speed DSP they have? How many channels they can decode? What is their SINAD in summer? How many days of the year I have to stop watching films when they take their annual leave?

Jeez...

 

[sarumbear]

Illusonic IAPs are rarely talked about here. I wonder how different these are from Trinnov on performance.

As far as I can see it doesn't have any decoding. The user manual doesn't even mention the word Dolby in it.

 

[voodooless]

As far as I can see it doesn't have any decoding. The user manual doesn't even mention the word Dolby in it.

It has! Just to tell you your source should to the decoding . For Atmos, that is no good at all.

 

[sifi36]

Not really all that closely.
The makers spend more per car on marketing than they do building the car, according to an ex-colleague who was a senior engineer at a well known one.
The luxury versions are the most profitable because their cost of manufacture isn’t as big an increment more than the price they can charge.
Clever production engineering is important.

The older BMW M3 3.2 litre 6-cylinder engine was pretty well half of the V12 engine BMW Motorsport designed for the McLaren F1 road car and cost wasn’t a factor there but the M3 engine cost more to make than a whole 5-series car so they changed to a M3 version of one of their production V8 which was much cheaper to make but was seen by customers as an upgrade and ended up with a car less expensive to make that customers were happy to pay more for.

Luxury cars are one of the biggest wastes of money there is unless you keep them for 10+ years.

Whilst I agree with the generalities of the point you’re trying to make, your BMW example doesn’t really hold up. The S65 V8 in the E9x M3 was about as far removed from the production V8 of the time (the M62 or N62) as any M engine has ever been. The later F8x M3/4 and it’s S55 I6 is though a close relation to its N55 series production sibling.

The S70/2 McLaren F1 engine shares some similar ideas with the S50 and S54, but to say they are the same would be an oversimplification. The fact that the BMW engines have cast iron blocks and the McLaren one is aluminium speaks to that. BMW didn’t use aluminium blocks until the M62, around 10 years after the F1 was launched. A hifi example would be the KEF Reference 5 and R11, both use a Uni-Q and 4 bass drivers all of the same size. Driver engineering and performance are appreciably different even if the same ideas have been used.

 

[Unground]

I must admit I am confused by a lot of the discussion here. Someone thinks the Trinnov is too expensive for them. Good. All is well. Other people think the cost/value equation is ok because of the things the Trinnov does, the updates, the support and so forth. Also good. And.... ?

For me, the re-mapping amongst other things might be worth the outlay. I don't know. I've not tried one in my room - yet. But I will try one when I am ready to upgrade. If there is a difference provided by the Trinnov magic sauce sufficient to justify the price difference to me, I will buy it. If there is not, then I won't.

If I decide to buy then the production cost of the hardware is immaterial to me. I'll be paying for the Trinnov magic sauce, which is the software, and I'd be judging that the software is worth the cost, with the support and upgradeability and so forth being a good bonus. And vice versa if I decide not to buy.

Anything else that factors into the price equation would also be immaterial to my decision - for example it might be necessary for Trinnov to charge $17k at retail to make the product worth making given the volumes, dealer margins and so on. I don't know if this is the case, and I don't care. The thing is either worth it to me because it does something that I personally value $10k or whatever better than anything else, or it doesn't.

The debate about price vs. value is circular and not solveable isn't it? I've even gone round in circles making the same point in this single post!

Personally, I'm more interested in explanations (and if possible comparative measurements) to help inform me of how a Trinnov could help in my far from ideal room.

 

[sarumbear]

It has! Just to tell you your source should to the decoding . For Atmos, that is no good at all.

I don't understand what you said: Does it have decoding or decoding must be done by the source?

 

[sarumbear]

Whilst I agree with the generalities of the point you’re trying to make, your BMW example doesn’t really hold up. The S65 V8 in the E9x M3 was about as far removed from the production V8 of the time (the M62 or N62) as any M engine has ever been. The later F8x M3/4 and it’s S55 I6 is though a close relation to its N55 series production sibling.

The S70/2 McLaren F1 engine shares some similar ideas with the S50 and S54, but to say they are the same would be an oversimplification. The fact that the BMW engines have cast iron blocks and the McLaren one is aluminium speaks to that. BMW didn’t use aluminium blocks until the M62, around 10 years after the F1 was launched. A hifi example would be the KEF Reference 5 and R11, both use a Uni-Q and 4 bass drivers all of the same size. Driver engineering and performance are appreciably different even if the same ideas have been used.

I wonder if you know with whom you are discussing engines and F1?

 

[voodooless]

I don't understand what you said: Does it have decoding or decoding must be done by the source?

It has the word "Dolby" in the manual To tell you it doesn't do the decoding.

 

[sifi36]

I wonder if you know with whom you are discussing engines and F1?

I know Frank used to work in F1 before retirement but The McLaren F1 is a road car and everything I stated in my post is accurate. A quick search online would verify this, the S65 V8 even has a different firing order to any series production BMW V8.

 

[BDWoody]

I know Frank used to work in F1 before retirement but The McLaren F1 is a road car and everything I stated in my post is accurate. A quick search online would verify this, the S65 V8 even has a different firing order to any series production BMW V8.

Far be it from me to debate @Frank Dernie on anything car related, but I understand it differently as well.

The S65 was derived from the S85 V10 used only in the M5, not from one of their 'regular' V8 engines.

"Unlike most other BMW M engines, the S65 and S85 are not related to a regular production BMW engine.[1]

The S65 won the International Engine of the Year award for the 3.0 to 4.0 L category in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S65#:~:text=Derived from the,2012.[2]

 

[DonH56]

Oh great, another thread ends up being about cars.

But wait, I can bring it back on topic: Is the McLaren F1 a good value? (I know, @Frank Dernie already answered...)

 

[FrantzM]

Repeating , before bowing out:

Are there anything out there that at 1/3 or even 1/2 the price ,of the Trinnov accomplished the same? Just one example will suffice and, please no SINAD superiority arguments ... To convince yourself , take the Klippel Listening Test (Click here) and see how you fare..

Peace.