• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Trinnov Altitude 16 Review (AV Processor)

Absolute

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
1,084
Likes
2,125
the device is distortion limited, has SNR/DR of 108 dB without A-weighting and according to Trinnov with A-weighting it approaches 120 dB.
So this thing will be the limiting factor by far when paired with Ncore, Purifi or Benchmark amplifiers in both distortion AND noise?

That's horrible. :eek:

Joking aside, I assume it's possible to use this thing as a pure digital processor and just send digital out to a proper high-quality multichannel dac, like the Okto Dac8?
 
Last edited:

FeddyLost

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
752
Likes
542
But i guess, when you do the right speaker set up (positioning) and room treatment, the difference between a good av receiver such Denon X8500/X6700 and a processor like from Trinnov/Stormaudio becomes more negligible.
I'd say that usually making good room from what one has by default in big city is much more expensive than this unit.
Without price of floor that is blocked by good speakers placement and room treatment materials.
17K euro is approximately 1 square meter in Paris...
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
So this thing will be the limiting factor by far when paired with Ncore, Purifi or Benchmark amplifiers in both distortion AND noise?

That's horrible. :eek:

Joking aside, I assume it's possible to use this thing as a pure digital processor and just send digital out to a proper high-quality multichannel dac, like the Okto Dac8?

this particular unit doesn't have digital outs but i think it's in one of their upgrade packages.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I have to admit the Altitude 32 looks like one of my wet dreams, too bad it's probably worth several human organs.


trinnov_audio_altitude_32_web_3-1.jpg
 

Absolute

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
1,084
Likes
2,125
I agree, for multichannel set-ups it looks like the best option out there. It's worth noting that you're paying for the dsp capability, ease of use, support and functions and not sound quality performance itself.
 

Costas EAR

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
157
Likes
348
Location
Greece
Altitude 32 is double the price, but then you have to pay even more for active speakers with digital input..

For listening impressions, I can say that trinnov altitude 16 sounds much much better, used just as a stereo preamp & dac (without any dsp usage), for a simple 2 channel setup, than metric halo lio 8, which sounds truly amazing, and measures like a dream.

Metric halo lio 8 was my favorite dac/pre until I heard what trinnov sounded like..

This result came in a well treated room, with a pair of Neumann 310, at 2,3m listening distance.

The same result was with 5.1 setup with all Neumann 310 and Neumann 870, without any dsp usage (no room eq).

Measurements with rew/umik showed no real problems.

But, after trinnov calibration, with multiple mic positions (15), the result was mind blowing.
 
Last edited:

Andysu

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
2,887
Likes
1,478
I have to admit the Altitude 32 looks like one of my wet dreams, too bad it's probably worth several human organs.


trinnov_audio_altitude_32_web_3-1.jpg
Alien wakes up and turns on his trinnov and starts to ...........
 

hmt

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
397
Likes
479
No, I'm talking about objective performance, disregarding what humans can hear. Isn't that all we do with these SINAD lists and reviews here? We put the 17K receiver in a list next to devices that are considerably cheaper and perform objectively better. And it basically stops there.

Based on just that information my only conclusion can be that the recommended label is rather meaningless. There are no compelling arguments in the review that would sway me to take a second glance at the device if I can get a better performing one or a fraction of the price.

As I said before: the reason for the recommendation is to be found in the comments. Would like to have seen that in the review though.

The point is that comparing just SINAD values is like comparing cars just based on max speed. A racecar would win but that doesn't help you when you need a van. Those high SINAD desktop DACs may have high a SINAD but they pretty much can't do anything but be a simple DAC. No one needs more than 90db SINAD (probably even 80 would be enough). It is like having an 8K 32" TV watching from 5 meters distance.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,228
Likes
17,810
Location
Netherlands
The point is that comparing just SINAD values is like comparing cars just based on max speed. A racecar would win but that doesn't help you when you need a van. Those high SINAD desktop DACs may have high a SINAD but they pretty much can't do anything but be a simple DAC. No one needs more than 90db SINAD (probably even 80 would be enough). It is like having an 8K 32" TV watching from 5 meters distance.

A car being 10x as expensive as the next for normal street driving better also have a decent max speed, even if it would never drive that fast. With prices like these, it's not just about features. Nobody would buy Bugatti Chiron if it would only go 130 km/h (local max speed)... These are luxury goods, I should expect luxury performance in all aspects!

And what's the point of these reviews then? They don't do more than just check if the device has any obvious errors. If the Processor is worth its money or not, I cannot deduce from the review. And that is really my biggest issue here.
 

Tovarich007

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2021
Messages
174
Likes
234
Read my other replies, that should make it very clear.

Well, I've read them of course, and I simply don't understand why you focus that much on measured SINAD while you admit a slightly better measurement won't change anything to the actual audible performance.

Trinnov products are not State of the art because they measure perfectly well on every criteria per se, which isn't so relevant nor important, but because they globally measure well enough anyway, they sound good, they have possibly the best calibration system so far, they are very reliable and are upgradable, and because the company offers a very good service and a great expertise. That what real State of the art is all about.

Another example : my Topping D70S measures slightly better than the pro interface Merging Anubis, but the second one has a lot more functionnalities, has no clocks and pops at extinction, has a faultless reliability, and sounds even better than my Topping, no matter what tells the test bench. Of course, the price is not at all the same.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Does it do anything special to justify the exuberant price?
YES where to begin... I am the owner of the Trinnov unit sent to Amir for testing. Your question clearly shows a lack of familiarity with 16 channel cinema processors - there are less than 10 models available for purchase with Emotiva and Monoprice costing under $5,000 to the Trinnov and StormAudio at the high end.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
I could not run my multitone test because it has a 192 kHz sampling and Trinnov Altitude 16 is not able to play anything above 96 kHz. You have to move up to Altitude 32 to get the processing power it needs for that.

This is a show stopper for me. Not because of "sound quality" concerns due to the 96 kHz limit itself, but because I believe the quality of the recording is most important, more important than the difference between different REQs and I happened to find more high quality recording contents from available 24bit/192 kHz files. So I guess this thing can't play DSD (or limited..) either?
 

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,812
Likes
2,682
I’ve been waiting for this review for a while as I had also offered to send a Trinnov Altitude 16 to Amir a few months ago as well. I love the science aspect of the reviews and it was interesting to see how the Altitude measures.

What I can say is, numbers be damned, the Trinnov Altitude 16 took my room’s acoustics to a whole new level. I’m not talking marginally either (as I had expected) but substantially better sound quality that was immediately very obvious and not just new purchase bias. My prior processors were a Denon X4300, Marantz 7703 and Marantz 8802 with and without the Audyssey app.

I found the Trinnov optimizer relatively easy to use. There is a tremendous depth to it in terms of the ability to do whatever you want. As good as I have it now with the Altitude 16, I believe that a pro could get even a little more acoustic bliss out of it.

I’m running a 7.2.4 setup with Kef Reference 205, 203, 201 and 202c speakers, PSA TV42 subs and Crowson Tactile Transducers in an acoustically treated room. Every single time I sit in my theater, I am amazed at how incredible everything sounds. Everything is just so much more accurate, dynamic, precise, etc.

As Amir mentioned, the Trinnov support team is world class. I’ll bet you could get help from them on any question within 20 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They are incredibly knowledgeable and helpful and want each owner to get the most out of their “machine” (must be a French thing).
I’d been strongly considering the Marantz 8805, the Monolith HTP-1, the JBL SDP-55 and am so incredibly thankful I got off the never ending upgrade cycle by virtue of purchasing the Trinnov. I genuinely believe it is an end-game processor as they continue to make improvements that are free to existing owners and they stand behind their products. In the long run, I’ll probably end up better off financially as compared to upgrading to the latest and greatest new pre-pro every 3 to 5 years with the satisfaction of having enjoyed my Altitude in the interim and the belief that, with continual free upgrades, my Altitude will always be the latest and greatest without another big expenditure.

Trinnov has a new 5 year warranty extension program where they will refresh / upgrade your Trinnov to new specs at a very reasonable price. They will also offer new HDMI replacement cards (once everything is ironed out with the new standard) at reasonable “cover their cost” type pricing rather than “boutique” type pricing. I’m not aware of any other AV company that does something similar.

In general, my understanding is that Altitudes are sold at MSRP through integrators as part of a package that may or may not include acoustic calibration. That being said, if you’re considering purchasing an Altitude vs. any other moderately priced product, contact some dealers as you may become very intrigued if you’re willing and able to do your own calibration and buy a calibration microphone. It will still be a LOT of money but you may be pleasantly surprised.

So back to the science aspect, I’ll offer somewhat of an analogy using speaker reviews. For any given “X” number of speakers, I would hands down take the Altitude 16 with Revel F208s vs. a Marantz 8805 or anything else with F228Be or F328Be speakers if I wanted the best bang for the buck sound quality. Regardless of what you have for speakers, I believe the Altitude 16 will wring out every last bit of performance from your speakers and never leave any doubt about that.
BUT $17,000. I get there aren’t many 16 channel processors and that a company making unique technology can charge what the market will bear, but $17,000 is just . . . excessive.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
This is a show stopper for me. Not because of "sound quality" concerns due to the 96 kHz limit itself, but because I believe the quality of the recording is most important, more important than the difference between different REQs and I happened to find more high quality recording contents from available 24bit/192 kHz files. So I guess this thing can't play DSD (or limited..) either?
Have you seen the series of reviews exploring "high quality" content by our very own @amirm ?
He compares various bit/sampling rates including DSD.
TLDR: ultimately, not better and more often than not, worse as the "high rez" version introduced artifacts not present in the run of the mill CD version. The real takeaway is the re-mastering in high res; it may sound better because it was mastered/mixed better not because of the format, but because of the mastering engineer. We can agree to disagree, but at my age, I'm not benefitting from any additional "air" above 16 kHz.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
BUT $17,000. I get there aren’t many 16 channel processors and that a company making unique technology can charge what the market will bear, but $17,000 is just . . . excessive.
It's all about use case really. Do you know of any processor that can independently provide active crossover implementation for speaker drivers to be actively amplified? Bryston and many other high end speaker companies sell speakers without a passive crossover so you can actively cross-them over - the Trinnov can serve this duty. For me, I enjoy the object visualizer that allows me to see whether Atmos effects are really working overhead or is it just bogus when a movie says "Atmos" but there's literally nothing happening above. Most importantly, is the depth and flexibility of its room EQ system which allows you to place speakers in less than optimized locations due to physical limitations and its processor will map them for effective surround. So if you have an ideal room with perfect speaker placement and great speakers, you are less likely to benefit from all the bells and whistles. But if you are a geek and want to dive deeper into optimizing your system for immersive sound, nothing makes it easier to dive deeper into room optimization than Trinnov. Sure you can do it with REW and miniDSP, but it's a bit more time consuming and troubleshooting to get to the same destination.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
A car being 10x as expensive as the next for normal street driving better also have a decent max speed, even if it would never drive that fast. With prices like these, it's not just about features. Nobody would buy Bugatti Chiron if it would only go 130 km/h (local max speed)... These are luxury goods, I should expect luxury performance in all aspects!

And what's the point of these reviews then? They don't do more than just check if the device has any obvious errors. If the Processor is worth its money or not, I cannot deduce from the review. And that is really my biggest issue here.
I think you are going beyond the simple purpose of ASR - it's to verify performance measurements with the tools we have available. You raise valid criticism, but then allude to solutions where no tools exist to assess. The biggest benefit of the Trinnov is the effectiveness of its room EQ software and 3D microphone - however, there is no objective way to measure the effectiveness of multi-channel separation and immersive sound. We discuss this issue at length in this thread which specifically explored how @amirm can better measure high end products like Trinnov or Storm in a reasonable manner that's not excessively time consuming.

Your point is a good one, however, this point has always been the shortcoming of all reviews - there are simply no battery of objective tests we can conduct to establish a baseline of performance against which all products can be compared when it comes to immersive sound and channel separation that doesn't also take into account effective room correction. What if an AVR performed best only if it's in a perfectly anechoic room with speakers all placed optimally while the Trinnov performed way WAY better in the worst rooms with less than ideal speakers, but falls a little short in the anechoic chamber with optimally placed speakers? How do you quantify these differences?

And which processor would you buy for your room? Assuming if it existed, AVR measurements for multi-channel separation all taken in an optimally designed anechoic chamber with speakers placed optimally at 2m is completely useless for buying decisions in the real world, especially if this AVR has no software in place that can correct for YOUR room's imperfections. Extrapolating single speaker measurements in an anechoic chamber is already difficult enough, creating a host of issues - I can only imagine the nightmare of attempting to quantify 7.1.4 multi-channel audio in an anechoic chamber.
 
Last edited:

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Have you seen the series of reviews exploring "high quality" content by our very own @amirm ?
He compares various bit/sampling rates including DSD.
TLDR: ultimately, not better and more often than not, worse as the "high rez" version introduced artifacts not present in the run of the mill CD version. The real takeaway is the re-mastering in high res; it may sound better because it was mastered/mixed better not because of the format, but because of the mastering engineer. We can agree to disagree, but at my age, I'm not benefitting from any additional "air" above 16 kHz.

I don't have to read those as I know CD quality is all I need. My point is not about the sample rate, bit depth etc., but about recording/mastering quality and I thought I was clear about that, guess you were reading too fast and missed the nuance.:D

I hope it is clear this time.
 

gvl

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
3,427
Likes
3,982
Location
SoCal
YES where to begin... I am the owner of the Trinnov unit sent to Amir for testing. Your question clearly shows a lack of familiarity with 16 channel cinema processors - there are less than 10 models available for purchase with Emotiva and Monoprice costing under $5,000 to the Trinnov and StormAudio at the high end.

How about actually answering my question? What does it do that Emotiva can't at 1/3 the price?
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
I don't have to read those as I know CD quality is all I need. My point is not about the sample rate, bit depth etc., but about recording/mastering quality and I thought I was clear about that, guess you were reading too fast and missed the nuance.:D

I hope it is clear this time.
I see what you're saying "I happened to find more high quality recording contents from available 24bit/192 kHz files" - so the these uniquely mastered recordings are not available in lower resolution files but can only be read as 24bit/192 kHz files?
 

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
2,823
Likes
2,951
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
Stuff like xover I could test but i suspect there is nothing exciting there. If you mean room EQ, then measurements are not that useful. Listening tests are paramount.

I essentially agree with this comment of amirm.

At least just for me, amirm's nice report on Trinnov Altitude 16 seems to be in good conformity with my worries shared here and Scott Borduin's nice response to my thoughts; he wrote there "For a stereo multi-driver application like you mention, there is probably little advantage in the Trinnov."
 
Top Bottom