Glad you have Trinnov. Hope it serves you well. I am super happy with my low end AV-10. Wile Trinnov will have more flexibility, cant imagine what exactly would be missing from my set up as really maxing it up.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac
- Thread starter Flak
- Start date
Your software logic doesn't apply to new buyers as you only bought your unit once. You aren't paying anything for a new one. In fact, the older the unit, the better the deal in that regard.
Massive inflation is relatively recent yet an Apple Mac Mini M4 is only $599 that will run circles around my 2012 Mac Mini Quad i7 Server that cost $1100 originally. That is my point about computer progress, given the Trinnov hardware is essentially a computer with software decoding.
Other than waveforming from a few years back, what great new software has arrived? Does the Altitude support Sony 360 (MPEGH) sound like the newer D&M units, including the three floor speakers Sony units support or the Sony 360 upmixer? Does it have a mode comparable to StormXT to integrate all three major format speaker layouts together?
No? Perhaps it's starting to lag behind a bit.
Ah. I read your comment as it potentially being too complex originally but I now see your point about having too many options.
Impressive! I made a joke in the MQA about fine tuning audio setups for temperature as being overkill, but if you did this, more power to you!
Before my Trinnov, I had the HTP-1 and for *me* the DLBC didn’t do much. In a way, I think ART may simplify the 200 hours of subwoofer positioning and room treatment by using some active correction to get you closer to ideal. The better your room, the less valuable ART will be.
I agree with that statement 100%. The paradox is that this is exactly why Trinnov hasn’t increased the CPU power of newer processors. They don’t need more horsepower.
With Trinnov, I do have the option to choose when and where my IIR and FIR switch. Likewise, Trinnov has a CPU load setting, but it’s designed to have enough CPU to handle 48 total channels.
The inefficiency is prepaying for CPU headroom. Everyone forgets that Trinnov had a basic version of their optimized running on the Sherwood R972 (which I owned also).
I have yet to see evidence that their code is sloppy.
The AV10 is far from low-end. I had the HTP-1 before hand and Dirac is superb. The more your speakers fall into perfect positions and the more your room is treated and sized up, the less benefit you get from Trinnov. I have pointed out that the point of diminishing returns starts quite early. Based upon the hundreds of hours of optimization, your setup probably sounds better than mine!
The reason I say I own Trinnov is that when I say it’s really great, ignoring price, I say that from first hand experience.
That’s my point. The older the unit, the better the deal. That’s why many Trinnov owners don’t feel “reamed.” Newer prospective buyers need to assess their needs.
Big one is probably giving everyone an extra 4 channels for free.
Trinnov AV Processor with MPEG-H Support – Fraunhofer Audio Blog
www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com
I don’t have any MPEG-H content to test.
As for Sony upmixers, I had the ZA5000ES which uses Sony’s stereo mic for 2D soundfield optimization which was great. IF I knew about the AZ line, there’s a real chance I would have gone that route as my upgrade instead of Yamaha to HTP-1 to the Trinnov.
Along the same lines, I have had the Yamaha CX-A5100 and Trinnov doesn’t have CinemaDSP features.
I have had the HTP-1 and Trinnov doesn’t have integrated loudness nor an integrated BassEQ Database support.
Every setup has some tradeoffs but having actually owned a number of different systems, I still ended up with Trinnov as the best setup for the content I watch.
You wouldn’t say that Sony, Marantz, Denon, Anthem, StormAudio and Trinnov are lagging behind Yamaha who have CinemaDSP, would you?
There are features like center lift on Sony’s and Yamaha’s which aren’t on Marantz or Denon. Storm added this less than a year ago, but I am not sure if it requires Center Height or if it can use your front heights like Yamaha, Sony can. Trinnov 3D remapping can also help with this.
What I can say is that the Dirac Full Range/DLBC the HTP-1 doesn’t give me the same immersion as the Trinnov. How much better the Storm Audio is over the HTP-1 for Atmos is a different question.
I haven't heard a Trinnov calibrated system in a very long time and I don't get many comparisons of A1 Evo with it but this guy seems to find my tool better. I would appreciate if you could try and give your feedback some time (it's free and takes 3 minutes to complete).
Offered? No, you paid a lot for it.
Trinnov's margins are huge.
My local dealer. the touch and -50%
Same for YouTube influencers, it's -50% to make a video about the product.
Goodfellas27
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
- Messages
- 72
- Likes
- 65
The below 20Hz range is tricky. As I mentioned, for Dirac Live to effectively address frequencies below 20Hz (including your 15Hz concern), your speakers/subs must be capable of reproducing those frequencies, and critically, your measurement microphone needs sufficient resolution in that range. While the UMIK-1 is generally recommended for Dirac Live and is excellent for most applications, its sensitivity typically rolls off significantly below 20Hz, making precise correction there challenging. For accurate sub-20Hz accuracy, a higher-resolution mic (like the Earthworks, designed for very low frequencies) would ideally be required. Dirac's algorithms can apply filters below 20Hz, but the accuracy is limited by the measurement data. This is an area where Trinnov's approach, with its dedicated mic and extensive hardware, could be a robust solution; however, I am unsure about the accuracy of the Trinnov microphone or whether it can accurately address frequencies below 20Hz.
While I can't point you to an extensive library of official public case studies, the reason might be the sheer variability of setups and the complexity of quantifying the subjective experience. Most current "case studies" are anecdotal reports from early adopters in forums like this one. You might find more real-world examples by searching user experiences on AVSForum or similar forums like this one; however, this is true for any new technology like Trinnov Waveforming, as the technology matures, I'd hope Dirac and the likes provide more formal data.
The Dirac Live complete suite does not cost 1000 dollars; I'm not sure where you're getting this number from, but I assume you mean it's expensive from your point of view, which is subjective. Also, you're paying for not to fuge with PEQ for 200 hours and the learning curve that comes with manual EQ.
The initial Dirac setup isn't usually that lengthy, but optimizing and experimenting with target curves, bass management, and understanding the nuances of the filters can certainly be a time-consuming process. For a basic setup, it's generally much faster; however, achieving the best results requires effort, a common characteristic of most automatic room EQ platforms and not unique to Dirac. That's why professional services are expensive.
Last edited:
"Best" is the enemy of "Good".
When I initially got my AVR with Dirac Live included (DRX 3.4) I tuned it using the most basic alternative - the supplied puck mic, and the smartphone app.
Improvements over my previous tuned setup (on Audyssey XT32) - were immediately discernible... and the setup was done and dusted in about 20 to 30min.
Later I set up my laptop with the full Dirac software, took a multitude of measurements around the room, played with target curves and crossovers, took REW measurements and compared them.... was the outcome any better than my first "quick and dirty" version.... maybe, slightly, but it was more of a case of "adjusted to taste" rather than objectively better.
Yes you get a plethora of options, and infinite configurability in the Dirac software, and you can spend endless hours messing about with it, listening, then trying other alternatives.... but, at least in my experience, objective benefits were achieved very quickly and easily with a minimum of fuss, and over a relatively short period of time. Don't let the "best" in the way of achieving your "good" .... do the "good" tuning, and start enjoying the gear.... save attempts at "the best" for hobby time, when you have loads of time, and the inclination to experiment.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,399
- Likes
- 1,929
I agree. REW and simple PEQ is even superior in some cases.
ART is interesting specifically because it represents something we can't do ourselves. It's the only significant improvement I can imagine to my system, currently.
Goodfellas27
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
- Messages
- 72
- Likes
- 65
Agree. I don't personally mess with Dirac too much, except for addressing the issue of Dirac overcompensating with the room valley to its suggested target curve. I am looking forward to ART. I notice Dirac keeps improving their ART code, it's in the latest release notes. One of the many benefits of Dirac is that it continually improves over time, allowing us to benefit from its advancements. Not many RoomEQ do that.
I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. method. Cheers!
I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. method. Cheers!
Goodfellas27
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
- Messages
- 72
- Likes
- 65
You may need headphones
He may have added up the prices for the three single licenses: 349$ (DL full range) + 299$ (DLBC) + 299$ (DL ART) = 947$.
Of course, there may be a discount for a bundle purchase like there is already one for DL full range + DLBC (599$ instead of 648$).
And e. g. for Denon/Marantz users your reasoning would a bit off. Because of the included Audyssey they do not need to EQ manually.
Have you found any documentation showing the 3 floor speaker support? I looked athe 6800 and A10H manual but didn't see it. D&M manuals sometimes lag behind, hopefully it's on the way.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,399
- Likes
- 1,929
The binaural recordings are not adjusted for the same FR. Ideally one would have DLBC while the other has ART, same FR. Right now I can't pretend to compare realistically. Given that it's dance music, it should not have long fades in or out. It should start on the same sample, quick (imperceptible) fade in/out to avoid clipping, with several 32 beat loops.
This was probably unintentional on Massimo's part. It doesn't seem like a deliberate attempt to mislead. Although in that case there is no other word for the results than amateurish.
The below was made by isolating each clip and importing into REW. These represent the digital signals. The scale was not adjusted for dBFS (I'm not sure how to do that).
kyuu
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,610
- Likes
- 2,500
Maybe I'm not understanding, but why would the two recordings have the same FR if using ART vs. no ART results a different in-room FR?
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,399
- Likes
- 1,929
Because ART's offering is less to do with FR than decay times. As such you would need to use DLBC to flatten FR and then make a comparison with the same FR to assess ART.
Question:
Direct ART will target room modes aka standing waves - does it mean we won’t need dual subwoofers as single one with eliminated room modes should suffice?
Per Dirac statement:
Direct ART will target room modes aka standing waves - does it mean we won’t need dual subwoofers as single one with eliminated room modes should suffice?
Per Dirac statement:
Frequency focus
ART specifically targets frequencies below 150 Hz. This is where room modes – commonly referred to as standing waves – are most prominent and detrimental to bass quality, causing unevenness and prolonged decay times. Above 150 Hz, standard Dirac Live Room Correction (per-speaker impulse response correction) takes over.
Last edited:
The way I understand it, you need canceling signal to reduce decay. When choosing speakers to support the sub you also need to choose the range of support. Large speakers might support to 40hz or even 30hz as also understand that canceling signal is not as loud so won't really break the speakers (but might be wrong). I don't think that a single sub can support itself, so ideally you might want to have 2 subs.
I would expect (wild guess though) that 2 subs with ART could do a job for which you might need 4 subs sans ART in e.g. double bass array or some lesser equivalent.
I would expect (wild guess though) that 2 subs with ART could do a job for which you might need 4 subs sans ART in e.g. double bass array or some lesser equivalent.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,399
- Likes
- 1,929
Theoretically, ART should be able to work even without a sub. Any speaker or sub should be able support itself. The question is only how effective ART will be when support is limited.
plus one Oddball: you need another support sub to support the lingering bass from the primary as your mains will not be able to cover the 20 to 30/40 herz range.
What is interesting is the fact that bass in the 0 - 20 is only bass you can feel and from 20 through to 60 herz range transitions to more bass you can hear. So it is debatable if the standing waves below what good front speakers can produce (and thus support and cancel) will cause a lot of boominess/problems as they are in that bass you can primairily feel realm.
Next to this ART should give you more clarity in the mid/hi frequencies because the lingering bass will not mask details in the mid and highs. Most of this masking occurs by frequencies that are relatively close together. So by by the mid bass rather than the deep bass. So again the debate: controlling the >30 herz to 150 herz might be enough to get the desired clarity effect?
All to be seen and hopefully supported by measurements.
For me considering the above: I have an Arendal 1s sub and the 1723s towers and center whoch have reasonable bass output (heights and surrounds not so much). I'll run ART in this config first to check how good the result is before I buy another subwoofer.
What is interesting is the fact that bass in the 0 - 20 is only bass you can feel and from 20 through to 60 herz range transitions to more bass you can hear. So it is debatable if the standing waves below what good front speakers can produce (and thus support and cancel) will cause a lot of boominess/problems as they are in that bass you can primairily feel realm.
Next to this ART should give you more clarity in the mid/hi frequencies because the lingering bass will not mask details in the mid and highs. Most of this masking occurs by frequencies that are relatively close together. So by by the mid bass rather than the deep bass. So again the debate: controlling the >30 herz to 150 herz might be enough to get the desired clarity effect?
All to be seen and hopefully supported by measurements.
For me considering the above: I have an Arendal 1s sub and the 1723s towers and center whoch have reasonable bass output (heights and surrounds not so much). I'll run ART in this config first to check how good the result is before I buy another subwoofer.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,399
- Likes
- 1,929
Vibrotactile sensation and hearing mix from 0-1kHz. The thresholds come closest to each other in the infrasound range. Though for all practical purposes the range ends at 300Hz without inducing pain.
Subwoofer Comparison
I really liked my Arcam stereo gear, but went with Anthem when it was time to upgrade my HT. In the past I have used Anthem. Arcam is better in warranty. I am using my current avr for last 7 years and still good. I had some trouble with Anthem AVR before.
www.audiosciencereview.com
Similar threads
