Trinnov 8m 8 Channel Amplifier Review

[Spocko]

I see an ongoing theme of posters trying to convince others that there are better amplifier values out there as if to provide a counter argument for considering this amplifier. Let's look at the context of this amplifier's position in the marketplace, and you'll see why any argument against considering this amplifier is pointless.

(1) For consumers who are buying the Trinnov Alt16, they need an amplifier. The 8M is Trinnov's attempt at keeping such buyers within the brand. BUT more often than not, they are not the ones making the buying decision - it's the professional installer. Do you think the professional installer putting together a Trinnov system cares about value the way it's being presented here?

(2) For consumers like me who are not using an installer but instead bought the Trinnov Alt16 after thoroughly researching their needs, we have already committed to spending lots of money on the entire system. Although value is great, state of the art performance is better. We'd likely stack 8x Benchmark AHB2 amplifiers before considering Buckeye amps. Personally, I'm using an active speaker system (Genelec).

Ultimately, the Trinnov 8M is unlikely to be a standalone multi-channel option without its companion Alt16 processor.

 

[Positivevibrations]

NCx500 is released, I have two Apollon units in the mail.

I mean the NCx versions of the MP series. Will probably see samples in Q4 of this year.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Premium boutique brands are rarely (if ever?) worth the price premium as the target audience rarely buys anything that doesn't have a price premium attached simply because they can.

Yes. The theory of Veblen goods—part of (or the entirety of) the motivation of the purchaser is the high price, which leads to an inverse of classic supply and demand behavior. For Veblen goods, the higher the price, the greater the sales.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Premium boutique brands are rarely (if ever?) worth the price premium as the target audience rarely buys anything that doesn't have a price premium attached simply because they can.

Yes, could actually argue they be considered luxury brands.

 

[Jasperous]

My inner scrooge optimizer wishes for this, from another company (e.g. the one starting with T and with the same number of letters in its name), sleek and light with switching PS, and last but not least for 1/3 of this price
Or, even better, a complete AVR built around said concept.
Slim chance, I know...

Same!

 

[IamJF]

Lost 6 dB SNR compared to what? I look at noise performance from a system perspective (DAC + amplifier), not just the DAC output.

I use amplifiers with 25.6 dB gain (Hypex NC252MP) and have less than 100 uV residual noise (unweighted, 20-20K) at my amplifier output. This level of noise is completely inaudible with the typical sensitivity drivers I use. Would noise be reduced if I used a 19 dB gain amplifier? Sure, I certainly would be multiplying the DAC noise less but it is not going to make an audible difference from a noise perspective.

My DAC is an Okto dac8 pro with 4 V output which means I have the potential to clip the amplifier output at volume positions above -8 dB. My typical listening position is -12 to -20 dB BUT I do enjoy the ability to compensate for lower level recordings by using volume positions above -8 dB. When I previously used a DAC with 2 V output I would occasionally want more output at max volume (0 dB) on lower level recordings. You say turn the knob up, in a system without an analog preamp what knob gets me above a 0 dB volume position? I certainly could use DSP to boost the output level but this is much less convenient than just turning the DAC knob up on a DAC with a little extra signal level to play with. Not to mention that leaving a permanent DSP boost would certainly result in digital clipping with higher level recordings.

I understand that others may have other priorities depending on noise sensitivity and driver selection, but for me residual noise at the amplifier output less than 150 uV and DAC output level 6 dB above input sensitivity is the sweet spot in terms of noise performance and output level flexibility.

Michael

Not the noise of the power amp - you will have that anyway. You amplify the noise of your preamp. Unnecessary.

You have the nice situation of having a very good DAC with very low noise - that's the reason you have no problems in your chain. Many AV Preamps are not that great, having somewhat over 100dB S/N. When you subtract your 8dB to much gain (cause that's what you amplify the noise of the preamp without adding any headroom!) ... you can be happy to achieve 16bit S/N like in the "good old days"

Atmos wants 105dBSpl at the listening position with 3dB headroom of the amp. You have 7-12 speakers around you. Noise get's audible quick.

What recordings do you listen to which are not leveled close to 0dBFs? That's pretty unusual. Cause you have 12-20dB to compensate lower level recordings which schould be perfect? Analog source with level missmatch would be a use case - and that's a PERFECT case to look at gain staging.
AV Preamps can also put gain to a digital signal (at least mine can ). As can do my audio interface. And for a low level signal that's the way to go - you can boost it until your peaks get close to 0dBfs.
So you have a very special use case here with your DAC.


On the other side - with modern components used good you can outspec our listening environments and S/N needs easy. Then digital volume control makes a lot of sense (as I use for quite long now in my studio room) and it has a lot of benefits.
But don't be fooled - depending on the situation (so you don't use mini speakers with 82dB efficiency - noise is no problem then) even 100dB S/N of the SYSTEM is not enough to get a noise free environment.

 

[sarumbear]

Bed Channels are all the bottom floor channels. See below graphic: I am using the Terminology used by Dolby.
View attachment 300014

Dolby Atmos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not exactly true.

In Dolby Atmos, the largest bed configuration that exists is 7.1.2. This configuration allows for Low-Frequency Effects (LFE), with left and right side walls, and an additional overhead stereo pair.

https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/What-is-a-bed?language=en_US

 

[AdamG]

Not exactly true.

https://professionalsupport.dolby.com/s/article/What-is-a-bed?language=en_US

You’re talking the Audio sound Mix and I am discussing the Actual Speaker hardware arrangement and placement. I provided two separate references for confirmation of this exact terminology usage. I don’t understand why you expend so much effort in trying to prove others wrong? You are known for this MO behavior and it gets tiresome.

In 2021/22 Dolby added Front Wides to the possible bed layout thus expanding the 7.x.x to a possible 9.x.x with Front Wide configuration expandability.

See 5th paragraph, third bullet. This was done via a Firmware update to the Dolby Atmos software version. My Denon 8500h permits the inclusion of Front Wides to achieve the 9.x.x setup.

Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup

Dolby Atmos Speaker Placement Tips: Set up your speakers for the ultimate Dolby Atmos experience with our expert tips. Elevate your audio immersion now.

www.dolby.com

 

[sarumbear]

You’re talking the Audio sound Mix and I am discussing the Actual Speaker hardware arrangement and placement. I provided two separate references for confirmation of this exact terminology usage. I don’t understand why you expend so much effort in trying to prove others wrong? You are known for this MO behavior and it gets tiresome.

It maybe tiresome but it doesn't change the fact that the information was wrong. You said "Bed Channels are all the bottom floor channels." That is not correct as per Dolby. Bed channels can be height channels as well. You posted a Wiki link I posted a Dolby link that said otherwise. Which is the authoritative one?

Someone have to correct the wrong information, otherwise ASR will be a distributing wrong information. If that is what you want as a moderator I will refrain correcting obvious wrong information and simply stay silent.

 

[mdsimon2]

Not the noise of the power amp - you will have that anyway. You amplify the noise of your preamp. Unnecessary.

That is why I said system noise and defined it as DAC + amplifier. If it wasn't clear when I am stating residual noise levels at the amplifier output this is a combination of amplified residual noise from the DAC and amplifier residual noise, not just amplifier residual noise.

You have the nice situation of having a very good DAC with very low noise - that's the reason you have no problems in your chain.

In today's world the Okto isn't even that low noise with about 3.5 uV residual noise, for example the Topping DM7 is 2.25 uV and stereo DACs are even better.

In my office I use a MOTU Ultralite Mk5, which although low noise compared to AVRs is not low noise compared to modern hi-fi DACs. It has ~7 uV residual noise and a max output level of 8.6 V. I use this with amplifiers that have 25.7 dB gain and an input sensitivity of 1.8 V, you would say this mismatch is too much and yet because the system residual noise is around 140 uV it is silent in to unpadded 92 dB tweeters.

What recordings do you listen to which are not leveled close to 0dBFs? That's pretty unusual.

Mostly older movies from streaming services.

So you have a very special use case here with your DAC.

I don't agree with that. It is a simple DAC into power amp setup, one that I am sure is similar to many others on this site.

On the other side - with modern components used good you can outspec our listening environments and S/N needs easy. Then digital volume control makes a lot of sense (as I use for quite long now in my studio room) and it has a lot of benefits.

I agree. Given how easy it is to achieve a low noise system gain staging to give yourself a little bit of output flexibility makes sense and there is no audible penalty (which was my point from the beginning). People will absolutely notice if they cannot achieve the output level they want because the input level is too low but they won't notice an inaudible increase in noise.

But don't be fooled - depending on the situation (so you don't use mini speakers with 82dB efficiency - noise is no problem then) even 100dB S/N of the SYSTEM is not enough to get a noise free environment.

I find talking about SNR not very useful from a noise audibility standpoint because the S side of that equation depends on system output capability, much better to talk in terms of residual noise which allows an apples-to-apples comparison. If a system has an output capability of 60 W in to 4 ohm and a 100 dB SNR this would be quite acceptable as it has ~140 uV residual noise, however if a system has 100 dB SNR at 300 W in to 4 ohm this would be unacceptable as it has ~340 uV residual noise.

Michael

 

[DonH56]

From Dolby: https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf -- numerous other references on their site, albeit the "bed" nomenclature is mostly (all?) on the Professional site and not the consumer site (since "bed" and "objects" are used by pros for mixing the sound stage).

Dolby Atmos is based on the concept of sound objects. In the cinema, Dolby Atmos relies on a combination of 9.1 ‘‘bed’’ channels and up to 118 simultaneous sound objects to deliver an enveloping sound stage.

Thus bed channels are used for the "floor" speakers. Height and overheads are above the bed. That said, Dolby Atmos is object-oriented, so "bed" is rarely used (though I have not waded through the latest spec).

 

[IamJF]

Thus bed channels are used for the "floor" speakers. Height and overheads are above the bed. That said, Dolby Atmos is object-oriented, so "bed" is rarely used (though I have not waded through the latest spec).

9.1 - this means there are 2 height channels included! (It's only 7 discrete floor "bed" channels and 2 ceiling "bed" channels. They use only fixed 7.1.2)

For me this discussion is very interesting!
I saw a video from a very good surround installer who had a look into useage of Atmos channels and detected there are often just 2 height channels coded, not 4. Which means the 4 play the same signal as only 2. They also say there are mostly discrete channels coded (which means 7.1.2) and very seldom a discrete object is used.

This is important info for designing a home cinema setup! I went with just 2 ceiling channels after that. And looks like I need to try harder to integrate 4 surround speakers instead of the planned 2 ...

 

[IamJF]

I don't agree with that. It is a simple DAC into power amp setup, one that I am sure is similar to many others on this site.

We talk about a 10k surround power amp here. I would think most people buying that will use a proper surround preamp.

I agree. Given how easy it is to achieve a low noise system gain staging to give yourself a little bit of output flexibility makes sense and there is no audible penalty (which was my point from the beginning). People will absolutely notice if they cannot achieve the output level they want because the input level is too low but they won't notice an inaudible increase in noise.

If you stream old movies with audio level totally off - just turn the volume of your movie player up? I still don't see a need for a level missmatch here.

I find talking about SNR not very useful from a noise audibility standpoint because the S side of that equation depends on system output capability, much better to talk in terms of residual noise which allows an apples-to-apples comparison. If a system has an output capability of 60 W in to 4 ohm and a 100 dB SNR this would be quite acceptable as it has ~140 uV residual noise, however if a system has 100 dB SNR at 300 W in to 4 ohm this would be unacceptable as it has ~340 uV residual noise.

That's EXACTLY the reason fixed gain doesn't make sense for different rated power amps
Residual noise in some uV ratings is even harder to understand for most people so I try to stick with more common terms. Even if it's way easier to calculate with when you know how to handle numbers

With these digital amps it's easy to get a few hundret W per channel. And in Home cinema it's also good to have enough headroom. But with typical noise floors of AVRs you quickly have plenty of noise. Then you build a silent room and put 11 speaker with good sensitivity in it ... you got an expensive waterfall.

I do this dynamic range optimisation regularly in my job cause I need to measure and work with the dynamic range of microphones - so I REALLY need huge S/N ratios. And it's not hard to do. I often change the gain of these Hypex modules (only one resistor), I optimised a standard 250W module to 129dB(A) S/N with 20dB gain - 12,9uVrms(A). It's hard to find a fitting DAC already ;-)
My main system uses Hypex DSP amps and these have 114dB(A) and 116dB(A) System dynamic range with digital input (100W channel has less noise) - and I still hear a little noise in 1m distance at nearfield listening with mid dome speakers. Good enough to work with but our ear can hear down to 0dBSpl - that's the reason for the definition of that level.

So - let's be happy about manufacturers who take gain staging serious to deliver best performance of their products. Like Trinnov here
There are not a lot of them ...

 

[DonH56]

9.1 - this means there are 2 height channels included! (It's only 7 discrete floor "bed" channels and 2 ceiling "bed" channels. They use only fixed 7.1.2)

For me this discussion is very interesting!
I saw a video from a very good surround installer who had a look into useage of Atmos channels and detected there are often just 2 height channels coded, not 4. Which means the 4 play the same signal as only 2. They also say there are mostly discrete channels coded (which means 7.1.2) and very seldom a discrete object is used.

This is important info for designing a home cinema setup! I went with just 2 ceiling channels after that. And looks like I need to try harder to integrate 4 surround speakers instead of the planned 2 ...

Wides, not heights, but this is NOT my area of expertise. I am going off memories of a talk a Dolby rep gave several years ago and my interpretation of various Dolby docs. We (USA) have used "bed" to mean the floor speakers for some time; Atmos brought new definitions, and docs I have seen on the Dolby site I find a bit confusing. Some define bed differently for speakers vs. the actual mixing process. There are threads on other forums that include actual Dolby movie mixers discussing the process, as well as various conference and white papers. Consumer docs appear to have moved away from using the term "bed". Again, not something I follow.

There is an article about cascaded gain stages, noise and distortion, in the list linked in my signature. The math is fairly straight-forward but optimization can get pretty complicated. My background is dealing with RF/mW systems but the calculations and principles are the same for audio (I adapted my old radar signal chain notes to create the audio version in that thread).

This whole discussion is pretty far off-topic and to me represents a very interesting discussion that is unfortunately going to get lost in an equipment review thread, as well as splintering the actual review info. Common but vexing.

 

[Spocko]

Yes, could actually argue they be considered luxury brands.

Totally! No different than Focal Utopia, Wilson or Magico speakers.

 

[Spocko]

Yes. The theory of Veblen goods—part of (or the entirety of) the motivation of the purchaser is the high price, which leads to an inverse of classic supply and demand behavior. For Veblen goods, the higher the price, the greater the sales.

Not just goods but personal services too - attorneys, doctors, trainers, etc. serving the wealthy can never offer a price that's suspiciously "fair" as clients wanting the best use price as a heuristic for quality: twice the price for an attorney must mean twice as good right? Anything less is clearly an ambulance chaser

 

[IamJF]

Maybe just stick with definitions like rear or front or height channels

For me the term was new and makes only really sense in terms of mixing - to put fixed channels into the audio stream for "fundation" and lay some dynamic objects over that. At least sometimes
(Audio people are used to these fixed channels and are used to mix that way. Maybe that's the reason for the spare use of objects)

 

[Dougey_Jones]

Yes, could actually argue they be considered luxury brands.

Trinnov is absolutely a "Luxury" brand, in terms of the HiFi world.

 

[Spocko]

It maybe tiresome but it doesn't change the fact that the information was wrong. You said "Bed Channels are all the bottom floor channels." That is not correct as per Dolby. Bed channels can be height channels as well. You posted a Wiki link I posted a Dolby link that said otherwise. Which is the authoritative one?

Someone have to correct the wrong information, otherwise ASR will be a distributing wrong information. If that is what you want as a moderator I will refrain correcting obvious wrong information and simply stay silent.

I have always thought "bed" level was just casually minted lingo and didn't realize it was a technical term. First time I heard it was while watching Gene and @Matthew J Poes talk about HT speaker setups on one of their earliest youtube videos; I have always assumed based on context that bed level was nothing more than ear level speakers as opposed to the "heights". If Matt catches this, hopefully he can shed some light for us

 

[AdamG]

As @DonH56 mentioned this Dolby terminology is off topic here. I participated in this conversation myself and have chosen to no longer do so. I ask everyone else to move on from this thread drift as this is an official review thread. And even a Moderator loses focus on that too.

Back to the Review details please….