• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily 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)

Unground

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
53
Likes
175
A key part of the value proposition for me is the aftercare provided by the manufacturer. My impression is that Trinnov does more than most. I read on another forum that Dante and bass management are coming (don't know if true or how important) and I read here about various codec and other software and hardware improvements. In this respect a PC based architecture is an advantage as far as I can see, and to have a company taking advantage of it by providing after-sales upgrades is a good thing.

I'm not (yet) an owner so perhaps Trinnov customers can enlighten me.
 

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
428
Likes
203
Measurements might not be clear enough to tell you which one is better (as other than frequency response, it's not easy to say which one measures objectively better), but at least they'll help point out the actual differences.
 

zorax2

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
69
Measurements might not be clear enough to tell you which one is better (as other than frequency response, it's not easy to say which one measures objectively better), but at least they'll help point out the actual differences.

You may laugh at this but I made a preset with ruler perfect bass across the seats bass as calculated by MSO. Nailed it with the from a measurement perspective.

I was still hoping for better as it didn't seem quite right. I called Trinnov support and asked for some help and they took a non-tweaked Optimizer preset I saved and did some slight tweaks for me.

Stupidly, I measured it - measurements seemingly weren't as good as my MSO setup.

I called Trinnov support and asked what to try next. The reply was along the lines "Throw out the microphone and REW and measurements and just listen with your ears to the sound and see what you think. You don't listen to measurements." Great advice.

Thankfully all the presets made it easier to compare and I was really pleased without my MSO ruler perfect response across seats. That being said - I'm sure I didn't properly integrate everything and I'm sure MSO and a pro could have made things even better. Nevertheless, that put an end to measurements by me.

I recently had a professional calibration and have vowed to never tweak again (other than copy a preset to further boost the bass just for fun!). Yes, the calibrator did a ton of measurements and microphones and equipment to do it but in the end it was all about listening to test tracks to ensure everything met the use your ears test to verify.
 

zorax2

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
19
Likes
69
A key part of the value proposition for me is the aftercare provided by the manufacturer. My impression is that Trinnov does more than most. I read on another forum that Dante and bass management are coming (don't know if true or how important) and I read here about various codec and other software and hardware improvements. In this respect a PC based architecture is an advantage as far as I can see, and to have a company taking advantage of it by providing after-sales upgrades is a good thing.

I'm not (yet) an owner so perhaps Trinnov customers can enlighten me.
You've nailed it - Trinnov has incredible customer service. I mean absolutely incredible! I think they have multiple support people 24 x 7 as they often respond to questions within an hour or less and I don't think I've ever waited more than 8 hours for help to answer a question. They are all well versed experts meaning you don't start with some lower tier CSR and have things escalated and so on.

As to Dante and Bass Management, there have been hints that they are working on those but I think their general policy is to not announce until release which is when they believe the update is perfect. It's not like some of the brands we all know for AVRs and PrePros that constantly release buggy firmware that seems like whack a mole. When those companies get close to getting it right, it seems many move on from model X01 to X02 and forget about the X01 owners.

Trinnov so far has shown that it constantly innovates and improves it products and adds the new features to even the older products in the field. I don't know of many companies that do that. The most recent example was when they turned the Altitude 16 into a 20-channel device at no charge. Who does something like that in this day and age?

Trinnov has stated clearly their progress with a new HDMI board and the ease of upgradability and will release it when they know it's 100% rather than shipping half-baked solutions that require sending a unit back to the factory or not meeting the full specification.

I think the payback for me is knowing I won't do at least 3 to 4 upgrades in processors over the next 10 years and be confident that the modular architecture will allow me to stick with the Trinnov for a very long time and actually save me money in the long run by avoiding the upgrade process. More importantly, I can now listen and enjoy the 100% best sound my system with my current components will ever provide.
 

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,581
Likes
3,177
Measurements won’t help.

There’s only one way to compare room eq software/processors:
Group of trained listeners preference, in DBT. As @Sean Olive did, years ago, preferably with more participants.

A variation of rooms will be added value to the test (ie treated, not treated etc), a variation of speakers/ number of subs also. Let’s say 3 different rooms, 2-3 different speaker/subs layouts. Maybe 9 different scenarios.

Companies will be responsible for calibrating their product.

I don’t expect it to happen

I would think that measurements will help, but it will obviously depend on the what and how..

Let's use Trinnov vs Dirac Live as an example, if we set both up according to instructions and as you mentioned, "companies will be responsible for calibrating their products..", then on everything else being equal basis, for each setup post calibration, if measurements show Trinnov's results approach the same set of measurements done in an anechoic chamber (not just frequency response, but in every possible aspects), then at least we can say it is more effective in minimizing the room effects. Both Trinnov and Dirac claimed to do room correction after all.

In such case, picking Trinnov to do RC (again, just a fictitious example) will be like picking an amplifier that measurements show it is more transparent/accurate than another being compared (example: Benchmark AHB2).

That is not to say if Trinnov, in this fictitious example will make the set up sound better than Dirac (again just an example) to a group of people such as one conducted by Sean Olive years ago because "sound better" is subjective. The RC system that is found to be more effective in RC can then be adjusted to suit the individual's preference. That has to be helpful, to me and other objectivists anyway.
 

Unground

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
53
Likes
175
I would think that measurements will help, but it will obviously depend on the what and how..

Let's use Trinnov vs Dirac Live as an example, if we set both up according to instructions and as you mentioned, "companies will be responsible for calibrating their products..", then on everything else being equal basis, for each setup post calibration, if measurements show Trinnov's results approach the same set of measurements done in an anechoic chamber (not just frequency response, but in every possible aspects), then at least we can say it is more effective in minimizing the room effects. Both Trinnov and Dirac claimed to do room correction after all.

In such case, picking Trinnov to do RC (again, just a fictitious example) will be like picking an amplifier that measurements show it is more transparent/accurate than another being compared (example: Benchmark AHB2).

That is not to say if Trinnov, in this fictitious example will make the set up sound better than Dirac (again just an example) to a group of people such as one conducted by Sean Olive years ago because "sound better" is subjective. The RC system that is found to be more effective in RC can then be adjusted to suit the individual's preference. That has to be helpful, to me and other objectivists anyway.
Yes that kind of thing makes sense to me. I mean, all RC systems are trying to do the same thing I think? Essentially remove room effects and speaker/position imperfections to achieve a target curve. So for any controlled set of circumstances, one system must be the best, in that it better achieves the target curve by better compensating for room and speaker effects (or whatever clever things). No doubt some room/speaker combos are easier to RC than others so the differences between RC systems might be harder to discern (and might well be inaudible in some rooms) but surely there must be a way to test in a controlled way.

Received opinion is that Trinnov's is the most sophisticated RC system. How much that translates into 'better' for any given room/speaker config is of course tricky to describe, but not impossible IMO to do by providing a few case studies.
 
Last edited:

Zooqu1ko

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
94
Likes
53
Yes that kind of thing makes sense to me. I mean, all RC systems are trying to do the same thing I think? Essentially remove room effects and speaker/position imperfections to achieve a target curve.
When you're referring to a target curve, that's usually just the amplitude response, but that would ignore the signal timing. The latter also impacts perceived sound quality, and it is probably more difficult to quantify that impact. Also, with different compromises chosen regarding amplitude and phase by different room correction algorithms, there may be no clear winner, or the winner may depend on the room and the speakers used.
 

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,581
Likes
3,177
When you're referring to a target curve, that's usually just the amplitude response, but that would ignore the signal timing. The latter also impacts perceived sound quality, and it is probably more difficult to quantify that impact. Also, with different compromises chosen regarding amplitude and phase by different room correction algorithms, there may be no clear winner, or the winner may depend on the room and the speakers used.

We are talking about removing all room effects though, not just EQ magnitude. FR is just one of many measurements. That's why I would like to use anechoic measurements as reference for such comparisons. You are likely right about there may be no clear winner but we dont know until someone try.
 

Adi777

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Messages
426
Likes
244
PS How about replacing Trinnov with a computer and the best possible software for correcting rooms, acoustics, and so on and so on. There is a possibility?
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
6,959
Likes
13,748
Location
Monument, CO
PS How about replacing Trinnov with a computer and the best possible software for correcting rooms, acoustics, and so on and so on. There is a possibility?
Mainly depends on if you need/want the various decoders (Dolby and so forth) that are not available on computers due to licensing issues. And how you define "best possible" and so forth.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
6,959
Likes
13,748
Location
Monument, CO
Atmos, and maybe also Auro 3D. Can I buy a license?
Dolby Atmos is available on PCs, not sure if it is the "full" version or not. I do not know about Auro. Not something I track.

Very extensive, influencing the characteristics of the loudspeakers, generally - with a lot of possibilities.
There are a number of very powerful room correction and EQ programs available for PCs, such as Acourate, Audiolense, Dirac Live, etc. You might want to pick up @mitchco book Accurate Sound Reproduction using DSP (Mitch Barnett). There is also measurement SW like REW.

Probably best to search ASR to see what is available, and start a separate thread for PC-based solutions, both to declutter this thread and to provide answers where they are more easily found in the future.
 

Dimifoot

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
488
Likes
716
Location
Greece
I don’t think that there is any pc software for immersive room eq. Nothing more than 7.1
 

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
428
Likes
203
We are talking about removing all room effects though, not just EQ magnitude. FR is just one of many measurements. That's why I would like to use anechoic measurements as reference for such comparisons. You are likely right about there may be no clear winner but we dont know until someone try.

That would be a terrible test, as they don't even try to remove all room effects (anechoic rooms sound bad, why would anyone strive for that?), and even if they did, how would you know who made the best compromises where there are differences in several different measured values, some closer to what you consider optimal while others are further off? Add to that the fact we don't even know what is "optimal", just have some clues about what is probably optimal on some very specific measurable aspects and even then only if you didn't ruin anything else too badly on the way to get there. Measurements can tell us what 2 different room EQ systems did differently though, so we could at least know where one *might* sound better than the other, rather than the 2 doing exactly the same thing. Some Audyssey vs Dirac comparisons on these forums showed that once you apply the same target curve, it's very difficult to say which one got better results, which means that there is some decent chance that Dirac won't achieve better results (that is without DLBC, though, which is probably a huge step up).

I wonder what Trinnov actually does on the bass management and multi-sub alignment front beyond just giving you great control over the crossover filters, which is nice but seems rather simplistic compared to stuff like DLBC.
 

MinMan

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
41
Likes
34
We are talking about removing all room effects though, not just EQ magnitude. FR is just one of many measurements. That's why I would like to use anechoic measurements as reference for such comparisons. You are likely right about there may be no clear winner but we dont know until someone try.
Correction in an anarchic chamber may be limited to correcting loudspeaker performance - by definition.

Unless your loudspeakers are point source / coincident / coaxial drivers, this may be a moving target. The response of MTM or TMW speakers necessarily varies depending on the measurement microphone location relative to each driver - let alone the position of microphone relative to 7.1 speakers or 7.1.4.

Isn't it room correction software, not speaker correction software?
 

Fidji

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
170
Likes
339
Location
Firenze, I
The back to back post#807 and 808 just show another case of how little subjective reviews mean, yet so many people continual to rely on such.. To be clear, subjective reviews are not useless, but imo choices of hardware and even RC software such as DL vs Aud vs Trinnov vs Anthem ARC should not rely on them too much if perceived "sound quality" is the criteria.

Although I am very firmly in objecivists/measurements camp, I do not think you can really measure SQ of such complex system as 9.4.6 HT [for example]. I have also chnaged to TRINNOV from Denon 8500 with MSO and PC app [and probably not 100% of potential, but I would say 99% for sure]. Out fo the box TRINNOV with Wizard and most crude adjustments in e.g. Bass Management - and immersion in 3D material was really on completely different level. Now after couple of months, wtinessing 1 pro calibration, experimenting and talking to excellent TRINNOV support [I have changed center speaker and aded 2 height speakers recently, so needed to re-do all the measurements] - I do not think it gets any better. Sometimes you just need to stop and say - "this is good enough for me" and enjoy it.

At the end of the day DRC is just a bunch of IIR and FIR filters applied into the signal. You can have differences in number of taps, IIR filters etc - but the tools are basically the same. So measurements and flexibilty to adjust to your specific room/setup is the key, not number of taps.

I will compare Audyssey PC app with Denon vs TRINNOV in flexibility [I will pick up Bass Management as an example, as this is one area where I was able to achieve transformational improvement over Denon]

Denon /Aud - SUbHTEQ - time and level align 2 subs and apply Global EQ, choices for X OVers - 40, 60, 80, ..etc Hz. [I will ignore MSO/MiniDsp based solutions], you can do some target curve in the app. 0.5dB steps in AVR. That is it.

TRINNOV - unlimited [only by total channel count] number of Subs, that can be EQ individually or in groups up to 4, gain delay, LPF/HPF freely adjustable. Bass Management - separate HPF/LPF filter with 3 types and 4 slopes each [LR, BSL, BTW], you can have individual gain of SW per speaker and also individually adjust polarity if needed. Intermediate Bass Management [signal goes to nearest speaker] - I use e.g. 110Hz for Height speakers that get bass managed to nearest bed plane speaker and only then bass managed to SW. Stacked Sub compensation for LFE. 0.1dB steps.

You probably can imagine that in the hands of somebody, that knows what to do TRINNOV will achieve completely different results. Well treated room and properly placed subs are still much more important than any DRC, but in my case we are talking "better than cinema" experience. Not exxagerating. Of course it took me 2 weekends with REW, Optimizer, moving subs around etc.

I have 3 setups for Bass Part - "MSO" which is MSO emulation with Mono Sub as a result, then "REL 3D" modelled after REL recommendations and "Fidji" with 5 subs - 2 pairs and 1 extra, serving as Bass Extension via Active crossover [avaiable in TRINNOV] so that my L-C-R have identical bass extension [my L-R play down to 20Hz, sealed]

Not doable with Audyssey. E.g. I could never get BOTH L_R and C crossover done properly [L-R at 60, C at 80Hz, same distance] - either L-R or C was out of phase at Xover frequency. Now?

1662289020831.png
 
Last edited:

Fidji

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
170
Likes
339
Location
Firenze, I
I wonder what Trinnov actually does on the bass management and multi-sub alignment front beyond just giving you great control over the crossover filters, which is nice but seems rather simplistic compared to stuff like DLBC.
You need to do this stuff manually and obviously knowing what to do is crucial. You have active crossover capability, where you can create subwoofer array, set individual gain, delay, polarity and filter slopes. I use REW alignment tool fo this and the prior to calibration you have PEQ option to apply global EQ. Works quite well. Or you can measure in REW run MSO and type in PEQ manually into SW channels - need to say, results are so-so here.

With lot of manual workaround you get to DLBC level of performance.

DLBC equivalent is long rumored.
 
Last edited:

peng

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,581
Likes
3,177
Correction in an anarchic chamber may be limited to correcting loudspeaker performance - by definition.

Unless your loudspeakers are point source / coincident / coaxial drivers, this may be a moving target. The response of MTM or TMW speakers necessarily varies depending on the measurement microphone location relative to each driver - let alone the position of microphone relative to 7.1 speakers or 7.1.4.

Isn't it room correction software, not speaker correction software?

That's not what I said, unless I messed up my wording somwhere.. I meant using the speaker's anechoic performance as reference only, not to apply RC with the speakers in anechoic condition.

Let's say we just do one speaker (for argument sake), use RC, limit range to say 600 Hz in a room, set target curve to flat. Use REW, and/or the software Amir uses or others, to plot everything possible post RC calibration. Now do the same with another RC software and then we can compare to say if one does a better job. It is likely that one will do better in FR, another in impulse response, etc.etc...., so no it isn't easy to compare this way either but there will be more that we can compare, and perhaps in more meaningful way, but then may be not...
 
Last edited:

GalZohar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
428
Likes
203
For MSO you need to be able to calibrate the subwoofers as one with the MSO PEQ already applied (if you want the optimizer to flatten the response and let MSO just minimize the seat to seat variation). With MSO being free, though, it's surprising Trinnnov doesn't have something at least on par with it. After all, better bass integration is probably one of the more noticeable things you can improve in a system by digital means.
 
Top Bottom