I think super cool geeky 3D object viewer is a good trade-off ;-)4.2.16 software version for the Altitude 16.
Do the relocate features and pull down menus so one must re-learn how to operate the processor periodically?
I think super cool geeky 3D object viewer is a good trade-off ;-)4.2.16 software version for the Altitude 16.
Do the relocate features and pull down menus so one must re-learn how to operate the processor periodically?
1KHz sine With all those harmonic distortions for trinnov, £17k daylight robbery. The denon avc-x8500h only a little better and I can matrix additional channels for 25 channels out of the 13.
I had a Denon 8500H and the Altitude just destroys it. You honestly have not heard surround sound until you've heard it through a Trinnov.
Yes all true, but isn't the point of the opinions expressed above that (it is claimed) the Trinnov corrects for the variances from a target for the room, speakers and speaker position better and easier than other devices?I use a Trinnov Altitude 16 in my theater. I am satisfied with the unit and believe that it provides high quality, many useful features and some innovative, unique room calibration features. I had my theater professionally calibrated.
But phrases like "night and day difference" and "destroys the competition" are excessive hyperbole. A well mastered recording/movie, high quality, well-positioned speakers and reasonable room acoustics are far, far more influential than devices in the electronics chain. It's not uncommon for a room to induce 10-20 dB peaks and nulls; Speakers often exhibit 1% distortion and all sorts of dispersion irregularities. By contrast, modern electronics (preprocessors, dacs, amplifiers) are audibly transparent.
I like and recommend the Trinnov. I'd buy it again. But it isn't a magic bullet.
Whether or not Trinnov's correction makes a night and day difference to any individual I couldn't say. So far (I think) we have opinions rather than measurements, with all the confounding factor stuff that goes along with that. I am sufficiently convinced to consider a Trinnov as my next processor, but I would like to see some actual comparative measurements.
I use a Trinnov Altitude 16 in my theater. I am satisfied with the unit and believe that it provides high quality, many useful features and some innovative, unique room calibration features. I had my theater professionally calibrated.
But phrases like "night and day difference" and "destroys the competition" are excessive hyperbole. A well mastered recording/movie, high quality, well-positioned speakers and reasonable room acoustics are far, far more influential than devices in the electronics chain. It's not uncommon for a room to induce 10-20 dB peaks and nulls; Speakers often exhibit 1% distortion and all sorts of dispersion irregularities. By contrast, modern electronics (preprocessors, dacs, amplifiers) are audibly transparent.
I like and recommend the Trinnov. I'd buy it again. But it isn't a magic bullet.
You recommend Trinnov Altitude 16 for person, who have LCR with JBL M2, and JBL 705P/708P - I think about these speakers for rear and back, for Atmos propably traditional in-ceiling Atmos speakers, also from JBL.
Propably 7.4.4 system.
With a full JBL setup, I think most people would recommend the JBL version of the processor to get the special calibration files for those speakers. I think you can do everything with the Trinnov as well - just more work.You recommend Trinnov Altitude 16 for person, who have LCR with JBL M2, and JBL 705P/708P - I think about these speakers for rear and back, for Atmos propably traditional in-ceiling Atmos speakers, also from JBL.
Propably 7.4.4 system.
Thanks, but why SDP-75, not SDP-55, if I have JBL M2? In 75 are some special profits?For a JBL M2 system, it may be worthwhile to look at the SDP-75 in addition to the Altitude
I'll definitely be trying one when I gulp hard enough and upgrade my system. Should be pretty simple for a calibrator to show measurement differences from my current AVR.I used MSO to optimize my three subs then subsequently the Trinnov Optimizer to calibrate my room. The post-optimizer response curves provided in the Trinnov UI showed substantially improved frequency response flatness, impulse response etc. It sounded very good.
Even though I've been an engineer for 40 years, an audiophile for as many years and have built and measured many speakers and audio systems - I am not an experienced audio design professional. I wondered how much further improvement might be obtained via professional calibration. So I engaged a calibrator and following a two-day calibration session, my system did sound noticeably better. I've been critically listening to the system for several weeks now and do not believe it's just confirmation bias.
The calibrator took many measurements using SMAART and multiple microphones concurrently to amend the Trinnov post-optimizer responses. The Trinnov supports separate parametric, graphic and FIR filters for each speaker within each preset. Different presets were developed for different listening use cases. The filter adjustments were vetted using many reference tracks and movies with which the calibrator was intimately familiar. He incorporated EQ tweaks derived from measurements and critical listening based on extensive experience with many rooms and systems.
The Trinnov has a very novel 3D microphone, very substantial EQ configurability and a blizzard of programmable acoustic adjustments including unusual speaker remapping features. I believe that some of these capabilities are essential to extracting optimal system performance and experiencing the best immersion possible.
I suspect that a seasoned calibrator could achieve similar results with other modern, high-quality preprocessors so long as the system provided a means of trimming EQ and amplitude levels for each individual speaker based on independent measurements, listening tests and knowledge. While analog signal paths of most modern high-quality processors are transparent, the ancillary features like interactive network accessible UI with extensive EQ, phase alignment, level trims, 3D sound source localization, well implemented preset scheme and many other features provide justification for additional expense.
Based on my experience, the overall system acoustic performance provided by merely running the automatic Trinnov room EQ wizard is suboptimal. Perhaps it's better or worse than what's achievable by other systems such as Audyssey or Room Perfect out of the box. But I am convinced that my system performance, and perhaps other comparable systems are limited by lack of expertise in calibration, EQ and system configuration, not by a single metric like SINAD.
Thanks, but why SDP-75, not SDP-55, if I have JBL M2? In 75 are some special profits?
PS What about amplifiers?
If I good understand, I need amplifiers only for JBL M2, yes? So, maybe 3 good amps in D class?
The only negative that I've experienced with the Trinnov being PC rather than hardware based is that it takes longer to lock onto an ATMOS signal coming from another signal type like stereo. It can be as much as a 5 to 9 second delay. For example, if listening to Apple Music, there is sometimes a gap where you don't hear the beginning of the song. It is bothersome at times. I never really notice it with movies as there is usually a trailer of some sort to start a movie.I can't imagine paying $17k for a pc-based audio component.
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.
I get what you're saying but how does anyone measure the quality of a number of different methodologies (Audyssey, DIRAC, Trinnov Optimizer, etc)?
We have Amir's measurements here but I'm not aware of any other way to compare the Trinnov to other products. The cost of the Trinnov puts it out of reach for most people and I don't think there are many dealers to the public that have them on display for demonstration.
I was heavily influenced by reviews and user feedback about the Trinnov just as I was long ago with my Pioneer 49TXi, then Denon, then Marantz, etc. I don't recall hearing a lot of difference between those three but I had different rooms, speaker types, speaker locations, etc. This time moving from Denon to Trinnov everything was the same except the processor and I clearly found differences in terms of improved audio performance.
I don't recall having seen any negative reviews on Trinnov's sound quality though there are a number of improvement / fixes that people ask for and Trinnov appears to be trying to take care of. Overwhelmingly, people moving from any product to the Trinnov have stated the Trinnov has sounded better in their rooms than anything they've previously owned with no changes to their system other than adding the Trinnov. Yes, there is bias for all of us for new purchases but the consensus of improvement from slight to substantial audio performance increase seems incredibly high for such a product.
As a rhetorical question, how would you analyze the Trinnov vs. other processors or how would you recommend people go about it? I don't have any idea myself as multi-channel blind testing would be tough and perhaps implausible due to the great expense. Thank goodness speakers are relatively easy to measure by comparison.