How do you connect the Altitude CI outputs to these DAC without AES input?
-
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!
Trinnov AltitudeCI Review and 32 Channel Build Thread
- Thread starter etc6849
- Start date
Canare BCJ-XJ-TRC Transformer - XLRFM to BNC - 110-Ohm to 75-Ohm - For
This transformer can be used to adapt balanced AES XLR digital sources to the coaxial inputs on all Benchmark converters.
benchmarkmedia.com
Although certainly not very scientific, there is something emotionally appealing about having a 100% Benchmark signal chain post the Trinnov DSP and decoding.Canare BCJ-XJ-TRC Transformer - XLRFM to BNC - 110-Ohm to 75-Ohm - For
This transformer can be used to adapt balanced AES XLR digital sources to the coaxial inputs on all Benchmark converters.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #64
Oh, it's at least a little scientific 
Not many DACs can drive the AHB2's into clipping on the lowest 9.2dB gain setting (the one to use for the best possible dynamic range)... Sure you can switch the AHB2 to a different gain setting, but the SINAD is not quite as good.
Plus the ability to use pads and operate the DAC3 at lower output is a great feature for active tri-amping as it can lower the nosie floor even more for highly sensitive horns. With a 4VRMS DAC, there's not much left to pad if needed.
Now, I'll give you driving my subs with DAC3 B's is overkill. However, it's worth the extra money to me to have everything match as all my racks are visible in my room, plus having a solidly engineered pro audio DAC that can do 10Hz with -.015dB with very accurate phase is worth ~$550 per channel to me. From the DAC3 manual:
Will a less costly DAC go down to 10Hz and keep its ultra low distortion and show very little phase shift? I have no idea, but the DAC3 B is very well engineered and made to work flawlessly in the pro or home environment so I trust the measurements in the manual.
If you're going to run multiple DACs like I'm doing, it seems like a requirement to use phase accurate DACs everywhere. We can argue can a $100-500 DAC do this as well and consistently as the DAC3, and honestly I have no idea without measurements. One manufacturer publishes AP measurements in their manual, the other doesn't. One manufacturer tests every DAC before shipping using an audio precision test station, do you really believe a $100 DAC gets that QA check?
What would be much worse is a DAC whose relative latency changed slightly depending on lock acquisition, power cycling, or which internal clock phase it happened to acquire. Personally, I want very repeatable latencies for DACs after the Trinnov has performed its calibration.
Trinnov confirms that the AltitudeCI does not simply convert everything to 48 kHz like a normal processor. With AES/analog outputs it processes at the incoming native sample rate, up to 192 kHz depending on channel count. So a preset/calibration may be used while playback moves among 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 kHz, etc. Just one more reason to absolutely demand phase accuracy and consistency across all DACs, at all sample rates.
PS: you're more than welcome to listen once it's complete btw. I'm sure you'll be very impressed.
Not many DACs can drive the AHB2's into clipping on the lowest 9.2dB gain setting (the one to use for the best possible dynamic range)... Sure you can switch the AHB2 to a different gain setting, but the SINAD is not quite as good.
Plus the ability to use pads and operate the DAC3 at lower output is a great feature for active tri-amping as it can lower the nosie floor even more for highly sensitive horns. With a 4VRMS DAC, there's not much left to pad if needed.
Now, I'll give you driving my subs with DAC3 B's is overkill. However, it's worth the extra money to me to have everything match as all my racks are visible in my room, plus having a solidly engineered pro audio DAC that can do 10Hz with -.015dB with very accurate phase is worth ~$550 per channel to me. From the DAC3 manual:
Will a less costly DAC go down to 10Hz and keep its ultra low distortion and show very little phase shift? I have no idea, but the DAC3 B is very well engineered and made to work flawlessly in the pro or home environment so I trust the measurements in the manual.
If you're going to run multiple DACs like I'm doing, it seems like a requirement to use phase accurate DACs everywhere. We can argue can a $100-500 DAC do this as well and consistently as the DAC3, and honestly I have no idea without measurements. One manufacturer publishes AP measurements in their manual, the other doesn't. One manufacturer tests every DAC before shipping using an audio precision test station, do you really believe a $100 DAC gets that QA check?
What would be much worse is a DAC whose relative latency changed slightly depending on lock acquisition, power cycling, or which internal clock phase it happened to acquire. Personally, I want very repeatable latencies for DACs after the Trinnov has performed its calibration.
Trinnov confirms that the AltitudeCI does not simply convert everything to 48 kHz like a normal processor. With AES/analog outputs it processes at the incoming native sample rate, up to 192 kHz depending on channel count. So a preset/calibration may be used while playback moves among 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 kHz, etc. Just one more reason to absolutely demand phase accuracy and consistency across all DACs, at all sample rates.
PS: you're more than welcome to listen once it's complete btw. I'm sure you'll be very impressed.
Turn on Waveforming. Even if your subs aren’t in perfect spots, it’s a game changer. My favorite demo is Andor Season 2, first episode once Andor steals the experimental TIE Fighter. Even with Disney+ lossy streaming AC-4 Atmos, the bass of the blasters is incredible in both the intensity and ability to feel each blast of the high speed lasers *and* how tight the bass is, such that each blast is felt cleanly and they do not blur together at all.
Has anyone experienced problems with calibration measurements on the CI resulting from fade-in features that are programmed into DACs as they transition from digital silence to a music or test signal? I’ve been seeing in the SMLS SU-2 thread that it has a 1/60th second fade- in when coming out of a digital silence that lasts more that about .3 seconds. I would think that plays havoc with Trinnov calibration unless Trinnov sends a dithered or pink noise preamble immediately prior to each measurement.
Any experience you all have on this is much appreciated, including suggestions on DACs that have AES in and XLR out that would not have this problem. From the research I’ve done, many consumers DACs will have this problem and some will mute when one channel is silent, etc, with notable exceptions from Schiit, Benchmark and RME.
Any experience you all have on this is much appreciated, including suggestions on DACs that have AES in and XLR out that would not have this problem. From the research I’ve done, many consumers DACs will have this problem and some will mute when one channel is silent, etc, with notable exceptions from Schiit, Benchmark and RME.
Last edited:
jhenderson0107
Active Member
Most studio dacs with AES inputs do not exhibit any intrinsic fading effects. None of my RME or Motu devices fade-in. How many analog out channels do you require? Perhaps the Okto 2 or 8 channel DACs might be worth investigating.
4 channels. Okto 8 would work. Supposedly Schiit Mimir.
I am using the CI's own DACs for most channels but sending LS/RS via AES3 to KEF LS60s. No anomalies with the calibrations.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #70
None of the RME interfaces, Benchmark DACs or Xilica speaker processors I have do that. If I ever want fade in, I can adjust my playback device's behavior.
Yes, from my research almost all studio AES gear should be fine. I would think most speakers with AES inputs should also work as evidenced by Kal’s set up. There is very little documentation on how consumer DACs deal with digital silence, but the more I read, the more I see inconsistency that can cause serious problems. There are reports that some DACs will mute both channels if one is silent. Very problematic if you’re measuring channels separately. Certainly the SMSL looks very problematic with a 1/60th second fade in following digital silence of more than .3 seconds.
I would think a simple impulse response test would quickly show whether there is a problem. But I don’t see many of these, not even in Amir’s tests. I went back and read Stereophile’s review of the Okto DAC that Kal wrote. That impulse response looked fine.
And since this Auto Mute on Digital Silence is now a default option on many popular DAC chips, I can see how this has become common on the DACs. I would think a 1/60th second fade in is very hard to hear, but I can imagine it could cause big problems for Trinnov if it’s not expecting it as it will think it’s part of the speaker/room response and distance.
I would think a simple impulse response test would quickly show whether there is a problem. But I don’t see many of these, not even in Amir’s tests. I went back and read Stereophile’s review of the Okto DAC that Kal wrote. That impulse response looked fine.
And since this Auto Mute on Digital Silence is now a default option on many popular DAC chips, I can see how this has become common on the DACs. I would think a 1/60th second fade in is very hard to hear, but I can imagine it could cause big problems for Trinnov if it’s not expecting it as it will think it’s part of the speaker/room response and distance.
Did a little more work on this and posted what I found on the SU2 thread, but to summarize, the 20ms fade in of the SU2 should not be problematic for a log sine sweep measurement like those done with REW and Dirac. It may underestimate the SPL at the extreme low end, but that would be it. But they would be highly problematic for the successive MLS noise bursts that Trinnov uses if the digital silence just prior and between bursts engages auto mute. Certainly any DAC that mutes both channels if one channel has digital silence would be unusable.
Not sure I follow WRT Trinnov specifically. Trinnov devices originate the calibration signals, so you wouldn’t be sending anything through an external DAC, only either the one in the Trinnov itself, or if you’re outputting to Dante through a Dante DAC. I guess you could go through an external DAC from a Trinnov device, but as good as the Trinnov DAC is purported to be, why would you?
Altitude CI only has 8 channels of analogue out It’s much cheaper than Altitude 16. Can be expanded to more channels with its 16 channels of AES (8 AES3) or Dante.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #75
Benchmark couplers are out of stock, so I designed a cheap replacement. Definitely not as nice as a CNC machined, tumbled and anodized part, but for under $8 total...
VS.
VS.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #76
I may give WaveForming a try soon depending on the new firmware... My setup isn't ideal for it though as I only have two subs in front, but six in back. I have outstanding bass though, even before the Trinnov and with no EQ as I manually set up the 8 subs.
https://www.trinnov.com/en/blog/posts/trinnov-audio-at-cedia-expo-2026/
It says this: "The updated WaveForming capability will roll out to the entire Altitude range as a free software update by the close of CEDIA Expo 2026." They are such teases lol...
https://www.trinnov.com/en/blog/posts/trinnov-audio-at-cedia-expo-2026/
It says this: "The updated WaveForming capability will roll out to the entire Altitude range as a free software update by the close of CEDIA Expo 2026." They are such teases lol...
darth
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2024
- Messages
- 474
- Likes
- 389
If I want to connect the AES output of the CI to 2x AES inputs (each 8 in, 8 out with outs unused) can I do it with 2 cables without splitting one? For example, use 8 channels of the AES 1-16 out and then another 8 channels of AES 17-32 out? Essentially I am just moving 8 output channels from the CI's 1st DB25 to its 2nd DB25
Chatgpt seems to suggest it should be fine with the typical aes59 cables
Code:
TRINNOV ALTITUDECI
AES OUT DB25 #1
Doremi/DCI
channels 1–16
│
│
│ use channels 1–8
│
▼
GENELEC 9301B
AES INPUT DB25 #1
channels 1–8
AES OUT DB25 #2
Doremi/DCI
channels 17–32
│
│ use channels 17–24
│
▼
GENELEC 9301B
AES INPUT DB25 #2
channels 1–8Chatgpt seems to suggest it should be fine with the typical aes59 cables
Should work.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #79
My robot said the same thing. I wouldn't do it, personally, go figure
I would not assume those unused CI outputs become electrically high-impedance merely because no licensed channel is assigned to them. They may still have active AES line drivers transmitting digital zeros. Likewise, the Genelec pins on the other end are outputs, not 110 Ω receiver terminations.
I doubt modern AES drivers would instantly be damaged by an accidental output-to-output connection because they normally have controlled source impedance and protection, but it is still not a valid interface condition and there is no reason to design it that way. Might be ok, might not be.
The clean solution would be two DB25 XLR breakout cables with only the four required AES pairs connected on each cable (that's what I did between my RME AES 32 card in the Trinnov), leaving the other four pairs completely disconnected. I really like what @jhenderson0107 said he did earlier with the Tascam breakout box. I believe he had Genelecs as well, so hopefully he can chime in. https://www.markertek.com/product/tcm-bo-16dx-out/tascam-bo-16dx-out-16ch-d-sub-to-xlrm-breakout-box
The cleanest, but most expensive install is the breakout box. I just used two of these when I did Trinnov -> RME:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769732-REG/Avid_9940_30426_00_DB25_XLRM_DigiSnake_Analog.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._30425_00_DB25_XLR_M_F_AES_EBU_DigiSnake.html
Or, if you already have standard DB25 cables, you could simply depopulate the four AES pairs that land on the 9301B’s transmit/output pins (probably what I'd do if I already had the cables). That should be pretty easy with a vacuum desoldering station if the connectors use solder cups. Alternatively, you could cut those unused conductors at one end and individually insulate them with heat-shrink so there is no possibility of an output-to-output connection. To save $220+ on cables, I'd probably consider cutting wires if the DB25 cover comes off with screws and isn't molded on there.
I would not assume those unused CI outputs become electrically high-impedance merely because no licensed channel is assigned to them. They may still have active AES line drivers transmitting digital zeros. Likewise, the Genelec pins on the other end are outputs, not 110 Ω receiver terminations.
I doubt modern AES drivers would instantly be damaged by an accidental output-to-output connection because they normally have controlled source impedance and protection, but it is still not a valid interface condition and there is no reason to design it that way. Might be ok, might not be.
The clean solution would be two DB25 XLR breakout cables with only the four required AES pairs connected on each cable (that's what I did between my RME AES 32 card in the Trinnov), leaving the other four pairs completely disconnected. I really like what @jhenderson0107 said he did earlier with the Tascam breakout box. I believe he had Genelecs as well, so hopefully he can chime in. https://www.markertek.com/product/tcm-bo-16dx-out/tascam-bo-16dx-out-16ch-d-sub-to-xlrm-breakout-box
The cleanest, but most expensive install is the breakout box. I just used two of these when I did Trinnov -> RME:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769732-REG/Avid_9940_30426_00_DB25_XLRM_DigiSnake_Analog.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod..._30425_00_DB25_XLR_M_F_AES_EBU_DigiSnake.html
Or, if you already have standard DB25 cables, you could simply depopulate the four AES pairs that land on the 9301B’s transmit/output pins (probably what I'd do if I already had the cables). That should be pretty easy with a vacuum desoldering station if the connectors use solder cups. Alternatively, you could cut those unused conductors at one end and individually insulate them with heat-shrink so there is no possibility of an output-to-output connection. To save $220+ on cables, I'd probably consider cutting wires if the DB25 cover comes off with screws and isn't molded on there.
I received two Schiit Mimir DACs yesterday and I’m using them with the AL CI for my surround and height channels using VTV NC252MP amps, which the Mimir drives easily. They work perfectly, no clicks or pops or noise whatsoever with AES in. Optimizer calibration completed without any errors.
Similar threads
