Trinnov Waveforming finally released

[OCA]

Honestly, my $800 used pro audio processor did this with only 5 PEQ filters I generated using REW:
View attachment 531826

I still have an AltitudeCI on backorder, so I'm not bad mouthing Trinnov. They've enjoyed my money for over 10 weeks, and still no unit, so I guess I'll bad mouth them a little I will say that most haven't heard bass like we are getting, so I get the hype about waveforming. Your impulse response plot looks great too!

I wonder what mine will look like with Trinnov's normal room correction as I didn't have enough money left to buy extra channels for waveforming...

That said, I'm sure my results will be even better with Trinnov's room correction. Right now I just have 12 bass traps and the 5 PEQ filters... Plus all the knowledge I have which helped me manually setup a 29 channel system (15 for tri-amped bed, 6 top channels and 8 subs) using 6 Xilica XD-4080's (pro-audio speaker processor (e.g. DSP+DAC) with 4 in/8 out).

Note the big hole in my front rack that's been there for 10 weeks... Maybe it will come next week I hope.

No real need for me to purchase 29 channels from Trinnov, I'm just sticking with 12 channels until I see more waveforming measurements and play with the CI for a year or two. Plus I can't afford to unlock all the channels right now, there's no FIR filters for tri-amping (why not?), there's still a few second delay when you play the next track (not on my non-Trinnov setup ) and it's still not here, so there's that.

View attachment 531828
View attachment 531827

From the room one could say you might be into audio

 

[Keith_W]

Honestly, my $800 used pro audio processor did this with only 5 PEQ filters I generated using REW:

You have so many subs in such a small room that I doubt much DSP is needed at all. Most people have fewer subs, usually 1-2, so they would have more problems.

 

[etc6849]

Very true. Two subs had a large room mode just past 50 Hz as shown below. Below I used vector summing in REW to add the amplitude and phase of each sub. I added one sub at a time to time align them together, updating the sum each time.

PS: For context, this thread is about Trinnov's waveforming which can only be used with 4 or more subs.

You have so many subs in such a small room that I doubt much DSP is needed at all. Most people have fewer subs, usually 1-2, so they would have more problems.

 

[Fidji]

News in Waveforming world - there will now be possibility to employ WF also in systems with front subs only, which opens WF to smaller installs too. Also there will be improvements in algos and Bass Management for “normal” front-rear setups. Now it will be interesting, as you probably can directly compare WF to ART also in suboptimal installs [in terms of subs placement]. Waveforming achieved better results, if sub placement was optimized for WF, while ART was shining in “living room” type of setups.

Actually this is one thing that makes Trinnov unique - every year you get some new functionality or improvement - in last couple of years it was +4 option, extending channel count by 4, Waveforming, Preringing reduction, Mic Pre-emphasis for more accurate measurements [just before measuring the signal iit measures background noise and adjust accordingly] - no so fancy, but very helpful in getting more precise measurements etc etc.

Trinnov | Trinnov Audio Debuts WaveForming Updates at CEDIA Expo 2026

Join Trinnov Audio at CEDIA Expo 2026 to discover the latest WaveForming updates, learn about AI-driven audio playback and our new 10-year Extended Care Program.

www.trinnov.com

 

[mglobe]

News in Waveforming world - there will now be possibility to employ WF also in systems with front subs only, which opens WF to smaller installs too. Also there will be improvements in algos and Bass Management for “normal” front-rear setups. Now it will be interesting, as you probably can directly compare WF to ART also in suboptimal installs [in terms of subs placement]. Waveforming achieved better results, if sub placement was optimized for WF, while ART was shining in “living room” type of setups.

Actually this is one thing that makes Trinnov unique - every year you get some new functionality or improvement - in last couple of years it was +4 option, extending channel count by 4, Waveforming, Preringing reduction, Mic Pre-emphasis for more accurate measurements [just before measuring the signal iit measures background noise and adjust accordingly] - no so fancy, but very helpful in getting more precise measurements etc etc.

Trinnov | Trinnov Audio Debuts WaveForming Updates at CEDIA Expo 2026

Join Trinnov Audio at CEDIA Expo 2026 to discover the latest WaveForming updates, learn about AI-driven audio playback and our new 10-year Extended Care Program.

www.trinnov.com

Came here to post just this. I have a pretty strong suspicion, based on good info, that Waveforming will ultimately come to the NOVA also, which could be really interesting for stereo setups with multiple subs.

 

[Keith_W]

News in Waveforming world - there will now be possibility to employ WF also in systems with front subs only, which opens WF to smaller installs too.

In other words, they managed to create a VBA. I have experimented with creating my own VBA, those things are extremely sensitive to small variations in timing. Get the timing wrong, and you worsen ringing instead of improving it. And as you might guess, figuring out the timing is not easy. I ended up acoustically measuring the approximate timing, and then iterating various filters at +/- 5ms increments to refine the result. Each time involved creation of new filters and re-measuring. So it was really tedious, it took me weeks to develop and test the procedure. This is the sort of thing that can be improved by automation. Get the software to automatically generate the filters and re-measure until it is spot on.

 

[Fidji]

Trinnov 4.4.5 / 2.2 - Software Update Webinar

events.zoom.us

@Keith_W - might be interesting, at least to understand layout and limits of new WF.

I have been part of beta testing and I have seen 2 major improvements in filters and workflow efficiency prior to official release [first calculations took like 15 min, so there must be som brute force or correction loop inside the algo], also recommendation for measurements changed. They added Pressurization, which is absolute treat and loosened requirements to accommodate even very “non-DBA” setups. Now even 4-corner placement works very well.

But until now, it was always emitter up front and absorbers in the back. Now this looks like a breakthrough.

So two topics left on table - using L-C-R woofers as “subs” in order to improve density of speaker on front wall and infra-subs integration.

EDIT: what I like about Trinnov, that they really create platforms, instead of boxes. This is one good example - create HW that can grow and evolve over time, instead of becoming obsolete, like others. My Altitude 32 is 2017 unit and it has the same FW version as new units, I was able to exchange DAC boards, HDMI card, Motherboard etc into latest standard and also get warranty renewed by 5 years. During that time - free 3D codecs, addinf +4 digital channels for free, Waveforming as free update, pre-ringing and pre-emphasis improvements, etc etc ….

In comparison, Storm, Hyperion, Emotiva etc are just integrators and they are at the mercy of Dirac

Trinnov | NOVA 2.1.3: Immersive Monitoring Comes to NOVA

With software version 2.1.3, NOVA takes a major step forward, expanding the platform to support monitoring systems up to 7.1.4 / 12 optimized channels via Dante.

www.trinnov.com

 

[etc6849]

FYI: Dave Pedigo, COO just said it'll be out the week after CEDIA.

 

[Keith_W]

FYI: Dave Pedigo, COO just said it'll be out the week after CEDIA.

He wasn't asked any of the hard questions. At 3:45, he basically described a VBA. VBA's are nothing new. The real problem with them is that they don't work too well if you have fewer bass sources, if you have a non-rectangular room, and if the subs are not deployed symmetrically along one of the walls. If you get the timing wrong, or if you try to correct the wrong thing, it will WORSEN the ringing instead of improving it.

I am not saying that it won't work. I am interested in how well it would work in those scenarios. Ask him to prove his claim with measurements.

 

[etc6849]

CEDIA Trinnov Presentation has a few more more details:

I agree two subs can't physically do what my 8 subs can. I'll try the new waveforming when it comes out as I bought more licenses.

 

[Fidji]

He wasn't asked any of the hard questions. At 3:45, he basically described a VBA. VBA's are nothing new. The real problem with them is that they don't work too well if you have fewer bass sources, if you have a non-rectangular room, and if the subs are not deployed symmetrically along one of the walls. If you get the timing wrong, or if you try to correct the wrong thing, it will WORSEN the ringing instead of improving it.

I am not saying that it won't work. I am interested in how well it would work in those scenarios. Ask him to prove his claim with measurements.

[

Looks like everything is “just VBA” for you ;-). Including ART and WF is “just DBA”. Which might as well be true, but both are working as intended and there is lot of evidence and measurement to show it, even on this site.

I have tagged you, as I thought it might be interesting for you to learn something new, even if it would mostly marketing presentation from Trinnov. You have tried to do VBA yourself and half-succeeded/half-failed in your experiments, so maybe this could be opportunity to have a look and see what Trinnov does differently, so you can try and copy/emulate by yourself.

E.g. this is how Waveforming basic measurement grid looks like [I use 18 points for 2 seats] and also Trinnov is using their 4 capsule mic and they are able to measure direct and reflected sound separately. For sure they use advanced DSP - I can think of e.g. APO filters, instead of just delay and probably there is much more. Those guys with PhD in acoustics and digital processing need to show something for years of work ;-).

 

[AudioJester]

Isn't Dirac ART a more versatile option?
By using all capable speakers as bass sources you can get away with 1-2 subs.

 

[Keith_W]

[

Looks like everything is “just VBA” for you ;-). Including ART and WF is “just DBA”. Which might as well be true, but both are working as intended and there is lot of evidence and measurement to show it, even on this site.

WF is nothing more than a DBA. It's not just me who thinks so, the author MSO said as much here, and he used much stronger language than I ever did. And from what information has been released, this scheme is nothing more than a VBA. You can see that animation in the background of that last video. I listened to it and did not learn anything that did not convince me otherwise. If you have more information to share, please feel free to show how the operating principle is any different.

Yes I am aware that Trinnov can measure things that I can't using their capsule mic, but I have already shown that I can work out where the reflections are coming from with only one mic, knowledge of my room's layout, and a tape measure. Trinnov doesn't know your room layout, nor does it have a tape measure - so it had to come up with a different solution for detecting reflections.

I did think of using multiple measurements from different points to try to build a more robust VBA, but it was already incredibly time consuming to tune it for just one position. That's an advantage that Trinnov has - they can write software that can automate that process. If I had any programming skills, I would keep iterating with subwoofer tone bursts of varying delays until I get them to overlap.

As for APO filters, do you mean "apodizing" or "Audio Processing Object"? For sure an apodizing filter can reduce ringing, but there are at least two types of ringing that can be created by a VBA. The first is DSP ringing, for which an apodizing filter might be useful. The second is misalignment between the emitting and absorbing array, where the two waves do not perfectly acoustically cancel and the residual appears as ringing. Could you expand on what you mean?

 

[etc6849]

I think it's fair to say it's DBA like. However, it is way more versatile then DBA, especially with the new firmware they're announcing.

WF is nothing more than a DBA

 

[OCA]

DBA is a spatial/physical solution: room modes are controlled through subwoofer geometry and wave cancellation. ART/Waveforming are computational solutions: multi-channel inverse filters are optimized through pressure matching at the listening area.

 

[Fidji]

As for APO filters, do you mean "apodizing" or "Audio Processing Object"? For sure an apodizing filter can reduce ringing, but there are at least two types of ringing that can be created by a VBA. The first is DSP ringing, for which an apodizing filter might be useful. The second is misalignment between the emitting and absorbing array, where the two waves do not perfectly acoustically cancel and the residual appears as ringing.

Sorry for typo - APO was meant to be All-Pass- Filter ;-) as opposed to simple delay,

WF is nothing more than a DBA. It's not just me who thinks so, the author MSO said as much here, and he used much stronger language than I ever did. And from what information has been released, this scheme is nothing more than a VBA. You can see that animation in the background of that last video. I listened to it and did not learn anything that did not convince me otherwise. If you have more information to share, please feel free to show how the operating principle is any different.

With all the respect to Andy, this post was not his finest I can understand his frustration, when MSO [undeservedly and unnecessarily] was singled out as being “cacophony”. Not nice from trinnov and we are all only humans, it is not fair to compare MSO and WF as there are completely different leagues in terms of resources available.

and no, WF is not DBA. Words have meaning. Double Bass Array refers to very specific configuration and filter development. 4 free-standing subs placed in corners are not DBA by any stretch. Use of emitter/absorber principle does not make it DBA. DBA-like sub placement still works the best, but so do lot of other sub placements.

I am pretty excited about this new update as I am in the process of acquiring property in Italy and ability to do Virtual SBA will save me a lot of trouble. I have one estate with room like this [AI cleanup and 150in screen added for scale] room is 16m long. Infinity baffle and all the bells and whistles. SBA grid will take care for width and height modes, and Waveforming for longitudinal one. [crude photoshop, i used picture of one AVS member and WIsdom audio speakers, I will be going via custom build]

I love line arrays, if employed correctly there is no match, at least for me. It is just different when ait is moved by tens of drivers.

 

[Fidji]

Couple of slides from webinar today - still need some questions answered on the topic of my personal setup but as expected -
- One nice improvement re Bass Management - should remove bit of “after” Optimizer adjustments, talking about Sub/Mains manual prioritization
- It will be interesting to verify claims re “better filters”, more natural sound etc - bit fluffy, but should be easy to verify with before/after measurements.
- interesting takeaway - for one row - looks like there is better performance on “planar SBA” vs “4 corner conventional” in terms of decay control. @Keith_W - this could explain your failure in getting any meaningful time domain improvements in your VBA experiments. Even more interesting - you get slightly better decay control out of “planar SBA” compared to “cylindrical DBA”
- you can get something in time domain out of pretty wild setups, like David’s - encouraging

Next step - bring WF to NOVA

 

[Keith_W]

Thank you @Fidji. Do you have a link to that presentation? I want to know how they define all those terms, especially "planar" and "cylindrical". I assume "conventional" means four subs in corners, and "no rear subs" means just that. But how is that different to "planar"? And what do those terms "dcs:max" and "wfl:min" mean?

 

[OCA]

The distinction Trinnov makes between WaveForming and DBA isn't something I find confusing. With identical, opposing drivers on facing walls, the core principle remains distributed bass control though the use of MIMO filtering recasts it as an optimization problem. I do, however, consider their "bass steering" label somewhat misleading, since what's actually being controlled is the resulting pressure field.

Their high-frequency approach is a different matter entirely. Thanks to that 4-point 3D microphone array and eigenvector analysis, Trinnov gains genuine spatial insight into HF arrivals before applying correction. That operates on a fundamentally higher level than frequency-dependent windowing paired with minimum-phase EQ. a conventional combination that can arbitrarily shift relative arrival times across frequencies and, to my ears, often adds the "boxy" coloration.

On the LF side, I have no doubt what ART is doing isn't DBA, but rather a constrained, per-bin MIMO optimization. It measurably reduces modal decay, much like the MIMO decay-minimization algorithms I regularly benchmark.

The real question for me is whether this improvement invariably justifies the spatial trade-off. In a large room where LF decay is already acceptable, aggressive manipulation of the pressure field may shorten decay times while simultaneously compromising phantom center precision. In my own SISO vs MIMO A/B comparisons, I don't hear a meaningful drawback in that respect; in fact, the MIMO advantage reveals itself much more clearly in LF temporal tightening than in overall spatial presentation.

So, I don't dispute that MIMO holds a technical edge in room control. Rather, I question whether minimizing decay at all costs is necessarily the perceptual optimum. IMO, sometimes, preserving spatial coherence may easily be worth more than shaving off yet another few hundred milliseconds of low frequency ringing.

 

[Fidji]

The distinction Trinnov makes between WaveForming and DBA isn't something I find confusing. With identical, opposing drivers on facing walls, the core principle remains distributed bass control though the use of MIMO filtering recasts it as an optimization problem. I do, however, consider their "bass steering" label somewhat misleading, since what's actually being controlled is the resulting pressure field.

Their high-frequency approach is a different matter entirely. Thanks to that 4-point 3D microphone array and eigenvector analysis, Trinnov gains genuine spatial insight into HF arrivals before applying correction. That operates on a fundamentally higher level than frequency-dependent windowing paired with minimum-phase EQ. a conventional combination that can arbitrarily shift relative arrival times across frequencies and, to my ears, often adds the "boxy" coloration.

On the LF side, I have no doubt what ART is doing isn't DBA, but rather a constrained, per-bin MIMO optimization. It measurably reduces modal decay, much like the MIMO decay-minimization algorithms I regularly benchmark.

The real question for me is whether this improvement invariably justifies the spatial trade-off. In a large room where LF decay is already acceptable, aggressive manipulation of the pressure field may shorten decay times while simultaneously compromising phantom center precision. In my own SISO vs MIMO A/B comparisons, I don't hear a meaningful drawback in that respect; in fact, the MIMO advantage reveals itself much more clearly in LF temporal tightening than in overall spatial presentation.

So, I don't dispute that MIMO holds a technical edge in room control. Rather, I question whether minimizing decay at all costs is necessarily the perceptual optimum. IMO, sometimes, preserving spatial coherence may easily be worth more than shaving off yet another few hundred milliseconds of low frequency ringing.

This.

Re LF Decay times - absolutely, target should be naturally increasing decay time e.g. to be double at 20Hz to what it is at 200Hz, as long as you control impulse, GD and first 15-20dB go down quickly to allow for high resolution also in LF. Here I do value linearity and cohesion with 100Hz+ acoustic signature of the room over some “straighter straight” chart. In Trinnov charts I posted above - I do not think Cylindrical WF or Conventional 4 corner are something to aim for. Jump in decay within 1/2 of octave by more than 100% is too much.

This is why I have my WF setup to minimal control and less aggressive filtering, as I am trying to keep my room as lively in mid-bass/low mids to have linear energy distribution between LF fundamentals and mid harmonics. This shorter decay also requires 2-3dB of added gain on subs to compensate for quicker energy dissipation. And looking forward to test WF update, where they promise “more natural” sound. I also personally do not loose sleep if bass is +-2dB at 1/6 this is good enough.

And for all of this I am less than impressed with ART sound - it sounds to me, like 2 rooms merged into 1. ART has decay that is “artificial” in a sense of not being representative to big spaces. You need that tail go bit longer, after first -20dB and then there is sudden cut into acoustics that has double decay, so harmonics behave differently to fundamentals and timbre is compromised. I use spectrally rich music to evaluate - e.g some big symphonic music, one can add chorus and it sounds “small” for lack of better explanation. I have witnessed on more than 1 installation, that this preceived lack of energy in LF is then compensated by more aggressive house curve [I have seen +10dB], which brings issues on its own.

So decay - up to a limit, there can be too little.

EDIT” Re: Spatial presentation - it was also mentioned by David during the webinar - Planar WF is directional in a sense of energy coming from the front. If you do crossover high enough e.g. at 100hz and play music, you will get bass very mono and anchored to the center of the front wall. [which is weird, in my opinion]. So in order to get soundstage and immersion right, I needed to go lower with X-over on L-R [60Hz] and fully utilize slow roll-off of Purifi drivers in my surrounds to get this spatial resolution and natural perspective. It works extremely well with Center - while I could technically go down to 50Hz with 4x6.5in active woofers on my C, I go up to 90Hz and do careful X-over alignment - I use most of articulation of WF in LF and get better “depth” and dialogue clarity [I also use custom curve for C + 1.5dB gain]