R972 Trinnov User Notes - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
Receivers, Amps, and Processors > R972 Trinnov User Notes
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 07:14 PM 03-10-2012
Hi Noah

You've correctly answered all your own questions!

I'm also headed out with the lady, time to shift gears..

Cheers,

jwells777's Avatar jwells777 11:35 AM 03-11-2012
Quick questions regarding the 3d mapping functionality:

If I have the FR/C/L near the floor but approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the front and the SL/SBL/SBR/SR approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the ceiling, will the Trinnov 3d mapping be able to adjust the virtual vertical height on all (or any) of the speakers?
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 11:49 AM 03-11-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwells777 View Post

Quick questions regarding the 3d mapping functionality:

If I have the FR/C/L near the floor but approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the front and the SL/SBL/SBR/SR approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the ceiling, will the Trinnov 3d mapping be able to adjust the virtual vertical height on all (or any) of the speakers?

Check it out and get back to us: V2.5 Trinnov User Notes, Section 6, page 6 implies you'll have a tilted sound stage. You may also have trouble cal the ceiling speakers if they are way off axis with attenuated hi's to the cal mic.
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 12:13 PM 03-11-2012
Correct reporting for Sub is distance and level only. Anyone getting the Trinnov Cal Data, first page, to report Sub at 90 deg horizontal?
cpoole17's Avatar cpoole17 12:21 PM 03-11-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

Correct reporting for Sub is distance and level only. Anyone getting the Trinnov Cal Data, first page, to report Sub at 90 deg horizontal?

Curt -
None of the calibrations that I currently have stored report sub at 90 deg, but I am almost certain that I have seen it in the past...

Chris
jwells777's Avatar jwells777 01:24 PM 03-11-2012
Thanks for the quick reply. I had glanced through your notes but somehow missed the section that exactly answered my question.

Unfortunately, this makes it a much more difficult call for me to decide whether to buy or not....4311CI...SC-55...TX-NR809...or r-972...decisions....
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 01:35 PM 03-11-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwells777 View Post

Thanks for the quick reply. I had glanced through your notes but somehow missed the section that exactly answered my question.

Unfortunately, this makes it a much more difficult call for me to decide whether to buy or not....4311CI...SC-55...TX-NR809...or r-972...decisions....

Your layout is not that unusual. Maybe someone with a similar setup could report the results they are having. I suspect an improvement in 2D
jwells777's Avatar jwells777 01:49 PM 03-11-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

Your layout is not that unusual. Maybe someone with a similar setup could report the results they are having. I suspect an improvement in 2D

If anyone could, it would be greatly appreciated.

My primary motivation of upgrading the receiver is to take advantage of the latest and greatest bells and whistles (currently using an old HK AVR525). It seems that the R-972 vs. one of the later Denon/Onkyo AVRs there is room correction advantage to the R-972 and a feature advantage (particularly networking) to the others. I am trying to gauge whether the Trinnov processing advantage is sufficiently better for my setup than the Audyssey such that I should give up the other bells and whistles....
Stereojeff's Avatar Stereojeff 04:41 PM 03-11-2012
Aside from the R-972, the cost to have Trinnov in your system is north of $10k. Boxes that offer the Internet streaming features are available in the low hundreds. You do the math.

Jeff
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 05:11 PM 03-11-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwells777 View Post

Quick questions regarding the 3d mapping functionality:

If I have the FR/C/L near the floor but approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the front and the SL/SBL/SBR/SR approximately correctly spaced (by angle) in the ceiling, will the Trinnov 3d mapping be able to adjust the virtual vertical height on all (or any) of the speakers?

No. The surrounds are opposite the mains. The points you wish to "virtualize" (raised L/C/R) are outside the available range of operation for remapping. Now maybe if you had Lh and Rh speakers remapping might help, but the 972 does not know what those are.
adude's Avatar adude 05:12 PM 03-11-2012
JWells777,

I have my front L/C/R speakers on the floor, tilted up so the tweeter is aimed at the listening position. The 4 surrounds are wall, at approx 8 ft height. I think this layout is very similar to yours. The left and right surround speakers are approx .5 ft towards front from listening position.

Now, when I run the 3d remap, there is quite a bit of sound coming from the left right surrounds. At first I liked it for movies because it seemed that there is wider ambience/soundstage. I am not sure if Trinnov was using it more like wide speakers or trying to raise the entire front soundstage up using those two surrounds in the mix. For movies. But as I listened more and more, it was kind of distracting. After I heard it for music, it was a big no-no. Most of the sound was coming from LR surrounds than the fronts. I have now set the spatial mode to DLY+LVL and that working out very fine for me. Trinnov EQ is very powerful and does a very good job without any 2d/3d remap/autoroute.

That's my experience. Yours may be similar or different. We can only know once you try.
RTPBob's Avatar RTPBob 10:08 AM 03-12-2012
OK, this thread has rekindled my interest. My concern has always been about my speakers and their compatibility with Trinnov and the R972 Receiver. I have a 5.1 Magnepan MMGW and MMGC setup with a Outlaw LFM-1+. Nominally 5 Ohms on the Maggies. Down the road, I've considered getting another pair of Maggies for a Front-wide set-up.

I know the MMGW's don't go real high but that doesn't bother me as neither does my hearing anymore.

Does anyone have any thoughts about the compatibility?

Thanks in advance,
Bob
cschang's Avatar cschang 10:44 AM 03-12-2012
Curt,

Do the +3/+6 low freq curves that can be obtained from Sherwood have the same effect as raising the gain on the sub amp by +3 or +6db?
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 10:53 AM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Curt,

Do the +3/+6 low freq curves that can be obtained from Sherwood have the same effect as raising the gain on the sub amp by +3 or +6db?

EXACTLY. Adjusting for 3-6 dB manually can be problematic, unless you have a way to measure.
FilmMixer's Avatar FilmMixer 11:19 AM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Curt,

Do the +3/+6 low freq curves that can be obtained from Sherwood have the same effect as raising the gain on the sub amp by +3 or +6db?

Curtis... I don't believe so... when I had my 972, I had access to the files (I still have them if you need them, BTW).. IIRC, Jeff H. relayed to me that it was actually the eq target and not just a sub gain change..
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 11:26 AM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Curtis... I don't believe so... when I had my 972, I had access to the files (I still have them if you need them, BTW).. IIRC, Jeff H. relayed to me that it was actually the eq target and not just a sub gain change..

Believe what you will... I personally specified the curves and forwarded them to Jeff. It changes the EQ target for SUB ONLY.
FilmMixer's Avatar FilmMixer 12:08 PM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

Believe what you will... I personally specified the curves and forwarded them to Jeff. It changes the EQ target for SUB ONLY.

Curt.. As I said, I was recalling an old conversation.. however..

I said to Curtis:

"it was actually the eq target and not just a sub gain change.."

How is that different than your reply "it changes the EQ target?"

Are you saying it was just a linear addition of 3 or 6 db to the original curve..
Curt_Trinnov's Avatar Curt_Trinnov 12:38 PM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Curt.. As I said, I was recalling an old conversation.. however..

I said to Curtis:

"it was actually the eq target and not just a sub gain change.."

How is that different than your reply "it changes the EQ target?"

Are you saying it was just a linear addition of 3 or 6 db to the original curve..

Yes, we did this in 2008!

It's both: Computation calculates the level adjustment and EQ target. They go hand in hand- work together- to give you the sat-sub integration. It is "just a linear addition of 3 or 6 db to the original curve."

To remove confusion about this going forward, I'll add details to the EQ- Target curves section of the Trinnov User Notes.. now at V2.6.
cpoole17's Avatar cpoole17 01:33 PM 03-12-2012
Curt,

Regarding my 4.1 setup, I have a few follow up questions.

1. As I related in my earlier post, I was able to get the system working with Trinnov using your suggestion of calibrating with the "center" speaker at center rear and then removing that speaker. As I described, I did not notice any significant problems with this configuration. However, as I thought about it, I began to wonder about scenarios where problems might arise such as: if a signal is present in both rear channels of a 5.1 soundtrack with approximately equal loudness, would it be mapped to the missing speaker and be lost? Similarly, if a source has a discrete 6.1 or 7.1 soundtrack, would those additional channels (or a portion of them) be lost?

2. If the answers above are yes, could the issue be mitigated by vertically displacing the speaker at center rear (say by placing it on the floor); then re-calibrating, disconecting that speaker, and setting spatial to 3d? In other words, would the 3d remapping attempt to "pull up" that missing speaker by sending (some portion of) the signal to the remaining rear speakers?

3. Do the results of the tests I performed earlier indicate that Trinnov, or at least this implementation of it, is not compatible with a 4.1 setup? Or is there something peculiar about my system that is keeping Trinnov from mapping the channels properly?

Thanks again for all of your support!
Chris
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 03:59 PM 03-12-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpoole17 View Post

Curt,

Regarding my 4.1 setup, I have a few follow up questions.

1. As I related in my earlier post, I was able to get the system working with Trinnov using your suggestion of calibrating with the "center" speaker at center rear and then removing that speaker. As I described, I did not notice any significant problems with this configuration. However, as I thought about it, I began to wonder about scenarios where problems might arise such as: if a signal is present in both rear channels of a 5.1 soundtrack with approximately equal loudness, would it be mapped to the missing speaker and be lost? Similarly, if a source has a discrete 6.1 or 7.1 soundtrack, would those additional channels (or a portion of them) be lost?

If your AVR thinks it is driving a 6.1 speaker system, then it will sometimes try to use it as such. 6.1 discrete or EX or PLIIx or Neo:6 modes will all direct signal to the missing speaker. Somehow you have to override the speaker configuration and tell it the speaker is not present. If that irritates the Trinnov remapping, then at least if you limit all decoding to 5.1 mode you will not lose anything essential.

Quote:


3. Do the results of the tests I performed earlier indicate that Trinnov, or at least this implementation of it, is not compatible with a 4.1 setup? Or is there something peculiar about my system that is keeping Trinnov from mapping the channels properly?

It's not an inherent Trinnov problem, nor a peculiar setup. It just appears to be a setup that no one tested thoroughly at Sherwood. I found similar oversight in my Classe SSP-800. In phantom center mode there were various odd, and glaringly obvious, problems that required a firmware fix. One of those bugs is still present to this day, 3 years into production. The next code release finally nails it!

I guess engineers seem to assume if they test the maxed out case, the subsets will automatically be fine.
cschang's Avatar cschang 03:29 PM 03-13-2012
Out of curiosity, how many filters can Trinnov apply to a channel for EQing?
Roger Dressler's Avatar Roger Dressler 03:09 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Out of curiosity, how many filters can Trinnov apply to a channel for EQing?

One. Same as Audyssey or Dirac.
cschang's Avatar cschang 07:08 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

One. Same as Audyssey or Dirac.

Thanks Roger...but maybe my syntax isn't correct.

Should I say filter "resolution"?
RUR's Avatar RUR 07:27 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Thanks Roger...but maybe my syntax isn't correct.

Should I say filter "resolution"?

You should say "filter taps".
cschang's Avatar cschang 08:00 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

You should say "filter taps".

Thanks...OK...let's go with that.

How many filter taps does Trinnov use per channel?
RUR's Avatar RUR 08:11 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Thanks...OK...let's go with that.

How many filter taps does Trinnov use per channel?

Sorry Curtis, not aiming for incremental disclosure... I know what it is for my unit, but not for the 972. Curt's your huckleberry.
Stereojeff's Avatar Stereojeff 08:30 AM 03-14-2012
1024 tap FIR filters plus 7 independent IIR filters per channel.

Jeff
RUR's Avatar RUR 08:48 AM 03-14-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereojeff View Post

1024 tap FIR filters plus 7 independent IIR filters per channel.

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. What's the cutoff frequency for IIR vs. FIR - 250Hz?
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 11:43 PM 03-14-2012
Curt, I'd appreciate feedback on the following plan for speaker placement.

The surrounds are now as shown in the pic; left side speakers mirror the right.

I put the side surrounds where they are because it's close to what the ITU/972 manual recommends, and so Trinnov wouldn't have to work so hard to re-map them.

But now, after your additional explanations and ensuing discussion, I wonder if a more useful way to think about it is that Trinnov will try to create phantom images where they belong over 360 deg azimuth (not sure about the very back though).

Therefore it would be better to have more even angular spacing of the surrounds, which I could do by moving the sides from the back edge of the fireplace to the front.

Is that about right?

Another possibility, which would give me back two of the speakers I removed after the Denon 4311:

- Use a phantom center to free up one channel (assuming I don't have the same issue as Chris).

- Connect the two surround back speakers to one amp channel, freeing up another one

- Use the two newly available channels for a pair of front speakers, located at the former Audyssey DSX wides' locations at 60 deg azimuth from the center speaker and about a foot above ear height, or at the former Audyssey DSX heights locations' at45 deg azimuth from the center speaker and 45 deg elevation from the listening position (see pic), or somewhere in between.

Speaking of height channels, the user notes say

"Trinnov 9.1 with height

Some of you want more channels, up to 9.1- typically to fill in long rectangular rooms. The best way to accommodate
more channels such as 9.1 is to share the side outputs with two speakers each, thereby leaving the rear outputs for use
as height channels in the front."

To be clear, this is intended only to correct soundstage height errors, as with a below-screen center speaker, not to expand the soundstage height as with DPL IIz or Audyssey DSX - right?
LL
noah katz's Avatar noah katz 03:42 PM 03-15-2012
When setting up for a phantom center, does the importance of getting within 1 deg horizontal transfer to now getting the L/R within 1 deg of the same horizontal angle?
Tags: Sherwood Newcastle R 972
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop