Datasat RS20i BETA test and comparison with ADA Rhapsody/Trinnov TEQ-12!!!! - Page 18

Trinnov allows the remapping to be deactivated. Was that tried?

Not exactly, but with some Redbook material we used both a multichannel preset and a stereo preset. When the Trinnov remapped to stereo the center and surrounds were still firing in the background, creating what its math said was the perfect stereo recreation, which created a terrific front "stereo" image.

I noticed that when I used the Sherwood R-972 and found those "subtle" cues in the other channels to be annoying and distracting. I trust they were not in this implementation.

Far from distracting. Pretty impressive. (I didn't even notice the other channels were firing until Mark pointed it out.) On movie material I was actually less aware of artificial or "sounds like inserted sound effects" coming from the sides and surrounds.

I suspect a large part of everything working as intended was the terrific job Dan did dialing everything in. (It sure was with my Audyssey Pro implementation. It wasn't until I adjusted my Audyssey target curves to adjust for what I was seeing post Audyssey processing [via REW and ETF] that the sonics started to sound "more right" rather than just different and the imaging locked into place.)

That is exactly the issue I was concerned with.

Thanks for the extra detail.


Understood. Just that Bruce's descriptions struck me as DAC stuff rather than EQ accuracy. Although the imaging issue might be due to the remapping, which as you said earlier is quite an audible thing.


I understand about letting each do their full deal. But if perchance turning off the remapping then snapped the imaging into place same as the Dirac, then we'd have gained further insight.

I find that impossible to believe Dan . Discerning DAC differences is very hard even with the two playback systems being identical. In your situation which such wide variations in signal processing and system equalizations, it is a complete impossible thing. There is no way to characterize EQ differences as subtle and DACs as not.

It simply stretches the imagination that with so much going on between filtering differences, level differences, EQ differences, etc. that you were able to hear the differences solely attributable to DACs. I have done fair bit of blind DAC testing and I know all of those tests would have been completely invalidated in the face of the set up you had.

The only data that would back DAC differences is blind testing of the two systems with their levels equalized but no EQ whatsoever. Do you have that?

I didn't say there is no difference in DACs. I said that your observations regarding DAC differences cannot be made in the setup you have where the rest of the system differences dwarf those much smaller differences.

You have an equation with multiple variables and the coefficient for the others beside the DAC are orders of magnitude larger. Simple logic says what I stated.

I have a Mark Levinson DAC at home and have done careful blind testing of it against other gear. It is that kind of knowledge that prompted me to chime in as I did.


I am confident they would. Go and ask them if they think their DACs can be fairly evaluated when put at the end of these highly variable chains. I guarantee you that I can change your preference for one DAC vs another using the type of EQ systems we are talking about. Heck, if just level changes can change preference, are you really that confident that all the other changes to the system response played no role at all?


??? What do these things mean in this context? I heard people saying the system imaging and such was very different between the two systems. And that is what I would expect. DAC differences are also there to be sure but they cannot be reliably identified.


I don't understand the sensitivity regarding this Dan. You made comments that I consider technically not plausible or defensible. If I told you I changed the subwoofer and my high frequency response changed, you would have the right to comment to say that can't be. I don't get to turn around and say, "well, I didn't get paid to run this test so your are wrong. " We all share experiences here and rarely if ever get paid for it. That is no reason to get upset when someone challenges our findings.

Anyway, let me know if these kind of comments bother you and I won't make them anymore.

I am enjoying this thread. This is a good discussion that really digs into some areas that are often discussed but without "real world," observations. I understand that a large component of it will be subjective. Personally I place great value in having feedback from so many on this thread with so much experience at this.

I'll try an add a few comments as time permits around the work that needs to get done...

I would suggest Bruce consider his DATASat evaluation incomplete or certainly not fully representative. I arrived after the first Datasat demo which Bruce listened to and jumped in for the ADA/Trinnov combo for listening. After Bruce left and Dan's local customer arrived we ran through the same demo of the Datasat Bruce had heard. Just as Dan had been wrestling with the night before, the bass was just not entirely there, which left the sound a little thin, strident and lacking in scale of the soundstage. In listening to a couple of the demo cuts and noting what was and wasn't different, I guessed that the LFE track wasn't being added in at the correct level as this might be an issue from the cinema to consumer world. With some probing through menus, Dan & I looked at a screen related to playback formats, which had a descriptor atop the right hand side which read something akin DTS Neo:6 mode settings (ie we interpreted it as relevant to decoding of 2.1 sources). The header kept both of us from thinking such a setting would be there. Sure enough, at the bottom of the right side of the screen was a bullet/button that read "LFE +10dB." We pressed it.

...and back came the LFE.

Dan will have to confer with the guys at Datasat if this changes what I suspect it did, but this made the two systems sound more comparable and the familiar soundtracks sound as expected to me. Dan had done some compensation against this problem the night before with the sub levels, so we then backed down the sub levels a bit to bring it back closer to what it should be. Not surprisingly, the sound stage was much more enveloping, the sound was warmer and more natural with the previously recessed bass events more prominent as they should be.

I also believe that when Dan ran the DIRAC setup process, for some reason it had not set the delays for the different speaker channels, which is critical for surround imaging and placement between speakers. Dan entered appropriate delay settings per physical distance of the speakers. Dan had the subs configured multiple subwoofers they have in the room similarly but a bit differently for the Datasat and the Trinnov. Once the LFE was brought back to life, the Datasat setup actually did a better job of eliminating an upper bass resonance which was obvious in the L/R seats (less so in the center seat) than the Trinnov, but I suspect this is as much a sub configuration difference as any correction capabilities.

Overall we compared the results obtained from the described efforts with each device in this system setup. The Trinnov as used ended up with a better high frequency balance and target curve. The Dirac correction was very detailed with a little over emphasis in the HF making S & T sounds a little too prominent. I think some tweaking of the target curve or measurement locations could have made for a much closer comparison, and the demo I heard had the Datasat config behaving better below 200-500Hz. Again, the multiple subs were deployed a bit unconventionally, and not identically due to differing capabilities of each device.

Similar to what I've heard in a few other demo's, the Trinnov did a great job of setting up seamless image placement between speaker locations. I know I often will have to make minor adjustments in delay/distance to find the best compromise in a system, where the Trinnov did an exceptional job at this. Of course this benefit was much better in the main listening position than in the other seats, and I'd be curious to see if different settings, rooms or setup efforts significantly change that.

While I'm sure some are lusting for concrete answers or decisions from the comparison, that's not to be had here. I have been to many such gatherings and I have yet to see a case where a first effort at a direct comparison was attempted that we didn't come away with more thoughts on how it could be done better than answers. I don't see this exercise as any different. It would be interesting to set up two such processors on a common system using a little more conventional subwoofer setups and with more time to get a handle on how each one is applying correction and what the result at the listening area is.

I believe it has been stated in this thread, but I will ask anyway... is it foolish to think that one could just buy either of these peices of gear and set it up in a "consumer focused" manner like Audyssey pro? I admit that from reading this thread I came across manufacturers and product names I had never heard before.

Second, from going to these companies websites, it is not clear to me what product or combinations of products make up the "solutions" being discussed here. How can I see exactly what would be purchased to make a Trinnov setup like what we are reading about?

Third, assuming the answer from my first paragraph is "you cant really set it up yourself", how can I reliably select a dealer that can get as much out of the product as Dan obviously can? Are all dealers for these high end products vetted and thoroughly trained?

I'm ears wide open, so count me in for any future shootouts ... although I suspect Dan will need a few weeks off (or at least paid) before he volunteers to take something "simple" like this on again.

Dan- thanks and since you are more familiar with your system and sonics prior to ADA/Datasat, and given the fact that after playing with both EQs you prefer to do low freq tweaks manually (and dial it better), did you ever prefer one over the other in terms of sonic impact when you engaged Dirac on Datasat and Trinnov on ADA respectively?

Going by Mark's feedback -seems this will be more subjective preference on adjustments one can do.

Regards,
Kishore

Thanks for doing this Dan. I know it wasn't part of your "mandate" but could you comment on the sound of your system before either the Dirac or Trinnov was introduced into the mix?

I still have the 2 channel Trinnov unit on loan and am working on evaluating it to see if it improves my experience. I already have it sounding really good without any processing so it's going to take some serious wow to get me to part with my $$$

I have to ask,How do you think Audyssey Pro in your current set-up compares to what you heard from these devices.Has the "sky opened up to the God's" sort of speak, in comparison to Audyssey Pro?

I have the Audyssey SEQ and SubEQ and would like have more of an idea(probably impossible to tell, I know, but......) on how they would compare sonically to these two devices based on what your impressions have been so far.

I don't know on straight up sonics.

In my system Audyssey markedly improves the overall sonics. (That being said, those results are not the result of a simple automated setup; there was a lot of trial, error, and sophisticated measurement inserted into my Audyssey Pro setup process.)

The Trinnov also acts as an active crossover, allows you to manipulate phase, group delay, and parametric equalization settings, etc., directly, which the Audyssey does not. In that sense, the Trinnov is more like an Audyssey plus a sophisticated outboard parametric equalizer or an Audyssey plus a DEQX.

I suspect but don't know that in the hands of an amateur an Audyssey or the Anthem Room Correction or similar approaches will on average work better, while in the hands of experts the extra control of the Trinnov's and Datasat's will prove superior.

What amps were you guys using in the shoot-out?

My guess is high power pro amps. More power, more headroom!

How much power in the front channel ATCs? What is the sensitivity of your front speakers?

Thanks.

They were tiny by my/your standards . Fortunately he has a few 18s up front and multiple 12s in the columns which helped make it sound much fuller than the small speakers might otherwise. This is also where this particular system was a real workout for the room correction systems as some of the subs were working up past 100Hz. This can work well, but smooth response at the listening position is critical.

onboard 200W amplifier in charge of the bass, and a 50W amplifier for the treble for L and R ATC speakers

Drivers : HF 25mm, Mid/LF 75/150mm
Amplifier Output : HF 50w RMS, Mid/LF 200w RMS
Amplitude Linearity (±2dB) : 70Hz-17kHz
Cut-off Frequencies (-6dB, free-standing) :
45Hz, 22kHz
Horizontal Dispersion : ±80°, Coherent
Vertical Dispersion : ±10°, Coherent
Max. Continuous SPL (1 meter) : 108dB
Crossover Frequency : 2.8kHz
via active crossover with time (phase) alignment
Input Sensitivity : 1V Input Connector : Balanced male XLR
Input Impedance : > 10kΩ
Overload Protection : Active momentary
gain reduction (Both amplifiers)
Power Requirements
Voltage : 100, 115, 230 (factory set)
Frequency : 50/60Hz
Power : Nominal 50 Watts, driven 250 Watts
Dimensions (HxWxD) : 470 x 285 x 395mm
Weight : 27kg / 60lbs

Center channel ATC active CS 6

Drivers : HF 25mm Neodymium, Mid 75mm, LF 243mm
Frequency Response (+/-2dB) : 32Hz-20kHz
Max SPL : 115dB
Crossover Frequencies : 2.8kHz
Amplifier Output : 350W
Cabinet Dimensions (HxWxD): 370 x 950 x 610mm
Weight : 83.6kg

Yes.