ADA Cinema Reference Mach IV - Page 2

Thanks - are you using VNC?. I don't think the 0.1db steps would be accessible through RS232 and 1db works OK for for me, but always good to know.

VNC via the Real VNC iPad app. Easy peasy.

That is what I am using. However, I nice set up volume up / down buttons on my iPhone whithout having to exit JRemote on my Ipad is more practical during day to day operations.

Understood. I'm always making minor changes within the EQ settings in the Processor to dial in specific recordings, so I need the full control VNC provides.

"VNC via the Real VNC iPad app. Easy peasy."

VNC via iPad app. PC Access , same easy & USD 1.00 only .

Been there, done that, Larry. 9x7 1.3lb iPad > 15x10 6lb laptop. YMMV, of course.

VNC lite from my phone

Savant true control from my phone

That bitchin 10" touch screen on the front

All used regularly

Dan

Thanks for the kind words, Grifo.

I try to be as thorough as I can be when it comes to providing information about this stuff. I'm in a very unique position being one of very few (if not the only) to ever actually compare this technology head to head on the same system....maybe I'm the only one that survived....maybe I didn't.....


OK


way too much Walking Dead..

Dan

As a Mach IV owner, I'd like to know when these new surround codecs will be released as well.

Okay, so it's just one title so far, but here is one with DTS Neo:X http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/10/the-expendables-2-blu-ray-dts-neo-x-11.1/

Some with DTS Neo: X in their receivers or pre-pro seem to be having good results with "upscaling" 5.1 or 7.1 mixes to 11.1, but not always. Agree it's best to have true 11.1 software, but having the ability to "upscale" can have benefits for the vast majority of software that is "only" 5.1 or 7.1. Also, I'm not aware of any player that decodes DTS Neo: X, so when 11.1 software does become available, I'm not sure how you would get this manually out of the Blu-Ray player? Maybe if 11.1 software takes off, Oppo will issue a player with 11.1 analog outs, although that seems unlikely.

Since this thread is about the Reference which has 16 capable channels of Trinnov 3D remapping; why is neo:x important? Once the Trinnov processing is activated, you're listening to that, not neo:6 or neo:x or DPLII or what have you. Trinnov takes the decoded signals and remaps them anyway. If you want height and width and overhead and whatever other ideas you might have; you can do that right now with Trinnov.

Dolby Atmos processing was mentioned in a conversation between 2 industry professionals discussing likely EVENTUAL decoding algorithms to be adopted at some later juncture.

THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT DOLBY ATMOS IN ADA PRODUCT.

The Cinema Reference is as updatable as any other ADA product: as long as HDMI is the same connector, it should at most be firmware changes as time moves on- that firmware requires return to ADA in New York. Firmware updates are not always necessary for all users however, sometimes it's a minor tweak that comes from the OEM for the HDMI board and no one needs to know. Sometimes it's like HDMI 1.3-1.4 where 3D functionality is included. That was the one time in 10 years I've sent a customer unit back for update ( from 1.2 in an early HDMI unit to 1.3 ).

No one knows what changes there will be to decoding or connectivity or source material for that matter; but history has shown that it doesn't change completely in the course of 1 year, there is plenty of ramp-up time to allow for product updates industry wide (think DVI to HDMI) the overall process to full acceptance takes a couple years at least. In that regard, there are no manufacturers out there that are any more prepared than anyone else; card frame chassis or not- sometimes a full DSP/ motherboard change is necessary like it or not.

Any time ADA processors have had sweeping iterative changes it has been because of major changes in the industry: component video, 7.1 discrete, HDMI.

Now with 16 channels and Trinnov, ADA has mitigated the need for sweeping changes for quite some time. Unless some jack hole decides we need Thunderbolt for our video devices and audio signal flow...

Dan

Congratulations.

Another joins the flock.

Dan

Because some people buy surround processors for the surround processing. Room correction (Trinnov) isn't surround processing (Neo:X). You're listening to both, not an either/or situation. For example: if you're listening to a 2-channel source and you want to extract a centre output, then you can use something like PLII to scale 2 channels to 3 speakers. IF those 3 speakers aren't at the ITU locations (45° spread for movies, 60° spread for music), then Trinnov re-mapping will create virtual speakers at those locations.

What Trinnov cannot do is create a centre channel; i.e., it cannot extract vocals/dialogue or any other centre imaged sounds from the L/R channels, then steer those particular sounds to the centre speaker, and cancel those sounds from the L/R speakers so you're not hearing dialogue come from all three speakers (triple mono). Same with playing 5.1-channel sources on a 7.1-speaker layout: PLIIx and Neo can steer the contents of 2 surround channels across 4 speakers, providing unique content to each of the side and rear speakers.

Trinnov can't do that (can't provide rear-vs-side separation in the surround field). All it can do is take that 5.1 source and re-map it to your 7.1 speakers so that the surround channels phantom image at ±110°, even if your surround speakers are not at those locations. So, for the sake of this discussion, we shouldn't conflate surround processing with room correction. But Trinnov cannot give you height imaging the way PLIIz and Neo:X can. PLIIz, for example, extracts decorrelated (out of phase) content from the surround channels and steers it to the height speakers. That content is not from the front channels and no longer in the surround channels.

Compare that to what Trinnov would do: IF your front speakers were below ear height, then re-mapping would leak front channel information to the height speakers, thereby raising the front soundstage by having it phantom image at ear height, despite your front speakers not being at that location. But it's not like you'll hear ambient information from above you, like you would with PLIIz or Neo:X. The option to have more than 8 output channels available, as the Datasat units also have, can be very useful in the future. The reason I say "can be" is because it will depends on the surround processing they add to fill those additional channels. Using additional speakers in order to virtualize an ITU 5.1 or 7.1 speaker layout is very different than steering unique content to each of those speakers in order to give stable imaging to those sounds at the wide and height locations. To do that, you need surround processing.

Neo:x and PLIIz are matrix algorithms that extract data from existing sources and generate additional channels for "height" and "width". These are not discrete- if they were discrete, I think your arguments would hold water, but since they are in fact generated channels I'm saying that it's less important than people think right now.

The folks that want these algorithms want a more immersive experience; that IS the ultimate goal, is it not? I have no idea whether you (Sanjay) have had the opportunity to experience Trinnov in your theater, but it DOES do more than you state it can do. The pans from channel to channel are significantly better, this is NOT a small detail when you think about it; if we consider the locations of phantom images that can come from the various channels- it really opens up the soundscape. Trinnov is processing those channel transitions, and yes we CAN create height and width channels in a different manner than Dolby or DTS does, whether you feel at those channels are more or less "valid" because they weren't created by Dolby or DTS is entirely up to the consumer.

I've been living with Trinnov processing in my demo room for over a year now, and I can tell you from experience that the band-aids of PLIIz and neo:x are much less important than having 9.1 or 11.1 DISCRETE channels encoded into the soundtrack itself. These algorithms are a different way to attempt to give the consumer the same experience of sonic immersion that the Trinnov can- they do it differently.

I'll state once again that the 3d remapping is doing more than just "relocating" the channels- the pans from channel to channel are eerily fluid; it made a drastic difference to the surround experience in our room, and it is very demonstratable: turn it on, turn it off. BTW our room is laid out very close to ITU spec with the exception of distance to the surrounds, so remapping isn't really moving our channels any- just optimizing delays.

I urge folks to actually try Trinnov in a multichannel surround environment before passing judgement on what can and cannot be done with this technology.
Experiencing Trinnov is believing it; that is the best way I can state it.

Dan

No one said the additional outputs were discrete. If the source had the same number of discrete channels as there are speakers in a set-up, then there wouldn't be any need for surround processing. If everyone's DVD and BD collection suddenly became discrete 7.1, then there would be no need to scale 5.1 tracks to 7.1 speakers.

Discrete vs matrix has nothing to do with my "argument", which was solely about the difference between surround processing vs room correction. Besides, it's not like Trinnov remapping keeps the channels discrete. No, the remapping algorithm doesn't do any more than I stated. Depending on the number of channels in the source, remapping will try to give you an idealized ITU set-up. If you're listening to a 5.1 source on a 7.1 layout, then it will sound like the surround channels are at the ±110° locations that ITU recommends. But it won't separate the 2 surround channels into rear and side outputs, like surround procesing does. What you're describing occurs whenever you use good room correction that cleans up frequency response and phase problems. Not a question of valid, but instead a question of purpose. Dolby and DTS have made it clear what they're sending to their height speakers. What does Trinnov send to the height speakers? No, PLIIz and Neo:X are attempting to create height imaging by moving particular content in the soundtrack to the height speakers. Trinnov re-mapping is trying to relocate the speakers to sound like they are at ITU locations. That's its purpose.

If you have 3 speakers below the screen and add 2 speakers above the screen, Trinnov re-mapping will use the speakers above the screen to move the L/C/R speakers up virtually, so that they sound like they're at ear height. By comparison, PLIIz and Neo:X will send ambient content, extracted from the soundtrack, to the speakers above the screen in order to create height imaging. The L/C/R speakers won't sound any higher. Different purpose. And I'll state once again that the qualities you're describing are a result of good room correction that cleans up phase and frequency response problems. That doesn't make it a substitute for surround processing.

I could say the same thing about good source material. If I am emotionally moved by a piece of music, then it's not so important whether the song was mono or stereo. But that's not an argument against stereo, nor does it mean that stereo is a "band aid" for bad music. Likewise, surround surround processing isn't a "band aid" for good room correction, because they do different things. Understood, though I hope that turns out not to be the case. There are plenty of pre-pros and receivers on the market that, despite having newer surround processing, can only output 7 or 9 channels simultaneously. Once you get past a 5.1-speaker layout, you're forced to choose between surround-backs or heights or wides, but not all at the same time. By comparison, the ADA Reference can do all 16 channels simultaneouly, making it a better platform for the very codecs that other companies are implementing in an incomplete way. The Ref would be able to do that same surround processing will all channels active, and still have enough channels left over for multiple subwoofers.

Despite the idea that going fully digital should be better sounding , I still prefer the flexibility of separate Trinnov to pair with different processors which may be better sounding than ADA in the near future .

I have heard the best of Denon doing 9.1 (2 height channels) from existing 5.1 or 7.1 and while I must say that they have illustrated effects , I found it degrading the overall sounding quality especially the 3 fronts . Maybe discrete is the only way to go ! Also the effect of height speakers is only important if you sit very close to your 3 front floor sit speakers and also if you have a high ceiling in your HT room . That is mighty suitable for small HT rooms like those we & Japanese have . Otherwise , 2 wides are always prefer to 2 heights - told me by those who tried both .

Trinnov is like no other room correction , I have the Aud***y Pro before , despite its improvement I thought it detracted overall the clarity of sound , it was the most valuable top 10% that it took away , when listen to music mainly from fronts , it leave you fighting if you want to engage it or not , no such worry with Trinnov . Quite an surprise to me also .

Larry

Yes the stand alone trinnov mc into the Ada crm4 sounds superb. And actually represents a little more flexability. ESP if you get vanity ( audiopraise) to fit a digi out board to the rhapsody. I think they said they could do this for €1000. Taking out the RCA outs and replacing them for digi coax.

And because you still have the Ada dacs available if connected digitally to the trinnov, you could, intheory, run 2 x 7.1 setups from the same pro. Of course only one being room corrected by trinnov, unless you purchase another trinnov mc. You could have your main room all set to one profile and perhaps a 7.1 setup in another room running another profile.

Of course you could do this with the reference, I think, but only if your using 7.1 channels in your main room and not actively biamping, which IMO, is where the trinnov really excels. Taking full control of every driver and knowing exactly what it's doing in the time domain, creating amazingly tight phasing.

And you could do all that for around $20000. Leaving you plenty left over to spend on other goodies.

Who be the first one sending in their Suite or crm4 to Audiopraise for digi mod. I would prefer analogue out to remain active so that I can compare how they both sound .
Mod on Suite maybe difficult as there is really little space inside so crm4 maybe the only one suitable . Modding Oppo 93 cost @USD 900 , so it is not unreasonable for them to ask for USD 1300 for the crm4 mod (price not confirmed yet). I do not think it good to mod the Oppo and direct in Trinnov , I don't think that Oppo would do as good a decoding as ADA not to mention that you loose input switching & all that ADA sound modes so useful to most of us .

Thats the best thing about upgrading the crm4. You would retain the xlr output stage and swap the RCA stage out for the digi board.

I've been in contact with Curt and a modded Oppo is a good way. Just have to adjust output level in the Trinnov so it also matches up with the SSP that is also connected to it (via analog). I can't justify $40 K for an all in one box where the Trinnov inside is non modifiable in the future.

For me, it's an easy choice as Blu Ray is pretty much 99% of my use. Not being able to engage PL II, etc when sending a signal from the modded Oppo is insignificant compared to the Trinnov processing. If I have to have a codec,then I run analog into the Trinnov.

For me, it also looks like I should change out my Klipsch rears as they are dipoles (though swapping the speaker wires would convert them to bipoles). Curt said direct radiators are ideal for a Trinnov system. Depending on room coverage, I may need to add a 3rd set of surrounds. Moreover, my rears cannot keep up with the output of my mains and have very little low end. I'd like to add rears with more bass output.