ADA Cinema Reference Mach IV - Page 3

You were referring to a "sensation of involvement", which has more to do with an emotional state than a hardware set-up. The reason I made the analogy about music is to point out that one attribute is not a 'band aid' for another. Rather than one compensating for the other, as Richard described it, they can all be used together (good music + good surround processing + good room correction). It shouldn't be DTS Neo:X vs Trinnov re-mapping, it should be Neo:X + re-mapping. Please understand that this isn't a contest to see who is right; I was simply trying to clarify my point by using an analogy.

Re what Trinnov does with 5.1 ch input, if I understood Curt correctly in our last conversation, it's more than we thought.

He was citing the advantages of using a modified Oppo to go directly into Trinnov, to which I replied that I wanted to keep the Lex processor to generate 7 ch, given that most soundtracks are 5.1.

Curt said (I'll ask him to stop by and correct me if I'm misremembering) that Trinnov would recognize that the same signal in both surrounds should be full back, and will generate back surrounds accordingly, though in mono I guess.

Perhaps this is done just by selecting ITU 5 as input and ITU 7 as output (my unit is not operational yet); Curt?
If it was just that then Dirac should do as well in this regard as Trinnov, which I believe Dan and others have said it doesn’t.

Not necessarily; you can get the proper elevation angle by placing speakers in or on the ceiling or along the sidewalls.

The only way it would do "as well" is if you start from the premise that both room corrections do an equally good job of cleaning up frequency response and phase problems.

Even if the Lex processor were to do a better job of generating the 2 channels in 7.1, you would have to weigh this against the benefits of going digital direct into the Trinnov. If my experience (admittedly with 5.1 only) is any indication, these benefits are so large, they would very likely trump any edge the Lex may have in surround mode processing.

Keep in mind you are not only gaining through elemination of a A/D conversion steps. An additional benefit is the modded oppo digital S/DIF outputs are superiort the HDMI, because they reclock the signal.

I have heard the Oppo HDM into ADA, analog into Trinnov with Oppo digital direct into the Trinnov and the difference is quite dramatic. To be fair, all my critical listening is based on SACD, which also adds the benefit of proprietary DSD -> LPCM of the modded Oppo mod into the mix.

I see now. So you would compare two all digital signal paths, one HDMI into a ADA reference, the other 4x S/PDIF into a Trinnov MC. Here is my take. For Blu Ray high rez audio I would think the differences are small. The S/PDIF digi out board reclocks the signal, but if you're prepared to do mods on the Oppo, you could also get a clock upgrade on the Oppo that impacts the HDMI signal. You can also get an Oppo based HDMI transports that is better than the standard Oppo (such as the Theta Compli 3D). So Blu Ray I cannot say which would sound better, and either way the differences will probably be small.

For SACD - difference story. The Oppo digi out board does proprietary DSD -> LPCM conversion, which can be done at 176/24. This is audibly superior to the standard Oppo DSD conversion at 88/24 that is send out over HDMI. For now, you do not benefit from the higher resolution of conversion because the Trinnov is limited to 96/24. However, the Trinnov MC will soon support 196/24, allowing you to use the modded Oppo in 176/24 mode - clearly superior.

The Trinnov will be software upgradable through firmware I have been told.

Keep in mind that the ADA Reference is basically a ADA Cinenema Rhapsody and a Trinnov MC in a single chassis, each with its own DSP engine. I don't think the Rhapsody is 192/24 capable so upgrading the MC would not make the Reference 192/24 capable. For multi channel, there are no sources with 5.1 or 7.1 discrete channels above 96/24 that I am aware of, (except SACD converted to 176/24 in a modded Oppo), so lack of 192/24 capability is a moot point.

However, for the Reference (after the forthcoming Trinnov upgrade) to be able to do 2 channel in 192/24 it would have to bypass the ADA Rhapsody DSP. If the management and delay processing is done in the Trinnov DSP (which strikes me as the most logical place to do it), this would be possible in principle. If 2 channel 192/24 is important to you, you may want to check with ADA about this. Irrepsectively, if the ADA Rhapsody is indeed 96/24, you would never be able to generate 7.1 from a 192/24 source using the surround modes in native 192/24.

Dan was simply explaining the signal path in the Reference, clarifying the Reference uses the Trinnov DACs. I think what he was trying to convey is the Reference is not a Rhapsody with Trinnov DRC added to it. It is more like a Trinnov with a Rhapsody in front of it for input switching, decoding and post processing. However, it is still a Rhapsody and Trinnov digitally connected in a single chassic. Dan, correct me if I'm wrong.

The reference has 2 DSP engines. One does the decoding and post processing - this is the ADA Rhapsody section. This signal than gets send digitaly to the Trinnnov DSP engine which does bass management (I presume, the bass management can also be done in the Rhapsody), delay, DRC and volume control. Finally this signal is converted to analog, using the Trinov DACs.


There was a recent discussion on the "ADA ... wow" thread started by someone that could not get an HDMI handshake for 5.1 196/24 sources. Many weighted in, but there was no conclusive confirmation the ADA DSP processes native 192/24 in all modes. So if you had a 5.1 192/24 BR disc and wanted to expand that to 7.1 using a surround mode, it is conceivable this would be downsampled to 96/24. Only ADA can conclusively confirm one way or the other. A moot point for 99% of users I guess.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1196455/ada-mach-4-wow/1950#post_22552934
Edited by edorr - 12/21/12 at 8:23am

I must say that whenever I played a 192/24 5 channel or 2 channel stream the Ada crm4 software would always report it as 48k. Whether this is a fault with software or the actual playback rate I do not know.

The datasat rs20i reports a 192/24 5.1 stream as 192/24 and does indeed sound much more detailed than it did on crm4 but again whether this is down to 192/24 compatibility or simply improved dsp etc I do not know.

I believe most DSPs are limited to 96/24. Some, like Datasat support up to 192/24, while some of the older ones such as Theta are limited to 48/24.

As I mentioned, there are two DSP engines. The decoding and post processing takes place in the Rhapsody section of the unit, not the Trinnov section which is powered by the Intel i5. Even if the Trinnov section is firmware upgraded to support 192/24, this would not eliminate the bottleneck in the ADA section, if indeed such a bottleneck exists.

There is no question the Reference is a phenomenal piece of equipment optimized and best in class for for movies playback. I merely pointed out that for MCH SACD, running 176/24 from a modded Oppo straight into a Trinnov MC over AES/EBU will sound better than HDMI into a Reference, because you asked me to comment on the HDMI versus Modded Oppo signal path. Sound quality gets a lot better still if you use an audiophile outboard DAC through the digital outputs of the MC. The ADA Reference (Trinnov) DACs are very good, but not the final word in audiophile DACs. The Reference does not give you that option.
Edited by edorr - 12/21/12 at 1:16pm

You would have to ask ADA if their DSP supports 192/24 in all modes. May be Dan can ask.

Note that if it turns out the Rhapsody component in the Reference supports it, at this point the Trinnov component in the Reference is limited to 96/24. Trinnov has indicated a firmware upgrade to 192/24 is forthcoming.

Grifo has asked me to drop in here, I'm unfortunately very tied through the holiday. I'll say this and the. Direct your hardware questions to either Curt Hoyt or Richard Stoerger; until someone (not me) actually does the A/B comparisson between a modded Oppo and the Reference, you cannot say one WILL sound better than the other. I will say that for a consumer that actually needs usability- the Reference is more turn-key, more integratable, and perfectly reliable.

There are 2 DSPs jnside the Reference: one that handles decoding from digital and analog sources and one that handles Trinnov optimization, etc. In that regard, Erik interpreted my comments correctly. My statements were to discredit any person that says a Reference= Rhapsody+TEQ.

As far as hardware/firmware/software updates are concerned- I can't say. I don't talk to Curt or Richard daily, so thise questions are better directed to them.

I'll try to pop in throughout the weekend, but please don't expect much; family first.

Dan

Thanks for jumping in Dan. To avoid any confusion, let me reiterate what I said.

For Blu Ray sources, I have no way if knowing if a modded Oppo into an Trinnov MC over 4 x S/PDIF HDMI will be any better than HDMI into an ADA Reference.

For SACD, I have an empirical basis to assert the modded Oppo route will be superior, in particular when the Trinnov MC is upgrade to 192/24. This NOT because any inherent superiority of the Trinnov MC over the reference (the Reference has a Trinnov MC inside). This is because the modded Oppo can send a 176/24 signal with proprietary DSD -> LPCM conversion into the Trinnov MC, which the HDMI link between Oppo and ADA reference cannot.

I have personally compared the two in my system, and the proprietary DSD conversion at 176/24 is superior to the standard Oppo DSD coversions. So the superiory of the modded Oppo signal path on SACD has everything to do with the Oppo side of things, not the downstream ADA hardware. If a modded Oppo came along that could send a 176/24 proprietary DSD conversion over HDMI, the playing filed would be even again.

Interesting points on the seemingly inherent limitation of HDMI. Even though the internal connection between the ADA and Trinnov in the reference is all digital, it seems that the HDMI input is the limiting factor. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, then is there any difference in the following two paths:

1. Oppo HDMI out to ADA Reference internally connected Trinnov
2. Oppo HDMI out to Theta, Theta Digital Out to Trinnov MC digital in

It appears that for an HDMI audio signal, the path is essentially the same. If so, then it would seem that a Theta with Digital out to Trinnov MC has the following advantages:

a. Allows for modded Oppo for 176/24 input
b. Promise of actual 11.1 DTS Neo X processing (at least Theta has announced)
c. Dirac processing (I know it's essentially redundant with Trinnov MC, but why not have the option if the cost is comparable)
d. If you really wanted to go crazy, I suppose you could even get digital out on the Trinnov MC and use the Theta Gen VIII in lieu of the Trinnov MC DACs.

Perhaps for many, a, b, c (especially d) aren't important, but why not try to get these other benefits if the cost of the Theta and Trinnov MC are comparable to a ADA Reference? With the Theta as the front end for other HDMI devices, you retain virtually the same benefits of the Reference for a main controller. What would be the negatives associated with going to a Theta & Trinnov MC vs ADA Reference?

Grifo is correct. As per HDMI license, the Theta digital output into Trinnov would be restricted to 48/16.

I think for for MCH Blu Ray, 192/24 will be a moot point. The only MCH 192/24 I am aware of are music BRs on the Nordic 2L label. I don't see anyone jumping on 192/24 MCH for movies of concert Blu Rays anytime soon.

The only way I can see lack of 192/24 DSP capability being an issue if for 192/24 2-channel music, which is already available via download (and for example the Neil Young BluRay) and expected to grow. IF you play these files through a SSP and want to apply bass management and/or apply a surround processing (channel expansion) mode, a 96/24 DSP would have to downsample these files.

IF it turns out the Rhapsody DSP in the reference is limited to 96/24 (which we don't know yet), it would still be conceivable the Reference has some sort of bypass mode of the Rhasody section and go straight into the Trinnov for 2 channel sources and play in native 192/24 (the surround modes of the Rhapsody component would not be available ). Of course, I do not know the details of the Reference architecture nor their product roadmap, and only ADA and Trinnov can shed light on this - just laying out the basics of various digital signal paths.

As I mentioned, I personally eagerly awaiting the 192/24 upgrade of Trinnov, strictly so I can set my Oppo to DSD to LPCM conversion to 176/24 instead of 88/24.

I also want to reemphasize that if you're predominantly into movies and find Trinnov optimizer with 3D remapping to be the most effective DRC, that consideration should trump any other criteria and the Reference will be the best sounding processor you can get in a user friendly robust turn key package. So in answer to your question, the presence of Trinnov optimizer far outweighs any consideration of potenital limitation to 96/24 on Blu Ray.

Right; it's not clear to me whether Trinnov or Dirac is better at these, while leaving aside remapping.

Is it to you?

There's the usability issue; what about other sources besides the Oppo?

Also, I doubt my ability to hear the effect of A/D/A, or its importance compared to obvious differences in source material (which doesn't include SACD) qulaity.

Also the A/D/A converter I'll be using (this one http://www.lynxstudio.com/nav/getFile.asp?i=32&t=productfile ) has its own internal clock.