or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › ADA Cinema Reference Mach IV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ADA Cinema Reference Mach IV - Page 3

post #61 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

I' m referring to different hardware setups.
if we start to include the emotions that some songs or movies can give....
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

I already wrote that you are right.
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.
post #62 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

A sensation of involvement due to an hardware set-up rather than another one is very different
from a personal emotion that a particolar song or movie can give you for several reasons, personal or not.. but maybe I didn't understand what you meant referring to "a piece of music"...


please note that writing "you are right" has just been a way to say "I agree with you"
and also in this contest someone can agree with someone else..

by the way, sorry for my bad english.. tongue.gif
post #63 of 296
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Ng View Post

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 .

Not necessarily; you can get the proper elevation angle by placing speakers in or on the ceiling or along the sidewalls.
post #64 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

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.
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.
post #65 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

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.

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.
post #66 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

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.

is it so dramatic, I mean audible this advantage of s/pdif over hdmi?
with Ada Reference I will have to go through hdmi but I think I'll get other advantages like all Ada surround modes for all my sources....to say the main ones...

I still don't know (Dan Francis could clarify) which is the purpose of digital inputs on the back...
post #67 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

is it so dramatic, I mean audible this advantage of s/pdif over hdmi?
with Ada Reference I will have to go through hdmi but I think I'll get other advantages like all Ada surround modes for all my sources....to say the main ones...
I still don't know (Dan Francis could clarify) which is the purpose of digital inputs on the back...

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.
post #68 of 296
Thread Starter 
excuse me,
so you mean that oppo>spdif>trinnov vs oppo(or other source)>hdmi>trinnov inside the reference
could be so better, audibly better?
your impressions are actually between an analogic vs full digital connection to trinnov while
I'm comparing to different full digital paths.....
I mean, do the digital S/DIF outputs make an audible difference over HDMI, because they reclock the signal?

ps I will listened to sacd occasionally, so the important for me are movies, concerts blurays and hdtv
post #69 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

excuse me,
so you mean that oppo>spdif>trinnov vs oppo(or other source)>hdmi>trinnov inside the reference
could be so better, audibly better?
your impressions are actually between an analogic vs full digital connection to trinnov while
I'm comparing to different full digital paths.....
I mean, do the digital S/DIF outputs make an audible difference over HDMI, because they reclock the signal?
ps I will listened to sacd occasionally, so the important for me are movies, concerts blurays and hdtv

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.
post #70 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

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.

I wonder if the upgrade from 96/24 to 192/24 will be a software or hardware upgrade..
in the first case also the trinnov inside the Reference could be upgraded as
Dan Francis told me it has the same upgrades of other trinnov units..
post #71 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

I wonder if the upgrade from 96/24 to 192/24 will be a software or hardware upgrade..
in the first case also the trinnov inside the Reference could be upgraded as
Dan Francis told me it has the same upgrades of other trinnov units..

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.
post #72 of 296
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

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.

actually Dan Francis wrote different things about the Reference:

"...the Reference is NOT just a Rhapsody with a Trinnov connected digitally. The DACs of the Reference are those of the Trinnov- not the ones that ADA uses in their Suite 7.1HD and Rhapsody- that is a HUGE difference and it's obvious right away when you hear the Reference.

The DSP power ..in the Reference is actually the Trinnov section and uses an Intel i5 processor.."

Besides reading the specs of the Reference I find:
...
•Multi-Channel (192KHz/24 Bit) PCM Audio
...
post #73 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

actually Dan Francis wrote different things about the Reference:
"...the Reference is NOT just a Rhapsody with a Trinnov connected digitally. The DACs of the Reference are those of the Trinnov- not the ones that ADA uses in their Suite 7.1HD and Rhapsody- that is a HUGE difference and it's obvious right away when you hear the Reference.
The DSP power ..in the Reference is actually the Trinnov section and uses an Intel i5 processor.."
...

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

Besides reading the specs of the Reference I find:
...
•Multi-Channel (192KHz/24 Bit) PCM Audio
...

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
post #74 of 296
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.
post #75 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by djnickuk View Post

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.
post #76 of 296
Thread Starter 
here is the entire Dan's answer concerning dsp power in the Reference:
The DSP power you are referring to in the Reference is actually the Trinnov section and that uses an Intel i5 processor- certainly hefty enough to do serious processing work. One must remember that inside that Reference is a commercial Trinnov piece of hardware (it's an actual PC in there, I've opened mine and looked at it).
post #77 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

here is the entire Dan's answer concerning dsp power in the Reference:
The DSP power you are referring to in the Reference is actually the Trinnov section and that uses an Intel i5 processor- certainly hefty enough to do serious processing work. One must remember that inside that Reference is a commercial Trinnov piece of hardware (it's an actual PC in there, I've opened mine and looked at it).

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.
post #78 of 296
Thread Starter 
maybe despite this aspect (but Dan could clarify) there is something else that makes it magic
Dan, who is the only to have compared reference and rs20i
does prefer the first:

After having done this exact comparison myself, the conclusion that I came to is that they are BOTH stellar machines and will appeal to different people. The RS20i made my demo theater sound exceptionally accurate to the soundtrack on the disk; I felt like our room perfectly reproduced what the sound designer was hearing in the mastering studio. The Reference goes one step further in that vain and sonically and places the listener "inside" the scene, you feel like you're there on location where the scene was filmed- for me this was demonstrated impeccably by the train-station scene in Super 8. I happen to live less than a mile from train tracks, and have been next to those tracks on numerous occasions when a freight train passes- the Reference NAILED IT!! not only how it sounds to be next to a freight train, but how it feels.


it could be the trinnov inside and the digital path between it and the rhapsody...
post #79 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

maybe despite this aspect (but Dan could clarify) there is something else that makes it magic
Dan, who is the only to have compared reference and rs20i
does prefer the first:
After having done this exact comparison myself, the conclusion that I came to is that they are BOTH stellar machines and will appeal to different people. The RS20i made my demo theater sound exceptionally accurate to the soundtrack on the disk; I felt like our room perfectly reproduced what the sound designer was hearing in the mastering studio. The Reference goes one step further in that vain and sonically and places the listener "inside" the scene, you feel like you're there on location where the scene was filmed- for me this was demonstrated impeccably by the train-station scene in Super 8. I happen to live less than a mile from train tracks, and have been next to those tracks on numerous occasions when a freight train passes- the Reference NAILED IT!! not only how it sounds to be next to a freight train, but how it feels.
it could be the trinnov inside and the digital path between it and the rhapsody...

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
post #80 of 296
Thread Starter 
sorry Edorr I got lost in the discussion:rolleyes:
I was only trying to understand how much a different dsp can impact
in the overall quality of a prepro...
and for me movies are much more important..
and some br concerts as well...

I think trinnov is the best in room correction with its 3d remapping and the all digital path inside the Reference makes the magic..as you have already said.


anyway I would really like to have clarifications on 192/24 capability as the specs mention that
but also because maybe in the future this could become important for movies as well...
Edited by Grifo - 12/21/12 at 1:59pm
post #81 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

sorry Edorr I got lost in the discussion:rolleyes:
I was only trying to understand how much a different dsp can impact
in the overall quality of a prepro...
and for me movies are much more important..
and some br concerts as well...
I think trinnov is the best in room correction with its 3d remapping and the all digital path inside the Reference makes the magic..as you have already said.
anyway I would really like to have clarifications on 192/24 capability as the specs mention that
but also because maybe in the future this could become important for movies as well...

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.
post #82 of 296
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
post #83 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post

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.
post #84 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

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?
post #85 of 296
Thread Starter 
First of all thanx to Dan.
I apologyze for disturbing you.
By the way
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYBODY!!

What I tried to understand didn't concern
A comparison between oppo and without oppo.
I was just wondering if a different dsp could
Make a difference between Reference and rs20i,
Eventhough Dan already explained his preference
For Reference..
The point is that trinnov and its 2/3d remapping are not replaceable
For me.

Anyway I would really like that Richard, Curt and Dan made this dsp matter clearer.
To know if the rhapsody section of the Reference support 192/24 (in all modes) shouldn't be a taboo. The same about trinnov upgradability to 192/24. Everything becomes important for a 40k processor.

@ Sipester:
I tried to explore the theta digi out to trinnov option
But in that case you get downsampling to 48/16.
Furthermore for movies the limit we are talking about
Doesn't exist, at least for now, and if it would exist
In some case.. Well it wouldn't be enough to give up to trinnov as implemented in the reference.
However I wouldn't like to be limited to modded oppo.
I want the full digital path to trinnov for all my sources,
Media player, sat decoder etc not to say that surround modes
Like DPLIIx are important for me and with the oppo I couldn't have them
If connected direct to trinnov.
Edited by Grifo - 12/22/12 at 6:10am
post #86 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipester View Post

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.
post #87 of 296
Thread Starter 
Edorr, how many br 192/24 do you know?
price apart, just to understand...up to you a 192/24 dsp could become a real, consistent advantage over a 96/24 dsp for br movies and concerts?
or the presence of trinnov makes the Reference preferable anyway?
post #88 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifo View Post

Edorr, how many br 192/24 do you know?
price apart, just to understand...up to you a 192/24 dsp could become a real, consistent advantage over a 96/24 dsp for br movies and concerts?
or the presence of trinnov makes the Reference preferable anyway?

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.
post #89 of 296
Thread Starter 
thank you Edorr.
post #90 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

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

Is it to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by edorr View Post

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.

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › ADA Cinema Reference Mach IV