Trinnov Altitude - Page 282 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3145Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #8431 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 02:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringnut View Post
Do you have full range REW FR sweeps of your setup?
Did not understand the question; I have published REW sweeps of my setup.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #8432 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 03:15 AM
Member
 
Ringnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringnut View Post
Do you have full range REW FR sweeps of your setup?
Did not understand the question; I have published REW sweeps of my setup.
Sorry, I only saw the Waterfalls, I will look back further.
Ringnut is offline  
post #8433 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 03:19 AM
Member
 
Ringnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringnut View Post
Do you have full range REW FR sweeps of your setup?
Did not understand the question; I have published REW sweeps of my setup.
I meant to say since those last adjustments that the Waterfalls refer to.
Ringnut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #8434 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 03:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringnut View Post
I meant to say since those last adjustments that the Waterfalls refer to.
I have published waterfall graphs; that is the frequency on x-axis; level (dB) on y-axis; and time in z-axis. So waterfall contains it all. The last two are impulse response; which tells about reflection in the room and how much time it takes before the signal is "dead" (read: on same level as noise floor). Mine i 250ms; a really good studio is 300ms (RT60)

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
post #8435 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 03:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puravidacarpets View Post
Ergonomics-wise.
Harmony-1000-like remote
Power on volume limiter. user-settable.
Nice feature on the Aragon was to reset volume on input switching.
Please lock on to audio signals quickly.
Silent when locking on (no pops please!).
A big complaint with the Sherwood was not being able to change crossover settings after running Trinnov setup.
No bright LEDs.
Easily switchable listening position; e.g I sit here watching movies but there when playing games.
Hopefully the display will be full of information. Bit rate, sample size, format, encoding, etc.
Native DSD decoding.
Mac compatible.
Web/browser controller interface.
USB or network firmware upgrading.
One button switching between stereo and multi-channel.
???

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
post #8436 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 04:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,454
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2898 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Because I'm using the target curve to correct the outpt according to my REW measurements (of PEQ+Optimizer). If you have good enough speakers this works very fine. It is actually very natural sounding; a tad warm bass (this is based on my decision).

So my goal is a flat curve for L+R; and lift on subs on the lower end to compensate for human hearing. This effect I have overdone by around 1dB to get my required sound.
I'm happy that you like the sound of your speakers and calibration you have done. That is the joy of these Trinnov units, in that we can all dial them in to personal taste, but I would never personally have flat in room response as a preferred target, and I don't think many other people would prefer that kind of in room response. There has been plenty of research on this by Toole, Olive, B & K etc. It is the reason most of the best manufacturers pursue a flat anechoic response since it will yield a smooth downward sloping response in room. That has nothing to do with how 'good' the speakers are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
I'm sure if you had listened to this setup; you would never ever have heard a better sound (I have not).
With the greatest of respect I'd doubt that. Firstly I'm not a B&W fan - over the years I have found that I prefer neutral speakers with good off axis response behaviour, which the B & W's aren't - and secondly every time I have heard speakers with anywhere near a flat in room response its akin to nails on a chalk-board to me. The B & W's have notable excess high frequency energy in their anechoic response, so if it were me I'd be looking to tame that in room and create a downward sloping response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Edit:
Flat curve for L + R requires REALLY good speakers, else it will not work.
I don't believe that is the case - all it requires is a tweeter that produces raised and extended output up to and over 20Khz. At your listening distance there are a great many speakers that could do that. Even those that can, you still have to be careful you are not pushing the tweeter too hard at higher volumes particularly if you are boosting the tweeter range with any of your PEQ. Do you have a standard FR graph from REW before any correction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Yes MLP; that is my spot
It sounds good in the other seats as well, but absolutely best in MLP. There are ways of reducing the quality of the MLP and increasing the quality in the seats around (MLP is still best; but to sacrifice the quality in MLP slightly to increase quality on the seats around). This approach is known, but its not for me.
I understand that you are optimising for a single MLP, but that doesn't mean you should take a single measurement. Your tweaking of the target curve, which shouldn't generally be necessary, is a function of the fact that you are taking single measurements, certainly in the higher frequencies, rather than taking multiple measurements to get a better average at your MLP.

For example, you are making fairly narrow adjustments at 4KHz based on your single measurements. A 4KHz wave is only 85mm long, so where are you adjusting for, the left ear? The right ear? Somewhere in between?

Your adjustment of the target curve to try and account for what you are measuring in REW suggests you think that Optimizer is not adjusting correctly based on a flat target, when in fact its more likely to be simple measurement difference between measurement positions. Whilst you can keep tweaking to make your graphs nice and smooth, that's more than likely not what you are hearing, since it is impossible to listen from that exact point.

Personally I would advocate at least three measurements at the MLP as a minimum, a head central, left ear (100-200mm to the left) and a right ear (100-200mm to the right) to get a reasonable average response (though I believe Optimizer uses more complex calculations than a straight average), and eliminate much of the tail chasing you are doing on this.
mikela, appelz and Dimifoot like this.

Last edited by Wookii; 08-13-2019 at 04:39 AM.
Wookii is offline  
post #8437 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 04:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,291
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4747 Post(s)
Liked: 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wookii View Post
Personally I would advocate at least three measurements at the MLP as a minimum, a head central, left ear (100-200mm to the left) and a right ear (100-200mm to the right) to get a reasonable average response (though I believe Optimizer uses more complex calculations than a straight average), and eliminate much of the tail chasing you are doing on this.
Which is (almost) the approach I take. I just use about 12" to the either side of the MLP. But, I had to smile when you used up to + 200mm to adjust for putting a mic at each ear. That would be approximately a 15" wide head. But I get your point - and agree with you!
Wookii likes this.
audioguy is offline  
post #8438 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 04:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 9,268
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post

Berland, with all the things you've just done lately, you've been a very busy man. I'm sure the results were well worth the effort & time behind the mics.

One of your target curves reminds me of one of my special target curves, one I created for specific female vocals. I did mine empirically by test tones and listening with my head "locked" at MLP. In my room there are specific freq's which beam at my head and cause glare. So I moved my head back & forth at each freq to find if that freq peaks or dips. Then I made adjustments to this special target curve to compensate for my results. I admit it's not a scientific measurement with REW, Omnimic etc but it worked for me on specific recordings. I rarely use this preset but it's handy for taming overly bright upper mids. Mimics an analog graphic EQ I had years ago (Audio Control C101) which was useful for the same purpose with 2 ch stereo - female vocals. I created this target before I learned the Altitude's output GEQ functionality so now I can accomplish the same thing using those on the fly without using the special target.


I have 6 different sets of target curves in presets that I play with, including 3 variations of the classic raised bass, reduced highs theme including a curve Jon [email protected] gave me to try.

All but this special mid-range glare one are based on room measurements
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	4-7-2019 8-16-39 AM.png
Views:	27
Size:	63.5 KB
ID:	2602324  
Berland likes this.

Steve

Last edited by ss9001; 08-13-2019 at 06:07 AM.
ss9001 is online now  
post #8439 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 22,716
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1874 Post(s)
Liked: 660
It would seem that if Trinnov can take proper measurements at the one location (MLP) that you care about, you should only have to run the Optimizer and set your target curves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
1. Apply PEQ filters up to 200Hz based on REW measurements for each speaker.
2. Run calibration on top of PEQ filters for speakers
3. Activate Optimizer
4. Apply target curve (flat for L+R and lift at the lower end on both subs)
5. Set crossover to 65Hz, adjust slope and crossover filter based on REW (this is how I found 65Hz).
6. Do measurement; and adjust the target curves to get requested output on each set L+Sub1 and R+Sub2.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #8440 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 02:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
It would seem that if Trinnov can take proper measurements at the one location (MLP) that you care about, you should only have to run the Optimizer and set your target curves.
Sure. you can live by this illusion

Optimizer does a great job; but there are still room for additional fine-tuning. If you think optimizer straight out of the box gives you the best result; good for you.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
post #8441 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1631 Post(s)
Liked: 1284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Sure. you can live by this illusion

Optimizer does a great job; but there are still room for additional fine-tuning. If you think optimizer straight out of the box gives you the best result; good for you.
Personally I'm not a fan of singularity. At the very least, you can get more data points to determine if using the Optimizer, with or without PEQ up front, is solving more than just the issues at MLP. Unless you sit with your head in a vice or are a fan of the Ludovico technique , I'd prefer to at least have similar to MLP results, or at least palatable ones, in a 12" cube around the listener's head. From there, more measurements can address secondary priorities, or provide data for determining different optimization parameters for different locations (i.e. the entire single row of seats, the "midpoint" between two rows of seats, etc.). Or if relatively close to MLP, provide more data for less coarse octave room EQ (i.e. 1/12th octave vs. 1/6th octave) if that's your thing.

My feeling is default settings are better than no room EQ, but you're disregarding the power of Optimizer to provide more sensitive acoustic optimization for the energy in the room and problems that are addressable with room EQ (vs. treatments). That's where you really need a pro or Trinnov support to at least determine just how well the defaults work. Better yet to have a pro come in house and leave you a solid base for tweaks if you're so inclined.
Dimifoot likes this.

Audio Gear: Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 channel), NAD M27 amps (3)
Video: JVC RS600, Seymour 100" UF Screen, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 (coming soon)
Speakers: PSB Imagine T3 LCR, Imagine T Wides/Side Surround 1, T2 Side Surrounds, Imagine XB rears, Image B6 screens, PSB CS1000 ceilings (6), HSU ULS-15 Mk 2 subs (4) - 13.4.6
HAA HT1 and HT2 Certification
sdrucker is online now  
post #8442 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 05:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,291
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4747 Post(s)
Liked: 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
Personally I'm not a fan of singularity. At the very least, you can get more data points to determine if using the Optimizer, with or without PEQ up front, is solving more than just the issues at MLP. Unless you sit with your head in a vice or are a fan of the Ludovico technique , I'd prefer to at least have similar to MLP results, or at least palatable ones, in a 12" cube around the listener's head. From there, more measurements can address secondary priorities, or provide data for determining different optimization parameters for different locations (i.e. the entire single row of seats, the "midpoint" between two rows of seats, etc.). Or if relatively close to MLP, provide more data for less coarse octave room EQ (i.e. 1/12th octave vs. 1/6th octave) if that's your thing.

My feeling is default settings are better than no room EQ, but you're disregarding the power of Optimizer to provide more sensitive acoustic optimization for the energy in the room and problems that are addressable with room EQ (vs. treatments). That's where you really need a pro or Trinnov support to at least determine just how well the defaults work. Better yet to have a pro come in house and leave you a solid base for tweaks if you're so inclined.
100% agree. And the fact that the Trinnov allows you to use different weights to different mic positions makes it a no brainer to take a reasonably large number and weight them accordingly. I, too, am a selfish listener but my experience clearly demonstrates that using multiple measurement points as Stu noted above give me better results than doing just one. And the only measurement that is a pain in the rear is the first one (and a big pain it is). But for all of the rest, just place the mic and re-measure.
audioguy is offline  
post #8443 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 06:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,291
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4747 Post(s)
Liked: 3536
Sort of OT here, but if they mix this one correctly, it could be lots of fun for high speaker count Trinnov owners:

audioguy is offline  
post #8444 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 07:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,291
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4747 Post(s)
Liked: 3536
I saw this in "Home Cinema Review" and if true, this, too, could be a GREAT Trinnov movie.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 10.14.19 PM.png
Views:	73
Size:	73.7 KB
ID:	2602668  
audioguy is offline  
post #8445 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 07:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 14,432
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4503 Post(s)
Liked: 2567
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post
I saw this in "Home Cinema Review" and if true, this, too, could be a GREAT Trinnov movie.


More than like it won't. If there is any Fox Home Video control left at team Disney, they won't remix the film to Dolby Atmos unless James Cameron himself requests it (he didn't for Terminator 2). Fox even skipped Atmos tracks on UHD Blu-ray for films that had Atmos audio already in the can... no work except tweaking them for near-field theaters. And if Disney does it... the remix will probably be very disappointing.



We're screwed either way.

Listen up, studios! Dolby Atmos Lite™ print-outs must stop!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #8446 of 8510 Old 08-13-2019, 10:17 PM
Member
 
aguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 78
I have a question about the alt 16 vs alt 32.

I’ve been following the storm processor forum here and a number of people there have stated they think the alt 16 sounds different to the alt 32 when configured with exactly the same settings. They think the alt 16 has a more “veiled” sound and the prefer the sound of the sp4 and alt 32

Now I’m a bit sceptical of this but I wanted to ask this forums opinion as I am about to take delivery of my alt 16 but still have time to change it for the 16 channel alt 32 if I want to.

I will never need for than 16 channels btw

Thanks for the opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Living Room NAD M17 / NAD M27 / Martin Logan 60XT (LR) 50XT (C) / Def Tech LCR 6.5 (Surrounds) / SVS SBUltra 13+ / Sony A1 OLED
aguy is offline  
post #8447 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 12:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,454
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2898 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by aguy View Post
I have a question about the alt 16 vs alt 32.

I’ve been following the storm processor forum here and a number of people there have stated they think the alt 16 sounds different to the alt 32 when configured with exactly the same settings. They think the alt 16 has a more “veiled” sound and the prefer the sound of the sp4 and alt 32

Now I’m a bit sceptical of this but I wanted to ask this forums opinion as I am about to take delivery of my alt 16 but still have time to change it for the 16 channel alt 32 if I want to.

I will never need for than 16 channels btw

Thanks for the opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My opinion is that the guy is talking utter nonsense - I'd love to know where he went to listen to all three processors, indentically calibrated to perfectly matching target curves, on the same system! In that scenario I very much doubt anyone could pick out a specific processor in a blind test.

As far as I am aware the A16 is virtually an identical clone of the A32 8-16, with only a processor difference and a software limitation on sampling rate as a result.
audioguy, aguy, sdrucker and 4 others like this.
Wookii is offline  
post #8448 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 02:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Apgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Hong Kong / Australia
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wookii View Post
My opinion is that the guy is talking utter nonsense - I'd love to know where he went to listen to all three processors, indentically calibrated to perfectly matching target curves, on the same system! In that scenario I very much doubt anyone could pick out a specific processor in a blind test.



As far as I am aware the A16 is virtually an identical clone of the A32 8-16, with only a processor difference and a software limitation on sampling rate as a result.
It's possible if different dac's and/or circuit board designs are used for the Alt16 vs Alt32 that there could be a difference in the sonics between the two but even then I'd want to see measurements similar to what the guy over at Audio Science Review does to see if it's even audible.

What might be a factor is in DACs you change the filters brick wall, linear phase fast/slow, minimum phase fast/slow etc... My wife seems to be able to tell the difference between these with music she knows well on her system. I've changed them without telling her before and she seems to notice that something sounds different.

Seems to me the Trinnov is a complex beast and something like this could easily be hidden away in a non obvious location and be missed even if copying settings from an Alt 16 to Alt32 or vis versa.
Apgood is online now  
post #8449 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 03:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,454
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2898 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apgood View Post
It's possible if different dac's and/or circuit board designs are used for the Alt16 vs Alt32 that there could be a difference in the sonics between the two but even then I'd want to see measurements similar to what the guy over at Audio Science Review does to see if it's even audible.

What might be a factor is in DACs you change the filters brick wall, linear phase fast/slow, minimum phase fast/slow etc... My wife seems to be able to tell the difference between these with music she knows well on her system. I've changed them without telling her before and she seems to notice that something sounds different.

Seems to me the Trinnov is a complex beast and something like this could easily be hidden away in a non obvious location and be missed even if copying settings from an Alt 16 to Alt32 or vis versa.
As I say, as far as I know the hardware (including DAC's, analogue output stages, power supplies etc) are identical. I believe it has been stated before that Trinnov use the same DAC's through all their models, including those beyond the Altitude.
audioguy, sdrucker and kimg1453 like this.
Wookii is offline  
post #8450 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 04:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Just to avoid any misunderstanding. When I say I measure MLP; this covers 5 different measurements



left/right is 15cm away from MLP to the sides, and front and back is 20cm away from MLP.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Skjermbilde 2019-08-14 kl. 13.38.00.png
Views:	69
Size:	440.9 KB
ID:	2602792  

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
post #8451 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 04:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wookii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,454
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2898 Post(s)
Liked: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
Just to avoid any misunderstanding. When I say I measure MLP; this covers 5 different measurements
But your REW measurement is a single measurement, no?

So by trying to adjust your target curve to perfect the single point REW measurement, you are effectively undoing part of the averaging (I use that terms loosely as we know it is more complex) that Optimiser is doing when taking into account the five measurements you have taken in the Altitude, as it tries to provide the best response across those 5 positions. Your adjustments might make that first 'MLP' single point measurement better, but will likely make the other four positions worse.
sdrucker and Dimifoot like this.
Wookii is offline  
post #8452 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 05:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,883
Mentioned: 255 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2326 Post(s)
Liked: 2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
I have published waterfall graphs; that is the frequency on x-axis; level (dB) on y-axis; and time in z-axis. So waterfall contains it all. The last two are impulse response; which tells about reflection in the room and how much time it takes before the signal is "dead" (read: on same level as noise floor). Mine i 250ms; a really good studio is 300ms (RT60)
A full range waterfall is a pretty useless view, particularly if it is an out of the box rew waterfall which is tuned to highlight modal resonances.

If you take multiple measurements around the mlp to feed the optimiser then what are your target curve tweaks based on? A single mlp measurement using rew? What window is applied?

It sounds like you are trying to make adjustments to the speaker response itself based on an in room measurement. IMV a better approach, if you are so inclined, is take the speaker outside, measure it (on and off axis), compose a correction based on this (possibly power response or some listening window relevant directivity, depends on the room and the speakers) and then fine tune in room (or not, leave further correction to low frequency)
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #8453 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 05:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wookii View Post
But your REW measurement is a single measurement, no?

So by trying to adjust your target curve to perfect the single point REW measurement, you are effectively undoing part of the averaging (I use that terms loosely as we know it is more complex) that Optimiser is doing when taking into account the five measurements you have taken in the Altitude, as it tries to provide the best response across those 5 positions. Your adjustments might make that first 'MLP' single point measurement better, but will likely make the other four positions worse.
This is why I will try to make multiple REW measuements and see trends. I have not done this yet; but I will try.
I always keep my old preset; and can easily switch between them to compare.

It might just be better to take way more measurements with Trinnov? Only testing will tell?
I have started to create a grid around center of MLP with Trinnov measurements. Then I can weight them and get a much better average. This is all experimenting and trying out. I will stick with whatever preset sounds the best.

Edit:
During my last PEQ session I stuck to frequencies below 120Hz. I have done control measurments on the subs by moving the microphone slightly around the MLP seat. And the effect on the lower frequencies are the same (at least very similar).

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846

Last edited by Berland; 08-14-2019 at 06:02 AM.
Berland is online now  
post #8454 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 03:11 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
gdfein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Trinnov Altitude

Where are the CEDIA reports?!!! Wishful thinking Sept can’t get here soon enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gdfein is online now  
post #8455 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 08:04 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1631 Post(s)
Liked: 1284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berland View Post
This is why I will try to make multiple REW measuements and see trends. I have not done this yet; but I will try.
I always keep my old preset; and can easily switch between them to compare.

It might just be better to take way more measurements with Trinnov? Only testing will tell?
I have started to create a grid around center of MLP with Trinnov measurements. Then I can weight them and get a much better average. This is all experimenting and trying out. I will stick with whatever preset sounds the best.

Edit:
During my last PEQ session I stuck to frequencies below 120Hz. I have done control measurments on the subs by moving the microphone slightly around the MLP seat. And the effect on the lower frequencies are the same (at least very similar).
Berland, do you realize that you're only giving about 1/3 of the weight to your actual MLP position in your multi-point weighting? You have 100 for MLP, 75 for each of Left and Right, and 25 for each of Front and Back. The multi-point positional weights are additive, not independently ratio'd, so 100 / (100+75+75+25+25) = 100 / 300 = 33% weight.

It's not in the downloadable Altitude manual as such, but see page 106 of the Amethyst manual and you'll see my point. The weighting is individual positional weight / sum of individual positional weights. That's how it worked back in the Magnitude manual as well AFAIK, so I doubt that this has changed with the Altitude's Optimizer implementation.

http://www.trinnov.com/Support_downl...anual_V3.8.pdf
appelz and Wookii like this.

Audio Gear: Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 channel), NAD M27 amps (3)
Video: JVC RS600, Seymour 100" UF Screen, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 (coming soon)
Speakers: PSB Imagine T3 LCR, Imagine T Wides/Side Surround 1, T2 Side Surrounds, Imagine XB rears, Image B6 screens, PSB CS1000 ceilings (6), HSU ULS-15 Mk 2 subs (4) - 13.4.6
HAA HT1 and HT2 Certification
sdrucker is online now  
post #8456 of 8510 Old 08-14-2019, 08:16 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
sdrucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1631 Post(s)
Liked: 1284
Quote:
Originally Posted by aguy View Post
I have a question about the alt 16 vs alt 32.

I’ve been following the storm processor forum here and a number of people there have stated they think the alt 16 sounds different to the alt 32 when configured with exactly the same settings. They think the alt 16 has a more “veiled” sound and the prefer the sound of the sp4 and alt 32

Now I’m a bit sceptical of this but I wanted to ask this forums opinion as I am about to take delivery of my alt 16 but still have time to change it for the 16 channel alt 32 if I want to.

I will never need for than 16 channels btw

Thanks for the opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The comments on the Storm thread involve processors "out of the box", I believe, meaning 0 delay, 0 level, no room EQ. One of the commenters is connected to a dealer ("friend") in Germany that has supposedly demo'd multiple processors, so it's unknown whether there are other agendas at work other than commenting as a hobbyist. The other AVSer that mentioned "veiled sound' just bought an Altitude 16, and he noted that he hasn't done a Trinnov calibration or compared processors with identical target curves and rigorous testing, so his comment was anecdotal.

Throw in auditory memory, expectation bias, and source material that may not be identical for comparing processors, and I think that this notion of some processor having more vs. less "veiled sound" can be taken with several kilograms of salt. At any rate, the room's conditions and acoustic correction by Dirac or Trinnov are likely to have more impact on sound than what a piece of electronics sounds like after unboxing.
Wookii and dinamigym like this.

Audio Gear: Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 channel), NAD M27 amps (3)
Video: JVC RS600, Seymour 100" UF Screen, Lumagen Radiance Pro 4444 (coming soon)
Speakers: PSB Imagine T3 LCR, Imagine T Wides/Side Surround 1, T2 Side Surrounds, Imagine XB rears, Image B6 screens, PSB CS1000 ceilings (6), HSU ULS-15 Mk 2 subs (4) - 13.4.6
HAA HT1 and HT2 Certification
sdrucker is online now  
post #8457 of 8510 Old 08-15-2019, 12:04 AM
Member
 
aguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
The comments on the Storm thread involve processors "out of the box", I believe, meaning 0 delay, 0 level, no room EQ. One of the commenters is connected to a dealer ("friend") in Germany that has supposedly demo'd multiple processors, so it's unknown whether there are other agendas at work other than commenting as a hobbyist. The other AVSer that mentioned "veiled sound' just bought an Altitude 16, and he noted that he hasn't done a Trinnov calibration or compared processors with identical target curves and rigorous testing, so his comment was anecdotal.



Throw in auditory memory, expectation bias, and source material that may not be identical for comparing processors, and I think that this notion of some processor having more vs. less "veiled sound" can be taken with several kilograms of salt. At any rate, the room's conditions and acoustic correction by Dirac or Trinnov are likely to have more impact on sound than what a piece of electronics sounds like after unboxing.


Thank you for the balanced opinion. Tbh I really see no reason why I should get an alt32 instead of an alt16 as I will never be doing more than 7.2.4 but I was having second thoughts after reading those posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Living Room NAD M17 / NAD M27 / Martin Logan 60XT (LR) 50XT (C) / Def Tech LCR 6.5 (Surrounds) / SVS SBUltra 13+ / Sony A1 OLED
aguy is offline  
post #8458 of 8510 Old 08-15-2019, 03:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Berland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post
Berland, do you realize that you're only giving about 1/3 of the weight to your actual MLP position in your multi-point weighting? You have 100 for MLP, 75 for each of Left and Right, and 25 for each of Front and Back. The multi-point positional weights are additive, not independently ratio'd, so 100 / (100+75+75+25+25) = 100 / 300 = 33% weight.

It's not in the downloadable Altitude manual as such, but see page 106 of the Amethyst manual and you'll see my point. The weighting is individual positional weight / sum of individual positional weights. That's how it worked back in the Magnitude manual as well AFAIK, so I doubt that this has changed with the Altitude's Optimizer implementation.

http://www.trinnov.com/Support_downl...anual_V3.8.pdf
I know how the weight works. I have landed after experimenting on these values for now. I change; recalculate save under new preset and listen by switching between the two.

HT: Trinnov Altitude32 (AL32-1632)/Amplitude8/8M - BRYSTON 4B SST2 - B&W 802D3, 803D2, 2*DB1, HTM2D2, 804D2, SCMS, Nautilus SCM1, 805D2 - NORDOST Heimdall2/Frey2 - ISOTEK EVO3 Titan,Sigmas - LG OLED65B7V - GIK ACOUSTICS
HP: 2*MOON 430HA D, 2*MiND2 Network Player - 2*Yggdrasil - 2*Hydra Z/ZPM - ISOTEK EVO3 Sigmas, Aquarius - NORDOST Heimdall 2 - AUDEZE LCD-4 rev2, 2*LCD-XC - SHURE SE846
Berland is online now  
post #8459 of 8510 Old 08-15-2019, 07:46 AM
Rise & Grind
 
dinamigym's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: SW Burb of Chicago
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by aguy View Post
Thank you for the balanced opinion. Tbh I really see no reason why I should get an alt32 instead of an alt16 as I will never be doing more than 7.2.4 but I was having second thoughts after reading those posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you should read Marc's follow up post today on the Storm forum now that he has had more time with the A16. In addition, I have owned both the SP4 and now currently the A16. Like you, I have no need for additional channels. I am extremely impressed by the A16.
aguy and Papouche Le Mec like this.

Trinnov Altitude 16, Magico A3, Magico ACC, Magico A1s, Dual Rythmik FV25HP
Amps- ATI AT523NC, AT524NC, AT528NC
Kaleidescape Terra Server/Strato, Oppo UDP-203, Apple TV4k, XFinity X1
Sony VPL-VW5000, 136" 2.35:1 Stewart Studiotek 100 screen, Lumagen Pro 4242
dinamigym is online now  
post #8460 of 8510 Old 08-15-2019, 11:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,291
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4747 Post(s)
Liked: 3536
I had previously posted that a copy of the Avengers EndGame 4K/Atmos movie was only lighting up L C R LS RS LRS RRS LTM RTM and LFE. So I sent it back, got a new one today and it does the same thing. Every other Atmos movie I have checked works properly. At the screen where it shows the various menu options, every thing lights up but as soon as I hit 'play', doesn't work.

Since this is the 2nd copy of the movie I have tried it on and all others I checked work, I am 100% clueless!!



Any ideas??
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Avengers.PNG
Views:	84
Size:	117.7 KB
ID:	2603276  
audioguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off