Trinnov Altitude 16 Review (AV Processor)

[Kal Rubinson]

@dualazmak
I’m in the market for a multi-channel music streaming device as well as an avp. Based on Kal’s recent review of the exaSound s88 I had considered buying the s88, a Coleman switcher, and perhaps the new Marantz 8805A. The cost of the above equipment would be about ¾ of the cost of the Trinnov Altitude 16. The Trinnov appears to be a one box solution with much better room correction and a track record of high reliability and bug free performance. Other than additional initial cost, do you see any disadvantages of the Trinnov for streaming music?

All your eggs are in one basket.

 

[TGB]

The Trinnov Altitude (both 16 and 32) works as a fantastic Roon Ready endpoint (I think they were one of the first to get the Roon Ready approval stamp).

 

[richard12511]

the information provided on the website is atrocious, nothing about price or availability, nothing about how many PEQs are allowed per input/output, nothing about how many taps are possible via FIR (if FIR is supported).

is their system automated or hands-on?

I feel like i wasted my time going through that.

I wish they would list this stuff. I've heard the EQ taps are actually extremely limited compared to what you get with much better software based EQ like Accourate or Audiolense. Really wish they would clarify these things, as hardware based EQ does have other advantages over software based solutions, like being able to EQ all your sources, and being much easier for multichannel. If the Trinnov EQ is no where near as good, though, I'm not sure the pros outweigh the cons, especially given the price.

 

[zorax2]

@dualazmak
[QUOTE="dualazmak, post: 805312, member: 13740"
Yes, I agree, and for people including myself mainly interested in audio-dedicated HiFi stereo multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier system, dspNexus 2/16 looks attractive.

I’m in the market for a multi-channel music streaming device as well as an avp. Based on Kal’s recent review of the exaSound s88 I had considered buying the s88, a Coleman switcher, and perhaps the new Marantz 8805A. The cost of the above equipment would be about ¾ of the cost of the Trinnov Altitude 16. The Trinnov appears to be a one box solution with much better room correction and a track record of high reliability and bug free performance. Other than additional initial cost, do you see any disadvantages of the Trinnov for streaming music?

Absolutely go with the Trinnov without question especially if the price difference is not enough to cause hardship for you. It will be soooooo much easier to setup and will sound incredible. I think will be difficult and very time consuming to do what you can do simply with the Trinnov. Additonally, you'll likely save money in the long-term since you'll be off the never ending processor upgrade train.

The Optimizer is fairly easy to use if you read the manual. Try playing around with things to discover what you like and then the good folks at Trinnov can take your existing calibration files / measurements and squeeze the most of your Trinnov remotely.

I loved the tweaking I used to do but it is certainly nice to be able to sit back and enjoy immediately.

 

[TGB]

PEQ filters are connected to presets (you set them for each output). Presets can be connected to input (but does not have to be connected). I tested with 80+ PEQ filters for each channel (I have 22 channels in use currently), worked fine.

PEQ filters are actually applied as the last part of the processing (but you should set them pre running calibration; the PEQ are applied even with bypass activated, this is what the calibration is doing - enabling bypass pre running calibration). PEQ on the Altitude is a completely manual process (requires REW or similar). Some predefined PEQ filters for specific speakers exist, but they are in my opinion a waste of time.... You want to apply PEQ filters to your speakers + room

From the Altitude32 manual (same applies for Altitude16).

 

[richard12511]

On top of that I can use a computer based DSP which should manage the same DSP performance as the Trinnov.

From what I understand, software based EQ performance should be much better than Trinnov. I'm really curious how big that difference is, though. From an ease of use perspective, I can see where something like this makes sense.

 

[TGB]

software based EQ performance should be much better than Trinnov.

I think you are missing the point here. Trinnov is software based DSP. You will not find Optimizer as open source, best of luck finding something better The Optimizer knows where in your room each speaker is located (in 3D space).

 

[richard12511]

I really like that they upgrade parts down the line. Not aware of any other manufacturers doing that. Part of my hesitation with purchasing a product like this would be the need to replace it every few years when the next HDMI comes out. The fact that they offer to upgrade that (with a little cost) down the line is fantastic.

 

[richard12511]

I think you are missing the point here. Trinnov is software based DSP. You will not find Optimizer as open source, best of luck finding something better The Optimizer knows where in your room each speaker is located (in 3D space).

Is this true, though? I honestly don't know, and I'm mostly just going by what I've read(never owned or used one). From what I've read, the Trinnov is very limited in it's EQ power(relative to software solutions) by the limited number of taps. Would love to read more, though.

 

[TGB]

I really like that they upgrade parts down the line. Not aware of any other manufacturers doing that. Part of my hesitation with purchasing a product like this would be the need to replace it every few years when the next HDMI comes out. The fact that they offer to upgrade that (with a little cost) down the line is fantastic.

I had same concern before buying. Only regret now is that I did not buy it earlier (I wasted money on waiting for price increase and investment in a few surround processors which got outdated after a few years). I do not recommend upgrading HDMI board every time a new revision is released, and do you need anything better than HDMI 2.0b for the foreseeable future?

 

[TGB]

Is this true, though? I honestly don't know, and I'm mostly just going by what I've read(never owned or used one). From what I've read, the Trinnov is very limited in it's EQ power(relative to software solutions) by the limited number of taps. Would love to read more, though.

You use IIR filter for lower frequencies; and FIR filters for higher frequencies. You don't define them in taps, but length... FIR length default set to 100ms (which covers the area before moving over to low freqencies and IIR filters; standard handover from FIR to IIR is 150Hz. Increasing FIR length will enable you to use FIR filter on lower frequencies. Here you can define (default=100ms): 5ms, 10ms, 20ms, 40ms, 80ms, 100ms, 300ms and 600ms.

 

[richard12511]

I do not recommend upgrading HDMI board every time a new revision is released, and do you need anything better than HDMI 2.0b for the foreseeable future?

Kinda? I probably wouldn't be upgrading every time either, but I sorta think the limitations of HDMI 2.0 may be at the heart of my current struggles trying to get software based EQ to work in my Auro3D setup. That's what led me to looking for SOTA hardware based solutions, which led me here to this device. The issue I have with HDMI 2.0 is that it only supports 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, which forces me to use ASIO, which brings with it other issues that I've so far been unable to solve. 2.1 supports 32 channels from what I understand.

I'm in no rush, though. I think the best thing for me to do atm is take a step back and do more research .

 

[richard12511]

You use IIR filter for lower frequencies; and FIR filters for higher frequencies. You don't define them in taps, but length... FIR length default set to 100ms (which covers the area before moving over to low freqencies and IIR filters; standard handover from FIR to IIR is 150Hz. Increasing FIR length will enable you to use FIR filter on lower frequencies. Here you can define (default=100ms): 5ms, 10ms, 20ms, 40ms, 80ms, 100ms, 300ms and 600ms.

View attachment 134211
View attachment 134212

Thanks for the info.

 

[TGB]

Kinda? I probably wouldn't be upgrading every time either, but I sorta think the limitations of HDMI 2.0 may be at the heart of my current struggles trying to get software based EQ to work in my Auro3D setup. That's what led me to looking for SOTA hardware based solutions, which led me here to this device. The issue I have with HDMI 2.0 is that it only supports 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, which forces me to use ASIO, which brings with it other issues that I've so far been unable to solve. 2.1 supports 32 channels from what I understand.

I'm in no rush, though. I think the best thing for me to do atm is take a step back and do more research .

Number of channels should be resolved with AES67; there you have up to 120 channels/link Hardware in place in both Altitude16 and Altitude32, we are only waiting for Trinnov to activate it via software update (they have stated this will be done in 2021).

 

[TGB]

Also reason for length is that this will work on 44.1kHz, 48khz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz (+176.4kHz and 192kHz for Altitude32)

The Altitude work in native frequency from source, no voodoo downsampling like all others.

 

[Sal1950]

Absolutely go with the Trinnov without question especially if the price difference is not enough to cause hardship for you.

For what these critters cost they ought to send out an installer with it who'll dial in the DSP and all to perfection.
That's what they used to do for the cost of the Audyssey Pro kit.

 

[zorax2]

One of the interesting things from this thread is the number of comments on the price and / or value of the Trinnov. My perspective is that while it is expensive relative to mainstream processors, it takes my investment in speakers, amps, room treatments, etc. and maximizes enjoyment of everything I’ve done and already spent.

An interesting analogy is bikes. Most of the men and women I bike with have 3 or 4 bikes – a road bike, a gravel bike, a mountain bike, and a fat tire bike for winter. As we are all avid cyclists, most of us ride 2,000 to 5,000 miles per year, and our bikes are among the best available. Nearly all of the bikes we use have carbon fiber frames and / or wheels, electronic shifting, disc brakes, etc. The price range of these bikes generally ranges from $3,000 to $15,000 and I’d say averages about $5,000 to $6,000. Some of the people I bike with have $50k or more worth of bikes, wheelsets and other equipment and gear.

It may sound crazy in the sense that you could get by with a $500 bike but each of us is passionate about cycling and greatly appreciate all of the features that high-end bikes have and they add to the enjoyment of our riding.

I’d say it’s similar to audio in that those who are not passionate about cycling think we’re nuts to spend that much on a bike just as some people seem to think spending on a Trinnov is crazy compared to some of the lower priced options.

I’m fortunate to have a wife who supports my interests and sees how much I love both audio and cycling. Even though I spend a fair amount on both, she believes it to be a much better use of money than the stereotypical middle aged guy going and buying a hi-end motorcycle, boat, sports car, etc.

It’s all about the journey and finding the gear that makes you happy. I find myself in the camp as some others here on the thread commenting that they had wished they had come to the decision to purchase the Trinnov sooner and have had even more time to enjoy it.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I understand the notion of ROI, return on investment. We know that price is function of need/wants and competition. In their absence prices are what the market bear. Thus my question: Who are the Trinnov Altitude real competitors? From my modest ignoramus vintage point. There aren't many perhaps the Storm or ... Not the Denon, Marantz, MonoPrice, Onkyo or Yamaha currently on the market, even less the poor approximation of Pre/Pro some High End Audio have dabbled into. This system/component present real-world solution to real world problems encountered by Audiophiles and videophiles.
Deep in many hobbyist is a strange notion that "we could do/achieve the same for less" while they looking at price they don't realize the real cost of their ... contraption. Nor the amount of knowledge needed to implment apparently simple processes.. e.g. crossover between drivers or matching subwoofers with mains in a system... I could write a book on the problems I encountered on my system, trying to integrate 3 subs with a miniDSP 2 x4 then a 2x4HD... In 2-channels things were relatively smooth.. I have a setting for 2-Channel and it is very good... , ver , very good. In MCH? .. Issues were different, I've had to use the 2-front channel with the subs as a pair of full range speakers and was left with Audyssey to "take care" of the center channel integration.. I have "accepted" the results, knowing very well they are far from optimal...It is movies after all thus I am OK with decent not great sound on movies as long as the dialog is clear and the effects OK . I yearn for better sound but ... . Some knowledgeable people here may have reached an extraordinary level of performance using basic pre/Pro or receiver but it wasn't with luck. It was with a high level of knowledge research experimentation and sweat. it wasn't free ... it took long , it cost quite much more than they anticipated... And there is the Trinnov.. Seems they address problems of that sort heads-on and have as solution for it.. in their boxes or through support. The same could be said for things like the Genelec GLM. Their better offerings are not cheap but the GLM comes with these... and with it a very high level of performance for the enthusiast who is not at those elevated levels of Audio Science knowledge. I am one of those.. I know enough to know I know not much. The Trinnov (and similar), for those who can afford it, is one of the best solution out there... It is for those for those who lack the knowledge to extract the maximum from their gear... That a descriptor for the great majority of us, the enthusiasts.

Peace.

 

[apgood]

Hi

I understand the notion of ROI, return on investment. We know that price is function of need/wants and competition. In their absence prices are what the market bear. Thus my question: Who are the Trinnov Altitude real competitors? From my modest ignoramus vintage point. There aren't many perhaps the Storm or ...
.

Theta Digital Casablanca would be one. And JBL SPD-75 but that is just a rebadged Trinnov Altitude 32 with some JBL tweaks.

Apart from that can't think of any current models. If Datasat bring out a successor to the 20 that would be one.

Only other thing is Dolby CP850-C that is CP850 that has had something done to it to allow playback of Home version of Dolby Atmos using the Commercial rendering engine but that is very much a very limited offering by a select few integrators. It also won't decode DTS:X or Auro so you'll need another processor for those.

 

[sondans]

All your eggs are in one basket.

I agree that more baskets can help manage risk. OTOH, this basket appears to have a good record of reliability (along with happy customers and a great warranty) that I perceive as reducing risk.