|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 19, 2024 11:35:41 GMT -5
That sounds about right... and certainly conveys the right idea... However I think I would add a few more "qualifications"... First of all, unless you actually cover those two walls with drivers, they will not act as "perfect single planar sources". You can improve matters with strategic manipulation of phase and amplitude - but only to a degree. As an approximation the idea that "a flat wave originates at the front wall and is absorbed at the back wall" is a nice idea. However, in real life, the room has other dimensions, and so other resonance modes... And real world walls have characteristics that will cause "drag" and "diffraction" as well... In a sense you are creating the equivalent of "a perfect dipole woofer"... But, at the same time, you are ELIMINATING any effect that could be described as "pressurizing the room"... This means that, especially in a small room, this is going to be a very INEFFICIENT way of making bass... If you look at it in terms of how many drivers you'll need, with how much air displacement, to make how much bass. And, to take the extreme cases, let's look at two rooms... One is ten feet wide, ten feet long, and eight feet high... The other is ten feet wide, fifty feet deep, and eight feet high... You will need the same number of drivers to cover the front and rear walls of both rooms... And, on the longer room, it will take 50 msec for the wave to reach the back row from the front wall... So, for the people in the BACK row, the timing would be better if the subs on the rear wall were running IN PHASE... And, if you have a large room, with people all around, I suspect that one sub in each corner, or the center of each wall, would be better... (Because the bass would be closer to being in phase at every location in the room.) Clearly this is far from a solution that is going to ALWAYS be optimal.
ALL of these sorts of solutions are compromises, but in different ways, and for different reasons.
ttocs and marcl have covered a description of Waveforming very well. Also why large SD is valuable for quality, more than maximum displacement. I have a slightly different description, or way of saying it: The goal is to eliminate room boundary problems and inconsistencies as much as possible. I want to produce bass waves at the front, and soak up those waves at the back – all in a room that has small dimensions compared to the wavelengths of the bass. The room isn’t perfect in any way. Think of the front and back walls as drivers with multiple voice coils. All of the coils, on a wall, could be driven at the same time in the same way and produce a large piston approximating the size of the wall. The back wall is supposed to soak the wave from the front wall in anti-phase. The ‘waves’ may or may not be ‘formed’ correctly to compensate for room and wall problems. This is like a simple DBA – Double Bass Array – which is the foundation for Trinnov Waveforming. The coils can also be driven with different delays; different phase; different EQ; and different amplitudes – and This is where the ‘Waveforming’ takes place as determined by measurements and the software algorithm. This may compensate for room and wall problems, and keep the 'wave' off the side walls. A large number of woofers is needed to make this work. If all you were looking for is enough volume, four 15” subs would probably fill the room size as ttocs described. Dirac Live with DLBC can do the same manipulations, and give consistent bass level at multiple seats, but cannot form waves from front to back. The bass quality will be different. Some may not be able to hear a difference; nor care even if they can hear a difference. Anyone - Please freely correct my description if you see something wrong. I fully agree with you. It doesn’t matter whose correction system is being used. I don’t understand your comment about timing in the longer room and ‘in phase’ rear Subs. The back wall is just an active soak for the front produced wave – the back wall of a DBA with more detailed control. If I removed the back wall and had no back subwoofers, I should theoretically achieve the same performance or better than with a Trinnov WaveForming back wall. The goal is resonance elimination. I would make a porous back wall with 3’ of stuffing in front of a solid final back wall; eliminate the rear Subs; Accept the room gain at very low frequencies that wouldn’t be diminished by the 3’ of stuffing – the so called ‘last octave' - eliminating the need for the three 30” very low Subs; and save $100K while getting the same performance. Seven Subs GONE - 15-7=8 - with no real change in performance… I prefer to minimize the number of variables before considering more technology to make corrections and improvements. KISS. Make Less = More. If I am really intent on getting rid of the room effects, I can wear a set of headphones and use a ButtKicker. All of this is an interesting and entertaining audiophile discussion. Few people will ever get to hear this Trinnov system, or any other like it. I'm very interested in the study of very low bass reproduction in impossibly small rooms; which is Every home room, including the room described in this thread. I sit as a jealous voyeur, and student, currently using my second home-built 24" Dual Sub Rodeo. I built my first 24" Dual Sub setup 35 years ago. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on Nov 19, 2024 12:24:14 GMT -5
If I removed the back wall and had no back subwoofers, I should theoretically achieve the same performance or better than with a Trinnov WaveForming back wall. Can't get better than this solution. . . . . . - eliminating the need for the three 30” very low Subs . . . . . These three 30" subs in particular are only for helping up to 20Hz and only on the LFE channel, and are not involved with any part of the WaveForming nor BM. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 19, 2024 12:40:42 GMT -5
Yes... the rear wall is just "an active soak"... But, for someone sitting five feet from that back wall, they're 20 feet from the center of the room, and 45 feet from the front (active) wall. The real issue is that, in a room that big, no matter where you decide to call "the prime listening position"... Some listeners are going to be pretty far from that spot... Now, to be fair, all of the distance settings on the other channels will not be good for that guy either, but the Trinnov system won't help him. But, if it's only going to be a major improvement in small rooms, where subwoofer phase isn't a problem to begin with, then that makes their solution rather limited. So, yes, if you removed the back wall instead, the situation for that guy would be the same, AT LEAST IN THEORY. But, in that situation, he would still be "45 feet from the subs - which are all in the front"... When maybe he would be better off if some "active" subs were in the back... closer to him. (I wonder if, in practice, with the Trinnov system, he's going to hear the "clean wave" from the front, or just the out-of-phase sound from the rear wall.) The short answer is that, in a room like that, you should probably be darn sure most of the seats are closer to the middle.  (And, if that isn't an option, maybe you're better off trying to "pressurize the entire room equally" rather than "waveforming".) When it comes to surround sound - large theaters have several major advantages over home theaters... They have height and size.... You want the guy in the front row, and the guy in the back row, to both hear the front heights... That's a LOT easier when you can put those height speakers thirty feet above both of their heads... And you can then leverage directionality, and aim them more toward the guy in the back row, and past the guy in the front row, to compensate for the distance falloff... (In a big theater the challenge is more making sure all of the sound reaches everyone rather than preventing it from overpowering anyone who is too close.) .....................................
I fully agree with you. It doesn’t matter whose correction system is being used. I don’t understand your comment about timing in the longer room and ‘in phase’ rear Subs. The back wall is just an active soak for the front produced wave – the back wall of a DBA with more detailed control. If I removed the back wall and had no back subwoofers, I should theoretically achieve the same performance or better than with a Trinnov WaveForming back wall. ......................... |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 19, 2024 12:50:14 GMT -5
That is an interesting characteristic of line sources... And it does indeed enable them to provide a more consistent listening experience for listeners at varying distances... (And I personally think that this is probably a benefit.) But we CAN ask the philosophical question about whether that's what we want or not... In a large room most musical instruments are actually point sources... (actually it sort of varies)... Therefore actual instruments will sound different at different distances due to that square law falloff... So, in a real venue, with real instruments, you WILL hear different things from different seats at different distances... And the tonal balance will be different depending on where you sit or stand... So your line sources will enable everyone to hear the same thing when they listen to a recording... Which is NOT what they would have heard if they had actually been at the performance... (Unless, of course, the venue where they heard the performance had a public address system, which probably used line sources...  ) Are you trying to reproduce the experience of hearing that concert from a specific seat for everyone in your room... Or are you trying to reproduce the overall experience of the original venue in your room...? Interesting question... (And, no, I don't have a "right answer" there...) … The great thing about line source speakers is that the SPL is about the same no matter which row I sat in. But, when sitting in the front row, which is not the sweet spot row, there is a drop in impact from the front line source speakers which I am thinking is due to being just a tad below the optimum beam of sound coming from them ... Harold Beverage was a line source proponent, and had a unique way of delivering it through an acoustic lens; I had a pair of his electrostats for over 20 years. The even sound field is helped by the fact that the SPL from line sources dissipates at 3dB for each doubling of distance (linear), as opposed to the 6dB of typical point source speakers (logarithmic, inverse square law). They also (if you’re within the line) tend to give an even tonal balance, regardless of how tall you are, or whether sitting or standing. Sounds like this system had many of these qualities, great experience that you got to hear it! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 19, 2024 12:57:42 GMT -5
If I removed the back wall and had no back subwoofers, I should theoretically achieve the same performance or better than with a Trinnov WaveForming back wall. Can't get better than this solution. . . . . . - eliminating the need for the three 30” very low Subs . . . . . Thanks for your information about the 30" Subs. I'd like to see more about the 'up to 20Hz' augmentation and the implementation. Questions and speculations about the 30" Subs, and another comment: 1. Is there a crossover between the 30" Subs and the 18" Subs for the LFE? 2. Where are the 30" Subs distributed in the room? 3. Are the 30" Subs setup like a traditional multi-Sub array? Using something like a Dirac DLBC or SFM? 4. The sub-bass synthesis folks will love these. 5. Since there is no WaveForming on the 'First Octave' with LFE. Trinnov must have some thoughts about perception in the 10-20Hz range. There must be some 'First Octave' information, in some recordings, on the other channels. 6. My Subs are flat below 10Hz at MLP. I use an Earthworks M30 in conjunction with DBX AutoEQ. Room gain begins at 29Hz in my room and rises at about 9dB/oct below 29Hz. Very low sub-bass needs to be diminished in my room, not augmented. I don't like the idea of pulverizing my home into toothpicks.  |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 19, 2024 13:43:24 GMT -5
Yes... the rear wall is just "an active soak"... But, for someone sitting five feet from that back wall, they're 20 feet from the center of the room, and 45 feet from the front (active) wall. The real issue is that, in a room that big, no matter where you decide to call "the prime listening position"... Some listeners are going to be pretty far from that spot... Now, to be fair, all of the distance settings on the other channels will not be good for that guy either, but the Trinnov system won't help him. But, if it's only going to be a major improvement in small rooms, where subwoofer phase isn't a problem to begin with, then that makes their solution rather limited. So, yes, if you removed the back wall instead, the situation for that guy would be the same, AT LEAST IN THEORY. But, in that situation, he would still be "45 feet from the subs - which are all in the front"... When maybe he would be better off if some "active" subs were in the back... closer to him. (I wonder if, in practice, with the Trinnov system, he's going to hear the "clean wave" from the front, or just the out-of-phase sound from the rear wall.) The short answer is that, in a room like that, you should probably be darn sure most of the seats are closer to the middle. (And, if that isn't an option, maybe you're better off trying to "pressurize the entire room equally" rather than "waveforming".) When it comes to surround sound - large theaters have several major advantages over home theaters... They have height and size.... You want the guy in the front row, and the guy in the back row, to both hear the front heights... That's a LOT easier when you can put those height speakers thirty feet above both of their heads... And you can then leverage directionality, and aim them more toward the guy in the back row, and past the guy in the front row, to compensate for the distance falloff... (In a big theater the challenge is more making sure all of the sound reaches everyone rather than preventing it from overpowering anyone who is too close.) I fully agree with you. It doesn’t matter whose correction system is being used. I don’t understand your comment about timing in the longer room and ‘in phase’ rear Subs. The back wall is just an active soak for the front produced wave – the back wall of a DBA with more detailed control. If I removed the back wall and had no back subwoofers, I should theoretically achieve the same performance or better than with a Trinnov WaveForming back wall. ......................... As you said, and I agree with you – “ALL of these sorts of solutions are compromises, but in different ways, and for different reasons.” I don’t have a compromise solution Dog in this discussion. I have a solution that works for me in my home space. Sound reproduction is Not sound recreation. It is an analogy. As I have stated numerous times on this forum – ‘There is only ONE MLP in any HT space’. A HT space is a miniature, like a doll house represents a home. People in a HT space are giants in the doll house acoustic signature. Nothing fits. It IS what it IS. The useful and practical reference for in-room bass reproduction is a large space like a concert hall or theater. Once I could clearly hear the difference – and it a blessing AND a curse - It took me a lot of my younger years to get over the idea that I could somehow reproduce That sound in a home space. IT CAN’T BE REPRODUCED IN A HOME SPACE. IMO – The best we can do, is reproducing as closely as possible, the sound that the engineer monitors, in the home entertainment sound stage. The good folks at Dolby, et al, make things as confusing as possible to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their guidelines. They get a lot of help from the consumer audio industry. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on Nov 19, 2024 14:28:45 GMT -5
Can't get better than this solution. These three 30" subs in particular are only for helping up to 20Hz and only on the LFE channel, and are not involved with any part of the WaveForming nor BM.Thanks for your information about the 30" Subs. I'd like to see more about the 'up to 20Hz' augmentation and the implementation. Questions and speculations about the 30" Subs, and another comment: 1. Is there a crossover between the 30" Subs and the 18" Subs for the LFE? 2. Where are the 30" Subs distributed in the room? 3. Are the 30" Subs setup like a traditional multi-Sub array? Using something like a Dirac DLBC or SFM? 4. The sub-bass synthesis folks will love these. 5. Since there is no WaveForming on the 'First Octave' with LFE. Trinnov must have some thoughts about perception in the 10-20Hz range. There must be some 'First Octave' information, in some recordings, on the other channels. 6. My Subs are flat below 10Hz at MLP. I use an Earthworks M30 in conjunction with DBX AutoEQ. Room gain begins at 29Hz in my room and rises at about 9dB/oct. Very low sub-bass needs to be diminished in my room, not augmented. I don't like the idea of pulverizing my home into toothpicks. I don't yet know very much other than what I've shared so far, but I plan to find out more in the future. What I do know is that the owner specifically wants all to enjoy being able to feel the infrasonic and sounds at the very low end of the scale with authority. These frequencies are not tuned to exaggeration however, quite the contrary, they are right in line with the level of the frequencies just above. When I know more I'll be pleased to share. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 19, 2024 15:16:31 GMT -5
Thanks for your information about the 30" Subs. I'd like to see more about the 'up to 20Hz' augmentation and the implementation. Questions and speculations about the 30" Subs, and another comment: 1. Is there a crossover between the 30" Subs and the 18" Subs for the LFE? 2. Where are the 30" Subs distributed in the room? 3. Are the 30" Subs setup like a traditional multi-Sub array? Using something like a Dirac DLBC or SFM? 4. The sub-bass synthesis folks will love these. 5. Since there is no WaveForming on the 'First Octave' with LFE. Trinnov must have some thoughts about perception in the 10-20Hz range. There must be some 'First Octave' information, in some recordings, on the other channels. 6. My Subs are flat below 10Hz at MLP. I use an Earthworks M30 in conjunction with DBX AutoEQ. Room gain begins at 29Hz in my room and rises at about 9dB/oct. Very low sub-bass needs to be diminished in my room, not augmented. I don't like the idea of pulverizing my home into toothpicks. I don't yet know very much other than what I've shared so far, but I plan to find out more in the future. What I do know is that the owner specifically wants all to enjoy being able to feel the infrasonic and sounds at the very low end of the scale with authority. These frequencies are not tuned to exaggeration however, quite the contrary, they are right in line with the level of the frequencies just above. When I know more I'll be pleased to share. The real question is where do you find content with infrasonics below20Hz let alone lower ... other than the odd 32' organ rank. Any discussion I've heard about mixing for Atmos even, they say they don't mix below 20. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 19, 2024 16:58:16 GMT -5
I don't yet know very much other than what I've shared so far, but I plan to find out more in the future. What I do know is that the owner specifically wants all to enjoy being able to feel the infrasonic and sounds at the very low end of the scale with authority. These frequencies are not tuned to exaggeration however, quite the contrary, they are right in line with the level of the frequencies just above. When I know more I'll be pleased to share. The real question is where do you find content with infrasonics below20Hz let alone lower ... other than the odd 32' organ rank. Any discussion I've heard about mixing for Atmos even, they say they don't mix below 20. Does this mean that all channels but LFE are High Passed at 20Hz? At what slope? |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 20, 2024 5:11:47 GMT -5
That is an interesting characteristic of line sources... And it does indeed enable them to provide a more consistent listening experience for listeners at varying distances... (And I personally think that this is probably a benefit.) But we CAN ask the philosophical question about whether that's what we want or not... In a large room most musical instruments are actually point sources... (actually it sort of varies)... Therefore actual instruments will sound different at different distances due to that square law falloff... So, in a real venue, with real instruments, you WILL hear different things from different seats at different distances... And the tonal balance will be different depending on where you sit or stand... So your line sources will enable everyone to hear the same thing when they listen to a recording... Which is NOT what they would have heard if they had actually been at the performance... (Unless, of course, the venue where they heard the performance had a public address system, which probably used line sources... ) Are you trying to reproduce the experience of hearing that concert from a specific seat for everyone in your room...
Or are you trying to reproduce the overall experience of the original venue in your room...?Interesting question... (And, no, I don't have a "right answer" there...) Harold Beverage was a line source proponent, and had a unique way of delivering it through an acoustic lens; I had a pair of his electrostats for over 20 years. The even sound field is helped by the fact that the SPL from line sources dissipates at 3dB for each doubling of distance (linear), as opposed to the 6dB of typical point source speakers (logarithmic, inverse square law). They also (if you’re within the line) tend to give an even tonal balance, regardless of how tall you are, or whether sitting or standing. Sounds like this system had many of these qualities, great experience that you got to hear it! Or maybe it’s “are you trying to reproduce individual instruments, or reproduce a ‘soundstage’?” |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 20, 2024 7:17:34 GMT -5
Are you trying to reproduce the experience of hearing that concert from a specific seat for everyone in your room...
Or are you trying to reproduce the overall experience of the original venue in your room...?Interesting question... (And, no, I don't have a "right answer" there...) Or maybe it’s “are you trying to reproduce individual instruments, or reproduce a ‘soundstage’?” And the really big factor that is critical to answering these questions is ... how was the recording made? What someone says they are trying to experience can't really be answered unless they know the answer to this question. And ... can you configure an audio system to address every possible answer? Many recordings are made with individual musicians isolated and close-mic'd and the "soundstage" never existed ... there never was a "there" there. They truly are just a collection of mono recordings arranged in a line from left to right with DSP effects to simulate ambience. Some recordings are made in a live studio with less isolation, but still with no true audience perspective. Some orchestra recordings are made with extensive section mics and ambient mics in the hall, and once again there is no audience perspective in the recorded tracks. Probably the most relevant techniques to the discussion are those used by David Chesky - who has often recorded in a church or other live space with a single stereo mic - and Morten Lindberg - who scales up the idea recording 7.1.4 Atmos in churches with 11 mics on a cage aiming at the 11 Atmos speaker positions, and the musicians arranged in a circle around the cage. Both move the musicians around for a couple days to get the imaging, soundstage and balance correct and then record with no remixing. TRPTK uses a similar method that the founder/engineer developed to create a very intimate soundstage with Atmos. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on Nov 20, 2024 9:01:26 GMT -5
. . . . and then there's Led Zeppelin's "When The Levee Breaks" that was recorded with Bonham's drum kit setup in the entry hall/staircase with a high ceiling in a house, slightly separated from the others. The sound of the drums on this track was so iconic that many others would later attempt to duplicate that sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 20, 2024 9:18:31 GMT -5
. . . . and then there's Led Zeppelin's "When The Levee Breaks" that was recorded with Bonham's drum kit setup in the entry hall/staircase with a high ceiling in a house, slightly separated from the others. The sound of the drums on this track was so iconic that many others would later attempt to duplicate that sound. Or maybe ... they heard Hal Blaine's drum set on Paul Simon's The Boxer recorded in an elevator shaft three years before |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 20, 2024 9:36:38 GMT -5
Soundstaging at any point in the reproduction chain is an artificial construct that may or may not complement the recording. Soundstaging in the production chain is an artistic choice.
A reproduction system that homogenizes the sound of different kinds of recordings is flawed. Artistic production choices can be intelligent or not so intelligent - sometime the artist just gets lucky.
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,168
|
Post by ttocs on Nov 20, 2024 9:37:31 GMT -5
The real question is where do you find content with infrasonics below20Hz let alone lower ... other than the odd 32' organ rank. Any discussion I've heard about mixing for Atmos even, they say they don't mix below 20. In the movie No Time To Die. There are many others, but this one was handy. Here is a RTA of a scene in the movie. I've done an RTA of my subs to show that they drop precipitously below 20Hz, and I only went down to 16Hz even though there is another peak that's in the movie's RTA at about 14.5Hz. When looking at the peaks from the movie, and from the test tones, both sets of peaks are very similarly dropping as the frequency drops below 20Hz which would indicate that if my subs had sufficient output down to 14Hz that was the same as 20Hz that the movie sounds would indeed be the same level down to 14.5Hz as is shown at 20Hz. The Gold color trace shows the noise floor just before playing the movie and was recorded for two minutes (there's a highway about a half mile away so there's almost always very low frequencies going on).  |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 20, 2024 12:04:16 GMT -5
Or maybe it’s “are you trying to reproduce individual instruments, or reproduce a ‘soundstage’?” And the really big factor that is critical to answering these questions is ... how was the recording made? What someone says they are trying to experience can't really be answered unless they know the answer to this question. And ... can you configure an audio system to address every possible answer? Many recordings are made with individual musicians isolated and close-mic'd and the "soundstage" never existed ... there never was a "there" there. They truly are just a collection of mono recordings arranged in a line from left to right with DSP effects to simulate ambience. Some recordings are made in a live studio with less isolation, but still with no true audience perspective. Some orchestra recordings are made with extensive section mics and ambient mics in the hall, and once again there is no audience perspective in the recorded tracks. Probably the most relevant techniques to the discussion are those used by David Chesky - who has often recorded in a church or other live space with a single stereo mic - and Morten Lindberg - who scales up the idea recording 7.1.4 Atmos in churches with 11 mics on a cage aiming at the 11 Atmos speaker positions, and the musicians arranged in a circle around the cage. Both move the musicians around for a couple days to get the imaging, soundstage and balance correct and then record with no remixing. TRPTK uses a similar method that the founder/engineer developed to create a very intimate soundstage with Atmos. Yes, there are a lot of recording techniques to be encompassed, as well as the artists / producers intent (which we rarely know). As you point out, now recording for Spatial Audio and mixing expands and complicates the issue. Certainly for much classical, and other ‘real time’ recordings, as well as (some) live shows, there is a physical soundstage to be recorded and reproduced. I might argue that it’s possible to create an artificial soundstage, that the artists, engineers, mixers, and producers fabricate; and that it doesn’t necessarily begin with a collection of mono tracks; for instance I built a stereo guitar system in 1970 that I still use (though it has evolved). Modern musicians certainly have more sophisticated instruments, effects, tools, and techniques, so that the track or instrument isn’t necessarily mono. In any case, while the ‘soundstage’ may never exist in an acoustic space, that it exists in the minds and designs of the creators, makes it a valid (yet artificial) space to reproduce. I just want to add that I/we are using the term ‘soundstage’ to mean not only the real physical location and acoustic space that some recordings are made in, but also the imaginary three dimensional space that may be created in the recording process (likely in a studio), AND the sound ‘image’ that we hope is created in our rooms (sometimes known as the ‘audiophile’ soundstage). Are there better words or terms to distinguish these? |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Nov 21, 2024 17:07:39 GMT -5
I got a real treat today! Finally got to spend some hours in a Trinnov 32 channel purpose-built theater!! The theater was amazing! It has a 22 foot (diagonal) screen, 13 foot ceiling, about 22 feet wide (I think this is correct), and about 35 feet deep. It's got Trinnov WaveForming with eight 18" subs on the front wall and four 18" subs on the rear wall. Plus it's got 3 more 30" subs just for the lowest octave that are combined into a virtual sub and driven by one channel. It's a 9.13.10 configuration. The room is treated with absorption and diffusion. There's a large diffuser on the rear wall. The room is neither dry nor wet, it sounds very comfortable acoustically. I was shocked at how good the screen looked even with the lights on! Only one set of doors, no windows. It's basically a room within a room considering how much dimension there is between the finished surfaces and the structural walls. The sound moves effortlessly about the space. All the speakers are hidden. The 9.x.x speakers are line source. I didn't see photos of the 10 Top speakers, but I suspect they are the same (the guy who built this loves line source speakers). The bass response between rows, about six feet from row to row, was indistinguishably similar (I measured with apps on my phone). Kaleidescape is what delivers the movie selections, and has a very nice interface. The remote control is Control4. The experience was fantastic, but not perfect. Since there were many other folks present I didn't get to talk to the owner about some particulars regarding some setup settings I wanted to know about, so I'll talk to him about these things later. The lip sync needed a small adjustment. From video on-screen to having audio-lock was about 6-8 seconds - sometimes longer, so, as is known with Trinnov, it's not a processor meant for just general tv watching when there's going to be a lot of channel surfing. Trinnov's main emphasis is with theater usage. Put on a movie, then watch another movie. When I first got into the theater the three 30" subs weren't working and it took a while to get them to work. The Trinnov needed more than just a reboot, so after trying various things the big subs began to work, so, Trinnov isn't perfect. One thing I did love is the volume ramping speed, which is perfect! Turning up or down the volume was not too quick or too slow, and has a very predictable end point. This is something that's difficult to achieve. After a while of high volume sound and watching the same few movie scenes many times over, I had to use my AirPods to limit the SPL to my ears, just couldn't take 105dB any longer. I've known the owner for years and he knew the volume would be a bit much for me, but he was demoing for a bunch of other folks as well, so, . . . . . The bass was thunderous and appropriate with no boomy anything, was great seat to seat, articulate, deep, and very fulfilling. The bass never covered up anything, so was tuned very well! All in all, it was a great experience! This theater is fantastic for movies, but for music it had me wanting to go home and listen to my system. I'm putting this info into its own thread as it really doesn't fit within any other threads. So this is just for discussing Trinnov specifically and theaters in general. Well, I read this and tried to comprehend it to the best of my ability…… All the while thinking I used to be perhaps a bit ahead of the curve with regards to home theater and electronics in general.
It appears someone here has created a monster. how many subs 13? Or more in a space that’s in the context of everything not that large.
most of us are aware of overkill, but I have no words for what has gone into this. All I can come away from after skimming over the rest of it is that it is, as far away and my concept of film and entertainment rendering as I can possibly imagine. (and I do have ONE 18” Sub.)
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 22, 2024 7:19:55 GMT -5
Or maybe it’s “are you trying to reproduce individual instruments, or reproduce a ‘soundstage’?” And the really big factor that is critical to answering these questions is ... how was the recording made? What someone says they are trying to experience can't really be answered unless they know the answer to this question. And ... can you configure an audio system to address every possible answer?Many recordings are made with individual musicians isolated and close-mic'd and the "soundstage" never existed ... there never was a "there" there. They truly are just a collection of mono recordings arranged in a line from left to right with DSP effects to simulate ambience. Some recordings are made in a live studio with less isolation, but still with no true audience perspective. Some orchestra recordings are made with extensive section mics and ambient mics in the hall, and once again there is no audience perspective in the recorded tracks. Probably the most relevant techniques to the discussion are those used by David Chesky - who has often recorded in a church or other live space with a single stereo mic - and Morten Lindberg - who scales up the idea recording 7.1.4 Atmos in churches with 11 mics on a cage aiming at the 11 Atmos speaker positions, and the musicians arranged in a circle around the cage. Both move the musicians around for a couple days to get the imaging, soundstage and balance correct and then record with no remixing. TRPTK uses a similar method that the founder/engineer developed to create a very intimate soundstage with Atmos. The answer is Yes. It doesn't matter how the recording is made if a reproduction system, including the room, is the same as the production monitoring system. Hell will freeze over when that happens. All recording techniques are right if they serve the art. Perspective is created by the engineering whether the source is acoustic or electronic. The competition for a good reproduction sound system is a table radio. In 2024, the table radio is still winning. ~~~~~ In answer to KeithL question, " Are you trying to reproduce the experience of hearing that concert from a specific seat for everyone in your room...
Or are you trying to reproduce the overall experience of the original venue in your room...?
Interesting question... (And, no, I don't have a "right answer" there...)". The right answer is both. But in either case, microphone placement won't be anywhere near or similar to where you sit. Remember - Reproduction is an analogy, not a recreation.  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,100
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 22, 2024 7:50:21 GMT -5
The "large room/remove the back wall" comments remind of a time in college my friend and I got access to a very large room. It was ~20' wide and over 50' long. We set our stereo up in it and played around for a full 2 days. We tried my speakers and his, my amp and his, combinations of them, and sourced it all with my Thorens TT with a Dynavector high output moving coil (this was pre-CD days).
The sound was so different (and much better) than in our tiny dorm rooms (which had tile floors and hard, reflective walls).
Fun times...
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Nov 22, 2024 8:01:12 GMT -5
The "large room/remove the back wall" comments remind of a time in college my friend and I got access to a very large room. It was ~20' wide and over 50' long. We set our stereo up in it and played around for a full 2 days. We tried my speakers and his, my amp and his, combinations of them, and sourced it all with my Thorens TT with a Dynavector high output moving coil (this was pre-CD days). The sound was so different (and much better) than in our tiny dorm rooms (which had tile floors and hard, reflective walls). Fun times... Mark That's a great story ... must have been a lot of fun to do that! Some of my favorite recordings have been made by 2L and Chesky Records. Both have often recorded in large churches - everything from string quartets and The Persuasions singing a cappella, to chamber orchestra and jazz big band. Placing the instruments in a large room away from the walls and miking them not close, but just at a listener's position (sometimes even with a stereo or binaural mic), they achieve extraordinary balance of tonality while preserving just enough room ambience to keep it alive. Playing these recordings in a room with a flat response down to 16Hz and enough diffusion to keep the listening room alive, 5.1 and Atmos recordings sound extraordinary. |
|
)
