Trinaural recipe for failure

James Romeyn · « **on:** 24 Nov 2003, 08:35 pm »

From the posts & my experience it appears TrinP kicks 2-channel butt. But I'd guess it's doomed for failure for the following reasons:

It apparently benefits from the center spkr being equal to or better than the L-R. Does not 50% of the sound comes from the center? Most persons with integrated AV systems (most audiophiles, unless I'm mistaken) must either compromise the ultimate TrinP performance (inferior center spkr) or get a floorstander center, trash their current TV, & get a FPTV & perforated screen. This is nuts. You have just eliminated about 99.9% of the audiophiles from considering the TrinP. All the many persons like me who invested big bucks in TV technology in the past few years are not going to trash it for a new audio technology. If Brian would design, build & sell my prescribed SHORCS, the center spkr could almost equal the RM40 in performance (with a higher bass cutoff), solving this problem. The SHORCS could integrate with any standard TV.

The TrinP format requires 3 front spkrs in an array. The company making the TrinP makes one of the best monoblocs. But they do not make a 3-ch amp, nor even a stereo amp (though a stereo is promised). Users must purchase 3 monos at $8250 or seek another brand. This is all wrong. I hate clutter & desire as little pieces as possible.

Finally, the TrinP is only available seperately & must be added to existing electronics. It should be made available inside a 5.1 channel analog preamp, to save another piece of audio hardware & all the interconnects. The stereo preamp promised is useless to me & anyone with integraed AV. The above described preamp would require no digital processing for HT as long as the source had digital processors onboard. A processing mode (ala McCormack MAP-1) could be included to synthesize rear surrounds for analog stereo sources. The current seperate TrinP is best for integrating with a receiver.

That said, I am sold on TrinP. It appears to be far above stereo. I generally believe in Linn's audio hierarchy (everything downstream must be equal or less than the quality upstream). The only thing further upstream from the TrinP is the source. It appears a TrinP system could exceed a stereo system, even if the TrinP had inferior amps & spkrs (to a point).

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Nov 2003, 08:50 pm »

This isn't specifically in response to the TriP, but it should be relevant to 3 channel or 5 channel sound. I've been thinking, one workaround would be to have an extra speaker identical to the mains to swap in for music, then swap back out for movies. Yeah, this idea sucks, definately not elegant, but it beats firing thru a perf screen (try to convince a neurotic audiophool that can't stand listening with his speaker grilles on to place the speaker behind a perf screen!). It also wouldn't be cheap, depending on what your mains are.

I wonder what percentage of folks here have separate systems for music and HT? Lots of us have to muddle thru with one for both d/t space and budgetary concerns. I think TriP could succeed if enough people maintain 2 systems.

Interestingly, the case you make against its success is very similar to the problems of MC. Many people dismiss it because they've heard it only thru HT systems, which can require very different types of gear than a dedicated MC music rig.

I second your plea for a MC preamp with built in TriP for all stereo sources. If the unit had good, transparent sound, TriP onboard, 2 MC inputs & a remote, it would really be a Dream Preamp. At least to me.

lkosova · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Nov 2003, 09:01 pm »

Geez Jim,

Your really trying to make a point here???Huh??.

I agree and sign me up when they are built. For the center ...make those pots hotter for a perforated screen.

Larry

JoshK · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Nov 2003, 09:29 pm »

Jim,

I think you have validated all the points I once said a while back. I agree. The TriP is a great concept, wonderful even, but totally inpractical to all except those who have 100% dedicated music systems in dedicated rooms. Even then the idea has a huge price deterrant for those with big rigs.

pjchappy · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Nov 2003, 09:48 pm »

Here's a cheap solution. . .

Have a RM-40 or RM/X tri-p set-up. . .

Build a mechanism in the ceiling in front of the middle RM-40 or RM/x that drops down a 60" plasma tv and a LRC. . .

Nice and cheap solution

p

PLMONROE · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Nov 2003, 11:14 pm »

60'" --- Cheez, thats not very big!

jgubman · « **Reply #6 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 12:01 am »

Personally, I don't really care about trinP. I'd just like a center speaker that can keep up w/ the RM40s (no small feat to be sure).

However, if I already owned the SHORCS, and a 5.1 processor like Jim describes existed, it would probably only take a few jaw dropping demos to get me there...

SHORCS, an idea whose time has come!

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #7 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 01:26 am »

If it can be done, I agree that the SHORCS is a great idea. As for the other things, here is what I know (or at least everything I think I am allowed to divulge) from a Spread Spectrum Technologies perspective:

Both a 3-channel and 5-channel Son of Ampzillas are in the works. They should have the same topology (80W per channel) as the 2-channel SoA (which continued to evolve until about a month ago).

Expect an extremely high quality 2-channel pre-amp version of the Trinaural sometime next year. I believe the design is complete and is just waiting to be built as soon as the SoA starts shipping. I have not heard anything about a 5.1 version but you never know.

James also has a couple of other projects in the works that are not related to the TriP.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #8 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 01:30 am »

I demo'ed the TRIP with two RM 40 mains and an RM 2 for center with outstanding results recently.

Hear the processor and you'll find some way to work it into your system. 3 identical speakers may be ideal but other configurations work well.

PLMONROE · « **Reply #9 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 01:45 am »

Brian, do you think RM-40's as sides and the L/C/R as the main would sound reasonably well???

Paul

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #10 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 02:32 am »

Hello Paul,
The RM40/LRC combo is what I originally started out with when I tested the Trinaural. Here is my original review which includes a picture of that configuration:
http://www.sedonaskysound.com/trinaural%20processor%20reviewi.htm

While not optimal, it still sounded quite good. My guess is that adding in a sub would likely have made it even better. I think Brian just said it better than I ever could: "Hear the processor and you'll find some way to work it into your system. "

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

John Casler · « **Reply #11 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 06:08 am »

I think many are coming at this from different directions.

But most key is the intention of the designer.

Mr. Bongiorno looked at the "AUDIO" deficiencies of two channel stereo and wanted to make a set up that addressed those. His intentions were not directed at HT speaker configurations or equipment placement.

His primary market is the "adiophilus extremus". (notice the "us"

)

His secondary market was those who would try to have both a HT and a TriNaural set up, but with signifcant compromise.

While I might agree that the market is tough, those who have "no holds barred" HT with rollup screen front projection systems are part of that market base.

While using a lesser center speaker is certainly a compromise, these types of compromises are quite common place in HT applications.

Just look at the speakers used and the placement of the surrounds

Who in their right mind would expect a "cut down", wall mounted speaker to sound like the front speakers placed 3 feet out into the room?

So in essense, as we listen to SACD and Multichannel DVDA, we are probably suffering the same sonic indignities.

So again the process is a gradual realization and graduation from direct view tubes, to RPTV, to FPTV, just as it is from 2 channel stereo to multichannel music to, to Trinaural with equal speakers.

And don't mistake my graduation schedule as a recognition that Multi-channel is better than Stereo or even close to TriNaural. It is just the general graduation schematic.

I think Brian is 100% correct and "most" any application with the TNP can offer some nice, interesting and enjoyable sonics.

PLMONROE · « **Reply #12 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 05:04 pm »

Julian, the trinaural processor really intrigues me , but there is no way I can get a large speaker between my left and right TRT'd RM-40's beacause that would block my 120" home theater screen. My VMPS L/C/R has the FST and really sounds nice especially since I use a subwoofer with it. I take it that your opinion is that serious listening with the trinaural processor in this setup would give a great improvement over normal stereo listening. Is that correct? BTW, does the trinaural have a separate subwooofer output? Thanks.

Paul

Sedona Sky Sound · « **Reply #13 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 05:46 pm »

Hello Paul,
The Trinaural has a built-in subwoofer output that is always on. It also has a knob on front that controls a high-pass filter so that you can filter out the bass from your front three speakers if required.

There will be a few minor trade-offs (i.e., overall dynamics), but I believe a large majority of people would prefer the sound of a Trinaural/RM40/LRC/Sub system to just an RM40 system once they got used to it. If soundstage is the thing that turns you on, then the Trinaural is a no-brainer. The Trinaural is also a no-brainer for anyone that is currently using any of the Dolby DSP stereo modes in the Home Theater setup (the Trianural is clearer, provides more space, and is significantly more "real" than any of the DSP modes I have heard).

Hope that helps.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

PLMONROE · « **Reply #14 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 06:56 pm »

It does help -- lots! Guess I am going to have to rationalize why I should make a trip from OKC to Austin after all, so I can visit you.

Paul

jgubman · « **Reply #15 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 07:09 pm »

Yeah, I'm kinda curious now too.

Will the TrinP be at CES again this year? Is it available for demo anywhere in California?

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 08:17 pm »

I have a processor I loan out. Call me.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #17 on:** 25 Nov 2003, 10:00 pm »

Quote from: Brian Cheney

I demo'ed the TRIP with two RM 40 mains and an RM 2 for center with outstanding results recently.

Hear the processor and you'll find some way to work it into your system. 3 identical speakers may be ideal but other configurations work well.

JB said something at CES '03 from which I concluded that to the extent the center spkr is inferior to the L-R, TrinP performance is degraded. I am uninterested in increasing the hardware, clutter, channels, & simultaneously assemble non-ideal pieces. If 50% of the output is center & the center is inferior to the L-R, do the math. By my (admitedly hazy) memory, my conclusion is consistent with Julian's TrinP experience (in sequence): center LRC/L-R RM40 so/so, center RM40/L-R 626R better than any previous 2 channel experienced, center RMX/L-R RM40 better still, better than live acoustic.

jakepunk · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Nov 2003, 03:51 am »

Quote from: Sedona Sky Sound

Both a 3-channel and 5-channel Son of Ampzillas are in the works. [...]
Expect an extremely high quality 2-channel pre-amp version of the Trinaural sometime next year...

This will be the "tipping point" for me. As soon as a 3-channel SofA and pre-amp version of the Trinaural are available, I'm plopping an RM40 between my Tower II's.