[Mathew_M]

Seeing how this device just won Tech TV's Best High-End Audio at CES I'd like to open some discussion.  First off, those who have heard the trinaural proc., what are your impressions?

I'm not sold on the idea alone.  In today's market I'm not sure where the Trinaural processor fits in.  You have two separate groups:  the purists (2 channel stereo) and your average joe HT/2-7.2 channel crowd who rely on budget receivers.  I can see it only appealing to the adventursome hobbiest with extra cash lying around....and well those who own VMPS ribbon speakers.  I find it interesting that such a device was paired with the latest VMPS.  In my limited experience as comparison to other usual 2 way speakers, the VMPS ribbons present the stereo image rather strangely.  I wouldn't negatively describe it as beamy but the narrow sweet spot has its limits.  The sound seems to come at you in a triangular fashion. By adding a center channel that 'mimics' the left and right channels thus gives the sensation of a wider sweet spot.  Would the trinaural processor even add a noticelble difference to a more normal imaging speaker?

Again I'm opening this to discussion and perhaps debate.

[ABEX]

Most of the time things like that come and go.The technology has been talked about for yrs. and weather it holds ground and is implemanted or not only time will tell.

I remember Hughe had a product that was hailed by everyone and turned out to be a flop,but even Stereophile was touting it.  

Would have liked to have seen another product such as speaker's or amps being accounted for ,but they are not breakthrough products.

All you can do is watch and listen for now!

[Hantra]

How many people here at this site have a system that sounds bad enough to need this device?  I can guess that there are not many.  Anyone with half a brain, and a couple hundred dollars in decent gear can make a system image WITHOUT adding another channel.  

Right?

or wrong?

I haven't heard it, but I don't like it on principal.

B

[Val]

I agree it is one of those things that come and go. I don't see many audiophiles dying to buy a third speaker plus extra hardware at a high cost for a small improvement, and especially today most people would go all the way for surround at a lower price point.

[ABEX]

You really never know what the tech is like till you try it.I have read about Binaural along time ago,but never did serious research into it.

I was saying that cryogenicly treated stuff was a waste and I aim to find out if that is true.

Time will tell.

Abex

[JoshK]

I actually really like the idea of the trinaural processor, maybe for a different purpose, maybe not.  But here is my beef.

1) $1,500 is a stiff price to pay, regardless of whether it is a one time outlay or not.  It by its own claims is suppose to be a simple algebraic processor.  As a mathematician (and one obviously doesn't need to be) this is completely obvious, it is a processor that creates a center channel by taking the algebraic intersection of the left and right channel.  I.e. what signal is common to both channels get played through the center channel also.  The L&R channel are unchanged.  Now I am no electronics engineer, but this seems like it would be a simple enough task to figure out.  

2) assuming that $1,500 wasn't the issue, how many of you would be willing to bring in another channel to your system at the level of your other two with all the added costs associated with such a move?  I figure not many.  My speakers are $5,000/pair.  I would have to shell out $2,500 (or more) for another.  Then I have a stereo spectron amp, that I love and won't replace.  Spectron doesn't make a three channel or mono amp so I would have to buy another stereo one at $3,000.  Then there are all the added IC's, I count 5 added IC's.  Add a few hundred more here easily.  Power chords, etc, etc.   So we are talking close to 8 big ones just to try out JB's solution to fix "how bad stereo is", and that is just to keep all components on the same level they are currently.   I'll pass.

I don't see how this is going to catch on.  Those of you with HT receiver who have a 3 channel stereo setting on it, try listening to a CD and flipping back and forth between stereo and 3 channel stereo and see how you like it.

[Hantra]

In my theater, I used to have a center channel, until I got speakers that image like crazy!  So, as I listened both ways, I found that the center channel actually took more away than it brought to the table.  So whamo. .  Out goes the center.  As does ANYTHING that takes more than it gives to my system.

B

[Rob Babcock]

I don't want to be a Doubting Thomas, but without actually hearing it, it really seems like Dolby PLII w/o the surrounds.  Interesting maybe, but I'm a bit skeptical.

[Mathew_M]

back to the VMPS equation.  On their own with mid-fi equipment they tend to image pretty fuzzy, holosonic but without coherent definition.   After hearing how well tube amps are at 3d imaging and soundstaging, I think I try out this route.  

The triaural reminds me of the this gizmobob that I bought quite a few years back for my pc setup.  It supposedly made stereo sound like surround or 3d like.  This is well before home theater.  I paid 40 bucks for it.  It was neat for about an hour.  I have it boxed up somewhere, maybe I'll dig it out and try it again just for shits and grins.

[JohnR]

I'd be interested in learning more about how exactly it works.. not to mention hearing it

If I understand what Jim Bongiorno says on his web site (and he's not giving much away) he is modifying the signals fed to each speaker so that the work is -- as it were -- more "properly" divided between the three speakers. It's not simply a matter of deriving a center channel. I'll try coming up with a better explanation tomorrow.

How many people here at this site have a system that sounds bad enough to need this device?

Perhaps we all do. I was "listening" to power conditioners tonight... I was on the right of the Sweet Spot, Beezer was on the left. Sound familiar?

JohnR