[Sedona Sky Sound]

While John C. has been working on his speaker tweaks, I have been busy putting the Trinaural Processor through its paces. I was extremely pleased with the RM40/LRC and 626R/LRC combinations I experimented with last week, but today I decided to take it to the next level:



After doing a total overhaul of my demo room, I was finally ready to sit back and relax for a little while. Unfortunately, (actually, fortunately might be the better word) as soon as I pushed play on the CD/SACD player there was absolutely no relaxing. All I could do was sit there with a dumb look on my face and say monosyllabic words like "WOW!!" and "Cool". Now THIS was the combination I have been looking for.

That being said, I Call John's "Super Tweak" and I Raise him a "RM40 Trinaural Setup"    Figuratively speaking, I am now ready to put my money where my mouth (ears?) is. Here's the deal:

If any of the regulars on this forum are willing to "remodel" their listening room to accommodate a Trinaural setup using an RM40 as a center channel (side speakers can be any RM or 626Rs), I will send them my extra Trinaural to play with for two weeks. I will pay for shipping in both directions (but my bet is that once you get it in your setup, you will not want to take it out   ). Tyson? Frank350? Any takers?

Happy listening.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[lonewolfny42]

Just a side note-on your web site under links,discussion groups -no AudioCircle listed,just HD and AA.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

oops   Thanks for catching that. Now fixed.  

Julian

[JoshK]

Very very cool wager!  This seemed like the most logical setup (RM40 in middle plus a pair of 626Rs) since I first read about this trinaural processor.  It seems like you could go with one mono for the middle while "getting away" with using a yet-to-be-released stereo Son of Ampzilla for the sides.  What do you think?  Economical yet hi-end?

[Sa-dono]

Come on John..are you going to take this!?!?!? Time for you to get rid of the RPTV, buy a projector & perforated screen, buy the Trinaural processor, and buy another RM40 or RM/x

[John Casler]

Come on John..are you going to take this!?!?!? Time for you to get rid of the RPTV, buy a projector & perforated screen, buy the Trinaural processor, and buy another RM40 or RM/x

Not sure how my $49 tweak got into such a "high stakes" game.

Since an extra speaker, amp and the Trinaural Proc, run more than 100 times that.

But that aside, if we are listening from the sweet spot, the "SUPER tweak" could arguably hold its own.  It is quite fantastic so far.  I'm just waiting for the real materials to make it work better and then run some tests to see if I am losing any frequency ranges.

Any place else (out of the Sonic Cockpit) and the TriNaural is the hands down winner.

Julian, that is one sweet looking set up you have there.  

If you have some spare time it might be fun to stack the 626Rs head to head in the center and use the RM40s on the outside.

At one time Brian said that might work.  Jim said he tried it and it sounded terrible

But it would offer an interesting experiment and I wonder what your findings would be?

And Sa-Dono, I think a TriNaural Processor with three Ref Ones could make your heart beat a bit faster too.

I noticed how you got three "buys" in one sentence and it was directed at me!!!  buy, buy, buy.  

I'm looking forward to pulling Mark into my Sonic Lair come July, when I think he is going to be here in LA.

Might even show him "the TWEAK"    

[Sa-dono]

Not sure how my $49 tweak got into such a "high stakes" game.

Since an extra speaker, amp and the Trinaural Proc, run more than 100 times that.

Talk to Julian...it's all his doing!  

And Sa-Dono, I think a TriNaural Processor with three Ref Ones could make your heart beat a bit faster    too.

When I ever get around to upgrading my HT..then maybe we'll talk. Main system is staying 2-channel though.

I noticed how you got three "buys" in one sentence and it was directed at me!!! buy, buy, buy.  

Hey..I have to start early Look at how many times I kept on telling you to get the 626R's..and you just finally bought them. And look how happy you are with them now    

[Audio Architect]

While John C. has been working on his speaker tweaks, I have been busy putting the Trinaural Processor through its paces. I was extremely pleased with the RM40/LRC and 626R/LRC combinations I experimented with last week, but today I decided to take it to the next level:



After doing a total overhaul of my demo room, I was finally ready to sit back and relax for a little while. Unfortunately, (actually, fortunately might be the better word) as so ...

I have been using a Circle Surround processor for rear channels only in a music only surround sound system and I have been realatively pleased with the results. I realize that many audiophiles turn up there noses at surround sound, but the whole reason for stereo was to better represent the ambiance of the recoded venue, but as Mr. Bongiorno has pointed out in his web page it is flawed due to the cross coupled distortion. A good binaural recording played back on headphones can achieve a much more convincing sence of realism than any derived or discreet suround format except possible the Trinaural processor. My question is does the TP produce a more convincing sence of ambiance than other processors that you have heard, especially those that use Prologic II, Circle Surround or Logic 7.

[Woodsea]

I love my logic7, but prefer because of power issues and upgrades, stereo out of my 626's.  But when I get adequate amplification, Logic7 will take over.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello Audio Architect,
Comparing the TriP to any of the digital processors that I have heard is definitely an apples to bananas comparison. Most of the DPs sound very good when you first use them since they sound interesting/different. They also give depth/ambiance to lower end systems (i.e. Bose) that previously had none. However, once you get accustomed to the sound, you will likely start to notice that there is much less detail in the music (especially with something like 2 channel SACD). This is strictly a fact of life associated with the quality of the DSP chips used.  

Being analog, the TriP is the exact opposite since you will actually notice more detail in the music. A friend of mine owns a recording studio so I had him bring over some of his demo tracks. Several times during the listening session he made comments like "wow, had not heard that before." In one track we picked up the sound of a metronome presumably caused by one of the singers having tilted one ear of her headphones. Having personally sat in on some of the recording sessions we listened to, the TriP/RM40/626R/Ampzilla combo was in many cases better than listening to it live  

Is the ambiance the same with the TriP vs DPs? No. The TriP is like having your own band sitting in your living room (which is technically not usual unless you are my recording industry friend) where-as my impression of DPs is that they are more like listening to a band playing in a crowded bar. Every persons preferences are a little different. For the person who sits on the edge of their seat listening for the sweat of the singer hitting the floor, the TriP is a revolutionary product. For folks that like to lie back in their easy-chair and let the music flow over them like molasses, then can't beat a DP mated with tube amps. My feeling is that as long as you enjoy what you are hearing, no-one can say that you are wrong in your preferences        

Julian

Technical sidenote: After listening to a significant number of CDs/SACDs over the past few weeks, I have noticed that a small percentage of songs (less than 5%) sound a little congested/flat in the center channel. Using my friends demo tracks, we were able to surmise that the use of digitally mastered delay seems to be the cause. What is this? Sometimes in the recording process the mixer only has a mono source of an instrument. If they want the instrument to be presented hard right or left but also have some width to the music, they will digitally copy the mono source and then delay it by 5 to 15 ms in the opposite speaker (this "trick" is not considered an industry best practice). I have no idea how/why but the TriP tries to pull both images to the center which can then overpower the melody. Poor recording technique is more to blame than the TriP but thought I would share this under my personal belief in full disclosure.

[BradJudy]

Looks interesting and it would be neat to hear, but that picture contains over $12,000 in equipment.  This game of poker is too rich for my blood.  

[Audio Architect]

Hello Audio Architect,
Comparing the TriP to any of the digital processors that I have heard is definitely an apples to bananas comparison. Most of the DPs sound very good when you first use them since they sound interesting/different. They also give depth/ambiance to lower end systems (i.e. Bose) that previously had none. However, once you get accustomed to the sound, you will likely start to notice that there is much less detail in the music (especially with something like 2 channel SACD).

Is the ambiance the same with the TriP vs DPs? No. The TriP is like having your own band sitting in your living room (which is technically not usual unless you are my recording industry friend) where-as my impression of DPs is that they are more like listening to a band playing in a crowded bar. Every persons preferences are a little different. For the person who sits on the edge of their seat listening for the sweat of the singer hitting the floor, the TriP is a revolutionary product. For folks that like to lie back in their easy-chair and let the music flow over them like molasses, then can't beat a DP mated with tube amps. My feeling is that as long as you enjoy what you are hearing, no-one can say that you are wrong in your preferences

Your comment above indicates that with the TP its like having the band in your living room. Does this mean that if the music was recorded in a large venue it will sound like it was recorded in a living room size room? I'm pretty sure this is not what you mean but I just need clarification.

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello BradJudy,
Actually, you are looking at well over $16,000 in gear but who is counting   My next test will be with a bi-amped RM/X in the center and the RM40s on the side   But then again, even that is still less than the price of many cars, about the same price as a good bass boat, and half the cost of a luxury SUV.

As with most showcase systems, my goal right now is just to see how far I can push the audio nirvana envelope. Using an aircraft analogy, with the RM40s I was approaching Mach 1, but with the Trinaural I think I passed it.  

For someone starting from scratch, a "giant killer" system can be put together for around $7500 (Trinaural Processor, three 626Rs, one Dedicated sub, two Marsh A200S amps, Marsh Single-ended pre-amp, Sony SACD player). From this system you would get more clarity, imaging, depth, and spaciousness than if you spent the same money on just upgrading your speaker. The only things I do not think it would do as well is provide the "fullness" to voices and the peak SPL that a larger speaker is capable of delivering (thus the reason I currently have the RM40 in the center).

In response to Audio Architect, the TriP does a very good job in recreating the original size/depth of the source. For well recorded material (Mahler's 6th on SACD), I feel like I am sitting about 3 rows back in the actual auditorium. Smaller bands are also re-created to size: the lead singer directly in front of you, the drummer slightly behind and to the right, and the guitar player off to the left (Of course, this is all just an illusion created by the recording mixer since they all were actually in different rooms when the tracks were cut   ). The Trio Jeepy CD by Branford Marsalis is absolutely amazing since each instrument (sax, drums, and upright bass) is rendered by a separate speaker.

As a sidenote, today I installed the TriP at a customer's house so that he could demo it for a week. In a much less than perfect room using JM Lab speakers, it made a HUGE difference to the sound. It was a much greater change than I experienced in my "near ideal" demo environment.    

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[BradJudy]

Julian,

I figured it was a chunk more, but couldn't tell what pre and source were in the picture, so I didn't include those.  

Out of curiousity, how do you feel the TriP on two-channel music compares to a multichannel music setup (not just processing as mentioned before, but multichannel source music)?

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Hello BradJudy,
Now that question is a little harder to answer. Generally speaking, I am not a big fan of multi-channel SACD or DVD-A. The two exceptions to this are Blue Man Group - Audio on DVD-A and Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon in SACD. I like BMG for the "chest thumping" of it (it is definitely NOT audiophile quality   ). DSOTM was originally recorded for surround (quadphonics) so the real "feel" of it doesn't come out until it is played in SACD surround. To me, surround mixes like Eagles - Hell Freezes Over is a total nightmare. I am sure that there are more really good mixes out there, but it is not something I have actually sought out.  

Given the choice between multi-channel SACD/DVD-A and that of artifically created surround using a Digital Processor, I definitely lean toward the SACD/DVD-A. The SACD/DVD-A still have significantly more clarity to them. However, for most multi-channel SACD mixes, I still listen in Stereo. Having been a hack musician (trombone player), I know what it sounds like when you are "in" the band and it is definitely nothing like I have heard on any of the SACD/DVD-A surround mixes To me, VMPS speakers (and especially now that I have them hooked to the TriP) provide a much more realistic presentation of the music than the artificial ambiance/reverb that is added to even the best surround mix. For speakers that do not image as well as VMPS, the TriP seems to be even more beneficial in creating the image and soundstage (assuming a reasonably good center channel).

At CES last year, James made the comment "If my Trianural had been here first, there would have been no need for that @$#! surround crap". Although I would not have said it quite that strongly, I do tend to agree.                

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[Audio Architect]

Hello BradJudy,
Given the choice between multi-channel SACD/DVD-A and that of artifically created surround using a Digital Processor, I definitely lean toward the SACD/DVD-A. The SACD/DVD-A still have significantly more clarity to them. However, for most multi-channel SACD mixes, I still listen in Stereo. Having been a hack musician (trombone player), I know what it sounds like when you are "in" the band and it is definitely nothing like I have heard on any of the SACD/DVD-A surround mixes ...

Good surround mixes should not make you feel like you are in the band since the audience is far from that position.

[DistantDrummer]

Sorry to change the subject, but is that the natural cherry finish on the  speakers in that picture?

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Actually, the finish is the standard wrap-around light oak. My camera's white balance tends to get fooled a little by the special "revealing light" halogen bulbs I have in the room. The picture shows them slightly more yellow/orange than they actually are. Sorry for the confusion.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com

[Audio Architect]

I have always been interested in surround sound for music, so I am very interested in the Trinaural Processor. In this or another post relating to the Trinaural Processor it was mentionned that a HT processor would still be better for HT applications. Since most processors expect digital input, what is the best way to wire a system for use with both the Trinaural Processor and another processor for HT?

[Sedona Sky Sound]

Implementing the Trinaural in a HT system is quite easy in most cases. As long as all of your components are separates, all you will need is an additional 6 RCA interconnects. Here is a picture of the back of the unit:



From you Phono/SACD/CD/DVD-A source, run 2 analog interconnects to your analog pre-amp (or digital to your pre-amp with DAC if not doing SACD) just as you do today. From your analog pre-amp outputs, then  run 2 RCA interconnects to the Trinaural inputs (labeled "Processor Inputs" in the picture). From the Trinaural, run 4 XLR or RCA interconnects to your front three speakers plus sub. You are now set up for Trinaural.

For Home Theater, run your digital signal from your source (DVD) to your pre-amp/processor. From the pre/pro outputs, run 4 interconnects to the Trinaural (Left, Right, Center, and sub). The remaining 2 rear channel interconnects (or 4 if a 7.1 setup) from your pre/pro will connect directly to your rear channel amps just as they do today. Whenever you want to watch a movie, all you do is flip a switch on the front of the Trinaural and the Trianural goes into passive bypass mode. This same procedure can also be used for playing multi-channel SACDs/DVD-As.

In there past, I think someone had indicated that you could also listen to regular two-speaker stereo using this setup. In most instances, that is not the case. This setup allows you to listen to 3, 3.1, 5.1, and 7.1 but does not directly allow 2 or 2.1. When I asked James if that would ever be an option, his comment was something like "Over my #%!@! dead body". He says that switching back and forth would be way too confusing to your ear/brain and it would take you forever to adjust (kind of like trying to eat Twinkies when going on the Atkins diet   ) The only time you could do 2 or 2.1 using the same source/pre-amp is if the pre-amp had two sets of outputs and you plugged those into the Trinaural "5.1 Inputs" instead of your HT system (I think this is what Brian did at CES).

You can also use some Integrated amps with a Trinaural setup (using pre-outs) but that is a little more difficult.

I hope that helps.

Julian
www.sedonaskysound.com