Fidji99
Well-known member
Cool thing to round up your HT. About A4 papaer size, black/gold print on aluminium
Expression 13A, Source, Motion series Atmos tops and sides
- Thread starter Fidji99
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Leporello
Well-known member
Sounds a lot like the old LEDE (live end-dead end) concept. I started to read, but was interrupted by obnoxious pop-up requiring me to register.
Fidji99
Well-known member
not too much to do with LEDE, which was primarily meant for mixing/mastering spaces with listening position in front 1/3.
Highly simplified:
Waveforming is active acoustics, where specifically placed front subs create planar wave [removing height and width modes] - using room as a waveguide. Rear wall subs act as active absorbers, removing length modes.
It is very specific niche within a niche kind of setup, that is meant for specially designed HT rooms.
Next step for TRinnov is to roll it out to public [I am in "limited release" group], and then work on making it more accessible to standard setups. but it will always be limited to front array/rear array setups.
How does the bass sound different than a traditional setup with front and rear subs but no wave forming electronics? How does the sound to your ear differ? Curious to know how much of a difference it makes.
Last edited:
Fidji99
Well-known member
I know audiophiles are prone to exaggeration - with every minuscule adjustment - bass gets tighter, musicians appear in the room out of 5th dimension, you know the drill. My opinion is that at some point our ears and brain are the weakest point of the whole chain.
I will try to formulate in as structured was as possible:
1) from Hardware point of view Waveforming setup is absolute overkill - anywhere between 6-16 subwoofers, each individually steered, In my case 33sqm, 96 cubic m - 8*18in = 1 x 50in woofer size and 20.000W of good old watts. To round up mid-bass area [80-200Hz] - 4x 12in of 15'a + 8*6.5in of satellites. That is lot of air that moves.
2) One difference between EU and US, that sometimes gets missed - in EU you have 99% either concrete/stone/brick walls. So below first room mode we have much more room gain and less leakage [has its own disadvantages e.g. resonances and standing waves tend to be more pronounced]. So theoretically yo are able to squeeze more SPL in lowest frequencies.
3) WF removes, like really removes resonances and ringing, and corrects also Group delay issues and somehow manages to get absolutely clean Impulse response. Overall decay times between sub bass [up to 80Hz] and rest of the FR gets evened out. This is nicely visible on REW measurements
4) WF algorithm is pretty effective - so not taking too much of a headroom. E.g I still end with approx 20dB headroom at reference levels.
5) Trinnov excels in crossover matching - you do not see even a ripple in FT or phase/group delay. Maybe not so obvious, but it makes a lot of difference. Crossover management is something that e.g. Audyssey is notoriously bad at.
So now to subjective impressions [reference is DBA setup - same sub hardware and positioning, different EQ principle]
- cleaner, more detailed - in magnitudes, although our ears are quite forgiving in lowest frequencies - you can hear the difference immediately. It is all of the above - FR, Group Delay, Impulse, Decay - is like turning AC off and hearing much more of the music. Also those short and uniform decay times - it all sounds much more intense - is Bb Bb Bb Bb, and not BbbBBbBBbbbBbb that you get if your fundamentals are decaying 3x longer than harmonics. Bass strings, kick drum - it is just physcal experience - you can exactly distinguish if drummer is burying the beater or nor. Needs to be heard. All this stuff happening between 40-80Hz is absolutely clean and structured.
- absolutely realistic in terms of movies - especially exterior scenes - I was watching Dracula [Copolla, Oldman, Reeves] and it was one notch better experience. THose deep sounds were so realistic, you know how it sounds IN REALITY when you are outside and there is rain and thunders. It is like this. Again, I attribute it to even decay and impulse.
One interesting observation - bass is now "directional" for lack of better expression - you can feel it coming from either front or back, depending on the content, which makes all the panning scenes even more impressive. For music it is firmly planted inside the soundstage.
Overall - I have heard great bass implementations - Velti/Harman, Geddes, Double Bass Array and also Dirac ART - with all the bias included, I think properly tuned Waveforming is one notch above.
Impulse is king!
Youd make an excellent salesman for them! You have my interest. If I ever build a new home with a dedicated theater, ill be looking at doing this.
Just thinking, do any theaters use waveforming? Im guessing no because the subwoofers arent usually behind the listeners.
I doubt theaters would be a market, as they want to maximize the seat count, and a DBA or Waveforming setup limits the seating area (for ideal results). Also, the cost of 4x the amount of subs + amps.
Yes, and I believe the cohesion on the impulse plus low-GD helps, as the blend with the more localizable elements is much smoother.
I spent over an hour tuning the MidBass modules for the smoothest Group Delay results, and sharp TomTom drum hits are impressive now, so 'in tune' with both the lows and mids of the sound. On immersive tracks that pan objects (or bed layer pans, not sure) in the 60 to 80Hz range, they are localizable. So GD is an important metric to address.
That's what I figured too. Just wondering if a few might actually exist. It would be nicer than IMAX, and even those are rare these days.
Some very good points as mentioned above, and room setup is most important, without a doubt! At the same time, of course there's proper gear selection and setup according to various financial means and in some cases, sky's the limit.
Having been in this hobby that's turned into a passion over few decades, once a system reaches its threshold, that's it! There's no point in further improvements, most are psychological.
At this level of true highend audio reproduction, the most significant aspect of anything high quality is limited by the recording. Most often forget this fundamental element.
System synergy is another achievement in itself. I'm not interested in HT at all but for those who want 20 subs, so be it! If system synergy can be achieved with less gear, that's always a purer signal. Less connection points and less drivers will reproduce the recording far more faithfully than any fancy gadgets.
Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
RJ
Having been in this hobby that's turned into a passion over few decades, once a system reaches its threshold, that's it! There's no point in further improvements, most are psychological.
At this level of true highend audio reproduction, the most significant aspect of anything high quality is limited by the recording. Most often forget this fundamental element.
System synergy is another achievement in itself. I'm not interested in HT at all but for those who want 20 subs, so be it! If system synergy can be achieved with less gear, that's always a purer signal. Less connection points and less drivers will reproduce the recording far more faithfully than any fancy gadgets.
Cheers, and enjoy those fine tunes!
RJ
Fidji99
Well-known member
+1.000 and weakest link will be the listener itself.
Interesting trend - and there is hope that it is not just fade, as Apple is behind it.
We are subjected since years to worse and worse SQ - not only in pop/hip-hop music, but it seems like every remaster is targeted to make older recordings more compressed with Loudness War raging since 30 years.
You end up [last years example of some releases] -
Depeche Mode - Memento Mori - Dynamic Range 5dB - unlistenable porridge, unfortunately, even if this was one of their better pieces musically,
Peter Gabriel - I/O - excellent music, DR6,
Rolling Stones - Hackney Diamonds - DR6
and I could continue - Dynamic Range around 6 is now new normal, also lot of remasters go into this direction. So usually only choice is to get vinyl, which gets much better mastering, with all the hassle and drawback of vinyl reproduction.
on the other hand - we see more and more surround/Atmos mixes popping up - they are generally targeted for Apple Airpods and "atmos" soundbars, rather than full surround setups - but the SQ is on different level - again I will use Peter Gabriel, which in Atmos is just fantastic. Dynamic, clarity, ability to transmit the emotions, all is there.
or Rolling Stones
This is why I optimize my setup for MultiChannel Music with ESL15, even lossy streaming from Apple Music in DD+ is better than lossless Qobuz, not because of "3D" gimmicks, but because masterings are miles better.
Last edited:
Please tell me where do they sell the download version of Hackney Diamonds (dolby atmos downmix)? I want to try it. I have the 24/96 Qobuz version.
If there are several vendors, please send a list to me. I want to give it a listen.
Thank you!
If there are several vendors, please send a list to me. I want to give it a listen.
Thank you!
Fidji99
Well-known member
I do not think it exists at all - it is just somebody running downmixed version via his processor and measuring DR - results are the same as normal Atmos mix, which you can buy as physical copy or if I understand correctly this source -> https://magicvinyldigital.net/2023/...ultrahd-tidal-max-flac-and-tidal-dolby-atmos/ - should be on Tidal. I have cancelled Tidal some time ago, so I am reliant on Apple music and physical discs.
Disc is widely available in EU, but is quite expensive compared to usual Blu Ray Audios.
Fidji99
Well-known member
New amps - based on new Purifi 1ET9040BA modules - with Weiss buffer/opamp. https://apollonaudio.com/product/purifi-1et9040ba-eigentakt-premium-monoblock-amplifier-pet1200m/
Tons of power, dead silent and with adjustable gain setting, to further improve S/N
Had a chance to compare to 35.000 USD Ayre monoblocks, Pass Labs, etc - and it was right there with them. It is official - amplifier question is solved. D Class is good enough for every, even most high-end installation.
Even companies like YG Acoustics, are not shying D Class anymore https://www.yg-acoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Vantage-3-Live-Brochure-Screen.pdf
Tons of power, dead silent and with adjustable gain setting, to further improve S/N
Had a chance to compare to 35.000 USD Ayre monoblocks, Pass Labs, etc - and it was right there with them. It is official - amplifier question is solved. D Class is good enough for every, even most high-end installation.
Even companies like YG Acoustics, are not shying D Class anymore https://www.yg-acoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Vantage-3-Live-Brochure-Screen.pdf
Last edited:
Apollon audio version of those amps really look nice.
In the US, I was considering the "closer" manufacturer that carries these purifi modules, and it's buckeye.
Apollon adds in these fancy op-amps where as buckeye has the manufacturers recommended Texas Instruments model.
What do you think about op amps? I'm just looking for a neutral source component and I am confused if op amps adds color or performance.
Fidji99
Well-known member
I think with OpAmps we are clearly in "do cables sound differently" territory ;-)
But I will take a plunge here - I have Purifi 1et400 in 2 versions - one from Apollo and one from Audiophonics, only difference being op-amps - and think they sound slightly different. Not day and night, not a change in character, jsut slightly different.
Re Buckeye - they do have good reputation, and I like Dylan's no-nonsense approach.
More generally - if you look at Class D amps - they have 3 parts - opAmp, module and power supply. Buckeye is giving more focus to Power Supply, in order to get max power out of the module, Apollon uses standard Hypex PSU's and gives more focus to OpAmps, where Weiss is considered premium.
if you ask me - I woudl go for Buckeye. Big part of my decision was that I wanted mono-blocks and also premium look and I could get some deal from Tibor.
Killer overall setup man. Thanks for the feedback.
Leporello
Well-known member
I wouldn't put op amps and cables in exactly the same category. Op amps have at least the capability of being driven into nonlinearity whereas cables don't.
The audiophile wisdom that op amps have no place in audiophile equipment comes from the days when the only available OA's had terrible open loop distortion and frequency response, and the only way to squeeze good performance out of them was to apply feedback, which they're designed for anyway. Today I doubt very much substituting one OA for another with the same gain-bandwidth product would be very audible, if at all. But if you don't understand how feedback and slew induced distortion work you can come up with a bad sounding OA circuit.
I remember in Gordon Holt's original review of the Infinity Servo-Static, he complained the crossover sounded "hard and zippy" (he was driving his KLH Nine's with and without it, for comparison). He sent it back to Arnie Nudell and he fixed it for him--almost. Op amps, and especially unit to unit variability, have come a long way since then.
