Trinnov Waveforming Technology Explained with Arnaud Laborie

[TLS Guy]

Gene and Matt recently posted an extended interview with Arnaud Laborie, founder of Trinnov labs in France, on the Audioholics website.

This I think is certainly the best discussion I have ever heard on room acoustics and their modification. In fact it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking presentation on an audio topic I have yet encountered. Gene, I really appreciate you arranging this. This is the sort of presentation that separates and distinguishes this site from the rest, and makes me proud to be associated with it.

As I think many of you realize I have been very much a sceptic of current and past theories, on the nature and correction of these problems. Now I have an eminent ally, with the knowledge and scholarship to start to place a more revealing light, and possible solutions to this complex problem.

As I suspected, a lot of evidence was presented concerning current errors in our thinking and the harmful effects of many current nostrums. A lot of this was in line with what I have observed over the years, and the reasons my set ups, especially my HT room differs from much recommended current practice. So to an extent, I can say "I told you so."

The importance of accurate speakers especially as regards dispersion, I think is now accepted. The futility of Eq, for not only speakers, but room effects was discussed. Simply the issue is, while you may improve some aspects, you will make others a lot worse. My experience and measurements have long convinced me of this. As you know I don't use Audyssey, and this reinforces my impression that approaches of that type are on the whole worse than useless.

There was one piece of interesting discussion about wet and dry listening rooms. As I have maintained a listening with a lot of reverb "wet" is not necessarily a bad thing.
Our family room in our former lake home had a pronounced echo, very wet. Yet the sound of that room was excellent, in fact stunning with my three way speakers. Quite a number of visitors commented on it. The trick is having good speakers in terms of axis and off axis response.

The meat of the discussion was how to optimize room reverb, in terms of LF response and mid low and mid response. So the research is focusing on using subs, two or three, at each end of the room, to not only reproduce bass, but neutralize each others reflections. Apparently there is advantage to having lower and higher subs, but this all gets complicated and costly.

Gene made the remark that running speakers full range and adding the sub could have advantage. Well that is what I have done. I get better measurements, and it sounds definitely better with LFE plus main, in my room. All my seven bed speakers are run full range, and that includes the shorter line of the left and right mains. It helps that I can carefully set the output below the transition frequency to speaker and position of the mains, center and rear backs. The surrounds have a choice of two settings. Only my four ceiling speakers are fully crossed over. So the shorter lines have an F3 of 42 Hz, 12 db. roll off, the center 48 Hz, 12 db. roll off. The surrounds 52 Hz, 12 db. roll off. The rear backs 27 Hz 12 db. roll off. So there is significant bass from all seven bed layer speakers, and they are quite robust enough to tolerate high spl.

I had never understood why this rig sounded so much better with LFE + main rather then crossed over. But it definitely does, and this presentation gave me insights as to why. I think it is helped by the fact that all the speakers measure well in proximity and at every seat in the room.

The other part of the presentation was devoted to higher frequency reflections, which are dealt with passively rather then actively. In other words JUDICIOUS use of sounding adsorbing material. Of particular concern is the back wall. This is not new news, and one of the features built into my room, to dampen and break up reflections and do it in a useful way.

The architecture of the side walls also mitigates against dominant reflections.

So towards the end there was an interesting discussion on how to handle the transition from the LF active DSP to the higher frequency passive. As this is a crossover in effect that has to be handled. This it seems is still a work in progress.

In conclusion I commend this video presentation to all members, and be prepared to have more than a few sacred cows debunked.

One once again many thanks to Gene, Matt and especially Arnoud. Did I say this is a must see video?

 

[dlaloum]

Great presentation, thank you for organising this.

(Merci Arnaud!)

The next obvious question to explore, will be, how does this compare and/or differ to Dirac-ART?

Both approaches claim to be doing/using MIMO, and active absorbers.
Also both appear to be using Multiple Source, Multiple Controllers (MSMC).
Dirac do not talk about waveforming - but given the acoustics and math that they must have in common (physics is universal!) - then it may well be that the two are more similar than they are different.

And then we need to better understand the paradigm shift in room design, room setup, and speaker design.

Without going down the full custom room path - what sort of speaker setups are going to got the most from these new technologies? - It is becoming clear that full range speakers will potentially be a major winner in this.
Also the point that Arnaud made with being able to leverage multiple corrective / wave generation speakers, in various potentially asymmetric locations, may also point the way to leveraging full range speakers at the rear surround position (would there be benefits from full range at the side surround locations?).

More detailed guidelines for speaker choice/design, and speaker positioning will be valuable to both pofessional installers/consultants, and those of us that DIY our own environments....

It will be particularly interesting to find out whether differences in the approaches to active audio room treatments will result in differences in optimal speaker types and layouts.... or will the inevitable convergent evolution of the competing systems lead to a convergence of speaker designs and layouts?

Another interesting question, will be whether some of the constraints involved, may in fact relate to intellectual property, rather than physics.

Looking forward to the oncoming paradigm shift!

 

[TLS Guy]

Great presentation, thank you for organising this.

(Merci Arnaud!)

The next obvious question to explore, will be, how does this compare and/or differ to Dirac-ART?

Both approaches claim to be doing/using MIMO, and active absorbers.
Also both appear to be using Multiple Source, Multiple Controllers (MSMC).
Dirac do not talk about waveforming - but given the acoustics and math that they must have in common (physics is universal!) - then it may well be that the two are more similar than they are different.

And then we need to better understand the paradigm shift in room design, room setup, and speaker design.

Without going down the full custom room path - what sort of speaker setups are going to got the most from these new technologies? - It is becoming clear that full range speakers will potentially be a major winner in this.
Also the point that Arnaud made with being able to leverage multiple corrective / wave generation speakers, in various potentially asymmetric locations, may also point the way to leveraging full range speakers at the rear surround position (would there be benefits from full range at the side surround locations?).

More detailed guidelines for speaker choice/design, and speaker positioning will be valuable to both pofessional installers/consultants, and those of us that DIY our own environments....

It will be particularly interesting to find out whether differences in the approaches to active audio room treatments will result in differences in optimal speaker types and layouts.... or will the inevitable convergent evolution of the competing systems lead to a convergence of speaker designs and layouts?

Another interesting question, will be whether some of the constraints involved, may in fact relate to intellectual property, rather than physics.

Looking forward to the oncoming paradigm shift!

The constraints are going to be architecture, architecture and architecture.

Just from the physics that we understand already, and also I suspect what we still don't, the room is going to be the barrier to entry. We already have endless pictures of spaces here totally unsuitable for more then 2.1 or 3.1.

To really make the strides required, will increasingly require integration of equipment and the room.

I personally feel that to make further strides, this is going to require significant home remodeling with the built out of custom spaces.
Spaces also have to be livable, so plonking cubic boxes around a living space is not going to cut it. This was alluded to in the presentation and remarks about custom rooms. So this is going to require in wall designs, especially of subs, which are among the biggest architectural offenders. Our wives are not all wrong about this, and we literally have to find a way to "have the cake and eat it to." So design of good in wall sub design is a first step. I don't think fitting it into standard wall spaces will be practical. However, if building a custom room in existing construction, it means opening up all the walls in the room anyway. I did this in our lake home back in 2005. It did require tearing the whole room down to the studs, and modifying the dimensions of the space also.

If it is new construction then planning starts day one, at the foundation of the project.

In terms of in wall subs, again I'm ahead of the curve and have you covered.

My wife was adamant that she wanted a good system in that space, but did not want any of it taking up any floor space. So, with that command I had to get designing.

It turns out, it is actually a really good system by any standard.

Sub FR crossover 80 Hz.

FR at the various listening positions.

The point is that if this is going to work, then there will need to be architects and audio designers and installers closely cooperating. So I can't see these complex Trinnov systems in the average home. So there will always be a demand for good stereo systems in homes. I really think the idea that you are really loosing out without speakers everywhere is wrong. I firmly believe most rooms would be better 2.0, 2.1 3.1 and if possible may be an extra sub if it can be done without architectural violence.

The reasons sound bars are so popular, is because installations are easy, and they are for the most part architecturally acceptable.

 

[ben_]

The term WAF bothers me a bit, and you touched on why, these are living spaces, not dedicated from audio, and making sure that they work for that purpose and are aesthetically pleasing isn't some trivial secondary factor.

I think for many, dedicated listening spaces or anything in-wall isn't practical, especially with home ownership becoming less and less attainable. Options that will work in small spaces without permanent alterations will probably be the majority of the market at some point in the coming decades. Think Trinnov meets Sonos.

 

[TLS Guy]

The term WAF bothers me a bit, and you touched on why, these are living spaces, not dedicated from audio, and making sure that they work for that purpose and are aesthetically pleasing isn't some trivial secondary factor.

I think for many, dedicated listening spaces or anything in-wall isn't practical, especially with home ownership becoming less and less attainable. Options that will work in small spaces without permanent alterations will probably be the majority of the market at some point in the coming decades. Think Trinnov meets Sonos.

I agree, and they will be better off being two channel mainly, with or without a sub. I see again and again choices made for multiple speakers, when they would be better served putting the money into two better ones, and may be a sub or two. Unless you listen to music with a heavy bass a speaker with an f3 if the 40 to 50 Hz range gives a perfectly acceptable level of performance for TV and most streaming services.

We do get cases of marital strife here over equipment choices, and that is not really necessary. I would say that more than the speaker manufacturers the furniture manufacturers are even more to blame. The offerings for audio and AV installation are appalling, and lacking in any imagination or creativity as a whole.

I do think members should watch that video linked at the top, long though it is.

Having said that, I think at the current time, and into the future this is going to be the province of custom builds, Few people other than professionals are unlikely to have the skills to implement these systems. However their point is well taken, that there needs to be more offerings of architecturally friendly products for designers to work with. I just don't see this catching on without a huge increase of in wall products, especially subs, as the count goes up.

Even though I have and have had relatively complex systems over the years. I do try to avoid architectural and interior design disasters.

 

[ben_]

We do get cases of marital strife here over equipment choices, and that is not really necessary. I would say that more than the speaker manufacturers the furniture manufacturers are even more to blame. The offerings for audio and AV installation are appalling, and lacking in any imagination or creativity as a whole.

Dedicated home theater rooms are almost without exception (and your current setup is definitely an exception) absolutely hideous. Overstuffed cheaply made garbage that costs an arm and a leg.

 

[TLS Guy]

Dedicated home theater rooms are almost without exception (and your current setup is definitely an exception) absolutely hideous. Overstuffed cheaply made garbage that costs an arm and a leg.

I think I know what you mean. Some do tend to the gaudy. In fairness many are much more into the video than I am. So they use projectors which mandates a dark décor, in fact very dark. That makes a tasteful room a real challenge. I am more than content with a 77" OLED screen. This space is also to a extent a work space, due to having a DAW in the system. So a bunch of dark paint does not appeal to me.

 

[ben_]

I much prefer recording studio ambiance to an attempt at recreating the theater experience in a home, which I think is why I consider your space the exception.

 

[TLS Guy]

I much prefer recording studio ambiance to an attempt at recreating the theater experience in a home, which I think is why I consider your space the exception.

Thank you for that. You have judged my intent exactly. Yes, it is a deviation, but it is a pleasant and restful place. It sounds very, very good, and I don't truly understand why it sounds as good as it does. The presentation did give me some further insights as to why. The real issue that sets the total system apart is that you hear the original venue more than the room. So one venue from another sounds very distinct when reproduced here. I have never experienced it to that extent before. Part of the issue is the bass, which is incredibly true to life. Generally one mainly hears the room in this frequency domain, but here your here the venue far more than the room.
I guess I have to put a lot of this just down to dumb luck. But I suspect insights and experience over a long time have had an influence.

 

[ben_]

Funny how research and effort seems to impact "dumb luck".

 

[Trell]

Funny how research and effort seems to impact "dumb luck".

Serendipity sounds nicer than "dumb luck".

 

[TLS Guy]

Serendipity sounds nicer than "dumb luck".

It certainly does, but the result is the same.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Gene and Matt recently posted an extended interview with Arnaud Laborie, founder of Trinnov labs in France, on the Audioholics website.


This I think is certainly the best discussion I have ever heard on room acoustics and their modification. In fact it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking presentation on an audio topic I have yet encountered. Gene, I really appreciate you arranging this. This is the sort of presentation that separates and distinguishes this site from the rest, and makes me proud to be associated with it.

As I think many of you realize I have been very much a sceptic of current and past theories, on the nature and correction of these problems. Now I have an eminent ally, with the knowledge and scholarship to start to place a more revealing light, and possible solutions to this complex problem.

As I suspected, a lot of evidence was presented concerning current errors in our thinking and the harmful effects of many current nostrums. A lot of this was in line with what I have observed over the years, and the reasons my set ups, especially my HT room differs from much recommended current practice. So to an extent, I can say "I told you so."

The importance of accurate speakers especially as regards dispersion, I think is now accepted. The futility of Eq, for not only speakers, but room effects was discussed. Simply the issue is, while you may improve some aspects, you will make others a lot worse. My experience and measurements have long convinced me of this. As you know I don't use Audyssey, and this reinforces my impression that approaches of that type are on the whole worse than useless.

There was one piece of interesting discussion about wet and dry listening rooms. As I have maintained a listening with a lot of reverb "wet" is not necessarily a bad thing.
Our family room in our former lake home had a pronounced echo, very wet. Yet the sound of that room was excellent, in fact stunning with my three way speakers. Quite a number of visitors commented on it. The trick is having good speakers in terms of axis and off axis response.

The meat of the discussion was how to optimize room reverb, in terms of LF response and mid low and mid response. So the research is focusing on using subs, two or three, at each end of the room, to not only reproduce bass, but neutralize each others reflections. Apparently there is advantage to having lower and higher subs, but this all gets complicated and costly.

Gene made the remark that running speakers full range and adding the sub could have advantage. Well that is what I have done. I get better measurements, and it sounds definitely better with LFE plus main, in my room. All my seven bed speakers are run full range, and that includes the shorter line of the left and right mains. It helps that I can carefully set the output below the transition frequency to speaker and position of the mains, center and rear backs. The surrounds have a choice of two settings. Only my four ceiling speakers are fully crossed over. So the shorter lines have an F3 of 42 Hz, 12 db. roll off, the center 48 Hz, 12 db. roll off. The surrounds 52 Hz, 12 db. roll off. The rear backs 27 Hz 12 db. roll off. So there is significant bass from all seven bed layer speakers, and they are quite robust enough to tolerate high spl.

I had never understood why this rig sounded so much better with LFE + main rather then crossed over. But it definitely does, and this presentation gave me insights as to why. I think it is helped by the fact that all the speakers measure well in proximity and at every seat in the room.

The other part of the presentation was devoted to higher frequency reflections, which are dealt with passively rather then actively. In other words JUDICIOUS use of sounding adsorbing material. Of particular concern is the back wall. This is not new news, and one of the features built into my room, to dampen and break up reflections and do it in a useful way.
The architecture of the side walls also mitigates against dominant reflections.

So towards the end there was an interesting discussion on how to handle the transition from the LF active DSP to the higher frequency passive. As this is a crossover in effect that has to be handled. This it seems is still a work in progress.

In conclusion I commend this video presentation to all members, and be prepared to have more than a few sacred cows debunked.

One once again many thanks to Gene, Matt and especially Arnoud. Did I say this is a must see video?

So are you going to buy a Trinnov?

 

[TLS Guy]

So are you going to buy a Trinnov?

No, because I don't need it. Listening and measurements show I don't. In fact, at this time I would not change a thing. I would hate to have to change anything. Sound in the room is incredibly realistic, and that includes the bass, where I have zero issues.

What I found fascinating about the presentation was that in so many ways my intuition and experience was validated. Basically it means that in many cases current wisdom and practice is wrong, and my engineering decisions have been much closer to the mark.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No, because I don't need it. Listening and measurements show I don't. In fact, at this time I would not change a thing. I would hate to have to change anything. Sound in the room is incredibly realistic, and that includes the bass, where I have zero issues.

What I found fascinating about the presentation was that in so many ways my intuition and experience was validated. Basically it means that in many cases current wisdom and practice is wrong, and my engineering decisions have been much closer to the mark.

Isn’t that sort of ironic that after watching a discussion about Trinnov, you feel that you definitely don’t NEED or WANT Trinnov (or any other Room Correction software)?

So I guess the bottom line is, if your system MEASURES great and sounds great, don’t mess with it?

IOW, the Trinnov discussion isn’t about selling you the Trinnov software, but about the goal of just having a system that has good measurement and sound quality? And if you already have this, then there’s no need to spend thousands of dollars on Trinnov or any other software?

 

[TLS Guy]

Isn’t that sort of ironic that after watching a discussion about Trinnov, you feel that you definitely don’t NEED or WANT Trinnov (or any other Room Correction software)?

So I guess the bottom line is, if your system MEASURES great and sounds great, don’t mess with it?

IOW, the Trinnov discussion isn’t about selling you the Trinnov software, but about the goal of just having a system that has good measurement and sound quality? And if you already have this, then there’s no need to spend thousands of dollars on Trinnov or any other software?

That is exactly my point. I found the presentation to be absolutely fascinating and gave me further insight into the hunches I have developed and espoused over the years. I still say, this is a must watch presentation for ALL members.

 

[gene]

Trinnov Reveals Details of WaveForming Redefines Low Frequency Reproduction

Trinnov’s new WaveForming technology seems remarkably similar in capabilities to DIRAC ART. This editorial illustrates the differences and how to plan your speaker and subwoofer system accordingly.

www.audioholics.com

 

[jeffca]

A fe

 

[TLS Guy]

A fe

I'd like that translated please!

 

[Danzilla31]

That is exactly my point. I found the presentation to be absolutely fascinating and gave me further insight into the hunches I have developed and espoused over the years. I still say, this is a must watch presentation for ALL members.

I have a question I currently own 4 subwoofers in my theater room. 2 Rythmik FV18's and 2 RBH 1 1212PR and 1NR they're top of the line. Am I correct in reading they recommend the subs be off the floor? 2 of the subs are 160 lbs and 2 are 120 lbs. Yeesh! How would I even go about pulling that off?