Trinnov Amplitude vs Storm Audio vs Marantz 16CH Amplifiers

[AcuDefTechGuy]

They go to the DIY forum.

I think TLS Guy might find your statement insulting and grossly demeaning

If not-so-lucky people have to do DIY, then it makes him not-so-lucky.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

 

[TLS Guy]

Although Einstein’s Theory of Relativity pertains to physics, I think it can also be extrapolated to speakers.

Two speakers traveling at a similar excellent Frequency Response will sound relatively similar and excellent regardless of whether they are DIY or factory-made.

So I am 100% sure that my view will not change if I listen to your DIY speakers.

Although SQ is salient, it’s not the only factor. Aesthetic is also relatively important. So there’s no way I would want your DIY speakers (or anyone else’s like JTR) anywhere near my house. That’s just how I feel about the aesthetics of DIY speakers. Everyone is different.

How many hours did it take you to make all your speakers? 200 hours?

And after a long day at work, do you think it’s realistic to expect people to spend all their time making DIY speakers?

A vast number of hours for my dual TLs, especially the first which are my rear backs.

The problem is, as I have pointed out before, is that standard tests, though helpful, give you far from the whole story as a broad band power response is not done.

So, in essence a speaker can test superbly under standard test and still be lousy speaker.

This is why.

The reason is there is no power/frequency response against a wide frequency band at power. The reason being that this is next to impossible to carry out.

This is something most designers don't even have on their radar, let alone consumers.

There is this falsehood that the bass needs huge amounts of power. But what you really need to know is maximum power output against a broadband of frequencies playing simultaneously.

In actuality the maximum output of live music is actually in the midrange, and much higher than the bass frequencies by far.

If you take the human voice, most musical acoustic instruments, including pipe organs, the power output is actually concentrated in the midrange.

Yet, you see design after design with one small mid and a huge woofer, and in two ways crossover to the tweeter deep in the midrange.

The result is ubiquitous midrange dynamic compression, which many if not most speakers are awash in.

Just take a look at an orchestra, most of the instruments have ALL of their output in the midrange.

There are vast numbers of violins, violas and even the cellos have almost all midrange output. Even the double bass has significant mid output, as well as deep bass. Flutes are open pipes, and you can just do the math and see that they can have no output in the bass range, and the same applies to oboes. Apart from the tuba, the brass section is the same. The low frequencies of the brass is largely determined by the diameter of the bell. The organ has far more pipes in the midrange than bass pipes.

So the result with more speakers than not is compressed midrange output at power. That will not show in standard tests.

I can tell you that my mid range amps are producing significantly more power than the bass amps. Now I grant that the efficiency of my TLs is higher than sealed or ported, but even so speaker designer after speaker designer does not design for enough power resources in the midrange more often than not.

The problem stems from far too many two ways, having bass/mids that have to be crossed to the tweeter at too low a frequency. This will not show in standard tests.

In three ways, the mids seldom have the power resources truly required.

Unfortunately really good midrange drivers are really hard to find, and paradoxically not as many good drivers available as in years past.

This is the biggest issue hidden from prospective speaker purchasers.

It is essential to get this right at true concert levels so there is no dynamic compression in the midrange, or anywhere else come to that.

It is essential to get this right for truly realistic reproduction that can really give that "you are there effect."

 

[Kingnoob]

The issue goes much deeper than that.

For a start the home constructor can design and build speaker systems that totally conform to nature's laws without compromise. That means bigger and heavier speakers.

Those front right and left speakers are huge and weigh 350 lb each. Their size is due to the fact that they are aperiodic transmission lines and there size is entirely determined by the length of the wavelengths they are designed to reproduce without compromise. They are dual lines with fundamental frequencies half a wavelength apart. To my knowledge these are two of the the only six dual lines built. The former were the legendary monitors in BBC studios Maida Vale. The success of that design led me to pursue this approach. My rear backs are also dual lines, and their design started in 1977. Progress was much slower back then as there was no computer design assisted programs. I was an early adopter and started using computer assisted design, back in 1984.

The center speaker is also a TL and much bigger than it looks, and is a through wall design, and in no way would be commercially viable.

The advantage of TL designs, is that they are very efficient and above all can be low Q, so they are essentially free of bass colortation like sealed and ported designs.

Rear back dual TLs.

1 meter on axis response of a main speaker.

The drop in response above 15K is due to the limitation of the measuring equipment.

On and off axis 1 meter responses. The off axis response very closely mirrors the axis response, as it should.

The bass droop is to take care of room gain.

This is the response of the system a the main listening position and the gradual HF fall off is optimal, as you never want a flat curve at the MLP.

The system requires no activation of Audyssey, Dirac or any "so called" room correction systems or software.

DIY gives you huge design flexibility.

This in wall system was designed and built to my wife's specification. The in wall sub is a TL.

The advantages of DIY are enormous.

One of a kind system few people probably have the ability to build . I’m sure the theater crowd would buy them if a brand made them, jtr sells and it’s so high priced and Very heavy . And other brands like kef get really unusual high priced stuff . Regular people want small stuff or towers .

 

[Nondemo01]

The issue goes much deeper than that.

For a start the home constructor can design and build speaker systems that totally conform to nature's laws without compromise. That means bigger and heavier speakers.

Those front right and left speakers are huge and weigh 350 lb each. Their size is due to the fact that they are aperiodic transmission lines and there size is entirely determined by the length of the wavelengths they are designed to reproduce without compromise. They are dual lines with fundamental frequencies half a wavelength apart. To my knowledge these are two of the the only six dual lines built. The former were the legendary monitors in BBC studios Maida Vale. The success of that design led me to pursue this approach. My rear backs are also dual lines, and their design started in 1977. Progress was much slower back then as there was no computer design assisted programs. I was an early adopter and started using computer assisted design, back in 1984.

The center speaker is also a TL and much bigger than it looks, and is a through wall design, and in no way would be commercially viable.

The advantage of TL designs, is that they are very efficient and above all can be low Q, so they are essentially free of bass colortation like sealed and ported designs.

Rear back dual TLs.

1 meter on axis response of a main speaker.

The drop in response above 15K is due to the limitation of the measuring equipment.

On and off axis 1 meter responses. The off axis response very closely mirrors the axis response, as it should.

The bass droop is to take care of room gain.

This is the response of the system a the main listening position and the gradual HF fall off is optimal, as you never want a flat curve at the MLP.

The system requires no activation of Audyssey, Dirac or any "so called" room correction systems or software.

DIY gives you huge design flexibility.

This in wall system was designed and built to my wife's specification. The in wall sub is a TL.

The advantages of DIY are enormous.

Nice rooms. Glad you're happy with them. DIY can absolutely produce excellent speakers, but your measurement does not demonstrate superiority to everything commercially available.
The response shown is not unusually flat.
Even with 1/6-octave smoothing, there are still obvious broad peaks and dips through the bass, lower midrange, and presence region, plus a strong downward tilt and treble rolloff. That may be subjectively pleasant, but it is not evidence of objective superiority.

No room correction is not inherently a virtue.
If the measured in-room response still has sizable irregularities, saying “it needs no Audyssey or Dirac” is more a philosophical preference than a performance argument.

TLs can be very good, but they are not inherently more efficient than all commercial alternatives, nor inherently free of bass coloration. Execution matters.

Modern speaker manufacturers can provide on-axis response, off-axis behavior/directivity, distortion, compression at level, impedance, time-domain behavior, and ideally a full spinorama-style dataset that would be far more persuasive than one in-room trace. It's akin to gas mileage numbers: I would want to know going in what I'm probably gonna get rather than wait for the surprise at the pump.

You may have built speakers you personally prefer, and they may be impressive.

But these measurements do not establish that they are superior to well-engineered commercial designs or professional integrations.

Your measurements show you have a system in a room. It does not show you have surpassed the state of the art.

I prefer to swap in/out the latest/greatest designs but that's me.

 

[TLS Guy]

Nice rooms. Glad you're happy with them. DIY can absolutely produce excellent speakers, but your measurement does not demonstrate superiority to everything commercially available.
The response shown is not unusually flat.
Even with 1/6-octave smoothing, there are still obvious broad peaks and dips through the bass, lower midrange, and presence region, plus a strong downward tilt and treble rolloff. That may be subjectively pleasant, but it is not evidence of objective superiority.

No room correction is not inherently a virtue.
If the measured in-room response still has sizable irregularities, saying “it needs no Audyssey or Dirac” is more a philosophical preference than a performance argument.

TLs can be very good, but they are not inherently more efficient than all commercial alternatives, nor inherently free of bass coloration. Execution matters.

Modern speaker manufacturers can provide on-axis response, off-axis behavior/directivity, distortion, compression at level, impedance, time-domain behavior, and ideally a full spinorama-style dataset that would be far more persuasive than one in-room trace. It's akin to gas mileage numbers: I would want to know going in what I'm probably gonna get rather than wait for the surprise at the pump.

You may have built speakers you personally prefer, and they may be impressive.

But these measurements do not establish that they are superior to well-engineered commercial designs or professional integrations.

Your measurements show you have a system in a room. It does not show you have surpassed the state of the art.

I prefer to swap in/out the latest/greatest designs but that's me.

As I said you can't rely on the lower bass measurements done in room. But the ear is actually a very good judge in this region. And yes, a well designed TL does have more accurate bass than other alignments. That is actually the first think visitors notice about the system, and that in wall system, that uses a TL sub.

 

[Eppie]

Affordability is not something I would bring up with a product like this. It is clearly aimed at the top tier for home theatre. We need to remember, though, that the top technologies eventually trickle down to the lower tiers so development at the high end can be interesting as it hints at what may be available in the future.

 

[TLS Guy]

Affordability is not something I would bring up with a product like this. It is clearly aimed at the top tier for home theatre. We need to remember, though, that the top technologies eventually trickle down to the lower tiers so development at the high end can be interesting as it hints at what may be available in the future.

Your point is a given, but my point was that products that ought to be affordable are not. Just look at the cost of Marantz receivers now.

This is part inflation and Trump's unwise policies, and those are all he has. But part of it I think speaks to reliability of what we have had in the recent past. Units have been made too cheaply, and too many have failed far too soon. When I spoke to the tech at a service center after my Marantz 7705 failed catastrophically, what he told me was real eye opener, and revealed the scale of the problem.

My other point is that most rooms are not compatible with side, rear and ceiling speakers. In truth very few are. The public sense this by making sound bars fly off the shelves.

Yet the marketers make 2 channel gear less affordable than the multichannel junk units.

What we really need is more options in affordable 2 channel and may be 3 channel units and a sub or 2. With active speakers these lousy junk receivers don't have to be built or offered for sale.

Now the MBAs will, howl in unison: - "but we won't sell enough speakers!"

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The problem is, as I have pointed out before, is that standard tests, though helpful, give you far from the whole story as a broad band power response is not done. So, in essence a speaker can test superbly under standard test and still be lousy speaker.

If the speakers sound lousy, then all the great measurements won't mean a thing.

If the speakers have a great FR on REW (like +/- 2dB response) and the speakers sound absolutely amazing, is there a need to do a lot of other in-home measurements using your Mic and PC?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My other point is that most rooms are not compatible with side, rear and ceiling speakers.

How do you know what MOST ROOM are like, other than the rooms of your friends and neighbors?

Many houses in OKC are 2500-5000 SF and have plenty of spaces the usual speakers.

 

[Alex2507]

How do you know what MOST ROOM are like, other than the rooms of your friends and neighbors?

Many houses in OKC are 2500-5000 SF and have plenty of spaces the usual speakers.

Us world traveler types know rooms.

Your OKC expertise has been noted but some of us are not just multi national room observers, we're intercontinental. You can trust that we've seen a lot of rooms and studied them with great attention.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Us world traveler types know rooms.

Your OKC expertise has been noted but some of us are not just multi national room observers, we're intercontinental. You can trust that we've seen a lot of rooms and studied them with great attention.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I forget to mention that I am an Intergalactic Traveler?

So I've seen some funky alien rooms in my days.