Opinions On Ampzilla Trinaural Processor?

I'm glad to get such a detailed response so quickly. I also have known about this thing for some months, but when I went to look for extended discussion of it here on Audiogon, there didn't seem to be any.

The basic question I'll have for you going forward is how you think this compares to conventional high-end multi-channel setups.... and how it works for you in terms of transitioning from 2 channel listening. Appreciate your honesty (listening pros, cons, and also half-impressions). Will look forward to whatever you have to add.

I just spent several hours this afternoon going through numerous, varied CDs, so I feel I have a much better grasp of what the TRI has to offer. Also, I've had the house to myself, so I was allowed to turn the volume to a great listening level for orchestra demos.

Compared to multi channel formats -

I've yet to find a multi channel disk that I feel does a good job at recreating a live performance - isn't that what it's all about? Yes, some multi channel setups/disks sound "cool," but ultimately they seem to fall far short of recreating the feeling of a live experience. This is where the TRI really seems to shine.

It brings me closer to a live experience. There is currently a depth/realism to my setup that I didn't think was possible. Female vocals and jazz sets have really been unbelievable thus far. I find myself simply being "drawn into" the music itself. The soundstage is huge, but once again it's the depth of the music that is really blowing me away.

Orchestra pieces -

Turning up the volume to my normal listening level has greatly helped "fill in" the soundstage. The TRI has basically given me the orchestra in my room. Yes, my small speakers fall short of giving me the "impact" of the orchestra, but it is the imaging/detail which is really stellar with the TRI. I can actually distinguish between the sections of instruments in the orchestra on well recorded disks.

Going from 2 channel -

I really don't see how I'm going to go back to my two channel set up. Crap! It's going to be at least a year until I piece together my new system, so I'll just have to make due until then. I honestly didn't think I would like it this much, so the fact that I wouldn't be able to purchase it for a year really didn't concern me.

There has been a lot of talk about "getting use" to the sound of the TRI. Again, for female vocals and jazz I didn't need any time to fall in love with the sound. When this thing won at CES last year the judges didn't have time to "get use" to the sound, did they?

Cons -

Honestly, on many disks I have found the TRI to be pure magic. This "effect" hasn't been universal, though. The TRI is really dependent upon the recording engineer on your CD. A couple of CDs have simple turned out strange. This has been rare.

I feel I need to give a quick plug for the dealer who was so kind to let me have a week with the TRI. Julian Turner over at Sedona Sky Sound: www.sedonaskysound.com

Hope this helps...

This is nothing new. Center channel speakers have been around since the dawn of stereo, usually driven with an L+R signal. Of course this is the most simple "Matrix" multichannel. As with all matrix multichannel, gain riding logic can be applied to good effect, and this is what this trinaural device does. Matrix derivation of three channels out of two works very well. Going for four out of two is much less successful. The Dolby PL2 function of my SS processor has a three channel mode that is useful for playing stereo recordings. Benefit of a center channel is greatest for recordings where there is a soloist, vocal or instrumental. The soloist is solidly located in the center speaker, and not a phantom relying on imaging of the two stereo speakers. As with all matrix multichannel, some recordings will work better than others.

The particular unit in question may be an excellent example of the matrix multichannel technology. I wish it had been around three decades ago, when I kluged up a similar system using a DBX dynamic range expander. However, we now have discrete multichannel equipment, and no matrix system, however well implemented, can match discrete multicannel
recording.

Eldartford:

Thanks for the further response. I like getting some historical perspective on this.

Jasonalanpowell:

Thanks for the further report. It seems to me there has been a scarcity of reports on the TRI on the net, so it's good to read some first-hand impressions.

I'm pretty confused as to what I will buy when I, like you, make my transition to multi channel, or try to. As the other respondent noted, 3-channel apparently isn't new, even if the TRI presents us with a claim to be a particularly competent implementation of it.

I tend to think that, eventually, some sort of multichannel format should be in my future, as the best of the approaches are perfected and made affordable and hassle-free to me. At the moment though, my library is of 2-channel sound, I'm not about to "Buy the White Album Again" for the umpteenth time in a new format, ... not until I can sort of take stock of things.