Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Trifield (again)

I put a 72hc inbetween my 8k's last night. Can't say how it compares to a 55hc as it replaces my 5khc. I haven't had chance to tweak a lot of settings yet but am very happy so far. Very nice looking unit too....bloomin gorgeous actually.

One thing I did test was 'width' and I am 100% certain it is not working. Setting to zero does not produce a mono result.

Worth a few others doing this to be sure and I then hope M can have a look at this. It was raised on HH2 during the Q&A and they didn't think there 'should' be a problem but I am pretty convinced there is.

Might we start another thread about Trifield to keep it up the agenda?

The last time I remember Trifield working was with a 568.1 when I had a 5.1 set up, about 5 years ago. When I regained a full multichannel set up last year (with the 568.2) it was broken. This year I have had the following processors in my rig and Trifield width was inoperative on every unit: three 568.2mms, G68ADV, 861.

Cheers

George

Trifield is one of the big attractions for me. (I heard about it from Michael Gerzon directly, he was a friend of my Dad's.) I'm shocked to hear the implementation is flakey!

N

I created a new thread.

For the record, Meridian insists that Trifield (or more specifically, the Trifield width setting) is not broken, but this doesn't square with a number of users' experience.

Thanks VK...I did think I was going a bit OT in that thread.

Come on Trifield testers....what do you find with width = 0

?

Is it mono or not ?

It won't be mono. Meridian made that clear (or at least I thought they did).

Edit: Nick, would you ask M for the presentation slides?

+1

That is my recollection of what Rhonda said as well, regarding changing the Width Parameter

i.e. Width = 0.........Does Not equal Mono (almost sure that's what she said)

Maybe it's in the Q&A.............

Ok - I have tried to baseline things.

My old set-up was a 565z3v6.0 with an 18-bit centre and analogue speakers everywhere else. The Trifield "width" setting had a clear and noticable effect, especially on voice-oriented material where the BBC chestiness would lead me to a narrower setting so the image wasn't spread by the bass, while TV drama (e.g. Law and Order) would be better wider. Listening distance was about 14 feet.

The 565 is now in my second system. It is all DSP with 24-bit mains, centre and sub and 18-bit surrounds. Listening distance is about 8 feet. So the change is in the speakers, not the processor, though obviously the processor has been recalibrated. I have just experimented with Trifield on three source programmes; the snooker for the audience ambience, some MTV pap with lots of noise and some BBC drama/studio stuff.

There is absolutley no difference between any width setting that I can hear. I spent ten minutes at it and nothing that I could repeatably perceive.

Apart from the speakers, the only other possibly significant technical change is that the room aspect was 1.4 (deeper than wide) and is now 1.0 (squarish).

So my possible theorum for peer review (I am dancing on eggs here) is that we have all tended to upgrade to full DSP set-ups as we have upgraded our processors and it is the DSP change which has "disabled" Trifield through some obscure software bug/feature that was always there. Or even more remotely, there is a bug caused by the room aspect parameter.

There is a noticable bug/feature with the 565z3v6.0/all DSP set-up. I can't adjust bass or treble anywhere. I am sure I could with analogue speakers in the config. The processor manual says the speakers do it and vice-versa. This demonstrates (subject to ageing memory) that the analogue vs. DSP change can affect the procesor capabilities.

We need some-one with an analogue set-up fronted by a 565 to provide an alternative baseline.

Discuss!

One of the other things that was said was that the room aspect parameter only affected Ambisonics (and MuLogic, of course).

Ronnie, VK

I thought that's exactly what she did say. When she went through the flow chart, she indicated that if you went to zero width then the output would effectively be mono. She definitely said mono about something in Trifield when the difference logic was applied. Happy to be corrected though.

It remains for me that I hear nothing at all change at either extreme. Historically I heard quite a difference.

Would like to bottom this out.

And I thought we were all supposed to have "golden ears"!!!

Three of us in the same room, hear the same words spoken and comes away with diametrically opposed versions!!

Maybe we should have a "Double-Deaf" study

I'm traveling at the moment, so I won't be able to check the Width. I do recall hearing very little difference when I've played with it in the past though.

I've always found the "Depth" setting to have the biggest impact on Dial-ling Trifield in to my preferences. But that is with vertical centres, which might make a difference. With the front 3 speakers equi-distant from the Listening position, I find "Depth = +0.5 or +1" to just snap Trifield into optimum (IMHO of course)

Did they actually say at HH Day that they had gone back and checked the code since we reported the anomaly at the CES Q&A and that everything was working as it should?