Monoprice HTP-1 Home Theater Processor Review

[RichB]

I don't disagree with any of this. But the HTP-1 and AHB2 are not in the same class. Doesn't the AHB2 list for $3,000 (2ch)?
The HTP-1 is not a $4000 2ch processor. This is an "entry-level" 16ch processor. Imagine the cost of installing 8 AHB2s. I would love to be the salesman to a customer who thinks they need a 130dB dynamic range in their surround and overhead channels (let alone their mains).

We will soon see how the Lyngdorf MP-50 ($10,000), Bryston SP4 ($13,995), Trinnov Altitude ($17,000) stack up.

Many of the users I observe making judgements based solely on performance metrics <-100dB don't know their room's noise floor or Schroeder/transition frequency. If something is inaudible, does it matter?

I think the point made here is that $4000 16 channel processor is not in the same class as a $500 2-channel DAC.
This argument would be more palatable if the 5-digit processors had published measurements. The higher the price the lighter the specs

I have installed 4 AHB2s in main system for many reasons, performance, build-quality, size, and heat among them.
I could spend 10x and get far worse performance. I don't think that cost is the proper way to evaluate product.
It is the proper way measure value.

In terms of audibility, what is the S/N and distortion of any of these processors with DSP engaged?
I can't seem to find that specification

- Rich

 

[Gedeon]

Well I think that -10dBFS would actually mean 75/100 and 0dBFS would be 85/100. Movies at reference levels are still 85dB average and 105dB peak for consumer playback for all speakers except subwoofers where average level of LFE would be 95dB and 115dB peak (+ bass from other speakers). The LFE channel is 10dB higher. The main difference, as I understand it, is that for consumer gear all you need to think about is calibrating to 75dB since consumer gear uses -30dBfs pink noise. I.e. you don't have to calibrate at such loud levels because most peoples little speakers might be damaged etc.

However with Dirac I've read that it won't necessarily map your volume control to the correct number in the case you are using an Arcam which has the absolute scale 0-100. You'd have to post calibration verify which number is your reference level.

To clarify -30dBFS means -30dB from the peak of 105dB so 75dB. If you calibrate with a -20dBFS signal like in big cinemas your target would be 85dB. The standard for consumer gear is -30dBFS pink noise which means you should calibrate to 75dB. Both would result in the exact same dB at reference level. When measuring the volume you should use C weighting, slow if I remember correctly.

By 70/100 I meant the absolute volume level scale in Denon/Marantz AVRS which I don't use, I use the Dbs scale relative to reference level. In my case I usually listen most movies at -10dbs (+-2dbs, depending on mood and movie). Never higher. Too loud for me go beyond those numbers.

 

[RichB]

AV gear does present a whole new ball game of questions and possible metrics. Simple distortion and noise measures are fine, but we seem to accept the entire DSP chain as a magic black box. Yet the audio passes through multiple stages of processing where all manner of evils may be inflicted upon it. It may be resampled, have representation changes, truncates, redithered, and more. Yet there is no testing. All we seem to be able to achieve are tests that ignore the HT capabilities and just treat it as a glorified DAC. There must be tests possible. Reference encoded audio in the various surround formats where we might see how well the signal survives the processor. That would be of significant interest. Minimally it might shine a light on poor practices and implementations.

Well stated!

It is rational to provide an evaluation of baseline performance in 2-channel mode performance since re-clocking and processing are not going to make it better.

DSP added to the chain is a cost/benefit and the benefit may well outweigh the cost. Measurements would be ideal, but in lieu of that, a processor with excellent baseline performance in Pure/Direct mode provides the consumer with a comparator.

- Rich

 

[audioBliss]

By 70/100 I meant the absolute volume level scale in Denon/Marantz AVRS which I don't use, I use the Dbs scale relative to reference level. In my case I usually listen most movies at -10dbs (+-2dbs, depending on mood and movie). Never higher. Too loud for me go beyond those numbers.

Yes I understand. And what I mean is that if you would use that scale your -10dBFS would be 75/100 on that scale independent of if you have used a -30dBFS or -20dBFS pink noise to calibrate your system. At least that is how I interpret the scale, i.e. that the number is the dB level of 0dBFS pink noise. 70/100 would be 70dB C weighted, 75/100 would be 75dB and so on. And reference level is 85dB. But I could be wrong here.

 

[audioBliss]

Well stated!

It is rational to provide an evaluation of baseline performance in 2-channel mode performance since re-clocking and processing are not going to make it better.

DSP added to the chain is a cost/benefit and the benefit may well outweigh the cost. Measurements would be ideal, but in lieu of that, a processor with excellent baseline performance in Pure/Direct mode provides the consumer with a comparator.

- Rich

Just a note on Pure Direct modes.

Imo Pure Direct modes are not at all usable since that turns off all of bass management. That would assume that you have full range speakers. Basically no one really has this for real. They think they do but they don't really. Multiple subwoofers are needed even with very powerful full range speakers, even if they had the capacity their placement for imaging etc. is usually not compatible with the optimal placement for low frequency drivers. It can be done but you would need a really good room.

It is possible to use Pure Direct with external crossover filters to get the subs working, which I have tried but don't really recommend as that is not compatible with how Dirac wants bass management to work. Imo measurements and tests need to be done with bass management. Also any type of workaround doesn't really matter since any sort of Pure Direct would also disengage any sort of room correction making it even more useless.

You could do room correction in an external box like the miniDSP boxes with Dirac but they measure worse than the AVRs in normal mode so that's not really a solution.

 

[Costas EAR]

What else would you like me to measure?

Thank you for the crossover measurements.

A multichannel audio possessor is expected to be used as such, so multichannel roon playback is supposed (and expected) to work, and a fine tuning (easy or difficult to achieve) with dsp equalization for home target curve, applied to a good set of speaker + sub setup is expected.

High quality av processors are equipped with auto calibration software, which is supposed to work.

It would be great to see the spinorama measurements from a decent speaker (Neumann 80 for example), after the auto calibration dsp with a crossover'd decent subwoofer (Neumann would be excellent).

Are there any Phase and frequency problems, thd problems, after using cross and dsp for the target curve? You can use the harman curve, the Toole curve, whatever curve you like, 1dB per octave works fine for everyone.

The main job for such a processor is not just to work as a dac. We expect this hardware and software to make massive amount of dsp, speaker management, bass management, setting a target curve, and after all these, working with high quality.

So, a measurement after these, is the best possible way to evaluate such a processor.

 

[LTig]

Now, budget AVRs and such can be excused to not want to strive this high. But a $4,000 processor? If that is not "high-end" enough, what is?

I like to disagree. This is and cannot be highend. You pay 4000 quid for 16 channels with DACs, amplifiers, room EQ and a lot of processing. Divide everything by 8 and we see a stereo preamp with identical features for 500 quid. Nobody would say such a preamp is highend.

 

[RichB]

Just a note on Pure Direct modes.

Imo Pure Direct modes are not at all usable since that turns off all of bass management. That would assume that you have full range speakers. Basically no one really has this for real. They think they do but they don't really. Multiple subwoofers are needed even with very powerful full range speakers, even if they had the capacity their placement for imaging etc. is usually not compatible with the optimal placement for low frequency drivers. It can be done but you would need a really good room.

It is possible to use Pure Direct with external crossover filters to get the subs working, which I have tried but don't really recommend as that is not compatible with how Dirac wants bass management to work. Imo measurements and tests need to be done with bass management. Also any type of workaround doesn't really matter since any sort of Pure Direct would also disengage any sort of room correction making it even more useless.

You could do room correction in an external box like the miniDSP boxes with Dirac but they measure worse than the AVRs in normal mode so that's not really a solution.

There are full range speakers and their sufficiency is a personal preference that relates to taste in music, room, and desired volume.
Multiple subs have real benefits but not required. Why not measure in room response before embarking on solutions to a problem which may not exist at the desired listening position?

I get very good in room response in Pure Direct from the Salon2's, though admittedly I did get lucky.

- Rich

 

[RichB]

I like to disagree. This is and cannot be highend. You pay 4000 quid for 16 channels with DACs, amplifiers, room EQ and a lot of processing. Divide everything by 8 and we see a stereo preamp with identical features for 500 quid. Nobody would say such a preamp is highend.

There are fixed costs for the engineering, marketing, case, power supply, number of boards, etc.
I think @amirm has made the point that a $4000 product should be able to meet the performance of a 500 "quid" 2-channel DAC that has "high end" performance. This product does not have amplifiers.

- Rich

 

[al2002]

I have the desire to participate here at ASR to provide measurements for surround processors and AVRs. However, I believe that a different criteria for evaluation is needed. IMO, applying Amir's DAC testing parameters does not translate well to real world performance. Most consumer amplifiers will not accept a preamp signal as high as 4Vrms.

I'm wondering if I should create a single thread for surround processor measurements or a seperate thread for each. Opinions?

SSPs I hope to have measured by Monday:
Monoprice Monolith HTP-1
Trinnov Altitude 16
Bryston SP4
Lyngdorf MP-50
Acurus Act 4
NAD M15HD (unbalanced version of M17v2, additional AM17 outputs are balanced)

SSPs I should have access to soon:
Marantz AV8805
Arcam AV40

Yes please! I think each review should be in its own thread.

 

[SegaCD]

There are fixed costs for the engineering, marketing, case, power supply, number of boards, etc.
I think @amirm has made the point that a $4000 product should be able to meet the performance of a 500 "quid" 2-channel DAC that has "high end" performance. This product does not have amplifiers.

- Rich

Don't forget the Oppo UDP-205 exists. It's a 3-year old 4k UHD Blu-Ray player that practically doubles as an 8-channel pre-pro as it has an HDMI pass-thru. It has all the Dolby/DTS formats we know & love with performance that absolutely destroys the Monoprice unit with an MSRP of $1,299. Too bad Oppo's A/V division dissolved...

This site has proven time & time again that price doesn't correspond to performance. Also, as someone who works for an audio company, I can also assure you that actual company cost of building a board does not scale linearly with board complexity or size. Its more of a square root function when building en masse and particularly when it comes to passive components (which is usually all that separates a good DAC implementation from a bad one). Compensation for engineering time is certainly another factor though.

 

[Costas EAR]

There are fixed costs for the engineering, marketing, case, power supply, number of boards, etc.
I think @amirm has made the point that a $4000 product should be able to meet the performance of a 500 "quid" 2-channel DAC that has "high end" performance. This product does not have amplifiers.

- Rich

In that case, the $500 2-channel dac that has high end performance, should meet the dsp capabilities of the $4.000 product, including decoding of all available Dolby formats, even in 2 channel downmixing.

 

[RichB]

Don't forget the Oppo UDP-205 exists. It's practically an 8-channel pre-pro with all the Dolby/DTS formats we know & love with class leading performance with an MSRP of $1,299. Too bad Oppo's A/V division dissolved...

This site has proven time & time again that price doesn't correspond to performance. Also, as someone who works for an audio company, I can also assure you that actual company cost of building a board does not scale linearly with board complexity. Its more of a square root function particularly when building en masse.

I was an Oppo beta tester... Ah, the good old days.
Sans DSPs that comes to about Oppo provided SOTA performance at $186 per channel

- Rich

 

[Costas EAR]

Don't forget the Oppo UDP-205 exists.

No, it doesn't exist, it is not produced any more.
Anyway, it was just a media player with 8 outputs and decoding for up to 7.1 channels, without any dsp capabilities, no target curve, no microphone to measure speakers, nothing.
Even as a media player, it was never an excellent choice.
But ok, very good quality dacs. Oh boy...

 

[Xulonn]

Nobody would say such a preamp is high-end.

I tend to agree. I have only a decent 2-channel audio system that I use with my 40" LED TV, and I have neither the desire, space, or available funds for a decent multi-channel AV system. However, I am following this thread out of curiosity, and it seems that high-performance videophile AV sound systems with good, accurate sound like this Monoprice unit require a lot of knowledge to properly configure and tweak.

In the real world, most non-videophile consumers will just plug things in and maybe follow the on-screen setup and configuration walk-through and do a simple Audyssey correction. I did that with a Marantz AV receiver for some friends, and it was pretty easy. Those who can afford it can have professionals install and tune the system.

Unlike stereo systems, the delineation of general price ranges that roughly determine the "quality" of an AV system are still in flux and wander all over the price map. My personal observations at this point in time lead my to refer to anything up to $2k could be considered to be a non-enthusiast or cost-limited consumer-level system. I see mid-range systems as being in the $2-10K range, true high-end videophile systems as $10k and up.

Based on that, I agree that the $4k Monoprice multi-channel AV processor plus amplifier(s) and loudspeakers would be a mid-range videophile system and not a high-end system. I also believe that the testing and discussions that take place here at ASR and similar forums will help to establish those general ranges.

Still, there are many issues and inconsistencies in features and performance with the Monoprice unit that indicate an immature market and an unwillingness or simple failure to fully document their components. And of course, we have the age-old AV industry problem of what and how much information manufacturers of rather expensive AV components decide to provide to the consumer to inform them about the attributes and performance levels of their products. I, for one, am more likely to consider the purchase of products who come to ASR after reviews of their product are posted, and who participate in active and honest dialog with ASR members. (But I don't expect representatives of companies under the umbrella of large multi-national companies to bother posting at ASR.)

 

[Martin]

In my world, $4000 for a preamp/processor, is high end. I spent $1200 on an AVR that included 9 channels of amplification. Now that's midrange considering I can get a "decent" 9-channel AVR for around $500. To get that with these Monoprice components I'd need to spend about $7000. Now I know that's nowhere near Trinnov money but it certainly ain't chump change.

Martin

 

[GD Fan]

I have the desire to participate here at ASR to provide measurements for surround processors and AVRs. However, I believe that a different criteria for evaluation is needed. IMO, applying Amir's DAC testing parameters does not translate well to real world performance. Most consumer amplifiers will not accept a preamp signal as high as 4Vrms.

I'm wondering if I should create a single thread for surround processor measurements or a seperate thread for each. Opinions?

SSPs I hope to have measured by Monday:
Monoprice Monolith HTP-1
Trinnov Altitude 16
Bryston SP4
Lyngdorf MP-50
Acurus Act 4
NAD M15HD (unbalanced version of M17v2, additional AM17 outputs are balanced)

SSPs I should have access to soon:
Marantz AV8805
Arcam AV40

Considering the level of interest in such products, and especially the substandard performance many of them have been revealed to produce, those would certainly be excellent contributions (personaly, I'm particularly interested in the Arcam). That said, it might be advisable to align testing standards with those already established here to best allow for comparisons across products and reviewers. Of course, that doesn't mean your own standards cannot be included as well and in fact it might be very helpful to see the contrast. But the ability to compare across reviewers shouldn't be overlooked, nor should the general philosophy of holding the products to a very high standard in order to best drive improvements from the manufacturers.

 

[SmackDaddies]

I respect and envy @amirm knowledge a lot, really. Every single day. And obviously his relentless when measuring electronics.

On the other hand as @A/V Analysis and other members have written, AVP/AVRs doesn't aim the same standards.

I'm unable to listen a movie in my room with a volumen above -5dbs after the Audyssey calibration. My most common maximum is around -10dbs (70/100). In a small poll I did a year ago most AVR users share this numbers. Just one listens movies at 0dbs (80/100) in his room.

And multichannel domestic poweramps are rated to work at 1.2 volts input through RCA unbalanced connections. And this is IMO the key point. Poweramps don't expect more than 1.2 volts (with some headroom and a few exceptions).

And no one buys AVR/AVP just looking for a good DAC, although it is a key section in these electronics. Most look for multichannel decoding, HDMI switching, room correction, and another bunch of convenience features.

I am never higher (lower?) than -25. And at that point my Wife is yelling at me to turn it down...

 

[BDWoody]

I am never higher (lower?) than -25. And at that point my Wife is yelling at me to turn it down...

If you can still hear her, you probably need to turn it up just a bit more...
/s

 

[SmackDaddies]

If you can still hear her, you probably need to turn it up just a bit more...
/s

FTW