DIYSG HTM-12v1 Speaker Review

[hardisj]

so is the V2 lower than that too (but more linear)?

Yes.

 

[changer]

It would be great, but each of these amps cost as much as one of the speakers. Worth it?

You can use the smallest and would still have enough power, I find them used for 200 Euros sometimes. You cannot have an active DSP controlled speaker much cheaper, without economies of scale. The problem is usually not power, but a quality DAC that can do the rest. Because the Crowns have an inbuild XO, you should be fine with a single Behringer DCX2496 I assume, but those have noise problems. About DEQ2496 (share same chip but DEQ has digital in), @amirm wrote: "For the intended pro/live sound, the Behringer DEQ2496 does the job as it likely has lower distortion than any pro amp you use. For audiophile use though, it only manages to get 15 to 16 bits of clean dynamic range relative to distortion. That does the job but I hope we strive for better." This might be acceptable for some, if willing to compromise a bit. The next best step is probably a Hypex FusionAmp. Their DAC is really great (no audible hiss without analouge attenuation), but although the package is a very good value, it might still be a bit more expansive. Hypex also suffer from a devastating fire at their suppliers fab, and they stocked aftermarket AKM DACs and had to increase the price.

 

[ooheadsoo]

You can use the smallest and would still have enough power, I find them used for 200 Euros sometimes. You cannot have an active DSP controlled speaker much cheaper, without economies of scale. The problem is usually not power, but a quality DAC that can do the rest. Because the Crowns have an inbuild XO, you should be fine with a single Behringer DCX2496 I assume, but those have noise problems. About DEQ2496 (share same chip but DEQ has digital in), @amirm wrote: "For the intended pro/live sound, the Behringer DEQ2496 does the job as it likely has lower distortion than any pro amp you use. For audiophile use though, it only manages to get 15 to 16 bits of clean dynamic range relative to distortion. That does the job but I hope we strive for better." This might be acceptable for some, if willing to compromise a bit. The next best step is probably a Hypex FusionAmp. Their DAC is really great (no audible hiss without analouge attenuation), but although the package is a very good value, it might still be a bit more expansive. Hypex also suffer from a devastating fire at their suppliers fab, and they stocked aftermarket AKM DACs and had to increase the price.

If you have existing amps and are on a budget, you might also consider a minidsp 2x4hd.

 

[changer]

The conclusion on the minidsp is also not without reserve. Anyway, with this setup, you will need two power amps and one DSP module that does the filtering, whatever device you choose. Hypex plate amps are very competitive in this domain.

 

[ooheadsoo]

The conclusion on the minidsp is also not without reserve. Anyway, with this setup, you will need two power amps and one DSP module that does the filtering, whatever device you choose. Hypex plate amps are very competitive in this domain.

Using a separate dsp unit opens up the possibility of using any number of budget amplifier options, not just the best measuring ones. I'm not sure yet if these speakers warrant "best in class" electronics that cost more than the speakers themselves. I hope the review will shed more light.

 

[johnp98]

Do people have suggestions what is the best way to add DSP to ones system if they have a receiver / integrated setup?
If it is only computer based content then a computer based DSP system seems very easy to add upstream of any DAC/amp.

But for people who have various inputs (DVD players, video game systems, computers, etc), it seems like adding DSP to the system is more complex and one would need to upgrade to separates with the DSP between the DAC and the amp correct?

Specifically in my case, how is the amp quality on generic receivers? As I have a Marantz receiver than can take all the inputs I have, but then if I want to add DSP I would have to take the pre-outs and run them to the minidsp (or similar system) and then back into a amp. If I don't have a separate amp but have a older receiver could I just use that as the amp? How much variation in quality is there in terms of amplifiers themselves?
Or what are other suggestions for adding DSP to ones system that uses a receiver.

 

[abdo123]

Do people have suggestions what is the best way to add DSP to ones system if they have a receiver / integrated setup?
If it is only computer based content then a computer based DSP system seems very easy to add upstream of any DAC/amp.

But for people who have various inputs (DVD players, video game systems, computers, etc), it seems like adding DSP to the system is more complex and one would need to upgrade to separates with the DSP between the DAC and the amp correct?

Specifically in my case, how is the amp quality on generic receivers? As I have a Marantz receiver than can take all the inputs I have, but then if I want to add DSP I would have to take the pre-outs and run them to the minidsp (or similar system) and then back into a amp. If I don't have a separate amp but have a older receiver could I just use that as the amp? How much variation in quality is there in terms of amplifiers themselves?
Or what are other suggestions for adding DSP to ones system that uses a receiver.

there are so many MiniDSP devices that one of them must be exactly what you're looking for.

 

[ooheadsoo]

there are so many MiniDSP devices that one of them must be exactly what you're looking for.

I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.

 

[zheka]

... But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.

Would not it be true only in active crossover application? Crossover seems to be okay in this case. Why not use DSP to address shortcomings of individual drivers?

 

[yourmando]

I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.

Right. Easiest way is to use the built-in passive crossover (even if the eq is flawed like w/ v1) and simply eq with DSP since the directivity control is good.

Do people have suggestions what is the best way to add DSP to ones system if they have a receiver / integrated setup?
If it is only computer based content then a computer based DSP system seems very easy to add upstream of any DAC/amp.

But for people who have various inputs (DVD players, video game systems, computers, etc), it seems like adding DSP to the system is more complex and one would need to upgrade to separates with the DSP between the DAC and the amp correct?

Specifically in my case, how is the amp quality on generic receivers? As I have a Marantz receiver than can take all the inputs I have, but then if I want to add DSP I would have to take the pre-outs and run them to the minidsp (or similar system) and then back into a amp. If I don't have a separate amp but have a older receiver could I just use that as the amp? How much variation in quality is there in terms of amplifiers themselves?
Or what are other suggestions for adding DSP to ones system that uses a receiver.

Very straightforward. For example, I have a Monoprice HTP-1 pre-pro, which is very good for the price. I have 16 PEQs available per channel, so if I had a bunch of HTM-12, I could fully EQ all of them with the anechoic data and @Maiky76’s EQ suggestions. This would correct the big problems.

On top of that, I can apply room Dirac room EQ, which will help correct room issues. And there is the option for Dirac Live Bass Control, which can jointly optimize multiple subwoofers and the optimize the crossover splice with each of the speakers.

So I would pretty much just punch in the PEQs for anechoic speaker correction, then run the fully automated Dirac room EQ and it should be a high performing setup, able to reach very high volumes with low distortion.

(I would personally pair with low noise amps because these speakers are high efficiency. I worry with noisier amps like Crown, you might have hiss above personal tolerance de level. I really don’t like any hiss. Hypex amps are good & inexpensive for the performance—perhaps something from @Buckeye Amps )

 

[ooheadsoo]

Right. Easiest way is to use the built-in passive crossover (even if the eq is flawed like w/ v1) and simply eq with DSP since the directivity control is good.

Would not it be true only in active crossover application? Crossover seems to be okay in this case. Why not use DSP to address shortcomings of individual drivers?

Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.

 

[abdo123]

I think the main issue is finding a receiver that has a clean unprocessed line-out and also take line level input back at the separate channels. But keep in mind that you will not be able to use the receiver as a normal surround processor in this manner since you need multiple channels per speaker.

you should use processed line-outs. That’s the whole point of an AVR, otherwise you don’t get surround sound.

 

[ooheadsoo]

you should use processed line-outs. That’s the whole point of an AVR, otherwise you don’t get surround sound.

That post was in regards to a fully active setup.

 

[abdo123]

That post was in regards to a fully active setup.

I don't get it. it's better to have (good) AVR processing either way.

 

[ooheadsoo]

I don't get it. it's better to have (good) AVR processing either way.

An active setup requires a power amplifier for each driver so you need to take one pre-out and feed it to two power amplifiers (in the case of a 2 way speaker,) and you often times have a hard time finding a receiver that will leave the pre-out signal alone without running some kind of processing on it. You don't really want any avr processing until after the digital crossover. Btw, what processing did you have in mind? Fake Dolby reverb effects? That's pretty much what came to my mind, but maybe things have gotten more advanced since I last looked hard at a receiver at face value.

 

[abdo123]

You don't really want any avr processing until after the digital crossover.

a digital crossover is exactly the same as an analog crossover (in function), it actually should be after AVR processing just like an analog crossover would.

Unless you're actually DESIGNING the crossover that is.

Btw, what processing did you have in mind?

the industry is VERY QUICKLY moving away from channel based audio to object based audio (Atmos). you cannot have any output or sound at all without processing.

 

[johnp98]

Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.

I think going fully active would be a hypothetical ideal, but having the kilpple measurements of the passive system and then adding an active layer on top of that would probably be better as my own measurements wont top the kipple.

So adding the active aspect to them is what I am trying to figure out how to best implement in my system.

I see benefits of keeping my receiver as it can decode all the various formats that I throw at it and has all the inputs that I need.
The problem is that I want to EQ just the L&R speakers, so then I would get their signal via the receiver L&R pre-outs and then that leaves me with the need for DSP and amplification.
So adding a minidsp system would take care of the DSP, but that leaves me with the need for amplification.... so I was wondering if I could just take any run of the mill old receiver that I have and use it as the amp. Or will the quality of amp truly effect the audibility.
Or what would be the most affordable amp+DSP combo?

Thanks!

 

[zheka]

So adding a minidsp system would take care of the DSP, but that leaves me with the need for amplification.... so I was wondering if I could just take any run of the mill old receiver that I have and use it as the amp.

Yes, this would work as long as you do not run it into clipping.

 

[yourmando]

Yes, it wouldn't be fully active, as was Erin's suggestion, but certainly cheaper and easier to implement. I'm doing that right now with the v2.

Right. No reason not to go with the cheaper and easier solution. I also suggested an active x/o DSP setup, but that was in the context of 2 channel. There’s not a cheap way to do that with multichannel and also switch among inputs, but the result of using the passsive speaker with DSP EQ + room correction would be just as good.

 

[yourmando]

I think going fully active would be a hypothetical ideal, but having the kilpple measurements of the passive system and then adding an active layer on top of that would probably be better as my own measurements wont top the kipple.

So adding the active aspect to them is what I am trying to figure out how to best implement in my system.

I see benefits of keeping my receiver as it can decode all the various formats that I throw at it and has all the inputs that I need.
The problem is that I want to EQ just the L&R speakers, so then I would get their signal via the receiver L&R pre-outs and then that leaves me with the need for DSP and amplification.
So adding a minidsp system would take care of the DSP, but that leaves me with the need for amplification.... so I was wondering if I could just take any run of the mill old receiver that I have and use it as the amp. Or will the quality of amp truly effect the audibility.
Or what would be the most affordable amp+DSP combo?

Thanks!

Does your receiver have digital PEQ already? Many do. Also, does your receiver have room correction? That’s another way to get it to make corrections, even up in the speaker range. I would experiment with that first.

In this case, I would let it correct the whole curve, not just below Schroeder frequency. This is because the speaker badly needs correcting. The built in room eq might have enough horsepower to calculate all the corrections you need. I would re-measure at the end with REW to confirm you’re getting a nice smooth curve. That might be all you need. If your receiver’s DSP capability is too limited, it might not be able to make all of the corrections needed.

IMO, an “affordable“ amp+DSP combo that can also perform surround processing duties is the Monoprice HTP-1 with hypex amps like @Buckeye Amps. This will give you 16 PEQ slots of DSP per channel, plus state of the art Dirac room correction. And it can decode everything and has nice upmixers like Auro3D. It is not “the most affordable”—you can definitely remove features and pay less. But it’s very affordable for what you get.

For your multichannel situation, there is really no benefit with going fully active. You would need 2 amps per speaker, doubling amp costs, and more advanced hardware/software to make the digital crossovers. You could do this with a Trinnov unit, using 2 outputs per speaker and having it domthe crossovers, speaker eq, and room eq—but that is $$$!