Minidsp SHD Review Updated (DSP, DAC & Streamer)

[whitfc]

I am not sure why the SHD Volumio software had to fork but seems to be unified again and the Roon Ready support can be activated on the NEO3 units.

I think we are in the final stretch for Roon support.

- Rich

Is Roon now working on NEO3? Or will this only be available once this update has been certified by Roon?

 

[RichB]

Is Roon now working on NEO3? Or will this only be available once this update has been certified by Roon?

You can enable Roon Ready under the Music settings. It is shown in Roon but cannot be enabled until the MiniDSP is certified by Roon.
So, it cannot be used but is getting closer.

- Rich

 

[Sonnie]

Has anyone noticed any turn-on thump/pop with the SHD?

I know we typically turn on the amps first, but curious if I'm swapping processors while the amps are on, turn off my HTP-1 and turn on my SHD... is there any noise. I also know I can test it, but just curious if it is obvious before I test it. My feelings are that it is designed well enough that it doesn't, but want to make sure.

 

[RichB]

Has anyone noticed any turn-on thump/pop with the SHD?

I know we typically turn on the amps first, but curious if I'm swapping processors while the amps are on, turn off my HTP-1 and turn on my SHD... is there any noise. I also know I can test it, but just curious if it is obvious before I test it. My feelings are that it is designed well enough that it doesn't, but want to make sure.

There are no clicks or pops originating from the NEO3 SHD with either the AHB2 nor with the AT525NC amplifiers.

- Rich

 

[al2002]

In response to an enquiry, miniDSP have informed me that the SHD was revised around Sept-Oct 2018. They state that there have been no further changes since then.

And if they meant “update” as the difference between the 2018 measurements and the 2020 measurements, I believe the answer is hardware, not sure anyone knows where, and no one knows exactly when since the change happened discretely, but people more knowledgeable than me say it happened very shortly after Amir’s 2018 measurements. If you have a unit from anytime post mid-2019ish then pretty safe safe to say it matches the updated measurements. Tons of qualification and hearsay and conjecture, I know, but that’s life on an internet forum.

 

[Sonnie]

In response to my enquiry, miniDSP have informed me that the SHD was revised around Sept-Oct 2018. There have been no changes since then.

I believe several of us have verified otherwise if you look back at the pics we took of the inside.

I have two models within a few months of each other from end of 2020 to beginning of 2021... they are different internally.

 

[al2002]

Interesting, because I received the email only yesterday. Wonder why they would say that?

 

[Sonnie]

Interesting, because I received the email only yesterday. Wonder why they would say that?

Probably just the wrong person answering the question... it can certainly happen.

 

[Dathzo]

Hello all,

I am in the same dilemma as many: MiniDSP SHD or NAD C658 (1500 vs 1600EUR here in Europe, so same price ballpark).

What I like about the NAD compared to the miniDSP:

1- Better implementation of DIRAC LIVE (and an App to control it)
2. Roon ready (it may come in the minidsp soon, but waiting for ages already)
3. Sub-correction through Dirac, dedicated sub channels for Dirac correction (while in miniDSP you can only use Dirac as 2.0, although this is useless if the sub output is weak in the NAD as many claim)
4. More chances of DLBC due to #3
5. Headphone out
6. Trigger in/out
7. 5-years guarantee (less when bought used, but miniDSP is 1 year only)
8. BlueOS instead of Volumio (if Roon is not used)

What I like about the miniDSP compared to the NAD:

1. Flexibility on the crossovers/slopes and independent channel customization
2. PEq on top of DIRAC LIVE
3. Possibility to use REW and REW filters
4. Better SINAD as measured by ASR (112 vs 90db - I think that 90db is not audible)

What are your takes on this one?
Cheers,
dathzo

 

[Sonnie]

Good points on both. I'm not so sure I agree with the better implementation of Dirac Live on the NAD. I have the Monolith HTP-1 with DLBC, but I much prefer the 2.0 implementation for my subs in the SHD. I have 4 subs for music, and I prefer my own time alignment using REW's timing reference vs Dirac. Dirac will alter time alignment to achieve a better response. My timing allows me to present the 4 subs as one sub instead of 4. They are already corrected with a couple of PEQ filters, and volume matched for my preference to the mains. Dirac in the HTP-1 averages the input signal of the subs, whereas in the SHD, I can set my sub level and Dirac does not change it. In other words, I have to boost the subs back up in the HTP-1, and I do not have to do this in the SHD, I can follow their natural response into the mains. So I'm not a big fan of DLBC for two-channel. For surround and movies it's okay, and probably makes more sense with multiple speakers needing different crossover points, although I do wish Dirac would not normalize the level, or at least give us the option.

 

[CumSum]

I am in the same dilemma as many: MiniDSP SHD or NAD C658 (1500 vs 1600EUR here in Europe, so same price ballpark).

The NAD is probably better for the less technically inclined person that wants a more complete all in one box. But with simplicity comes less control. The MiniDSP gives you ultimate control over your speakers/subs. With that comes the need for some technical know how on how to best utilize the tools it gives you.

For achieving the best sound possible, the MiniDSP will have the edge. It gives you more flexibility in tuning your system. And it offers a better DAC or digital outs for outboard DACs (like I do with my SHD Studio).

DLBC isn't necessary. I have multiple dual sub speaker systems, and 2 channel DIRAC does wonders to bass performance. DLBC is probably better for the person without much bass integration experience. Again the trade off of complexity versus ease of use.

So if you are the person that wants to be hands on with how your system sounds, and even run some fun audio experiments to learn more about the hobby, go with the MiniDSP. If you want something easy to use to just set and forget then get the NAD.

 

[Dathzo]

Good points on both. I'm not so sure I agree with the better implementation of Dirac Live on the NAD. I have the Monolith HTP-1 with DLBC, but I much prefer the 2.0 implementation for my subs in the SHD. I have 4 subs for music, and I prefer my own time alignment using REW's timing reference vs Dirac. Dirac will alter time alignment to achieve a better response. My timing allows me to present the 4 subs as one sub instead of 4. They are already corrected with a couple of PEQ filters, and volume matched for my preference to the mains. Dirac in the HTP-1 averages the input signal of the subs, whereas in the SHD, I can set my sub level and Dirac does not change it. In other words, I have to boost the subs back up in the HTP-1, and I do not have to do this in the SHD, I can follow their natural response into the mains. So I'm not a big fan of DLBC for two-channel. For surround and movies it's okay, and probably makes more sense with multiple speakers needing different crossover points, although I do wish Dirac would not normalize the level, or at least give us the option.

Hi @Sonnie, thanks for the detailed answer and perspective. This is super useful. Some comments/questions here:

-what I mean with better implementation is that it can correct the subs independently, but thanks for your opinion that for music the Dirac 2.0 could be better; had not thought it in that way. I have tested both Dirac 2.0 and DLBC in a 2.1 setup. Both sounded great and were a massive improvement in my system. I did not have the chance of A/B testing, but for a 2.1 setup, I suppose the differences are minor.
-I am talking about my living room here, not a dedicated room, so the effect of Dirac is massive
-I think that CumSum summarized it well regarding the easiness of use. I started experimenting with REW recently, and I’m no expert for sub-integration. I bought my first sub only a month ago and did wonders with my system filling some dips I had. I am looking into getting a second one soon .

a couple of questions:

1. when you say you use REW, do you use the time alignment feature and then set any eventual delay up with the SHD?
2. I understand that with the SHD the sub correction is done by REW/ears before polishing with Dirac 2.0?
3. I am not sure why you would need to boost your subs with DLBC active (in the HTP-1). When I tested DLBC, Dirac would take care of leveling the sub (or subs in your case) to the mains according to the target curve. Am I missing something?

apologies if any of the questions has obvious answers; still in my learning curve.
All the best.-

 

[Dathzo]

The NAD is probably better for the less technically inclined person that wants a more complete all in one box. But with simplicity comes less control. The MiniDSP gives you ultimate control over your speakers/subs. With that comes the need for some technical know how on how to best utilize the tools it gives you.

For achieving the best sound possible, the MiniDSP will have the edge. It gives you more flexibility in tuning your system. And it offers a better DAC or digital outs for outboard DACs (like I do with my SHD Studio).

DLBC isn't necessary. I have multiple dual sub speaker systems, and 2 channel DIRAC does wonders to bass performance. DLBC is probably better for the person without much bass integration experience. Again the trade off of complexity versus ease of use.

So if you are the person that wants to be hands on with how your system sounds, and even run some fun audio experiments to learn more about the hobby, go with the MiniDSP. If you want something easy to use to just set and forget then get the NAD.

Thank you @CumSum. I think you nailed it: that’s a fantastic summary of the choice I need to make.

I have experience with minidsp. I currently have the 2x4HD and with REW, I managed to get my system to sound pretty good. I am probably not using every single feature from it, but I learned a lot from their Application Notes, by measuring room responses and most importantly, by understanding what type of responses sounded more satisfying for me, which is not necessarily the flattest one. I’m willing to keep learning, but I certainly value simplicity and easiness to use, and I reckon the BlueOS/NAD has probably an advantage here.

Adding up your reply to the one from Sonnie, it becomes clear that: a) DLBC is not needed (DL would suffice); b) for best sound, SHD seems to be the route to go.

Thank you again.-

 

[SDX-LV]

Yes. If you only need 5V then it’s just a matter of adding a mono jack to a standard USB power cable, or find the right step-up cable and replace the barrel with the mono jack. I have a post some ways back about what I used.

Stupid question: does anyone know a simple way buy/get/make a 5V triggerable power outlet? I have Neumann KH120 which do not have auto-stanby, so I would love to automatically cut power to them when SHD Neo3 is turned off. There are very few options in Europe and I have not yet found a good one.

 

[CumSum]

Hi @Sonnie1. when you say you use REW, do you use the time alignment feature and then set any eventual delay up with the SHD?
2. I understand that with the SHD the sub correction is done by REW/ears before polishing with Dirac 2.0?
3. I am not sure why you would need to boost your subs with DLBC active (in the HTP-1). When I tested DLBC, Dirac would take care of leveling the sub (or subs in your case) to the mains according to the target curve. Am I missing something?

You need to optimize your speaker/sub setup as best as you can BEFORE performing DIRAC. What does optimize mean?

1. Placement - Measure speakers and subs individually, and find placements that give you the flattest response possible. You are looking for complimentary frequency responses. For example if sub 1 has a 50-70Hz null, then find a place for sub 2 that can help fill that null.
2. Set crossovers - 80Hz is my go to and I wouldn't go any lower. I would only go higher if it helps fill a null and is still not localizable. Do not use crossovers with slopes higher than 24dB.
3. Acoustic Time Alignment in REW - Perform time alignment of speakers and subs and input delays into the MiniDSP and verify the time alignment is correct. Crossovers effect these measurements so set them first, including any subsonic filters. Also check the polarity of your speakers/subs using the impulse response. The delays should be somewhat close to an actual distance measurement. If it is wildly different then either you must adjust how you perform the acoustic timing measurement or the polarity of one of your speakers/subs is incorrect.
4. Volume match subs and adjust sub gain to be around 10dB higher than your mains. Running the bass hot gives you more flexibility in your DIRAC target curves.
5. Verify the setup by running measurements with everything on at the same time. The response should be close to an averaging of the individual responses. If it doesn't match then you aren't properly time aligned.

DIRAC will perform its own time alignment and volume matching of the Left and Right channels. If you set up your system up correctly, then these values should be very close to zero.

There is no need for your own use of PEQ. Especially when it comes to the subwoofers as I would argue it will actually hurt performance. DIRAC target curve is where all your focus should be when tailoring the sound to your own preferences.

 

[Sonnie]

Hi @Sonnie, thanks for the detailed answer and perspective. This is super useful. Some comments/questions here:

-what I mean with better implementation is that it can correct the subs independently, but thanks for your opinion that for music the Dirac 2.0 could be better; had not thought it in that way. I have tested both Dirac 2.0 and DLBC in a 2.1 setup. Both sounded great and were a massive improvement in my system. I did not have the chance of A/B testing, but for a 2.1 setup, I suppose the differences are minor.
-I am talking about my living room here, not a dedicated room, so the effect of Dirac is massive
-I think that CumSum summarized it well regarding the easiness of use. I started experimenting with REW recently, and I’m no expert for sub-integration. I bought my first sub only a month ago and did wonders with my system filling some dips I had. I am looking into getting a second one soon .

a couple of questions:

1. when you say you use REW, do you use the time alignment feature and then set any eventual delay up with the SHD?
2. I understand that with the SHD the sub correction is done by REW/ears before polishing with Dirac 2.0?
3. I am not sure why you would need to boost your subs with DLBC active (in the HTP-1). When I tested DLBC, Dirac would take care of leveling the sub (or subs in your case) to the mains according to the target curve. Am I missing something?

apologies if any of the questions has obvious answers; still in my learning curve.
All the best.-

I have what is probably a convoluted way of handling my calibration setup with two systems... or really just two processors, one for two-channel and one for multi-channel. My room is indeed dedicated, so it makes a difference in how I setup the calibration. Everything in the room is pretty much symmetrical. My two front subs are equidistant to the MLP, as are the two rear subs. I use the acoustic reference timing in REW to time align those two sets of subs from front to back, which in essence makes them one sub, and I daisy chain them front to back. Then I use the PEQ's on the subs to fix a couple of minor issues. I measure the combined response of all four subs, since they are mono and all play the same bass at the same time, and should be adjusted likewise. The combined response looks good, so Dirac takes care of the super minor anomalies. I could use the PEQ's in the SHD as well... just whatever is needed. I do have a couple of high-pass filters on my subs at maybe 12-15Hz (can't remember exactly), but it takes care of a little hump I have down really low that I can't get to with the SVS PEQ filters. The HTP-1 also has a host of features and adjustments, including PEQs, shelf filters, etc... very much like the SHD. I also have no limitations to placement of the subs, so they are placed optimally for the best response, therefore not a lot of filters are needed... thankfully.

I use PEQs in the subs because we do a lot of speaker evaluations in my room, and we don't want to always use Dirac, although we might use the subs on some speakers. Having worked for SVS and knowing their engineers, etc, using PEQ before Dirac or Audyssey in no way affects the performance. A lot of guys do this... never heard of anyone complaining about it having any adverse affects... and I've done it for years on top of years.

I have two inputs on my subs. One set is from the HTP-1 and the other set is from the SHD. One or the other is OFF so that only one set of inputs are fed live by whichever processor I'm using. Then as previously mentioned, front subs are daisy chained to the back subs with timing adjusted.

I run my HTP-1 calibration first, which does separate the subs from the mains. This also gives me the correct timing between my mains and subs, which I can plug into the SHD. For example... the mains are delayed by 12.4ms to time align with the subs... so I set the delay on the mains in the SHD to 12.4ms. Then I run Dirac.

The issue with Dirac normalizing the levels in the HTP-1 is that I already have my subs at the proper level to match my mains... which is typically about 10dB higher than the mains (gradual slope / house curve). Dirac removes it when it normalizes the response measurement, and I have to set my target curve so that it boosts the bass back up that 10dB. I can start with the subs level down, but I don't want to do that... as it is perfect for the SHD, and I'd have to boost it there as well. In essence it's not really a boost because all Dirac did was lower the output of the subs. Yet, I still like the way the SHD handles it with the actually level since it is 2.0.

 

[CumSum]

@Sonnie If I ever went into multi-channel HT, the HTP-1 would be my processor of choice because of how similar it is to the SHD in functionality. Interesting that you still use an SHD for two channel but I sure hope I wouldn't need an SHD on top of a $4000 processor. Having helped a client with an Arcam AV40 (not DLBC but multi-channel DIRAC), I was able to get the bass performing well in 2 channel. Though that AVR is far from ideal for getting the best bass out of a system. Hence my fondness for the HTP-1.

 

[SDX-LV]

Have you tried using MSO for multiple Subs? https://www.minidsp.com/applications/subwoofer-tuning/dual-sub-with-mso
Sounds like a more powerful tool than just REW.

 

[Sonnie]

@Sonnie If I ever went into multi-channel HT, the HTP-1 would be my processor of choice because of how similar it is to the SHD in functionality. Interesting that you still use an SHD for two channel but I sure hope I wouldn't need an SHD on top of a $4000 processor. Having helped a client with an Arcam AV40 (not DLBC but multi-channel DIRAC), I was able to get the bass performing well in 2 channel. Though that AVR is far from ideal for getting the best bass out of a system. Hence my fondness for the HTP-1.

I can't hear a difference in two-channel between the HTP-1 and SHD... but I'm a big fan of miniDSP and know Tony fairly well, so I try to support them when I can. I also have 6 subs I use with the HTP-1 for movies and TV... add to the 4x SB16-Ultras an extra pair of PB16-Ultras, that I don't really want to use, nor do I need them for music, where I stick with just the 4x SB16-Ultras. The SB's really do well enough for movies too, but I like overkill, and the PB's do give me a little more oomph on the bottom-end for movies. I could get by with the HTP-1, but then where's the fun in that for me?

 

[CumSum]

Have you tried using MSO for multiple Subs? https://www.minidsp.com/applications/subwoofer-tuning/dual-sub-with-mso
Sounds like a more powerful tool than just REW.

That's an interesting tool that I'll have to check out. It looks like it takes a very similar approach as to I how I integrate my own system, but does so in a guided fashion which can be useful for people dipping their toes into this stuff. I'll see how its results stack up to my own.