Monoprice HTP-1 Home Theater Processor Review

[vitalii427]

Thanks Amir!

That's sad. I had high hopes for this device. Looking forward for more expensive units like new Arcam and Audio Control.

@amirm What theater processors do you use at Madrona Digital to setup Dolby Atmos theaters for your clients? (more affordable than JBL Synthesis and Trinnov)

 

[JohnYang1997]

Try a low level multitone to see whatever it really truncates the bits. Oh no need. 16bit can't output clean -90db sine. So it's not truncated, just a mute.

 

[database]

I hope the review unit wasn't already sent back. I wasn't able to reproduce the results of the linearity sweep on my unit by playing the test tone with the settings in the attached image -- I was still able to hear the sound of this test tone through my speakers. Please let me know if my test is incorrect or if I need to test something else to be sure.

I know that the HTP-1 does sometimes need a second before it "wakes up" from mute which can invalidate the first run of test tone sweeps. I have seen this when taking simple FR sweeps in REW and the measurement appears to be cut off below 100 Hz or so; simply redoing the sweep usually fixes that issue. I'm not sure how fast the linearity sweep is but perhaps that is what happened here?

 

[BogdanR]

...2 channel systems are so vintage .

Vintage, yes, but still the easiest, most cost effective way to put together a musically satisfying system. I could probably walk in my local small audio dealer’s demo/ second hand floor with $1000 and walk out with an amp, a good pair of speakers and a decent turntable for that. And if one isn’t into vinyl there’s plenty of room left for a decent desktop DAC and a DYI RasPi based streamer. Or get a decent pair of headphones instead of the speakers, your choice.
Try doing that for multichannel.

 

[markus]

The test starts at -120 dB and keeps increasing the level. The HTP-1 kept flashing its PCM indicator but would produce no output until we got down to -90 dB which is 1 bit short of 16 bit audio.

Hi Amir

Looks like there is some kind of muting active until you pass a certain signal level. Just like the good (?) old auto-on function in subs. I suspect you would get your full bit depth once the audio path is unmuted. Can you run your test starting from high to low levels instead of running it from low to high?

 

[JohnYang1997]

Hi Amir

Looks like there is some kind of muting active until you pass a certain signal level. Just like the good (?) old auto-on function in subs. I suspect you would get your full bit depth once the audio path is unmuted. Can you run your test starting from high to low levels instead of running it from low to high?

No need. It does not truncate the bits once unmuted.

 

[Xyrium]

Vintage, yes, but still the easiest, most cost effective way to put together a musically satisfying system. I could probably walk in my local small audio dealer’s demo/ second hand floor with $1000 and walk out with an amp, a good pair of speakers and a decent turntable for that. And if one isn’t into vinyl there’s plenty of room left for a decent desktop DAC and a DYI RasPi based streamer. Or get a decent pair of headphones instead of the speakers, your choice.
Try doing that for multichannel.

I'd really like to see a room measurement from the mic position after one of the room eq's are run, of a 7.1+ system to determine how much cancellation is actually going on. Ergo, how much of the original signal reaches the listener's ears. I understand that the system attempts to set the delays on each output accordingly, but there must be a significant margin for error given how many additional reflective signals are created by all of those speakers.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I'd really like to see a room measurement from the mic position after one of the room eq's are run, of a 7.1+ system to determine how much cancellation is actually going on. Ergo, how much of the original signal reaches the listener's ears. I understand that the system attempts to set the delays on each output accordingly, but there must be a significant margin for error given how many additional reflective signals are created by all of those speakers.

It's a ground up different topology. Do you hear room reflection in nature from sound source? If the answer is yes then why bother hearing the original signal? It doesn't need the perfect phase to create center image, there is one actual speaker for that. So more channel = better in this sense. Also there's actual physical sound stage which is absent in dual channel. They are fundamentally different.

 

[BogdanR]

...
Also there's actual physical sound stage which is absent in dual channel. They are fundamentally different.

Can you please explain that? I’m not entirely sure what you mean.

 

[markus]

No need. It does not truncate the bits once unmuted.

In that case @amirm needs to update the test results in post 1.

 

[Dimifoot]

Vintage, yes, but still the easiest, most cost effective way

No, single channel is easier and cheaper

a musically satisfying system

I can’t get no satisfaction ...from 2 channels anymore. 5.2 is the minimum requirement.

 

[BogdanR]

I can’t get no satisfaction ...from 2 channels anymore. 5.2 is the minimum requirement.

Sure thing. 5.2 goes well with ALL the recorded musical material in existence.
To each it’s own I guess.

 

[Xyrium]

It's a ground up different topology. Do you hear room reflection in nature from sound source? If the answer is yes then why bother hearing the original signal? It doesn't need the perfect phase to create center image, there is one actual speaker for that. So more channel = better in this sense. Also there's actual physical sound stage which is absent in dual channel. They are fundamentally different.

When I listen to a recording, those reflections are included, and enhanced by various reverb and delay processing in many cases. I don't need a room to add additional reflections, and possible cancellations to that original signal. Therefore, we have an add that causes a subtraction. Ergo, the sum that reaches the listener's ears is less than the parts of the original signal.

However, I readily admit that I'm reading through the essay that Amir wrote on sound perception, and the associated reference material. So, I have much to learn in regards to room interaction. As it stands, I'm one of those people who put absorbers wherever I can.

 

[ex audiophile]

Hopefully this unit is still in the "return window". Many thanks to the owner for arranging this review. I'm delighted that we are seeing more reviews of processors and AVRs. I know the Anthem AVR Amir tested had mediocre performance but I'm hoping the AVM60 would be better. Anthem has the ability to produce quality products (STR series) and I'm hoping (as an AVM60 owner) that their expertise extends to their processors.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I am not an engineer, so I can't expain it thorougly.
I do remember the manufacturers response in the XMC thread: it doesn't apply to real world signals, only in measurement situations.

We should keep in mind that this is not a 2 channel dac.

Its 16 channels, not two, + dsp-crossover functions+ expensive room eq software (7.1 Dirac software for PC used to cost 700 euros)+ HDMI-dolby-dts etc codecs/royalties etc etc.

I consider it a bargain, and definitely measures better than any AV product tested here. 10db better SINAD than the Marantz 8805, which is more expensive, 6 db better than the NAD (also more expensive).

Comparison with the 2 channel equipment is not easy. There are some 2 channel dac- processors with good Room eq software and subwoofer cross functions from NAD, minidsp, Lyngdorf, Trinnov, and they definitely cost a lot more than 1000 euros. For 2 channels. No codecs/royalties included.
Lets do the math.

And most important: I would never consider buying 2 channel processors in 2020. Multichannel reproduction is way more satisfying- and accurate (!) with the appropriate recordings.

2 channel systems are so vintage .

Unless of course you're listening to any one of the more than 10 million music LPs recorded in 2 channel.

 

[BogdanR]

No, single channel is easier and cheaper
View attachment 49899



.

I’ll do you one better. This one is both cheap AND single channel (mono). And it sounds much, much better than it looks.
I used to have one of these back when I was young in former Communist Romania and it was our “gang”s precious companion thru many BBQs, camping or beach parties. I would always make room for it in my backpack, plus cassettes and spare batteries.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I'd really like to see a room measurement from the mic position after one of the room eq's are run, of a 7.1+ system to determine how much cancellation is actually going on. Ergo, how much of the original signal reaches the listener's ears. I understand that the system attempts to set the delays on each output accordingly, but there must be a significant margin for error given how many additional reflective signals are created by all of those speakers.

I think the whole purpose of the additional speakers is to swamp the room related effects by creating direct sound sources in 16 different places (in the case of Dolby Atmos), so the room does not need to add the ambiance b/c the surround speakers already do.

 

[RichB]

Well, the JBL SDP-55 might exist one day, who knows. Release seems like it keeps being pushed back. $6K is not an easy pill to swallow, either, but still a bargain compared to ridiculous Trinnov stuff.

The HTP-1 and JBL SDP-55 use the same Momentum Data Systems (MDS) DSP platform. The XMC-1 is based on an older MDS platform. It may be that JBL applies some pressure to correct the bit-dropping issue.

The emphasis on these processors seems to be on 16 channels which very few will ever use. Dirac processing is limited to 48kHz.
Matching the performance of a 2-channel desktop DAC is not on the feature list

- Rich

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Try a low level multitone to see whatever it really truncates the bits. Oh no need. 16bit can't output clean -90db sine. So it's not truncated, just a mute.

Exactly. The linearity test is flawed in the face of a mute function.

This is a real problem if the test is left to stand as is, as it makes the testing protocol look stupid and demeans the value of the other testing done. It is clear that the processor does not truncate signals at 16 bits. That would lead to clear performance problems in other tests that are simply not seen.

What is needed is a test of the time constant on the mute function to ensure that it does not impact on real life use of the processor. Something that unmutes at signals as low as we see here is probably impossible to perceive in normal use.

Having a mute is interesting. I think this was suggested in discussion of the Emotiva, but it isn't impossible the processing chain mutes to prevent idle tones being generated in the face of very low to zero input. Same reason some DACs actually mute their output in the face of zero input.

 

[Xulonn]

My first reaction to reading this review was to recall the recent revelation of internal email criticisms of Boeing that included the statement:

‘Designed by clowns…supervised by monkeys:’

However, that may be too harsh, and I think that we are seeing the results of a marketing company that hired journeymen electronics engineers. Monoprice is likely dedicated to profit first, and then minimum quality and performance to reach their revenue and profit goals, and not a company dedicated to producing the very finest A/V components and accessories. Their model seems to work well for many of their products such as cables. The below is from the Monoprice website.

ABOUT Monoprice

Established in 2002, we have built a stellar reputation for product excellence and customer service.

We offer over 7,000 high-quality, affordable electronics and accessories to professionals and consumers worldwide.

Our proven business model eliminates entire layers of markup within the supply chain, which allows us to sell premium products at a fraction of marketplace prices with incomparable speed and service.