Christine Balfa. 45 minutes of pure triangle bliss.
Surely you can appreciate her triangle plus vocals, which have a certain feline quality, and take the required frequency range of your audio system down a few hundred Hz...
Last edited:
Christine Balfa. 45 minutes of pure triangle bliss.
And as mentioned by an avsforum member:
“Sorry for being novice, but comparing a $9 DAC to HTP-1 is kind of comparing a $9 steering wheel to the entire car, is it not?”
Personally, I'd have preferred a 4000$ processor with 8 AES/EBU outputs, so I can use whatever DAC I fancy. DANTE or RAVENNA would be a great alternative...
And as mentioned by an avsforum member:
“Sorry for being novice, but comparing a $9 DAC to HTP-1 is kind of comparing a $9 steering wheel to the entire car, is it not?”
This is one of the compelling things about the JBL SDP-55, I think, even at its higher $6K price point.
I was going to suggest to go and give him a like on AVS just to realize it is you here as well. Very good detective work. I don't have the patience to do the detective work you have done there. I think the only response would have to come from Monoprice on whether your analysis is correct.A Proposed Reason for the Excess Distortion in the HTP-1
It seems unproductive to make the same posts on a separate website so here is a link to a post on the AVSForum as to why the HTP-1 may have excess distortion . The link is based on looking at the hardware so there are of course uncertainties as to if the observations match the actual design. There are previous posts a few posts back on the same AVSForum site that provide more details of the design of the HTP-1 from the DAC IC to the output.
Input on all this would be great.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...lith-htp-1-owners-thread-40.html#post59240064
Post with an overview of the design:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...lith-htp-1-owners-thread-39.html#post59238228
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...lith-htp-1-owners-thread-39.html#post59238376
First, even after paying $4,000, you don't get a measurement microphone with this processor! I don't know what they were thinking. So out of box, I can't perform any automatic EQ testing. Second, I have tested the EQ systems on a number of products in the past like Lyngdorf, Paradigm (with Anthem ARC). For the most part the better designed ones work well. However, keep in mind that almost all of them lie about the corrections they perform.
The graphs they show are simulated correct curves, not remeasured. Indeed remeasuring is almost impossible if you move the microphone during measurements as is required. You would have to accurately remember 3-D positions of each position to repeat it which is not very practical.
Third, the real test of an EQ system is to listen. Yes, "trust your ears." A single microphone and certainly electronic instrumentation cannot convey what two ears hear in an acoustic environment.
Max output is not really limited to 2.9 V. Without post processing adding several dB of possible gain, the amp will not be reaching its max output. In contrast to DACs, which require no headroom for additional processes, that's a big part of what happens in AVPs. That also helps explain why we will not see AVPs with the same noise floor as DACs. In a DAC, 0 dBFS runs the Dac chip to its full output. In an AVR, it may be several dB lower (design dependent).With volume set to 0 dB (red), there is no compression visible. Max output is now limited to 2.9 volts. Why that would be good for an amp that has 7 volts sensitivity, I don't know.
So? Benchmark, RME and other DACs like them have headroom to deal with inter-sample overs. And in the case of RME, has internal DSP to boot. Indeed the need for headroom instructs one to build robust output buffer with far higher capability for output than what we see here.Max output is not really limited to 2.9 V. Without post processing adding several dB of possible gain, the amp will not be reaching its max output. In contrast to DACs, which require no headroom for additional processes, that's a big part of what happens in AVPs. That also helps explain why we will not see AVPs with the same noise floor as DACs. In a DAC, 0 dBFS runs the Dac chip to its full output. In an AVR, it may be several dB lower (design dependent).
Hi Noah. Good to see another familiar face from AVS days.Did you listen to the HTP-1, and if so what were your impressions?
Inter-sample overs add what, 3 dB?So? Benchmark, RME and other DACs like them have headroom to deal with inter-sample overs. And in the case of RME, has internal DSP to boot. Indeed the need for headroom instructs one to build robust output buffer with far higher capability for output than what we see here.
Of course it does. What kind of question is that?RME has an internal DSP?
Rhetorical.
You are making a statement or asking something? If the latter, you need to explain better. I am not a mind reader. And tell me how much you understand about electronics and DSP so I know at what level to answer you. Until then, here is the RME measurements:Feed in 0 dBFS. Measure S/N. Now add 10 dB boost. What happens to the output? The S and the N.
We were talking about the addition of post-processing's impact on system S/N. The RME is a DAC with post processing, so I am wondering how that impacts the S/N. The simple test would be to first establish the THD+N ratio same as you did for the HTP-1, with a 0 dBFS input. Then use the RME's DSP (can be EQ, tone, or gain) to add 10 dB to the input signal. Then look at THD+N again. I'm not exactly sure what to expect because I do not know what their " adapted analog output stage" does. But I'd be interested to see these results if you have time to do them. Thanks!You are making a statement or asking something? If the latter, you need to explain better. I am not a mind reader. And tell me how much you understand about electronics and DSP so I know at what level to answer you. Until then, here is the RME measurements:
View attachment 50131