Monolith by Monoprice HTP-1 16 Channel Dolby Atmos & DTS:X Home Theater Processor w/Dirac & Alexa Compatibility

[Danzilla31]

Yep. 13 Ch + 3 Subs. So it's a 7.3.6 Pre-pro.

Here is an internal picture of the DataSAT/ATI pre-pro that this Monolith pre-pro is based on. Makes me drool seeing how simple and clean and mean it looks.

Reminds me of a simple PC-built with a "motherboard" on the bottom + "PCI" cards for the HDMI and XLR.

7.3.6 that's friggin epic Epic! I think my heart just swooned the kind of swoon you do when your looking at a hot chic!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I heard the XLRs on the Monolith amps were't true balanced... Are these?

Yeah, they have balanced outputs, but they are not fully balanced from input to output.

I've seen cases where a "not fully balanced" pre-pro (like the Yamaha CX-A5100) actually has better SNR by 3dB when testing the XLR (balanced) signals compared to the RCA (unbalanced) signals.

And then I've seen cases where a fully balanced (input to output) amp's balanced signal didn't measure any better than the unbalanced signal in SNR.

So it depends. Having balanced XLR outputs could still give you an advantage in SNR by 3dB even if it is not fully balanced from input-to-output.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Well, it is branded "monolith" on the front.

You really think the Dirac license is that much per unit?

My main concern is that they'll have firmware bugs/issues that may or may not get fixed. I ONLY say that just due to how few of these they'll probably sell.

It doesn’t cost that much. The licensing costs are stuck because the base unit has it. It’s also considered a huge selling point.

Sorry but removing Dirac would likely save only $100.

I think it’s a really good deal when you consider what it is. Given the basis for it, it’s setup flexibility is likely unmatched for the price. 5! Sub channels. Full use of the new Dirac bass management when available. Yes pleas.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Instead of Monolith, use Seplith (7).

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I’ll be curious to know how much of the parts from the Datasat are retained. Is it the same DACs? Same analogue stage? Same circuit design? Anything cheapened or worsened for lower cost? If not, it really would be unmatched for the price. The Datasat has really good circuits with turkey balanced dual differential circuits, top notch DACs, and much better volume control, switching, and muting circuits. It led to the Datasat having much better channel separation, noise floor, and distortion than competitors.

It’s biggest problem may be that without a custom installer, many end users may struggle to set it up right. DIRAC will help simplify that for most, but all those manual controls is just asking for trouble. I hate to say that, but when I reviewed some past processors and receivers and asked why there weren’t more flexibility, that’s what they told me. If they give consumers enough rope to hang themselves they inevitably will and they blame it on a bad product.

The case in point is that by providing infinite adjustability in the bass management to allow for separate crossovers for the low pass and high pass, different slopes, and no high pass on the mains even. This is actually needed in a good processor for optimal setup, but that same flexibility leads to confusion and allows people to make things a lot worse. So they intentionally limit the features to just enough to get the job done.

 

[Danzilla31]

I’ll be curious to know how much of the parts from the Datasat are retained. Is it the same DACs? Same analogue stage? Same circuit design? Anything cheapened or worsened for lower cost? If not, it really would be unmatched for the price. The Datasat has really good circuits with turkey balanced dual differential circuits, top notch DACs, and much better volume control, switching, and muting circuits. It led to the Datasat having much better channel separation, noise floor, and distortion than competitors.

It’s biggest problem may be that without a custom installer, many end users may struggle to set it up right. DIRAC will help simplify that for most, but all those manual controls is just asking for trouble. I hate to say that, but when I reviewed some past processors and receivers and asked why there weren’t more flexibility, that’s what they told me. If they give consumers enough rope to hang themselves they inevitably will and they blame it on a bad product.

The case in point is that by providing infinite adjustability in the bass management to allow for separate crossovers for the low pass and high pass, different slopes, and no high pass on the mains even. This is actually needed in a good processor for optimal setup, but that same flexibility leads to confusion and allows people to make things a lot worse. So they intentionally limit the features to just enough to get the job done.

If I buy it and it's too confusing I'll just let you guys on audioholics help me set it up! Lol

 

[Matthew J Poes]

If I buy it and it's too confusing I'll just let you guys on audioholics help me set it up! Lol

My team has requested review samples once available so I hope to have a look myself. Even if I don’t end up buying one, I would love a chance to feel it out.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The Datasat has really good circuits with turkey balanced dual differential circuits, top notch DACs, and much better volume control, switching, and muting circuits. It led to the Datasat having much better channel separation, noise floor, and distortion than competitors.

Where did you find that the DataSAT LS10 has dual differential circuits?

Are there any measurements of SNR and Crosstalk?

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Where did you find that the DataSAT LS10 has dual differential circuits?

Are there any measurements of SNR and Crosstalk?

Internal communications with the company during the discussion of a possible review sample. I asked about the circuit design and parts, and I was given some specifics and some generics, and inferred the rest (so I may have this wrong, but I think I'm close). They said it has BB Dac's, half as many per channels as the RS20i, which has the 4104 and uses, I believe, 4 DACs per channel in a dual differential circuit. I am assuming they may still use the 4104 or a version of it but in just 2 Dacs per channel. That may be wrong.

I asked if the outputs are truly balanced and they said yes. I asked if it was the same as the RS20i and they said very similar.

I received numbers rather than measurements on the noise, distortion, and channel separation, but was told they came from an AP and could be shared at a later date. Since the review didn't materialize I never got it. It isn't a done deal either, I've just been busy and this is a big undertaking. None the less, this is what I heard. It may not be right, I may have misunderstood what they were telling me. I never wrote anything up and sent back to them for fact checking.

If you are very curious, I can always go back and ask again. My problem with getting quick responses is that my contact to them is through my relationship with DIRAC, a PR person, and then the engineer. It's very much a telephone game at the moment. I usually prefer to talk with the engineers directly, but it isn't always possible.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I just emailed my contact at ATI and asked 3 questions about the DataSAT LS10:

1. Is it fully balanced from input-to-output, or just balanced outputs?

2. SNR?

3. Crosstalk?

Will see if he has the answers.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I just emailed my contact at ATI and asked 3 questions about the DataSAT LS10:

1. Is it fully balanced from input-to-output, or just balanced outputs?

2. SNR?

3. Crosstalk?

Will see if he has the answers.

Ah thats funny, I just emailed my contact! Who is your guy? Mike?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ah thats funny, I just emailed my contact! Who is your guy? Mike?

That is funny. Sanjay is my contact. Well, hopefully at least one of them will know.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Internal communications with the company during the discussion of a possible review sample. I asked about the circuit design and parts, and I was given some specifics and some generics, and inferred the rest (so I may have this wrong, but I think I'm close). They said it has BB Dac's, half as many per channels as the RS20i, which has the 4104 and uses, I believe, 4 DACs per channel in a dual differential circuit. I am assuming they may still use the 4104 or a version of it but in just 2 Dacs per channel. That may be wrong.

This sounds like what we call "marketechure" in the computer hardware, software, and systems field. ;-) When eight channel TI (BB) DACs became available, I noticed several companies putting the extra DAC channels in a chip they didn't really need in differential mode, just because they were there, and then they used two eight channel DACs because they wanted the analog signal path from input to output to be differential, so the DAC processing path was technically dual-differential. However, the overall analog path is just differential - which is still good - but not really dual-differential, like McIntosh does on some of their amplifiers. Personally, I think one significant advantage of differential and dual-differential circuitry is that it definitely sounds cool in marketing material. While it does often make a measurable difference, especially for end-to-end analog in complicated systems, I'm not so sure the differences are audible. (Says the man with an end-to-end fully differential system.) It does sound cool though when I explain it to people. I see their eyes glaze over a bit when I get to the CMRR part, but they seem to think it's cool anyway. ;-)

 

[Matthew J Poes]

This sounds like what we call "marketechure" in the computer hardware, software, and systems field. ;-) When eight channel TI (BB) DACs became available, I noticed several companies putting the extra DAC channels in a chip they didn't really need in differential mode, just because they were there, and then they used two eight channel DACs because they wanted the analog signal path from input to output to be differential, so the DAC processing path was technically dual-differential. However, the overall analog path is just differential - which is still good - but not really dual-differential, like McIntosh does on some of their amplifiers. Personally, I think one significant advantage of differential and dual-differential circuitry is that it definitely sounds cool in marketing material. While it does often make a measurable difference, especially for end-to-end analog in complicated systems, I'm not so sure the differences are audible. (Says the man with an end-to-end fully differential system.) It does sound cool though when I explain it to people. I see their eyes glaze over a bit when I get to the CMRR part, but they seem to think it's cool anyway. ;-)

I don't think it makes a huge audible difference in the analog circuits if the equivalent differential analog (or even SE) are similarly good. Even with the DAC's it may not matter, but it's nice to know that the digital and analog circuit is capable of actually achieving the bit-rate (or close to it) that is claimed. Even if the speakers and human cannot.

It may be marketing but at least its something that objectively makes a difference on the test bench, unlike some marketing tricks used (like fancy wire or an isolation foot).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Personally, after owning the Denon AVP-A1HDIC Pre-pro, which was the "world's first fully balanced input-to-output Pre-pro", I would rather just have the balance output and skip the fully balance circuit.

More parts/components to create the dual differential for 16 CHANNELS is not a good idea to me.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Personally, after owning the Denon AVP-A1HDIC Pre-pro, which was the "world's first fully balanced input-to-output Pre-pro", I would rather just have the balance output and skip the fully balance circuit.

More parts/components to create the dual differential for 16 CHANNELS is not a good idea to me.

But if it's not a true balanced design, the single-ended signal has to be converted to balanced with an extra chip in the path. While good ones exist and provide transparent conversion, those used by companies like Marantz on their lower end balanced processors add noise. I don't want that.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Speaking of Balance vs Unbalance, what is most significant improvement in measurements you guys have seen?

For example, SNR for Balanced vs Unbalanced.

When Gene measured the Balanced vs Unbalanced SNR on his Yamaha MX-A5000 amp, he got a 3dB improvement in SNR. And the Yamaha is not fully balanced from input-to-output.

So how many dB can be improved when you compare Balanced vs Unbalanced in a component that is fully balanced?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But if it's not a true balanced design, the single-ended signal has to be converted to balanced with an extra chip in the path. While good ones exist and provide transparent conversion, those used by companies like Marantz on their lower end balanced processors add noise. I don't want that.

I agree and I have seen cases where the unbalanced signal had better SNR than the balanced.

But in the case of the Yamaha MX-A5000 amp, Gene measured a 3dB improvement with the Balanced, even though it is not a fully balanced amp.

https://www.audioholics.com/av-preamp-processor-reviews/yamaha-aventage-cx-a5000-mx/processor-and-amp-measurements

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Speaking of Balance vs Unbalance, what is most significant improvement in measurements you guys have seen?

For example, SNR for Balanced vs Unbalanced.

When Gene measured the Balanced vs Unbalanced SNR on his Yamaha MX-A5100 pre-pro, he got a 3dB improvement in SNR. And the Yamaha is not fully balanced from input-to-output.

So how many dB can be improved when you compare Balanced vs Unbalanced in a component that is fully balanced?

Normally SNR and distortion would improve, nothing else. However, you have to be careful because the peak signal increases too. If you are trying to compare apples to apples, you need to correct for the difference. SNR is often against the peak voltage, not a fixed common voltage.

In my own measurements (and I don't have Gene's AP), I only look at the noise floor when comparing to avoid making the voltage conversion. I'm bad at math!

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I agree and I have seen cases where the unbalanced signal had better SNR than the balanced.

But in the case of the Yamaha MX-A5100, Gene measured a 3dB improvement with the Balanced, even though it is not a fully balanced pre-pro.

It might just be the increased voltage from the balanced outs. Double the voltage is a 3dB increase. I forget off the top of my head the consumer balanced voltage standard or if that is what the Yamaha follows.