JBL SDP-55 Audio/Video Processor Review

[Newman]

To be frank you can forget about about Onkyo/Integra. There is nothing else to test. The HTP-1 is where it's at or Denon if the room correction fits your needs or HDMI 2.1 is important to you. I think I can say with confidence that this is the case.

Do you have the HTP-1? Are you suggesting it is the one to buy?

I have my concerns, not simply because of mediocre measurements but because of pragmatism. I nodded with sombre concern when, in his review thread of HTP-1, Amir wrote, "they (platform brands like Monoprice) give you the first version and then wave goodbye, leaving you to holding the empty plate. I wish anyone needing support on HTP-1 a few years from now good luck.....I can't fathom why Monoprice is going after the high-end market. It is not something that is associated with their brand or business model. ... Selling machines like HTP-1 hugely deviates from their core business."

Buying the HTP-1 does not appeal to me, not because I am a brand snob (in fact I own zero snobby brands of gear), but because support for HTP-1 is zero outside of US, and unknown inside US over any length of time. I need a bit better than that, and I suspect I am not alone in that.

cheers

 

[Vasr]

Amir wrote, "they (platform brands like Monoprice) give you the first version and then wave goodbye, leaving you to holding the empty plate. I wish anyone needing support on HTP-1 a few years from now good luck.....I can't fathom why Monoprice is going after the high-end market. It is not something that is associated with their brand or business model. ... Selling machines like HTP-1 hugely deviates from their core business."

I have no relationship with Monoprice (other than buying a few small things) nor do I own any of their audio equipment not have any insights into their management discussions.

I can understand the reasoning behind that naysaying of Monoprice adding the hi-fi end to their line, but I would not be so presumptuous as to judge another company's business model. All companies evolve, some successfully. One could have said the same thing (and I am sure more than a few did) when Amazon went from selling books to other things and that would have proved horribly wrong.

They have already been selling the Monolith brand units for 4 years now and adding more. If they were just OEMing from some unknown brand in Asia then I would worry more rather than getting it built by ATI.

I don't know of any units under the Monolith brand that have dropped with no support as yet. Amir may be aware of some specific example that would allow such a generalization. It seems a bit too prejudicial otherwise. Can't judge it by the cheap gizmo part of their business which is meant to be disposable OEM branding.

Obviously, there are no guarantees in this business. Any of the boutique players can easily go under any time. Heck people are buying a $1200 DAC from a startup in Czech Republic which seems like a one man shop. Good measurements don't guarantee a company will exist.

I do think this pre/pro is a good buy for the price given the competition and being ATI-manufactured and how it has worked for the owners so far. I would cheer them on to success than cast aspersions. Audio industry needs this, not just the mass-market AVR cartel.

But I certainly understand people making personal choices based on their own comfort levels. It is a personal thing.

 

[TimoJ]

Do you have the HTP-1? Are you suggesting it is the one to buy?

I have my concerns, not simply because of mediocre measurements but because of pragmatism. I nodded with sombre concern when, in his review thread of HTP-1, Amir wrote, "they (platform brands like Monoprice) give you the first version and then wave goodbye, leaving you to holding the empty plate. I wish anyone needing support on HTP-1 a few years from now good luck.....I can't fathom why Monoprice is going after the high-end market. It is not something that is associated with their brand or business model. ... Selling machines like HTP-1 hugely deviates from their core business."

Buying the HTP-1 does not appeal to me, not because I am a brand snob (in fact I own zero snobby brands of gear), but because support for HTP-1 is zero outside of US, and unknown inside US over any length of time. I need a bit better than that, and I suspect I am not alone in that.

cheers

I own one, had it over 5 months already. I has worked fine and offers many nice features. They have great tech support and they actually listen and implement new features based on customer feedback. I would definitely buy it again over the other currently available units. And I'm outside USA. They do offer 5 year warranty and free shipping for warranty repairs.

 

[Newman]

....If you watch any content at all from streaming services you'll want an Atmos setup or you'll basically get DD 5.1 with DVD bitrates from the 90s. I'm not even going to get into a deeper discussion about it since it's obvious that you've not properly investigated the difference yourself. Reading what you are saying sounds just like hardcore 2-channel people that say the same about the 5.1 surround scam and that nothing more than 2-channel is needed etc.

Hi, I don't want a deeper discussion (i.e. endless debate), but I am very interested in the first sentence quoted above.

I am very ignorant about audio on streaming services, so very surprised (delighted) to read that Atmos is advantageous for them. I had assumed that "DD 5.1 with DVD bitrates from the 90s" is what is offered from streaming services. So I have been questioning how I could make use of Atmos if I upgraded to Atmos in my playback gear.

Could you expand for me on the link between streaming services and Atmos please? Do they transmit 7.1.4 content? All of them do this, or just one or two? Are the bitrates high?

cheers

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hi, I don't want a deeper discussion (i.e. endless debate), but I am very interested in the first sentence quoted above.

I am very ignorant about audio on streaming services, so very surprised (delighted) to read that Atmos is advantageous for them. I had assumed that "DD 5.1 with DVD bitrates from the 90s" is what is offered from streaming services. So I have been questioning how I could make use of Atmos if I upgraded to Atmos in my playback gear.

Could you expand for me on the link between streaming services and Atmos please? Do they transmit 7.1.4 content? All of them do this, or just one or two? Are the bitrates high?

cheers

Yes anything that can stream Dolby Digital + which is slightly higher bitrate Dolby Digital is capable of streaming Dolby Atmos encoding. It is a bit of a moving target, but Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu, Hulu, Disney+ and Apple Tv at least can stream Atmos. It is still within the 768 kbps rate of DD+.

The issue is whether your streaming device can make use of it. Some can for some providers and not others, some can't at all, and of course things are changing as new products are released. For instance a Roku Ultra can do ATMOS, but I think there are only a couple or three service providers it works for and the others while offering Atmos won't work with the Roku. Similar situation for the Fire Stick and various other devices. I don't know who has the most complete functioning currently. I don't have an Atmos setup so not important to me yet.

 

[lashto]

Yes anything that can stream Dolby Digital + which is slightly higher bitrate Dolby Digital is capable of streaming Dolby Atmos encoding. It is a bit of a moving target, but Netflix, Amazon Prime, Vudu, Hulu, Disney+ and Apple Tv at least can stream Atmos. It is still within the 768 kbps rate of DD+.

The issue is whether your streaming device can make use of it. Some can for some providers and not others, some can't at all, and of course things are changing as new products are released. For instance a Roku Ultra can do ATMOS, but I think there are only a couple or three service providers it works for and the others while offering Atmos won't work with the Roku. Similar situation for the Fire Stick and various other devices. I don't know who has the most complete functioning currently. I don't have an Atmos setup so not important to me yet.

2019-20 TVs are quite good at streaming. I have a Philips (androidTV9) which properly streams all audio and video formats via ARC and has a screen-off mode for audio streaming. It all worked surprisingly well from day1.

Talking about streaming boxes, the best resource is probably the Kodi hardware forum (check the sticky threads on top). A lot of reading required though, there is a huge jungle of devices out there and none of them works 100%.

 

[Grandzoltar]

Although the pre pro is made by ati, all the other monolith line equipment has done very well. For instance headphone amps, subwoofers. Their power amps haven't been measured here yet but again made by ati and seem to have tons of power on tap. It's still AB topology though so I don't expect any record breaking sinad buy it for price and input sensitivity. The fft distortion test on AH is at 1 watt and full power so its hard to compare to measurements here.

 

[anmpr1]

@Francis Vaughan 2-channel music has vastly inferior recording and mastering compare to movies. The delivery format is also worse. If you try to listen to modern recordings on anything else that a Bluetooth speaker it’s horrible.

Do you think you might be overstating your point? Just a little?

 

[Krobar]

Hi, I don't want a deeper discussion (i.e. endless debate), but I am very interested in the first sentence quoted above.

I am very ignorant about audio on streaming services, so very surprised (delighted) to read that Atmos is advantageous for them. I had assumed that "DD 5.1 with DVD bitrates from the 90s" is what is offered from streaming services. So I have been questioning how I could make use of Atmos if I upgraded to Atmos in my playback gear.

Could you expand for me on the link between streaming services and Atmos please? Do they transmit 7.1.4 content? All of them do this, or just one or two? Are the bitrates high?

cheers

The streaming services I have used Atmos with seem to use DD+ 5.1 with Atmos metadata and typical bitrates are 512-768kbit. This seems miserly but some of the Netflix productions actually have rather nice Atmos mixes.

DD+ is quite a bit more efficient than DD so these streams are better quality than your old DVDs but not as good as Bluray lossless.

 

[anmpr1]

...many thanks to charlatans like the evil Mark Levinson who managed to convince us of the need for high end audio...

Mark wasn't 'evil'. In fact his products were designed by men who were quite dedicated and knowledgeable--Richard Burwen, Tom Colengelo and others. You can say that his products were 'no better' sonically than something less expensive, but that is not a moral failing. Mark was not guilty of any mortal sin. At most his brand of 'high end' was a venial transgression.

If there was a fault, it was that he wanted to design the best, cost being no object. What he sold was generally built to high standards. Possibly too high--I recall Dick Burwen writing how he couldn't relate to the 'parts quality' of what eventually became his Cello Audio Palette. He didn't think it had to be that way. But building something to a high quality standard is not evil. It might unnecessary, though. And when Mark was running the company, by all accounts he provided first class service, whenever necessary.

What you call 'evil' is the general 'high end' snake-oil scene; a scene which does not flow from one individual, but encompases an entire interlocking network of manufacturers, reviewers, and dealers, all feeding into gullible neurotic consumers. Look at the recent Stereophile review of the super duper Yamaha integrated amp--seven thousand dollars with average specs. And what do the readers want? They want to be 'told how it sounds'. Readers were upset because the reviewer didn't tell them how it sounded! Personally, I don't think even that is 'evil'. Just pathetic.

What is 'evil' is a forty thousand dollar DAC that measures poorly, and uses obsolete parts. But in 1977, if you were looking for a world-class 25 watt (in to 8 ohms) current source amplifier that could pump out 100 watts into 2 ohms, and at the same time heat your living room in the winter, an ML-2 was a reasonable choice.

 

[PeteL]

I have no relationship with Monoprice (other than buying a few small things) nor do I own any of their audio equipment not have any insights into their management discussions.

I can understand the reasoning behind that naysaying of Monoprice adding the hi-fi end to their line, but I would not be so presumptuous as to judge another company's business model. All companies evolve, some successfully. One could have said the same thing (and I am sure more than a few did) when Amazon went from selling books to other things and that would have proved horribly wrong.

They have already been selling the Monolith brand units for 4 years now and adding more. If they were just OEMing from some unknown brand in Asia then I would worry more rather than getting it built by ATI.

I don't know of any units under the Monolith brand that have dropped with no support as yet. Amir may be aware of some specific example that would allow such a generalization. It seems a bit too prejudicial otherwise. Can't judge it by the cheap gizmo part of their business which is meant to be disposable OEM branding.

Obviously, there are no guarantees in this business. Any of the boutique players can easily go under any time. Heck people are buying a $1200 DAC from a startup in Czech Republic which seems like a one man shop. Good measurements don't guarantee a company will exist.

I do think this pre/pro is a good buy for the price given the competition and being ATI-manufactured and how it has worked for the owners so far. I would cheer them on to success than cast aspersions. Audio industry needs this, not just the mass-market AVR cartel.

But I certainly understand people making personal choices based on their own comfort levels. It is a personal thing.

We can at least say I think that there was a time in history where the Monoprice business model was arguably dodgy.
https://www.cnet.com/news/are-the-energy-take-classic-and-monoprice-9774-the-same/

Hard to say it was 100% their fault, it's not to be ruled out that the manufacturing facility in China was dishonest and sold the same design twice, but still they should have made their research before launch.

 

[Vasr]

We can at least say I think that there was a time in history where the Monoprice business model was arguably dodgy.
https://www.cnet.com/news/are-the-energy-take-classic-and-monoprice-9774-the-same/

First of all, that wasn't their "business model" it was one product.

I am not sure it was what people thought it was at the time (or even to this day). Monoprice was one of the early ones to do what Outlaws and Emotivas do today as part of their business model. Use OEMs and ODMs for rebranded products (not go and clone by reverse engineering as people suspected). This is why I posted the below thread with some examples.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-rise-of-audio-negociants.14384/

What is dodgy is some of these brands claiming it as their own design until they get exposed by the ODM supplying the same (or similar) thing to another.

It was one of the early cases, I think, of who owns the IP in such an arrangement. I don't know if it was resolved as the Monoprice/OEM/ODM violating IP or not but the reputation (of a narrative of copying/cloning) stuck, so much so that many reviewers still raise eyebrows at the similarities between the Monolith Amps and ATI Amps (not knowing they are manufactured by ATI). For example,

https://hometheaterreview.com/monoprice-monolith-7-seven-channel-amplifier-reviewed/

Monoprice has always been considered an outsider in this cliquey industry and did not endear any friends by destroying the high-margin racket of expensive HDMI cables to start with. Then it unsettled part of the industry as they started moving up the product chain with the same business model. They indirectly exposed the ODM model of some "reputed" brands pretending to be otherwise. Monoprice had no pretensions of designing their own but people still don't understand the ODM model.

Like any business, Monoprice, I am sure has its dark-side as well so I don't want to portray them as saints either. But I understand what they have faced in establishing their foothold disrupting an industry. Not unlike the antipathy a lot of people hold against Amazon for good and bad reasons.

One of the best in the business - ATI designing and manufacturing for one of the best low-margin retailer in the business - Monoprice is a great thing for consumers. Prejudices notwithstanding.

 

[PeteL]

First of all, that wasn't their "business model" it was one product.

I am not sure it was what people thought it was at the time (or even to this day). Monoprice was one of the early ones to do what Outlaws and Emotivas do today as part of their business model. Use OEMs and ODMs for rebranded products (not go and clone by reverse engineering as people suspected). This is why I posted the below thread with some examples.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-rise-of-audio-negociants.14384/

What is dodgy is some of these brands claiming it as their own design until they get exposed by the ODM supplying the same (or similar) thing to another.

It was one of the early cases, I think, of who owns the IP in such an arrangement. I don't know if it was resolved as the Monoprice/OEM/ODM violating IP or not but the reputation (of a narrative of copying/cloning) stuck, so much so that many reviewers still raise eyebrows at the similarities between the Monolith Amps and ATI Amps (not knowing they are manufactured by ATI). For example,

https://hometheaterreview.com/monoprice-monolith-7-seven-channel-amplifier-reviewed/

Monoprice has always been considered an outsider in this cliquey industry and did not endear any friends by destroying the high-margin racket of expensive HDMI cables to start with. Then it unsettled part of the industry as they started moving up the product chain with the same business model. They indirectly exposed the ODM model of some "reputed" brands pretending to be otherwise. Monoprice had no pretensions of designing their own but people still don't understand the ODM model.

Like any business, Monoprice, I am sure has its dark-side as well so I don't want to portray them as saints either. But I understand what they have faced in establishing their foothold disrupting an industry. Not unlike the antipathy a lot of people hold against Amazon for good and bad reasons.

One of the best in the business - ATI designing and manufacturing for one of the best low-margin retailer in the business - Monoprice is a great thing for consumers. Prejudices notwithstanding.

Good points, I was editing my comment when you where writing this.

 

[PeteL]

First of all, that wasn't their "business model" it was one product.

I am not sure it was what people thought it was at the time (or even to this day). Monoprice was one of the early ones to do what Outlaws and Emotivas do today as part of their business model. Use OEMs and ODMs for rebranded products (not go and clone by reverse engineering as people suspected). This is why I posted the below thread with some examples.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-rise-of-audio-negociants.14384/

What is dodgy is some of these brands claiming it as their own design until they get exposed by the ODM supplying the same (or similar) thing to another.

It was one of the early cases, I think, of who owns the IP in such an arrangement. I don't know if it was resolved as the Monoprice/OEM/ODM violating IP or not but the reputation (of a narrative of copying/cloning) stuck, so much so that many reviewers still raise eyebrows at the similarities between the Monolith Amps and ATI Amps (not knowing they are manufactured by ATI). For example,

https://hometheaterreview.com/monoprice-monolith-7-seven-channel-amplifier-reviewed/

Monoprice has always been considered an outsider in this cliquey industry and did not endear any friends by destroying the high-margin racket of expensive HDMI cables to start with. Then it unsettled part of the industry as they started moving up the product chain with the same business model. They indirectly exposed the ODM model of some "reputed" brands pretending to be otherwise. Monoprice had no pretensions of designing their own but people still don't understand the ODM model.

Like any business, Monoprice, I am sure has its dark-side as well so I don't want to portray them as saints either. But I understand what they have faced in establishing their foothold disrupting an industry. Not unlike the antipathy a lot of people hold against Amazon for good and bad reasons.

One of the best in the business - ATI designing and manufacturing for one of the best low-margin retailer in the business - Monoprice is a great thing for consumers. Prejudices notwithstanding.

Still tough, it should not be a case of "who owns the IP in such a case". It doesn't matter who designed it, only one entity should own the IP, if Energy bought the IP, for country X their claim was justified, if they didn't own it, they have no case, there really should have no grey zones there

 

[Vasr]

Still tough, it should not be a case of "who owns the IP in such a case". It doesn't matter who designed it, only one entity should own the IP, if Energy bought the IP, for country X their claim was justified, if they didn't own it, they have no case, there really should have no grey zones there

You are right. But it is more than just "who owns it" that I wrote earlier.

Not commenting on this particular one as I have no information on it. But in theory...

There can be a lot of grey areas depending on how the OEM/ODM contracts were worded to start with. There is no "standard form" for this. There could also be a misunderstanding by Energy on what their contract allowed the ODM to do if they didn't use diligent lawyers or left loopholes or never expected that design to be used by someone else.

It is not just a matter of IP ownership alone. There could be exclusivity clauses regardless of who owns the IP. There could be geographical limitations or time limitations on the exclusive use of the IP. There could be permitted clauses for use of the IP. There could be sub-licensing clauses with royalties due. There could be first-right-of-refusal clauses. There could be implicit rights not specifically covered by clauses. All of these figure into the negotiated price. Any of these clauses could have loopholes and/or be subject to interpretation/misunderstanding.

What exactly the ODM/OEM represented to Monoprice would also be relevant. Monoprice wouldn't necessarily have access to the original ODM agreement with Energy for confidentiality reasons to hold them responsible. They would depend on the representations made by the ODM/OEM.

This is why lawyers and courts exist. Presumably, this is what the courts untangled with this lawsuit unless it was settled out of court. But the court of public opinion had already formed the verdict on Monoprice (as a cloning case) and it has persisted.

 

[HighImpactAV]

Have you seen source media for the home with more than 15 objects and LFE? I have scanned the digital copies of my blurays and no Atmos tracks seem to exceed 15 objects, many are only 11 objects. Even the notoriously high bit Abbey Road Atmos is only 15 objects.

118 objects is only in the original theater mix, and would require something like ~100mbit/s to store (more than the average UHD video bitrate).

The (up to) 118 original theater mix objects are "spatially coded" (grouped together into object channels) for the home mix, so that it can fit on a disc or be streamed online.

If you actually view an Atmos track for a movie, you will see that they use 1 BED channel for the LFE, and they leave 7 of the remaining 15 channels parked at the standard speaker locations, and then the remaining 4-8 usually move (but sometime are also locked in position on the ceiling).

If you think about it, for a 7.1.4 (or less) speaker system, locked ceiling object channels are actually ideal as it can accurately represent the original 118 theater channels (since there is always an object channel located at each physical speaker.)

https://www.dolby.com/in/en/professional/content-creation/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-renderer-guide.pdf

See page 264-267.

Dolby Atmos for the home supports bed channels and up to 20 elements or "clusters." Spatial coding is only used when the amount of objects at any given time exceeds the bandwidth limits (384,448,640 or 768kbps) of the encoding. The clusters will move as necessary to represent the objects. So while you may have 20 clusters at any given time, these 20 clusters aren't limited to a particular place and can move all over the room. A home mix can accurately represent all 118 objects and their locations if they aren't all rendered at the same time and gets "close enough" if some objects are combined to clusters. This is why the 24 channel (StormAudio) and 32 channel (Trinnov) Atmos decoders can still render to all channels.

There are also the 7.1.4 printouts by Disney which only render to 7.1.4. The .4 channels aren't overhead channels, but are height channels. I say this because saying "locked ceiling object channels are actually ideal" doesn't apply to 7.1.4 printouts or to 32 channel Atmos mixes so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

 

[rhollan]

I've been waiting for an ASR review on this unit and, like Amir, am disappointed, but not surprised.

As for why one would want 4V output (or more) from a preamp, look up gain staging. Basically: you want as clean a signal as possible from the preamp, to be attenuated at the entry of the power amp to reduce noise introduced by the preamp and cable. Of course, if your power amp has no such control, you're SOL, and have to limit your preamp to the max level your amp will accept to produce full volume.

 

[Newman]

The streaming services I have used Atmos with seem to use DD+ 5.1 with Atmos metadata and typical bitrates are 512-768kbit. This seems miserly but some of the Netflix productions actually have rather nice Atmos mixes.

DD+ is quite a bit more efficient than DD so these streams are better quality than your old DVDs but not as good as Bluray lossless.

Thanks. Is there any service offering music this way? (Or music-oriented AV)

 

[Dimifoot]

Thanks. Is there any service offering music this way? (Or music-oriented AV)

Tidal

 

[timg]

Yeah it does
The Emotiva on the whole offers way more glitches, bugs, and dissatisfaction.

Read the user community issues over at AVSForum. That processor has been a train wreck (like all Emotiva processors of late). Emotiva has a history of culling negative reviews on their own lounge forum, but AVSForum does not. You can get the true picture at AVS. I haven’t watched it lately, maybe they’ve fixed things, but for many months people couldn’t even watch basic 5.1 DTS without constant audio drop outs, or all channels firing up at max volume on a test tones unexpectedly, etc.
By contrast the user community seems to be very pleased overall with the Monoprice unit.

I agree that the HTP-1 has overall been the most solid and best received 16 channel processor. It should be the default choice for most people considering a 16 channel processor.

Regarding Emotiva.

1.10 (pre-Dirac) and 2.10 (post-Dirac) appear to be quite stable and the complaining has subsided. It appears that most Emotiva owners are now very happy, but more importantly their wives and families aren't doubting their sanity anymore... WAF is a huge reason for many of the returns. Return policy was return within 30 days of release of Dirac Live- meaning that some 2 year old processors are being returned. It's insane that it took that long, but it appears that Emotiva may finally be equal to or ahead of the Arcam based processors in terms of stability. Arcam (and Monoprice) are still ahead in terms of features and likely always will be.

There's absolutely no reason why a sane person would buy a RMC-1 at $5k. You buy it hoping that Emotiva will one day release expansion modules which just happen to be exactly what you need and will work correctly. One of their original promises was expansion up to 28 channels. Given Emotiva's history and development timelines, it could be a year before any expansion modules are released and another year before they work properly...

The RMC-1L is a safer bet. It's $4k and has identical sound quality and electronics to the RMC-1. The only difference is that it's not as tall and doesn't include expansion slots.

The XMC-2 is an even safer bet. It's $3k and has 99% the same components/capabilities as the RMC-1. There are some changes to the DACs, balanced outputs, and display, but at $3k, it's the bargain for 16 channel processors (if it works for your setup). XMC-2 owners seem to be the least vocal of any Emotiva owners.

I want to see a small American company like Emotiva do well, but anybody considering Emotiva needs to do their research. These processors were released way before they were ready and getting them stable has taken a very long time. They will likely never be as plug-and-play stable as the HTP-1, but they do offer some other compelling features.

Tim