I had the fortunate experience of actually being in this home last year for the CAT MBX conference last November. Kyle is truly a gentleman, and treated all of us in attendance to the best in Texas hospitality. This is a very good read, as Brent is certainly among the best writers in our industry. If you're interested in more info about the system and some larger format pictures go to www.kgtheaters.com

here's the article:

http://www.hemagazine.com/Installations/Installation-of-the-Year-2007.asp




Dan

Oh, hello, that is sweet. And right in my neighborhood! Of course, their A/V costs alone were more than my entire house :(

Very nice!! Out of my price range, but nice none the less!

Michael, I don't know if you remember or not, but Kyle is the guy I referred you to if you needed anything in your new place. Regardless of price, I don't think you can find many better than Kyle- he is a rare breed in this business.

Yes, this is beyond what most would even consider extreme, but believe it or not- it's actually been eclipsed by another CAT MBX job- in a home almost 4 times the size!!!
The specifics are confidential, but I can say that there's more money in the theater alone than in this featured house completely (av system + automation, you do the math)

there's a CAD drawing of the theater here:

http://www.calaudiotech.com/index.php?action=viewpic&pic=mbx11big

That's going to have 72 channels of amplification, 6 DSPs and 8 22" subs for LFE delivery, with an additional 3 22" subs for L,C,R bottom-octave capabilities. If the homeowner agrees, you may see that in a magazine someday as well.

Dan

Yes, I do remember, Dan! I still have your message in fact.

100 subwoofers??? Uh someone around there needs to get in touch with Bruce. Truly out of touch with reality there. A couple of Rotaries and one would save a whole bunch of space, money, complexity, etc. and actually gain fidelity that is impossible to create any other way.

Hope all is well in Texas Michael as we miss you up here in Cali.

Edward

- oops, sorry twothbeave, I just scrolled down and saw what you were talking about, and it wasn't the CAD drawing- my bad.
edited

However, please allow me to try to explain the concept: Wait, I'll do that in another post so I can get the "I typed before looking" statement out of the way.
Dan

OK,

the concept of using up to 100 subwoofers isn't quite the one you think it is. Basically, what you really end-up with is (for argument's sake) something like 8-12 subs performing the actual LFE delivery (separate from full-range duties in systems like this).

Then say up to another 32 providing the bottom-octave of each surround channel (there's a theater in Vegas that has a LARES system installed that has 32 full-range channels), so that takes 44 "subs" - but remember that only 8-12 perform in the same way as what most people consider "normal" for a sub- the .1 info.

So this leaves us with 56 "subs" to do what with? well, if we break that number down it's 7 groups of 8 "subs". Well, our room has 3 dimensions L, W, H- and each of those dimensions are going to have bass modes that correspond to them (the number of which that lie below 150hz will depend on the size of the room, but since we've got the room for 100 "subs", we've got a really-big-freakin'-room!). OK, typically- we would use parametric eq on the .1 channel and call it a day- but this obviously isn't a typical room, so instead we're going to actively pressurize the room where all the troughs are, and through phasing/amplitude adjustments available in the highest-quality DSPs: de-pressurize the room where all the peaks are (in amplitude).

Each individual peak/trough takes at least one PAIR of "subs" so 7 groups of 8 "subs" allows for the use of 8 "subs" for the first 3 modes for length, 2 modes for width, and 2 modes for height.

Why? Well, if we were to try to build acoustic treatents into the room to absorb all the issues that can come-up from 150hz down, we'd need a REALLY BIG room (1/4 wavelength of 20hz is in the neighborhod of 12-13 feet) beacuse absorbtion is the most effective at 1/4 wavelength the desired frequency. Yes, helmholz resonators, and whatnot can be created to be effective down-low, but in reality - we'd end-up with an anechoic chamber. Somost people treat the bottom-end using parametric eq, an effective means, yes.

The major reason that the CAT MBX ideology uses "bass management systems" that contain so many active drivers is that the more you use, the less each individual driver has to work to pressurize the room- instant headroom, instant speed, instant "real" feeling bass. If you think of every "sub" in a room as a sprinkler-head, the more sprinkler heads there are in the room, the less water has to come out of each to evenly cover that room with water- the goal is to have every "sprinkler" generating a fine mist, instead of a couple flowing full-blast, and a couple flowing 1/4 blast.

Is this the only way of accomplishing these goals in home theater? No, there are several other companies/technologies out there that do a similar thing in a different way, Bruce's company being one of them. However, I would like to point-out that Art Sonneborn's theater is beginning to follow this type of methodology as things evolve, and Mark Seaton creates new and exciting tools for Art's cinema-addiction.

So hopefully that did a decent job of explaining the "method" behind the "madness" of 100 woofers in a room....and remember, a few years ago people were preaching that you would only need 1 sub in a room ever- now 4 is becoming the norm....food for thought.

Dan

The screen is too small............

The screen is too small............

I was gonna say that too, but it isnt my money :)

Cheap movie theater seats:rolleyes:

I just noticed the projector is 1280 x 1024 Resolution 4x3. Dan the screen is widescreen ,are they using a anamorphic lens to arrive at 16x9.
That room is priceless. The equipment can always change with the times but the room will always be the show stopper. He can truly charge admission.

Heres one Ultimate Control made earlier.

http://www.ultimatecontrol.com/showcase/html/siliconvalley_04.html

The L/C/R front towers are Tri amped with Halcro monos and there are 8 halcro stereo amps powering the surrounds.

Look at the schematic for more proof of how crazy the system is, however the front seat are far to near the screen and the use of alot of marble wont help reflections. Nevertheless its an amazing system.

http://www.ultimatecontrol.com/showcase/projects/Documents/UCI%20Block%20Diagram%20-%20Theater.pdf

Everyone has to realize that the system in the article is "several years old", much of the equipment was purchased either in-or prior to 2003. The MBX-1 projector from Runco was the precurser to the SC-1- it was the first $250,000 home theater projector ever, and it was indeed based on a comercial projector and had to use a lense to get 1.78:1 aspect. By the time that the SC-1 was released, the house was already built around the products in-question. This fact is evidenced by the speakers hidden in the columns basically being part of the structre of the house. So when Runco went from the MBX-1 to the SC-1 and the dimensions changed- it was too late to turn back. As well, ADA had custom-made those amplifiers for that client- there was no returning them, and considering their size- not many home theaers here could house them either (they just use SO much rack space).

Dan

Very nice, 20k x 10....plus some pocket change. :D

Again very nice!

I regularly pray for someone who likes to waste money like that. I'd have done the house and given him free technology upgrades for life for $3.4M. Holy crap.

Well John,

The word "waste" is simply a matter of persective, this particular client doesn't feel that any money was wasted- to the contrary, they feel that no other products could provide the performance-per dollar that they receive from what they have. And free technology upgrades for life for only 3.4mil retail, wouldn't last as long as you think- before you'd go out of business. Remeber: overhead, profit margin, engineering time, project management, etc. all eats into that (the dealer doesn't put that figure into their pocket-if that were true, alot more av guys would drive Ferraris, instead of hang out on forums).

I've seen it happen- especially when you get to jobs like this, they can bury you- quickly.

Dan

I've gotta agree, I'm frankly not surprised at what he's getting for his money. There is just far too much custom work here. You can always do a job like this cheaper if you're willing to let go of this or that detail. But if you've decided you want it just so, you've got to pay for it! I have learned this the hard way recently.

I'm not seeing it. $340,000 maybe. Unless that includes the house or at the very least, a good chunk of the building costs. Keep in mind, when we do a house, we generally tell the contractor what we need and then we're in and out for $25K-$75K. If someone says "get ridiculous on my ass", short of actually getting involved in construction, 38 zones, high end PJ (but not a stupid one), etc, etc, maybe I could spend all of $340K. But if it went to $3.4M, I'd have to throw in a couple of Veyrons to get the price that high.

So I guess it's just hard for me to imagine how you "waste" $3M of the $3.4M.

Here's a fer instance. We're doing a house with 12 zones, JVC PJs, 65" LCD TV, a few other LCDs, HDMI or HDMI over Cat5 in every room, subwoofers on the patio, NHT Xd for the surround, 4 cameras/recorder and that's less than $75K. We did another similar house with 20 zones that just barely passed $75K. We could have done the home automation part for $100K. Big, beautiful $1M house too, prettier than this one, IMO. But even if I imagine the most expensive thing I can do and then double or triple it for the size of the house, I just can't figure out how to get there *without* purposely wasting money.

Well, I guess that's why I'm poor compared to most of these guys.

Of course, maybe VahallaPC did the wiring ;)

Actually, a lot of the expensive jobs we see are completely overwired. And then the wires are never even terminated, let alone used. You see a lot of these job quoting 5 or 10 or even 50 miles of wire. We use about 1500-2500' of wire in a normal sized house. We have a competitor that tells people they *need* all this wire, but they don't and never will. We felt we overwired the last house, putting phone, HDTV and ethernet jacks everywhere, but in reality, that will mostly be wireless, with a central wireless phone system and a central wireless router.

At least the guy put expensive speakers in. But even there, if the average price of the speakers is $5000/pr, that's still less than $200K of the price.

What I wonder is, if he feels that good about that much overpriced audio/video in his house, I wonder what he'd feel like if he did a $400K install and gave $3M to charity. Of course, $400K doesn't get you in a magazine with everyone talking about how cool you are.

Awesome looking and the wiring is sensational I could just look at that for hours......but I have to agree with Alimentall how do you come up with 3-4 million? It seems a little misleading. If you build an AV room and decide to add a couple of Van Gogh's and a Picasso does the room suddenly cost $30 million? How much was the actual theater wiring, speakers, development and forget the gold toilet seat. Then most could decide whether this is a feasible theater set up form his or her current space.


Joey

John & Joey,

You obviously haven't priced out any of CAT's speaker systems recently. :rolleyes:

If the theater includes the build-out of a well isolated and acoustically treated room that then will be finished off internally with an impressive aesthetic as well as a seriously designed equipment room with all the trimmings, the total budget skyrockets quickly in both labor and material costs. I have heard of and seen plans for systems ranging from $1-3M for just the theater! Of course those theaters have occasionally been as large as many people's living space, but such projects do get built, and sometimes you even get something special at that price. ;)

Believe me, I don't subscribe to the CAT-MBX concept of extravagence for the sake of extravagence, but there are some who revel in it.

Mark .....okay....but this is an 11 seat theater and only about 15 ft deep I would guess. So that's about $300,000 a seat.

If I remember correctly another members theater that to me blew this one away is Ptrubey 's or prubey. It had the same look and feel with handcrafted woodwork , but was much bigger. I think his was well under a million.

You obviously haven't priced out any of CAT's speaker systems recently. :rolleyes:

Well, CAT sure seams like one good way of wasting a few $100K or $million. But it still is a waste, IMO.

If the theater includes the build-out of a well isolated and acoustically treated room that then will be finished off internally with an impressive aesthetic as well as a seriously designed equipment room with all the trimmings, the total budget skyrockets quickly in both labor and material costs. I have heard of and seen plans for systems ranging from $1-3M for just the theater! Of course those theaters have occasionally been as large as many people's living space, but such projects do get built, and sometimes you even get something special at that price. ;)

Oh, c'mon now! You can build an entire house for $100-$300/sq foot. So if you overbuild the crap out of a theater at $500/sq foot, that's no more than $300-$400K for build out. I could custom build a "CAT" type system with banks of DEQX units and all the electronics for under $100K. Goodness. I was thinking the new NHT Xd "custom theater" system is somewhat priced out of the market at $45K, but shiite, that stuff makes it look like the world's best speaker bargain.

Believe me, I don't subscribe to the CAT-MBX concept of extravagence for the sake of extravagence, but there are some who revel in it.

Well, sure, I don't subscribe to diamonds either as they don't do anything! For *that* person, it might not be a waste of money, but you'd at least think he got that much money to spend because he was smarter with it.

You can build an entire house for $100-$300/sq foot.Not if you want premium build quality you can't, at least not in Austin. Heck I just spec'ed a house out at $400/sq.ft. and it frankly isn't near the top end, and my build costs are lower here in Georgetown. Furthermore, that's for the whole house---some of the rooms are significantly cheaper, others like kitchens and bathrooms are much higher. A home theater like that with the level of custom architectural design, ignoring the electronics, will definitely be on the high end.

What really kills you is anything custom designed or custom built. This theater looks like custom top to bottom. Custom sconces, handmade carpet, gold leaf, bronze doors, cast figures, hand carvings---I'll bet that's a seven figure room before the electronics.

Another point that seemed misleading was THAT IT TOOK 5 YEARS TO BUILD!!

The 2 channel bar system seems like an intergration project and nicely done!!

Was it five years for entire house or just these two rooms? and that amount of time truly does not ad any merit to the install, but rather diminish it IMO.

and that amount of time truly does not ad any merit to the install, but rather diminish it IMO.Why?

The interior designer's web site is here. (http://www.cravottastudios.com/2.0/) You may think it's over the top, you may say you'd never do that in your own home... but don't try and tell me you can implement his work in a $300/sq.ft. home. (The home with the theater is Gallery 1, the Malinard Residence. Holy cow is it ostentatious!)

Another point that seemed misleading was THAT IT TOOK 5 YEARS TO BUILD!!

It didn't take 5 years to build, it took 5 years to make it work right! That's the typical "home automation" problem and why we don't mess with it. One of our customers went this route and he gave up when the costs skyrocketed and we started to take over. The installer laughed about how much money he charges to do this stuff and how long it takes him. $$$$$$$$$$.............

Not if you want premium build quality you can't, at least not in Austin. Heck I just spec'ed a house out at $400/sq.ft. and it frankly isn't near the top end, and my build costs are lower here in Georgetown. Furthermore, that's for the whole house---some of the rooms are significantly cheaper, others like kitchens and bathrooms are much higher. A home theater like that with the level of custom architectural design, ignoring the electronics, will definitely be on the high end.

What really kills you is anything custom designed or custom built. This theater looks like custom top to bottom. Custom sconces, handmade carpet, gold leaf, bronze doors, cast figures, hand carvings---I'll bet that's a seven figure room before the electronics.

Yeah, but I suspect that little of the building cost came from the AV installer. I doubt there's much of that in the $3.4M figure. Most of it is overpriced, high maintenance product with too much wiring and too much time/labor.

The interior designer's web site is here. (http://www.cravottastudios.com/2.0/) You may think it's over the top, you may say you'd never do that in your own home... but don't try and tell me you can implement his work in a $300/sq.ft. home. (The home with the theater is Gallery 1, the Malinard Residence. Holy cow is it ostentatious!)

Perhaps not, but it still is a waste of money IMO!!! No matter how you try to frame it.

Well I sure am glad you don't spend any of your money on things other people might regard as wasteful!

Well, I don't feel so uncomfortable about what I spent on my project anymore...

John,

This is obviously a project that is beyond your realm of experience. What you see in the article is the 2 areas of the home that the client authorized for publication; that isn't even close to the whole scope of the project. The power and grounding specialist involved, the amount of Crestron programming, the amount/cost of the cabling involved, and the cost of the loudspeakers used; these are all things that are 1.) quite confidential, 2.) beyond anything you've ever encountered.

Here's a clue as to how this project went: if you go to the www.kgtheaters.com website and look through the gallery for this particular project, you'll see some very good pictures of the bar: that bar was hand-carved onsite. The whole project was like that- heck, the fireplace in the formal dining/living room took a year to carve by hand (it's 40 FEET tall, and was carved by 2 local artists).

Your comments regarding money wasted shows the myopic point of view that limits most AV dealers to the projects that you speak of- hundreds of k$$ instead of millions. The products exist, the personnel exist, and the craftsmanship exists to allow people on billionaire lists (or not on the lists- depending on whether they like to toot their own horn) to achieve results that are flat-out NOT available with products that come off-the-shelf. The only way to truly achieve a one of a kind result, is to have products that are one-off; purpose-built.

Want an example? Mark's own project involving the recording studio- he said himself that to replicate that would be roughly 25-30k; OK, now replicate that type of system 38 times, in 38 different ways, in 38 different environments- that's between 950 grand, and 1.1 million! And that would just cover the distributed audio on a project like this. Then of course there's the 2-channel area, and the theater, and then the automation...

In a home like this, with a client like this- you really shouldn't insult their intelligence or their taste by offering white, round, plastic speakers- when they are trying to build their end-all-be-all home. If you do something like that; are you really that different from the local BestBuy/Magnolia?? -not in their eyes.

Botom-line, it takes a certain amount of cojones to approach a client with a proposal containing any line-item that eclipses a quarter-million. 99% of the AV dealers out there would never do it- and that's why 99% of the AV dealers out there aren't in the same league as Kyle. He knew what this client wanted- and he knew that standard product wouldn't get it done- so he went beyond standard.

There's alot of people that look at the CAT MBX philosophy and take shots from the sideline, but I can tell you this: those people generally don't have a clue as to just what's involved at the CAT MBX level. As far as I'm concerned, the only person even remotely qualified to comment on this level of customization is Mark, because honestly, I feel that he's the only one with the qualifications and experience to operate at this level were he to choose to do so.

Dan

Dan,

I respect your opinion, but we're just not going to line up on this one. You can't tell me that the system is worth that much because I know what can be done for 1/10 or even 1/100th the price. Even so, the guy obviously was just doing it to show off. Who the heck needs 38 rooms of high-end audio? Who can use that many? You're talking almost $100K per room. What makes what we do cool is what you actually get for your money, not how much money we can spend. If he'd done that for $500K or *even* $1M, I'd be more impressed. But I'm sure he skipped all the way to the bank!

hi
what i find odd with these installations in general is that we rarely see a giant home theater, like a mini cinema, with say 30seats, 200" curved scope screen, pro sound

so much money is spent in luxury decoration, overpriced gear.

imho. in Europe there's a bit more trend towards mini cinema (with comfortable chairs etc).
but anyway to each its taste.

Dan,

I respect your opinion, but we're just not going to line up on this one. You can't tell me that the system is worth that much because I know what can be done for 1/10 or even 1/100th the price. Even so, the guy obviously was just doing it to show off. Who the heck needs 38 rooms of high-end audio? Who can use that many? You're talking almost $100K per room. What makes what we do cool is what you actually get for your money, not how much money we can spend. If he'd done that for $500K or *even* $1M, I'd be more impressed. But I'm sure he skipped all the way to the bank!

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You are angry because this guy has a lot more discretionary income than you can or ever will dream of having?

I have to agree on the screen size. That thing is tiny...

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You are angry because this guy has a lot more discretionary income than you can or ever will dream of having?

No, I'm just not terribly impressed, unless he also built the entire house itself. Though it does make me think I'm in the wrong city.........

If my most recent venture capital investment comes through big, and it is looking darn good ATM, you can bet I would celebrate by doing something similar, e.g. a separate carriage house on the property with a recording studio, a larger HT, and two dedicated listening rooms all ornately designed. Heck, I would let my wife redo the whole house as well, even though she already redesigned parts of it...

Mike 5 years is long time to put together a theater room for me, but I guess not too long for you to wait. Bill gates 200 million dollar home was built from the ground up in nearly the same time.

Dan you keep adding things like a custom handcrafted fireplace in the same room as the 2 channel audio. Why does that matter as it has nothing to do with the sound sytem.

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You are angry because this guy has a lot more discretionary income than you can or ever will dream of having?

I truly do not think that was the meaning of his comments. This theater room, with this extravagant price tag is great, but not everyone is just going to say WOW. Some might want to disect this project to see where the money was spent. How that turns into envy or jealousy I don't know. Isn't that what the forum is about?

You can disagree even you can't afford it. The " you can't afford it so your jealous" comment makes any ridiculous priced piece worthy to that indiviual. To me this is no different than the $20,000 power cord.

JC

Joey, I'm kind if assuming that much of the 5-year period overlapped with the construction itself. I would agree that it is excessive if the A/V work added five years to the project...

A hand-carved bar, and a hand-carved fireplace has nothing to do with the AV system other than to illustrate the level of craftsmanship that the client was expecting. You don't get that craftsmanship with NHT Xd- you could, however get that level of craftsmanship with Von Schweikert, or Wilson, or Rockport, etc.- but they don't do custom-one-off product, CAT MBX does. Plus this client had a previous CAT MBX theater in their former house- so they knew what they wanted.

I don't see how this is that hard to figure out- Michael seems to get it pretty readily, the client wanted a system that was beyond reproach, and that's what he received.

Dan

Let me see if I understand this correctly... You are angry because this guy has a lot more discretionary income than you can or ever will dream of having?I truly do not think that was the meaning of his comments. This theater room, with this extravagant price tag is great, but not everyone is just going to say WOW. Some might want to disect this project to see where the money was spent. How that turns into envy or jealousy I don't know. Isn't that what the forum is about?

You can disagree even you can't afford it. The " you can't afford it so your jealous" comment makes any ridiculous priced piece worthy to that indiviual. To me this is no different than the $20,000 power cord.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say...

I never mentioned power cords. I certainly never generalized my question. Yet you think it is OK for you to take the question I directed at Alimentall and generalize it as if I was talking about all people? :confused:

Go put words in someone else's mouth. :mad:

I don't see how this is that hard to figure out- Michael seems to get it pretty readily, the client wanted a system that was beyond reproach, and that's what he received.

Dan

I lived in a castle for a year and a half. The attention to detail and intricate painting (angels and cherubs floating on the ceiling, open skies, scenic panels), gold leaf work, delicate wood carving on and over everything, marble columns, wood columns, marble floors, etc, etc, can be incredibly expensive, but look breathtaking. The costs mount quick with that kind of artisan workmanship, and it takes a very long time to hand produce unique ornamentation for a very large space. You can't just go around the corner and pick up a truckload of migrant workers and have them carve out the kind of work found in that castle. Then there is the design itself, the interior design, the architectural design, the acoustical design. Putting together all of the intricate details so they work both aesthetically and acoustically is not a simple task. It takes a lot of planning, then it takes actual testing of finished products multiples of times to finally get closer to a shade of perfection.

The castle I was in had a very large and beautiful concert hall. I used to sit in the concert hall and play piano. In the summer an orchestra would play on weekends. It was a beautiful sounding and looking space...

Some people would rather believe a cardboard box is more enjoyable than that castle because of the differences in price I guess. Sure, you can play a piano or a stereo in small apartment without any decorations. You don't need it to be closer to perfect, or to look prettier. If you can afford to do it, and it is a drop in the bucket to do so, why not though? I know from first hand experiences in that kind of environments how worthwhile those luxuries can be... Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but if you prefer a cardboard box to a castle, you are either full of sh*t, mentally handicapped, or a saint, IMO.

A hand-carved bar, and a hand-carved fireplace has nothing to do with the AV system other than to illustrate the level of craftsmanship that the client was expecting.

Point being, is this $3.4M in A/V? Or like $500K in audio and a lot of woodwork and gold trim? Sounds like it's mostly foo foo stuff, not real A/V.

You don't get that craftsmanship with NHT Xd you could, however get that level of craftsmanship with Von Schweikert, or Wilson, or Rockport, etc.- but they don't do custom-one-off product, CAT MBX does. Plus this client had a previous CAT MBX theater in their former house- so they knew what they wanted.

I think you should check out the NHT M80Xd system before saying that. I'd wager money that it will tear the CAT system a new one and comes with the same kind of custom setup and measurements that CAT does, but it almost certainly has a lot more sophisticated DSP behind it.

I don't see how this is that hard to figure out- Michael seems to get it pretty readily, the client wanted a system that was beyond reproach, and that's what he received.

It's not so hard to figure out. It's just that we have a different take on the same thing. If you think he got $3.4M worth of service and product, that's fine. I think the guy got ripped off, but obviously, he has money to burn.

Let me run some numbers in my head. 35 rooms with a 35 zone music server and *stupidly* expensive speakers better than the CATs = $500K. Add in 3 exotic HT systems all with RS2 projectors, anamorphic lens, drop down screens and 65" LCD panels = $500K. Throw in about 20 LCDs = $50K. Home automation and cameras out the wazoo = $100K. Let's toss in about $250K for misc expenses and there's $2M left to actually build an entire HOUSE.

Like I said, if the house is included in the $3.4M, I *might* be impressed.

WOW!

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

But I'll always absolutely respect your tenacity, John. I completely understand your passion for the Xd stuff (the passion, not necessarily the object of it)- and at least you've got the guts to lay-it-out here.

Honestly though, I regret that what started as a thread to congratulate a friend and colleague of mine for a great accomplishment has become this- because he doesn't deserve it. The intent was to show what can be accomplished with the right attitude, craftsmanship, and attention to detail....not necessarily to focus on the expenditure.

and yeah, the screen is small, but the room isn't that big- and that's what the client wanted, and what Runco suggested (as well as Stewart).

Dan

Thanks for the exhaustive explanation Dan. I guess it's a way to do it. But after hearing (more like feeling) and through graphic visualization, I'm quite convinced that cones are terribly inefficient way to go. Case in point, is the necessity of having to install 100 woofers. Even then it is totally impossible to move the air with a cone that is required to get the subsonic performance that can be done with the Thigpen fan. It's simply physically impossible. And all you need is a neighboring room. It's so simple so elegant and so marvelously tactile. Not that anyone would be concerned that could afford such an install, but the amount of amplification and space required for this is just nuts. You have to be a genius to package it. And at low listening volumes the effect would be minimal, it's a simple weakness of conventional drivers, where as the rotary can produce very low hertz when it's nearly quiet. Anyhow great unconventional thinking with conventional tech, I'm just convinced there's another way.

In regards to the cost of this install, if you have it spend it! Who's going to argue. There's no way the NHT system will ever be integrated into something as beautifully as this. Wow if I had the fundage I would do it. That interior designed is incredible! I thought all the old world craftsmanship was gone, obviously alive and kicking there in the Lone Star State. I'm sure many would argue the same for 100k system. But it's just like anything else, who's going to place value on such things and what's it worth to those who are paying. Always the car analogy because it works, especially here as car performance is totally objective. A ZO6 will do everything as well as a Ferrari F430...better actually, just check acceleration times and lap records at Nordshleife. But given the means what would you want to drive? Ask the chick walking Rodeo Drive which car she wants to jump into? This would clearly be no contest. Given the money whose theater would I want in my house? No question either. I wouldn't want to wait 5 years for it though! But I sure hope we get to see pics of that follow up theater. I just love how there are those out there who have the time, means and the vision to do such things. It's trickle down for us poor folks who have something to aspire to.

Cheers,

Edward

Thanks for the compliment Edward,

I think that you might be confusing the prupose behind the BMS system (100 woofs) with what Bruce accomplishes with his TRW- the TRW handles basically subsonics only, whereas the BMS that CAT employs in MBX jobs is more about the bass in the room from 20hz up- and making that bass the same at every seat. Not nearly every seat, but on the order of +/- 2 db from front-to-back and left-to-right. I'm not claiming that a large # of woofers can replicate what the TRW does below 20 (although that 22" is impressive), you're right: there just isn't another device out there that can move the volume of air that the TRW can. It's just that the TRW is also subject to small room acoustics- and a BMS is just an active way of completely treating a room for bass. Get it?

I really hope it didn't come off like I was knocking the TRW- it's just doing something comletely different.

Dan

I had the fortunate experience of actually being in this home last year for the CAT MBX conference last November. Kyle is truly a gentleman, and treated all of us in attendance to the best in Texas hospitality. This is a very good read, as Brent is certainly among the best writers in our industry. If you're interested in more info about the system and some larger format pictures go to www.kgtheaters.com

here's the article:

http://www.hemagazine.com/Installations/Installation-of-the-Year-2007.asp




Dan


Sorry, I just have to laugh at this:

"They're all 12-inchers," he says. "I'd rather use a lot of smaller subs than a few large ones because the smaller ones are quicker and more efficient."

Is he serious? If he is talking about "below" 100Hz, we best have a talk about bass.... There are no room for 12's in a 20k system. Thats 18" territory.

Yes, he's serious.

For some reason he just doesn't like the way the 16.5" or the 22" woofers sound, I gave him a strange look when I heard about that back in 2003 at a conference we were at in Vegas- I kid you not, the guy's dead-set against big woofers.

I don't know, he likes it, the client likes it, that room kicks like a mule, so hey- to each his own.

Dan

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Actually, I kinda do, that's the whole point!

But I'll always absolutely respect your tenacity, John. I completely understand your passion for the Xd stuff (the passion, not necessarily the object of it)- and at least you've got the guts to lay-it-out here.

Yeah, sorry, I don't mean to be a hard case. I just have a bug up my ass about gross expenditures on A/V. I mean, look, I have a $7.5K HT in my house because a) it makes sense and b) I get HUGE amount of enjoyment out of it. I watch a movie 3-5 times a week and a fair amount of HD. Then I have my $2500 affordable high-end system in my bedroom that kicks some serious 5-figure booty. My house ain't fancy and I'll probably never be rich enough to throw that kind of money around, but if I were, I'd do something a lot more useful with the money. Start a business that keeps people employed, give the money to charity, build a homeless shelter, buy land and put a park there, whatever.

Sorry, I just have to laugh at this:

"They're all 12-inchers," he says. "I'd rather use a lot of smaller subs than a few large ones because the smaller ones are quicker and more efficient."

Is he serious? If he is talking about "below" 100Hz, we best have a talk about bass.... There are no room for 12's in a 20k system. Thats 18" territory.

I agree, but for a different reason. The statement just doesn't make much sense, factually or logically since small drivers aren't really "faster" than bigger ones, just have a higher frequency range, generally. Now, if he said he does it for linearity and for ameliorating bass modes or because of cabinet constraints or something like that. Cerwin-Vega has a 22" woofer that could replace about half a dozen of those woofers. That, to me, seems a little more efficient!

Yes, he's serious.

For some reason he just doesn't like the way the 16.5" or the 22" woofers sound, I gave him a strange look when I heard about that back in 2003 at a conference we were at in Vegas- I kid you not, the guy's dead-set against big woofers.

I don't know, he likes it, the client likes it, that room kicks like a mule, so hey- to each his own.

Dan

He just needs some time with me :)

I don't doubt that room kicks mule at all!

I agree, but for a different reason. The statement just doesn't make much sense, factually or logically since small drivers aren't really "faster" than bigger ones, just have a higher frequency range, generally. Now, if he said he does it for linearity and for ameliorating bass modes or because of cabinet constraints or something like that. Cerwin-Vega has a 22" woofer that could replace about half a dozen of those woofers. That, to me, seems a little more efficient!


Yes, if these are indeed mid-bass woofers, and if he's using the 12's up past a normal subwoofer range (perhaps close to 1000Hz) then it would make more sense in regard to perhaps off axis response, but I suspect these are subwoofer drivers in nature.

Actually, I kinda do, that's the whole point!

Yeah, sorry, I don't mean to be a hard case. I just have a bug up my ass about gross expenditures on A/V. I mean, look, I have a $7.5K HT in my house because a) it makes sense and b) I get HUGE amount of enjoyment out of it. I watch a movie 3-5 times a week and a fair amount of HD. Then I have my $2500 affordable high-end system in my bedroom that kicks some serious 5-figure booty. My house ain't fancy and I'll probably never be rich enough to throw that kind of money around, but if I were, I'd do something a lot more useful with the money. Start a business that keeps people employed, give the money to charity, build a homeless shelter, buy land and put a park there, whatever.


Thank you John for clarifying that your mini-ranting in this thread has much less to do about the project, but rather the concept of someone spending that much on an AV/home control system. I would probably buy a small stable of fun cars instead of a Bentley, but it's a must-have for some, and that's entirely the buyer's choice.

While I would actually recommend that most installers stay away from a job this large unless they have done LARGE scale jobs with long timelines and similar logistics, I would guess that you need to charge more for what you do just based on what you have posted here. Personally I think the biggest failing of the A/V business is the marginalization of skills, services and expertise. People can buy equipment anywhere. The ability to deliver the end result is what really sets designers and integrators appart. It's a shame that most businesses make their profit on gear sold, not in charging for their time and skills...

You can execute something similar to any big, over-the-top system for less money. There is no benefit to anyone in attacking the choices made. Most everyone loves to looks at a stratosphere-budget project (of any discipline or luxury) and think of what they would do for themselves given the means. We should all remember that dreaming it and doing it are two very different things. I give anyone a tip of the hat for completing such a project, even if they could choose much better performing speakers. :p (...and yes John, there is a lot more possible beyond your cherrished NHT system :rolleyes: )

While everyone is arguing about this just let me point out that the 3.4 mil figure is I believe (I'm repeating what I have read elsewhere which may or may not be accurate) in fact for the entire house and includes something like 30+ zones of audio many of which have surround sound, full automation etc.

Now whether he hot maximum return for his dollar is subject to opinion but it's pretty absurd to argue the point much without having a complete equipment list, nor having any idea of the labor required. Someone commented on the chairs being cheap, they do look it in the pics but were in fact custom made and anagramed. Personally I've never been a CAT fan based on what I have heard.

Hi

Mark stresses some important points here; many of them may be lost on people without experience in large scale projects of any sorts... Projects of that sort are expensive by their very nature. The larger the project the more expensive its management becomes. For most enthusiasts, it starts and stops at the choice of equipment and their acquisition at the local retailer…
Project Management is seldom trivial. Things like procurement, payment, delivery schedule, verification of components can quickly bring a good project to a halt, Those who have dealt with these seemingly simple tasks can attest to the frustration that can accompany small projects, let alone those of this scale… When it is on your own free time then it could be OK, if you are a contractor with other jobs vying for your time and attention… Big projects such as these can easily wreak your business…

Thanks for the compliment Edward,

I think that you might be confusing the prupose behind the BMS system (100 woofs) with what Bruce accomplishes with his TRW- the TRW handles basically subsonics only, whereas the BMS that CAT employs in MBX jobs is more about the bass in the room from 20hz up- and making that bass the same at every seat. Not nearly every seat, but on the order of +/- 2 db from front-to-back and left-to-right. I'm not claiming that a large # of woofers can replicate what the TRW does below 20 (although that 22" is impressive), you're right: there just isn't another device out there that can move the volume of air that the TRW can. It's just that the TRW is also subject to small room acoustics- and a BMS is just an active way of completely treating a room for bass. Get it?

I really hope it didn't come off like I was knocking the TRW- it's just doing something comletely different.

Dan

I wonder what the rumbling will do to gold leaf over time?

My house ain't fancy and I'll probably never be rich enough to throw that kind of money around, but if I were, I'd do something a lot more useful with the money. Start a business that keeps people employed, give the money to charity, build a homeless shelter, buy land and put a park there, whatever.

How do you know that this person isn't doing those kind of things as well? Warren Buffet has given A LOT of money to charities (one of which I'm heavily involved with). Bill and Melinda Gates have done incredible things for the world with their money, look at their automated home... How do you know this person doesn't do similar things to the ones you mention above? You don't think a person should spend a proportionate sum of their money on aesthetic pleasures also?

There is not a single person on this forum who can offer judgement someone's discretionary expenditures without looking like a total hypocrite. This is a home theater forum, for crying out loud. We are all engaged in a luxury pursuit. John's $7.5K home theater is certainly one of the more frugal on this forum. And yet, that is over four times the median yearly income worldwide ($1700). In other words, half the people in this world could forego food, water, and shelter for four years and still not afford the fixed costs John has sunk into pure enjoyment. A large fraction of people never make that much money in their lifetime.

Now, unless that statistic is moving you to put all of your home theater equipment on Audiogon so that you can donate the proceeds to World Vision or to the OLPC project, I suggest you shut up about someone else's supposed excess.

I didn't say I wasn't being a hypocrite about it! :) But actually, it's a combination of factors. I think the system is mostly for show and to impress people as are *most* installations these days. If I were going to do a theater for "show", it would sure as heck fit at least 50-100 people! The thing is, it's fun to discuss the ups and down, praise *and* critiques. I mean, hey, if you put up your system (or someone else's) for show and tell, it's just not going to get universal applause, unless everyone is just being overly polite (I don't get accused of this much.......).

I would be interested in knowing about what makes a CAT speaker so bloody expensive though. Is it really any more advanced (let alone 10 or 100 times more advanced) than an M80Xd with all its major league technology? Or the new Meridian inwalls? Or just more expensive? The website is probably about the *worst* website I've seen in audio, just behind, perhaps, Vandersteen's. It's just useless if you want to actually know anything. Of course, one way of selling something at ridiculous prices is not to let anyone know what's really inside.

I don't see a problem with extravagant installs like this because the money spent employs and feeds a lot of people.

No, I think the $3.5m figure is just for the audio and associated decor. Aren't CAT loudspeakers in the $250k+ range per pair (and these speakers were custom designs by CAT)? A couple pairs + components + install and you are easily into the multi million dollar install category.

As for the cost, you could say the same about most high end brands. Just because the item is a box with a few magnets, cones, and electrical components doesn't mean that there weren't other expenses incurred by the manufacturer (design, research, measurement, advertising, etc.).

Just my $0.02 here. Most of the expensive home theaters I've seen seem to make the mistake (my opinion) of having too low a ceiling height. They either use existing space (which pretty much guarantees max 8' - 9' ceilings), or add-on, but still manage to have comparatively low ceilings.

When we built our theater, we custom built the room. Not knowing what we were doing initially, we off-handedly asked our home theater designer what dimensions would be appropriate for 3 rows/levels of stadium seating. Luckily for us he took us seriously and we ended up with a room approx. 29' deep, 22' wide and 16' high at the highest point (by the screen). And it turned out that we could have used an extra 3' depth and 1' height for what we built (it's fine, but in hindsight...).

Here's a pic of what our screen looks like (sorry about the colors, I really need to get new pics):

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc46/ptrubey/SmallScreen.jpg

In our case, we wanted a classic ornate look, so we wanted a true proscenium which means extra space above and to the sides of the screen. The Austrian sway curtains take up space when open, and we really didn't want the center channel going through a perf. screen, so we installed two center channels behind the black fabric above and below the screen, again, needing more space.

Apart from the looks, the extra height (16') really helps the sound. You just don't get annoying reflections and you feel like you are in a real theater (ever notice how tall even the small multiplex theaters are?).

One more pic (from the front, wide angle):

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc46/ptrubey/SmallFromFront.jpg

Probably the biggest challenge we had was that the projector (port hole is above the exit sign above) had to be significantly above the top of the screen due to the stadium seating and rear center entrance. In the end, we ended up with just a small amount of keystoning (which I either digitally compensate, or leave alone depending on how I feel that day) which was a trick since I think the projector was a full 42" above the top of the screen and the screen is 75" high (134" wide, 16x9). Kudos to the person who figures out how we achieved this :-)

Oh, and appropos to some of the discussion in this thread - to build this, we literally tore out a small room on the exterior of the house, sawcut the slab out (house in California, so just 4" slab on grade, no basement, of course), and started digging down. The new basement we built is mostly under the front lawn area, needing 12" thick concrete ceiling and walls. Anyways, all this was done in 18 months at a construction cost (AV equipment was extra) of less than half of what the $3.4M figure bandied around here (and we didn't skimp!). But please, I'm not knocking anything, just stating what we did.

I don't hear you knocking anything. Thanks for the insight. You are certainly confirming my claims above that the build costs alone (ignoring electronics) for theaters as ornate as yours are astronomical. But that's what it takes to get that kind of result, and it's fantastic.

I'm also glad you posted because it indicates that your house and its beautiful theater are still standing---which given recent events in SoCal was not a certainty!

Anyways, all this was done in 18 months at a construction cost (AV equipment was extra) of less than half of what the $3.4M figure bandied around here (and we didn't skimp!). But please, I'm not knocking anything, just stating what we did.

One room, compared to how many high-end audio rooms in the house being discussed in this thread? Seems like comparative pricing.

Here's a pic of what our screen looks like

Now THAT is impressive! Not exactly my tastes, but definitely impressive!

Was that $3.4M for the whole house? My bad. I didn't read the posts too closely. Also, my construction costs were for the theater as well as a wine cellar, concession area, cafe/marquee area, and library. ANYWAYS, one final thing I meant to say - for those interested in designing their own theater, no matter how big or small, I highly recommend getting your hands on as many books about both home theaters (there aren't many), or big theaters - lots of great design ideas in them.

Well, the article suggests the $3.4M was for the electronics (house-wide).

Was that $3.4M for the whole house? My bad. I didn't read the posts too closely. Also, my construction costs were for the theater as well as a wine cellar, concession area, cafe/marquee area, and library. ANYWAYS, one final thing I meant to say - for those interested in designing their own theater, no matter how big or small, I highly recommend getting your hands on as many books about both home theaters (there aren't many), or big theaters - lots of great design ideas in them.

you have a fine looking theater there!

Once again i hate you Phil! :D

How did you make out with the fires? How are the twins?

Does anyone have pics/pointers to a really good art deco themed theater?

ptrubey...

DAMN!!! That is a BAD Theater!! Out of this world! Superlatives required... Care to entertain us on the equipment/component list?

Gorgeous Phil,

Agreed about the low ceiling issue, looks wise that extra height definitely takes your theater to the next level! Probably not optimal for acoustics for high end audio, but I'm sure makes for much better viewing. I'm green with envy.

Dan, thanks for that clarification, and had I read your initial post better, I wouldn't have gone on. Anyhow, sounds like the perfect adjunct or vis a versa to the TRL. Would love to hear and feel that combo. Never took your comments as a flame on the Bruce's wonder.

Cheers and props to the both of you.

Edward

Agreed about the low ceiling issue, looks wise that extra height definitely takes your theater to the next level! Probably not optimal for acoustics for high end audio
There is no reason a high ceiling cannot perform well for high-end audio.

The acoustics of the recorded space and the reproduction space couple. So the room will reproduce some recording spaces more realistically and others less realistically. I guess whether or not that is a negative issue would depend on the average of your favorite albums' recording venues and whether or not you really care that much about reproducing the authentic space accurately (seeing as no space is going to reproduce any recording perfectly anyway...).

There is no reason a high ceiling cannot perform well for high-end audio.


Or a low one.

Art

El Capitan Junior is one of my favorite theaters, great job Phil. Now when are you swapping for the superkontrast Barco DP 1500? It can be demoed in Fountain Valley (Orange County), heck they could probably bring one to you.

El Capitan Junior is one of my favorite theaters, great job Phil. Now when are you swapping for the superkontrast Barco DP 1500? It can be demoed in Fountain Valley (Orange County), heck they could probably bring one to you.

Peter,
Isn't that spelled uberkontrast ?;)

Art

'überkontrast'!

But didn't he say that Barco was still holding out on the überkontrast version, just commiting to the supercontrast one at 3000:1 plus a better lens.

'überkontrast'!

But didn't he say that Barco was still holding out on the überkontrast version, just commiting to the supercontrast one at 3000:1 plus a better lens.


LOL.

I believe that the proper term in German is Superkontrast. Wolfgang?

Although überprojektoren probably ist korrekt.

this HT seems like a very nice execution, but as would be obvious to those who have seen my room, I just can't get into this style at all.

In fact, as I've been there and done the whole HT/listening room thing, I've come to regret making such a single purposed room... these days, I feel I would have been better served making a more general purpose room with 85% of the acoustic performance. Why? I don't know about the rest of you with 100% dedicated rooms, but I just don't use mine that often. I've listened to all the good music, I've watched all the decent movies... now what?

I've listened to all the good music, I've watched all the decent movies... now what?

Time for another hobby.

Art

In fact, as I've been there and done the whole HT/listening room thing, I've come to regret making such a single purposed room... these days, I feel I would have been better served making a more general purpose room with 85% of the acoustic performance.
I'm not sure I see why it has to be one or the other. Meaning the room can be designed for 100% performance but could still be "general purpose" room with a desk, casual seating etc. that could be fun to just hang out in. I guess you wouldn't want to have a fridge in the room, but that could be put in a small attached room.

I don't know about the rest of you with 100% dedicated rooms, but I just don't use mine that often. I've listened to all the good music, I've watched all the decent movies... now what?

Time to join the pr0n industry and make movies of your own. :eek:

Cineramax - is the Barco DP 1500 that much better than the QX1?

One of problem that I have in switching projectors is that my projector is so much higher than the top of the screen. So I would need a lens that can do a large vertical offset. Can the Barco do that?

http://cineramax.com/images/DP2000.jpg

The Barco is quickly becoming the Holly Grail. Being the first projector to offer zoom (focus and tilt) memories, hdcp (12/07), 1.5,2,3,4kw lamps, 12 bit dual band dvi color depth enhancement,newest digital cinema chip, and four possible plateaus of on/off CR (2 now, 2 to come); this is unheard of future upgradeability flexibility. It's ansi contrast is around 1k the highest possible, and it never gets diluted (30% Anamorphic lens ANSI CR loss), truly a MAXIMUM MTF display. It would make a huge difference, go see. That is, after the opening of Beowulf in 3-D (11/16), the Barco Post House VAR (to use) is setting up those in your neck of the woods. And yes it does 3-D just with one projector. It comes in a ceiling mount (upside down) version with the exhaust cowling straight out the back. It needs a minimum of 225 cfm exhaust.

From the center of the lens to the top of the screen what is the relation and screen size? I will ask for you. I know it does 50% offset easily, but do not know the limit.

This is a simulation of the offset happening in the Helene implementation out here. The lens is essentially leveled with the top of the screen.

http://cineramax.com/images/Helene-P-Sim.jpg

It is designed to fit in a wide range of movie theaters so perhaps it has an extreme range.

Probably the biggest challenge we had was that the projector (port hole is above the exit sign above) had to be significantly above the top of the screen due to the stadium seating and rear center entrance. In the end, we ended up with just a small amount of keystoning (which I either digitally compensate, or leave alone depending on how I feel that day) which was a trick since I think the projector was a full 42" above the top of the screen and the screen is 75" high (134" wide, 16x9).

I see never mind, I'll ask. The latest generation GENNUM 2048 scaler also has keystone compensation an order of magnitude superior to that in the QX1a. It is controlled from a latop wifi and it has unprecedented geometry adjustments. Also the TI p7 color calibration when done with a spectrum analyzer dialed in at 5nm precision versus the standard 8 nm will yield you the most accurate d65 color that NO SXRD/LCOS could ever achieve.

On the subject of memory lens zoom/focus/tilt aspect ratio change: I wouldn't rule it out in your case. Lately I have been watching 2.35 hd dvd's twice: Once in 2.35 and the second time zoomed to fill the screen (HD). They are both equally enjoyable in their own right. This extra capability would give you the chance of playing around with the aspect ratios (for example a 2.0 to 1 ar. is suposedly a great way to enjoy a 2.35 film with added height), depending on ones mood. ;)