Erskine Group not the best choice for a sub 100k home theatre... - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 227 Old 01-04-2014, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

Erskine designs for great audio quality predominantly. Calling picasso to paint you a michaelangelo doesn't make sense.

Any random home theater store can design a simple, aestheically pleasing room with audio and video quality as secondary or tertiary goals.

i would be happy with either (Picasso or Michaelangelo)... i dont believe Erskine deserves any comparison to either!
If you paid an artist for a painting of a landscape and were given a portrait, then i am sure you would have an issue - asides from the budget element..

I was very clear in my brief to Shawn Byrne as to our requirements and he undertook that task willingly although i believe in the full knowledge that it was not achievable in my budget - that simply put is my main issue. the other working/relationship/communication issues are all secondary.

If they need to, they should (as professional theatre designers) be able to stray from their 'standard' high end/price products to deliver a decent performing theatre within a clients budget. As has been posted on avs numerous times, similar results can be achieved in may different ways and with many different techniques. There are several 'experts' out there who have a different approach or technique to achieving a similar result. None of them are wrong, just see things in a different way. My reason for employing Erskine was very clear - to spend $4k to get the best performance for my budget out of the space. I wasnt going to / didnt question their approach other than when they significantly strayed from my original brief.

My initial conversation with EG should have gone like this:

Me - my budget is 60k (show them my plans and brief of the space), can you design and build something within that budget
EG - uhh, no, 60k is nowhere near enough - if you want something like the design and brief you have shown, expect to spend at least $100k
Me - oh, well thats not going to happen - what can we get for $60k
EG - we propose that you could have a 'x' seat theatre with a, b, c layout and specification within the 60k. if you want more than that, then the costs would be '$'.

on that basis i could have made an informed decision on what i wanted to do and had i contracted them, they would have earned their $4k fee by working with me and my constraints to give me what i wanted. I never asked them for a thx certified room or anything to that level. it's just a family fun room, and i am not an audiophile.
ccool96 likes this.
mads1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 227 Old 01-04-2014, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Tony Grimani with Cinema Plus in cooperation with Triad speakers would deliver for less than EG's proposed budget......and quite frankly, you'd end up with a better product
IMHO!

If I sell and move, my next project will involve either Tony Grimani or Keith Yates.

My Build Threads


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
doublewing11 is offline  
post #183 of 227 Old 01-04-2014, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Mads1, point taken... They should have told you could not design the room for that price up front. They should have at least a ballpark idea so you dont waste $4k on plans that you cant use.

Ok another note, the triad branded option does look fairly decent. Their behind-baffle designed speakers look fairly substantial for the price.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #184 of 227 Old 01-04-2014, 08:58 PM
Senior Member
 
smuggymba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mads1 View Post

i would be happy with either (Picasso or Michaelangelo)... i dont believe Erskine deserves any comparison to either!
If you paid an artist for a painting of a landscape and were given a portrait, then i am sure you would have an issue - asides from the budget element..

I was very clear in my brief to Shawn Byrne as to our requirements and he undertook that task willingly although i believe in the full knowledge that it was not achievable in my budget - that simply put is my main issue. the other working/relationship/communication issues are all secondary.

If they need to, they should (as professional theatre designers) be able to stray from their 'standard' high end/price products to deliver a decent performing theatre within a clients budget. As has been posted on avs numerous times, similar results can be achieved in may different ways and with many different techniques. There are several 'experts' out there who have a different approach or technique to achieving a similar result. None of them are wrong, just see things in a different way. My reason for employing Erskine was very clear - to spend $4k to get the best performance for my budget out of the space. I wasnt going to / didnt question their approach other than when they significantly strayed from my original brief.

My initial conversation with EG should have gone like this:

Me - my budget is 60k (show them my plans and brief of the space), can you design and build something within that budget
EG - uhh, no, 60k is nowhere near enough - if you want something like the design and brief you have shown, expect to spend at least $100k
Me - oh, well thats not going to happen - what can we get for $60k
EG - we propose that you could have a 'x' seat theatre with a, b, c layout and specification within the 60k. if you want more than that, then the costs would be '$'.

on that basis i could have made an informed decision on what i wanted to do and had i contracted them, they would have earned their $4k fee by working with me and my constraints to give me what i wanted. I never asked them for a thx certified room or anything to that level. it's just a family fun room, and i am not an audiophile.

Sad to see people with 60K media room budget having an unpleasant experience eek.gif If I had 60K, I'd be super excited no matter what. Focus on your room and the experience it will bring, leave the EG thing behind and move on. Hope your room turns out awesome.
LeBon and mads1 like this.
smuggymba is online now  
post #185 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 12:25 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
So, i have made some revisions to the plans and re-drawn the new plans myself... Made the room about 6" wider and about 1.5ft longer.
This makes a more useful space to the rear where i can now place an additional row of seats (or bar if i decide that would work better).

The extra width i think will allow me approx a 140" wide screen, which i am hoping a Sony VW600 or VW1000 projector can throw from 306" (25ft6").

Dipole speakers were specified for the surrounds (x 4) and rears (x 2). I have purchased some used triad Onwall gold surrounds (old style) but not sure if they will work on the rear wall due to the distance from the front screen? and the need for the rear speakers to project sound toward the screen? (that's just based on my own logic and not scientific!)

The columns have to be wider (28") to accomodate the two structural columns that now protrude into the room due to widening the room, but i think they will still look ok due to the 11ft height to the finished ceiling.

comments appreciated,


Subject to snow... contractors should be here on tomorrow (monday)

mads1 is offline  
post #186 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mads1 View Post

So, i have made some revisions to the plans and re-drawn the new plans myself... Made the room about 6" wider and about 1.5ft longer.
This makes a more useful space to the rear where i can now place an additional row of seats (or bar if i decide that would work better).

The extra width i think will allow me approx a 140" wide screen, which i am hoping a Sony VW600 or VW1000 projector can throw from 306" (25ft6").

Dipole speakers were specified for the surrounds (x 4) and rears (x 2). I have purchased some used triad Onwall gold surrounds (old style) but not sure if they will work on the rear wall due to the distance from the front screen? and the need for the rear speakers to project sound toward the screen? (that's just based on my own logic and not scientific!)

The columns have to be wider (28") to accomodate the two structural columns that now protrude into the room due to widening the room, but i think they will still look ok due to the 11ft height to the finished ceiling.

comments appreciated,


Subject to snow... contractors should be here on tomorrow (monday)

What screen gain? I think you are okay with throw, but the the brightness could be an issue, depending on gain. You will be on the dim side for 3D.
Lots of dipole speakers can be problematic. You can cross the threshold from a diffuse sound field to a confused, unclear sound field. I think it's common for that layout to use rows of monopole sides with controlled dispersion.
I don't think it would be a problem for the rears to be far back as long as you can tune the delay.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #187 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 02:24 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Thanks Rob,

I was planning a seymour XD curved screen (1.2 gain).. - could i use a different screen with higher gain to improve image brightness?

the original erskine design had triad inwall bronze surrounds for 4 x surrounds and 2 x rears. - i figured some used gold onwalls would have been better version and was a good deal.

this layout is very similar to a layout i originally gave to erskine as part of the consultation process before i contracted them! talk about going in circles...

Mads
mads1 is offline  
post #188 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mads1 View Post

Thanks Rob,

I was planning a seymour XD curved screen (1.2 gain).. - could i use a different screen with higher gain to improve image brightness?

the original erskine design had triad inwall bronze surrounds for 4 x surrounds and 2 x rears. - i figured some used gold onwalls would have been better version and was a good deal.

this layout is very similar to a layout i originally gave to erskine as part of the consultation process before i contracted them! talk about going in circles...

Mads
I'm actually looking at a very similar setup, although I'm leaning toward a flat screen.
What made you decide on curved? Are you using an a-lens? Which one?
A-lenses are a bit complicated on those projectors.
With a 4k signal, they won't do the a-lens stretch without external scaling.
With a 2k signal, they will do the stretch, but there isn't a significant brightness gain, due to the change in zoom and the projector's aspect ratio.
I came to the conclusion that due to the specific Sony issues, no lens was cheaper, much simpler, and a bit better quality.

A higher gain screen means tradeoffs.
You'd have to go to a microperf screen.
I've never seen either full size first hand. I'm just going by what I've read.
XD is the highest gain weave.
The microperf screens create audio concerns, particularly with a curved screen.
There is a decent amount of extra cost and complexity in order to buy the screen and combat that stuff.
Also, apparently microperf pattern is more visible than the weave.

Anyway, I'm leaning toward flat XD 140" 2.35. As long as 3D is 16:9 and not using an a-lens, I think I'll have okay 3D brightness, although not ideal. I'm sure that most of my viewing will be 2D, so I'm not terribly worried about it. It sound like the most practical alternative to that is actually using a separate projector for 3D. I guess I'll look into that if it's a major concern later (unlikely).

Were the 4x surrounds + 2x rears he was recommending dipole or monopole?
Since they are so close to the seats, it's possible that dipole would be good the feeling that the speaker is too close to you.

I got speakers that were switchable between dipole & bipole, and I found myself preferring bipole.
I had just heard that when using multiple sets that monopoles with controlled directivity was best.
I think dipoles are more prone to crazy cancellation problems than bipoles when using multiples.

I'm not an authority on this stuff, so perhaps someone could make a better recommendation.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #189 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 02:52 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by mads1 View Post


I was planning a seymour XD curved screen (1.2 gain).. - could i use a different screen with higher gain to improve image brightness?

The only higher gain AT screen of equivalent or higher quality is the Stewart Filmscreen Studiotek 130 G3 Microperf which is THX and ISF certified and has a 1.3 gain. Hold on to your wallet, though, if you go this route.
TMcG is online now  
post #190 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

The only higher gain AT screen of equivalent or higher quality is the Stewart Filmscreen Studiotek 130 G3 Microperf which is THX and ISF certified and has a 1.3 gain. Hold on to your wallet, though, if you go this route.
Here is my understanding:
Studiotek 130 Microperf is about 20% brighter than XD.
They also have a new 150 with a 1.5 gain.

A high power screen give incredible 3D images with that projector, size, and throw distance, but the 2D images will be too bright without closing the iris more or using an ND filter.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #191 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 03:05 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Here is my understanding:
Studiotek 130 Microperf is about 20% brighter than XD.
They also have a new 150 with a 1.5 gain.

A high power screen give incredible 3D images with that projector, size, and throw distance, but the 2D images will be too bright without closing the iris more or using an ND filter.

Ft. lamberts are a measurement of reflected light brightness, so it is incorrect to strictly say something will be "too bright" since it is inferred that you will be calibrating your projector for optimal picture quality. The higher gain allows for a larger screen with the same lumen output and/or the ability to put the projector in eco mode (low) instead of "flame thrower" mode to meet reference standards.

Stewart has even higher gain screens than the 1.5....but I also qualified my remarks as "equivalent or higher quality" which, in my opinion and that of other professionals, is not up to the same picture quality standards as the 130 G3. Quite simply, the 150 is prone to hot spotting and "sparklies" from the even higher contrast coating.

The gain rating for the Seymour Center Stage XD is 1.16. Many have measured this to be just over 1.04 in real life testing. Stewart's 1.3 rating is fairly accurate, accounting for the approximate 20% difference in brightness between the two screen materials.
TMcG is online now  
post #192 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 03:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Just to note......Seymour XD is a negative gain screen and has been tested by respected calibrator as such.......think 0.90 gain.

While the Stewart noted is only true positive gain screen, still lose light due to perfs. From what I can recall price wise, the Stewart 130 mp was 15% more than Seymour-SE 4k screen.

For what it's worth, I could see hole structure at 11-12 ft on Stewart material and didn't want to risk annoying perfs and problems with HF reduction......

My Build Threads


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
doublewing11 is offline  
post #193 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Just to note......Seymour XD is a negative gain screen and has been tested by respected calibrator as such.......think 0.90 gain.

While the Stewart noted is only true positive gain screen, still lose light due to perfs. From what I can recall, the Stewart 130 mp was 15% more than Seymour-SE 4k screen.

For what it's worth, I could see hole structure at 11-12 ft on Stewart material and didn't want to risk annoying perfs and problems with HF reduction......
How does microperf look at 14 ft? Is this more of a concern on a 4k projector?

Also, I thought XD was higher gain than the SE 4k.
When testing with samples over black paper, the XD appeared a bit brighter than 1.0 screens and much brighter than the other "4k" weave screens I tested.
I don't have a light meter, though.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #194 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

How does microperf look at 14 ft? Is this more of a concern on a 4k projector?

Also, I thought XD was higher gain than the SE 4k.
When testing with samples over black paper, the XD appeared a bit brighter than 1.0 screens and much brighter than the other "4k" weave screens I tested.
I don't have a light meter, though.

Yes, the XD is noticeably brighter........S-SE 4k was measured at 0.80 which was a MAJOR concern for me. With throw of close to 17 ft on my 1000ES, I find the picture thrown bright enough on 12ft scope 4k screen. Now I don't have the fancy equipment to verify, but Jeff Meyers from AcuCal does........and he stands by his numbers ie. 0.90 gain on XD.

14 ft would be fine for me......my eyes........but you really need samples and test for yourself.

My Build Threads


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
doublewing11 is offline  
post #195 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 04:26 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Just to note......Seymour XD is a negative gain screen and has been tested by respected calibrator as such.......think 0.90 gain.

While the Stewart noted is only true positive gain screen, still lose light due to perfs. From what I can recall price wise, the Stewart 130 mp was 15% more than Seymour-SE 4k screen.

For what it's worth, I could see hole structure at 11-12 ft on Stewart material and didn't want to risk annoying perfs and problems with HF reduction......

Seymour XD is not a negative gain screen. Here is a link to their website where they actively promote 1.2 gain. http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp Not sure how this was measured, but I am confident that they wouldn't put themselves in a position of false advertising. That being said, most of the official calibration reports I have seen show just over a 1.0 gain which is exactly what Seymour states as the "unbenchmarked gain" figures further below.

The Enlightor 4K is a negative gain screen, but just barely. at 0.98. Here is a comparison of all their 4K materials: http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp These are fully ISF tested, so the again information can be relied upon.

I know Jeff at Acucal is an experienced calibrator, but there must be something askew to have numbers that low.
TMcG is online now  
post #196 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Seymour XD is not a negative gain screen. Here is a link to their website where they actively promote 1.2 gain. http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp Not sure how this was measured, but I am confident that they wouldn't put themselves in a position of false advertising. That being said, most of the official calibration reports I have seen show just over a 1.0 gain which is exactly what Seymour states as the "unbenchmarked gain" figures further below.

The Enlightor 4K is a negative gain screen, but just barely. at 0.98. Here is a comparison of all their 4K materials: http://www.seymourscreenexcellence.com/materials.asp These are fully ISF tested, so the again information can be relied upon.

I know Jeff at Acucal is an experienced calibrator, but there must be something askew to have numbers that low.

Don't have the equipment to verify nor the expertise to do so.......therefore if an experience calibrator measures such values, I'm more prone to believe them than manufacture data...........

I've tested Stewart 100 material and compared to S-SE 4k material and to my untrained eye, the Stewart material was significantly brighter.............just saying.

With that said, I use S-SE 4K screen..........

My Build Threads


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
doublewing11 is offline  
post #197 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 04:57 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

I'm actually looking at a very similar setup, although I'm leaning toward a flat screen.
What made you decide on curved? Are you using an a-lens? Which one?
A-lenses are a bit complicated on those projectors.
With a 4k signal, they won't do the a-lens stretch without external scaling.
With a 2k signal, they will do the stretch, but there isn't a significant brightness gain, due to the change in zoom and the projector's aspect ratio.
I came to the conclusion that due to the specific Sony issues, no lens was cheaper, much simpler, and a bit better quality.

A higher gain screen means tradeoffs.
You'd have to go to a microperf screen.
I've never seen either full size first hand. I'm just going by what I've read.
XD is the highest gain weave.
The microperf screens create audio concerns, particularly with a curved screen.
There is a decent amount of extra cost and complexity in order to buy the screen and combat that stuff.
Also, apparently microperf pattern is more visible than the weave.

Anyway, I'm leaning toward flat XD 140" 2.35. As long as 3D is 16:9 and not using an a-lens, I think I'll have okay 3D brightness, although not ideal. I'm sure that most of my viewing will be 2D, so I'm not terribly worried about it. It sound like the most practical alternative to that is actually using a separate projector for 3D. I guess I'll look into that if it's a major concern later (unlikely).

Were the 4x surrounds + 2x rears he was recommending dipole or monopole?
Since they are so close to the seats, it's possible that dipole would be good the feeling that the speaker is too close to you.

I got speakers that were switchable between dipole & bipole, and I found myself preferring bipole.
I had just heard that when using multiple sets that monopoles with controlled directivity was best.
I think dipoles are more prone to crazy cancellation problems than bipoles when using multiples.

I'm not an authority on this stuff, so perhaps someone could make a better recommendation.

The curved screen was what was specified by Erskine (Stewart microperf), they told me that it was to reduce the light reflection onto the front side walls by the screen. I think the curved screen looks better (in terms of room design/style) but no other reason. Could equally go with a flat screen if that helps.
I was planning on having a 16:9 screen to avoid the cost of the lens etc.
like you, the 3d is really for our daughter and her friends to watch kids 3d movies. i prefer to watch 2D.

the surrounds and rear's were all specified as the triad bronze/4 inwall surrounds which are dipole. i assume (?) that the triad gold onwall surrounds (old style) are also dipole but i dont know.
Erskine commented that the dipole speakers would create an illusion of distance to the speaker for the listener in terms of hiding the proximity and location of the surround sounds.

what is your projector to screen distance?

Mads
mads1 is offline  
post #198 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 05:05 PM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Don't have the equipment to verify nor the expertise to do so.......therefore if an experience calibrator measures such values, I'm more prone to believe them than manufacture data...........

I've tested Stewart 100 material and compared to S-SE 4k material and to my untrained eye, the Stewart material was significantly brighter.............just saying.

With that said, I use S-SE 4K screen..........

It is highly unlikely that Chris Seymour would knowingly falsify gain data and subject himself to the ramifications of false advertising, don't you think? cool.gif

The Stewart screen at 1.3 gain should be much brighter than the Seymour 4K with a specified gain of 0.98. I was never contesting that point and in fact stated the Stewart's rated gain seemed very consistent at approximately 1.3 for all the calibrated images.
TMcG is online now  
post #199 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 05:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 244
What is the precise throw distance and size of your screen?

Looks like 25 foot throw distance which will be problematic for about 90% of all decent reasonably priced home theater projectors.

I have a 21 foot throw distance and 170" screen and my roll down screen is not good enough with 1.0 gain with an epson powerlite 5000 series projector (a very good projector). 3D is out of the question and looks way too dim.

I did a 21 foot throw so i can build the projector into the back wall and it is acoustically and cosmetically more pleasing... But picture would have looked much nicer if the projector was overhead at like 15ft throw distance.

I looked through a TON of projectors and to get decent brightness i would now need to upgrade to a commercial grade projector or one made for daylight use with much worse contrast ratio.

You will likely have less of a problem since your screen size is not as large but still be careful.

Moral: be VERY careful with long throw scenarios and be sure brightness is very adequate, especially for 3D applications.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #200 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 05:36 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post

What is the precise throw distance and size of your screen?

projector lens to screen approx 25ft6" (that is assuming curved screen etc. could probably be improved by 6" to 25ft exactly.
original screen size was 124" wide 16:9 screen, but i think with the widening of the room that could be extended to about 144" wide.
mads1 is offline  
post #201 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Curved sounds like a reasonable call, since your screen will be close to the walls. There are a bunch of minor tradeoffs.

That's a good point about dipole due to speaker proximity. My speakers aren't as close, but I'm glad I got the bipole/dipole switchable speakers, since I ended up liking bipole better in my room. You can always turn the volume down a notch or two if you're not happy with the sound. I think the Triad surrounds are "tri-pole" types, which would probably work better, actually.

My understanding is that the Sony 4k projectors are a lot brighter than that Epson Powerlite in their good quality movie modes.

I agree that it wouldn't hurt to keep some flexibility to move the Sony closer. There's a pretty big difference in brightness at the min throw distance - perhaps 30-50%, with a spectrum in-between. The long throw distance, however, gives less barrel distortion on the curved screen, less hot spotting (probably not much of an issue for XD), significantly better contrast, and is quieter. Then, you've got the whole spectrum in-between. I'm not sure if it's practical to make that decision after the screen is up, but that would be ideal.

I'm going with a 2.35 screen because that most of what I watch, and I want to optimize height, size, and masking for that. Also, a 140" wide 16:9 image may be uncomfortably big. That's a personal taste thing, though. If you watch mostly 16:9 stuff, the opposite argument applies. You would want to tune height, size, and masking around that.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #202 of 227 Old 01-05-2014, 07:32 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
mads1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

Curved sounds like a reasonable call, since your screen will be close to the walls. There are a bunch of minor tradeoffs.

That's a good point about dipole due to speaker proximity. My speakers aren't as close, but I'm glad I got the bipole/dipole switchable speakers, since I ended up liking bipole better in my room. You can always turn the volume down a notch or two if you're not happy with the sound. I think the Triad surrounds are "tri-pole" types, which would probably work better, actually.

My understanding is that the Sony 4k projectors are a lot brighter than that Epson Powerlite in their good quality movie modes.

I agree that it wouldn't hurt to keep some flexibility to move the Sony closer. There's a pretty big difference in brightness at the min throw distance - perhaps 30-50%, with a spectrum in-between. The long throw distance, however, gives less barrel distortion on the curved screen, less hot spotting (probably not much of an issue for XD), significantly better contrast, and is quieter. Then, you've got the whole spectrum in-between. I'm not sure if it's practical to make that decision after the screen is up, but that would be ideal.

I'm going with a 2.35 screen because that most of what I watch, and I want to optimize height, size, and masking for that. Also, a 140" wide 16:9 image may be uncomfortably big. That's a personal taste thing, though. If you watch mostly 16:9 stuff, the opposite argument applies. You would want to tune height, size, and masking around that.


i am hoping it works.. maybe the VW600es would do the same job too which is a good (read: cheaper) option.
Since the theatre will be a muted pallet of blacks and dark greys the light reflection shouldnt be such an issue with the screen either way. curved or flat. Since i have an 11ft ceiling at the screen i figured to put in the largest screen size then can play either 2.35 or 16:9 formats to maximum size. i can always make the screen smaller (or mask it) but i cant make it larger if i choose to go the other way.

Once the theatre it built maybe i will trial a sony vw600es and see how that looks, unless i stumble over a cheap vw1000 in the mean-time. i am really keen to keep the projector hidden in the hush box at the back of the room rather than have it in the ceiling in the room.

when are you starting your theatre?

Mads
mads1 is offline  
post #203 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

It is highly unlikely that Chris Seymour would knowingly falsify gain data and subject himself to the ramifications of false advertising, don't you think? cool.gif

The Stewart screen at 1.3 gain should be much brighter than the Seymour 4K with a specified gain of 0.98. I was never contesting that point and in fact stated the Stewart's rated gain seemed very consistent at approximately 1.3 for all the calibrated images.

Sorry, just can't let dead dogs lie...........isn't this a thread for consumer?

Chris and you are both right..........yes, the material is most likely advertised gains....... But when light loss is factored in due to perfs, weave etc. I believe the actual light reflected off screen to viewers eye is way less than advertised.......remember good ole' Ronald Regan? " trust but verify"...........

I believe AcuCal numbers are correct and would like to post resource data from AcuCal.,...but I'm in a hurry and out the door. biggrin.gif

My Build Threads


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
doublewing11 is offline  
post #204 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,098
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mads1 View Post

i am hoping it works.. maybe the VW600es would do the same job too which is a good (read: cheaper) option.
Since the theatre will be a muted pallet of blacks and dark greys the light reflection shouldnt be such an issue with the screen either way. curved or flat. Since i have an 11ft ceiling at the screen i figured to put in the largest screen size then can play either 2.35 or 16:9 formats to maximum size. i can always make the screen smaller (or mask it) but i cant make it larger if i choose to go the other way.

Once the theatre it built maybe i will trial a sony vw600es and see how that looks, unless i stumble over a cheap vw1000 in the mean-time. i am really keen to keep the projector hidden in the hush box at the back of the room rather than have it in the ceiling in the room.

when are you starting your theatre?

Mads
I don't think the vw1000 and 600 differences are very big, based on what I have read.

I'm not sure when I'm starting. I'm trying, but it has been hard to find the time. I need a designer/builder.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcohen is online now  
post #205 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 07:04 AM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11 View Post

Sorry, just can't let dead dogs lie...........isn't this a thread for consumer?

Chris and you are both right..........yes, the material is most likely advertised gains....... But when light loss is factored in due to perfs, weave etc. I believe the actual light reflected off screen to viewers eye is way less than advertised.......remember good ole' Ronald Regan? " trust but verify"...........

I believe AcuCal numbers are correct and would like to post resource data from AcuCal.,...but I'm in a hurry and out the door. biggrin.gif

Yes, you can essentially kiss 10% of your light / brightness "goodbye" with any acoustically transparent screen. CenterStage XD has been measured many, many times to land in the 1.03 to 1.04 gain range with a real-life calibrated setup. But that doesn't mean the material itself does not have the 1.16 to 1.20 gain as an example of where some of the confusion may lie in this comment thread.

I was just surprised that Jeff was getting 0.9 for the XD and 0.8 for the 4k because that is WAY outside of what is to be expected.
TMcG is online now  
post #206 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 07:09 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Meters matter. Jeff has one of the best, most expensive ones. Jef does not sell nor promote equipment, I trust his data.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #207 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 07:32 AM
AnalysisParalysis Analyst
 
TMcG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Meters matter. Jeff has one of the best, most expensive ones. Jef does not sell nor promote equipment, I trust his data.

Never doubted Jeff's talents or equipment, just surprised that his rating was so low and where the differences lie. Do you happen to know which piece of calibration equipment he uses? Sencore?
TMcG is online now  
post #208 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 07:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,880
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Liked: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Never doubted Jeff's talents or equipment, just surprised that his rating was so low and where the differences lie. Do you happen to know which piece of calibration equipment he uses? Sencore?

I have had Jeff to my theater as well. Very professional, smart and loves what he does.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is online now  
post #209 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 08:04 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Meters matter. Jeff has one of the best, most expensive ones. Jef does not sell nor promote equipment, I trust his data.

Never doubted Jeff's talents or equipment, just surprised that his rating was so low and where the differences lie. Do you happen to know which piece of calibration equipment he uses? Sencore?

http://www.accucalhd.com/isf-calibration.htm


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #210 of 227 Old 01-06-2014, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
adidino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I have had Jeff to my theater as well. Very professional, smart and loves what he does.

+1 on Jeff. He's been to my home a few times. Very professional and knowledgeable.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Owner, AudioXtream.
Authorized Dealer for Kef, Triad, Bryston, Auralic, Audeze, Grado, Audioquest, Marantz
adidino is offline  
Reply Dedicated Theater Design & Construction

Tags
Procella P6 , Triad Inwall Bronze 4 Lcr , Triad Inroom Platinum Sub , Triad Inwall Bronze 6 Sub , Runco Ls 5 Projector

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off