Originally Posted by VideoGrabber
Did you really mean 4-feet of depth? Perhaps you're using 'depth' in a different way than I might.
This is your spandex AT screen, correct?
In some small-room configurations, surround-sound speakers can also throw a fair amount of sound at the screen. If it is AT, then absorption behind it may help reduce unwanted first reflections from that source.
I did mean to say depth so I think I am using the term differently. I don't mean depth as in the height from the ceiling. I mean it extends 4' from the screen toward the listener along the length of the room and is 8' along the width of the room. I consider the front to back to be depth.
Yes I have a spandex screen and yes I mean the area behind it. My setup, like many on these forums, uses a portion of the front room to hide the speakers and some of the subwoofers. I have a false wall to cover them and the entire wall is acoustically transparent. I went with extra depth to allow for larger subwoofers (Because AVS is a bad influence) and so I have a 30" deep by 11' wide space that has every surface covered in insulation.
I may not be understanding your comment about throwing sound at the screen. Do you mean the surround speakers (as in effect speakers) that are on the side and rear of the room? If yes, then I would imagine they always throw sound at the screen to some extent and certainly in smaller rooms they would throw more. I would question the need to absorb or diffuse that sound simply because it should be fairly late arrival. The room would need to be really small (and if it is, then I would agree, absorbing that off the rear and front wall would help give an illusion of a larger room). Even then, the temporal difference between the direct sound and the reflected sound from the front of the room would be so great (relative to the size of the room) that it shouldn't have a big effect on clarity. Our ears should actually filter that out largely.
As to your comment about aiming the CD speakers, I would argue that CD speakers were designed specifically to be aimed in the way you mention. They SHOULD be aggressively toed in and using them straight on is the INCORRECT way to use CD speakers. Bill's paper, Dr. Geddes, Harman, Peavey, etc. have all referenced or pushed the concept (and I'm sure there are more I'm not aware of). In talking with some guys that design recording studio's, I was told that the aggressive toe of CD speakers has been the common practice and wisdom of the field for decades. I know there will be people who disagree and prefer something and of course you can do what you want with your own speakers. I just feel that the argument for aggressive toe is based on solid objective concepts that make too much sense to ignore.