What is the best acoustic transparent screen currently? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 97 Old 10-18-2009, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dbldare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Broomfield, CO USA
Posts: 2,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

Just for the record, I believe (not certain) that only THX to date has provided independent third-party testing for both audio and video qualities of AT screens.

As I stated above, Widescreen Review Mag did an excellent review on several (8) top brand name screens. Reference Lambertian, Stewart Sno Matte, Da Lite, Screen Research CP2, Draper AT1200, Stewart Grayhawk, Stewart Firehawk, and the Stewart Studiotech. They put the screens through several test for both audio and video. They each had their strengths and weaknesses, but in their "final thoughts" area Widescreen Review stated that woven screens generally outperformed perforated screens. They went on to say that the Draper and the Screen Research models were both "flawless" acoustically. They also stated that the ClearPix 2 pulls ahead in the video department because it had fewer issues with moire when used with current Texas Instruments 1920x1080 DLP chips.

Here's an interesting quote from last of the article, "Overall, the benefits of placing the loudspeakers behind the screen in order to have spatial coincidence between picture and sound by far outweigh the picture and sound degradation issues."

The magazine issues are from Widescreen Review #140 (May/June) and #141 (July/August). Very good read!

dbldare

Let's all go to the lobby
....Let's all go to the lobby
........Let's all go to the lobby
............To get ourselves a treat!
dbldare is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 97 Old 10-18-2009, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
edfowler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: central Indiana
Posts: 1,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Reborn View Post

Do you know how the Screen Excellence screens compare to the SeymourAV screens, price-wise? I'm considering altering my setup for an AT screen.

I think they are about 10 - 20x
edfowler is offline  
post #33 of 97 Old 10-18-2009, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Milt99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Of California
Posts: 5,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemascope View Post

This statement needs clarification... Screen Research is in receivership in France, so their future is up in the air at this time, but they are not "defunct".

Screen Excellence is owned by Patrice Congard, who used to work for Screen Research. Patrice developed the multi-layer weave fabric for SR that made them famous. Patrice has also developed the new generation of tighter weaves which are now only sold under the Screen Excellence name, although SR and SMX have since copied them.

(Although SMX now has a competitive fabric, their first fabrics were single layer weave fabrics made by companies like Phifer for roller shades, and were not taken seriously by real pros)

Also, Screen Excellence has the Craftsman series, which is a DIY-friendly line of products with just the material which you can stretch into your own millwork.

I have been a dealer since it the product came to the US, and I use it as often as possible.

Thanks for the clarification. I edited my post.

 

It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so

Milt99 is online now  
post #34 of 97 Old 10-18-2009, 06:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dragon Reborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfowler View Post

I think they are about 10 - 20x

??? Screen Excellence are 10 - 20x more expensive that Seymour ???

This can't be right.
Dragon Reborn is offline  
post #35 of 97 Old 10-20-2009, 01:17 AM
Senior Member
 
bigbaldguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Erskine View Post

I do think the original post was directed to the "best" regardless of approach (woven or otherwise).

Just for the record, I believe (not certain) that only THX to date has provided independent third-party testing for both audio and video qualities of AT screens.

THX did testing as part of its fee for licensing. So to call it INDEPENDENT isn't excatly honest.

Bob Hodas from Mix magazine did some excellent testing a few years ago.

Recently Brent Butterworth did a round-up of AT tests for Sound and Vision albeit somewhat flawed in my view. I can address why offline.

I could also point you to off shore mags and independent tests.

John Caldwell
President
Grace Motif, Inc
Scottsdale, AZ
www.gracemotif.com
tel: 480-463-4248
fax: 805-856-2212
bigbaldguy is offline  
post #36 of 97 Old 10-20-2009, 06:17 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Dennis Erskine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 9,143
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I would not be inclined to trust magazine sponsored "tests". The methods, standards and scope are not only subject to bias; but, full procedural documentation is not available to allow verification of the results or peer review. The degree to which "controlled conditions" is applied in these "tests" is not at all without fault. Further multiple tests are not conducted to allow correlation of the resultant data sets.

While you are exactly correct, THX will test a product to determine compliance to a set of established criteria (criteria known to the submitting party prior to submission), it is the genesis of the criteria and consistency of the testing process which comes into play. The criteria is developed, and pass/fail metrics, are established prior to any testing and without regard to any manufacturer or technical approach or, in your case, material. The audio and video criteria to pass are based upon what is required to achieve a desired result or meet a predefined standard. As an individual with industry experience, you are certainly aware that meeting the height of that bar is not an easy nor straight forward process...even knowing the criteria in advance. Many, many have gone back to the bench for redesign to pass.

With THX, you must meet some predefined standard which has been designed to assure a specific level of performance. In an independent third party lab, there is no such standard to meet ... simply tests with data flowing from those tests. With standardized testing, products can be compared without bias. That's a good thing; but, in the absence of a minimum set of criteria, who's to know if the differences between two products make a twits bit of difference in the intended application. In the world of AT screens all tests have been conducted using different equipment, in different environments under different testing conditions. Secondly, I know of no such testing which has not been "encouraged by" or sponsored by someone with no vested interest in the outcome. In the case of THX, youse pays your testing fees whether or pass or don't. Clearly both parties want a "pass" but a pass is never assured...you meet the mark or you don't and just because you paid a fee, doesn't mean you get to slide under the bar.

Gary and his crew do some credible work; however, we must recognize our testing equipment can measure events way beyond the ability of humans to detect or perceive. The ability to test beyond perception is helpful if we're trying to determine a cause behind a problem. What needs to be first established is exactly what is the desired baseline of performance. Then, determine from the testing whether or not these baselines have been achieved. For example, if one screen exhibits a 1 dB roll off between 19kHz and 20kHz, is that relevant? It certainly is to the marketing lads; but, for the material's intended purpose, not at all relevant.

I am reasonably certain there are products on the market today which were submitted to THX for certification and failed. The manufacturer, for any number of reasons simply made the decision to perfume the pig and move on.

Dennis Erskine CFI, CFII, MEI
Architectural Acoustics
Subject Matter Expert
Certified Home Theater Designer
CEDIA Board of Directors
www.erskine-group.com
www.CinemaForte.net
Dennis Erskine is offline  
post #37 of 97 Old 10-24-2009, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am between Screen Excellence, SMX, and Screen Research. I am looking for a weave, mainly due to "popular opinion" that weaves are better than Stewart Microperf visually and sonically. But it doesn't add up that Stewart, makers of some of the best...if not the best solid screens, would not make a weave if they thought it superior..?

Stewart will also be more expensive, so I unless I become convinced at some point that the Stewart Perf is superior, I can't stomach the price diff.

Anyway, I will have a a bat cave with a 92 inch diagonal screen, with the Pj about 13 feet back (Panny 4000 or maybe the Epson 8500). I will be sitting about 9.5 feet back from the screen. I will only have the center behind the screen (Procella P6)

Obviously I want the best PQ and SQ available, and don't want moire or patterns emerging on the screen when I view.

I am worried about Screen Research because unless they have updated their Clear Pix2 material, there has been no innovation from them in years. Screen Excellence seems better, but there seems to be legal trouble. SMX just seems perfect, but the reviews state herringbone patterns. So is there actually a solution for my situation that won't compromise PQ in a discernible way?

Thanks.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #38 of 97 Old 10-24-2009, 02:39 PM
Senior Member
 
bigbaldguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

Screen Excellence seems better, but there seems to be legal trouble.

You have your facts wrong.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Screen Excellence legally.
You have them confused with Screen Research who has recently gone under receivership (French version of Chapter 11 bankruptcy).
http://www.cepro.com/article/report_..._receivership/
http://www.resmagonline.com/article/35942.aspx

John Caldwell
President
Grace Motif, Inc
Scottsdale, AZ
www.gracemotif.com
tel: 480-463-4248
fax: 805-856-2212
bigbaldguy is offline  
post #39 of 97 Old 10-24-2009, 02:44 PM
umr
AVS Club Gold
 
umr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 10,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

....

Anyway, I will have a a bat cave with a 92 inch diagonal screen, with the Pj about 13 feet back (Panny 4000 or maybe the Epson 8500). I will be sitting about 9.5 feet back from the screen. I will only have the center behind the screen (Procella P6)...

I would get samples and see what you like best in your room. I have very accute vision and at that distance I am certain I would see an impact on certain images no matter what you chose that was AT. You need to check it out for yourself though. I would compare everything to Stewart SnoMatte 100 as a reference material.
umr is offline  
post #40 of 97 Old 10-24-2009, 03:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by umr View Post

I would get samples and see what you like best in your room. I have very accute vision and at that distance I am certain I would see an impact on certain images no matter what you chose that was AT. You need to check it out for yourself though. I would compare everything to Stewart SnoMatte 100 as a reference material.

Since I will only have the center speaker behind the screen, I am questioning whether it is worth to go AT. I have a weird room with a slanted ceiling, so the screen will not be very far off the ground. I will only have a couch, no theater stadium style seating, so if I mount the speaker above the screen it will only be a couple feet higher than if I mount it behind the screen. Of course I would have to angle it down towards my viewing/listening position. I don't know if I would notice a real sonic difference either way. I understand the benefit of the sound from coming from behind a screen and all....and having the speakers vertically aligned....but knowing you have the ultimate PQ is a benefit of solid screens. I have no experience with speakers behind a screen....but right now my center is under my plasma and the dialogue seems believable enough.

If I had a setup where all three speakers could be hidden then it is a no brainer. But the fact that the front left and right won't be behind the screen makes the tradeoff a little tougher.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #41 of 97 Old 10-24-2009, 04:04 PM
umr
AVS Club Gold
 
umr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 10,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post

Since I will only have the center speaker behind the screen, I am questioning whether it is worth to go AT. I have a weird room with a slanted ceiling, so the screen will not be very far off the ground. I will only have a couch, no theater stadium style seating, so if I mount the speaker above the screen it will only be a couple feet higher than if I mount it behind the screen. Of course I would have to angle it down towards my viewing/listening position. I don't know if I would notice a real sonic difference either way. I understand the benefit of the sound from coming from behind a screen and all....and having the speakers vertically aligned....but knowing you have the ultimate PQ is a benefit of solid screens. I have no experience with speakers behind a screen....but right now my center is under my plasma and the dialogue seems believable enough.

If I had a setup where all three speakers could be hidden then it is a no brainer. But the fact that the front left and right won't be behind the screen makes the tradeoff a little tougher.

Big screens interfere more with speaker placement than smaller ones. I would not go AT if the speakers can be placed reasonably without it.
umr is offline  
post #42 of 97 Old 10-25-2009, 01:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by umr View Post

Big screens interfere more with speaker placement than smaller ones. I would not go AT if the speakers can be placed reasonably without it.

Thank you.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #43 of 97 Old 10-25-2009, 03:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gamelover360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orebro, Sweden!!!
Posts: 2,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbaldguy View Post

You have your facts wrong.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Screen Excellence legally.
You have them confused with Screen Research who has recently gone under receivership (French version of Chapter 11 bankruptcy).
http://www.cepro.com/article/report_..._receivership/
http://www.resmagonline.com/article/35942.aspx

Sorry, I got mixed up. I have been trying to get a price quote from Screen excellence UK through Neil, but I have not gotten a price quote yet....1 week later. Neil did forward my email directly to Screen excellence...but nothing yet. Could you PM me a price quote on a 92 inch fixed frame with the EN4k material. I could have my parents ship it from the US to Sweden where I am located. Thanks.
gamelover360 is offline  
post #44 of 97 Old 02-11-2013, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I would like to bring this back up for debate.... regardless of price, I would like to hear some experts weigh in on which approach, woven or perforated, is the "best" for video fidelity.

For my purposes, this is in a completely treated, quite black room with my front row seats (or rather viewer's eyes) about 12.5 ft back from the screen and speakers 14 - 19" away from the screen material.
So I meet the criteria for Stewart's microperfs to supposedly disappear, as well as to not have any comb filtering effects from the speakers being too close to the screen material.

Given those parameters, I am wondering if the Stewart provides better video fidelity? I am looking at Snomatte 100 or Studiotek 130 G3 microperfs. I know the gain would be better with the Stewart options (only slightly for the Snomatte), but would apparent resolution and contrast as well?

I have been asking a few people over PM and email as well but wanted to hear current community consensus.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #45 of 97 Old 02-15-2013, 04:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Well I got some samples, although small ones, and have done a little bit of testing...

First, do you guys think putting the Stewart samples on the screen in front of the EN4k is a fair way to measure the FtL coming off them? Think the EN4k screen being behind the perfed ones would add to or take away from the measured ftL I get from my meter and Calman?

In any case, the results I got on my 160"W 2:37 screen:


Snomatte 100: 14.21 ftL
Snomatte 100 perf: 13
Studiotek 130 G3 perf: 16.2
Studiotek 130 G3: 18.5

En4k: 9.32

I need to measure the EN4k again tonight. I measured a little over 11 ftL the other day on it, so not sure why I got 9.32 this time. The meters were different (a Colormunki spectro the first time when I got the 11ftL, and a i1 Display pro for the 9.32 and all the other readings from today), and I measured this time on the right side of the screen instead of the center since my samples were in the center, so maybe one of those things has something to do with it. But unless hanging these samples on top of the EN4k somehow boosted their light output, then they clearly have a nice brightness advantage over the En4k. The gain drop from the perf does seem to be in line with the quoted 10-12%.

One a full white screen, I could tell that the G3 had an optical coating, although very fine. The Snomatte looked smoother. I could not see the perf from anywhere near my seating distance, even with lights on and no image. I can see the weave structure easier than I can the perf with lights on.



I can’t see any of the materials’ screen structure with lights off and a movie playing from my 12.5 ft seating distance, or even 2-3 feet closer.

As far as video fidelity / clarity / apparent resolution, it is pretty hard to tell from these tiny samples. Obviously color saturation appears greater on the brighter material, so that is a given just due to the higher ftL. So I dont think I can make that call with these tiny samples.

I also cannot make a call on the audio of course as these tiny samples are of no use for testing audio.
ZeGhostbear likes this.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #46 of 97 Old 02-17-2013, 10:33 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
chriscmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: IA
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 View Post

Well I got some samples, although small ones, and have done a little bit of testing...

First, do you guys think putting the Stewart samples on the screen in front of the EN4k is a fair way to measure the FtL coming off them? Think the EN4k screen being behind the perfed ones would add to or take away from the measured ftL I get from my meter and Calman?

In any case, the results I got on my 160"W 2:37 screen:


Snomatte 100: 14.21 ftL
Snomatte 100 perf: 13
Studiotek 130 G3 perf: 16.2
Studiotek 130 G3: 18.5

En4k: 9.32

I need to measure the EN4k again tonight. I measured a little over 11 ftL the other day on it, so not sure why I got 9.32 this time. The meters were different (a Colormunki spectro the first time when I got the 11ftL, and a i1 Display pro for the 9.32 and all the other readings from today), and I measured this time on the right side of the screen instead of the center since my samples were in the center, so maybe one of those things has something to do with it. But unless hanging these samples on top of the EN4k somehow boosted their light output, then they clearly have a nice brightness advantage over the En4k. The gain drop from the perf does seem to be in line with the quoted 10-12%.

One a full white screen, I could tell that the G3 had an optical coating, although very fine. The Snomatte looked smoother. I could not see the perf from anywhere near my seating distance, even with lights on and no image. I can see the weave structure easier than I can the perf with lights on.

My $.02:

You can't accurately measure the brightness of the vinyl screens on top of another screen because those screens lack black backing or blackout layers and are measurably translucent. To get an accurate measurement of those samples, you'll need to place something black behind them. That way you can get closer to Jeff Meier's measurements here.

Secondly, you need to compare samples on the exact same location within the screen or you'll be introducing your projector's brightness nonuniformities into the measurements. These can be 10-20% alone in my limited experience in measuring this.

Thirdly, evaluating the visibility of an acoustically transparent's screen must be done with projected, not ambient light. The screens must also be properly tensioned or in the case of the EN-4K it will neither look nor sound like it's supposed to.

Cheers,
Chris

Seymour AV
515-268-3369

Seymour-Screen Excellence
515-450-5694
chriscmore is offline  
post #47 of 97 Old 02-20-2013, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 315
To be honest, unless you have sub par vision I think at under 13 feet you're going to see the perfs. A material like the SMX screen or the Enlightor 4K screen will suit you better at these seating distances.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #48 of 97 Old 02-20-2013, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Well, I have Lasik corrected 20/15 vision and my friend has uncorrected 20/15 vision, and we were unable to see the perfs after about 10 feet. Really they basically disappeared after about 8 feet. At 12 feet they were undetectable at all. In fact, when he first came over, I had the samples up on the screen and asked him to pick out which ones had perfs. He got it wrong. So did both of my kids. I had them all sit in the main position and asked them to tell me which sample had holes in it.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #49 of 97 Old 02-21-2013, 03:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 608 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Interesting. I have a few samples from Da-lite and Stewart. I can clearly see the perfs from my 11 foot seating distance. I must have amazing vision or something.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #50 of 97 Old 02-21-2013, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Yeah that seems like we are certainly having different experiences. I am going to try to visit someone local that has a large Stewart perf screen and see what my experience there is. If I like it I guess I will just go ahead and order the Stewart and have both large screens at the same time if my En4k doesn't sell quickly. I will do a full shootout with measurements and multiple people viewing them both if that happens.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #51 of 97 Old 02-21-2013, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psgcdn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prov. of Quebec, Canada
Posts: 4,696
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 155 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamelover360 View Post


Since I will only have the center speaker behind the screen, I am questioning whether it is worth to go AT. I have a weird room with a slanted ceiling, so the screen will not be very far off the ground. I will only have a couch, no theater stadium style seating, so if I mount the speaker above the screen it will only be a couple feet higher than if I mount it behind the screen. Of course I would have to angle it down towards my viewing/listening position. I don't know if I would notice a real sonic difference either way. I understand the benefit of the sound from coming from behind a screen and all....and having the speakers vertically aligned....but knowing you have the ultimate PQ is a benefit of solid screens. I have no experience with speakers behind a screen....but right now my center is under my plasma and the dialogue seems believable enough.


If I had a setup where all three speakers could be hidden then it is a no brainer. But the fact that the front left and right won't be behind the screen makes the tradeoff a little tougher.

Tough call.

I sit 9.5 feet from an Elunevision Audioweave screen and can't see the weave. I also only have a center speaker behind it, but it's so large that not having an AT screen would have limited the size of teh screen and placed it too far up (the speaker is 3 feet high).

psgcdn is offline  
post #52 of 97 Old 02-23-2013, 10:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Ben Withrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I wrestled with this dilemma for months. Stressed about it. Thought myself in circles over it. It was the biggest stressor in my entire Dennis Erskine designed build. I had a non-perfed Stewart ST130 in my old theater. The new design had the center channel behind the screen - where it should be.

I ended up looking at a bunch of screens, most of the one discussed here. I looked person, ordered samples, etc. I went with a 141" wide 1.89:1 Microperf ST130. I sit in my first row with my eyes just shy of 12'. The image is stunning from the Sony 1000es. I thank Dennis for his obstinance in this regard.

You won't see the holes at this distance. I thought I did initially when I was playing around with samples on my old JVC RS1 at the larger screen size. What I was seeing was the pixel structure of a 1080P machine trying to fill too big of a screen. THE PIXELS ARE MUCH MUCH LARGER THAN THE HOLES AT THIS SIZE. Make sure what you are seeing is what you think it is. It was a weird revelation. You won't see the holes, but I guarantee you'll notice the surface texture of the woven screens more than the holes in operation. Plus, most folks would benefit from some gain on any larger screen.

As for the audio issues, as long as the screen is 12" in front of the speaker, it performs exceptionally well. The high frequency roll off that does occur is very linear and starts well above 10k. I've seen the analysis first hand in my theater. It is very easy to address. You'll have much bigger room induced issues, even in a well designed erskine theater. The Audessey etc will have no trouble with the adjustment. I didn't use the provided Stewart processor. It simply wasn't needed. IMHO you just can't beat the Stewart ST screens solid or AT. Everyone that sees and hears it can't believe how well it performs.

Ben
Ben Withrow is offline  
post #53 of 97 Old 02-24-2013, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Thank you very much, Ben. That is very helpful, especially since we have the same projector. Before I had the Sony I stretched my image on my old RS20 to my 160" width and could also easily see the pixel structure.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #54 of 97 Old 02-24-2013, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Ben Withrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
HiFi,

You really need gain at that size. Even with a 1.3 gain (which is less with holes), you'll have to run in high lamp mode at that size and absolutely forget 3D, which wouldn't be a big deal to me given how 2D is on the 1000. FYI, Sony used a 1.5 Microperf at CEDIA 2011 to demo the 1000 on a similar sized screen. The reflections 170 was too sparkly for my taste.

Ben
Ben Withrow is offline  
post #55 of 97 Old 02-24-2013, 09:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Yeah I already run in high lamp of course on the En4k screen so that is no big deal. 3d is too dim, though. Although watchable. The Stewart is about 60% brighter based in my measurements. That should make 3d ok for me.
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #56 of 97 Old 02-24-2013, 09:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hifiaudio2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Do you ever notice any sparkles on your 130? Is yours the 130 G3?
hifiaudio2 is offline  
post #57 of 97 Old 02-25-2013, 02:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Ben Withrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I have the latest, which I believe is the G3. I have seen a sparkly or two, but you really have to be looking for them and know when and where to look. The G3 is a tad better than the G2 I had. Projector placement at the top of the image (not screen for zoomed 2.35) is important to minimize this. It my opinion the ST130 is by far the best screen I've seen. The ST100 is great, but I like the extra pop from the 130.

Ben
Ben Withrow is offline  
post #58 of 97 Old 03-06-2013, 02:32 PM
Newbie
 
RickR15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just installed a Seymour AV 130" AT electric 2:35 screen with power vertical masking and XD screen material. I sit approximately 11feet from the screen and it looks awesome. I am running a Panasonic Pt-ae8000u at a throw of 14 feet. The screen drops down in front of a 65" plasma. The picture is plenty bright even in 3d. I cannot see the weave at this distance. Chris was awesome to deal with and highly recommended. If you are looking for an awesome screen at a great price I would highly recommend talking to Chris.
Rick
RickR15 is offline  
post #59 of 97 Old 03-06-2013, 08:48 PM
Senior Member
 
ClemsonJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickR15 View Post

I just installed a Seymour AV 130" AT electric 2:35 screen with power vertical masking and XD screen material. I sit approximately 11feet from the screen and it looks awesome. I am running a Panasonic Pt-ae8000u at a throw of 14 feet. The screen drops down in front of a 65" plasma. The picture is plenty bright even in 3d. I cannot see the weave at this distance. Chris was awesome to deal with and highly recommended. If you are looking for an awesome screen at a great price I would highly recommend talking to Chris.
Rick

130" diagonal? I'm going back and forth with my screen size/material selection and the XD is in the lineup. My sample should show up tomorrow. Likely will be 10-11' from the screen. Is the 130" (assuming diagonal) too overwhelming at that distance? Can you see any of the perfs on the XD screen?

My Home Theater Build: The Vortex Theater Build
ClemsonJeeper is online now  
post #60 of 97 Old 03-06-2013, 10:37 PM
Newbie
 
RickR15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemsonJeeper View Post

130" diagonal? I'm going back and forth with my screen size/material selection and the XD is in the lineup. My sample should show up tomorrow. Likely will be 10-11' from the screen. Is the 130" (assuming diagonal) too overwhelming at that distance? Can you see any of the perfs on the XD screen?

Yeah the screen is 130” diagonal. The screen looks awesome from 11 feet. I don’t find it overwhelming at all. Even on a straight white test pattern I don’t see the weave or perfs. I don’t think 10 feet would be a problem either. It drops to 105”diagonal in 16:9. So if you were watching a movie that had lots going on and it seemed too big you could always cut back to 105”. It would just be letterboxed. I liked the XD because it’s got a fairly high gain for an AT fabric and it’s a lot more resilient than some of the other AT screens. (I have a 3 year old.) The price is also very reasonable. The customer service is outstanding. I don’t think you would have any regrets if you went with the Seymour screen. The power masking is also very cool.
RickR15 is offline  
Reply Screens

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