Quest AI - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 06-05-2014, 08:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
rabident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I wanted to get the thoughts of the HT designers and owners here.

The importance of a treated room is fairly well established, but treated how? Does hanging 2" of fiberglass at the 1st reflection points constitute a treated room? Or is there more to it than that? How much more? Prices for treatments run 3 figures to well into 5 figures. Ditto for plans telling what to put where, and again for installation. Total package can cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars for DIY OC703 on the 1st reflection points, to well over $100k for room modeling, product, plan, and installation.

Which leads me to Quest AI. It's the de facto acoustic treatments of choice over in the Dedicated Theater construction forum based on the opinions of a certain design group that solicits business over there (and is also a dealer for the product). The marketing pitch is that the panels are designed for small rooms where as something like RPG is for larger (commercial size) rooms. I have a 21' x 30' x 12' room which is on the larger side of average, but still acoustically small in the grand scheme of things.

The panels look pretty basic based on the pictures I've seen. Similar to 703 fiberglass panels with holes punched into them, sort of like an RPG BAD panel made out of fiberglass so it absorbs as well as diffuses. They have several different types of panels. All look like variations on the fiberglass theme that offer varying degrees of reflection, diffusion, and absorption. The panels appear to be 2" deep, which is touted as a benefit for small rooms, but I know the broadband effectiveness of thin panels has been called into question before.

My HT plans are based on the panels, so keeping things simple, I would just use them. But since the designer is also a dealer, there is a certain amount unavoidable bias that needs to be accounted for. Sales people will often push the product they make the most money from, not necessarily what they feel is the best product or value. I've talked to other designers that make their money doing design work alone, and they have much more balanced opinions of what's out there. It's the sales guys that tend to take a hard line attitude that whatever they sell the best, and everything else is crap. The design only guys I talked don't use Quest AI, while the one designer/dealer that I'm aware of won't use anything else. Does anyone know any reputable designers that aren't dealers, but still spec Quest AI panels? I'm trying to determine if the panels are top performers, or top money makers.

 

 

rabident is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 06-06-2014, 02:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: moot point
Posts: 1,043
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmm, maybe simple as somebody deciding to sell something they believe in--dunno.

My limited experience suggests that the whole shebang is synergistic. Meaning that the types and placement of treatments, seating placement, type and location of speakers, etc., create a total system. Maybe you could, uh, audition a system that contains the elements in question deployed as per designers spec?

Had to laugh when I thought of Grimani. Im sure he believes in the acoustic treatments he is a dealer for, of course he owns the acoustics company that sells/makes them and I believe he has a hand in designing them as well. Talk about triple dipping!

plug in to play
Acoustic Mafia - Hear No Evil
jamin is offline  
post #3 of 29 Old 06-06-2014, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quest builds a great-value product, but it's still just fiberglass-damping. Even BAD panels are just fiberglass damping; overall the room ends up sounding the same as one that you wrap in fiberglass- too dead.

If you want unbiased opinion you hire an outside consultant or acoustician; but even they will have products they sway too.

Here's what I've found: diffusion done well is rather expensive, and the typical home-theater client blows most of their budget on the gear. The sad result is that there's usually only budget to use fiberglass at first-reflection points and then you're done. Couple this with AV dealers that think that proper treatment for a room is panels only and there you have it: home theater becomes pseudo-anechoic chamber.

www.Vicoustic.com makes some good diffusors that are pretty value priced

www.diffusor.com takes you to the website for Matts Odemalm, I would consult with him if it were my room; his products are very, very effective and the newest stuff isn't even shown on the website. I heard the Marten room at CES that was treated with his products and it was able to mitigate the room that was waaaayyy too small for the giant Martens that were playing. Very effective!

my .02

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #4 of 29 Old 06-06-2014, 11:32 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
bgarcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Waterloo, IL
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Hi,

Gerry Lemay is one of the owners of Quest AI and he is the founder of the Home Acoustics Alliance which does a great deal of industry education and certification in the acoustics space. Gerry is also a CEDIA instructor on Audio and Acoustics.

I know Gerry and would strongly recommend him.,

Another person you could contact for home theater acoustics with the Erskine Group http://erskine-group.com/

Bryan
bgarcia is offline  
post #5 of 29 Old 06-08-2014, 05:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Before you go hunting for acousticians see that the immediate future includes many many speakers and the quasi anechoic chamber that Dan abhors may not be so bad under the scope of the new 24-30 channel acoustics design. Generally 2 inch works best for me in diffusion for home theater walls but diffusion should be implemented with more mass than fiberglass or styrofoam.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 06-11-2014, 12:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
rabident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin View Post

My limited experience suggests that the whole shebang is synergistic. Meaning that the types and placement of treatments, seating placement, type and location of speakers, etc., create a total system. Maybe you could, uh, audition a system that contains the elements in question deployed as per designers spec?

Are you offering? I would love to hear the poster child's room if you could arrange that. Especially after hearing all the ways his room was going to be better than mine because I couldn't afford it this or that. Then being asked to pay nearly the same price to build mine. It was like being told the price of a Lamborghini, then being asked if I wanted to buy a Lexus for about the same price. Uh, no? confused.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgarcia View Post

Another person you could contact for home theater acoustics with the Erskine Group http://erskine-group.com/

Been down that route. People seem happy in general with the $700 layout service. I got one of the higher priced plans and it was a disappointing experience. I eventually got most of what I contracted for, but not everything. I imagine things would have gone a lot smoother if I had them build the room, but it's expensive. They can do an over the top aesthetically pleasing room with good equipment for under a half million, but they can't scale that down to something like Jeff's theater. At least they couldn't for me. The material quality and scope of work can all go down, obviously, but the price doesn't drop accordingly which makes it ridiculously priced on the lower end of the scale. Others used Steve only for critical parts of the build in order to keep costs down, but that wasn't something EG was willing to work out for me. Disappointed is an understatement. frown.gif

 

 

rabident is offline  
post #7 of 29 Old 06-11-2014, 05:47 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
bgarcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Waterloo, IL
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post

People seem happy in general with the $700 layout service. I got one of the higher priced plans and it was a disappointing experience. I eventually got most of what I contracted for, but not everything. I imagine things would have gone a lot smoother if I had them build the room, but it's expensive. They can do an over the top aesthetically pleasing room with good equipment for under a half million, but they can't scale that down to something like Jeff's theater. At least they couldn't for me. The material quality and scope of work can all go down, obviously, but the price doesn't drop accordingly which makes it ridiculously priced on the lower end of the scale. Others used Steve only for critical parts of the build in order to keep costs down, but that wasn't something EG was willing to work out for me. Disappointed is an understatement. frown.gif

I used Dennis and Steve and was very happy. My design and build were nowhere near $500K. I understand their resistance to doing a partial build. I would expect in most cases people will still hold EG accountable if the room does not turn out right even if they only did a partial build.

Bryan
bgarcia is offline  
post #8 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: moot point
Posts: 1,043
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don't know any poster children. My comments were primarily directed at experiencing a given treatment regimen in situ as opposed to dissecting the pieces parts.

plug in to play
Acoustic Mafia - Hear No Evil
jamin is offline  
post #9 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I firmly stand by my recommendations.

Loudspeaker count is irrelevant to room acoustics and their treatment- you shouldn't compromise for "good enough" or "not so bad". An ethical consultant should give you the design you need for the money you can spend; maybe it's not much diffusion, maybe it's not much absorption, but you should definitely be able to implement an acoustically neutral environment for your playback system.

It may take a bit of DIY effort, and there's no such thing as a compromise-free project of any kind, but overall, given your previous experiences (rabident), I think you can certainly find what you're looking for when it comes to acoustic design.

And like I said: Quest AI is a solid value when it comes to the fiberglass product and they have a very good fit and finish. Just look at Matts' products for diffusion- especially his "wing" products.

feel free to pm me for more info if you'd like, I have one or two other acoustician recommendations as well.

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
For comparison sake here is aegir:

I find the proposal high, when room acoustics surpass the cost of the worlds finest non laser projection.... that to me is a red flag.




This new website makes it a pain to post pictures.

Here is the ARS proposal AT LIST PRICE.


The ARS by CinemaTech, features the exclusive Owens Corning SelectSound(TM) ARS product and services. The ARS product is by far the most superior acoustic treatment in the marketplace today and offers superb aesthetic treatment for your theater.

The heart of the system, the patented 1-1/4" ARS reversible panel, strategically placed, offers superior acoustic performance down to 100 Hz and will control the vast majority of acoustic problems. Traditional wrapped panel systems that kick in at 500 Hz tend to "over dampen" the space because they are only controlling high frequency, where a small amount of your acoustic problems exist. The ARS system is the only choice for the discerning listener.

Please find attached our quotation based upon the information you have provided. We will treat all walls floor to ceiling.


CinemaTech ARS -
ARS treatment of all walls (1000 sq./ft.) - All walls (per the design)
  • Standard Fabric for walls
  • 4 Inside Corners
  • 3 Cut-outs
  • 576 Sq. ft. of ceiling or soffit treatment
  • 176 linear ft. of Backwrapping
  • 5 Boxes of Diffusers
  • Installation by a certified CinemaTech ARS installation team
  • Project management services for the duration of the project
How did owens corning defy physics? 100hz on 1.25"???

Here is their diffusion:
Attached Images
File Type: png ars system.PNG (38.3 KB, 258 views)
File Type: jpg ars diffusion.jpg (140.1 KB, 259 views)

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-12-2014 at 10:26 AM. Reason: thats the only way to post
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #11 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
As you can see the cutouts for the speakers cost 8 grand.

I was exploring something similar to the Turkish made system in Moscow that probably cost 35,000 installed. Easily the best sounding theater ANYWHERE. You see my dear Dan, this is as much art than science, base traps, early reflection points, etc. etc. you must have experience.







the 2d refraction is accomplished by those beautiful wall panels, there is some of the diy 1" pvc plank on the ceiling center, the resdt is largely absorption.

The imaging is provided by the large count of speakers on trinnov 3d . Easily the best cinema on the planet performance wise at the moment.

24 speakers are practically indispensable in a medium sized cinema, and you do not need 50,000 research studies to get the acoustics great. BTW the glas center back pane was removed...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg allwalls.jpg (158.2 KB, 257 views)
File Type: jpg alwalls1.jpg (117.1 KB, 257 views)
File Type: jpg alwalls2.jpg (228.6 KB, 261 views)
File Type: jpg alwalls3.jpg (177.2 KB, 260 views)

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-12-2014 at 10:47 AM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 10:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post
I firmly stand by my recommendations.

Loudspeaker count is irrelevant to room acoustics and their treatment- you shouldn't compromise for "good enough" or "not so bad".

Dan
Why don't you do 2 or 3 real cinemas and then report. MR. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #13 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 11:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
So I am sending design info to Quest AI to do an apples to apples for Aegir: Could it come in under 85 my magic number at list? Well see.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 12:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Why don't you do 2 or 3 real cinemas and then report. MR. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!
cute.


ARS can absorb down to 100hz because the wallboard lined 1" panels act as a membrane absorber when the hard side is out. 1" fiberglass dips down to around 1k (a little lower when the angle of incidence of the sound wave is more acute). So, with the big, stuffed Cineak Stratos, the carpet, and the fabric over the front of the 1.25" deep ARS diffusors, I'm guessing that the RT60 of that room is somewhere in the area of .08-.15 seconds.

you see, I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm stating that the acoustic treatment is a compromise; it could be different, but you'd have to give something else up- thus compromise. YOU needed to fit a $hitload of Quested (or was it PHC that time?) into the room with an enormous screen (neither of which I argue with at all!)- but to say that you don't have to have a room maintain acoustic spaciousness anymore because of the loudspeaker count is just not true. You can mitigate the closed-in feeling of an over-damped room through the use of the playback system, but only if you're using multichannel processing like Trinnov and, by the way- that still doesn't mean you SHOULD always. It still doesn't make the room spacious sounding- just the playback system.

And anyone can search my posts to view my opinions of technologies that include the use of many loudspeakers (Trinnov, etc.) A room is spacious sounding or not regardless of the loudspeakers. Spacious sounding rooms are preferable to humans naturally (notice I did not say echo-filled or reverberant or even large), so it is logical to say that a spacious sounding room would still be preferable in the case of advanced playback systems and audio signal processing.

The point of my argument is that a room that is treated to sound real and spacious (like standing in the middle of the woods- to quote Matts) sounds that way whether there is only 1 source of sound or 1000 sources. Anything else is contrived spaciousness utilizing the playback system.

I've been using extra loudspeakers and outboard dsp to generate the same contrived spaciousness in rooms that can't get proper treatment for years (think family room or something not purpose-built). It doesn't make it any less of a compromise.

So, quit getting all worked-up and drop the juvenile name-calling.

ARS is a compromise in acoustical treatment, so is just using Auralex foam or 6pcf fiberglass panels. That's it, better solutions are available, and if someone asks the question, they deserve to hear that there ARE better solutions available. That WAS the original intent for the thread, after all- to ask if 2" or thereabouts constitutes acoustical treatment of a room.

You are free to feel differently than I do, but please don't insinuate that my knowledge or experience is lacking just because I don't post images, etc of the work I've done.

We're having a technical discussion here, not a mud-slinging contest.

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 06-12-2014, 02:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I disagree based on experience in above room [which due to hard fabric is over .25s not ideal for 7.1 but nearly ideal in the execution of 22.2] (and the dolby atmos lab which was closer to 1) that room spaciousness requirement is inversely proportional to the number of loudspeakers in a 22+ loudspeaker system.If Sabine surmised that 1.5 to 2.5 reveberation is ideal for medium sized room dolby opines it's .1 and I say somewhere between .75 and 1.25 again inversely proportional to the number of speakers.

And yes you are supposed to use all channels all the time. In 7.1 my Prometheus which has every diffusor sub 4" in the rpg line is an example of perfect decay .75 you just slap your hands and its beautiful, Sabine would have approved himself. Start adding speakers and it will become excessively sibilant.

Where are the smpte whitepapers for extreme- multichannel deployments? Absent. Last I read on this matter was 20 years ago in Oxford for ambisonics, the verdict then: heavy absorption but the ideal number of speakers was adome of 248 LS. I love my refraction, and bass traping, you don't have to explain it to me but room acoustics a la Grimany are not Atmos optimized.They are THX optimized.At the moment.

.

Let the publishing of the appropriate white papers begin! In the meantime I know what works for 22-24 speakers, corrected conversion errors

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-12-2014 at 05:27 PM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #16 of 29 Old 06-13-2014, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
The Bogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: GTA, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabident View Post
I wanted to get the thoughts of the HT designers and owners here.


Which leads me to Quest AI. It's the de facto acoustic treatments of choice over in the Dedicated Theater construction forum based on the opinions of a certain design group that solicits business over there (and is also a dealer for the product). The marketing pitch is that the panels are designed for small rooms where as something like RPG is for larger (commercial size) rooms. I have a 21' x 30' x 12' room which is on the larger side of average, but still acoustically small in the grand scheme of things.


Wow, that's a great size room for a ht. I'm jealous.


There's no shortage of people who would like to take 500k from you to design and build the room but you already know that isn't necessary for good results. I hired Rives for my ht and while I wasn't completely happy with everything it still probably was worth the 10k or so in design fees just because I was fairly new to the whole building a dedicated room thing. There's a lot of good free info in the build thread but time is a precious commodity. At the end of the day the cost is determined by a few things: who you hire, level of finish (millwork and details take a LOT of time), goals for the finished product.


I don't know what your budget is but I would say that one of the best rooms I've been in belongs to a nearby ht enthusiast. His dimensions were about 9ft tall x 17ft wide x 25ft deep. He spent about 25k on the RPG parts and about another 25k for the labour to install it. That's on top of the basic room, which isn't all that expensive. He subsequently moved and build a gigantic room with over 100k of sound treatment but I liked his smaller room sound better. When you walked into that room you could just feel that it was "right". I'd estimate that the decay time was about 250-300ms. My room has a decay time of 180ms and feels much more "dead". Peter has a point though; in a slightly dead room the transient response and impact and imaging is stellar - which is what I get. Not to say it can't be in a room with 250-300ms but I'm just pointing out the pluses of a slightly dead room. The RPG room had no absorption, it was all diffusion. If you are purely into ht and not stereo music then going "deader" is probably okay and presumably cheaper.


The advantage to the Rives design was that the acoustic treatment was all built-in. There's a clever system my contractor had used before with fabric and an ingenious fabric-track system which makes it look pretty nice. You just put a strip of wood at the seams and it looks really good. VERY cost effective too. I imagine it was a lot cheaper to set up than buying a bunch of premade panels.


Good luck with your search. I don't have an answer for your question about Quest products but if you find out for yourself please post your impressions.

Design by Rives...dollars by The Bogg

Click for my build thread
The Bogg is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 06-13-2014, 10:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
rabident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgarcia View Post
I used Dennis and Steve and was very happy. My design and build were nowhere near $500K. I understand their resistance to doing a partial build. I would expect in most cases people will still hold EG accountable if the room does not turn out right even if they only did a partial build.
I'm glad it turned out well for you. I have heard nothing but good things about Steve. But that makes it all the more disappointing they couldn't work anything out for me. I only wanted the room, so it wasn't going to be $500k, but the room came from a theater in that price range and carried the millwork, materials, and trim to match. They couldn't scale that room down for me. They removed a bunch of stuff, but my price for drywall + room trim out was barely cheaper than the original price of the room.

 

 

rabident is offline  
post #18 of 29 Old 06-13-2014, 11:42 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
think so,The material quality and scope of work can all go down, obviously, but the price doesn't drop accordingly which makes it ridiculously priced on the lower end of the scale. Others used Steve only for critical parts of the build in order to keep costs down, but that wasn't something EG was willing to work out for me. Disappointed is an understatement.thanks
yaroufanch is offline  
post #19 of 29 Old 06-14-2014, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
The Bogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: GTA, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Who is Steve? Does he work with Dennis?

Design by Rives...dollars by The Bogg

Click for my build thread
The Bogg is offline  
post #20 of 29 Old 06-14-2014, 07:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
bgarcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Waterloo, IL
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bogg View Post
Who is Steve? Does he work with Dennis?

Yes. Steve is the contractor who does most of Dennis's theater builds. Great guy and very good!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bgarcia is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 11:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Well the Quest AI guys did a hole bunch of analysis due to this bein g their first Atmos certified Room.

Here are a couple of their graphs (the whole set in my blog).


Here they are incorrectly assuming that the 2 set of speakers in are mid fill centers a la trinnov remap in Moscow, NO they are the actual LCR Quested LT-20's, the outside channels for which they ray traced reflections are the Atnos width channels.LT-10's

the surround ray tracing for the atmos surround channels (first one ever published is certainly populated....)



There is a rack 26" door going where the right orange and purple panel are.
Attached Images
File Type: png aegir-qai-15.PNG (343.8 KB, 160 views)
File Type: png aegir-qai-14.PNG (929.3 KB, 158 views)
File Type: jpg aegir-qai-8.jpg (590.6 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg aegirqai-4.jpg (831.8 KB, 160 views)
File Type: jpg aegir-qai-1.jpg (694.8 KB, 157 views)

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-15-2014 at 12:03 PM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #22 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 11:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
And yes without the travel and installation part they are saving the client almost 50%.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #23 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 11:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Talking Authentic Moldavian Whore House & Benigans....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgarcia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bogg View Post
Who is Steve? Does he work with Dennis?

and very good!
Well sometimes not if perpetrating the Russ Herchelman style aka Bennigan's look. Other stuff looks good yes My only complain is the thick chair rail that robs the theater of height and russ H.'s Sonotube imitation Ceasar's palace columns. To think that I introduced Russ to JK, and see him invent the Kitsch HT genre. By comparison look how brilliantly http://www.iosaghini.it/ handled the required chair rail height partition in Albiorix above, spectacularly refined and understated. For that size room to me these designers are my favorites thus far.

Hey we all have perpetrated a hideous room once,
look at my atlas that looks like a Moldavian whore house.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Atlas-1 (2).jpg (206.3 KB, 158 views)
File Type: jpg Atlas-008[fixed] (3).jpg (177.1 KB, 154 views)
File Type: jpg Cinema-Atlas (2).jpg (314.9 KB, 155 views)

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-15-2014 at 12:16 PM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #24 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 12:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 17,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Why don't you do 2 or 3 real cinemas and then report. MR. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!
cute.


ARS can absorb down to 100hz because the wallboard lined 1" panels act as a membrane absorber when the hard side is out. 1" fiberglass dips down to around 1k (a little lower when the angle of incidence of the sound wave is more acute). So, with the big, stuffed Cineak Stratos, the carpet, and the fabric over the front of the 1.25" deep ARS diffusors, I'm guessing that the RT60 of that room is somewhere in the area of .08-.15 seconds.

you see, I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm stating that the acoustic treatment is a compromise; it could be different, but you'd have to give something else up- thus compromise. YOU needed to fit a $hitload of Quested (or was it PHC that time?) into the room with an enormous screen (neither of which I argue with at all!)- but to say that you don't have to have a room maintain acoustic spaciousness anymore because of the loudspeaker count is just not true. You can mitigate the closed-in feeling of an over-damped room through the use of the playback system, but only if you're using multichannel processing like Trinnov and, by the way- that still doesn't mean you SHOULD always. It still doesn't make the room spacious sounding- just the playback system.

And anyone can search my posts to view my opinions of technologies that include the use of many loudspeakers (Trinnov, etc.) A room is spacious sounding or not regardless of the loudspeakers. Spacious sounding rooms are preferable to humans naturally (notice I did not say echo-filled or reverberant or even large), so it is logical to say that a spacious sounding room would still be preferable in the case of advanced playback systems and audio signal processing.

The point of my argument is that a room that is treated to sound real and spacious (like standing in the middle of the woods- to quote Matts) sounds that way whether there is only 1 source of sound or 1000 sources. Anything else is contrived spaciousness utilizing the playback system.

I've been using extra loudspeakers and outboard dsp to generate the same contrived spaciousness in rooms that can't get proper treatment for years (think family room or something not purpose-built). It doesn't make it any less of a compromise.

So, quit getting all worked-up and drop the juvenile name-calling.

ARS is a compromise in acoustical treatment, so is just using Auralex foam or 6pcf fiberglass panels. That's it, better solutions are available, and if someone asks the question, they deserve to hear that there ARE better solutions available. That WAS the original intent for the thread, after all- to ask if 2" or thereabouts constitutes acoustical treatment of a room.

You are free to feel differently than I do, but please don't insinuate that my knowledge or experience is lacking just because I don't post images, etc of the work I've done.

We're having a technical discussion here, not a mud-slinging contest.



Count me as 100% in agreement with Dan Francis. Whether for audio alone or for "audiophile" home theater, spaciousness, achieved by judicious use of various room treatments for absorption and diffusion, sounds the best. Too much damping simply damps the hell out of what can be much better sounding. You can get great imaging out of only five main speakers and subwoofers if you treat the room for spaciousness. Heck, you spend all the money for supposedly great sounding amplifiers and then you damp the hell out of the room and the amps sound like a receiver!


My room was "treated" back just after I built it in 1997 with Michael Green Pressure Zone Controllers (PZCs) (Michael is out of audio biz now, a business broker in Santa Fe NM) and everyone has remarked how great my room sounds for both music and movies, not one or the other.


As far as I am concerned, Dan knows his sh_t!


The several times that I have heard rooms done by Rives I heard that they had nice sounding results, too.


I am talking about audio and theater rooms of the size of my room and the original poster in this thread.

"Doug Winsor" used to troll at some AV Forums as "Steve Bruzonsky"! My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #25 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 12:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
What I gratefully learned from Iosaghini was how they treated the surround speakers fabric with utilitarianism. This is high Italian design, in america we all cover the surround speakers when flush or in columns, this is pure unapologetic utilitarianism. They did not mind saying here are the speakers, In Aegir we will continue that same one-upsman attitude, but with 16 surround and ceiling channels,I told taker if you've got it flaunt it, let's it be construed to be the world's best 7.1 system which it aint is the world's first Audiophile Atmos room.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #26 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Why don't you do 2 or 3 real cinemas and then report. MR. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!
cute.


ARS can absorb down to 100hz because the wallboard lined 1" panels act as a membrane absorber when the hard side is out. 1" fiberglass dips down to around 1k (a little lower when the angle of incidence of the sound wave is more acute). So, with the big, stuffed Cineak Stratos, the carpet, and the fabric over the front of the 1.25" deep ARS diffusors, I'm guessing that the RT60 of that room is somewhere in the area of .08-.15 seconds.

you see, I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm stating that the acoustic treatment is a compromise; it could be different, but you'd have to give something else up- thus compromise. YOU needed to fit a $hitload of Quested (or was it PHC that time?) into the room with an enormous screen (neither of which I argue with at all!)- but to say that you don't have to have a room maintain acoustic spaciousness anymore because of the loudspeaker count is just not true. You can mitigate the closed-in feeling of an over-damped room through the use of the playback system, but only if you're using multichannel processing like Trinnov and, by the way- that still doesn't mean you SHOULD always. It still doesn't make the room spacious sounding- just the playback system.

And anyone can search my posts to view my opinions of technologies that include the use of many loudspeakers (Trinnov, etc.) A room is spacious sounding or not regardless of the loudspeakers. Spacious sounding rooms are preferable to humans naturally (notice I did not say echo-filled or reverberant or even large), so it is logical to say that a spacious sounding room would still be preferable in the case of advanced playback systems and audio signal processing.

The point of my argument is that a room that is treated to sound real and spacious (like standing in the middle of the woods- to quote Matts) sounds that way whether there is only 1 source of sound or 1000 sources. Anything else is contrived spaciousness utilizing the playback system.

I've been using extra loudspeakers and outboard dsp to generate the same contrived spaciousness in rooms that can't get proper treatment for years (think family room or something not purpose-built). It doesn't make it any less of a compromise.

So, quit getting all worked-up and drop the juvenile name-calling.

ARS is a compromise in acoustical treatment, so is just using Auralex foam or 6pcf fiberglass panels. That's it, better solutions are available, and if someone asks the question, they deserve to hear that there ARE better solutions available. That WAS the original intent for the thread, after all- to ask if 2" or thereabouts constitutes acoustical treatment of a room.

You are free to feel differently than I do, but please don't insinuate that my knowledge or experience is lacking just because I don't post images, etc of the work I've done.

We're having a technical discussion here, not a mud-slinging contest.



Count me as 100% in agreement with Dan Francis. Whether for audio alone or for "audiophile" home theater, spaciousness, achieved by judicious use of various room treatments for absorption and diffusion, sounds the best. Too much damping simply damps the hell out of what can be much better sounding. You can get great imaging out of only five main speakers and subwoofers if you treat the room for spaciousness. Heck, you spend all the money for supposedly great sounding amplifiers and then you damp the hell out of the room and the amps sound like a receiver!


My room was "treated" back just after I built it in 1997 with Michael Green Pressure Zone Controllers (PZCs) (Michael is out of audio biz now, a business broker in Santa Fe NM) and everyone has remarked how great my room sounds for both music and movies, not one or the other.


As far as I am concerned, Dan knows his sh_t!


The several times that I have heard rooms done by Rives I heard that they had nice sounding results, too.


I am talking about audio and theater rooms of the size of my room and the original poster in this thread.
But Steve you are talking THX age SPEAKER ARRAYS AND 2 CHANNEL that is now considered LEGACY. paradigm shift, wait till your hear audiophile grade 22-30 channel systems which play everything with full channel count the Jury is out.

Im not saying Dan ever lacks in due diligence, intuition, and effort but you cannot be jack of all trades and say today am 2 channel and tomorrow Im 7.1. You are either in one camp or the other.

And I dabbled in using corner pillow triangles from Mr. Lady Godiva Hair himself in 1991. And it worked yet...And I have even used the rpg blocks their most extreme to install offering, Ive used tons of RPG, which is best DIY imitated as it is a low value proposition. Unless you use their styrofoam stuff.

I have been singularly focused on using audiophile grade kit ONLY for multichannel environs "the more count the better" since FERMONT HOME THEATER IN 1979 EVEN THEN I USED kEF 105.4 /104.2 SPEAKERS in 4.1 using the A/D/S (speaker company from Cambridge) bucket brigade time delay processor. It has taken a long time to obsolete stereo, but we are there. Ht need way more than 16 speakers. As I said the more speakers the lower the RT60 must be, the CINERAMAX reverse proportionate effect postulate. You would agree if you hear the Moscow Quested Trinnov 22.10 channel system the only audiophile system with that many speakers anywhere (because the dolby room where sounds invade your personal space and punch through your stomach and you hear objects pan around your head(Houston Houston object on Gravity) and park behind your left ear... even there the sound is distorted (JBL Crown). So as Jeffs room gets the update followed by the reprised SKOLL and followed by Aegir there wont be many places to experience whats a bout to replace everything in HT audio. It's a revolution and don't let the fact that it started in Moscow stop you for a moment, this one is a good revolution.

Thats the Fact Jack.

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-15-2014 at 01:20 PM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #27 of 29 Old 06-15-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 17,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
Why don't you do 2 or 3 real cinemas and then report. MR. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!
cute.


ARS can absorb down to 100hz because the wallboard lined 1" panels act as a membrane absorber when the hard side is out. 1" fiberglass dips down to around 1k (a little lower when the angle of incidence of the sound wave is more acute). So, with the big, stuffed Cineak Stratos, the carpet, and the fabric over the front of the 1.25" deep ARS diffusors, I'm guessing that the RT60 of that room is somewhere in the area of .08-.15 seconds.

you see, I'm not criticizing YOU, I'm stating that the acoustic treatment is a compromise; it could be different, but you'd have to give something else up- thus compromise. YOU needed to fit a $hitload of Quested (or was it PHC that time?) into the room with an enormous screen (neither of which I argue with at all!)- but to say that you don't have to have a room maintain acoustic spaciousness anymore because of the loudspeaker count is just not true. You can mitigate the closed-in feeling of an over-damped room through the use of the playback system, but only if you're using multichannel processing like Trinnov and, by the way- that still doesn't mean you SHOULD always. It still doesn't make the room spacious sounding- just the playback system.

And anyone can search my posts to view my opinions of technologies that include the use of many loudspeakers (Trinnov, etc.) A room is spacious sounding or not regardless of the loudspeakers. Spacious sounding rooms are preferable to humans naturally (notice I did not say echo-filled or reverberant or even large), so it is logical to say that a spacious sounding room would still be preferable in the case of advanced playback systems and audio signal processing.

The point of my argument is that a room that is treated to sound real and spacious (like standing in the middle of the woods- to quote Matts) sounds that way whether there is only 1 source of sound or 1000 sources. Anything else is contrived spaciousness utilizing the playback system.

I've been using extra loudspeakers and outboard dsp to generate the same contrived spaciousness in rooms that can't get proper treatment for years (think family room or something not purpose-built). It doesn't make it any less of a compromise.

So, quit getting all worked-up and drop the juvenile name-calling.

ARS is a compromise in acoustical treatment, so is just using Auralex foam or 6pcf fiberglass panels. That's it, better solutions are available, and if someone asks the question, they deserve to hear that there ARE better solutions available. That WAS the original intent for the thread, after all- to ask if 2" or thereabouts constitutes acoustical treatment of a room.

You are free to feel differently than I do, but please don't insinuate that my knowledge or experience is lacking just because I don't post images, etc of the work I've done.

We're having a technical discussion here, not a mud-slinging contest.



Count me as 100% in agreement with Dan Francis. Whether for audio alone or for "audiophile" home theater, spaciousness, achieved by judicious use of various room treatments for absorption and diffusion, sounds the best. Too much damping simply damps the hell out of what can be much better sounding. You can get great imaging out of only five main speakers and subwoofers if you treat the room for spaciousness. Heck, you spend all the money for supposedly great sounding amplifiers and then you damp the hell out of the room and the amps sound like a receiver!


My room was "treated" back just after I built it in 1997 with Michael Green Pressure Zone Controllers (PZCs) (Michael is out of audio biz now, a business broker in Santa Fe NM) and everyone has remarked how great my room sounds for both music and movies, not one or the other.


As far as I am concerned, Dan knows his sh_t!


The several times that I have heard rooms done by Rives I heard that they had nice sounding results, too.


I am talking about audio and theater rooms of the size of my room and the original poster in this thread.
But Steve you are talking THX age SPEAKER ARRAYS AND 2 CHANNEL that is now considered LEGACY. paradigm shift, wait till your hear audiophile grade 22-30 channel systems which play everything with full channel count the Jury is out.

Im not saying Dan ever lacks in due diligence, intuition, and effort but you cannot be jack of all trades and say today am 2 channel and tomorrow Im 7.1. You are either in one camp or the other.

And I dabbled in using corner pillow triangles from Mr. Lady Godiva Hair himself in 1991. And it worked yet...And I have even used the rpg blocks their most extreme to install offering, Ive used tons of RPG, which is best DIY imitated as it is a low value proposition. Unless you use their styrofoam stuff.

I have been singularly focused on using audiophile grade kit ONLY for multichannel environs "the more count the better" since FERMONT HOME THEATER IN 1979 EVEN THEN I USED kEF 105.4 /104.2 SPEAKERS in 4.1 using the A/D/S (speaker company from Cambridge) bucket brigade time delay processor. It has taken a long time to obsolete stereo, but we are there. Ht need way more than 16 speakers. As I said the more speakers the lower the RT60 must be, the CINERAMAX reverse proportionate effect postulate. You would agree if you hear the Moscow Quested Trinnov 22.10 channel system the only audiophile system with that many speakers anywhere (because the dolby room where sounds invade your personal space and punch through your stomach and you hear objects pan around your head(Houston Houston object on Gravity) and park behind your left ear... even there the sound is distorted (JBL Crown). So as Jeffs room gets the update followed by the reprised SKOLL and followed by Aegir there wont be many places to experience whats a bout to replace everything in HT audio. It's a revolution and don't let the fact that it started in Moscow stop you for a moment, this one is a good revolution.

Thats the Fact Jack.
Hey Jack I'm sure I'd love to hear and see one of your systems. When you get one down here in hot Phoenix let me know.

But lets be practical. How many folks have more then 5.X systems, let alone 7.X or higher.
The originator of this thread has a theater room just a bit larger than mine dimensionwise.
I stand pat and firm that he is better off using acoustic treatments for spaciousness including both some absorption and diffusion. Cine JACK Man, you do some stupendous home theaters - but they are more like neighborhood theaters than home theaters. With speakers throughout the neighborhood. Yea, if someone has the room size and budget to do it your way, more power to them. But unless that's the case, I'll stick to being spacious as opposed to stuffing
a lotta speakers in an otherwise acoustically deadened room.

"Doug Winsor" used to troll at some AV Forums as "Steve Bruzonsky"! My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #28 of 29 Old 06-16-2014, 09:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Steve B says....

But lets be practical. How many folks have more then 5.X systems, let alone 7.X or higher.
The originator of this thread has a theater room just a bit larger than mine dimensionwise.
I stand pat and firm that he is better off using acoustic treatments for spaciousness including both some absorption and diffusion. Cine JACK Man, you do some stupendous home theaters - but they are more like neighborhood theaters than home theaters. Yea, if someone has the room size and budget to do it your way, more power to them. But unless that's the case, I'll stick to being spacious as opposed to stuffing
a lotta speakers in an otherwise acoustically deadened room."

But that is the point most of my rooms are 30 feet or less... Ill admit the front array in albiorix was a bit overdone, but there are different front speakers setups that can be employed still making the whole deployment 0f 24 speakers entirely ideal for your size and Rabidents room, see takers room is 30 too.

Once these new atmos room upconverting everything to 24 channels come out you will see what the natural progression is for aLL OF US. CHEERS!

sOME LIVELINESS IS GOOD BUT AGAIN THE HIGHER THE SPEAKER COUNT TURN IT DOWN ACCORDINGLY.

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-17-2014 at 02:57 AM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #29 of 29 Old 06-27-2014, 09:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 50
So I asked for some swatches and I got a UPS truckload of rolls.



Material gets my good housekeeping seal of approval for not conducive to the: CUBICLE LOOK!A la FR701

Which I forewarned against.




This is very useful.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg QAI-rolls1.jpg (315.7 KB, 55 views)
File Type: jpg QAI-rolls2.jpg (416.8 KB, 54 views)
File Type: jpg QAI-rolls3.jpg (454.2 KB, 54 views)

Last edited by CINERAMAX; 06-27-2014 at 09:56 AM.
CINERAMAX is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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