Official JTR speaker thread - Page 1039 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
Thread Tools
post #31141 of 31169 Old Today, 06:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lemonslush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 668 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post
http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.co...eakers-6031289

The Noesis speakers provided the widest sound stage with minimum reflections:

Four wide seating just 7ft away in a 20ft wide room.


The Noesis speakers provide a "sweet spot" for stereo listening less than the width apart of the speakers with zero toe in:

Toe in will bring the "sweet spot" even closer


Here is a pic of the front. I probably should have taken one with the screen off. Rooms getting close to being finished. The JTR's are on load from a friend now who was very generous in letting me borrow them. We did some demos last night and they sound great. I got six soon to be seven subs behind the screen and once I get my brother and his friends over it will be 11.

I have klipsch for the rears at the moment and they keep up just fine with the JTRs.
lemonslush is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #31142 of 31169 Old Today, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
I think no matter how educated we get we still have an itch for snake oil to be real

Honest noob question, why would a PJ screen cost that much money?
With screens, there isn't much of a correlation between money and quality. It's really about the physical properties of the screen, rather than the price. A few years ago, I ordered a dozen samples and taped them on my wall. Here's the best three options of the dozen I tested.

You don't need to be overly concerned about color. It's an issue, but your eyes will quickly adapt to color differences, and you mainly see it in side-by-side comparisons.

2.4 gain retroreflective screens are awesome for 3D. The brightness really helps the 3D experience. They may be too bright for 2D on some projectors without iris control (depending on screen size). Also, they require a narrow projector & seating angle. I don't think that Da-lite makes the 2.4 high power material any more, but I found that it was identical to another company's 2.4 material. I could probably dig it up, if you are interested. These are also better for ambient light rejection, without getting into dark materials, which have worse gain/viewing angle (at all gain levels).

My overall favorite image was the Carada Brilliant White 1.4 gain material. Nice and bright. Great color and resolution. Reasonably priced. Good viewing angles.

Of the AT materials I tried, Seymour Center Stage XD was much brighter than every other woven screen. This is the best option, IMO, for uncompromised audio with reasonably bright video. For my purposes, every other woven screen material was dull and dark. I think this is the best all-around route, unless you need higher gain. This will be my next screen.
Gooddoc likes this.
rcohen is offline  
post #31143 of 31169 Old Today, 06:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
My room is only 12' wide and 25' long. How would that work? and thanks for the more detailed image. I sit 12.5' on first row and second row is 16" up 18' away or so
Looks like if the speakers are 3 feet in from the side walls than with 15 degrees of toe in the front row could be 11 feet wide and only 9 1/2 feet from the screen.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	60 degree coverage.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	100.7 KB
ID:	918442  

Last edited by Jeff Permanian; Today at 06:45 AM.
Jeff Permanian is online now  
post #31144 of 31169 Old Today, 06:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post
http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.co...eakers-6031289

The Noesis speakers provided the widest sound stage with minimum reflections:

Four wide seating just 7ft away in a 20ft wide room.


The Noesis speakers provide a "sweet spot" for stereo listening less than the width apart of the speakers with zero toe in:

Toe in will bring the "sweet spot" even closer
I prefer them with much more toe in. IMO, the imaging and clarity are great when they point directly at the MLP. From there, you can expand the sweet spot and reduce side wall reflections by toeing in a bit more. At some point, the imaging suffers, but I found that aiming them about 2' in front of the MLP was ideal for my room. YMMV.

This technique works best with speakers with large horns, like JTRs.
rcohen is offline  
post #31145 of 31169 Old Today, 07:31 AM
Señor Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 6,850
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
With screens, there isn't much of a correlation between money and quality. It's really about the physical properties of the screen, rather than the price. A few years ago, I ordered a dozen samples and taped them on my wall. Here's the best three options of the dozen I tested.

You don't need to be overly concerned about color. It's an issue, but your eyes will quickly adapt to color differences, and you mainly see it in side-by-side comparisons.

2.4 gain retroreflective screens are awesome for 3D. The brightness really helps the 3D experience. They may be too bright for 2D on some projectors without iris control (depending on screen size). Also, they require a narrow projector & seating angle. I don't think that Da-lite makes the 2.4 high power material any more, but I found that it was identical to another company's 2.4 material. I could probably dig it up, if you are interested. These are also better for ambient light rejection, without getting into dark materials, which have worse gain/viewing angle (at all gain levels).

My overall favorite image was the Carada Brilliant White 1.4 gain material. Nice and bright. Great color and resolution. Reasonably priced. Good viewing angles.

Of the AT materials I tried, Seymour Center Stage XD was much brighter than every other woven screen. This is the best option, IMO, for uncompromised audio with reasonably bright video. For my purposes, every other woven screen material was dull and dark. I think this is the best all-around route, unless you need higher gain. This will be my next screen.
I went through a similar exercise with screens. After owning several cheap screens, I got a dealer demo powered Stewart StudioTek 130 (crazy MSLP ). That became my benchmark until I decided to go AT and then I tested several material samples against the Studiotek. I thought the XD material was the best compromise for an AT screen in all purpose HT use. It's not bright enough for 3D but I have found I don't watch 3D due to the clumsy glasses on top of my glasses and, the significant loss of light. I don't have a bat cave and like a bright image so I was thinking I need a light canon PJ for 3D but that doesn't resolve my 3D glasses issue so I'll just keep changing bulbs every 1000 hours and run my Sony (HW-50ES) in High Power mode until they work out all the kinks with 4K.

HToM Extraordinary Evolution

Opinions are not facts.

Last edited by RMK!; Today at 07:46 AM.
RMK! is online now  
post #31146 of 31169 Old Today, 07:40 AM
Ace of Bass
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 9,640
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1983 Post(s)
Liked: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
With screens, there isn't much of a correlation between money and quality. It's really about the physical properties of the screen, rather than the price. A few years ago, I ordered a dozen samples and taped them on my wall. Here's the best three options of the dozen I tested.

You don't need to be overly concerned about color. It's an issue, but your eyes will quickly adapt to color differences, and you mainly see it in side-by-side comparisons.

2.4 gain retroreflective screens are awesome for 3D. The brightness really helps the 3D experience. They may be too bright for 2D on some projectors without iris control (depending on screen size). Also, they require a narrow projector & seating angle. I don't think that Da-lite makes the 2.4 high power material any more, but I found that it was identical to another company's 2.4 material. I could probably dig it up, if you are interested. These are also better for ambient light rejection, without getting into dark materials, which have worse gain/viewing angle (at all gain levels).

My overall favorite image was the Carada Brilliant White 1.4 gain material. Nice and bright. Great color and resolution. Reasonably priced. Good viewing angles.

Of the AT materials I tried, Seymour Center Stage XD was much brighter than every other woven screen. This is the best option, IMO, for uncompromised audio with reasonably bright video. For my purposes, every other woven screen material was dull and dark. I think this is the best all-around route, unless you need higher gain. This will be my next screen.
Did you test either of the Falcon materials at that time? I kept my swatch of XD and put it up against the new horizon 4k material and they were pretty close to the same brightness...and the horizon material was way better from a weave standpoint.

(European models do not accept banana plugs.)


Beast's DIY Master Measurement Thread
beastaudio is offline  
post #31147 of 31169 Old Today, 07:43 AM
Señor Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 6,850
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
I prefer them with much more toe in. IMO, the imaging and clarity are great when they point directly at the MLP. From there, you can expand the sweet spot and reduce side wall reflections by toeing in a bit more. At some point, the imaging suffers, but I found that aiming them about 2' in front of the MLP was ideal for my room. YMMV.

This technique works best with speakers with large horns, like JTRs.
I tried this extreme toe-in with the Noesis 212's and felt it ruined imaging for 2 channel mode. Having them aimed slightly outside of the main LP produced the best sound stage and imaging. I don't have adequate room behind the screen to try this with the 215RT's and so am happy with my more conventional approach.

I respect you opinions and feel the differences we hear must be based upon other factors like speaker separation and listening distance or perhaps the room and treatments.

HToM Extraordinary Evolution

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is online now  
post #31148 of 31169 Old Today, 07:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,482
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Yeah, I got a bit confused there and thought that the ambient light rejecting material was somehow AT . I guess physics makes that an unlikely combination .
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Oh...I see what you're talking about...
http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp

Yeah, it's a shame that you have to choose between high gain and a vertical matching center. Someday projector tech and prices will make it easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
I think no matter how educated we get we still have an itch for snake oil to be real

Honest noob question, why would a PJ screen cost that much money?
Brightness with pjs is different than tvs. You want better contrast over a brighter image when you're in an dark room IMO... A higher gain screen hurts contrast. For majority of viewing, which is non3D for most, this is especially important.

For the amount people are paying to some of these AT screen companies for essentially woven shade fabric is a bit absurd for what you actually get comparitvely speaking. The real costs are going towards the framing, which is overkill with some for what one needs structurally speaking to support the material...kind of like a table...as long as it has 4 legs, it'll do the job...no diff for screen frames.

I wouldn't trust some of the people behind the AT screens and their marketing hype...let alone anyone that may like to make unethical remarks on the side.

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS

Last edited by asoofi1; Today at 08:18 AM.
asoofi1 is online now  
post #31149 of 31169 Old Today, 08:16 AM
Member
 
MiniHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: The sticks, New Jersey
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
Did you test either of the Falcon materials at that time? I kept my swatch of XD and put it up against the new horizon 4k material and they were pretty close to the same brightness...and the horizon material was way better from a weave standpoint.

Being able to see the weave was one of my biggest things to consider. My eyes are 85" from an 85" wide screen... I picked up the Falcon Horizon screen thanks to a few of your posts. I can't see the weave at all until I'm just a few feet from the screen. Brightness was not a priority, so I'm not sure how it fairs to the other companies out there.. but it is plenty bright for me! Plus, Rich was just an awesome guy to deal with, answering a few of my questions wrt an odd mounting solution. The frame is solid, the corner connections are superb, screen material is easy to work with.. and most importantly, the image is beautiful.


Completely velvet covered/light controlled room + Falcon Horizon screen + JVC PJ + JTR speakers/subs = Awesome movie experience!
MiniHT is offline  
post #31150 of 31169 Old Today, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1036 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Not sure really. The SI screens are ridiculous and the reason I had my PJ in a box for a year, lol. Had screen decision paralysis at those prices. I have a motorized 100" Elite Screens CineTension2 Series CineWhite screen and it's fantastic for the price. The actual screen characteristics are excellent, but things like motor noise are more than if you got say a Seymour.

But no doubt, big price difference. I paid less than a third of what I would have paid for a Seymour. But I realize that I do give up superior customer service and hardware quality for that savings. Those things cost more, but I suspect Elite screens business model is one of higher volume and lower margins than that of Seymour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
With screens, there isn't much of a correlation between money and quality. It's really about the physical properties of the screen, rather than the price. A few years ago, I ordered a dozen samples and taped them on my wall. Here's the best three options of the dozen I tested.

You don't need to be overly concerned about color. It's an issue, but your eyes will quickly adapt to color differences, and you mainly see it in side-by-side comparisons.

2.4 gain retroreflective screens are awesome for 3D. The brightness really helps the 3D experience. They may be too bright for 2D on some projectors without iris control (depending on screen size). Also, they require a narrow projector & seating angle. I don't think that Da-lite makes the 2.4 high power material any more, but I found that it was identical to another company's 2.4 material. I could probably dig it up, if you are interested. These are also better for ambient light rejection, without getting into dark materials, which have worse gain/viewing angle (at all gain levels).

My overall favorite image was the Carada Brilliant White 1.4 gain material. Nice and bright. Great color and resolution. Reasonably priced. Good viewing angles.

Of the AT materials I tried, Seymour Center Stage XD was much brighter than every other woven screen. This is the best option, IMO, for uncompromised audio with reasonably bright video. For my purposes, every other woven screen material was dull and dark. I think this is the best all-around route, unless you need higher gain. This will be my next screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
I went through a similar exercise with screens. After owning several cheap screens, I got a dealer demo powered Stewart StudioTek 130 (crazy MSLP ). That became my benchmark until I decided to go AT and then I tested several material samples against the Studiotek. I thought the XD material was the best compromise for an AT screen in all purpose HT use. It's not bright enough for 3D but I have found I don't watch 3D due to the clumsy glasses on top of my glasses and, the significant loss of light. I don't have a bat cave and like a bright image so I was thinking I need a light canon PJ for 3D but that doesn't resolve my 3D glasses issue so I'll just keep changing bulbs every 1000 hours and run my Sony (HW-50ES) in High Power mode until they work out all the kinks with 4K.
Well I certainly trust the sum experience here. As well as the subjective opinions Seymour screens will always be out of my budget. I could buy one but at the sacrifice of adding six 18" woofers or nice seating I probably won't do. I felt numerous people praised the Falcon Horizon screen enough in comparison that for me it would be "more than enough." Half price of Seymour is nice. I don't car about 3D, am gonna shoot for snagging a Sony 40es (seems like good compromise point for a few years). My main concerns are AT performance and can I get enough calibrated lumens for a 150" wide screen. I mapped out room and I think I can get baffle wall (back wall framing, 4722&sub enclosures, false wall framing, then baffle wall multi layers to around 30." That gives me out to 13ft seating distance for a 12ft 6" wide screen, 10ft wide from Left to right speaker CD. All will make my world happy
RMK! likes this.

For Sale: Ben Q W7000 Projector http://www.avsforum.com/forum/218-di...l#post36918978
DIY Sound Group Volt 10 surround speaker build
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1531107/di...axial-speakers
jlpowell84 is online now  
post #31151 of 31169 Old Today, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
Did you test either of the Falcon materials at that time? I kept my swatch of XD and put it up against the new horizon 4k material and they were pretty close to the same brightness...and the horizon material was way better from a weave standpoint.
I doubt I would have checked any new materials, since I did this a few years ago.

Every other weave material I did try at the time was much darker than the XD.

If Falcon has a new higher gain weave, that certainly sounds like it would be worth comparing some samples.
rcohen is offline  
post #31152 of 31169 Old Today, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
I tried this extreme toe-in with the Noesis 212's and felt it ruined imaging for 2 channel mode. Having them aimed slightly outside of the main LP produced the best sound stage and imaging. I don't have adequate room behind the screen to try this with the 215RT's and so am happy with my more conventional approach.

I respect you opinions and feel the differences we hear must be based upon other factors like speaker separation and listening distance or perhaps the room and treatments.
When I toed it in too far, the imaging did collapse, so that's definitely something to watch out for. Every room is definitely very different with this sort of thing, so no telling if my experience applies to anyone else.
RMK! likes this.
rcohen is offline  
post #31153 of 31169 Old Today, 08:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,052
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
Well I certainly trust the sum experience here. As well as the subjective opinions Seymour screens will always be out of my budget. I could buy one but at the sacrifice of adding six 18" woofers or nice seating I probably won't do. I felt numerous people praised the Falcon Horizon screen enough in comparison that for me it would be "more than enough." Half price of Seymour is nice. I don't car about 3D, am gonna shoot for snagging a Sony 40es (seems like good compromise point for a few years). My main concerns are AT performance and can I get enough calibrated lumens for a 150" wide screen. I mapped out room and I think I can get baffle wall (back wall framing, 4722&sub enclosures, false wall framing, then baffle wall multi layers to around 30." That gives me out to 13ft seating distance for a 12ft 6" wide screen, 10ft wide from Left to right speaker CD. All will make my world happy
150" wide is probably pushing it for a low gain screen with that projector. Not sure about 144". Your best bet is to get some samples, put them and the projector at the right positions, and experiment.

With Seymour, some people buy the material and DIY, but if Falcon gives you good results for a lower price, go for it. Just try the samples. BTW, for AT screens, you should test them against a black background (like a black sheet of paper).
rcohen is offline  
post #31154 of 31169 Old Today, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lemonslush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 668 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
With screens, there isn't much of a correlation between money and quality. It's really about the physical properties of the screen, rather than the price. A few years ago, I ordered a dozen samples and taped them on my wall. Here's the best three options of the dozen I tested.

You don't need to be overly concerned about color. It's an issue, but your eyes will quickly adapt to color differences, and you mainly see it in side-by-side comparisons.

2.4 gain retroreflective screens are awesome for 3D. The brightness really helps the 3D experience. They may be too bright for 2D on some projectors without iris control (depending on screen size). Also, they require a narrow projector & seating angle. I don't think that Da-lite makes the 2.4 high power material any more, but I found that it was identical to another company's 2.4 material. I could probably dig it up, if you are interested. These are also better for ambient light rejection, without getting into dark materials, which have worse gain/viewing angle (at all gain levels).

My overall favorite image was the Carada Brilliant White 1.4 gain material. Nice and bright. Great color and resolution. Reasonably priced. Good viewing angles.

Of the AT materials I tried, Seymour Center Stage XD was much brighter than every other woven screen. This is the best option, IMO, for uncompromised audio with reasonably bright video. For my purposes, every other woven screen material was dull and dark. I think this is the best all-around route, unless you need higher gain. This will be my next screen.
I know this is not a screen thread but, figured I would comment. I reviewed the materials used for the screens for my research and tried not to rely upon anyone's personal opinion. I sampled various materials and found what the different frame where constructed with. This let me know what was worth it and was I didn't need. The lower end seymour screens used a thinner frame than what I felt would'nt be adequate for my size screen. I could move up to the 3.5" thickness screen but it was rather expensive. I ended up with a silverticket screen. It has substantial 3.25" frame and spring tension mounting system. The AT fabric is cut off axis to help remove moir effect and as far as acoustics works very well. I am overall very happy with my purchase and it cost me about the same as a DIY screen for my silverticket. Customer support is excellent and the newer mounting brackets are super easy to use. They do lack instruction for assembly so its not all a win win. But I will say I very much like my screen, can tell no difference from my seating distance between it and my old solid non AT screen. My room has no ambient light in it so I also did not need super fancy screen material and I was not sitting super close either to see the weave. Your mileage may vary but I would suggest doing some research and finding out what you actually need for your specific room and the correct screen for the money. Unless money is no object! There are comparison pics of the screen materiel in my build thread if your interested.
lemonslush is online now  
post #31155 of 31169 Old Today, 09:10 AM
Señor Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 6,850
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
Did you test either of the Falcon materials at that time? I kept my swatch of XD and put it up against the new horizon 4k material and they were pretty close to the same brightness...and the horizon material was way better from a weave standpoint.
Way better? ... you had me right up to that point my friend. But seriously, I considered Falcon when I last upgraded (must have had 8 screens in the HT) but found that Seymour (the devil I know ) with XD material was just a bit more and so I have been using them for the last couple of screens (they wear out really fast ). Chris has given very good support on the screens I purchased from him but my gut tells me Falcon is a comparable product (perhaps even way better).

As I recall, I never had a problem even when projecting on a textured white wall from 12'+ ft viewing distance so screens are a great place to DIY and save some cash for speakers.

HToM Extraordinary Evolution

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is online now  
post #31156 of 31169 Unread Today, 09:40 AM
Ace of Bass
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 9,640
Mentioned: 117 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1983 Post(s)
Liked: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
When I toed it in too far, the imaging did collapse, so that's definitely something to watch out for. Every room is definitely very different with this sort of thing, so no telling if my experience applies to anyone else.
Same. Too much toe does wonders to center the image in stereo for the left and right seats, but alas, it collapses the imagery for my seat in the middle.... so you know where I keep them

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Way better? ... you had me right up to that point my friend. But seriously, I considered Falcon when I last upgraded (must have had 8 screens in the HT) but found that Seymour (the devil I know ) with XD material was just a bit more and so I have been using them for the last couple of screens (they wear out really fast ). Chris has given very good support on the screens I purchased from him but my gut tells me Falcon is a comparable product (perhaps even way better).

As I recall, I never had a problem even when projecting on a textured white wall from 12'+ ft viewing distance so screens are a great place to DIY and save some cash for speakers.
Shoot me your cell and Ill show you a difference of the two side by side. It's pretty drastic. The other nice part about the horizon material is, it stretches. This makes it an absolute cinch to install.
jlpowell84 likes this.

(European models do not accept banana plugs.)


Beast's DIY Master Measurement Thread
beastaudio is offline  
post #31157 of 31169 Unread Today, 09:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,972
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1478 Post(s)
Liked: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Way better? ... you had me right up to that point my friend. But seriously, I considered Falcon when I last upgraded (must have had 8 screens in the HT) but found that Seymour (the devil I know ) with XD material was just a bit more and so I have been using them for the last couple of screens (they wear out really fast ). Chris has given very good support on the screens I purchased from him but my gut tells me Falcon is a comparable product (perhaps even way better).

As I recall, I never had a problem even when projecting on a textured white wall from 12'+ ft viewing distance so screens are a great place to DIY and save some cash for speakers.
I have the Elite 4K material and from the pictures it looks real similar to the Falcon screen. If that is the case I would agree that the Falcon is a lot better. I can see the weave in bright scenes (especially white) from around 9 feet away on the XD material (tried it out in mrsmithers room) but with my Elite material I can't see it until I'm right up next to the screen.

That said a lot of my friends have the XD material and I never notice the weave in normal viewing from their front row. Craig John had it and his picture quality was one of the best I've seen... so... not sure how much it really matters.

I'll post a pic later. Looks like photobucket is now blocked by my school district.
RMK! likes this.
carp is online now  
post #31158 of 31169 Unread Today, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1036 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
150" wide is probably pushing it for a low gain screen with that projector. Not sure about 144". Your best bet is to get some samples, put them and the projector at the right positions, and experiment.

With Seymour, some people buy the material and DIY, but if Falcon gives you good results for a lower price, go for it. Just try the samples. BTW, for AT screens, you should test them against a black background (like a black sheet of paper).
Falcon does 150" wide or 140" wide at 2:35. I would rather go 150" but PJ light loss vs throw distance, etc is an area I know very little about. @asoofi1 has the Panny ae8000 with his size and seems to do ok. I want as big as possible but want performance too. The Panny has lens sift so thats a nice feature I should consider and it seems to be in the same performance/cost tier as the Sony 40es. My room will have no windows and 100% light controlled with walls and ceilings constructed for absolute minimal reflection as possible. I am building the room from the ground up. I could swing the Falcon Horizon if it truly offers the performance. I wouldn't need a screen as long as it lasted for years into the 4k turn in the future. I read somewhere the anamorphic lens boosts brightness? Maybe thats needed for this size? Again I'm speaking gibberish here as this is not my arena

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
I know this is not a screen thread but, figured I would comment. I reviewed the materials used for the screens for my research and tried not to rely upon anyone's personal opinion. I sampled various materials and found what the different frame where constructed with. This let me know what was worth it and was I didn't need. The lower end seymour screens used a thinner frame than what I felt would'nt be adequate for my size screen. I could move up to the 3.5" thickness screen but it was rather expensive. I ended up with a silverticket screen. It has substantial 3.25" frame and spring tension mounting system. The AT fabric is cut off axis to help remove moir effect and as far as acoustics works very well. I am overall very happy with my purchase and it cost me about the same as a DIY screen for my silverticket. Customer support is excellent and the newer mounting brackets are super easy to use. They do lack instruction for assembly so its not all a win win. But I will say I very much like my screen, can tell no difference from my seating distance between it and my old solid non AT screen. My room has no ambient light in it so I also did not need super fancy screen material and I was not sitting super close either to see the weave. Your mileage may vary but I would suggest doing some research and finding out what you actually need for your specific room and the correct screen for the money. Unless money is no object! There are comparison pics of the screen materiel in my build thread if your interested.
I bought a Silver Ticket 92" screen for my LR setup at the previous house. The frame I agree is superbly built with that all aluminum frame. It's exceptional quality and was only $150 or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
Way better? ... you had me right up to that point my friend. But seriously, I considered Falcon when I last upgraded (must have had 8 screens in the HT) but found that Seymour (the devil I know ) with XD material was just a bit more and so I have been using them for the last couple of screens (they wear out really fast ). Chris has given very good support on the screens I purchased from him but my gut tells me Falcon is a comparable product (perhaps even way better).

As I recall, I never had a problem even when projecting on a textured white wall from 12'+ ft viewing distance so screens are a great place to DIY and save some cash for speakers.
What size is your screen?

For Sale: Ben Q W7000 Projector http://www.avsforum.com/forum/218-di...l#post36918978
DIY Sound Group Volt 10 surround speaker build
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1531107/di...axial-speakers
jlpowell84 is online now  
post #31159 of 31169 Unread Today, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lemonslush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 668 Post(s)
Liked: 181
I have the 135" AT one it was only $480 shipped prime from amazon. You cant beat that and it looks excellent I will say. THe JTR's sound great behind it and I find no loss in sound. Speaking of speakers I just ordered a set of MTM210's to compare against the jtrs. I need a wider horn so we will see how they compare. I would like to get the RA speakers over as well. That would be a fun test.
lemonslush is online now  
post #31160 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:00 AM
Member
 
Freakquency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
I have the 135" AT one it was only $480 shipped prime from amazon. You cant beat that and it looks excellent I will say. THe JTR's sound great behind it and I find no loss in sound. Speaking of speakers I just ordered a set of MTM210's to compare against the jtrs. I need a wider horn so we will see how they compare. I would like to get the RA speakers over as well. That would be a fun test.
Based on the diagrams in the recent posts, what makes you think you need wider dispersion?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Freakquency is online now  
post #31161 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
countryWV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Huntington West Virginia
Posts: 1,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
I have the 135" AT one it was only $480 shipped prime from amazon. You cant beat that and it looks excellent I will say. THe JTR's sound great behind it and I find no loss in sound. Speaking of speakers I just ordered a set of MTM210's to compare against the jtrs. I need a wider horn so we will see how they compare. I would like to get the RA speakers over as well. That would be a fun test.
This is the new version of the 228HT w/wooden horn http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.co...228htr-7473097

Chris
countryWV is online now  
post #31162 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lemonslush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 668 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakquency View Post
Based on the diagrams in the recent posts, what makes you think you need wider dispersion?

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

My HCAA certified sound tech who is doing the calibration says need at least a 90 wide horn for my room. Narrow dispersion is good if your cant use much treatments as it kinda treat itself. but it will be taking away from envelopment and overall environment when good treatments are in place which I will have. I am by no means an expert at this stuff but, he is so I follow his suggestions.

That said the JTR's sound great at the moment and I will continue to enjoy them. I got some PSA MTM210's coming friday to compare them against. It should be interesting.

It is also odd seeing them in person, looking at pictures you think 8" oh thats small. And they are pretty good size next to my 18" subs.
Mfusick likes this.
lemonslush is online now  
post #31163 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:24 AM
Member
 
Freakquency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
My HCAA certified sound tech who is doing the calibration says need at least a 90 wide horn for my room. Narrow dispersion is good if your cant use much treatments as it kinda treat itself. but it will be taking away from envelopment and overall environment when good treatments are in place which I will have. I am by no means an expert at this stuff but, he is so I follow his suggestions.

That said the JTR's sound great at the moment and I will continue to enjoy them. I got some PSA MTM210's coming friday to compare them against. It should be interesting.

It is also odd seeing them in person, looking at pictures you think 8" oh thats small. And they are pretty good size next to my 18" subs.
Got a link to show what the HCAA certification is?, nothing came up for me doing a google search except health care administrators association.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Freakquency is online now  
post #31164 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lemonslush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 1,404
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 668 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakquency View Post
Got a link to show what the HCAA certification is?, nothing came up for me doing a google search except health care administrators association.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

AH sorry HAA, typo.

http://www.homeacoustics.net/
lemonslush is online now  
post #31165 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:46 AM
Member
 
Freakquency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 32
If I got into technicality that deep, I would never be able to just listen to music and movies without adjusting my setup to the point of a mental break down.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Freakquency is online now  
post #31166 of 31169 Unread Today, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 1,482
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 763 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
150" wide is probably pushing it for a low gain screen with that projector. Not sure about 144". Your best bet is to get some samples, put them and the projector at the right positions, and experiment.

With Seymour, some people buy the material and DIY, but if Falcon gives you good results for a lower price, go for it. Just try the samples. BTW, for AT screens, you should test them against a black background (like a black sheet of paper).
Most of the AT screens have around 1.0 gain, with minor/indistinguishable-practical-usage variance. If one claims 1.2, it's still not a significant difference with a light controlled room...think 0-60mph times....either you're going for a land speed record to prove something with millisecond differences or you're enjoying the experience. Anyone that has demoed my screen thought it was one of the more expensive options being discussed. When a PJ is throwing out a very good amount of lumens, such as the panny 8000, it's one less concern. Even a basic calibration with a WOW disc calls for lower brightness.

I compared samples of XD against elite, and the difference was very minor in shade of white...the xd was a bit brighter, which again, works against contrast...and contrast is something more desirable to have with a pj setup...aka better black levels.

On a side note, the audio performance claims are almost ridiculous... it's a very desperate attempt for a manufacturer to distinguish themselves in some form to convince consumers it's some type of advantage when it's really not. For arguments sake, let's say there is measurable difference of 0.5 of a decibel...how does one compensate for that? Turn up the volume. But again, could you discern even one whole decibel? Basically, unless there's 5-10 decibels the screen material is blocking (and no self respecting AT company will even sell such material), this factor is just inconsequential. For any of the very minor measurable differences, Audyssey calibration or the like will set levels accordingly anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
Falcon does 150" wide or 140" wide at 2:35. I would rather go 150" but PJ light loss vs throw distance, etc is an area I know very little about. @asoofi1 has the Panny ae8000 with his size and seems to do ok. I want as big as possible but want performance too. The Panny has lens sift so thats a nice feature I should consider and it seems to be in the same performance/cost tier as the Sony 40es. My room will have no windows and 100% light controlled with walls and ceilings constructed for absolute minimal reflection as possible. I am building the room from the ground up. I could swing the Falcon Horizon if it truly offers the performance. I wouldn't need a screen as long as it lasted for years into the 4k turn in the future. I read somewhere the anamorphic lens boosts brightness? Maybe thats needed for this size? Again I'm speaking gibberish here as this is not my arena



I bought a Silver Ticket 92" screen for my LR setup at the previous house. The frame I agree is superbly built with that all aluminum frame. It's exceptional quality and was only $150 or so.



What size is your screen?
The main factor you have left is pj placement really. This is where the panny allowed for a lot of flexibility...there's a calculator on the Panasonic website to show you max image at different lengths...the zoom range is a lot more than other pjs I looked at. Mine shoots from about 19' away to fill the entire 176" 2.35 image and can still zoom in to fill a 166" 16:9 166" image...btw, power lens memory and power focus is a huge feature and should be a deciding factor for any pj shopper. If you have enough length flexibility for pj placement and wall width, just go for the larger 2.35 screen if nothing else is stopping you.

---------------------------------------------------------------
current gear: lcr JTR 212HT ~ quad JTR 8LP ~ dual JTR Orbit Shifters LFU ~ Elemental Designs eD6c ~ Marantz SR7008 ~ PT-AE8000U ~ Elite 176" 2.35 ATS
asoofi1 is online now  
post #31167 of 31169 Unread Today, 12:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Liked: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonslush View Post
AH sorry HAA, typo.

http://www.homeacoustics.net/
The older version of the Noesis 228HT have a rotatable horn so you'll want to make sure the horn is orientated correctly. The throat has a oval shape that should be perpendicular to the ground. If you have a hard time seeing oval at the throat than you can use you fingers to feel it. What model year do you have? There was a crossover update from 2014.


Your long, narraw room is ideal for narrower coverage. His logic of using a wider horn and more room treatment to absort the extra sound doesn't make much sense.


If you're going to turn this into a mini comparison than I can send you out current versions.
Jeff Permanian is online now  
post #31168 of 31169 Unread Today, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
countryWV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Huntington West Virginia
Posts: 1,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 314
@lemonslush

This is a rare chance. If there is anyway possible Please take Jeff up on his offer.

Chris
countryWV is online now  
post #31169 of 31169 Unread Today, 12:47 PM
Señor Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 6,850
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
Same. Too much toe does wonders to center the image in stereo for the left and right seats, but alas, it collapses the imagery for my seat in the middle.... so you know where I keep them



Shoot me your cell and Ill show you a difference of the two side by side. It's pretty drastic. The other nice part about the horizon material is, it stretches. This makes it an absolute cinch to install.
Not sure I want to see the difference ... you know ignorance being bliss and all ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
Falcon does 150" wide or 140" wide at 2:35. I would rather go 150" but PJ light loss vs throw distance, etc is an area I know very little about. @asoofi1 has the Panny ae8000 with his size and seems to do ok. I want as big as possible but want performance too. The Panny has lens sift so thats a nice feature I should consider and it seems to be in the same performance/cost tier as the Sony 40es. My room will have no windows and 100% light controlled with walls and ceilings constructed for absolute minimal reflection as possible. I am building the room from the ground up. I could swing the Falcon Horizon if it truly offers the performance. I wouldn't need a screen as long as it lasted for years into the 4k turn in the future. I read somewhere the anamorphic lens boosts brightness? Maybe thats needed for this size? Again I'm speaking gibberish here as this is not my arena



I bought a Silver Ticket 92" screen for my LR setup at the previous house. The frame I agree is superbly built with that all aluminum frame. It's exceptional quality and was only $150 or so.



What size is your screen?
My screen is 138" diag. I think Carp is right about a viewing distance over 10' probably not mattering much at least to folks with my visual acuity. I sit 12' away from the 138" screen. OTOH, the claims by owners who have seen/sampled both are pretty compelling. If the brightness and audio are similar, why not go for the the surface with less texture?

HToM Extraordinary Evolution

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is online now  
Reply Speakers

Tags
215RT , 228ht , captivator , Jtr , Jtr Noesis 212ht 212ht Lp
Gear in this thread - 215RT by PriceGrabber.com

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