Dalite High Power or Acousticlly Transparent?

depends on what you are focused on. Image or acoustics.

There is no doubt if you want the best image it's the High Power.

if you want slightly more accurate sound and a compromised image then a AT screen.

I tell most people if you sat someone down blind and evaluated a AT verses a properly setup uncompromised screen for sound, 1 out of 10 would be able to tell the difference. If you did the same comparison of image, 10 out of 10 would be able to tell the difference

Are you planning on "optimally" mounting the projector to get the full gain if going with a HP? If so, I'd think the blacks would suffer quite a bit with a 106" diagonal high power. I used a 119" with a non-optimally mounted VW60 and even then the blacks suffered a bit compared to a 1.4 gain Carada (110"). On the other hand, if you prefer squinting during bright scenes over inky blacks when watching Dark City, the VW60 is not very bright and a HP may work well. You could also just choke down the fixed iris or use an ND filter until the lamp ages. Also, if using a manual or electric, even the thick HP material is prone to waves and horizontal creases. I use a HP with my RS1 but it is mounted on a 2' extension pole from my 10' ceiling. When table mounted, I find it too bright (it has low lamp hours and is much brighter than the VW60)

To me it comes down to simply do I want my speakers hidden behind the screen? For me, the answer is yes, as having the sound sources at screen level evokes a more accurate, involving experience. Especially with dialogue, as the "disconnect" of having voices emanate from above or below the screen is eliminated.

Aesthetics are also a factor, as are limitations in the room itself.


If these factors are less important to you than a very, very bright image, then consider the HP.

Remember its properties, though, as it is retro-reflective. I had a 92" wide HP in my theater at one time. When my projector was ceiling mounted, there was a noticeable drop in the gain from initial experiments with it table mounted. But if you indeed have the projector mounted close to your head, it should offer better results for you than I had. My projector was mounted probably around 3 feet above my head.

Also, I had a very wide seating area, and the cone was not optimal for the far seats.

Hope these thoughts can be of some help as you try and figure this out.

Why are you considering an AT screen? I guess that's my first question. I use one, but that's because the size I wanted left no room for speakers anywhere but behind it. That said I notice no ill effects from the AT screen.


I really question if the image is compromised with an AT screen or not....


What would they see that's so obvious? Assuming you picked screens with the same gain. What are the compromises? If you can get the gain you need, what's wrong with an AT screen, visually?

It depends on seating distance and other factors.

In my theater I sit 1.7 screen widths from the image. No one can tell the speakers are around the perimeter. Everyone can tell when I switch screen types for image.

It's really a catch 22. If you sit close enough to necessitate an AT screen...you can also see the screen material itself

It's a personal trade-off.

Hi-Power: brighter image (if your geometry works, which it sounds like yours does)

AT screen: better sound imaging, better aesthetics (hidden speakers)

With a vw60, a light controlled room, and a your screen size (92" wide"), you should have plenty of light if you use a short to mid-throw distance. I would go with AT screen unless you need to use long throw.

[quote=Tryg;14908408]It depends on seating distance and other factors.

In my theater I sit 1.7 screen widths from the image. No one can tell the speakers are around the perimeter.[quote]

Yeah, if I had room on the sides I probably wouldn't have bothered with AT, but like I said, no room on the sides.


What gives it away? Moire? Because at 1.4-1.5x width, where I sit, I can't see the screen structure at all (it's an SMX), I think you've got to be within 1x if not maybe 1x height to actually see the screen structure. And the weave is fine enough that even with my 1080p machine and 110" wide screen there's no moire since the one pixel still spans several holes in the mesh.

scottyb

the best way to know if it's all right for you is to get a piece of Phifer sheerweave 4500 this is the same/similar material used in some popular brands. Try the 4400 too

If it's too bright, all you need do is turn down the adjustable aperture. Blacks won't suffer.

Edit: Oops; I thought we were talking about an RS10/20, but see we're not.

Personally, since you already have the HP...I would stick with it (unless the audio really bothers you).

A friend of mine placed his speakers behind a highpower, and it sounds fine. You might give that a try since you already have the screen. You might be surprised. I never really could believe those tiny holes worked anyway.

I have used a highpower for the last few years and just built an AT screen this past weekend using the Phifer Sheerweave 4500, which I believe is the material used in the Seymour AV screen and similar to the material used in the SMX screens.

I like the experience of having the sound come from the screen rather than around it. I think it draws you in a bit more when you can't see the speakers. On the other hand, I had a hard time focusing the projector with the screen material. I had to use a piece of paper in front of the screen to properly focus as I couldn't see the pixel gaps on the screen material itself. I'm not sure if this is an issue unique to my setup or if it is common across woven AT screens. Either way, it doesn't appear soft from my viewing distance so I'm not too worried about it. I don't see any moire and I don't see the screen texture from my viewing distance.

Really? Even an SMX? I sit 10' from an SMX and can't see the screen material. I mounted the weave at 15 deg and there are no moire' patterns either. I was thinking of trying an HP sample out of curiosity. Maybe I shouldn't!

I have had my SMX AT screen up for a few weeks now and not a single person that has came by to watch a movie or check out the room {atleast 50 ppl by now} have noticed the screen has a weave.

They all ask where are the speakers, I tell them they are behind the screen and the screen has a weave. They go up to the screen and say "Wow, thats cool"

Honestly in my room from 5 feet away you can't tell the 120" screen isn't solid white.

Not me. I haven't even seen a HP. Ignorance is bliss?

How close do you need to be to see the weave on the SMX? My rows are 8.5 and 12.5 feet away and was mostly concerned about the front row. I really like the idea of the AT screen and it wouldn't be easy to get the projector at the rght height for a HP screen.

I'll check tonight.

One thing the SMX screen does is throw light EVERYWHERE! There's no discernable dimming as far off axis as I can get in my theater. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. The walls, ceining and floor are really lit up. They are dark colors, but they do get a lot of light.

Anyone else try this?

The only reason I am not going to say definitively no is that I have never tried it, or heard of someone doing something like this.


That being said, though, my thoughts are putting your speakers behind a screen that is not acoustically transparent would be akin to playing your speakers with a blanket in front of them. Not gonna work....

If this were not the case, then there would be no market for AT screens... they exist for a really good reason....

That's what I would think as well. The high power material is also thicker than Dalite's matte white, etc and is why it is not necessarily as prone to wrinkles. An acoustically transparent HP would be interesting if even possible.

Yeah, I'm really interested the SMX "high gain" material.

I have a 10' wide screen. So at that size the pj's pixels are seen before the screen's perforations. Once the pixels become visible it's very difficult to tell when you're actually seeing the perforations. I see the pixels at about 8' from the screen. But your pixels would be smaller, as I assume your screen is smaller given that you're only sitting 8.5' back.

So I think you're OK. But, can't you get an SMX sample? That'd be the safest test.

As was pointed out to you previously, that is 100% wrong.

Your information is incorrect and is simply another example of your HP evangelism.

Both have their advantages and applications. To say that HP has a fundamentally better image is wrong and grossly disingenuous.

I could say that none of the "no compromise" HTs on AVS use HP, and then attempt to claim its an inferior product. That would be totally misleading. The fact is correct, but the conclusion wrong.

Both are good solutions for the relevant install.

Where's the link?