Oh no! Not another one of those "I just began my home theatre thread" threads - Page 7

Yes. Better to only have to do one thing rather than three things (focus, zoom and lens shift).

I couldn't find any masking solution that would solve my problem. I could put masking on the new screen and do 16:9 with masking on the 2.35, but it wouldn't work the other way around with the old screen because of room constraints (I have metal support beams in the soffit on the right side of the room).

In other words, I couldn't make the old screen bigger at all because of room constraints, and using the 2.35:1 letterboxing on it as I do currently makes the 2.35 screen too small for my liking (~3.6 viewing distance). So my solutions are to add another screen in the front or deal with a small 2.35:1 ratio screen. I can use masking on the new screen for 16:9 ratio viewing, thus eliminating the second screen in the back (the old screen), but then my 16:9 screen will have a viewing distance ratio of 1.4, which is way to big for my liking.

Hmm, what do you mean by "top of the line?" I've spent quite a bit of money on this project already. This is not a salesroom, it is my house, and it is being used as a family movie room, not a showroom.

I don't recall ever having claimed it was going to be a top of the line HT. I've never advertised it as such anywhere. This has always been a design based on two channel music first, surround music second, and HT last. I consider a lot of things that people do frivolous and excessive (as many people would consider the things I do to be frivolous and excessive as well, no doubt). My wife certainly doesn't feel I need to add a second screen or anamorphic lens...

Part of the fun of this whole process has been my own integral involvement. I didn't hire someone to come in and do the whole thing (like I did with my pool...). I actually GC'ed it myself and I learned about everything that was being done by being a part of the process. It probably would have been a lot easier and cheaper to have just hired someone to come in and do the whole thing and throw a Crestron on top, but that isn't my style. I don't enjoy things if I'm not a part of the process. I know how to use every piece of equipment in my room. I know how to program them all and I know how most of them fundamentally work. At the same time, my lack of expertise has been the cause of many ad hoc solutions to problems that have arisen during this process. What can I say, I don't work in this business, I'm just a hobbyist. The important thing is, when I find a problem, if it can be solved, I go about solving it!


I never expected to buy a 32K+ MSRP projector in the first place, let alone adding a second screen with anamorphic ratios, plus an anamorphic lens. The add-ons were afterthoughts, or I would have thought about it more before hand. One of my criteria is trying to get the best quality without spending insane amounts of money. I don't think I can do much better than I have done in the price range I bought into without sacrificing picture quality for other features.

Considering that most people don't use a second screen, I think the exotic nature of automated zoom and focus would likely take the projector price out of the range I would be willing to spend (the Sim2 C3X 1080 was already out of the price range I was considering, which was originally ~$20K). Not to mention, I didn't plan on a 2.35:1 additional screen until after my projector purchase anyway. I don't mind pushing a button on the remote to re-focus the screen when I decide to switch between screens. I could also automate it myself with a programmable remote if I really want to... It would only be a matter of figuring out how many button pushes is required to switch between the two positionings and then programming that into the remote control macros. It isn't a large step from there to add that macro into a larger macro that turns on the correct screen, sets the focus correctly, and puts the Cineslide up or down all in one step.

This room started out with HT itself as an afterthought. The original criteria was two channel optimization. Considering that the room, as planned, was finished awhile ago, these are all upgrades and additions at this point. If two channel optimization weren't an important consideration for me, I could have done what I am doing in the HT portion of the room with a lot more ease. I started with a pre-existing space, with metal beams in the ceiling severely limiting what I could do within the room, and not much knowledge about any of this stuff, so I think I'm doing pretty darn good all things considered. I didn't even know I could do a 2.35:1 screen until recently.

I didn't think I would be able to do an additional screen at all until I considered using an acoustically transparent screen that would be closer to the seating position. I had resigned myself to the limitations of my house's foundational supports. So considering the situation, I'm happy I can actually improve the 2.35:1 viewing ratio from a 3.6 to a 2.5 with little aggravation. Actually, I'm not happy, I'm thrilled. I'm also thrilled by the picture quality of my new projector. Fanphuckintastic!!!

Of course, I wish I could get the vaunted 2.0 viewing ratio on the 2.35:1 screen, but again I'm dealing with room limitations... When my youngest kid goes to college in 15 years, and all the kids are out of the house, I'll be ready to move to a new house where I can make HT a prime consideration in the purchasing process. Until then, this is the best I can do in our current house...

I have two locks on the room and they are always locked. My kids' participation in the room is heavily monitored.

Unfortunately with the 2.35:1, the best I will get is 2.5, but it is a hell of a lot better than the 3.6 letterboxing I currently have, which is tiny. With 2.35:1 at a viewing ratio of 2.5 (viewing distance divided by screen height) my 16:9 version of that same screen will have a viewing ratio of 1.4 (viewing distance divided by screen width), so I think it will be sufficient. Perhaps I should consider getting rid of one of the screens and using masking on the 2.35:1 ratios screen for the 16:9 image. Though 1.4 viewing distance ratio is close. Perhaps I'll go down and experiment tonight by moving my couch closer and watching some HDTV.

Thanks!

Clear, precise, detailed, localized, dimensional.

I'm sure I could keep thinking of more words, but those are probably a good start.

I saw some of their work around online and had read about it in articles. Word of mouth about their work is pretty strong as well. Their design work looked pretty, as well as being acoustically sound from what I had been reading in their online articles.

The pricing was also very good... In my area I got an estimate of ~$3000 to $5000 for someone to design a two channel room only out of my existing space. That is an awfully large range IMO for just a two channel design. Meanwhile, I got my whole two channel setup and HT setup designed for the singular Level 2 prices Rives offered a year and a half ago.

I can't disagree with that. If I could in good conscience spend more I would. I'm currently doing the best I can without spending a lot (though what I am spending, most people do consider a lot...). If I have to automate some of it myself, manually, that doesn't bother me. Everyone else I know either doesn't know what I paid for my room and what is in it, or they think I am insane while at the same time appreciating and enjoying the insanity.

There is nothing as embarrassing as seeing the blank stare of astonishment on someone's face, who thinks spending $1000 on a TV is extravagant, when you tell him the MSRP of your projector...

Man, I'm bummed. I just realized my current 112" projection screen is flush to the right wall soffit and the new screen size I had been planning out is 116". That means the new case would be ~4" longer. I would need to go into the soffit (where the steal beam is located) ~2.5" in order to get the better aspect ratio and utilize the projector completely. I might have 2.5", but that would probably look really odd, and because of smaller side soffits, it wouldn't be flush with the ceiling, but rather suspended off of it.

This is looking worse and worse as a possibility (if not completely eliminated as a possibility)...

I could still just hang a fixed screen of some sort with the correct ratios I suppose.

What do people think? Any ideas.

I really don't like that most of the material I watch isn't utilizing the projector completely. Given, it still looks amazing even with the black bars...

Onto the next plan... A suspended microperf fixed frame screen.

Here is the outline:

Original width = 112"
Original height = 62.9"
Starting throw = 234"

New Anamorphic Screen Width = 143"
New Anamorphic Screen Height = 60.85"
New implicit 16:9 width = 108.31"

New 2.35:1 Viewing Distance Ratio = 2.89
New 16:9 View Distance = 1.63

Current 2.35:1 View Distance Ratio = 3.65
Current 16:9 View Distance Ratio = 1.58

There would be quite an improvement to the 2.35:1 viewing distance ratio and a little loss to the 16:9 (1.78:1) viewing distance ratio. If I move my seating position forward 6 inches, the 16:9 viewing distance would be exactly the same as it is now and the 2.35:1 would change from ~2.9 to ~2.8. The Wilson dealer left me that 6" window as an option depending on if I liked a more immersive sound vs. a more laid back sound, so it wouldn't hurt my speaker set up and I enjoy both listening positions.

The only issue is people on the very outside of the couch will lose a few inches of the bottom part of their respective side of the screen due to speaker interference. If the movie where in 16:9, they would have lost a lot more than that anyway, so I consider it a decent trade-off for a larger size 2.35:1 screen.

New plan... Instead of a suspended fixed screen, I'm likely going to do a suspended electriscreen with masking built in.

It will likely be 143" width and 61" height 2.35:1 with vertical masking for the 1.78:1 (16:9) portion of the screen.

I'm also considering using acoustically transparent material so that I can add a third Watt Puppy 8 at some point for the center speaker.

It was a choice born out of necessity. I would rather have the more elegant room appearance with a second electrically recessed screen flush to the ceiling, but it just isn't possible because of the steel beam in the soffit along the right side of the room...

Speaking of HD...

http://www.weshow.com/us/p/33345/dea...ig_screen_2008

Thanks Phil!

I'm not sure which picture you are referring to. If you post it using the image tags in your next post, I'll take a look at it.

I believe it traps the waves bouncing around within the soffit area plus particular waves that correspond to it's dimensions. I'm not 100% certain though.

NP. Thanks!

Update:

I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in.

I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in.

The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and Soundstage's NRC W/P8 measurements reveal it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble control on the Salon2s I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements.

If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I have posted them in the equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I've also posted a pic of the Salon2s in my room in the equipment list as well.

I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. The sad thing is, what seems to be the "best for me" one day can change depending on the listening material and recording quality... So I will try to assess which will meet my overall needs best, in a 2-channel and HT sense.

Pics to follow in a few minutes...