So this site is dedicated to AV nerds, and there isn't an option on the poll for having both? SMH...

I started with a game/family room and converted it to a dedicated two row theater. The room only got a fraction of the use it got previously as a family room. I kept the projector, but brought back the pool table and arcade machines. Now, there is only one row of chairs and each chair is on carpet sliders. During movie time, they slide up next to the pool table (13 feet from screen). For game time, they slide toward the screen and spin around to provide seating for the pool shooters. The arcade machines are on the back wall. The pool table allows me to ensure the seats are returned back to their correct location i.e. where they were when I ran the room correction for critical listening. This hybrid room checks all the boxes for me. The purist would frown, and I won't win any home theater of the month awards, but for our family and friends, it is hands down more fun and practical than the dedicated theater was.

I have a lounge type space in my basement with a bar an 2 TV's, a 75" 4K and a 42" plasma with a 7.1 surround system. Right off that space through some double doors I have a dedicated theater with 11 swats, 120" projector screen and a full Dolby Atmos sound system. Best of both worlds.

I have my living room setup which consists of a 65" 4K TV and small sound system and my dedicated HT with the equipment mentioned in my sig. There isn't even remotely a comparison to be made, dedicated all the way. When my friends and family come over they can't get over the experience. The acoustically treated room and ATMOS setup floors them every time. I also have a bar area beside the HT to gather before the movie as well.

I find that friends and family generally come over to visit and play games. Once you remove the restriction of others the movie room can be what ever you want, given space and budget. For me that is pretty much a dedicated small black box.

I don't have the room for a dedicated theatre room. I'm not a fan of projectors, especially all the modifications needed to hang them etc.


So a huge ass TV it is...


Seggers

As someone that will always have both, I did not vote.

We're remodeling right now, but the conditions of our entertainment setup won't change much after the fact:

- Basement theater room (120" projection on dedicated screen)
- Bright main floor living room (65" TV + optional 180" projection on wall for special events)
- Backyard (same projector from living room can be easily moved to project out back)

What I will say is that depending upon when my 1080p Epson 8350 dies (basement), it may very well get replaced by a large MicroLED display and not another projector. The best projection setup that I have ever witnessed was Art's and I have neither the resources nor patience to get on that level. I have no loyalty to any particular screen technology and by the time I need to upgrade, I'll have many more options.

Why does the dedicated home theater have to use a projector instead of a large TV? Our current home uses the living room for media. Our new home will have a dedicated room that allows us to keep our movies and games in a separate space where I can turn up the volume without the sound blasting down hallways and throughout the whole house. We're still using a 50" plasma from 2011, but we will be upgrading to a 65" OLED once our new home is built.

No option for Both

I have a windowless basement cave wrapped in dark velvet, 100% light and sound reflection controlled.
Powered reclining seats with Crowsons, 7.1.4 audio with 14K+ watts of output (mostly from 4 large subs)
a JVC 4K projector, 120" screen and 3D emitter/glasses. Sounds pretty Dedicated to most...

But 50% of time the motorized screen is in the Up position where an OLED is used for daily TV duty.
We don't have any electronics in the "Living Room" upstairs and that's the way "she" likes it.

When we have guests over they get to choose, But 99% of the time the JVC gets picked for Movie Night.
...I guess everyone we know already has a large TV at home, so there's no appeal for them to watch ours.
I load up the popcorn machine and the bar fridge (disguised as a Marshall amplifier) is stocked with beer/coolers.

When movie time is over the room is back to living room mode with a few lamps turned on, screen up, TV back on.
We stick around for a few hours to enjoy music, XBOX games, sometimes my buddies and I will have a jam session,
just noodling around with my guitar collection and sipping expensive single malt scotch while the gals head up to the "Living Room"





I love my OLED, looks awesome with a few lights on (way too bright to watch in the dark) but it's not 3D capable,
9 foot wide image from just 8 feet away is much more immersive and more than bright enough with HDR in a pitch black room.

I see many people in this thread comparing their large projection systems to their 65” tv’s, but I would hardly consider a 65” as a large tv in this day and age. 65” is merely average size nowadays.

I’d definitely have voted different if we were talking 65” size as being a large tv.

A couple polls I ran recently are illuminating.

First, that 65" is the minimum size for "home theater." I would venture to guess the relative affordability of 65" OLED drives this. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...theater-2.html

But the other poll is also instructive more people on this site plan to buy 75" or 85" TVs than 55' OR 65" TVs going forward. 75" is the new 65" no question. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...ext-4k-tv.html

I think the op was thinking 80”+ sets in a living room environment vs having a dedicated room with a projection system.

So many different variables and things to consider, not to mention...user preference, space and budget constraints, etc.

There is also so much more to consider than just screen size imo.

It clearly reads 75" and up (first paragraph)
and if my TV was 10" bigger, my post above wouldn't change at all.

...and you're correct, there are a lot of things to consider

For instance,

A 77" OLED is almost twice as much as I paid for my JVC (that's throws an image 150% larger)
Sure I could have picked a much cheaper TV, but I could also buy a cheaper Epson projector to compare it to.

a Projector can also go from 85" to 135" for a couple hundred dollars more, something no TV can match

Like I said, I'm happy to have Both so I didn't vote at all.

If my little 65" OLED ever dies, I might consider a 77" OLED
...but only if they dropped to half their current pricing.

To each their own, and I agree with your overall philosophy, but the whole WAF (a concept I despise) doesn't matter, I wouldn't want that gear in my living room. I wouldn't even want to SEE it in my dedicated theater.

I'm more of a movie lover, I don't sit and look at my gear. It's a means to an end. I hide as much as I can. The wife approves.

I can't imagine having an entire room in my house dedicated to watching Marvel Comic book movies. Lame.

Also think any screen over 65" looks gaudy as can be. So a sensible, comfortable living room space with a decent screen and sound is all I would ever want.

Exactly, 75 and UP!

You forgot to mention that the projector can’t match the OLED in picture quality. If you are pointing out the strengths of one, you should also point out the strengths of the other. Again, it’s all up to the individual if they are willing to sacrifice picture quality for size and vice versa.

The important point for me is that large tv’s are ‘arguably’ big enough now at 80”+ to give you immersion factor, plus they have better PQ, are bright enough for great HDR performance, and they don’t have to be watched in a pitch black cave.

Really interesting debate and there is no right or wrong answer. Good thread.

Agreed. Insert mandatory...



Seriously. Sometimes you feel like firing up the entire, dedicated HT. Sometimes you feel like just watching in the livingroom. But you want great quality from either choice.

I would choose none of the above.

I prefer to get outside and be active instead of locking myself inside gorging myself on processed foods watching contrived Hollywood entertainment or grown multimillionaires kick a ball around unlike you obese AV losers.

My basement HT is in a 13'x33' space- room for 2x rows theater seats (4 each) and third row countertop/stools for 12 seats total, with room behind them for a den area with wall mounted 55" TCL 4K HDR10 panel, sleeper sofa and 3 chairs, so best of both worlds.

Behind the 8ft wide electric screen is another 50" TCL 4K HDR10 panel for routine TV viewing, pj backup, and mostly for AV gear control/setup feedback as needed.

(Didn't go DV with the panels since my JVC RS420 is HDR10/HLG only anyways- wanted them to match for calibration, minimize HDMI EDID/metadata conflicts)

Sound treatments, screen size, light control, decor, "projector look/feel", theater seating and higher SPL capability (mains/surrounds/LFE) all contribute to a btter experience

That's OK, I cant imagine having two speakers that look like R2D2 and BB8's offspring in my living room. Life is about diversity and we all have different likes and dislikes

My layout is similar, sans guitars and with the panel mounted on the gear rack elevated on a carpeted "stage", plus burgundy side curtains that close to hide the panel/gear (though screen also does that), but also hide Rythmik subs on left/right when curtain retracted, plus Atlantic metal CD/DVD/BD racks L/R. Cherry PSB T2's up front and Canton in walls/ceilings for surround/Atmos

How did you manage to set up 15 speakers?

Two wires at a time presumably

When I read comments like that I can't help but wonder if people that think there is such a large gap in picture quality,
have ever spent anytime viewing quality content on a well setup high end projector in a properly treated room.

I have friends with large 75"+ TV's that were totally blown away when they first saw my JVC displaying 4K/HDR content.

So although a 77" OLED HDR image may look better.... Is it really 150% better? or just 10-20%
Because the size difference to go from 77" to 120" is 150%, the price is lower, and it can do 3D.

My JVC in low lamp mode, 4K/HDR content looks bright in a batcave and almost as good as my OLED

...from my samsung smartphone (9 foot wide image from 8 feet away)




I love both my displays, they get equal play time so I have no dog in this fight.
I always preview new releases on the OLED on Tuesdays, then play them again for friends and family on the projector the following weekend.

I understand not everyone can accommodate a Projector and it does take some skill to do it right.
...anyone can buy a big TV from Best Buy, plug it in and you're done. (the video equivalent to a HTIB)

I’ve been in this game for a long time and if I’m not mistaken, you and I had conversations about my Pioneer Elite “JVC clone” projector back in the day.

Are you honestly arguing that your projector competes with high brightness 1000 nit, or better, flat panel tv’s with HDR content?

No, I'm telling you that in a Pitch Black room, you do not need 1000 Nit's for HDR to look good.
You need 1000 nits for a living room with ambient light and white walls/ceilings to make up for the lost (perceived) contrast.

People often get too hung up on the numbers instead of letting their eyes be the judge.

Of course an OLED TV does HDR better, I asked you if you think it's 150% better?
Because I've had both for the past 3 years and I would say the gap is closer 10-15% better on the TV.

You really need to demo a new JVC in person, they are more than twice (almost 3x) as bright as your
10 year old RS2 that was only about 600-700 lumens calibrated in high lamp with a fresh bulb.

The newer units within the last 3 years are much brighter and have even better black level performance...

My JVC at 120"


scaled to 77"


scaled to 65"


...and that's not even a 4K/HDR movie,

How to Train Your Dragon: Hidden World 3D Bluray
(that's why it's a little fuzzy compared to my other screen shots)


Some movies (IMHO) definitely benefit more from Bigger > HDR highlight effects

Captain Marvel 4K :

Exactly. The thought of a 130" screen with 1000+ nits in a dedicated theater room makes my eyes hurt.

I voted Dedicated Theater Room but I don’t have one. My 92” soon to be 100” projector setup up is in my basement which is a shared entertainment space with bar area, it does have four reclining theater chairs and the basement is light controlled.

However, I have full 5.1 surround in my living room and master bedroom with 65” TVs so U would really vote both if the option was there!

Your comment reminds me that there continues to be a misunderstanding of what that peak brightness is best used for. When it comes to HDR and specular highlights, it's only the things that "twinkle" that get super bright; the specular highlights. Aside from not having to tonemap what should be represented with actual luminance, the overall scene would not be any brighter than the calibration calls for. Which is to say that HDR would look better if home theater sized screen could do 1000-nit highlights. Not "brighter"

Also my eyes don't hurt when (for example) I see real fireworks at night, or when I look at a full moon at night, which happens to be around 4000 nits.

Yes, large projected images look great. And HDR's higher bit depth and expanded gamut directly translate into increased picture quality with projected imagery. And, 100+-nit highlights are indeed brighter that the 48-nit DCI standard, and commercial Dolby Cinema runs with it.

But... even on a huge screen in a totally dark room, 1000-nit peak luminance would look better, as long as delivering it did not compromise black levels and the display was calibrated. (micro-LED).

My apologies. That was a quick post before heading to bed last night.

I’ll end this discussion with this...like it or not high brightness does matter for the most effective and accurate specular highlights in HDR. Even going from my C8 up to my Q90, the difference is noticeable and significant. Whether or not it matters to you is not really the point here. Anyway, if you are happy with your JVC, that’s all that matters at the end of the day. No doubt it throws amazing images. Cheers!





Speaking of poor etiquette...why do certain individuals feel the need to personally attack others when they are struggling to get their points across? You see it on this forum all the time and it drives me crazy.

Sorry...pet peeve of mine.