For AT screens that have through-holes, you do lose picture information, but I'd argue that because the Enlightor-Neo and Center Stage UF materials don't have such holes you don't. To whatever degree they have translucence, then it's simply amplitude that's affected, just like a gain rating. The entire pixel is reflected off the picture, so no "quality" is lost. Amplitude or gain isn't necessarily "quality," as it can be a good thing or not depending on the configuration. For example, in Doug Blackburn's WSR review of the Sim2 Nero, he needed the lower gain of the Enlightor-Neo instead of his normal solid screen to put the image where it needed to be. In that case his quality went up with the AT screen.HT is about trade offs. I work in this industry and where I work we mostly do projectors both commercial and residential. IMHO for picture quality nothing beats a good solid non-AT screen although the Screen Excellence NEO is VERY close. And it just kind of makes sense. When some of the projectors output is going through the screen and not being reflected you are losing some picture quality even if it is a small fraction.
That being said audio quality with a solid non-AT material suffers quite a bit. I have 2 projectors systems in my home (about to be 3) one AT and one non-AT. The non-AT screen I have tried putting the speakers above the screen, below the screen and at ear height with raising the screen higher. Now if I had was multiple rows I would go above the screen without a doubt so everybody has clear line of sight of speakers. However I only have one row in this room. When the speakers were at ear height the sound was great but I didn't like the screen that high as the top if was right at my ceiling. I settled on below the screen with speakers about 2 feet off the floor angled up.
Now, go into the other theater room with the AT screen and everything is just right. While if I put the two screens side by side the non-AT screen would win. But nobody every really sees that and are still blown away by the picture. IMHO the tradeoff for better sound is worth the very slight decrease in picture quality. The RS2000 is a great projectors and you are not going to be losing anything by using an AT screen.
As far as ALR screens. That could be necessary if you do not have good viewing conditions and dealing with ambient light. In that scenario taking a tradeoff on audio by not having your speakers behind the screen is most likely worth it. You can get an AT perforated screen that is ALR but they tend to be in a different price category than the Seymour screens you are considering.
Ps. For those that want to know what my third projector is going to be. I am replacing a flat screen with a short throw projector in my family room. I'm sure the short throw won't be as good as a nice new OLED but having 100+ inches might give a big wow factor. I am going to try it and see how I like it and what other people say about it.
But you know all about the holistic benefits to a AT configuration.
We have a microperforated version of the Matinee Wide that will be made available any day now. As much as I hate perf screens (and ALR for that matter), it's been performing well for us.