Seymour-Screen Excellence Announces Reference Fixed Frames

[admin]

Acoustically transparent projection screen company Seymour-Screen Excellence, today announced the release of its new Reference Fixed Frame (RF) screens for North America. According to Managing Director Chris Seymour, the RF screens are upgraded versions of existing models - a result of his design influences and materials sourced in Iowa, where the venture operates from. New is RF's Infinite Black velvet border material, which Seymour claims absorbs 99.7% of projected light for the sharpest border and over-scan absorption available today. Upgraded is the Enlightor 2 material, presently the highest gain woven acoustically transparent (A.T.) material available on the market and the Enlightor 4K, the industry’s only ISF-certified A.T. material designed for super-high 4K resolution Digital Cinema.

Discuss "Seymour-Screen Excellence Announces Reference Fixed Frames" here. Read the article.

 

[AVRat]

Crap, I guess there's no increase in screen gain since it wasn't mentioned.

 

[jostenmeat]

If it's the same material from what they started with a couple of years ago, it is .98 for the EN4k, and .95 for the EN1. The EN2 was originally designed for 720p, and can result in moire. The EN4 is basically the reference for AT screens. At arm's length is weave undetectable according to one, though I think someone said a figure like 3.5' or thereabouts. No moire even with a 4k projector.

The "Infinite Black" velvet has the same reflectivity as the "Fidelio" velvet that Seymour screens sells, and so I wonder if they are the same. For reference he measured a doubling of reflectivity with Triple Velvet, but I'm sure that's still black hole enough to most of us.

 

[westcott]

Great product for those who focus only on aesthetics but have no clue about audio or video quality.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Great product for those who focus only on aesthetics but have no clue about audio or video quality.

Why is that?

 

[jostenmeat]

Why is that?

+1

The EN4k is really for when there might be close up viewing on an AT screen. If viewing distance is well into double digit feet, you will see him recommend the cheaper stuff, CenterStage XD, for image dynamics.

It appears Jeff Meier put Carada materials as well as as SE and Seymour screens through his tests. It appears he found texture at greater than the distances I listed, but perhaps I either misread that, or that the screen materials have been improved upon since then. I'll list screen name, gain, CIE absolute max variances for x and y (18 deg to side, 6 deg down). There are many other numbers, and even many more screens that I did not include.

Cinema White .97, .001, .003
Brilliant White 1.03, .002, .003

EN4K .84, .003, .005
EN1 .87, .002, .002
EN1 silver back .88, .003, .000
EN3 .79, .004, .002

CenterStageXD, .94, .003, .004

westcott, there are many of us using the XD screen material here, including GO-NAD!, myself, rmk, basspig, mperfct, fotto, and more that I'm forgetting. . . I think strube is going to change from Carada to XD. rmk changed from Stewart to XD. I changed from DaLite HP to XD.

Well, the EN4 is even more desirable than the XD!

 

[westcott]

The problem with these screens is not so much that they degrade viewing quality as they encourage in-wall speaker use. In wall speaker use looks great but does nothing to improve room acoustics. So all you have done is compromised both the audio and video quality for aesthetics.

With a little homework, anyone can learn about room acoustics but it always seems to be the LAST consideration when designing a room, instead of the first.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The problem with these screens is not so much that they degrade viewing quality as they encourage in-wall speaker use. In wall speaker use looks great but does nothing to improve room acoustics. So all you have done is compromised both the audio and video quality for aesthetics.

With a little homework, anyone can learn about room acoustics but it always seems to be the LAST consideration when designing a room, instead of the first.

That's fair, but perhaps it will also encourage BETTER in-wall speakers. Some people care about both the acoustics and the aesthetics. In rooms such as a multi-use rec. room, the in-wall speaker is almost a must if you have kids. Some people are lucky enough to have their dedicated theaters, but most are sharing space, and acoustics must be compromised for the family. I think having options is never bad for consumers, and if I have a client who is happy because I gave them lousy sounding in-wall speakers and an acoustically transparent screen, so their kids have a place they are allowed to run around and play, then I'm certainly in favor of that product.

 

[westcott]

That's fair, but perhaps it will also encourage BETTER in-wall speakers.

No such thing as a BETTER in wall speaker. The best made speaker in the world will only sound as good as the environment it is placed in. In the wall is the worst environment for a speaker and does not provide any way of "tuning" room acoustics.

I agree that those with children or large pets that share space with a HT is a great application for this technology. Unfortunately, many users do have dedicated spaces and/or no children yet still put asthetics first. Why? Because they were never educated to the adverse acoustic affects.

Hopefully this discussion makes them aware of these pitfalls and encourage more thought into room setup beyond aesthetics.

 

[BMXTRIX]

No such thing as a BETTER in wall speaker.

Nonsense. In-wall speaker manufacturers, such as Sonance, have been making tuned in-wall boxes for years now. They are a definite cut above and they are doing exactly what you say can't be done. The point being that it is EXPENSIVE to go with Sonance, and it would be nice to encourage similar product from other manufacturers, for them to get out of the simple in-wall speaker, into a enclosure/in-wall design which allows for the discrete placement of in-wall speakers and still maintain high levels of audio quality.

I don't disagree that floor standing boxes can and typically do sound better but I can't agree that making in-walls sound better is not possible.

Simple the difference of making pivoting speakers inside an in-wall speaker has a tremedous effect on audio quality. Add bracing, acoustic stuffing, and reinforcing the structure can all go to making in-walls sound better.

Frankly, a cheap set of Monoprice 8" in-walls is far better than most people will have ever heard in their life, especially from the 2" speakers in every other TV they have ever owned.

Not saying it's the best way, but it's a huge improvement over the standard.

Unfortunately, many users do have dedicated spaces and/or no children yet still put asthetics first. Why? Because they were never educated to the adverse acoustic affects.

Yep... or WAF. I've read more than a few posts from people who won't paint rooms dark for their theater for that reason as well. It drives me nuts because it doesn't even matter if there are or are not kids in that situation.

Hopefully this discussion makes them aware of these pitfalls and encourage more thought into room setup beyond aesthetics.

Well, I think this entire forum is about that and I agree completely on that being a good thing.

 

[jostenmeat]

No such thing as a BETTER in wall speaker. The best made speaker in the world will only sound as good as the environment it is placed in. In the wall is the worst environment for a speaker and does not provide any way of "tuning" room acoustics.

Sure there is. Do you think TLS Guy would put his speakers into the walls if that actually was even just slightly detrimental? By putting speakers as infinite baffle, there no longer is any need for BSC either. My own personal issue with certain in-wall speakers is the higher cost to obtain that high quality, but even then people have got around that. I now remember mjg100's system where by having subs right next to the speakers, he could pull of higher xover points, or something like that if I am not mistaken (yes he is another Seymour convert, I think you can find his retrofit at the website in fact).

Regardless, how many of those systems that I linked actually use in-walls, anyways?! One?

I agree that those with children or large pets that share space with a HT is a great application for this technology. Unfortunately, many users do have dedicated spaces and/or no children yet still put asthetics first. Why? Because they were never educated to the adverse acoustic affects.

You need some education here. The whole idea of AT is precisely for the best audio possible. There isn't any better setup when it is a mch system with a display. Period.

The ideal setup has identical speakers. Check. Vertically arrayed. Check. All drivers on the same plane. Check. No sonic mismatch, and a complete avoidance of horiz MTM lobing.

BTW, Chris Seymour was in fact the author of the very well known AH article:

Vertical vs Horizontal Center Speaker Designs

Hopefully this discussion makes them aware of these pitfalls and encourage more thought into room setup beyond aesthetics.

Eh. Check this out, with your Carada, how do you possibly treat the front wall? I've got 8 panels on the front wall. And, oh yeah, three vertically arrayed and identical tower speakers all on the same plane.

 

[westcott]

Who is the TLS Guy?

And why does his setup change the laws of physics?

You can argue all you want about the performance of in wall speakers but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that understands room acoustics to give it any validity. It is an untuneable system once installed. There is no way to test speaker placement or how it will interact with the room. Without that, it is impossible to get a flat frequency response.

I won't even get into all the different variables of wall construction that could affect the sound produced.

And there is no such thing as a matched system for a room. Yes, speakers can be timbre matched, but that has nothing to do with final room acoustics. Once again, the best speakers in the world are only as good as the position they are placed in within the room. There is NO majic hardware and no "matched" system that majically defies the laws of physics. And, there is no such thing as an infinite baffle outside a laboratory.

 

[BMXTRIX]

It is an untuneable system once installed. There is no way to test speaker placement or how it will interact with the room. Without that, it is impossible to get a flat frequency response.

Once again, the best speakers in the world are only as good as the position they are placed in within the room.

I think this is false information and I see a lot of it from people who are into audio.

Room acoustics can be tuned and is constantly tuned by the people who care about their environment. While I agree it is always possible to get BETTER audio from speakers in acoustically matched boxes which can move throughout the room, it is flatly untrue that good in-wall speakers sound poor, and can't sound far better than many boxed speakers.

Speaker construction, size, and the ability to pivot the speaker for directionality combined with the room acoustics (not speaker acoustics) along with the construction design, or the potential for an acoustically matched backbox for that inwall speaker are all things which can, and do affect the quality of that speaker.

Once again, since most people are using their TV speakers, even the $40 jobbies from Monoprice are a huge improvement over what people have lived with for years and should be considered a very good thing.

But, products like this:
http://www.sonance.com/products/speakers/detail/476
which include a full MDF surround are designed from the ground up to provide excellent sound which is often barely being matched by the competition.

I think people have a tendency to overstate things like this, and apply scare tactics to how many speakers sound in a well designed space. Not that you are wrong to say that there are better choices, but to suggest that a speaker will be bad simply because it is in-wall is not at all accurate, and with some excellent choices out there which can utilize the wall cavity very well, it would be worth anyone considering in-walls to definitely give them a listen and decide if they want to spend all that extra money on a pretty cabinet.

Still, given the choice, the floor space, and the budget, I will go with floorstanding speakers in most spaces.

 

[jostenmeat]

Who is the TLS Guy?

And why does his setup change the laws of physics?

You can argue all you want about the performance of in wall speakers but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that understands room acoustics to give it any validity. It is an untuneable system once installed. There is no way to test speaker placement or how it will interact with the room. Without that, it is impossible to get a flat frequency response.

I won't even get into all the different variables of wall construction that could affect the sound produced.

And there is no such thing as a matched system for a room. Yes, speakers can be timbre matched, but that has nothing to do with final room acoustics. Once again, the best speakers in the world are only as good as the position they are placed in within the room. There is NO majic hardware and no "matched" system that majically defies the laws of physics. And, there is no such thing as an infinite baffle outside a laboratory.

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin. One of the concepts of infinite baffle is that the baffle is "acoustically larger" than the frequencies that the speaker can even play. Therefore, even if it wasn't literally "infinite", it might as well be infinite. Labs only? You know there is a website dedicated just to infinite baffle subwoofers?

TLS Guy happens to be THE most knowledgeable about loudspeaker design among our contributing members here. I am quite honestly surprised you don't know who he is. Do you ever read loudspeaker design threads here?

REGARDLESS OF THIS DUMB ARGUMENT ABOUT INWALL SPEAKERS, do you still fail to see that most systems with AT screens, by far, are NOT using inwall speakers?!?! They are NOT necessarily mutually inclusive!!!!

WHY ARE YOU BRINGING THIS DUMB OFF TOPIC CONVERSATION THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD (EXCEPT ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN FAULTY LOGIC)?

For instance, you could take your own exact setup, and not touch a single thing. You could then build an acoustically transparent false wall in front of your stage, with the AT screen. You don't even have to remove the Carada. You don't even move any speaker by a single inch. Of course, why wouldn't you go with an identical, vertically arrayed speaker on the same plane, well I am trying to make an absurdly simple point right now.

The idea of matching speakers is not to the ROOM, but to EACH OTHER.

I wish you no longer sullied this thread about Screen Excellence products, with your unfounded, uneducated, and incorrect statements.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well, that debate certainly got heated!

Westcott, don't know if you are still following this thread, but you made an assumption that AT screens lead to in-wall speakers. As JM pointed out, that was a false assumption. What the availability of an AT screen did for me, was give me ammo to convince my wife that a projector was an acceptable option for our HT. Like many wives, she isn't keen on looking at speakers. Putting up a false wall to hide everything was my ace-in-the-hole. Another plus, is being able to hide bass traps and front wall treatments.

That said, I think in-wall speakers can provide a legitimate route to a good sounding system, if well thought out and implemented. I can't add anything that BMXTRIX hasn't already said, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[BukiRob]

Correct me if i am wrong here, but I seem to notice very little emphasis on the screen selection as a part of the HT.

Ive searched all over various threads and haven't seen ANY mention of Screen Innovations Black Diamond II screens.

Does anyone have one and what is your experience been with it? Ive seen them in demo's and frankly, they seem to deal with a lot of the problems that plague projectors with ambient light issues.

 

[BMXTRIX]

They do help with ambient light issues, but they are extremely expensive and most people get their lights under control in their theater so that they don't need to spend $2,699 on a 100" screen.

That's a LOT of coats of dark paint you can buy for $2,700!

Likewise, the DNP Supernova screens do a phenomenal job with ambient light.

I like the concept and there is a place for those types of screens, but really, I think that people are often building home theaters to recreate the theater experience, and turning lights on is not part of that.

On the other hand, for those with a larger budget, the SI BD screens can do some pretty amazing things.