Rec Room Renovation

[BMXTRIX]

I have to also ask, if a projector is mounted from the ceiling, it'll be pointing towards the screen at an angle.

You don't point the projector at the screen at an angle, you keep it flat. The optics in the projector are arranged so that the light path is headed downwards when ceiling mounting a projector. The optics are all in line with each other and perpendicular to the floor. It's kind of neat, but the way a lens works allows for the path of light to be sent downward/upwards/straight and you can maintain proper geometry. This is how some photos of buildings are shot from ground level, but still maintain proper building geometry.

I couldn't find a good article with diagrams illustrating how lens shift works, but the concept is that if you take a lens with multiple elements, you can direct that path of light through them at an angle, instead of straight ahead and maintain accurate focus. It keeps an image square, even if the image is above or below the center of the lens. Some projectors offer almost 100% lens shift which means you can almost get an image on the floor of a normal 8' ceiling from about 12' away from a 100" image. It's pretty amazing to see it in action.

A read on lens shift:
http://www.bambooav.com/information-about-lens-shift.html

Photographic use of lens shift:

 

[GO-NAD!]

You don't point the projector at the screen at an angle, you keep it flat. The optics in the projector are arranged so that the light path is headed downwards when ceiling mounting a projector. The optics are all in line with each other and perpendicular to the floor. It's kind of neat, but the way a lens works allows for the path of light to be sent downward/upwards/straight and you can maintain proper geometry. This is how some photos of buildings are shot from ground level, but still maintain proper building geometry.

I couldn't find a good article with diagrams illustrating how lens shift works, but the concept is that if you take a lens with multiple elements, you can direct that path of light through them at an angle, instead of straight ahead and maintain accurate focus. It keeps an image square, even if the image is above or below the center of the lens. Some projectors offer almost 100% lens shift which means you can almost get an image on the floor of a normal 8' ceiling from about 12' away from a 100" image. It's pretty amazing to see it in action.

Great explanation! Thanks! While the question is in my head right now, are there any concerns I should have about front projectors in terms of reliability and/or bulb life.

 

[m_vanmeter]

in response to you answers about the cable modem and wireless router....

to get CAT5e to your equipment in the HT room, all you need to do is run a single CAT5e from the wireless router to the new HT room. That will be your "feed" to the room. IF you need more than one connection, just add an "ethernet 5 port switch" to the single feed (this is a $15 to $30 box with additional ports). That single CAT5e cable run into the HT room will save you tons of time and problems later.

Good luck with your project !

 

[BMXTRIX]

...are there any concerns I should have about front projectors in terms of reliability and/or bulb life.

Reliability is always an issue with any electronics, and I don't think projectors are devoid of it for sure. The Panasonic AE4000 ($2,000) is about the most reliable product on the market from what I have heard. Lamps are generally rated to 2,000 hours. Some are rated for more use, but I actually have a general recommendation: Budget for a new lamp at 1,000 hours. If you go to 3,000 hours, great, if you go to 2,000 hours, great! But, if it goes at 990 hours you don't feel cruddy about it. My first projector lamp lasted until 1,400 hours, the second went for like 2,000+ hours and I replaced the projector.

Yes, it is a 'regular' expense, but not every month or anything.

 

[jostenmeat]

If I were to go with the false wall concept, what if there was a small "cutout" at the bottom centre, the same dimensions as a component stand, and everything else hidden behind the false wall and screen? Is that what you were suggesting? Hmmmmm, that wall is 10' 9"w x 7'h. In order to ensure maximum fexibility when deciding on the screen size, I wonder if it would be best to build a stand for a horizontal component orientation (as you suggested) and mount my subwoofers on top, behind the false wall. I'd probably need to use Grammas to reduce the possibility of shaking the snot out of the components though....

I prefer solution #1 to #2. There are many ways to skin this cat. The important thing is to know just how many components you need to fit, and how many more might come in the future. You can even just buy/build your typical wide TV stand type of thing, with speakers on top, and components loaded into it below on shelves. However, I highly recommend you cover it up with a removable black cover. (Then put all dimmer settings at minimum, and also use window tint or black tape if necessary, JMO.) Maybe hooks, or velcro, I don't know.

You see, at least for the viewing distance we've been talking about thus far, I predict you will have plenty of vertical space to fit in screen, even with only 7'.

Of course, IMO, you should still go AT.

Of course, the screen size will hinge on the permitted seating distance. Bringing screen forward 2'+ will have an impact and likely reduce the the screensize proportionately.

Yes, I did bring up this issue already:
Oh, if you do the false wall, that naturally means the screen is closer by a couple/few feet. The 38% still holds as if the false wall didn't exist, but the viewing angle has now changed. Let's say 8ft away, then I'd aim for about 75" screen if not slightly bigger. Now you might be thinking well that's not that* much larger than a 60" TV, but it's still like a 56% increase in size (see below), and most importantly of all, you can have the *truly* ideal setup for your front soundstage. Nothing beats three identical, vertically arrayed speakers all on the same plane.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?1...32bfccb2a1d168

oh crap, I failed to do the saved version, lemme try again. Hm, site is mega slow now, never seen that happen before; not loading. Try to play with it yourself then later.

I meant forgoing the false wall and using a normal screen. But, this discussion has generated other ways to accomodate the false wall. I'm leaning more and more towards the projector now. A false wall would allow me to install bass traps in the corners and treatments on the front wall without encountering objections to their being visible. I need to get some treatment into that room becuse laminate is non-negotiable. I won't be able to put any carpet in, after pulling up the old stuff.

Whatever works best for YOU. That said, a "normal" screen and false wall are not mutually exclusive. Whether the center speaker is above or below the screen, a false wall can still hide it as well as everything else.


Reliability: The one issue that comes up with the best bang for buck PJs (read: 3LCD), is that the light path is not sealed, meaning dust blobs can be an issue. You can run search functions in the PJ subforum. While Pana might be more reliable than Epson, the latter is know to have superb CS when the issue does arise.

I, and most other hobbyists, normally advise against warranties. But in the case of a PJ, and particularly bulb warranties, it could be worth it. I landed a powerbuy Mack warranty via AVS. For a total of about $260 (or was it less), I get TWO FREE bulbs as well as a 6yr warranty on the PJ. I've already cashed in on the first bulb, and thanks for the reminder to cash in on the second within the next half year (I get two in a three yr span).

I do not recommend watching TV on this setup, after all, it might not look that great either, but mainly for hardcore movie watching. You won't rack up hours very fast at all this way.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I prefer solution #1 to #2. There are many ways to skin this cat. The important thing is to know just how many components you need to fit, and how many more might come in the future. You can even just buy/build your typical wide TV stand type of thing, with speakers on top, and components loaded into it below on shelves. However, I highly recommend you cover it up with a removable black cover. (Then put all dimmer settings at minimum, and also use window tint or black tape if necessary, JMO.) Maybe hooks, or velcro, I don't know.

I was suggesting the horizontal component layout, because if they are in a stacked configuration, I imagine one or two of the components would end up behind the screen and inaccessible, as the stand would have to about 24" high - minimum. Right now, I foresee just the AVR, BD player and the HD DVR in the stand, but I don't know what the future holds. I am putting random thoughts down here, so they may not make a lot of sense....

Of course, IMO, you should still go AT.

Acoustically Transparent, yes? I was making an assumption that I would need to do that if speakers were to be positioned behind it. That would include the false wall and the screen.

Yes, I did bring up this issue already:
Oh, if you do the false wall, that naturally means the screen is closer by a couple/few feet. The 38% still holds as if the false wall didn't exist, but the viewing angle has now changed. Let's say 8ft away, then I'd aim for about 75" screen if not slightly bigger. Now you might be thinking well that's not that* much larger than a 60" TV, but it's still like a 56% increase in size (see below), and most importantly of all, you can have the *truly* ideal setup for your front soundstage. Nothing beats three identical, vertically arrayed speakers all on the same plane.

Yes, I didn't forget that - just reiterating for my own benefit, I guess....

 

[jostenmeat]

I was suggesting the horizontal component layout, because if they are in a stacked configuration, I imagine one or two of the components would end up behind the screen and inaccessible, as the stand would have to about 24" high - minimum. Right now, I foresee just the AVR, BD player and the HD DVR in the stand, but I don't know what the future holds. I am putting random thoughts down here, so they may not make a lot of sense....

One of my hare brained ideas (to reiterate) is to have em all across horizontally. You might need some longer interconnects, and I would put the processor in the middle for that reason. Whether like this (but you build it), and cover it:

Or as aforementioned, taking something like what rmk did, but rather than subs, for your components:

Acoustically Transparent, yes? I was making an assumption that I would need to do that if speakers were to be positioned behind it. That would include the false wall and the screen.

To repeat, I think you'll have space either below or above NonAT screen for your speaker, but to be clearer, a horizontal center speaker. Generally it's better above, but it will depend on screen height, and final height of mains too.

Back to horiz lower layout of components, my guess is you can have it say high enough to have stacks of two. I think my tallest component is about 8", and I think my THREE sources combined are actually less than that height.

If a component is 17" wide, and say you want at least 3" between the stacks, you can have 5 stacks across, with space to spare.

Then if AT at least, you can build a sturdy shelf above these stacks all the way across, say ummmm, 18" high. That still give yous 5'5" of height to play with, which I think is still enough space to put in a +130" screen! So, the three speakers and two subs can all be on top of the components, just make the shelf very strong, depending on weight of subs.

Just a hare brained idea, and I can't really decide for you. My previous paragraph is trying to impart that you do have more height to work with than you might realize, ESPECIALLY if AT. There is potential space there, a lot of volume, when you multiply 10'9" x maybe 2'6" (from front wall).

 

[Pyrrho]

I thought about the rug thing, but the in-floor heating manufacturer advises against it.
...

In that case, you should do what you can to put sound absorbent material on the ceiling. In general, having two opposing parallel surfaces that are reflective is far worse than having just one. Keep that in mind for the walls as well, because you don't want sounds to keep bouncing back and forth all the time. That is part of what gives so many empty rooms that "echo" sound.

Also, the more stuffed couches and chairs and paintings and other such things, the more you will prevent sounds bouncing back and forth unobstructed. Even hard wood furniture is better than nothing, because it breaks up the parallel surfaces.

If your wife has some paintings or tapestries that she would like in there, take a good look at them, and probably encourage such things.

 

[GO-NAD!]

One of my hare brained ideas (to reiterate) is to have em all across horizontally. You might need some longer interconnects, and I would put the processor in the middle for that reason. Whether like this (but you build it), and cover it:

I think we are on a similar train of thought here. I had a mental picture of something similar to that stand. I would build it with smoked glass doors, but I wouldn't cover it with the false wall.

To repeat, I think you'll have space either below or above NonAT screen for your speaker, but to be clearer, a horizontal center speaker. Generally it's better above, but it will depend on screen height, and final height of mains too.

But, I would think that the centre speaker above or below such a large screen would be way too high or low. That's why I was thinking an AT screen. Then I could place the centre speaker at the perfect height.

Then if AT at least, you can build a sturdy shelf above these stacks all the way across, say ummmm, 18" high. That still give yous 5'5" of height to play with, which I think is still enough space to put in a +130" screen! So, the three speakers and two subs can all be on top of the components, just make the shelf very strong, depending on weight of subs.

Well, I don't think I'd do the shelf all the way across the room, because the mains are towers and sitting on a shelf would place the drivers too high. But, it would be perfect for the subs and centre.

I do not recommend watching TV on this setup, after all, it might not look that great either, but mainly for hardcore movie watching. You won't rack up hours very fast at all this way.

I forgot to respond to this statement before, but it had been in the back of my mind. I was wondering what SD TV would look like on such a large screen - cause I'm not buying a smaller flatscreen just to watch TV.

In the case of DVD, would an upscaling BDP, such as the OPPO BDP-83, create an image acceptable to most people in the 96"-100" range*? We have a significant number of DVDs in our collection and I don't think I'll be replacing them all.

*I probably wouldn't go beyond that size - 110" would be the absolute max.

I got my wife to take at the photos you had posted of the screen setups and her reaction was, "We don't need anything that extravagant!". I told it could be much simpler than those setups, so she isn't opposed, in principle. Her big concern will be the projector and how obnoxious it might look, hanging from the centre of the ceiling like a chandelier. If it was at the back of the room it would be less conspicuous, but it will be highly visible in a room that long.

So, if anybody has any ideas on how to make a projector, well...not invisible, but as close as possible, please let me know!

 

[GO-NAD!]

In that case, you should do what you can to put sound absorbent material on the ceiling. In general, having two opposing parallel surfaces that are reflective is far worse than having just one. Keep that in mind for the walls as well, because you don't want sounds to keep bouncing back and forth all the time. That is part of what gives so many empty rooms that "echo" sound.

Also, the more stuffed couches and chairs and paintings and other such things, the more you will prevent sounds bouncing back and forth unobstructed. Even hard wood furniture is better than nothing, because it breaks up the parallel surfaces.

If your wife has some paintings or tapestries that she would like in there, take a good look at them, and probably encourage such things.

I actually just double-checked the manual for the heating system and I was wrong - you can put a rug over the laminate, as long as it's no more than 1" think. So, that's helpful.

We have a lot of framed prints for the walls and there will be a lot of furniture in the room, which will help with sound diffusion. I have Floyd Toole's book "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" and the way I understand it, diffusion is just as important as absorption, so I'll be able to accomodate that aspect of room acoustics.

A lot of what he has to say is hard for me to grasp, but if I read it over and over and.....it might begin to sink in.

In the end, I will probably not get a room that's acoustically acceptable to some of our resident Audioholics who are obssessive in this area, but I think I can make it acceptable for me - and that's what counts.

 

[jostenmeat]

1. I am wary of any glass at all up front, both for reflective nature, as well as any translucency. That's just me, and that's probably the last time I'll go over this.

2. Center speaker above or below is naturally a compromise, but it's what most people with a PJ do. AT screens do not make up the majority of HTs.

3. I missed that you already had towers. I just reread OP, ok I didn't miss it there. Wish you let me know when I was talking about bookshelves as a possibility eariler.

4. SD will look like pure chit on a proper HD viewing angle, IMO. Remember, BD gets you over 600% the native rez of SD. I was implying you keep SD for the upstairs, but whatever.

5. I don't care if you have $4,000 Lumagen, let alone Oppo, SD will still look like pure chit with a proper HD viewing angle.

6. If PJ is all the way back at 27'10", I worry about the PJ being able to squeeze the pic as small as 110" from that distance. I'll give you an example calculator for a popular PJ; please note that these calculators in my experience are a bit on the safe side as far as total capability, but OTOH I think that's a good thing to avoid disasters, and finally having your PJ use max shift in any direction, or max zoom in any direction, often results in less than best potential PQ and I believe often with a decrease in lumens. Ok, with the below, it could not be a full 27' for instance with 110".

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Epson-PowerLite_Home_Cinema_8500UB-projection-calculator-pro.htm

 

[GO-NAD!]

1. I am wary of any glass at all up front, both for reflective nature, as well as any translucency. That's just me, and that's probably the last time I'll go over this.

Point taken on the glass.

2. Center speaker above or below is naturally a compromise, but it's what most people with a PJ do. AT screens do not make up the majority of HTs.

Hmmm, I'm surprised by that. I would've thought that anybody going through all that effort would have an AT screen. Are there any issues with AT screens that would compromise PQ?

3. I missed that you already had towers. I just reread OP, ok I didn't miss it there. Wish you let me know when I was talking about bookshelves as a possibility eariler.

Well, I usually just add my signature to my OP in any thread. But yes, the Monitor 9's are towers.

4. SD will look like pure chit on a proper HD viewing angle, IMO. Remember, BD gets you over 600% the native rez of SD. I was implying you keep SD for the upstairs, but whatever.

Oh well, something else to keep in mind.

5. I don't care if you have $4,000 Lumagen, let alone Oppo, SD will still look like pure chit with a proper HD viewing angle.

OK.

6. If PJ is all the way back at 27'10", I worry about the PJ being able to squeeze the pic as small as 110" from that distance. I'll give you an example calculator for a popular PJ; please note that these calculators in my experience are a bit on the safe side as far as total capability, but OTOH I think that's a good thing to avoid disasters, and finally having your PJ use max shift in any direction, or max zoom in any direction, often results in less than best potential PQ and I believe often with a decrease in lumens. Ok, with the below, it could not be a full 27' for instance with 110".

Oh, I'm not suggesting putting it at the back wall. If I go with a PJ, it'll have to be optimally positioned, or we won't get one.

Wait a minute. I just re-read my statement that you were responding to. It wasn't very clear and I apologize for that. I was trying to say that it would be less conspicuous on the back wall, but as little as I know about PJs, I wouldn't attempt to mount one that far from the screen. But, if it's positioned properly, it will stick out like a sore thumb and I'll need to box it in somehow to make it less visible. Although, I wonder if that will affect cooling.

Man, there is just nothing simple about this!

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well, lo and behold! She actually approved the PJ!! I can't get ahead of myself here though. Gotta finish the rec room plan, gut it, re-wire it, install the pot lighting, drywalling, in-floor heat, flooring, etc, etc. I'm a long way from watch movies on a big screen yet.

I've been considering the drywall/green glue sandwich option. Can't seem to find GG around here. Is there anything extra special about it? Or, would any other acoustic sealant do the trick? Anybody know?

 

[Pyrrho]

...

4. SD will look like pure chit on a proper HD viewing angle, IMO. Remember, BD gets you over 600% the native rez of SD. I was implying you keep SD for the upstairs, but whatever.

5. I don't care if you have $4,000 Lumagen, let alone Oppo, SD will still look like pure chit with a proper HD viewing angle.
...

This is why more projectors and processors should be able to display SD content smaller rather than upconverting it to 1080 lines, since upconversion cannot add detail that is not there.

If the system one has will simply display a 480p image as 480 lines in the middle (so that there would be nothing displayed at the top, bottom and the sides of the screen, which would be like matting a photograph in a frame that is larger than the photograph), instead of blowing up the image to 1080 lines, then it could be viewed in the same place with the same clarity, only the SD content would be smaller than HD content. Too bad so many TVs and projectors and processors cannot do that.

I suspect that most manufacturers do not put in such a feature (which would be extremely easy to do) because most people want to fill their screen, no matter how crappy it looks, which is why pretty much every TV will stretch and crop images to make them fill the screen. But there are some of us who want a picture that actually looks good rather than one that is forced to fill a big screen.

 

[jostenmeat]

Well, lo and behold! She actually approved the PJ!! I can't get ahead of myself here though. Gotta finish the rec room plan, gut it, re-wire it, install the pot lighting, drywalling, in-floor heat, flooring, etc, etc. I'm a long way from watch movies on a big screen yet.

I've been considering the drywall/green glue sandwich option. Can't seem to find GG around here. Is there anything extra special about it? Or, would any other acoustic sealant do the trick? Anybody know?

GN, in case some experts here like highfigh don't know, I would start a new thread in the acoustics subforum, because maybe b pape or savant might know something. Otherwise, I've only heard of GG for double drywall.

This is why more projectors and processors should be able to display SD content smaller rather than upconverting it to 1080 lines, since upconversion cannot add detail that is not there.

If the system one has will simply display a 480p image as 480 lines in the middle (so that there would be nothing displayed at the top, bottom and the sides of the screen, which would be like matting a photograph in a frame that is larger than the photograph), instead of blowing up the image to 1080 lines, then it could be viewed in the same place with the same clarity, only the SD content would be smaller than HD content. Too bad so many TVs and projectors and processors cannot do that.

I suspect that most manufacturers do not put in such a feature (which would be extremely easy to do) because most people want to fill their screen, no matter how crappy it looks, which is why pretty much every TV will stretch and crop images to make them fill the screen. But there are some of us who want a picture that actually looks good rather than one that is forced to fill a big screen.

This is interesting. By my quick calculations, on a 50" 1080p 16:9 display, a 480i/p image would then be (edit) 19" in the 4:3 AR format.

 

[GO-NAD!]

GN, in case some experts here like highfigh don't know, I would start a new thread in the acoustics subforum, because maybe b pape or savant might know something. Otherwise, I've only heard of GG for double drywall.

Good call. Thanks.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well, I decided to start the project this fall. As I have a day job, this will take a while, but I hope to be done by Christmas. The second phase will be installing the projector, screen, false wall and building a component stand (I'll be doing all the pre-wiring during phase one). The destruction part of phase one is complete. Wall and ceiling drywall are down and I'm fixing up the wiring for installing the pot lighting. Whoever originally wired the circuits decided on the most bizarre routing as he possibly could've. So, I'm cutting it out and re-running it in a more sane layout. I'm surprised that I only found one hidden junction box. Of course, the wire ends were secured with electrical tape - no marrettes. I also yanked out about 100 feet of redundant wire, that had previously been disconnected at the ends, but left in place.

I thought about installing remote control dimmers for the lighting and programming them into my Harmony 880, but SWMBO doesn't want them. I had concerns about the dimmers being outside the signal radius for this remote and that they wouldn't operate when the remote is aimed towards the components.

Anybody know if I can program a separate activity in the remote and not have it affect another activity? What I mean is, if I hit "Watch a movie" on the remote, then hit "dim the lights", will it turn off the components, before dimming the lights? I wouldn't think so, but thought I'd ask. If it isn't a problem, then I could make them separate activities, so that I could aim the remote towards the different items, in sequence.

I do know that I will be able to operate the projector and components in the same activity, because I can point the remote up at the ceiling and still switch on the components at the front of the room.

On a different topic - and I can't believe it's just coincedence - when I removed the staples from the telephone wire (Cat3??), which were holding the wire on the baseboard molding, incoming phone calls would get dropped, before we could even answer. I have to believe there must've been a short caused by my moving the wire. We could dial out fine though. This went on for a couple of days. Of course, when the phone company tech showed up to check it out, the problem had gone away. So, he couldn't really diagnose the problem. It's been fine for the last 5 days, but I'm concerned about putting it all back in place.

The tech did advise me that while I had the ceiling and walls down, to rewire with CAT5/5e for the telephones. I had planned to do that for my HT components, for connection to my router, but I hadn't really considered the phone lines. I could run the wire I'm sure, but I have no idea how I'd connect it to the system. The wires are terminated at a 66 block, but it's a mystery to me as to how to connect them. I've googled it, but I can't find any guide that I can grasp.

Can anyone provide me a link to a nicely dumbed down guide for this?

I'll post pics of my progress later. And, if you're reading this Alex, don't make fun of my mudding skills!!

 

[jostenmeat]

AFAIK, and if I understand you correctly, you won't be able to do the "simultaneous" activities with Harmony software. But, what's wrong with programming just one or two buttons into each activity? I use RF, and my RFS200 combo was only $75. I'll never go back to IR for HT use if I can help it. However, batteries do get eaten more quickly.

Otherwise, without spending more on a remote, you might look into IR extenders or something. I don't know what is a good value, and I'd PM bandphan for sure on this topic. Then you just point your remote at the same place, and the extender continues the signal wherever it needs to go. While you're at it, ask about which lights/dimmers to get. I know next to nothing, but if it was possible (if even an issue), I'd want to get a type that can work with the most types of software/signals/connections/brands whatever. Without benefit of further research, I'd probably try Lutron products.

However, without a mental picture, I don't like any* dedicated projector based HT that relies on IR. I used to have it that way too. Well, I might be exaggerating, but it's funny just how limiting IR can be with placement of components. And in my experience, this also could mean less immersion and/or light control.

 

[GO-NAD!]

AFAIK, and if I understand you correctly, you won't be able to do the "simultaneous" activities with Harmony software. But, what's wrong with programming just one or two buttons into each activity? I use RF, and my RFS200 combo was only $75. I'll never go back to IR for HT use if I can help it. However, batteries do get eaten more quickly.

Otherwise, without spending more on a remote, you might look into IR extenders or something. I don't know what is a good value, and I'd PM bandphan for sure on this topic. Then you just point your remote at the same place, and the extender continues the signal wherever it needs to go. While you're at it, ask about which lights/dimmers to get. I know next to nothing, but if it was possible (if even an issue), I'd want to get a type that can work with the most types of software/signals/connections/brands whatever. Without benefit of further research, I'd probably try Lutron products.

However, without a mental picture, I don't like any* dedicated projector based HT that relies on IR. I used to have it that way too. Well, I might be exaggerating, but it's funny just how limiting IR can be with placement of components. And in my experience, this also could mean less immersion and/or light control.

I actually picked up some Lutron dimmers on the way home from work. You must psychic - or is that psychotic - I always mix that up. They can be operated manually, which makes the wife happy - she can't get remote controls to work for her, for some reason. They are compatible with my 880, but if I can't get it to work satisfactorily, I can just use the remote controls they came with. No biggie. I just remembered that I have a remote extender somewhere in the house. I could use that if necessary. Maybe down the road, I'll get an RF remote. By the way, how does that work with components that use IR for remote control?

 

[jostenmeat]

y the way, how does that work with components that use IR for remote control?

I think there are multiple solutions, but the only method I use is with base station with IR blaster. It receives RF, and sends along these extremely thin black wires (10ft long are what was included), which then just stick right at the IR sensor of the component. It's actually a lot more discrete than it sounds. I run the wires under most components.

Then there are "hardwired" IR emitters too, but you have to research which base stations can do that, and with which remotes they are compatible with from there. There was a thread that AVRat started with some input on inputs, dumb pun intended. I guess YMMV. Hard wire would look nicer a bit, but really all I need are IR stickon emitters. Now, once you get to fool proof control stuff, yeah it's best to have RS232, but it gets up there in price, and believe it or not, there are a lot lot of components which just don't have that to begin with.

Ok, I found it, here ya go . . .

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65973